Press Briefings

11:47 A.M. EDT

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

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Can you hear me okay?  I’m going to hope you can hear me okay.

Look, I just wanted to reiterate some things that we’ve been saying here in the last 24 hours.  We obviously welcome the steps that were announced last night and, again, overnight by the Israeli government at the President’s request in that call with Prime Minster Netanyahu.

And these steps, as you’ve all seen, they do include a commitment to open up additional crossings into Gaza, including the Ashdod port and the Erez Crossing, and also commitments to increase the amount of aid that’s getting into Gaza.  That’s important, particularly those coming from Jordan as well.

And as we’ve also said, it’s important for those commitments to be fully realized and to be rapidly implemented. We’re obviously standing by and prepared to work in full coordination with Israel and other governments in the region, including humanitarian aid organizations, to see that these steps are implemented in a sustained way and that they do result in a significant increase in humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.

So, again, we welcome these steps.  A lot of work is ahead.  And we’re prepared to continue to work, as we have, to see that these things are put in place in a sustainable way.

We also — you probably heard the Secretary of State talk about this earlier — we’re also reviewing Israel’s report of the investigation that they conducted into the World Central Kitchen team strike from a few days ago.  We’re going to take our time.  We’re going to review it carefully.  We’ll certainly be discussing the conclusions of it and our conclusions of it with Israeli officials and humanitarian aid organizations in coming days.

We note that they have held accountable a couple of officers and that they have made their findings public.  That’s important.  But again, what really matters here for us is sort of — is two things: one, that something like this does not happen again; and two, that there are concrete, verifiable, achievable, and again, sustainable changes to their processes in the way they conduct these kinds of missions so that the safety of civilians on the ground and humanitarian aid workers is top of mind and ensured.

With that, I’m happy to take some questions.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks for that.  There’s a video of the attack being shown in Israel.  Has this been seen here at the White House?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know, Steve.  I’m not aware of that video.  And I don’t know the degree to which it’s been seen here at the White House.

Q    And the changes that Israel is — like the opening of the ports, the punishment for the two officers, is that all there is?  Or have you asked them for — did the President ask them for specific things in addition to opening up these corridors for aid?  Or are they — are you just kind of waiting to get a sense of the entire changes that they make and render a judgment on them?

MR. KIRBY:  As I said, Steve, I mean, we welcome these initial announcements of additional crossings and increased aid. We welcome the release of their investigation.  As I said, we’re still going through it, so I don’t want to get ahead of our own look at this thing.  We certainly note that they did hold a couple of officers accountable.  They said they were going to include accountability.  They have done that.  Now, whether there’ll be more as they go through this, I don’t know and I’d have to refer you to the Israeli Defense Forces to speak to that going forward.

What’s important to us — I don’t want you to get too hung up on the homework assignment that we’ve given ourselves to look at their investigation.  What’s really important to us, and Secretary Blinken said this this morning, is that these changes are verifiable and they’re sustainable and that proper steps are taken to make sure that something like the strike that happened to the World Central Kitchen a few days ago can’t happen again.

And so we’re going to be looking, in terms of strike procedures, to make sure that they’re doing everything they can to prevent another one — another mistake like that — but also, on the aid and assistance, that it also is — the changes that they are announcing, the commitments that they are making, that they hold to them and that those changes too, in terms of increased aid, are sustainable.

The third thing that we didn’t talk about yet, which is — is the negotiations going on in Cairo this coming weekend, and one of the messages that the President had for Prime Minister Netanyahu was, you know, let’s get this done, let’s get a deal in place so that we can get a ceasefire for a matter of weeks in place so that it’s easier to meet those commitments on humanitarian assistance being increased — a whole lot easier to meet those commitments you made if there is a ceasefire in place and just as critically getting the hostages home.

Q    And Burns — is Burns in Cairo for these talks?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t ever talk about the travel habits of the CIA director.  I can just tell you that the United States will be present for those talks.

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

Q    Hey there.  So, just slight variation on Steve.  Is there specific things that the President would like the Israeli government to do, in addition to what’s being done, to sort of reach these overarching goals that you speak of to make sure that this doesn’t happen again?  Is there anything more that can be done?

And then secondly, just quickly, I believe Secretary Blinken also called for an “independent, thorough, and fully publicized investigation” of the tragedy.  Who does the White House believe could be a credible authority to carry out this investigation?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I think on the independent investigation thing — and we’ve seen Chef Andrés has called for that — we’re going to reserve — as I said yesterday, we’re going to reserve judgment on that until we’ve had a chance to see and carefully review the results of the investigation, the independent investigation that they themselves conducted.  So I’m just going to leave that there.

And as for the “more to do” — again, Aamer, I think we’ve been very open with all of you about the call yesterday and the asks that the President made.  And some of those asks were initially realized here in these announcements that the Israelis have made.

But let me just summarize — without getting into too much detail, let me just summarize them in general, and I kind of covered this with Steve.  It’s putting in place procedures and fixes so that an attack like this and a mistake like this can’t happen again.  It’s doing more to look after the safety of civilians on the ground, including aid workers, and giving them confidence — confidence-building measures so that aid organizations can continue to operate inside Gaza and feel that they can do so safely.  It’s increasing the humanitarian assistance getting in.  That means, A, opening up more crossings, and we’ve seen some announcements that have been positive over the last few hours; and B, increasing the number of trucks that get in to up over 300, and that includes increasing that flow from Jordan. 

And again, those initial steps have been announced, and we welcome that. 

And then the third big chunk here is about getting back at the table in negotiations in Cairo and getting a hostage deal done and powering his negotiators to come to a conclusion on this so that we can get the hostages home with their families where they belong.  We are coming up on six months — six months that these people have been held hostage in what we have to consider are just abhorrent conditions.  They need to be home with their families.  That also gives us a ceasefire of a matter of about six weeks, which, again, as I said earlier, would make it much easier for humanitarian assistance to flow. 

So those are the three big buckets, and I think I’ll leave it at that.

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

Q    Hi.  Thank you very much for taking the question.  I’m about to go on the air, so a quick question about the hostages.  Did the President press Prime Minister Netanyahu to try to get to yes on the hostage issues and be less specific about the demand on proportionality?  Can you get into any of the details on that?

And there does seem to be a conflict between what Secretary Blinken said and what you just said about the independent investigation.  If you could try to clarify that or take that question.  Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY:  I did not see Secretary Blinken make a call for an independent investigation.  He said that we were — what I looked at, he said they’re reviewing — we’re reviewing Israel’s investigation carefully and that we’re going to be discussing it with the conclusions of Israeli officials and humanitarian aid organizations.  So, I have not seen that. 

And as I said, we’re going to reserve judgment on whether there needs to be another investigation based on the conclusions we come up to, looking at the one that they conducted. 

And on your first question, Andrea, the short answer is: Yes, he did urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to get to yes on negotiating — on a deal to get the hostages out and on these negotiations.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Weijia with CBS.

Q    Thank you.  And thank you, John, for taking the question.  Just to follow up on Andrea and Aamer, he did say that.  He said, “It’s also critical that we see an independent, thorough, [and] fully publicized investigation into the killing of the World Central Kitchen team…”  So if you don’t have an explanation for the discrepancy now, will you please get back to us?

MR. KIRBY:  He might have been referring — look, I’m going to refer you to the State Department.  I wasn’t with the Secretary when he made those comments, so I think you guys are asking me to comment on comments that I don’t have visibility on. 

I would just note a couple of things.  The investigation that they concluded was an independent investigation.  It was done by an agency of the Israeli government that does not report directly to the IDF chain of command.  It’s sort of akin to our own inspector general reports that you guys are very familiar with.  It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s close to that.  That was an independent investigation. 

And we are now going through that ourselves.  And as far as a third independent investigation — in other words, something outside the Israeli government, which is what I know Chef Andrés has called for — we’re going to reserve our judgment based on our conclusions on this independent investigation.

Q    And then, on the timing of the reports released, was that a coincidence, or did the President push for it to be made public during the phone call yesterday?

MR. KIRBY:  We made it clear, even before the call with Prime Minister Netanyahu, that we expected — and we said so publicly — that they would conduct a thorough, complete investigation and that they would make it public, that they would be transparent about it.

Q    Did they talk about the report’s findings during the phone call?

MR. KIRBY:  Not in any specific terms.  Prime Minister Netanyahu had only just received it himself.  So he covered sort of a broad brush at the top of the conversation, sort of the general findings, but he didn’t go into great detail.

Q    Okay.  And then, finally, I know you were asked about the video earlier, but aside from that, has the administration reviewed any evidence, or have you requested to see any evidence that backs up the findings?

MR. KIRBY:  We are working our way through the investigation right now.  I’ll just leave it at that.

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

Q    Thanks, guys.  Thanks, Admiral.  So just to clarify what everyone has been asking, you’re not ruling out, from the White House perspective, that the U.S. could do an independent investigation?  Is that — just to clarify.

MR. KIRBY:  There are no plans for us to conduct — (audio feedback) — is that okay?  Can you hear me? 

Q    Sorry, yes, I can hear you.

MR. KIRBY:  There are no plans for the U.S. to conduct an independent investigation or a separate investigation into this event.  Guys, they just finished it, and we are just now getting a chance to look at it. 

I think it’s important to let us have the time, as Secretary Blinken said, to do this in a careful, thoughtful way.  And then we’ll reserve judgment about it once we’ve had a chance to go through it. 

It seems like there’s — well, I’ll just leave it at that.  We’re going to — we’re going do this right.  We’re going to take our time with it.  We’re going to continue to consult with the Israeli officials as we look at the investigation. 

We have seen and we’re aware of people and institutions, including Chef Andrés, who want something separate than what the Israelis have done.  We’re reserving judgment on that until we’ve had a chance to review this carefully.

Q    And you said the calls are for civilians and aid workers, for Israel to do more to protect them inside Gaza.  They’ve agreed to open a few more crossings.  Can you give any other specific examples of what this administration is looking for?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to go into more detail than what we’ve already done on that. 

And let me come back to the confusion about independent and what Secretary Blinken said.  Because I’ve been — while we’ve been talking, I’ve asked the team here to check with State.  And what I’m hearing from State is that Secretary Blinken did refer to an independent investigation, but that was before — he was referring to the one that they were working on.  And he said that before Israel came out with the report that we are now examining.

Q    And just one more question.  Any update on that meeting next week with the Israeli delegation in person on Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any updates for you.  We’re hoping to get it done in the next week or two.  It’s possible that that meeting could slide to the week after next.  We just don’t have anything firm.  But obviously — look, guys, as soon as we get something nailed down on the calendar, you know we’re going to tell you about it.

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

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  We have a report saying that some key Israeli policymakers have started to push back on the idea of a full-scale invasion of Rafah.  One suggested that Israel could simply surround the four remaining Hamas battalions in that area.  Is this an idea that the U.S. would support?  And was this idea of surrounding the battalions, rather than a full- scale investigation, discussed between the two leaders, or was it discussed between administration officials and the Israeli Defense Minister when he was in town earlier this week?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, we haven’t even completed the conversations with the Israelis here about Rafah.  We’re looking forward, as I just answered to Selina, in having that conversation here in coming days.  And I think you can understand we’re going to reserve our thoughts about alternatives to a ground offensive in Rafah to our private conversations with our Israeli counterparts.

As I said yesterday from the podium, the Rafah operation was not a focus of the discussion between the President and the Prime Minister.  That was really focused more on the aftermath of the strike and the implications that that strike has had on humanitarian aid organizations and their willingness to continue to operate inside Gaza and the kinds of things that we needed Israel to do.  We’ve detailed those for you as far as I’m going to detail them for you.  But that was really the — that was really the focus.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks, Sam.  Two, kind of, clarifications, and I may have missed it from yesterday, but did the President and Netanyahu talk about the strikes in Syria?  And did the President have a message to convey when it comes to widening the conflict, or whatever, there?

And then, second thing is: You know, you mentioned that you expect — you mentioned yesterday that you expected a series of announcements from the Israelis.  I assume one of those is the results of the investigation on the WCK attack and then another one was maybe about the other gate opening.  But do you have others, do you expect, that are in train, potentially over the next day or so, on other matters?  Or no?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, Gordon, I missed your first question.  Can you —

Q    The first question was: Did the President and Netanyahu talk about the Israeli strikes in Damascus?  And did the President convey any concerns about widening the conflict?

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, okay.  So, on your first question, there wasn’t a specific focus on what happened in Damascus.  As I’ve said before, we had no role in that whatsoever.  That said, there was discussion between the two leaders about the very viable and, quite frankly, very public threat that Iran is making to Israel’s security in the last day or so.  And the President made very, very clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he can count on U.S. support to help them in their self-defense against threats directly and publicly posed by Iran.  So, that’s that.

On the more announcements, I mean, as I said yesterday, we were expecting some announcements in coming hours and days.  We’ve started to see some of those announcements.  I’ll refer to the Israelis to speak to whether they’ve got more coming and what they might be. 

What we’re focused on, Gordon, is not the announcements.  The announcements are welcomed, and they certainly did come in the wake of the President’s direct requests.  But what we’re really looking for now is a sustainable commitment to meet those — what’s been announced; to make real, lasting, permanent changes to the way they’re doing business inside Gaza, both operationally and from a humanitarian perspective.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Missy Ryan with the Washington Post.

Q    Hey, John.  Just two questions.  Was there — and apologies if I missed this — did you have an update on the planned travel by Jake to Saudi Arabia?  Yesterday, you talked about — or the other day you talked about him postponing that because of his health situation.

And then, just stepping back to the U.S. analysis of the steps that the Israelis are taking and their investigation and then the readout of the Bibi call, should we be reading anything specifically into the fact that what you and the President and Secretary Blinken have said is that, you know, if the Israelis don’t show sort of effective changes, that it’ll affect U.S. policy on Gaza versus U.S. policy on Israel? 

I wondered whether this was trying to signal that some sort of support or the stance towards that particular operation might change.  But as you guys are saying, that the overall relationship isn’t going to change, are you trying to sort of caveat what the implications would be if they fail to meet the threshold that you guys are laying out?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  I think you’re ascribing to us perhaps more parsing of language than we deserve. 

But let me take the first question first.  And I don’t have an update on Jake’s trip to the Middle East and to Saudi.  I know that he very much wants to get it back on the schedule, and the team is working hard to see what we can do to do that.  But, you know, his health obviously has to come first. 

And then, on your second question, we’re talking about, as we have all said consistently, that we need to see changes in their policy towards the fighting in Gaza and the support to humanitarian aid organizations, or we will have to make changes to our policy with respect to supporting their efforts in Gaza.  And I think it’s best if I just leave it at that. 

The only thing I’d add is — and I kind of got to this in an earlier question — they live in a tough neighborhood.  And while we are all rightly concerned about what’s going on in Gaza operationally and from a humanitarian perspective, we can’t forget that they are under a range of other threats not related to the war in Gaza, from Hezbollah in the north; even the Houthis down in Yemen are launching missiles at them.  And of course, there’s the militia groups that Iran supports in Iraq and Syria and the very public, direct nation-state threats that Iran has made to Israel’s security. 

The Israeli people do not need to be reminded of the threat that they’re living under.  And the President made clear in that call yesterday, particularly given these public threats by Iran, that Israel will continue, as they have had for so many years in the past and through so many different administrations, the American support for their self-defense.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrew with The Independent

Q    Hi, can you all hear me okay?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I got you, buddy.

Q    Wonderful.  Thanks for taking my question.  John, I know you have said multiple times on this call that you want to get through the report and review of the Israeli report.  But there have been over 200 aid workers killed during this conflict.  And I’m wondering why, given what has become — I don’t want to call it a habit, but the number of aid workers killed by the IDF and the fact the IDF has shot some of their own people on occasion and seems to have exonerated anyone from wrongdoing there, why this Israeli report — prepared very, very quickly and I don’t want to say under duress, but with the possible objective of avoiding any consequences from the Biden administration — why should it be given a presumption of good faith?

And I understand you spoke to your counterparts at State, but why shouldn’t Secretary Blinken’s original call for an independent investigation not be followed through on?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I don’t want to put words in Secretary Blinken’s mouth.  I would refer you to my colleagues there.  But we’ve been communicating with them during this gaggle so that I can make sure I had the context.  He called for that independent investigation while they were working on their independent investigation.  And that was the investigation he was referring to.  Because he understands, like I understand, that they have a process inside their government to conduct independent investigations, again, not unlike the ones that we conduct using inspectors general.  It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s as close as I can get to it.  That’s what he was calling for. 

As for separate calls, I’m happy to repeat my answer.  As for separate calls for something additionally and independent outside of Israel, which we’ve seen certainly Chef Andrés call for, we’re just reserving judgment until we’ve had a chance to go through what they just produced.  I mean, my goodness, guys, they just gave it to us.  So we’re going to take the time — we’re going to take time, we’re going to look at it, and then we’ll reserve judgment based on what we find and what we see and what questions we might have for our Israeli counterparts.

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

Q    Thanks, Sam.  I’m going to try again, John.  The IDF said that the officers misidentified the three World Central Kitchen vehicles and they believed that Hamas gunmen was hiding in the convoy.  I’m going to try again and see if you can give an early assessment of whether this explanation makes sense considering what we’ve heard from Chef Andrés. 

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m not going to do that at this time.

Q    Okay, and so another question.  You said that the strike — the World Central Kitchen strike — was the reason for the President’s call to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I’m also tracking that the President met Monday with three doctors who have been in Gaza and also with Senator Sanders on Wednesday.  Obviously, he is a critic of the war.  Did the two meetings in any way also shape the President’s decision to say what he said to Prime Minister Netanyahu?  Can you assure that?

MR. KIRBY:  The President’s discussion yesterday with the Prime Minister — certainly the impetus for the call was in the wake of this; it was this strike on the WCK workers.  As I said yesterday, that was certainly the catalyst for this phone call.

But I think it’s important to remember in context that the President’s concern and frustration has been growing over weeks and months based on things he’s been seeing coming out of Gaza — you know, civilians still being killed, infrastructure still being destroyed, not enough trucks getting in, the need to supplement the lack of trucks getting in by conducting airdrops.  I mean, you have to put everything into context.  I mean, all of that has been weighing on the President’s mind as he was thinking this through, and that includes conversations, yes, that he’s been having with people who have their own views and their own experiences.

Q    Okay.  And thank you.  And one last one, John.  How would you respond to criticism that the death of one American was able to move the President in a way that the death of 33,000 Palestinians did not?

MR. KIRBY:  I think that I just answered that question.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN.

Q    Thanks so much.  A couple of questions.  First of all, regarding the investigation, is the U.S. looking also into the question whether American-made weapons or ammunitions were involved in this attack?  Does the report give an answer to that?  And if there were American weapons, would that make any difference?

MR. KIRBY:  You’d have to talk to the Israelis about the details of the report.  As I said, we’re going through that.  I’m not going to speak for an Israeli investigation that they’ve conducted and they’ve submitted.  We’re looking at it, we’re reviewing it, and I believe the Pentagon has been asked this question about American-made weapons, and there’s — they have said that they’re not in a position to verify the use of any particular weapon in any particular Israeli operation.  Those are questions that are much better put to the Israeli Defense Force.

Q    Thanks.  One more thing about putting in place new procedures that would ensure the safety of aid workers and of civilians.  Would there be an American mechanism that would follow up on this?  Would there be U.S. representatives on the ground, in the control rooms?  How would you make sure that Israel is following up on this?

MR. KIRBY:  No, there’s no intent to put American servicemen and women, or military experts, civilians — however you want to put it — there’s no intention to put Americans in the decision-making loop here on Israeli operations.  They’re a sovereign country.  They conduct their own military operations.  How they conduct those operations is obviously of interest to us, and that’s the context of the conversation that the two leaders had yesterday.  But, no, there’s not going to be an effort to do that. 

What we are interested in, as I’ve alluded to earlier, is sustainable, implementable, deconfliction processes, particularly when it comes to humanitarian aid organizations, so that there is a sufficient linkage, muscle and sinew, between aid organizations and the IDF in terms of real-time information-sharing and knowledge of what each other is doing so that this doesn’t happen again.  And that’s what we’re going to be looking for — real, practical changes to their deconfliction system.

Q    Thanks.  And just one more quick question.  Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid is scheduled to be in Washington next week.  Will he be meeting with an administration official?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything to speak to on the calendar, but if that changes, we’ll certainly make that evident to you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Yuna with Israel Channel 12.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for this.  So, (inaudible) approved and declared satisfying the White House and the President.  You have spoken about this in general, but this is something that the U.S. said that, regards to that, the U.S. will decide the policy.  And also, did the President threaten with conditioning aid during the call with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve answered this one before.  What we’ve said is — and it’s right in the readout — our policy with respect to Gaza will be greatly impacted by our assessments of Israeli follow-through on the commitments that they’ve made, both in terms of deconfliction and confidence-building measures for humanitarian aid organizations, as well as the increase of aid getting in, reduction of civilian casualties, and of course, an effort to move forward on a deal to get the hostages out and a ceasefire in place for a period of weeks. 

So our Gaza policy will be affected greatly by our assessment of how the Israelis meet these commitments over time, in a sustainable way. 

And as for conditioning aid, I am simply not going to go into greater detail about the conversation between the two leaders.  The President reiterated that we need to see meaningful progress and changes in Israeli policy and operational decision-making.  And I’ll leave it at that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  Hi, John.  The President seems to be pushing Netanyahu to conclude this hostage deal.  I’m just wondering why the President didn’t push him or give him an ultimatum a month ago when the same deal was on the table, and Netanyahu rejected it.  And you could have saved both Palestinians and hostages’ lives, because (inaudible) reported today one hostage was killed by Israeli gunfire. 

And second, will you ask for an investigation of how the IDF is using AI program that targeting thousands of civilians, apparently?  And I asked you about this yesterday; you said you would get back to me, but this is another chance.  Maybe you have some more information about this.  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I wish I did there.  I don’t.  We’re still looking at that — that report. 

On your first question, we’ve been working diligently, very, very hard, for months now to get all those hostages out.  There is no lack of a sense of urgency by the President to do that, both in our conversations with our Israeli counterparts but also, of course, with our conversations with our Qatari counterparts who have the communication linkage with Hamas. 

So the idea that we are somehow sitting on our hands — and I’m not saying you said that — but the notion that we’re not pursuing this with great energy and effort just doesn’t comport with the facts. 

But, yes, it was a conversation topic yesterday that the President, again, urged Prime Minister Netanyahu to fully empower his negotiators in Cairo so that we can get this deal done as soon as possible. 

We believe — we are mindful that with each passing day, those hostages are at greater and greater risk and that their health is, without question, suffering all the more.  We want them home.  We’ve wanted them home since the 7th of October.  We’re not going to stop working on that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Francesca with USA Today.

Q    Thanks, Kirby.  And I know that you’ve touched on this at various points, but could you just bring us into the President’s thinking a little bit more broadly on this issue?  What is his reticence in conditioning the military aid?  Why hasn’t he felt that it was necessary at this point?  And just, what about this specific strike on the aid workers this week has him rethinking U.S. policy?

MR. KIRBY:  I just don’t have anything more to add on the questions about conditioning aid.  I can’t — I simply have nothing more to say about that. 

And as I said earlier to a previous question, he has been watching over recent weeks and months, you know, the increasing death toll of civilians, the lack of progress in terms of getting humanitarian assistance in over ground.  That’s one of the reasons why he ordered the military to start conducting airdrops, to try to supplement that.  It’s not sufficient, but it’s a supplement. 

So I think what you’re seeing is a growing set of concerns now over weeks and months about the situation — the humanitarian situation, in particular in Gaza. 

This strike on the World Central Kitchen, yes, it was horrific in its own right, of course, but you saw yourself, Francesca, that aid organizations in the wake of it started to make decisions, like the World Food Program.  You can’t ignore that development.  You can’t just — you can’t just close your eyes and ears to that when an organization like WFP says, “Well, that’s it.  You know, we’re going to pull back.”  I mean, they’re having a big impact inside Gaza, and we absolutely want to see that impact continue. 

So, all of that led to the President’s decision to have this very direct, very frank conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. 

And I want to go back to, you know, kind of where we started.  We have seen some welcome announcements from the Israelis.  They have acted on the President’s request coming out of that call; you’re starting to see it for yourself.  Now, again, as I said, these are just announcements.  We got to see results.  We got to see sustainable deliverables here over time.  It’s not enough just to announce it.  But they have moved on some of the very specific requests that the President made.

Q    And do you know if he’s spoken to Senator Coons or if that had any sort of an influence on his decision-making process here, or potentially the critiques that former Obama administration officials have been making?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t speak for the latter.  As you know, he does speak to Senator Coons quite a bit.  I don’t know if there was a specific conversation that he had with Senator Coons in recent days.  But they’re close, and they speak frequently. 

But as I said to an earlier question, certainly his views have been informed by conversations he has been having with people with experience in Gaza and with members of Congress up on Capitol Hill, as well as his own national security team and other foreign leaders that he’s been speaking to.  I mean, there’s a mosaic here of context through which the President makes these kinds of decisions, and he’ll continue to do so.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Fraser with France 24.  Fraser, we can’t hear you.  We still can’t hear you.  So sorry. 

And it looks like that’s all the time we’ll actually have today.  If we haven’t gotten to you, as always, feel free to reach out.  Thanks.

END    12:27 P.M. EDT

 

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:10 P.M. EDT

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

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have just a couple things at the top, and then we’ll — we’ll get going.

So, tomorrow, as you all know, the President is going to be traveling to Baltimore, where he will receive an operational update on response efforts from the unified command. Leaders from the Coast Guard and Army Co- — and the Army Corps of Engineers will share updates on the assistance they are providing to state officials in surveying and removing the wreckage in the channel and allowing the Port of Baltimore to reopen as soon as humanly possible.

The President will be joined by Governor Moore and other Maryland and Baltimore-area elected officials. He’ll also be joined by Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.

As we all know, six individuals tragically lost their lives when the Francis Scott King [Key] Bridge collapsed last week. They were hard workers, laboring in the middle of the night to repair potholes on a bridge that tens of thousands of travelers crossed every day. The President will meet with loved ones of those individuals during his trip tomorrow.

The President is continuing to lead a whole-of-government approach in responding to the bridge collapse. As the President said within hours of the collapse, this administration will be with the people of Baltimore every step of the way.

SBA Administrator Guzman is in Baltimore today as part of this administration’s efforts to support small businesses in need.

I also want to share a very big announcement that the Vice President and the — EPA Administrator Regan made today in Charlotte, North Carolina. They announced a $20 billion — 20 — $20 billion in awards to expand access to clean energy, tackle the climate crisis, improve air quality, lower energy costs, and create good-paying jobs.

This investment through the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund will stand up a national network that will finance tens of thousands of climate and clean energy projects across America.

At least 70 percent of these funds will be invested in low-income and disadvantaged communities. This makes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund the single-largest non-tax investment in the Inflation Reduction Act to build a clean energy economy while benefiting communities that have historically been left behind.

And finally, finally, finally, I want to briefly preview the President’s schedule next week.

On Monday, we — he will travel to Madison, Wisconsin, and discuss how he is lowering costs for Americans.

Later in the week, the President and the First Lady will host the Prime Minister of Japan and his wife for an official visit to the United States. This will include a state dinner on Wednesday, April 10th.

The visit will underscore the enduring strength of our alliance, the unwavering U.S. commitment to Japan, and Japan’s increasing global leadership role.

On Thursday, April 11th, President Biden will host Prime Minister [President] Marcos of the Philippines, Prime Minister Kishida of Japan at the White House for the first trilateral U.S.-Japan-Philippines leaders’ summit.

In addition, President Biden will host President Marcos for a meeting at the White House on April 11th to review the historic momentum in U.S.-Philippines relations.

Thank you for your patience. With that, the Admiral is here to talk about the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu and any updates that we have in the Middle East.

Admiral.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Q Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY: Obviously, a busy day here. I do want to take a moment just at the start to recognize the 75th anniversary of the NATO Alliance, the greatest military alliance in the history of the world. And you all saw the statement from the President earlier today celebrating this historic milestone.

Now, for 75 years, the NATO Alliance has stood together for freedom and against aggression, provided an unrivaled bulwark of security that has helped protect the American people. And during that time, our NATO Allies have come to our aid in our time of need, with NATO forces serving alongside ours in Afghanistan.

Today, NATO is larger, stronger, it’s more relevant than ever before thanks in no small part to the President’s leadership. And we look forward to building on all that progress in July when we host our 31 NATO Allies here in Washington, D.C., for the next NATO Summit.

Now, as I’m sure you’re all aware, the President had a chance to speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu earlier today. On that phone call, the President emphasized that the strikes on humanitarian workers and the overall humanitarian situation in Gaza are unacceptable.

He made clear the need for Israel to announce and to implement a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers.

He made clear that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s immediate action on these steps.

He underscored that an immediate ceasefire is essential to stabilize and improve the humanitarian situation and to protect innocent civilians. And he urged the Prime Minister to empower his negotiators to conclude a deal without delay to bring the hostages home.

The two leaders also discussed public Iranian threats against Israel and the Israeli people. President Biden made clear that the United States strongly supports Israel in the face of those threats.

That’s all I have.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Zeke.

Q Thanks, John. First, on that last piece there. You said — you have said it from this podium several times that that — the — Hamas was the obstacle to getting some sort of ceasefire deal. Calling on the Israelis to empower the negotiators suggests that has changed. Has the U.S. assessment of Israeli willingness to reach a ceasefire deal changed in the last several weeks?

MR. KIRBY: No. It — look, it takes — it takes active participation and the negotiation of both sides here. And — and that’s what the President is urging. He’s certainly, in the call with Netanyahu, urging that — that the Prime Minister empower his team to the maximum extent possible to see if we can get this deal in place.

Q And then just on the substance of the real news from the President’s statement there, saying that he’s going to condition future U.S. support for this — for Israeli — the Israeli operation in Gaza on what Israel does. First off, what is at stake? What would be potentially cut off from Israel for use in this war if the — if he doesn’t change course?

And second, what do you want specifically to see from Israel were — to do to protect civilians and humanitarian aid workers?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to preview any potential policy decisions coming forward.

What we want to see are some real changes on the Israeli side. And, you know, if we don’t see changes from their side, there will have to be changes from our side.

But I won’t preview what that could look like.

Now —

Q Is that just body count —

MR. KIRBY: — they talked about — wha- — I’m sorry?

Q Is that just the body count, or is there specific changes?

MR. KIRBY: Again, I’m — I’m — in terms of concrete steps, what we are looking to see and hope to see here in coming hours and days is a dramatic increase in the humanitarian assistance getting in, additional crossings opened up, and a reduction in the violence against civilians and certainly aid workers. We want to — we want to see that — that even as the Israelis work through their investigation that they are willing and able to take practical, immediate steps to protect aid workers on the ground and to demonstrate that they — that they have that civilian harm mitigation in place.

So, again, those are broad brushes. I’ll let the Israelis speak to what they will or won’t do here. But, again, in coming hours and days, we will be looking for concrete, tangible steps that they’re taking.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nancy.

Q Thanks. John, just to go back to that point. In your readout, when you say the President made clear that the U.S. — “that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s immediate action,” could you decode that for us? What exactly is the warning that’s being issued here?

MR. KIRBY: I think it’s very clear in the language itself, Nancy. We’re going to — the — we’re looking for concrete steps to alleviate humanitarian suffering in Gaza.

Again, I won’t get ahead of what the Israelis will or won’t say or announce. We’re looking for concrete steps to be announced here soon.

And it’s not just about the announcement of concrete steps and changes in their policies, but it’s the execution of those announcements and those decisions and implementing them.

And so, we’re — we obviously will — will watch closely and monitor how — how they do on — on the commitments that they make. And as — as I said earlier, if there’s no changes to their policy and their approaches, then there’s going to have to be changes to ours.

Q I think — I think what the world wants to understand is: Is the White House warning that it may remove military aid? What exactly is the threat here?

MR. KIRBY: I think I’ve — I’ve stated it pretty clearly. And I’m not going to — I’m not going to — as I said earlier, I’m not going to preview steps. I’m not going to preview decisions that haven’t been made yet. But there are things that need to be done.

There are too many civilians being killed. The risk to aid workers is unacceptable. Now we have certain aid organizations that are reconsidering whether they’re even going to be able to continue operations in Gaza while famine looms. So, there has to be tangible steps.

Let’s see what they announce. Let’s see what they direct. Let’s see what they do. But I’m not going to get ahead of that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Mary.

Q So, I’m going to try this one more time, because the President seems —

MR. KIRBY: I reckoned you would. (Laughter.)

Q That’s what we do. The President seems to have said to — to the Prime Minister today, you know, “Make these concrete changes or else.” It’s the “or else” that I want to make clear here. Is the President threatening to withhold aid to Israel if they do not make these changes?

MR. KIRBY: The President made it clear that our policies with respect to Gaza will be dependent upon our assessment of how well the Israelis make changes and implement changes to make the situation in Gaza better for the Palestinian people.

Q And how much time are you giving them to make these changes, to implement these concrete steps?

MR. KIRBY: Again, we — we would hope to see some announcements of changes here in coming hours and days. And I’ll leave it at that.

Q That’s short.

MR. KIRBY: Hours and days.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q John, why today?

MR. KIRBY: Why today what?

Q Why was —

MR. KIRBY: Why today for the phone call? Why —

Q Why — why this apparent shift in policy today? The —

MR. KIRBY: I think — look, the President — well, all of us, but particularly the President — was certainly shaken by the attack on the WCK convoy and the aid workers. As I said earlier, it wasn’t the only event. There had been others like that: humanitarian aid convoys coming under fire and losing people.

And — and the President felt strongly that it was time to — to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu about his concerns.

Q Would you characterize this call as an ultimatum?

MR. KIRBY: I would characterize this call as very direct, very businesslike, very professional on both sides. And the President laid out his significant concerns about the direction and where things are going and, quite frankly, laid out, as is clear in the readout, that — that we are willing to reconsider our own policy approaches here, dependent upon what the Israelis do or don’t do.

Q And can you just tell us who all was on the call?

MR. KIRBY: Well, it was — it was a bilateral call between the two leaders — Prime Minister Netanyahu and the President. They were the only two speakers on the — on the call.

Q Okay. But Vice President Harris also dialed in or —

MR. KIRBY: Vice President Harris did — did dial in, yes.

Q And the Secretary of State and the —

MR. KIRBY: Secretary of State dialed in. Jake Sullivan, yes. I don’t know who was also listening in on the Israeli side. But the — but the discussion was between the two leaders.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: M.J.

Q So, Admiral, you’re not specifying what concrete steps Israel must take exactly.

MR. KIRBY: I — I gave you some — a broad sense of it. We want to see more crossings opened up. We want to see more trucks getting in, particularly from Jordan. We want to see tangible steps at the mitigation of civilian harm, particularly to humanitarian aid workers but, obviously, all civilians. But we want to see that they have — that they have moved forward on proper steps to deconflict with aid workers as they move around, that the information flow is viable.

Q Sure. But that’s language we’ve heard for weeks now. You’re not talking about sort of telling us how exactly you will measure those measurable steps, right?

MR. KIRBY: What I said was we’re going to — we’re going to examine our policy approaches based on the — our assessment of the way the Israeli side modifies their behavior, modifies their policy and decision-making processes.

And so, first of all, let’s see what they say they’re going to do. And then let’s watch and see how they execute to what they say and do.

I don’t want to get ahead of them on what they — on what they — what they plan to say about the changes they’re going to make. But we- — we’ll base our policy decisions based on an assessment of how they execute to their policy decisions.

Q Haven’t you been doing that all along?

Q And you’re not talking about what potential U.S. policy changes are on the table. Can you say whether the President shared that with the Prime Minister on this phone call?

MR. KIRBY: The President made clear that — that absent changes in the protection of civilians on the ground; absent changes to the volume of humanitarian assistance getting in; absent — absent any movement on a ceasefire that will allow hostages to get out and more aid to get in; absent, you know, a calming down, that he will have to reconsider his own policy choices with respect to — to Gaza.

Q And one of the seven aid workers was obviously a dual American citizen. Did the Prime Minister offer the President an apology?

MR. KIRBY: I — I — I’ll let the Prime Minister speak to his side of the conversation. The — I would note that the Israeli Defense Forces, their Southern Command commander has made a public apology for the — the strike.

Q And there was no mention of Rafah in this readout. Can you talk to us about how — if that did come up and how that might have been discussed between the two leaders?

MR. KIRBY: This conversation was — was focused primarily on the need to get a temporary ceasefire in place, the need for there to be a pause in — in the fighting so that we can get the hostages out, humanitarian assistance; the need to see that steps are being taken to learn from this strike and to make changes in the way civilian harm is mitigated from an operational perspective.

And they did spend time, as the readout makes clear, talking about the very public threats from — from Iran to Israel. And the President, as I said, made very clear to the Prime Minister that the United States’ support for Israel’s ability to defend itself from a range of threats, not just Hamas, remains ironclad.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Danny.

Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Admiral. Just a couple of things. Firstly, how — how long did this call last?

MR. KIRBY: It was about 30 minutes or so.

Q And just going back to, I mean, Jeff’s question about the — you know, why — why the sort of change in tone. I mean, has there been growing frustration on the part of President Biden that previous messaging to Prime Minister Netanyahu just doesn’t seem to have gotten through?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, there has been growing frustration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Raquel.

Q Thank you so much, Karine. John, one question on Israel and another on Venezuela. We saw, in the past, President Biden pushing Netanyahu to protect civilians, but how much words really matter here when — on actions, the same day of the attack on the humanitarian words — the U.S. was approving more bombs to Israel? The U- — we are now six months into the war. How much the U.S. actions are actually encouraging Israel to not do enough to protect civilians?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, look, I — I’m kind of glad the question came up, because I would tell you, when — I’ve seen press reporting, you know, about the — about the — the arms sales and that kind of thing. And I would just remind you that — that it — with the exception of the immediate two months after the attack, we haven’t really sent emergency aid and assis- — military assistance to — to Israel. There was in the first couple of months.

But what you’re seeing here is the result of a — a process of foreign military sales to Israel that takes years, and a lot of this materiel that’s been reported publicly was notified to Congress many, many months, if not years ago, and are in the train to get to Israel.

I think it’s important to remember, as I tried to mention in the last answer, that Israel still has a lot of threats it faces. I mean, we’re all focused on Hamas, and I understand that, but they still face active threats throughout the region, including from Iran. And the United States still has an ironclad commitment to help Ir- — Israel with its self-defense. And so, a lot of these articles, including the 2,000-pound bombs and the F-35s, that’s — those are things that have been long in the train and not tied — the sale — the foreign military sales process was not tied to this conflict.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Tam.

Q Can I have a one more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — on Ven- — on Venezuela quick. Because yesterday, Nicolás Maduro enacted a law creating a province of Venezuela in Guyana, and he accused the United States of building secret military bases in Essequibo. So, what is your reaction? And is the U.S. considering build a military base to support Guyana to defend their sovereignty?

MR. KIRBY: There’s no p- — there’s no plans for a secret military base.

And we’ve said ma- — many times that there’s an 1899 arbitral ruling about the border between Guyana and Venezuela, and we want both sides to respect that ruling and to do it peacefully.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Tam.

Q Thank you. You said, “We would hope to see an announcement of changes.” I’m wondering if that is just hope or is it an expectation?

MR. KIRBY: We ex- —

Q Is it based on a commitment?

MR. KIRBY: We expect that — that there will be some — some announcements coming from Israel in the coming hours and days, but I want to respect their right to manage that process on their own.

Q Okay. And was there any update given by the Prime Minister on what exactly happened with the World Central Kitchen envoy?

MR. KIRBY: They — they didn’t talk about the actual strike in great detail. The — the Prime Minister did reiterate, as his military has reiterated, that this was on them; that the investigation was — was concluding; that he looked forward to seeing it; and that, you know, he would take appropriate actions to make sure something like that couldn’t happen again.

I mean, they did — obviously, they talked about it, of course. But did they go through point by point the investigation’s findings? No, because I think the Prime Minister’s office is still evaluating the actual investigation results.

Q And just to try to get a technical understanding as you described the very long process of supplying arms to Israel, if this contingency isn’t met and there is a change in U.S. policy, how easy or hard would it be to slow down or change shipments to Israel based on current law and all of the requirements and all the things you just described?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are. Let’s see what the Israeli side does and says and what they implement and where they go before we talk about actual policy decisions.

And I’m certainly not going to close down decision space for the President of the United States. He gets to make those decisions. But I mean, obviously, as Commander-in-Chief — and, yes, the foreign military sales certainly is — is supported by legislation, but — but there are certain authorities that you can do to manage that.

But, again, let’s not get ahead of where we are. This is really about seeing what the Israelis say they’re going to do and then act on — on those — on those changes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Gabe.

Q Admiral, has the U.S. lost its leverage with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY: You know, I keep getting this question about leverage. Israel is an ally and a friend and a partner. And the President believes strongly, and has for his entire public career, in the security of the Israeli people and the — and the longevity of the Israeli state. And that’s not going to change.

And I can say unequivocally — and I don’t think the Prime Minister would mind me saying here — that, in the call today, the Prime Minister reiterated his thanks to President Biden and this administration for the support that — that we have continued to provide Israel. It’s longstanding. It was before the 7th of October, and it is now. And that support is — that support is going to continue.

But, again, with respect to Gaza, we need to see certain changes. And if we don’t, then we’ll have to consider changes to our own policy.

But it’s not about — it’s not about leverage. It’s about the relationship, and it’s about the credibility — I would even say the unique credibility that this particular president has in Israel and with Israeli leadership based on his long public service of support to —

Q But you talk about this relationship. Do you think the Prime Minister is really listening?

MR. KIRBY: It was — I think it was evident in the phone call today. It was a good discussion. Direct — no question — but a good discussion. And — and I believe the — the President made very clear his concerns and the Prime Minister acknowledged those concerns.

Q And in — and in terms of the timing of this call, we understand that this call was set up after the strike on the World Central Kitchen workers. Would you say that this call was a direct result of that? Was that the reason behind the call?

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia.

Q And then, one —

Q Thank you.

Q — one last thing: response to José Andrés. Chef Andrés says that the convoy was deliberately targeted. Any response from the U.S. on that?

MR. KIRBY: Again, I — I haven’t seen the Israeli investigation. They have said themselves publicly, after a preliminary investigation, that there was no deliberate targeting of WCK and — and Chef Andrés. They — they’re working their way through, now, independent follow-on investigation, which I understand is very, very close to complete.

The Prime Minister just talked about it broadly. And reiterated today — the Prime Minister reiterated today that there was no deliberate targeting of — of that aid convoy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia.

Q Thank you, Karine. Two questions. Senator Coons, who is very close to the President, said that we have reached a moment where arms restriction to Israel should be considered. Senator Warren also said that we have — Israel has violated our own laws. Are they wrong in their assessment?

MR. KIRBY: The President — I think it’s clear in the readout, Nadia, that the — that the President has — has made it clear today that if we don’t see changes to the way the IDF is treating innocent civilians and aid workers and flowing the humanitarian assistance, that he’s going to have to reconsider our Gaza policy. So, I mean, he was very direct with the Prime Minister about that.

I’m not going to close down his decision space. As satisfying as that may be for some of you, I can’t do that.

But he made it very clear that we need to see some changes on the Israeli side.

Q Okay. I want to ask you about very disturbing investigative report by an Israeli journalist who said that — is the White House aware of an AI program called “Lavender” that’s being used by the Israeli army to target operative in Gaza in what they call a “kill zone,” where this program has only 20 seconds of human supervision. And it led to the death of thousands of women and children in Gaza. Do you think — are you aware of it, number one? And, second, does the White House believe that AI can be used in this way with that supervision?

MR. KIRBY: I’m — I’m not aware of it. You’re going to have to let me take question. We’ll get back to you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thank you so much, John. I’m going to start with the trilateral summit, then I’m going to move to Rwanda.

First of all, looking ahead to the trilateral summit next week, what are some of the priorities? And we recently heard the Filipino Ambassador say that the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines are going to start joint patrols in the South China Sea very soon. Can you confirm that and give us any details?

MR. KIRBY: I believe the Pentagon will have more to say about that this afternoon. So, I don’t — I don’t want to get ahead of — of them on that. We’re always looking for opportunities to improve cooperation with our allies in the Indo-Pacific.

We’re looking forward to this trilateral summit next week. I think it’ll be very, very important. As you know, we have self-defense treaty commitments with both countries. And so, the chance to sit down with — with both his Japanese and his Filipino counterparts is something the President is very much looking forward to.

There’s an awful lot to discuss. Certainly, the tensions in the South China Sea are not going away. That was an issue that was raised in the President’s call with President Xi just a — a couple of days ago. And so, there’s — there’s an awful lot to talk about there.

Q Cool. Then on Rwanda —

MR. KIRBY: Cool.

Q I’m going to ask — (laughter) — a multi-part question.

Q Cool.

Q It’s —
MR. KIRBY: I did not think my answer was cool, but I appreciate the compliment. (Laughter.)

Q It’s — sorry, it’s a small country. It doesn’t get a lot of attention. But President Biden has decided to send President Clinton —

MR. KIRBY: Correct.

Q — to observe the 30th anniversary of the genocide. You know, what message does this send to Rwandans who are understandably upset about President Clinton’s lack of action when the genocide was happening?

Secondly, what message is President Clinton taking to President Kagame, who has been in power since 1994 and has become increasingly authoritarian?

And then, finally, in 1998, President Clinton pledged to the Rwandan people that his administration was going to work to identify triggers of genocidal activity so that something like this would never happen again. Do you think Washington has improved on that front in the last 30 years?

MR. KIRBY: We — we — I — I believe — I can’t speak for every administration between 1998 and today, but I can tell you that President Biden absolutely takes those responsibilities very, very seriously, particularly when it comes to genocidal threats, wherever they occur around the world.

And he’s very grateful that President Clinton has agreed to lead the delegation for the 30th anniversary. Eight hundred thousand people slaughtered in that — in that —

Q Some people say it’s over 1.2 million.

MR. KIRBY: — in that conflict. And our hearts and our prayers go out to the families of the — of the survivors — of those who were — who were killed. Just a — just a dreadful situation.

And, again, the President is grateful that President Clinton has agreed to — to go down there and represent the administration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Phil.

Q Thank you. I have two questions, one on Israel and another on China.

At this point in the conflict, does President Biden believe that a military victory against Hamas is possible for Israel?

MR. KIRBY: Obviously, that’s going to be up to the Israeli Defense Forces and the Israeli government to determine.

As I’ve said many, many times: It’s difficult to eliminate an ideology with military means, but you can absolutely, through military means, decapitate their leadership; dry up their resources; eliminate their infrastructure, their ability to — to operate and store weapons, train troops. I mean, all of that stuff can be — can be targeted with military means.

What — the — but as I’ve also said, and — and you have to keep it in the context of this call, it matters how you do that. It really matters a lot how you do that.

And it’s the how that the President was focused on today and the — the way these operations are being prosecuted and the additional harm that’s coming to civilian aid workers and innocent Gazans.

Q And then, Xi reportedly told President Biden during their summit in San Francisco that Beijing plans to reunify Taiwan with Mainland China. Did the Chinese leader bring up a similar sentiment in their call the other day? And if so, what was President Biden’s response?

MR. KIRBY: I wou- — certainly, Taiwan came up in the context of — of the call. There’s not a single discussion that we don’t have with senior leaders in the PRC where we don’t talk about Taiwan. Of course, it came up.

I — I won’t characterize President Xi’s comments. But I can tell you that — that President Biden was very, very clear that — that nothing has changed about our One China policy. We don’t support independence for Taiwan. But we also don’t want to see the status quo changed in a unilateral way and certainly not by force.

Q Thank you, sir.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, a couple more. Go ahead, Jared.

Q Did — I know you said that Rafah wasn’t the point of this conversation and it wasn’t discussed a lot. Does that mean that that is still sort of a separate issue that’s going to be sort of an ongoing discussion between U.S. and Israeli officials in the delegation?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t know that I’d call it separate. It wasn’t a focus of this call. The call was — as I answered to M.J., it was really about the humanitarian situation and changes we need to see.

But we look forward to having another conversation with Israeli counterparts in coming days, hopefully in a week or so, on Rafah specifically. And we hope this next one will be in person, but we’ll have more to say about that as we get closer to it.

Q So, an operation in Rafah would not, sort of, run counter to — to these new conditions that the President laid out to — to the Prime Minister?

MR. KIRBY: Oh, I didn’t say that at all. I mean, one of the big concerns about a ground operation in Rafah that we’ve expressed is the damage it could do — the death and destruction it could render to the 1.5 million Gazans that are seeking refuge there.

So, again, today’s call was really focused on humanitarian assistance, civilian casualties, and that includes humanitarian aid workers. You can’t talk about Rafah and the possibility of operations going after those Hamas battalions in Rafah without also talking about the humanitarian situation down there, which is dire.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Brian.

Q Thanks a lot, Admiral. Does President Biden agree with Donald Trump that the — Israel’s war against Hamas is taking a long time?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to compare the President’s views to — to Mr. Trump. I think you can understand I need to stay out — out of that.

All I would tell you is we have expressed our concerns about the manner in which operations are being conducted and the — the speed and the energy with which we want to see changes to the way those operations are being conducted. And I think I’d leave it at that.

Q Well, does — does the President think that Israel’s war against Hamas is taking too long?

MR. KIRBY: The President believes that they have a right to go after the Hamas threat, which is still viable. And the President made it clear again today that we support and we will continue to support — not just philosophically but tangibly — Israel’s right to defend itself against a range of threats. And it — certainly that includes this — this fight against Hamas.

But, again, I want to — I want to reiterate what I said earlier. It’s not just the threat of Hamas that Israel is facing. They are facing broader threats throughout the region, including directly and publicly from — from Iran.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Peter.

Q John, a follow-up on that first. Did the CIA warn Israel or did President Biden warn Netanyahu today about an Iranian plan to attack inside Israel within 48 hours?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters, Peter. I think you can understand. But they did talk about a very public and very viable, real threat by Iran to Israel’s security. And I think I need to leave it at that. It’s really as far as I can go.

Q On October 7th, President Biden said, “My administration’s support for Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering.” That is not true anymore, correct?

MR. KIRBY: That i- — no, it is true. Still true today.

Q How is his support unwavering, but you’re also reconsidering policy choices?

MR. KIRBY: Both can be true.

Q They cannot be true. They’re — they’re completely different things.

MR. KIRBY: No. No, no. I just —

Q He is —

MR. KIRBY: I’m sorry — I —

Q He is wavering.

MR. KIRBY: Now, now, now. Come on, Peter.

Q How is he not wavering?

MR. KIRBY: Come on. (Laughter.) Come on, now.

As I said, and as it says in that readout, we made clear — and — and he made it clear to the Prime Minister in his call — that our support for Israel’s self-defense remains ironclad. They face a range of threats. And the United States isn’t going to walk away from helping Israel defend itself.

That said, you can say all that and you can act on that and you can believe that — and the President does — and still believe that the manner in which they’re defending themselves against the Hamas threat needs to change. And that is the conversation that we had today.

But both things are true. Our support is ironclad and consistent. It’s not going to — not going to stop; it’s not going to — not going to — not going to waver. But will there perhaps be some policy changes we might have to make if we don’t see policy changes out of Israel? Yes.

Q How is that unwavering? It sounds like you guys are trying to have it both ways here.

MR. KIRBY: No. I don’t know that I’d char- —

Q “We support Israel, but we are going to make all these changes because we don’t support Israel.”

MR. KIRBY: I didn’t say we’re going to make changes. I said we need to see w- — how Israel responds to the humanitarian crises in Gaza and how they respond to protection of aid workers. I think we can all agree, I think you would agree, you don’t want to see innocent civilians killed or targeted, do you? You don’t want to see Gazans starve. You don’t want to see famine in Gaza, do you?

Q Nobody wants to see —

MR. KIRBY: Of course not.

Q — that. But you’re —

MR. KIRBY: So —

Q — the policymaker and you’re talking about policy changes.

MR. KIRBY: So —

Q That is not what you were talking about on October 7th.
MR. KIRBY: Because things have —

Q When it was “solid and unwavering.”

MR. KIRBY: On October 7th, there wasn’t near famine in Gaza. On October 7th, there wasn’t a diminution of trucks getting into Gaza. On October 7th, we didn’t see thousands and thousands of innocent people killed. I mean, I could go on and on.

The — we’re talking about a conflict near — which is dang near at six months here — this weekend, six months. And it has changed over time. And the — what the President’s message today was: We need to see some changes in the way Israel is dealing with that threat.

Q And —

MR. KIRBY: That’s — that’s what two good friends and allies can discuss.

This isn’t about un- — this isn’t about changing our support to Israel or the security of the Israeli state. And I — I just have to take issue with the premise of the question.

Q Okay. Just the last one, then. Where is President Biden on any of this? When he wants to talk about how angry he is or frustrated he is about the high cost of insulin, he comes out and gives an impassioned speech. Where is he on any of this?

MR. KIRBY: He’s been talking about this. He’s been issuing statements on this.

Q In private.

MR. KIRBY: No, that statement, last I looked, was public.

Q But where is he? Why isn’t he here right now?

MR. KIRBY: Look, I’m sure you’ll continue to hear from the President about this and many other national security issues.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. We’ve got to — we’ve got to wrap it up.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks. Can you share any- — anything about White House views on the upcoming U.N. Security Council resolution to prohibit nuclear weapons in space, which is scheduled to vote as soon as Friday?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, actually, I can. And if you don’t mind, I’m — I do have some notes. I want to make sure that I get this right.

But, I think, last month, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield announced that the United States and Japan would put forward a Security Council resolution calling on all countries not to deploy nuclear weapons in space or to develop nuclear weapons specifically designed to be placed in orbit around the Earth. And we will be bringing this resolution to a vote in New York early next week.

Now, the vote should be straightforward. The Outer Space Treaty — which has been signed by more than 130 countries, including Russia, the PRC, and, of course, the United States — prohibits the deployment of, quote, “nuclear weapons or other kinds of weapons of mass destruction,” end quote, in orbit, period.

Now, we have heard President Putin say that Russia has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space, so we look forward to Russia voting in favor of this resolution. There should be no reason why not to. And if they do, then I think that should open up some really legitimate questions to Mr. Putin about what his intentions really are.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. S.V., you have the last question.

Q Yeah, thank you. Admiral, could you clarify on the — the ceasefire language that the President used in his statement? He says that he und- — that there should be a ceasefire, and then the next — after a comma, it’s, “he urged the Prime Minister to empower… negotiators to conclude a deal without delay.” So, are the two tied together? Or is he saying ceasefire right now and then the other thing later? I mean, what —

MR. KIRBY: We — we —

Q How immediate is “immediate”?

MR. KIRBY: I — I can’t really improve upon the President’s language. We — we want to see a pause in the fighting. We want to see a ceasefire immediately, so that we can get more humanitarian assistance in and create a set of conditions where aid organizations feel better about operating inside Gaza because, as we — we’ve already seen it in — as a result of the attack on the WCK workers, that some aid organizations now are pulling back. So, we want to see that immediate ceasefire in place.

We also, of course, as we’ve said many times, think that that could also provide a window here to get the hostages out.

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

(Cross-talk.)

MR. KIRBY: Thank you very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, Admiral.

Q John, before you go, was it an ultimatum? Was it an ultimatum?

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

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That was a lot of screaming.

Q Was before — either before the call or after the call, has the White House briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill about this potential change in U.S. policy, what is at stake here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, I think the Admiral made it very clear. We are giving the Israeli government an opportunity to deal with something that is pretty serious: humanitarian aid workers who are — you know, who are, we saw this week, being killed. I think we talked about — we’ve seen that ov- — more than 200 humanitarian aid workers in the past several months.

And so, that needs to stop. And so, we’re giving the Israeli government, as you heard from my colleague, to come up with some — some ways — some — you know, some measures here on how to avoid that. We have to keep civilians — civilians safe; we have to keep humanitarian workers safe.

And so, I don’t want to get ahead of that. We’re always having conversations, always in contact with congressional members. I don’t have a readout of outreach that was done right after the call. Obviously, the call ended not too long ago. And so, don’t want to — to get ahead of that.

But I think in that readout the President made it very clear where he stand — where he — where he stands in this moment. He made it very clear after the horrific — you know, the — what happened — the horrific events of seven — seven, you know, brave people doing — doing heroic work — what happened to them. He put out a very strong statement.

So, I think the President has been very clear. He’s outraged, he’s heartbroken, and this needs to stop. We need to protect civilian lives. That’s why he’s having — that’s why his team is having conversat- — conversations with the Israeli government on Rafah operations and what that’s going to look like. They’re having a — a, you know, reasonable debate back and forth and — and talking about that.

We’re hoping — we — we expect that to happen in person very shortly. And so, the President has been very clear: We got to protect civilian lives; we have to protect humanitarian aid workers. And — and those conversations certainly are going to continue.

Q And you got a question yesterday whether the President’s conv- — conversation, with the doctor who had been in Gaza, on Tuesday was his first interaction with somebody who had been on the ground in Gaza since the war began. I was hoping you might have a — be able to give us an answer on that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. I did have a moment to look into that. And so, as you know, the President and his senior team have been pretty actively honoring their commitment he made on — in continuing that ongoing engagement with communities directly, obviously, impacted by the conflict in Gaza. And he did that by hosting community leaders just this week. But, also, you’ve seen the senior White House officials going to Michigan, going to Illinois, and continuing those conversations over the past several months.

So, look — and we believe and — that by going across the country and hearing directly from community leaders in numerous states, that we’re doing — we are keeping that ongoing commitment.

And so, look, the three doctors — there were three doctors who recently returned from Gaza who participated in the meeting this week, and they shared their firsthand experience with President Biden. And so, we can say that there were three doctors.

We’re trying to be really respectful in keeping the privacy of those who are attending these very private meetings. But we were able to share — I am able to share there were at least three doctors who have — who have had the firsthand experience, have gone to Gaza, and they were able to share — to share their firsthand experience with the President.

And so, I can share that. But I also want to be really careful, because we do want to keep our commitment in keeping these conversations private. And that includes the atten- — the attendees.

Q But that was the first time though that the President has interacted with anybody who had been on the ground, correct?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is didn’t go — I have not checked in on — on that. Right? I want to be really care- —

Q Not since (inaudible)? Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no. But I think three doctors coming to the meeting the other day — yesterday and laying out their first account, I think that’s important, right? So, we’re able to share that information with you: three doctors who were — who’ve been in Gaza, and they we- — shared directly with the President what they have seen on the ground. That matters, right? It’s — so, want to be very clear about that.

Look, we are going to continue to keep our commitment in hearing from folks in the communities who have been directly affected by this. That’s been our commitment from very early on.

We understand how painful this is for many. We understand how important it is to hear directly from Americans. This is what the President wants to do. He’s the president for all Americans. He has said that continuously on any issue.

And on this issue, it is important to do that as well.

Q And then, yesterday, you got a question that said the President had been briefed on this avian flu outbreak. I’m wondering has — is the President going to designate any sort of coordinator at the White House or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — for the federal government to manage those (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m glad that you asked that question, because we do have a couple of things to share with all of you. The President has been briefed. I think I may have sa- — shared that yesterday as well.

Look, the health and safety of American public is very serious. We take that very seriously. Our top priority, obviously, is to keep communities healthy, safe, and informed.

What we were able to do is the White House — immediately, the White House stood up a response team with relevant agencies — like the CDC, FDA, USDA — to ensure that we are doing everything in our power to ensure we keep communities healthy, safe, and informed; ensure that our nation’s food supply remains safe; and monitor any and all trends to mitigate risk and prevent the spread of avian flu.

We are also in regular touch with those relevant agencies and receiving daily updates because, again, we take that very seriously.

And this is an issue — when you think about the avian flu, this is — public experts, health experts, and agencies have been preparing for this for decades — for 20 years now.

And so, we have invested the ability to test, the ability to prevent and to treat. And so, as CDC said themselves, right now, the risk to human health from this outbreak is low. But we want to keep it that way, which is why we set up this — this immediate response team.

And so, we’re going to monitor — continue to monitor, and — and we’re going to look for all the relev- — relevant trends as it relates to the avian flu. And we want to make sure that we keep all Americans safe.

Thank you for the question. I think it’s important.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q Karine, if Speaker Johnson were to put some form of Ukraine aid on the floor and a lawmaker, say Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, then moves to oust him, would the White House, would the President support Democrats working to keep him as Speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’ve always been very ca- — very, very careful when it comes to leadership. And we have always said, when it comes to picking the Speaker, picking the Leader in the Senate, we want to let Congress deal with that. We want — in this case, it’s something that House Republicans have to decide on. That’s something that — that Leader Jeffries and his caucus have to decide on. We are not going to weigh in on that. We’ve been very consistent over the past three years, and we stand by that.

Q Any recent contact with the Speaker’s office that you can read out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to read out to you at this time. Obviously, our Office of Leg Affairs is in constant communication with congressional members on the Hill.

And I do want to just say — and we’ve been pretty consistent about this — when it comes to the national security supplemental that i- — includes all important Ukrainian aid. We believe that there’s bipartisan — there continues to be bipartisan support in Congress. The Speaker needs to put that on the floor. He needs to make sure that — that he gives House members an opportunity to vote for that. We believe it would get overwhelming support.

And we have to remember there are lives at stakes — there are live at stake here in — in Ukraine. And the brave people of Ukraine need the assistance from the U.S. to continue to fight for their democracy. That’s what we’ve been able to do for more than two years. We got to continue that.

And because of congressional inaction, we have — sadly, have seen that, you know, they’re — them — the Ukrainians — losing ground in the battlefield. And so, we believe: Put it out on the floor — Sp- — the Speaker needs to do that; let the con- — congressional members vote on it. We think it’ll get overwhelming support — 72-29 coming out of the Senate for that national security supplemental. It got to move. It has to move; lives are at stake here.

Go ahead.

Q Karine, was the President briefed yesterday or did he see the comments by José Andrés in his interview with Reuters?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s aware. He’s aware. He’s been — he’s been briefed, and he’s aware by the comments.

Look, you saw the President — we — we put that in the s- — in his statement. Obviously, he — we made sure that it was in his statement how he felt about his relationship, his friendtr- — friendship with Chef — Chef Andrés.

They — he considers him a friend. He sees him as a hero in everything that he has done — not just in Gaza but across the globe in feeding — in feeding people who are in need — the humanitarian assistant that he provides. We have said the — the op-ed that he wrote is incredibly powerful. And he — you know, that — the first couple of words out of his statement yesterday was “outrage” and “heartbroken.” Seven people died.

Q Is he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Outrage and heart- — heartbroken.

Q Is he concerned about the discrepancy, though, between how Chef Andrés described a deliberate attack on his workers versus what the White House and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah —

Q — Israel have said in terms of describing that attack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, there’s an investigation — ongoing investigation; we’re going to let that investigation move forward. And we certainly — I think we all can understand how heartbroken Chef José Andrés is at this moment. We understand that. We are mourning with him. We are mourning with the families that lost their loved ones. So, we can be sensitive to that.

But as it relates to making any declarative statement, we have to make sure that this investigation moves forward, and it is. And we will see where that takes us.

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q Thanks, Karine. The presidents of — the par- — parents, rather, of Jacob Flickinger, who is the American citizen who was killed in the World Central Kitchen strike — they said this morning they haven’t heard from anyone in the U.S. government, except for that first day when they got a notification from the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. Does the President or anyone else at the White House plan to reach out to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have a readout for you at this time.

Look, we’ve been always very clear about this, that our hearts — and I just said this to Jeff — our hearts go out to the families. It is tragic — tragic. We send our deepest, deepest condolences, obviously, to the family of Jacob.

And, you know, he and the World — World Centra- — Central Kitchen workers were doing heroic work, as I just mentioned, and what happened — what happened on the ground as they were doing that heroic work in Gaza is tragic. It’s devastating. It’s heartbreaking.

And we just don’t have any additional calls to read out right now. I expect members of the administration to be in touch with the — with the family to express our — our condolences directly. Just don’t have any — anything to read out at this time.

But obviously, our hearts go out to all the families who lost — who lost some- — who lost someone they loved.

Q And several Democrats are now calling for an independent investigation into what happened here. Is the White House open to changing its position on this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to let Israeli — the Israeli government do their investigation and see where that takes us. Don’t want to get ahead of that. They’re doing an investigation.

We have said we want it to be comprehensive. We want it to be — make sure there — it — that it has accountability. We want it to be swift, obviously. And we want it to be public. So, don’t want to get ahead of that — let that process move forward. And we’ll see where we are from there.

Okay. Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. So, yesterday, John Kirby said that the U.S. would not consider a shift in their policy towards Israel until they finished their review of the World Central Kitchen strike. And just now, he said that the U.S. may consider a change if they don’t make changes in Gaza within hours and days. So, where is that — where is that shift coming from?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think it’s — we’re talking about that — the conversation that happened today with the President, as we have said, was very direct, it was productive, it was professional — a 30-minute conversation. And it was based on humanitarian aid; protecting aid workers, which is really important; protecting civilians. And that’s what the conversation was primarily about.

And what we have said — it’s in the readout — that we want to see measurable changes to protect those aid workers, to protect civilian lives. And so, that is what is — he was talking about. That’s what he — the President laid out in — in the statement that we put out. You heard that from Secretary Blinken today.

And I think that’s the way that we want to make sure that we’re — you know, we want b- — be very clear about that. We want to see measurable changes to how humanitarian aids workers are protected. That’s what the conversation was about, and that’s the changes that we want to see the Israeli government present. That’s what he was talking about in the days to come.

Q Yeah. And if I could just get one more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q Yesterday, Benny Gantz, the Israeli War Cabinet Minister, called for Israel to hold early elections by September. Where does the White House stand on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re not going to — we’re not going to get involved in the Israeli government or any government’s elections. That is something for them to decide on. It’s not coming from here.

Go ahead.

Q I have a question about electric vehicles. Ford said today it’s delaying production on an electric SUV. Tesla earlier this week said that its sales are plunging. Do these types of developments make the administration rethink their EV policy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. Look, you know, when it comes to EV sales, they are reaching record highs. EVs are more affordable than ever, and that’s because of the work that this administration has done. Last year, EV sales surpassed 1 million for the first time ever. That’s a 50 percent increase. That matters.

Under President Biden, EV sales have more than quadrupled. Sales of hybrids and EVs are now a record high of 18 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales. Average price of an EV is down 20 percent from just a year ago — just one year ago.

So, we believe that this is part of — well, I should say, the President has always said that he wants to make sure we do everything that we can to lower cost, lower prices — this is part of that — and also do eve- — all — everything that we can to deal with a climate crisis. And this is part of that.

Q So, is it realistic to go from about 7 or 8 percent of sales to 50 percent of sales in eight years if the automakers themselves are cutting back prod- — on production?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We believe — and we have seen that — that U.S. manufact- — U.S. manufacturing jobs have increased. Jobs have indeed increased. And when you see so- — a boom like this, that means you need autoworkers, right? It can’t happen on its own.

And so, we — we believe this is working. We believe this is part of what the President has promised. And we want to see a manufacturing industry that’s for the future of this — of this country, and that’s what we’re seeing. And that’s what the President is work — working towards.

Q And a question about yesterday’s call with President Xi. If President Biden is concerned enough about TikTok to bring it up on a call with the President of China, why is he and why is the Vice President — why are they still making videos for TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s coming out of the campaign, so I would refer you to the ca- —

Q But — but they’re —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Wait, that’s —

Q — doing the videos.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I understand. It is the campaign’s decision. I would refer you to the campaign.

We have been very clear: We are not trying to ban TikTok. We’re not trying to ban TikTok. We’re talking about a divestment. You heard that from the National Security Advisor when he has been here a couple of times at the podium speaking to TikTok and the legislation and how we’re trying to move forward. It is a — it is a platform that we really need to take seriously here. We’re talking about our national security.

And so, we’ve talked about not banning, divesting — not banning, divesting. So, I want to be very clear about that.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thanks, Karine. There’s a report from Bloomberg that the White House — specifically Jeff Zients and Lael Brainard — are calling major Baltimore employers, including Amazon and Home Depot, encouraging them to not cut jobs in the wake of the bridge collapse. Can you confirm that that outreach is happening and other outreach like that? And what is the message from the administration to those big companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things that — and I think I’ve read this out before — that we have been doing as it relates to sup- — supply chain and the potential economic impact. The President’s Supply Chain Dis — Distribution Task Force has convened multiple times at this point to analyze the impact of supply chains, which has so far been manageable, which is important. The task force worked with railroads to set up new service lines and with ports and ocean carriers to divert vessels.

The SBA — the Small Business Administration — has made low-interest disaster loan assistance available to eligible businesses and set up business recovery centers to help on the ground.

As it relates to your question about Chief — the Chief — Chief of Staff Zients and other senior White House officials, they have had — they have called major employers in the Baltimore area, including retail chains and distributors, to encourage them to retain workers. So, we wanted to make sure that we’re having those important conversation for the people of Baltimore, obviously.

They’re also working with SBA to reach out to small businesses and are in touch with local unions alongside the Labor Department as well.

So, we’re going to do everything we can to have these conversations with stakeholders so that we can identify any — and address any potential disruptions.

And so, we — if anything, this should show that this is an adminis- — administration that’s being active. And we’re being proactive, obviously, in trying to make sure that — that we deal with any potential economic impact.

Right now, as I said at the top, we see this being manageable. And this is why the — these — these conversations are critical with stakeholders at this — this point.

Q And will the President have any update tomorrow for state and local officials about Congress moving forward on the funding package?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to get ahead of — of the President. He — as you know, he’s going to be there on the ground. We’ll certainly have more to share later tonight. I — as I mentioned at the top, he’s going to have an opportunity to engage with family members. We lost — as you know, we lost lives on that night. And the President, as he does — he understands what it means for people to have loss. He’ll be there for those families, just like he’ll certainly be there for the people of Baltimore.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Emily.

Q Thanks, Karine. I had a question about the state dinner next week.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q I saw the White House announced today the dinner itself is going to be held in the East Room. And I was just curious: The last state dinner was held on a tent on the South Lawn.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Was the East Room chosen out of concern that protesters who have been —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — coming after to the President might be shouting out —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — past the South Lawn and (inaudible) the atmosphere?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No at all. We’ve — we’ve — it’s not the — it’s not the first state dinner that’s been held in the East Room. I believe, if I’m remembering correctly, South Korea was held in the East Room. So, I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Okay. I’m going to take one more.

Q Karine — it’s been a while, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q I appreciate you calling me, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have thoughts, but I’m going to keep my thoughts to myself. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, go ahead. Go ahead.

Q I’d like to ask you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I appre- — you are correct. It’s been a while. So, go ahead.

Q Well, thank you. I’d like to ask you about press freedom and then about a significant White House personnel matter.

About press freedom —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — our government appears to be closer to potentially extraditing Julian Assange. Press freedom groups say that the case threatens to criminalize our profession. So, I’m wondering what the White House’s thinking is regarding that matter and the potential threat to press freedom. And does the White House have a stance on the pending federal press shield legislation that passed the House and that Senator Schumer told me he hopes reaches President Biden’s be- — desk this year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re — you’re talking about the PRESS Act, more specifically?

Q Yes. Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, and I said this — I’ve said this many times. I said this last week — where journalism is not a crime. We’ve been very clear about that.

And as it relates to this particular legislation, I haven’t reviewed it. Would have to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs on that particular legislation.

But I do want to say, back in October of 2022, the Justice Department codified a policy to ban subpoenas of journalist records.

The President strongly supports the right of free and independent press. That is something that the President talked about when he was at the Gridiron. The President talked about this at the last White House Correspondents Dinner. He has been very consistent about this.

And I’ll just quote him for a second: A free press is “a pillar of any free society.” And while we may not always agree with certain coverage or admire it, we do admire the courage of the free press. Journalism, again, is not a crime.

Q Before moving on, just to confirm. No stance yet on the PRESS Act that you’re aware of? And the Assange matter — is there a concern about that and its implications?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, I don’t have much more to share beh- — besides what I just laid out here. So, I’ll just leave it as what I just stated to you.

Q He’s been in prison five years.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I understand. I hear — I hear — I heard the question. I’m just not going to go beyond from what I just stated.

Q And on the personnel matter, I’d like to ask you about my reporting on Anthony Bernal, who is one of the most powerful figures in this White House. The First Lady reportedly refers to him as her “work husband.” Three former colleagues have made allegations of sexual harassment against him, building on prior reports of bullying. Some of these sources have worked with you. I — I think you’d find them credible. But Chief of Staff Zients issued a statement dismissing the allegations as “unfounded attacks” without even investigating them, which my sources say they’re alarmed about, because they say it could —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q — chill sexual harassment and bullying reports.

How can the White House potentially — or possibly justify not invest- — investigating these allegations when the President says he will fire people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. I don’t know who your sources are, so I can’t — I — just, with all due respect, I can’t speak to that. Right? I — I just don’t. I mean, they’re blind sources. I can’t speak to that.

What I can speak to is: You saw our statement from our Chief of Staff, Jeffrey Zients, saying they are unfounded. You saw a very strong statement from Anthony himself. It was in your — obviously, in your reporting. And he said the same.

And I cannot speak to personnel investigations here or anything like that. That is not something I will ever speak to. And I’m not saying there is one. I’m just saying that I will never sp- — I cannot speak to that. And that’s not something I can do.

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But — hold on. I have known Anthony for some time now. I have known him for more than a decade. I’ve worked closely with him. And I consider him a friend but also a colleague that I respect. And that’s basically what you also heard from Jeffrey Zients.

I just don’t have anything else to share beyond your reporting. I — I’m —

Q I’ve just got to press you on this, though —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, w- —

Q — because the President said he would —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — I don’t —

Q — fire people for disrespecting colleagues.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything — but —

Q And there’s no investigation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But I just laid — I just said to you that they have said themselves — Jeffrey Zients and also Anthony Bernal — that they are unfounded.

I can’t speak to your sources. Those are your sources to speak to. I cannot. But no —

Q Does Bernal’s special status come from the First Lady shielding him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Steve — Steven —

Q — as some sources believe?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’ve answered the question. I’ve answered the question.

Bernal — Anthony Bernal spoke for himself. You heard from our Chief of Staff — our Chief of Staff — and gave your publication a statement, obviously. And you’ve heard from me. I — I’m — I don’t have a —

Q Is there not going to be a chilling effect, though, on —

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

Q — people who have suffered sexual harassment or bullying?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: S- — I don’t have anything else to share on that.

With — so we don’t end in that way —

(Cross-talk.)

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

Q Thanks.

Q Real quick. I guess I want to just clean up something that you have spoken to today. Would you car- — categorize the conversation with Netanyahu that we’ve been told about all day long — was it an ultimatum? Did we deliver an ultimatum (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. I mean, look —

Q Was it a shot across the bow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait, hol- — it was — it was a direct conversation. It was a honest conversation. It lasted 30 minutes, as you heard from my colleague.

And we have said these many times before — you’ve heard this from us; you’ve heard this from the President himself: The — the Prime Minister and this President have known them — known each other for decades. And because they have known each other for some time, they have been able to have a direct and honest conversation.

And so, after what we saw — especially with seven — you know, seven lives taken from the — who were part of the World Central Kitchen workers — right? — who were doing heroic — heroic acts, providing humanitarian aid — you know, after what we saw — and you heard from the President: He was outra- — he was outraged. He was heartbroken. He wanted to have this direct conversation on how to keep humanitarian aid workers safe, protected — and also civilians — innocent civilians.

And that conversation has been happening for some time, and so — on protecting innocent civilian lives. I mean, that’s one of the reasons, as I stated moments ago, why he wanted to make sure that his team and the Prime Minister’s team came together to talk about their Rafah — potential Rafah operations, because he believes that we need to protect civilian lives and a major — major military operation was not the way to go, understanding that th- — there are Hamas operatives in Rafah. But we have to make sure that we protect innocent lives here.

So, they had a very direct conversation. That is — that is because they’ve known each other for many decades.

All right, everybody. Thank you so much.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ll see you — hopefully, we’ll see some of you in Baltimore tomorrow.

3:13 P.M. EDT

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

12:58 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

 Q Good afternoon.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  I have one thing at the top, and then we’ll get into Q&A. 

 I’ll start by sharing some more information on the President’s — on the President’s event earlier today with Senator Bernie Sanders.

 Twenty-seven million Americans have asthma, including 4 million kids.  The reality is, the price of inhalers is way too high for too many Americans.

 Families can pay anywhere between $200 and $600 for inhalers without insurance, despite the fact that it costs less than five bucks to make an inhaler.

 That is why, last year, the Federal Trade Commission and the FDA announced efforts to crack down on falsely claimed patents and increase competition of inhalers to lower costs.

 As a result of this administration’s actions, one inhaler manufacturer removed patents from a regulatory list.

 Last month, three of the four largest inhaler manufacturers announced that they will cap the cost of inhalers for many patients at 35 bucks per month.

 This is on the top of our work — this is on top of our work to lower the cost of prescription drugs through the President’s Inf- — Inflation Reduction Act, which every single congressional Republican opposed.

 Thanks to the law, Medicare can now negotiate lower drug prices for American families.

 But President Biden wants to expand those efforts by applying the $2,000 cap on prescription drug costs and 35 bucks for insulin to all Americans.

 This work to deliver lower healthcare costs is in stark contrast to what congressional Republicans have proposed.  They are still working to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act and gut Medicaid.  And they just released a budget that would lead to devastating cuts to Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, increased housing costs and prescription drug costs for families, and huge giveaways for the wealthy and the biggest corporations.

 President Biden has been clear: This will not happen on his watch.  The Biden-Harris administration will continue working with partners, like Bernie Sanders, to de- — to deliver results for the American people.

 With that — all right.  Good to see you. 

 Q Hi.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good to see you.

 Q Thank you.  Good to see you too.  Two questions, starting with the earthquake in Taiwan.  Has the government there asked for anything yet from the United States?  And will the U.S. coordinate with China if Taiwan does request any kind of assistance?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is that we continue to closely monitor the earthquake impacting Taiwan.  And we certainly pray for all those who are affected.  And we are — we are — we are standing by — the United States is standing by on the ready for any necessary assistance.  I don’t have anything else to provide beyond that.  But we’re closely monitoring, and we are ready to assist.

 Q Is there any reason to believe at this point that the earthquake will affect the visits next week by the leaders of Japan and the Philippines for the summit?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have any change of schedule.

 QAnd then, lastly — sorry, I know I said two, but I have a third.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s okay.  It’s all right, Darlene.

 QDoes the President think the meeting he had last night with Muslim leaders was useful?  And is there any reaction or comment on a Palestinian American doctor walking out in the middle of that meeting?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say a couple of things just at the top about last night and how important it is.  As you know, the President and the Vice President — they continued their tradition of honoring the Muslim community during Ramadan by hosting a meeting with Muslim community leaders to discuss issues of importance to the community. 

 Let’s not forget, this is a — the sit-down conversation, the meeting was asked and it was supposed — it’s supposed to be private.  They wanted a private meeting.  That was something that, as we have done our outreach — as you know, senior White House officials have been doing this outreach.  The President and the Vice President have been in communication with the community regularly since October.  And this is something that they asked — they asked for a private meeting — a working meeting, if you will. 

 And so, we understand what’s — how this community is feeling.  It is deeply painful moment for many in the Arab and Muslim communities. 

 The President also expressed his commitment to continue working to secure an immediate ceasefire as part of a deal to free the hostages and significantly increase humanitarian aid into Gaza.  And the President made clear that he mourns the loss of every innocent life in this conflict, Palestinian and Israeli.

 The President and Vice President committed — are committed to continue engaging with these leaders moving forward.  As I mentioned, we have had regular engagement with members of those communities.

 As it relates to the — the part of the question that you just asked me about a participant walking out, look, I want to be really careful here.  We said that we would keep this — these conversations private.  So, I’m not going to continue — I’m not going to comment on a — any private discussions.

 But as I said many times from this podium, the President respects an American — any American’s right to peacefully protest.  And we’re going to continue to have these conversations, obviously, with that community. 

 Go ahead, Nancy.

 Q Thank you.

 Q Thanks, Karine.  How did the White House decide who would attend the iftar dinner?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is — want to be careful here.  You know, this meeting, again, was decided, after we had done the outreach for some time now.  We wanted to make sure that this was a private meeting and that participants had an opportunity to be — you know, to be — to be honest and to be able to share their thoughts and feelings about how — you know, how — where they are, how they feel about the situation happening, obviously, in the Middle East.

 I don’t have a — a process to lay out how the list came about, and so I, you know, don’t have anything to — to lay out in that realm. 

But as you know and as I’ve — as I’ve stated a couple of times, we’ve done outreach for this past several weeks, several months to the Muslim, to the Arab community, Palestinian community and — and heard from them directly.  And they spoke; we listened.  And we hope that they feel like they had an opportunity to express themselves and had an opportunity, in front of the President and the Vice President, to talk about an incredibly painful time.

 Q Was last night the President’s first opportunity to speak face to face with someone who had been on the ground providing aid in Gaza?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I can’t speak to the different — the different leaders who have been in this meeting.  It is a private meeting.  We want to make sure that we give folks the opportunity to feel that they have some — you know, some — that they know that they can speak and — and just be clear to us and — and have that — and be — know that it is — those conversations are in confidence. 

 So, don’t want to read out who’s been in the meeting or — or any specifics in that realm.  I’m going to let them — I’m going to let folks who — if folks who attended want to speak to that and — they can.

 What I can say is we’ve had multiple conversations, whether it’s senior — senior officials from the White House, whether it’s this pra- — this President.  We — not all conversations we — we, obviously, read out.  We keep o- — we try to keep these private conversations in private. 

 I don’t have a list of — of folks of — of, you know, who — who they are or where they come from, if they’ve been to Gaza.  That is something I want to be super mindful of. 

 Q What was the President’s reaction to the fact that the doctor decided to leave the dinner?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s very — very similar to what I said to Darlene.  The President respects — he respects, you know, any individual, any American, for them to peacefully protest.  He understands that this is a — a painful moment for — for many Americans across the country. 

 And so, he respects their — their freedom to peacefully protest.  I don’t have anything — you know, I don’t anything outside of that.  They have a right to peacefully protest.  And we’re going to continue to respect that.

 Go ahead, Jordan.

 Q Thanks, Karine.  Do you — does the administration expect there to be an emergency funding package for the Key Bridge in Baltimore to be announced before the President visits the city on Friday? 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, the Department of Transportation just last week announced $60 million to be able to put forward in — in — in building — having to rebuild that bridge.  I don’t have anything outside of — of additional funding. 

 The President has been very, very clear: He wants to make sure that we — we make the community of Baltimore whole again.  And he has said that the federal government will cover — will certainly cover the bridge being built. 

 Our focus right now, outside of the — rebuilding that bridge, is making sure that the ports are open, making sure that we continue to do that recovery, clean out — clean out that area. 

 And so, that’s been the focus.  The President is going to go on Friday.  He will see himself.  We’ll have more information of — of what’s — what’s going on on the ground.  But he gets regular updates, you know, and I think that’s important as well. 

 Our hearts go out to the lives that were lost during that — that evening — or that early morning.  It’s a sad — obvi- — sad, sad news.  And we are with the families who are mourning — who are mourning their lost ones at this time. 

 QAnd then on Ukraine.  The White House issued a statement yesterday that was dismissive of Speaker Johnson’s idea to tie that package to the policy banning future LNG exports.  You know, it said that the President wants the aid package passed right away —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q– and that you support the LNG export ban.  But can you clarify whether that means you’re — you’re ruling out that proposal from Speaker Johnson?  Like, is that off the table or — or is this something that you might consider down the road?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we’ve been very clear, right?  We’ve been very clear.  The reporting, we have said — as you said, from our statement — is not true.  We’ve been really clear about House Republicans should pass the bipartisan national security agreement that already pla- — passed with overwhelming support out of the Senate — 70 to 29.  You’ve heard me say that many times before.

 We need to make sure Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.  We’re going to continue to be clear about that. 

 And there is a way to get Ukraine what they need.  All the Speaker has to do is put that national security supplemental on the floor. 

 The President supports the pause on pending — which is on pending ob- — obviously, additional approvals of L- — LNG export licenses to evaluate the economic and climate impacts on consumers and communities.  He supports that pause. 

 And there is a way — there is a way to deal with what Ukrainians are fighting for right now.  They’re fighting for their democracy.  They’re fighting for their freedom against the aggression of Mr. Putin.  There’s a way to get them the assistance that they need, and that is to pass that bipartisan — we believe that would be a bipartisan support — national security supplemental that got bipartisan support.

 If he puts it on the floor, we know — we know for a fact that Republicans will vote for it.  We know where Democrats stand.  He needs to put that on the floor. 

 Go ahead, Gabe.

 Q Karine, the meeting yesterday was a scaled-back event, as we understand it.  What does — or how troubling is it to the White House that prominent Arab American leaders are declining to come to the White House?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, you know, want to be really clear.  And we’ve been saying this many times before.  Number one, we’ve don- — we’ve done these outreach.  We listened.  The community wanted to have what we thought — change the format, do a meeting where it was a working meeting.  We respected that.  We listened to them and we had a working meeting.  And so, want to be really respectful of that. 

 And, look, we understand it’s a very painful time.  We understand that.  And we respect that. 

 And so, look, I — I can’t speak to individuals who want to attend, not want to attend.  That’s for them to speak to.  The President is going to continue to — and his administration, obviously — senior officials are going to continue to have these conversations.  We’re going to continue to listen to the community.  That’s what a president does.  And that’s what this President will — will continue to do. 

 Q I know the President spoke with Chef José Andrés.  Does the President agree with Chef Andrés that Israel is using food as a weapon?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we understand how Chef Andrés is feeling.  Right?  He just lost members of his team — I’m sure who felt like family to him as well.  The op-ed was very powerful.  What he does is heroic — not just in Gaza, around the world — providing food, providing that essential humanitarian assistance. 

 And we — you know, you heard from the President last night in his statement.  He — it is — he’s outraged, and he’s heartbroken.  We are all heartbroken here by those seven lives lost. 

 And so, we are going to continue to mourn with them — with — with the — with Chef José Andrés and, obviously, the families. 

 I’m just not going to — he’s going to speak for himself.  We are very clear about where we stand.  I think the President’s statement was incredibly powerful, impactful, and really, truly lays out where — how he feels about the current situation. 

 Q And on another topic, Karine.  How worried is the White House about bird flu?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, this is something that we are certainly monitoring.  We have been — CDC has been certainly working on — on top — working — working and focusing on this.  You know, we take health and safety of the American people seriously.  It is very important to this President.  Our top priority is to keep communities healthy, safe, and informed. 

 We are closely tracking this, monitoring this, as I just stated, of the reports that are out there and have active, relevant agencies to coordinate with and support local authorities. 

 The CDC has said the risk to human health from this outbreak is low.  They are continuing to monitor and will continue to coordinate with relevant agencies and officials.  This is — when it comes — again, when it comes to the public health of the American people, we take that very seriously.  And we’ll continue to track this. 

 Q And, finally, what’s the White House’s response to some on the left who think that Justice Sotomayor should retire so that the President could appoint her replacement?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’ve been asked this question before here at the podium.  And when it comes to those types of decision — decisions, those are personal decisions.  That is — regardless if it’s Justice Sotomayor or any other Just- — Justice on the bench, that is for them to make.  That is a decision for that Justice to make. 

 Again, it’s a personal decision.  That is not something that we get involved in.  But it is something for, obviously, any Justice on the bench — they are — they should be given the space and the freedom to make that decision.  I — I don’t have anything else to say beyond that.

 Go ahead, Selina.

 Q Thanks, Karine.  How is Israel going to conduct that investigation into the strike that killed those World Central Kitchen aid workers?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we — you heard from the President last night.  You heard from my colleague at — from the National Security Council yesterday and also earlier today. 

 I think the President’s statement was very, very strong — right? — very straightforward.  He wants to — he wants to see a — a investigation that’s swift, an investigation that’s comprehensive, that has — that brings accountability.  And he wants to make sure that it is made public. 

 We leave it to, obviously, the Israeli government to do that investigation.  But we want to make sure that it’s swift, it’s comprehensive, that it’s made public.  And it is important.  We need to get to — certainly get to the bottom of exactly what happened. 

 Q Can you explain what that would entail, a kind of investigation like this?  This is a strike that happened in an active warzone.  Can you give us some detail on what it looks like?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, IDF said they have an ongoing investigation.  It’s underway.  I think that’s important. 

We’ve called for this investigation to happen.  I think that’s important.  We wanted to see it happen in a swift manner.  We want to make sure that the findings are public and that there is accountability. 

 I want to be ma- — very careful here.  I’m not going to get ahead of that process.  There is a process underway.  I believe my NSC colleague mentioned that they have some initial findings.  It’s preliminary. 

 And so, that process is going to continue.  I’m going to let that process go underway and — and — and let — let the Israeli government speak to that.

 Q Right.  But for the sake of transparency, can you explain what that process is and if the U.S. is confident in that process?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re not — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  I’m not going to get into that partic- — a particular process here. 

We want to see something that is comprehensive, we want to see something that leads to accountability, we want to see it be swift, and we want to make sure that it is made available to the public. 

 That’s what — that’s what the Israeli government — that’s what Prime Minister Netanyahu said he’s going to do.  And we’re going to let that process flow.  We’re going to let that process happen. 

 Q So, Kirby said earlier today that they’re hoping to get in the books a meeting in person next week with an Israeli delegation. 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q Can you provide any more details on that and who might come?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to provide any details on that.  What I can say is — basically, from the readout, is that the expectation is to have a meeting in person.  I think it was important that there was a virtual meeting that occurred, obviously, on Monday to talk about the Rafah operations. 

 We’ve been very clear where we stand on this — very clear.  We believe there has to be alternative ways to deal with Hamas in — in Gaza.  As we are — specifically in — in Rafah, a military operation in — we believe is not the way to move forward. 

 There is a active conversations happening with the Israeli government and obviously our government, and I think that’s important. 

 I’m not going to go into details from here.  As you — as you heard from us, as you heard from my colleague, there’s going to be hopefully next week an in-person meeting, and we’re looking forward to continuing those really critical, important conversations.

 Go ahead.

 Q Do you anticipate any changes to the President’s policy toward Israel and Gaza as a result of yesterday’s strike?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I can say that nothing has changed, and we’ve been clear about that since — certainly, since yesterday.  We are going to continue to have those really tough conversations — right? — important, tough conversations about how Israel — Israel moves forward with their operation. 

 We want to make sure that civilians are kept safe, that — are protected — and also folks who are providing humanitarian aid.  The President was very, very clear. 

 He also said in his statement that Israel needs to do more.  We’ve been very clear about that as well.  We’re going to continue to have those conversation with our Israel cou- — counterparts. 

 And — and, look, your — you know, this is important to this President.  But I will also add: That’s why the hostage deal is so critical.  That’s why the President has been working 24/7 along with his — with his team to get that hostage deal done. 

 And if we get a hostage deal, it means that we can get more humanitarian aid into Israel — I’m sorry, into Gaza — pardon me — and also means that we get to a — a ceasefire — we get into a ceasefire so that we can get that aid in, so that we can get, also, hostages home.  So, that is what we’re going to continue also to work on.

 Q Do you have a progress report on that hostage deal?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a progress report.  You saw in the President’s statement that his team continues to have those conversation in Cairo right now.  That is important. 

 And he — you know, we — we — wish I can — I wish I can stand here today and say there’s a deal.  But those conversations continue. 

We’re — we have made this a priority.  This President has made this a priority to get that hostage deal.  It’s important to get those hostages home to their family.  It’s important to get that humanitarian aid and with a — you know, leading to a ceasefire. 

 Go ahead.

 Q Just one more follow-up on the meeting yesterday.  Dr. Ahmad said that he had handed the President a letter from an eight-year-old orphan girl who is living in Rafah.  Has the President read that letter? 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful here.  I’m not going to speak to contents of a private meeting.  Just not going to do that from here. 

 The doctor speaks for himself.  He’s free to do that.  But we have said we’re going to keep these meetings private so that we gave folks who attended the meeting the — you know, the opportunity to be honest, the opportunity to make sure to have a safe place to share their thoughts with us.  So, I’m just not going to read out a content of a me- — a private meeting.

 Q Well, since he chose himself to publicly disclose that he had shared this letter and the contents of that letter with the media, can you say whether the President has read it?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to speak to any content of the — of a private meeting.  That is something that many members who attended — all of them, truly, who attended wanted to — this to be private.  We’re going to keep — we’re going to keep our side to this — our side of the promise. 

 Q This letter, in part, says, “I beg you, President Biden, stop them from entering Rafah.”  Without getting into his reaction — potential reaction to that, does the White House believe that Israel entering Rafah is something that President Biden can stop?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re having conversations — important conversations.  The first one happened virtually.  And, actually, last we- — last week, when the Israeli Foreign Minister was here, obviously, we had a conversation — Jake Sullivan, Secretary Austin, and others had conversations — and that involved the Rafah oper- — operations or Rafah more broadly.  And so, it started then.  There was a virtual conversation on Monday, and it’s going to continue.

Our hope that we can get to a place where we are indeed protecting innocent civilian lives in Rafah.  You heard — you’ve heard my colleagues talk about there’s more than 1 million Palestinians there who ha- — who sought refuge, who are there seeking refuge.  And so, we want to make sure that their lives are protected. 

We know that there are Hamas operators there in Rafah.  And so, we want to make sure that Israel is able to, you know, do what it needs to do in getting — in getting those operators, but it is important — Hamas operators, to be more exact — but it is important that we protect those civilian lives — we protect those lives. 

So, those conversations are happening, we’re hoping to see — we’re expecting — I shouldn’t say “hoping” — expecting that it’ll happen in person next week.  And that’s what we’re going to work towards. 

Q And just on the President’s visit to Baltimore on Friday.  Do you know if he is going to the actual site of the collapsed bridge, and would he be willing to meet with family members of the workers that were killed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I know there is a lot of interest in the President’s trip on Friday.  The President obviously is very much looking forward to going to Baltimore, being there for the — for the people of Baltimore. 

You heard him say he’s going to be there for as long as it takes to make sure that we make them whole again.  We’ll have more to share on what that day — what Friday is going to look like in the upcoming day or so. 

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine.  So, what is the accountability that the U.S. wants to see here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, let’s let’s [let] the ongoing investigation happen.  We want to make sure — the President said this — swift.  We want it to — this — it to be swift.  We want it to be — brings to — lead to accountability.  We want it to be comprehensive and to make it public. 

 And so, I’m not going to get ahead of that.  Want to see what — what the Israeli government says when they do this investigation.  Just want to be really mindful about that. 

Q So, you’re not asking for anything specifically to take place?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We want to see the investigation. 

Q Okay.  And the changes — can you detail what changes that the U.S. would like to see Israel make as a result?  And what even makes you think that as a result of these recent deaths that they would make changes when —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look —

Q– they haven’t so far?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I kind of said this earlier, moments ago.  We are going to continue to have those tough conversations with our Israeli counterparts.  We’re going to continue to make very clear that we have to protect innocent civilian lives.  That is something that we want to make sure is a priority. 

As — as Israel is moving forward with the — with their — their operation against Hamas, a terrorist organization, we understand the importance of them doing that, but we want to also make sure that innocent civilians’ life are protected.  And folks who are out there — brave folks — brave people who are out there providing that humanitarian aid, we want to make sure that their lives are protected, those lives are protected. 

We’re going to have those tough, tough conversations as we have been.  And so, that’s part of — this is part of it, right?  This is part of di- — diplomacy.  This is part of having honest, real, frank conversations.

Q And — and in respect to those conversations, John Kirby said earlier today that the White House has made its outrage known about this all the way up to the presidential level.  Aside from the statement that the President released last night, how has the President made his outrage known about this to the Israelis?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I think the statement that he put out was pretty clear.  Right?  I mean, it showed his outrage.  It showed how he was heartbroken.  That’s the first couple of words in the statement.  He’s outraged.  He’s heartbroken. 

And we also laid out what we want to see and the conversations that we have been having.  But it also lifts up the importance of having that hostage deal, getting that done, getting to a ceasefire, getting that humanitarian aid, making sure that those hostages come home to their loved ones. 

So, there’s a lot of work to be done.  We’re going to continue to do that work.  But I think that statement made it loud and clear — made it loud and clear where the President stands. 

Go ahead, Karen.

QThanks.  Just to go back to bird flu.  Two questions on that.  Has the President been briefed on the cases that have been identified so far?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President has been briefed.  Yes.

Q Okay.  And in your answer earlier, you had focused on the health aspect of it.  But the nation’s largest producer of eggs has temporarily stopped production at plants in Texas and Michigan because some chickens had tested positive.  What are the concerns about supply chain issues and price increases?  And is there something the administration can be doing or should be doing right now to limit the potential impact on economic activity?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, any economic impact is something that we closely monitor.  So, we’re going to closely track that, closely monitor the — monitor that.

As it relates to that particular company, I would refer you to CDC on exactly what they’re doing and — and what ha- — what is happening there specifically. 

But we’re always going to assess.  (Reporter sneezes.)  We’re always going to keep a — keep — God bless you — we’re always going to monitor — monitor the economic impacts of any — any big changes like that or any changes like that. 

But, obviously, one of the most important thing for this administration is the health and safety of American public, and so that’s how — we take that very seriously.  That’s how we’re going to operate.  That is the number-one thing here.  And CDC is — is been working with rele- — relevant agencies to make sure that we — we keep the American public protected here.

AIDE:  Karine, you got to go soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hmm?

AIDE:  You need to go soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, my goodness. 

Go ahead.

Q Thank you.  First, the — so, you guys started draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try and help with the Putin price hike a few years ago, said you were going to refill it, but now it doesn’t seem like that’s happening.  Why?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, from — I believe the Department of Energy is — is responsible for — for that particular component — is refilling — refilling that.  So, I would refer you to Department of Energy.  I know there were certain components to that and how they were going to move forward in refilling — refilling it.  I — they would have more specifics on that for you. 

Q Okay.  And why isn’t federal immigration law tougher on border crossers who come here and are accused of serious crimes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, are you speaking of a specific case?

Q There’s the story in New York: an eight-person crew of border crossers found with drugs and guns, six of them now are out on bail.  Does President Biden think policies like that are making the country safer?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be really careful.  That’s an active case.  So, don’t want to comment on an active case. 

But anyone found guilty — and we’ve been very clear about that — anyone found guilty of a crime should be held accountable.  We have been very, very clear about that.  And if a — if a person poses a danger to a community, they should be detained pretrial.

 Q So, more generally, then, do you guys think that some big cities in this country have liberal DAs that are too soft on crime?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I will say is — and I’m not going to speak to every state or city here; I — it’s not for me to speak to — we have been very clear about this: Anyone who commits a crime and is found guilty needs to be held accountable.  That’s what this Pr- — the President believes. 

And we are certainly very much — we welcome local law enforcement support and cooperation in apprehending and removing individuals in this country who pose a risk to our national security or also public safety. 

 If they are found guilty, they should be held accountable.  That’s our — that’s where we stand on this.

 Q In the back, perhaps.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

 Q Yeah, thanks, Karine.  Two questions.  One is you referred to the President being outraged by the strike on aid workers.  And in the past, the President has also referred to indiscriminate bombing.  I — I’m wondering if you can articulate why, thus far, there has been no consequences and — and why there are no consequences.  So, beyond (inaudible) —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be clear: It’s — it’s not me referring to that.  This is the President’s statement.  I’m just lifting up the statement from last night —

 Q Yeah, I understand.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — where he says, “I am outraged and heartbroken” — the first — the first, basically, line — part of the first line of the President’s — President’s statement from last night, and it speaks for itself.  And he talked about how — he talked about how there’s more that needs to be done to protect cin- — innocent civilians in Gaza.

 Q But can you articulate why —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q– there have been no consequences thus far for any types of behavior that the President has been outraged by?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’ve had — we are having conversations with the Israeli government.  We’ve been very clear about that.  Those conversations have been tough.  We’ve been very public about those conversations. 

 On this particular incident, there will be an investigation.  There is an investigation currently happening.  The President has said he wants it to be swift, he wants it to be comprehensive, and he wants to — there — to see accountability, to bring account — account — right? — to bring accountability.  He said that in his statement.  And he wants to make sure that it is public. 

 So, we’re going to let that process move forward.  And, you know, you said it yourself, the President also has been publicly clear here about what — how he feels about what he has seen. 

 We do not want to see innocent civilians die here.  We do not want that.  And we’re going to continue to be clear and have those conversations, from the President on down, with our counterparts in — in the Israeli government. 

 And those conversations are tough.  Right?  You think about Rafah — the Rafah operations.  We’ve been clear about that, how — where we stand: that a military operations is not the way to go.  There are alternative ways of getting those Hamas operators in of- — in Rafah. 

 That’s why we had a meeting — a virtual meeting on Monday.  That’s why we’re going to have an in-person meeting with the Israeli government. 

The person ta- — the President takes this very seriously.  He wants to make sure that innocent civilian lives are protected, including those humanitarian aid workers who are out there.  And yes, he’s outraged and he’s heartbroken by what happened yesterday. 

 And we’re going to have those conversations with the Israeli government, as we have been.  It’s going to continue.

 Q If I can also go back to something that was asked earlier —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q– about the President meeting with any aid workers or anybody who has been inside of Gaza since October 7th.  It is a question I’ve also privately posed to —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q– some of your colleagues, and it feels like a yes-or-no question, whether or not he’s actually met with somebody who’s been inside.  And — and the reason I’m asking is a number of people at the meeting said, to their knowledge, this was the first time the President had actually —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
 Q– spoken to anybody who’s been inside of Gaza since October 7th, and I just wanted —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We- — well, here’s what I can tell you.

 Q– to confirm that.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s met with community leaders who are, obviously, from the Muslim community, the Arab community, Palestinian community.  I would let them speak for themselves on if they’ve been to Gaza. 

 You know, I don’t have any — we don’t have any information to share about that.  We want to be really mindful that the — this meeting and many meetings that we’ve held — had have been private.  We want to respect that. 

 And so, just going to leave it there.  I think what is important, though — like, I understand the question —

 Q I’m saying —

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

 Q– is he getting updates —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.

 Q– from, you know, what the situation tangibly looks like?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — no, I understand.  Right?  I — I get what you’re saying, the — the importance of hearing from folks who have been on the ground in Gaza.  I totally understand that. 

But I think it’s also important that the President is hearing directly from the community — directly from the community who are — some of them are personally affected by what’s happening in Gaza.  Right?

 And so, the fact that senior White House officials are having those conversations — tough conversations is important.  The — the fact that the President has done so as well is important. 

 But I — I hear your question.  But we are also hearing from folks from the community, having these sit-down conversations.

 The community leaders that were here yesterday and met with the President and the Vice President, they asked for a working group conversation, and we listened, and we made that happen.  And the President heard directly from them what they are going through, what they see, how painful it has been for them. 

 So, I think that’s important as well.  We can’t — we can’t not, you know, lift that up as well.

 Go ahead.

 QThank you, Karine.  Just while you’ve been up there, there’s been some reporting that Biden is going to speak to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow.  Can you confirm

— confirm that?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a call to confirm at this time. 

As you know, the President and — and the Prime Minister have spoken several times — more than, I believe, two dozen times — since October 7th.  And — and I’ve said this already: His — both — both administration, both governments talk to each other, their counterparts talk to each other every day.  Just don’t have anything to confirm at this time. 

 Q And on — on Uganda.  A court upheld the anti-LGBTQ law that would mean pri- — prison sentences for people who support gay rights in that country.  I just wanted to see if you have anything from the podium to say about that.  

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, a couple of things.  The announcement that some provisions of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act have been removed by the constitution- — constitutional court is a small and insufficient step towards safeguarding human rights. 

 The United States is deeply concerned about the remaining provisions, which undermine public health, human rights, and Uganda’s international reputation. 

 As the President has said time and time again, no one should have to live in constant fear nor be subjected to violence or discrimination.  It is wrong. 

 We will continue to work to advance respect for human rights for all in Uganda and also around the world. 

 Okay.  I’m going to take a couple more —

 Q I just have one — one question. 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, sure.

 Q Sorry.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

 Q On — just going back to the LNG piece for a moment.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q I think, everybody in this room, we have a sense for how the President personally feels about Ukraine and Ukraine funding, and he’s made it abundantly clear over the course of two years. 

 This LNG temporary pause doesn’t have as high of a ho- — pro- — profile.  And can you give any sense for what it is that the President — why he cares so much about it, whether he has shared with you any sort of deep views that he has on this particular very, kind of, targeted policy?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, look, the pause on the pending approvals of LNG export, it is important.  It’s — and it is important to understand the climate and economic impacts — that’s why it’s so important, right? — of these LNG exports.  And it — and it is the impacts on consumers — right? — the impacts on communities.  And that’s why w- — the President supports these LNG pauses.

 So, we’re going to continue to meet our LNG needs of our allies.  And the temporary pause does not impact current LNG exports.  But there is some- — by having these pauses, it does tell us something that is important to know.  And so, that’s why the President supports it.

 As it relates to what we’ve been hearing from the Speaker — Speaker Johnson, we’ve been very clear: In order to — if we really want to help the people of Ukraine, the brave people of Ukraine, we got to get that national security supplemental done.  He has to put that on the floor.  It will get overwhelming bipartisan support.  We know that to be true.  That’s how we can help the people of Ukraine.

 Q I guess what I’m trying to say: Is the Pr- —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q Is the President personally invested in this ban — or this temporary pause the way he is —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, abs- — I mean, look, when we talk about the existential threat of climate, this is something that the President has said it is — it is incredibly important to deal with this emergency.  And he has done more — taken more robust action than any other president.  This is part of this.  Right?

 And so, the President has been — not just talked about it but has taken action.  So, I would look at this as part of the action that he’s taken to deal with climate — the climate crisis.  And, you know, it is a — it is indeed a crisis.

 When he walked into this administration, he talked about four crises that we had to deal with as — as Americans.  And climate change is not just as Americans, as a world.

 And so, climate crisis was one of them.  And he’s taken action, and he’s going to continue to do that.  And he’s been robust.  He’s — it’s been comprehensive — more than any — any other president.

 Q This just serves as, like, a smaller piece to that —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But it’s —

 Q– larger —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a — I would — I would put it together in that larger piece.  Yes, it’s a smaller piece of the — of, obviously, the — the larger initiative of what we’re trying to do, but it’s also critical.  It’s important. 

 And, look, the reports that are out there, as it relates to Speaker Johnson, they are not true.  We know how — the best way to get assistance for Ukraine is to pass that national security supplemental.  That’s what we want to see.  It’ll — it’ll get done in an — overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way.

 Go ahead.

 AIDE:  Karine, (inaudible).

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

 Q Thanks, Karine.  On the World Central Kitchen strike.  I mean, is there concern that this complicates the temporary pier project that — you know, does it make this effort more challenging?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The pier? 

 Q Mm-hmm.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the Department of Defense will have more — an update on the pier.  We’re going to continue to move forward with that. 

 Look, the President — when the President said he’s going to do everything that he can to get that important humanitarian aid into — into Gaza, in to — to the people — the Palestinian people, innocent civilians here, he meant it. 

 And so, you’ve seen us do the — the airplane drops.  You- — we’re — in a couple of weeks, it’s going to be — we’re going to have that temporary pier.  We’re going to continue to work with Israel to get those trucks in.

 We understand the dire situation that is currently happening in — in Gaza, and we are going to do everything that we can to get that aid in.  This is why the hostage deal is so important.  This is why we’ve been working 24/7 to get that done — get that humanitarian aid, get that ceasefire, and get American — American hostages as well as all hostages home to their loved ones.

 I have to go, but we will see you tomorrow, guys.  Thank you so much.

 Q Thanks, Karine.

 Q Thank you.

   1:36 P.M. EDT

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

10:08 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Sorry we’re running a little bit late.  Kirby was giving us a history lesson.

He has a few things here at the top, and then we’ll get through as many questions as we can.

MR. KIRBY:  Good morning, everybody.  Thank you.  So just two things at the top. 

First, I want to just take a moment to recognize both Croatia and Albania, important NATO Allies that are now celebrating their 15th anniversary as part of the Alliance.

Over the years, both countries have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to the Alliance through concrete commitments to its plans to bolster European security, its missions further afield, and through NATO’s partnership for peace.

Both countries have also stood as leaders in their region, showing other countries of the Western Balkans that their aspiration of NATO membership is achievable.

Finally, as you may have seen, the constitutional court in Uganda partially overturned the Anti-Homosexuality Act today.  The United States is deeply concerned about the remaining provisions of that act, which undermine public health, human rights, and Uganda’s international reputation.  And our concerns are particularly around this language that imposes prison sentences for up to 20 years for, quote, “promoting homosexuality,” unquote, and permitting a life sentence for same-sex conduct.

As the President has said time and time again, no one should have to live in constant fear nor be subjected to violence or discrimination.  It’s just plain wrong. 

We will continue to work to advance respect for human rights for all the people of Uganda and around the world. 

And with that, I think we can take some questions.

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

Q    Hey there, John.  Why shouldn’t we conclude that this was, in fact, a deliberate strike on the World Central Kitchen convoy?

MR. KIRBY:  Steve, why should you or why shouldn’t you?  I didn’t —

Q    Why should we not conclude that this was a deliberate strike?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, I think I would refer you to Israeli authorities, Steve, to speak to what they have learned and — well, what they have said and what they have learned about this.  I won’t speak for IDF operations one way or the other.

As I said yesterday, they’re investigating it, and we have every expectation — we do expect that they will do a thorough job, a swift job, and that they’ll be transparent about it, what they find. 

So all I know is they’ve completed their preliminary investigation.  I think you saw a comment from the Southern Command chief of staff yesterday saying he’s received that and they’re reviewing it.  And it will inform what will become a larger — what they’re calling an independent investigation. 

So I think we need to let them investigate and let them read out their conclusions.

Q    And just two more things, John.  Is the U.S. doing a separate investigation rather than relying on the Israeli version of events?

MR. KIRBY:  No, we have no plans to conduct a separate investigation. 

Q    And lastly, has Jake Sullivan postponed his trip to Saudi Arabia?  And if so, is this the reason why?

MR. KIRBY:  So, Jake was planning to head to the region this week.  That trip has been postponed.  And when we have more on that to speak to, we’ll do that.  He’s recuperating from a cracked rib, and that has affected his ability to travel a bit.

Q    Cracked rib?

MR. KIRBY:  Cracked rib.

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

Q    Hi, John.  President Biden’s statement last night made clear that he believes Israel has not done enough to protect aid workers, and called it a major reason why distributing humanitarian aid has been so difficult.  Will the President ask the Israeli government to take any specific action to rectify what he’s really sort of identified as a core issue? 

And more broadly, is there any sort of expected consequences for Israel as a result of this incident?  Thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, I think we want to see the investigation, and my answer to Steve stands.  We need to see what they find as a result of this incident.  They have already admitted that that they conducted this strike.  They have already publicly said that they’re at fault for this strike.  And they’re working their way through the specific findings and details.  And I think we need to let them finish that work and speak to it themselves. 

So I’m not prepared at this point to speculate about anything we might or might not do.  You know, we’re going to have to wait to see what the investigation says. 

I will say a couple of things.  We are still supporting Israel’s ability to defend itself against this still-viable threat.  And that’s going to continue.

And then, I’m sorry, you had a question at the top that I think I blew off.

Q    Just, specifically, if there is anything that the President would like to see done differently, because the statement last night really sort of identified that they haven’t done enough on protecting aid workers.  So how do you fix that?

MR. KIRBY:  Of course — of course, we want to see them do things differently to prevent civilian casualties.  Absolutely.  And that’s been an ongoing conversation that we’ve been having with them for many months, in terms of being more precise, being more targeted, being more cautious. 

One of the reasons why we plan to have continued conversations with them about Rafah is because we don’t believe that a major ground operation against those Rafah battalions and — I’m sorry, those Hamas battalions in Rafah — is the right approach.  We believe there’s another way to get after that threat, and we want to share with them some of our views on that. 

So, yes, of course we have and will continue to talk to them about how to do things differently, how to do things more efficiently, how to do things more safely, and certainly how to do things in a way that minimizes damage to civilian infrastructure and, of course, civilian lives.

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

Q    Hey there.  On Nippon Steel and the Japanese prime minister’s visit to the White House that’s coming up: John, can you share anything on what we might expect from Kishida on the Nippon Steel deal?  Is the White House hoping for any reassurances on that?  Or can you share anything on what the President might share with Japan about the U.S. Steel situation? Thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, JJ, I’m afraid I’m not going to be very satisfying to you today.  I’m not going to get ahead of that meeting and those discussions.  You’ve seen the President’s comments on the Nippon Steel issue.  I can’t improve upon where his head is in terms of protecting U.S. Steel workers and the American economy. 

But the President is very much looking forward to this state visit.  There is an awful lot of important things to talk about with Prime Minister Kishida.  Certainly, our two economies are on that agenda, and I have no question that issues of economic — economy and trade will come up. 

That said, there’ll be issues to talk about in terms of the security environment, concerns about the DPRK, concerns about aggressive PRC actions.  There’ll be things to talk about in terms of people-to-people exchanges between our two countries.  And quite frankly, there’ll be plenty of opportunities to talk about how we can continue not only our bilateral cooperation with Japan but our trilateral cooperation between Japan and South Korea. 

So, lots on the agenda.  Lots to talk about including, of course, how we can both work together closely with the Philippines. 

So, there’s an awful lot there.  And I think I just don’t want to get too far ahead of a particular item like the Nippon Steel thing.

Q    Thank you.  And then, just one other thing.  On Jake Sullivan’s injury, can you say if this was just like a personal fall or something?  Or was he harmed by someone?

MR. KIRBY:  No, this was not — so, yeah, the fact that he’s recovering from this cracked rib is contributing to the postponement.  That’s point one.  Point two is, this was a minor accident of his own.  It was not caused by anybody.  It was not the result of a nefarious act or anything like that. 

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thank you.  I was going to ask about Jake too.  But I guess if there’s no more that you can tell us — it sounds like maybe like a basketball or some kind of sports injury — but if anything else would be helpful. 

But in the meantime, if I could ask about Ukraine.  There is a proposal at NATO to have NATO take over leadership of the Ukraine working group that coordinates the assistance — the military assistance to Ukraine, apparently born out of both a concern of sort of a lack of U.S. leadership, given the Ukraine funding tie-up in Congress, but also the possibility of a return of Donald Trump next year. 

Does the U.S. support shifting that leadership over to NATO and the U.S. sort of taking a backseat in directing that money?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, I’m not going to get ahead of some — what sounds to me like some preliminary discussions there.  But amongst NATO Allies, they can speak to this. 

What I can tell you, though, Mike, is that the Ukraine Defense Contact Group has been critical in bringing together 50-some-odd countries to contribute to Ukraine’s security assistance needs.  And that was really an idea that was born from Secretary Austin and that he has convened now more than a dozen times, really, the result of American convening power, and an example of how President Biden has really revitalized our leadership on the world stage to bring countries together to do this. 

We think it’s important.  And it is bigger than NATO.  It’s bigger than the Alliance.  As I said, 50-some-odd countries around the world.  And what brought them together was American leadership.  The President believes that that leadership remains vital, remains important.  And he’s confident that we’re going to be able to continue to demonstrate that leadership through the contact group.

Q    So it sounds like you guys would not support shifting that leadership.  Or am I reading too much?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to speculate about some hypothetical conversations that some NATO Allies may or may not be having.

The contact group has been very, very effective.  We’re going to continue to lead and convene it.  And we know that our leadership of that contact group is valued, it’s important.  We get terrific feedback from all the nations that are participating in it.

I want to just make two points.  Let me foot-stomp them.  First one, I’ve already said, is that it is bigger than NATO.  It’s 50-some-odd nations all around the world, including in the Indo-Pacific.  And what brought them together was American leadership.  What’s keeping them together is American leadership. 

And the second point I want to make is that NATO has been a part of that process since the beginning.  Jens Stoltenberg, he’s attended every single one of them, including the first one. 

So we certainly value the contributions of the Alliance proper but also individual Alliance members in the contact group.  And we would certainly expect that to continue. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Missy Ryan with the Washington Post.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.  Just wanted to ask, John, if there’s any update to the timing of the rescheduled in-person visit from the Israeli delegation. 

And then ask you, looking ahead to the visit by the Iraqi prime minister, are you all expecting any sort of finalization of the mil-to-mil talks in terms of the — or announcement regarding a changed U.S military posture in Iraq during that visit?

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Missy.  On the Israeli delegation, I think we’re hoping to get an in-person meeting on the books next week.  We’ll have more detail for you as we get closer to it.

On the prime minister’s visit, we very much see this as a great opportunity to continue discussions with him and his team about the counter-ISIS efforts in Iraq and what that needs to look like going forward. 

I would not expect coming out of this visit that it’ll be a decision or meeting in terms of, you know, there’ll be some sort of final conclusion about what that posture looks like going forward.  But, absolutely, we will spend time with him talking about what it needs to look like given the threat that ISIS continues to pose both in Iraq and in Syria.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Weijia with CBS.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  And thank you, John.  Back to the humanitarian strike, John.  Do you know whether any U.S.-supplied weapons or resources were involved to carry out that strike?

MR. KIRBY:  I do not know the answer to that question.

Q    And if you don’t issue an investigation, as you said the U.S. would not, how will you ever know?  And if you don’t ever know, how do you answer to the families, including that of an American who was killed?

MR. KIRBY:  We expect the Israelis to conduct a thorough, comprehensive, complete, and transparent investigation.  We look forward to finding out the results of that investigation.  And we’ll move on from there.

But, my goodness, they just completed a preliminary investigation in, you know, less than 48 hours.  And they’re working their way through that, and that will inform a broader investigation.  And we’ve made clear our expectations for the results of that investigation.  And I don’t think it would behoove any of us to get ahead of it. 

Q    And have you set a deadline for Israel to complete that investigation?

MR. KIRBY:  No, we have not.

Q    And an unrelated question.  Last night, President Biden received a letter from an eight-year-old orphan in Rafah from Dr. Ahmad, who attended the meeting last night.  Do you know if the President has had a chance to read the letter and his response to that little girl?

MR. KIRBY:  I do not.  I’ll have to take that question. 

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

Q    Hey, John.  Just first on the postponed Jake Sullivan trip.  Is this just that he is no longer going, or will other members of the administration travel there, or are they already traveling there without him?

MR. KIRBY:  No, there was going to be a small team that was going to accompany Jake.  And so, nobody is going.  I mean, it was a purposeful trip in that regard.  And again, his injury has contributed to the delay.  And he looks forward to getting it back on schedule as soon as possible. 

Q    Okay.  So the whole delegation, they are no longer going, but it will presumably be rescheduled once he is feeling better? 

MR. KIRBY:  That is correct. 

Q    Okay.  And I was wondering, just back to the aid workers that were killed, can you just help us understand what is stopping the administration from saying the U.S. can no longer support Israel’s current efforts to go after Hamas in the way that it is?  Not that the U.S. no longer supports Israel but that it cannot support the current war that it is waging, given that seven, eight workers, including an American, are dead.  The President says he’s outraged.  And he was pretty explicit last night in saying that Israel is entirely to blame for their deaths. 

MR. KIRBY:  I guess I just have to challenge a little bit the premise of the question, MJ.  We have been very clear with the Israelis privately — and, my goodness, we’ve been clear publicly — that the way they are prosecuting their operations is not always, in every case, the best way to do that.  We have said there have been too many civilians killed.  We have talked about the civilian infrastructure that’s been destroyed.  We have been very clear about our concerns and objections over some obstacles that have been put in the way of getting additional humanitarian assistance in.  And nobody is working harder than Joe Biden or this administration on trying to get a ceasefire in place so that we can get the hostages out. 

So I just — I guess I’m just going to take issue with, again, the premise of the question.  We have been exceedingly consistent and clear with our expectations for the prosecution of these operations. 

Q    Just to be clear, so you are saying you think the administration has already been clear to the Israelis that it does not support Israel’s current efforts in Gaza, the way that it is currently waging this war?

MR. KIRBY:  We have been very clear with the Israelis on the some of the specifics of their operations, some of the specifics regarding getting assistance into Gaza.  And those conversations have happened privately at various levels, including at the President’s level and certainly at staff levels. 

Now, I want to make it clear that while we take issue with aspects of how operations are being conducted — particularly like saying, quite frankly, publicly, we don’t support a ground operation in Rafah — we also continue to believe and continue to act on the belief that Israel has a right to defend itself against a still-viable threat by Hamas.  They still have every right and responsibility to their people to eliminate that threat after the 7th of October.  And so, that support for Israel continues.  No country should have to live next door to a threat that is truly genocidal, as Hamas has been. 

So while we make no bones about the fact that we have certain issues about some of the way things are being done, we also make no bones about the fact that Israel is going to continue to have American support for the fight that they’re in to eliminate the threat from Hamas.

Q    You said earlier that you would first need to see the results of the investigation before you can speak to what actions the U.S. might take after this incident.  You said yourself, though, that Israel has already said, you know, it was their mistake, it was their fault.  And we already know, of course, that seven people are dead.  So what more do you think the administration could possibly learn from the investigation?

MR. KIRBY:  I think the Israelis want to learn from the investigation.  They want to learn exactly how it happened.  And it’s one thing to be able to admit, and they have, that they perpetrated this attack and that they — and that, obviously, it was not the intended result.  But they, too, want to learn what decisions were made that led to this attack and where the fault lies. 

And as I said yesterday, we firmly believe that if accountability needs to be observed, then we want to see accountability observed for people who may have — you know, who may have acted here inappropriately.  But again, we don’t know that. 

So we need to let the investigation conclude.  We need to see what they learn.  And we need to see, just as importantly, what they do about what they’ve learned, what changes they’re willing to make, what accountability they’re willing to observe.  We’re just not there yet.  So we need to let them finish their work. 

In the meantime, we have made very clear, all the way up to the President’s level, our outrage about this attack and the result of it, of course, and our deep, deep concern about this particular operation.

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

Q    Hey, good morning, Kirby.  Thanks for doing this.  The Human Rights Watch director told ABC today that the U.S. could be legally complicit in supplying weapons to countries that are blocking aid, speaking about the war in Gaza.  She said, “If you’re helping another party commit grave abuses against civilians, then you risk being complicit in those abuses,” saying that’s “a matter of international law.”  Just wanted to get your response to the director. 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not an international lawyer.  I can tell you that we share the concerns of so many groups out there about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is why almost — well, not almost; actually, from the beginning of this conflict — and then urging and pushing the Israelis to do more to get humanitarian assistance in to allow the flow into Gaza.  It’s why we’re doing airdrops.  It’s why we got a temporary pier that’s on the way over there to be able to assist with maritime loading of humanitarian assistance and getting that into Gaza. 

So we share the concerns over what’s going on inside Gaza with the Palestinian people, and we’re doing everything we can to try to alleviate that. 

It’s also why we continue to push for a ceasefire that will allow for the hostages to get out and a period of calm for about six weeks so that more humanitarian assistance can get in.

Again, I’m not a lawyer here, but I would also tell you, as I said yesterday from the podium, the State Department continues to review incidents as they arise.  And as I said yesterday, they haven’t found an incident yet that has pointed to a violation of international humanitarian law.  But they continue to do that work, as they should.

Q    And we also saw the Australian Prime Minister speak directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu following the strike.  Should we expect President Biden to do the same?  And if not, why isn’t he picking up the phone to speak to Netanyahu if an American was killed in this strike?

MR. KIRBY:  The President, as you know, speaks routinely and as appropriate with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  He has spoken to him many times in the past since the 7th of October.  He will speak to him again.  I don’t have a call to speak to or to preview at this time. 

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

Q    Hi there.  Thanks, Kirby.  I had (inaudible) questions.  Yesterday, I know there were a couple of doctors who were at the White House, meeting with the President, who’d recently been inside of Gaza.  And the way they characterized their meeting was that they were — the first time since October 7th that the President had heard from anybody who’s been inside of Gaza.  And I wanted to assess: Is that accurate?  Had the President, prior to yesterday, not spoken to any aid workers or anybody else who had been inside of Gaza since October 7th?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m going to have to take your question. 

MODERATOR:  We’re going to go on to our next question.  Morgan with Semafor.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I have two questions.  Just, first, on the (inaudible) earthquake in Taiwan.  I’m just wondering how worried the White House is about the impact on the chip supply chain and if there’s anything you’re doing to address those concerns. 

And then secondly, I know you mentioned yesterday that the President and President Xi talked about TikTok, and I was just wondering if you could say how that came up on the call yesterday.  Did President Xi raise it?  Is that something that President Biden raised?  Just a little more detail there.

MR. KIRBY:  So, on the earthquake, I mean, our first and, frankly, our only concern right now is for the safety and security of people in the region who could be affected by the earthquake and its aftermath. 

And we’re in touch with authorities, as you might expect we would be.  We certainly stand by to assist in any way that might be required.  But that’s where our focus is right now, not on follow-on potential economic impact one way or the other, or for high tech.  Our concern is for the lives and livelihoods.  And our thoughts and prayers are with everybody who was affected by the earthquake.  We’ll continue to monitor it as we have overnight.

On TikTok, President Xi raised the issue, and President Biden responded to the concerns that President Xi raised.  And as I said yesterday at the podium, he responded by making it clear to President Xi that this was not about a ban on TikTok, that this was about divestiture, that this was about preserving the data security of the American people and our own national security interests.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I wanted to follow up on last night’s meeting at the White House.  Are you going to provide a readout of that in any way? 

And are there any plans for the President to speak to the American aid worker that was — family that was killed?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know about a readout for the Iftar meeting last night.  I’d refer you to White House Communications on that.  That’s not something that would be handled by the National Security Council.

And, shoot, I forgot your second one.  I meant to write it down and I didn’t.  What was your second one?

Q    Oh, the family of the American aid worker. 

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, yes.  As I said yesterday, the State Department has made initial contact with the family.  I think you can understand this is a delicate moment for them.  And, you know, they did express a desire for some time to process the news.  And so, I think we’re going to give them that time.  But obviously, first and foremost, they have the President’s and the First Lady’s condolences. 

And as he has in the past, when it’s appropriate, he’ll make the necessary, you know, outreach.  But again, right now, the family is going through a very difficult time, and we want to respect their — we want to respect their privacy and, quite frankly, their grieving process. 

Q    Are there any concerns that that strike on the aid workers are going to impact negatively the ceasefire and hostage negotiations that are ongoing?  Is there an update on the proposal that was made to Hamas?

MR. KIRBY:  No, I don’t have an update for you.  I don’t know and I wouldn’t anticipate any particular impact on those discussions as a result of the strike yesterday.  But I also, at the same time, don’t have, again, any progress to report to you.  We’re still working hard at this, trying to get this deal in place.  And we’re going to — we’re going to stay at that work.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Neria with Israel Channel 13.

Q    Hi, Admiral.  Thank you so much for doing this again.  I’m wondering about the meeting — the virtual meeting between the Israelis and Sullivan and the rest of the team here in the U.S. about Rafah.  I do understand that there are a few major gaps between Israel and the U.S., mainly regarding the evacuation of the civilians, but other issues as well.  Can you tell us a little bit about that?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  (Laughs.)  I don’t think that would be useful for me to do in this particular setting, to lay out their views versus our views.  The big muscle movements are the same, Neria, which is that we don’t support a ground operation in Rafah, and we still believe that whatever the Israelis decide to do about Rafah, they’ve got to factor in the 1.5 million refugees that are there. 

And we were grateful for the opportunity to have that virtual discussion.  As I said earlier, hopefully in the next week, sometime in the next week, we hope to do an in-person meeting to continue that discussion. 

I would look at what happened in the virtual discussion this week as sort of the beginning of that conversation, the beginning of that process of talking to them about what Rafah looks like now and what their intentions are for operations against those Hamas battalions that are still there. 

Q    And do you have any news about hostages deal, the negotiations?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  As I said to the previous question, I don’t have an update for you, except to say that we continue to work very, very hard at it. 

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

Q    Hi there.  Thanks for doing this again.  Just going back to the strike on the aid workers in Gaza.  I mean, the statement last night from the President was one of his strongest yet, and he said, you know, that his rhetoric has been getting tougher and tougher on Israel about this kind of thing.  But they just don’t seem to be listening.  I mean, this must be a source of frustration for the President, must it not?

MR. KIRBY:  I think you could sense the frustration in that statement yesterday.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.

Q    Good morning.  Thank you for doing this.  Just a follow-up on what happened on the incident with the World Central Kitchen. 

John, you said that you’re waiting for the results of the investigation to conclude, but can you give us an example of when Israel, in the last six months, investigated any incidents and held anybody accountable, whether civilians carrying white flags were killed, whether civilians at the food trucks were killed, whether mass bodies or mass graves that are being reported and not investigated? 

Many people believe the reason the Israelis admitted this time is because they caught red-handed because the workers were international members of the World Central Kitchen.  And their government is able to tell that it was an Israeli rocket, and Israelis cannot just basically cloud it and say, “Maybe we don’t know, maybe it’s crossfire, maybe it’s Hamas.” 

So how can you say with certainty that all these incidents, that could be by mistake, and yet you don’t have anybody on the ground — you have no U.S. intelligence on the ground — and you always seem to take the Israeli point of view as a fact?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, Nadia, I mean, that’s not even really a question, to be honest with you.  That is a — that’s a statement that you just made.  And I understand where you’re coming from. 

I don’t think you can look at what we’ve been saying, what we’ve been doing, or even the President’s statement last night, and say that we’ve somehow gone easy on Israel in every regard. 

Now, you can talk to the Israelis about their individual events; you seem to have reached conclusions about all of them yourself.  So I recommend that you talk to the Israelis about these incidents and see for yourself what their answers are for them. 

They have investigated some of these events in the past, and they have — as I’ve said from the podium, they have taken actions in certain regards and in certain ways to limit and to try to be more mindful of civilian casualties.  Is it enough? Absolutely not.  It’s not enough.  And the President said that last night in his statement; there’s been too many civilian casualties.  And the President said in his statement last night that he’s outraged about this attack. 

And I have said myself, today and yesterday, that we’re going to see what the investigation says, and then we’ll — you know, we’ll make decisions as a result of that. 

But I don’t know how differently to put it.  Israel has a right to defend itself.  Maybe not everybody believes that, but they do.

Q    Oh, I think —

MR. KIRBY:  And maybe not everybody believes — wait a second.  Maybe not everybody believes that they’re living next to a genocidal threat, but they are. 

And so, we’re going to continue to support them.  No country should have to live like that.  No country should have to be attacked, like they were on the 7th of October, with 1,200 people slaughtered.

At the same time, as a modern military and a democracy, they have obligations to the innocent people of Gaza.  And they have not always met those obligations. 

And the United States, more than any other nation — and you can’t name me another nation, Nadia — that hasn’t also put it directly to the Israelis about concerns about how they have not allowed more humanitarian assistance again, about how they have to be more careful about civilian casualties.  You name me another leader that has been more direct and more consistent than President Biden and this administration. 

So, again, I’m sorry, I’m just going to have to take issue with the premise of your statement.  We are working very closely with them.  We will continue to work closely with them to make sure they can defend themselves but also that they do it in a way that is in keeping with the highest standards of the law of armed conflict. 

Q    John, I just want to put it on the record: Neither me or any of my colleagues ever question the right of Israel to defend itself.  That’s for the record.  So I just wanted to tell you that our questions are always about the methods, not about the right to defend — Israel’s right to defend itself.  Just want to make that clear.

MR. KIRBY:  And my response, Nadia, is that we’re concerned about the methods too.  I don’t know how we can be more clear.  Every single day we’re talking about the way this war is being prosecuted.  And it’s important to us; it matters how they do this.  And that is why we are having these tough conversations with them.  And that is why you’ve heard — you saw it for yourself in the statement that the President issued, you know, his outrage, his frustration over this particular attack as it reflects a culmination of similar events.  I said yesterday it’s not the first time that this has happened.  And so, yes, we’re frustrated by this.

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

Q    Yeah, thanks, John.  So just, I guess, to put an overall cap on this, it sounds like the administration will not change its approach to Israel after the strike; it’s going to continue as is, the same sort of criticisms and the same sort of

support.  So there’s that.   

MR. KIRBY:  Well, wait.  Hang on just second now.

Q    Go ahead.  Go ahead.

MR. KIRBY:  What I said was: We are still supporting their right to defend themselves, and we’re going to continue to do that.  We’re also going to see what the results of the investigation is.  I’m not going to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet.

Q    Okay.  Gotcha.  On the Biden-Xi call, did they discuss anything about the plans to have the trilateral patrols of the South China Sea with the Philippines and Japan?

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    Okay.  And last bit.  Did the strike complicate any efforts by the administration to recruit that aid partner to distribute more aid into Gaza from the temporary pier?

MR. KIRBY:  What aid partner are you speaking about, Alex?

Q    Or is the U.S. trying to — isn’t the U.S. trying to recruit somebody to help bring the aid to sort of that last mile?  Or do I have that wrong?

MR. KIRBY:   Oh, okay.  I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your question. 

I don’t know of any effect on those efforts at this early time, Alex.  You know, I know that Chef Andrés said he was going to stop for a while.  We know the World Food Program has said that too.  But we’re still discussing the modalities of — well, the maritime effort to get humanitarian assistance in and what that’s going to look like.  And I think, you know, we’re just — it’s just too soon after the strike to know what sort of larger strategic impact this is going to have.  

We obviously are going to do everything we can to work towards the continued delivery of humanitarian assistance at an increased level.  So while we certainly understand why some aid organizations would have qualms about this — certainly within their rights to do that, given what happened; no question about it — but it’s not going to stop or lessen our efforts to do what we can to increase the flow of aid.  That’s, again, while our airdrops continue, while we’re working on this temporary pier, all that is indicative of our effort to try to increase the flow. 

And I want to come back, if I can, to foot-stomping that that’s why we’re working so hard on this temporary ceasefire — to get some security, some calm in place, not only so that the hostages can move safely home and out but so that more aid can get in and around. 

One of the challenges of humanitarian assistance — and there are many — is, in fact, the combat operations themselves.  It’s a war zone.  And it’s difficult to move trucks around inside a combat zone and particularly a confined urban environment like that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think we have time for one more question, so we’ll go to James Rosen. 

Q    Samantha, thank you.  Admiral, thank you.  Thank you both, as always.  Since we hear and see so little of each other these days, I was hoping you might indulge three questions from me, in keeping with the multiple-question format employed by some of the reporters on the call.  I have in mind three different topics.  At least two of them can be addressed through simple yes-or-no answers. 

First, on the Mideast, is it the assessment of NSC that the airstrikes the U.S. conducted earlier this year against the Houthis and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq succeeded in establishing deterrence in the region?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, what we believe is that these attacks have definitely degraded Houthi capabilities.  Have they eliminated them?  No.  And the Houthis still conduct attacks. 

I want to make it clear though, at the front, James — and you don’t have to look any further than the Secretary of Defense, who made this more clear than I — this is about, and has been from the beginning, about taking away capability from the Houthis.  That’s the purpose of it.

Q    Second question.  Can you confirm that no facet or component of the national security apparatus, including but not limited to investigations on masking or surveillance in any form, is presently trained or focused on any current American political campaign?

MR. KIRBY:  I am not sure how to answer that question.  Are you suggesting or you’re asking —

Q    I’ll repeat it, if that would help.

MR. KIRBY:  — is the intelligence community spying on a political candidate?

Q    Correct.  Can you confirm that no facet or component of the national security apparatus is presently trained or focused on any current American political campaign?

MR. KIRBY:  This is a question beyond the NSC’s purview.  But just to put a fork in it, there’s no spying on a political candidate. 

Q    Lastly, on TikTok, which examples should Americans regard as a model for them to follow: that of the Biden administration, which has banned TikTok from federal devices, or that of the Biden campaign, which makes active use of TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  The President has been very clear about this.  Because of —

Q    I don’t think it’s very clear, John.  I think it’s very confused messaging.  

MR. KIRBY:  Well, so if you just let me finish, maybe we can help clear this up.

TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance gives us pause and reason to be concerned about the security of data on that application and the use of that data by a company that has close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

We don’t want to ban the application.  We want divestiture of the ownership of the company so that Americans, and certainly inside the national security establishment, we can take a measure of comfort that that data is not going to be mishandled.  That is very consistent.  That’s what we’ve been doing. 

I’m not going to speak for the campaign.  I can only speak for the National Security Council and speak for the President in the context of the National Security Council.  And from that perspective, we have been nothing but consistent. 

Q    Well, can’t you understand how Americans might be confused when they see a chief executive who declares the use of this platform a national security problem, and a candidate, in the very same person, who makes active use of that platform?  You can understand why Americans might be confused about that, can’t you?

MR. KIRBY:  I never make the mistake of trying to speak for the American people or trying to claim that I understand what they are or are not confused about. 

All I can tell you — and I’m not confused about this — is that there are significant national security concerns about that application on government devices, which is why we’re not allowed to use it on government devices. 

And number two, that is why the President continues to want to see a divestiture of the company so that it’s not owned by ByteDance, so that the Chinese Communist Party is not in control of the data that TikTok is able to assemble on its users. 

And I think that that — there’s reassurance there if, in fact, we can move towards that divest issue. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And as always, if we weren’t able to get to you, hit up the distro and we’ll try to get back to you as quick as possible. Thanks, everyone.

10:51 A.M. EDT

 

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

1:43 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No bunny today.  No bunny.  Just — just me and the Admiral and the team.  (Laughs.)    Okay. 

So, yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the state’s dangerous abortion ban, putting desperately needed medical care further out of reach for millions of women.  What’s worse, this ruling is also expected to trigger Governor DeSantis’s even more extreme ban that would prevent women from accessing care before many even know they are pregnant.

We will continue to stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose.  President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to work to protect reproductive freedom and call on Congress to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade.

Second, starting this week, the White House will push congressional Republicans to extend funding for the Affordable — the Affordable Connectivity Program.  Created as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the program is helping over 23 million Americans save between 30 bucks and 75 bucks per month on high-speed Internet costs.  But funding for the program is set to expire, and millions of Americans will lose this benefit in the coming weeks.

Six months ago, President Biden sent a request to Congress for $6 billion in supplemental funding to extend the program, but Republicans in Congress have failed to act.

If congressional Republicans continue to do nothing, tens of millions of their own constituents will see their Internet cost go up.  And some may lose access to high-speed Internet altogether.

Finally — actually, additionally — under the President’s Unity Agenda, we are prioritizing effort to counter the trafficking of illicit drugs to save lives.  We are leading initiatives to step up counternarcotics cooperation, including with Mexico and the PRC, and launch the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats, which brings together more than 150 countries against cartels and illicit finance.

Working with our Mexican — Mexican partners, we have charged leaders of the Sinula — Sinula [Sinaloa] cartel.  And yesterday, we charged 41 individuals connected to the Jala- — Jalasco [Jalisco] New Generation Cartel.  To date, we have sanctioned over 290 individuals and entities involved in the global illicit drug trade.

A lot more work is needed.  And that’s why the President is pushing hard for the House to pass the Senate’s border security agreement — or for — for Congress, more broadly, obviously, because it did not get thr- — did not get out of the Senate yet — for Congress to push forth the border security agreement, which would provide additional technology to stop these illicit drugs.

Now, it’s important to acknowledge when a mistake has been made and take responsibility for it.  So, I want to recognize the Daily Caller for having the integrity to retract their story about the false claims that circulated this week about the Easter Egg Roll.

Now, I’m quoting from their retraction here: “The ban of religious symbolism on eggs as part of the White House Easter Egg Art Contest has been longstanding, dating back decades, and the Biden administration did not make any modifications to this rule.”

So, we hope others learn from their good example.  So, I’ll leave that there.

And finally — finally, I want to read out the President — the President who — the President’s call.  He called Chef José Andrés to express that he’s heartbroken by his — by this news of the airstrike that killed seven aid workers and to express and share his deepest condolences.  The President conveyed he is grieving with the entire World Kitchen — World Central Kitchen family. 

The President felt it was important to recognize the tremendous contribution World Central Kitchen made — has made to the people in Gaza and the people — and people around the world.  The President conveyed he will make clear to Israel that humanitarian aid workers must be protected.

Now, as you can see, Admiral John Kirby is here to discuss the President’s call with President Xi and — and events in the Middle East.

Admiral, the floor is yours.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  As you all know, President Biden spoke by phone today with President Xi — Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China.  The purpose of the call was to build on the two leaders’ meeting in Woodside, California, back in November of last year.

Over the course of about an hour and 45 minutes, the two leaders held a candid and constructive discussion on a range of bilateral, regional, and global issues, including areas of cooperation and areas of differences.  They encouraged continued progress on issues discussed at the Woodside Summit, including counternarcotics cooperation, ongoing military-to-military communications, talks to address artificial-intelligence-related risks, and continuing efforts on climate change and people-to-people exchanges.

President Biden also emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and he reaffirmed the importance of the rule of law and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

He raised concerns over the PRC’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base and its impact on European and transatlantic security.  And he emphasized that the United States’s — he emphasized the U.S.’s enduring commitment to the complete denu- — denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

President Biden also raised continued concerns about the PRC’s unfair trade policies and non-market economic practices, which harm American workers and families. 

President Biden also emphasized that the United States will continue to take necessary action to prevent advanced U.S. technologies from being used to undermine our national security, without unduly limiting trade and investment.

The President also repeated his call for China to release U.S. citizens who are wrongfully detained or under exit bans.

Now, we believe that there is no substitute for regular communication at the leader level to effectively manage this complex and often tense bilateral relationship, and both presidents agreed to pick up the phone and speak when needed. 

Following the leaders’ call, we will continue to advance our interests through Cabinet-level diplomacy, including visits to China by Secretary of the Treasury Yellen and in coming days — I’m sorry, in coming days — and by Secretary Blinken in coming weeks.

Now, if I could just — as Karine noted, just turn briefly to events in the Middle East.  We were outraged to learn of an IDF strike that killed a number of civilian humanitarian workers yesterday from the World Central Kitchen, which has been relentless in working to get food to those who are hungry in Gaza and, quite frankly, around the world.

We send our deepest condolences to their families and loved ones.

We’ve seen the comments from Prime Minister Netanyahu and from the Israeli Defense Forces about their commitment to conduct an investigation.  As we understand it, a preliminary investigation has been completed today and presented to the Army Chief of Staff, and we’ll — we’ll obviously look to see what they — what they discover in this preliminary one.

But we expect a broader investigation to be conducted and to be done so in a swift and comprehensive manner.  We hope that those findings will be made public and that there is appropriate accountability held.

But — I’m sorry.  More than 200 aid workers have been killed in this conflict, making it one of the worst for aid workers in recent history.  This incident is emblematic of a larger problem and evidence of why distribution of aid in Gaza has been so challenging.

But what — beyond the strike, what is clear is that the IDF must do much more — must do — must do much more to improve deconfliction processes so that civilians and humanitarian aid workers are protected. 

The U.S. will continue to press Israel to do more as well to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers.  And we’ll continue to do all we can to deliver this assistance to Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  John, do you have any worries regarding Israel and Gaza about the floating dock?  And how can aid workers be protected?

MR. KIRBY:  “Worries” — what do you mean by “worries”?

Q    Any concerns about its status, viability?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, let me break that up —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  — a couple of ways. 

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, obvi- — obviously the temporary pier — it’s known as a JLOTS — joint logistics over-the-shore — it’s on its way to the Eastern Mediterranean right now. 

It’s not — hasn’t arrived yet, and it’ll take some time once it gets there to be assembled and to achieve what we call interim operating capability.  We expect that — we expect that that will happen in coming weeks.  There’s no concern in terms of our ability and the skills taken to — needed to build it and to get it up and running. 

What we are working with partners in the region are two things.  One is the logistics flow, getting — getting the maritime materials to the pier, and then working the Israelis, in particular, about how that pier is protected and secured and how the aid, the material gets from the pier into Gaza and further distributed.

Those modalities are still being worked out.

Q    And do the recent events, like the strike you referenced, raise additional —

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, believe me, we’re under no — no illusion about the fact that Gaza is a war zone.  And forced protection of our troops, which will not be entering Gaza, will be first and foremost in the President’s mind as well as our military leaders to make sure that they can operate that pier — assemble it and operate it in a safe way.

But, believe me, we’re — we’re well aware Gaza is a — is a war zone.  And, frank- — fra- — that it is a war zone is, again, what makes it so challenging to get the humanitarian aid to people in need.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks.  John, you said that the White House is “outraged” by the strike that killed these World Central Kitchen workers.  Has the White House already conveyed that outrage to anyone in the Israeli government?  And what was their response?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I won’t speak for the Israelis.  We — we’ve been very clear about our feelings over — over this particular strike and our expectations of — of the Israelis.

Q    Have they provided or has the Pentagon been able to gain any understanding of what happened here yet?  I know it’s early, but it sounds, based on what José Andrés has said, that these workers were doing everything right.  Their vehicle was marked.  They were in a safe zone.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    What more could they have done?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  It’s really — I mean, it’s devastating to — to see these images and to hear these early reports about the steps that they tried to take to protect themselves.  But the Israelis — look, they’ve already said this was on them and they’re doing this investigation. 

We obviously want to — want to make sure that that investigation gets completed and is as transparent as possible and, as I said in my opening statement, that there’s accountability to be — to be held here.

Q    One quick question on — on China.  What was the President’s message to the President when it comes to Chinese misinformation campaigns or any effort by the Chinese government or people associated with the Chinese government to interfere with the 2024 election?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just say that we’ve been clear consistently, even going back to the November meeting in California, about our concerns over our own election security and — and efforts by certain actors, including some from the PRC, to — to affect that.

Q    So, there was no new message in this conversation?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a new message to read out to you today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  On the death of those World Central Kitchen aid workers, which includes one American who was killed, Netanyahu’s reaction was, quote, “It happens in war.”  What is your reaction to that comment from Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think it’d be useful for me to get into a tit for tat here with the Prime Minister of Israel from the podium.  We’ve been very clear about our expectations for this investigation.  We noted that the Prime Minister said himself there will be an investigation.  So has his military said that.

We look forward to that investigation being thorough and qui- — and swiftly done and, as I said, that — that it’ll be transparent, the results of it, and that if there’s accountability that needs to be had, that it will be had.

Q    But how can you take Netanyahu at his word?  As Nancy was saying, this was a deconflicted zone.  They had marked their car.  They had even coordinated their movements with the IDF. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, and as I said in my opening statement, the — obviously, setting aside this incident, because this isn’t the first one, there are issues of deconfliction that clearly need to be fleshed out and improved.

Q    So, how can the U.S. continue to send aid to Israel without any conditions?  Yes, they have a right to defend —

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not sending aid to Israel.  We’re sending aid into Gaza.  And that’s —

Q    Well, weapons.  How can they —

Q    Military aid.

Q    How can the U.S. continue to send military aid to Is- —

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, military assistance.

Q    — Israel without any conditions?  Is there no red line that —

MR. KIRBY:  Now, we —

Q    — can be crossed here?

MR. KIRBY:  You know, we’ve had this — we’ve had this discussion, you and me, quite a bit from up here.  They’re still under a viable threat of Hamas.  We’re still going to make sure that they can defend themselves and that the 7th of October doesn’t happen again.

That doesn’t mean that it’s a free pass, that — that we look the other way when something like this happens or that we aren’t — and haven’t since the beginning of the conflict — urge the Israelis to be more precise, to be more careful, and, quite frankly, to increase the nu- — the amount of humanitarian assistance that gets in.

You know, I haven’t been asked about it yet, but I expect that I would be.  You know, there was a discussion just yesterday with our Israeli counterparts about Rafah.  Now, this one was done virtually.  We expect there will be an in-person meeting here in a week’s time or so. 

But the whole reason to have that meeting was to talk about our concerns over a major ground operation in Rafah and to present viable alternatives for them to be more precise and more targeted. 

So, the idea that we’re — that we’re whirstling [whistling] past the graveyard here and we’re not paying attention to — to the civilian casualties or the civilian suffering is just not true.

Q    Right.  But these are verbal urgings, verbal commitments.  There’s no other incentive besides —

MR. KIRBY:  I — I know —

Q    — the urges and the discussions, right?

MR. KIRBY:  — you want us — you want us to hang some sort of condition over their neck.  And what I’m telling you is that we continue to — to work with the Israelis to make sure that they are as precise as c- — as they can be and that more aid is getting in.  And — and we’re going to continue to — to take that approach.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Matt.

Q    John, I just wanted to follow up.  Do you guys have confirmation of the nationalities of the victims who were — who were killed in — in the strike —

MR. KIRBY:  I —

Q    — and that one was a U.S.-Canadian national?

MR. KIRBY:  I can confirm that one was a dual-national American citizen.  But I don’t — I couldn’t speak with authority about the nationalities of all of those.  And as I understand it, I mean, there could be additional casualties coming in terms of the count.  I just don’t know.

Q    And do you know if there has been any outreach to the family of that dual-national citizen from the White House?

MR. KIRBY:  The State Department has done some initial outreach, and I would fully expect you’ll — you’ll see outreach from us at the appropriate time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  Does — does the White House accept Prime Minister Netanyahu’s explanation that this incident was “unintentional,” as he put it?

MR. KIRBY:  I think the investigation will bear that out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Kelly O.

Q    Sir, do you think that — given these circumstances, is there a role for some kind of a protective force for aid workers, given the threat of widespread famine and concerns about the — you’ve already discussed the JLOT[S] coming in and so forth.  Is there a — a role that could be considered to try to protect aid workers with a neutral-party security force?

MR. KIRBY:  That protective force ought to be the IDF, Kelly, as we’ve said.  And as they conduct operations in an urban, highly populated environment, they have a concomitant obligation to take care of the civilians that are living there  and the civilians, quite frankly, that are being moved about by the combat operations that are being conducted in a very confined space.  They have that obligation.

Q    Are you concerned that aid will be cut off for some period of time now?  Because José Andrés has said they were —

MR. KIRBY:  He has said — yeah.

Q    — suspending operations for a period.  The World Food Program is having difficulties.  It seems like this incident is exacerbating the crisis.

MR. KIRBY:  It certainly isn’t helping.  There is no question about that.  And we obviously respect Chef Andrés’s decision not to continue operations, at least for a time.  Certainly, we respect that.  And — and others may make that decision, as you talked about the World Food Program.

We’re not seeing a wholesale declination here of humanitarian assistance in there.  But obviously, yes, that’s a concern.  The more violent it gets for humanitarian aid workers — and as I said, this is one of the worst in recent history — the less likely it is that they’re going to be willing to take those risks, which means it’s more likely that the people of Gaza are going to just suffer all the more.

So, yes, it’s a concern.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nandita.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Secretary Blinken, during his presser in Paris, did not condemn the airstrike even though, as you confirmed, there was a dual American-Canadian citizen who was killed.  The French Foreign Minister, who was at the same presser, did.  You said you’re outraged.  Why — why is the U.S. not condemning this strike?

MR. KIRBY:  I think by out- — by saying we’re “outraged,” I think you can fairly characterize that as condemning the strike itself.  Of course, I mean, nobody wants to see this kind of violence happen to humanitarian aid workers who, as was noted earlier, were doing all the right things.

Q    And just to follow up to what, you know, was asked earlier about the — about the floating pier.  Are you considering moving it off the coast of Gaza?  I mean, just trying to figure out how —

MR. KIRBY:  Well, by definition, it’s going to be operating off the coast.

Q    Sure.  But, like, further away.  I mean, how do you ensure that any private partners that the U.S. ends up partnering with to deliver aid is actually protected given the recent set of strikes?

MR. KIRBY:  Right.  That’s what I said we’re working on right now.  I mean, force protection for the troops and the people that are going to be operating the pier is obviously going to be a paramount concern.  But it’s only as good as the aid that gets to the pier and then gets into Gaza.

So, there’s going to have to be plans made — plans with partners — to do everything that we can to ensure that that aid is safely assembled and collected at the pier and then safely distributed into Gaza. 

It’s going to be a multistep process.  We’ll be responsible for some parts of that, but not all of it.  That’s going to take some teamwork, and we’re working our way through that right now.

Q    I just have a quick clarification on something that the Secretary said, again, in Paris.  He appeared to suggest that Iran delivered missiles to Russia and that those are being used by Moscow to target the Ukrainians.  I mean, can you confirm if that was the case — not just drone missiles but ballistic missiles?  And if — if yes, since when has this transfer been underway?

MR. KIRBY:  I am not aware of specific verification that we can give to Iranian missiles being delivered to Russia for use in Ukraine.  They certainly continue to deliver drones and actually helping the Russians manufacture Iranian-designed drones.

And we do know that the Russians are and have been using now for quite some time ballistic missiles that they have gotten from North Korea.  But I’m not — I’m not personally aware of — of any — any verification that Iranian missiles have been — have been transferred and used.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Admiral, you said that there is going to be an investigation into the World Central Kitchen strike and you’re reserving the U.S.’s judgment until that’s completed.  But what’s a reasonable timeframe for that investigation to be concluded?  And how regularly will the U.S. be getting updates on it?

MR. KIRBY:  I think in terms of timeframe, as I said in my opening statement, we — we believe an investigation can be thoroughly conducted in a swift manner.  Now, what is swift?  I think, obviously, we’re not going to dictate a date on the calendar to the Israelis. 

But it’s — it’s noteworthy that just before coming out here I was informed that they have completed a preliminary investigation and are reporting that up the chain of command.  That’s — that’s good.  That means that they’ve gotten some basic findings and some initial conclusions that they’re — that they’re willing to make. 

They have noted publicly that — that they were responsible here.  So, that’s another — that’s another reason to suspect that it shouldn’t need to be a long, drawn-out, weeks-long investigation.  I think something like this could probably resolve- — be resolved in a — in a matter of days.

Q    On the strike in Damascus.  Does the U.S. expect Iran to retaliate?  And if so, how?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I can’t predict what the Supreme Leader and what the IRGC will decide to do or not.  I don’t know — in terms of retaliation, I assume you mean against the United States.  Let me make it clear: We had nothing to do with what — the strike in Damascus.  We weren’t involved in any way whatsoever.

So, the comments by the Iranian Foreign Minister that somehow we’re to be held to account or that we’re to blame is just nonsense.  We had nothing to do with it.

We will, as we always have, take our force protection very seriously to protect our troops and our facilities in Iraq and Syria.  And as we have demonstrated in the past, as President Biden has made very, very clear through the actions he has ordered, we will — we will do what we need to do to protect those troops and facilities.

Q    And finally, if I may, just on China.  You said that the two leaders made a commitment to pick up the phone and call each other when needed.  I’m curious —

MR. KIRBY:  When is the next one?

Q    No, I’m curious why it was needed now.  Why not next week, next month?  Was there a particular catalyst that they needed to have this phone call —

MR. KIRBY:  No.  No, no —

Q    — today?

MR. KIRBY:  — not at all.  I mean, they met, again, in November.  And the teams have been working a lot since November on fentanyl precursors, on climate change, on economic practices.  So, there’s been — on artificial intelligence.  There’s been a lot of staff-level work.  And both presidents thought that now, a few months later, this was a good time to kind of check in with one another, see how that’s going, discuss the future.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Hi.  Thanks, John.  Just wanted to follow up with a question that came from the front row about the conditions of military aid, and you said that the questioner wanted you to hang some conditions over their necks — that’s the Israelis — and your tone suggested you wouldn’t do that.  Why not?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve already answered this question a whole bunch of times.  We believe that the approach that we’re taking is working, in terms of making it clear to the Israelis what our expectations are.

I’m not going to get ahead of decisions one way or another that we might take in the future.  What I’m saying is: Right now, we are continuing to support Israel because they continue to need military assistance because they continue to face a viable threat.

Q    But on the point of conditions, the President, on February 8th, issued a memo.  And it said — and you already know this, but just for context.  It said that it was the policy of this administration to “prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.”

Is firing a missile at people delivering food and killing them not a violation of international humanitarian law?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, the Israelis have already admitted that this was a mistake that they made.  They’re doing an investigation.  They’ll get to the bottom of this.  Let’s not get ahead of that.

Your — your question presumes, at this very early hour, that it was a deliberate strike, that they knew exactly what they were hitting, that they were hitting aid workers and did it on purpose.  And there’s no evidence of that.

I would also remind you, sir, that we continue to look at incidents as they occur.  The State Department has a process in place.  And to date, as you and I are speaking, they have not found any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law.  And lest you think we don’t take it seriously, I can assure you that we do.  We look at this in real time.

Q    They have never violated international humanitarian law ever in the past five to six months?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m telling you the State Department has looked at incidents in the past and has yet to determine that any of those incidents violate international humanitarian law.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Mr. Kirby, Israel has killed a senior Hamas leader in Beirut with precision weapons in an area where thousands of civilians were there.  They killed senior Iranian officials in Damascus — in the heart of Damascus with serious — there was thousands of civilians there as well.

Does it make sense to you that a vehicle marked with “World Central Kitchen,” after coordinating with the Israelis, that they didn’t see it?  And doesn’t it — this debunk your theory and defense of Israel that it is difficult for them because Hamas embedded with the civilian population when they can go after Hamas leaders in the heart of a civilian population in Beirut and in Damascus?

MR. KIRBY:  To your second question, no.  It’s not my theory.  I have talked about —

Q    Defense —

MR. KIRBY:  Wait.  Now, just — hang on just a second now.  W- — I’ve talked about this for months now.  Fighting in an urban, highly populated, condensed environment like that is tough.  But they have taken strikes against Hamas leaders in — successfully taken strikes against Hamas leaders in Gaza.

I can’t speak to what happened in Damascus.  That — I can only tell you that the United States wasn’t involved.  So, I’m not going to talk about the details of that whatsoever.  I’m telling you that they have taken precise strikes against Hamas in Gaza.  They have also taken strikes that have been not precise.

It looks as if, very clearly, what happened yesterday is one of those examples.  They’ll investigate that.  And our expectation is — and we’ve made this clear to them — that they’ll come clean about what they’ve learned, they’ll be fully transparent, and if people need to be held accountable, that they’ll be held accountable.

Q    Admiral.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  John, there’s another case of somebody who was in this country illegally allegedly murdering a young woman — this time in Michigan.  Her name was Ruby Garcia.  Donald Trump is out there now calling this “Biden’s border bloodbath.”  What do you call it?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, first of all, while I’m not aware of this — the specifics of this case, I mean, that’s just terrible news.  And our thoughts and prayers obviously go to the family of Ms. Garcia.  I mean, that’s — that’s the kind of news no family ever wants to get, ever.

And we would certainly defer to local law enforcement and investigative bodies to do th- — do the spade work that needs to be done to figure out exactly what happened to — to Ruby and to hold the perpetrators accountable for that.  So, why don’t we let the judicial process play out here before we start making grandiose bumper-sticker comments about what this says about the border.

And, Peter, to folks that are concerned about border security, the President would be the first one to stand up here and say he agrees: The border does need some security capabilities, that we do need more Border Patrol agents.  And all that has to happen is for the Speaker to do his job, put that supplemental on the floor.  Let’s get a vote.  Let’s get those 13,000 additional Border Patrol agents down there to do their jobs.

Q    But everybody in this room knows that the bill that you guys keep talking about as a solution is dead at the moment and —

MR. KIRBY:  Says you.  It doesn’t need to be dead, does it?

Q    The bill is dead.

MR. KIRBY:  Says you.

Q    When’s the vote?

MR. KIRBY:  You — you ask Speaker Johnson that.

Q    The bill is —

MR. KIRBY:  It doesn’t need to be dead.

Q    There are — there are real problems at the border while that bill just languishes.  Right?  The — the Chief of the Border Patrol is saying —

MR. KIRBY:  Exactly.

Q    — of 140,000 gotaways, if we don’t know who is coming into our country and we don’t know what their intent is, that is a threat.  Does President Biden agree?

MR. KIRBY:  The President absolutely believes that, along that border, we do have significant national security concerns that have to be met.  But you said something really good in your question that I loved: that while this — while these concerns are going on, the bill languishes. 

So, what’s needed?  It’s not — it’s not anything more from the President.  What’s needed is for Speaker Johnson to do his job and get that thing on the floor.

Q    The President —

MR. KIRBY:  Let’s get it voted on.

Q    — as — as the person —

MR. KIRBY:  They had a chance and decided not to act because certain people in the House Republican world wanted a problem rather than a solution.

Q    As the person in charge of presenting — preventing a terrorist attack in the homeland, does President Biden think that some of these border crossers could be in the United States right now plotting a terrorist attack against Americans?

MR. KIRBY:  The President is confident that throughout the interagency — DHS, the intelligence community — that we’re doing everything we can to be as vigilant as we can to ensure the safety and security of the American people here at home.

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

Q    John, the call with President Xi.  Did the two leaders speak about Section 301 tariffs?  And any specific —

MR. KIRBY:  It did not come up.

Q    It did not come up.  But if you could just speak more about the economic nature of the conversation.  Did they speak about competition in specific industries, like semiconductors?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, they did talk about economic competition between our two countries.  And as I said in my opening statement, the President made clear that we have significant differences of opinion and concerns over some unfair market practices that the PRC uses that puts American workers and families at a disadvantage.  He was very clear about that.

Q    And just to follow up on Nancy’s question.  Are we clear to understand that the President did not warn President Xi about election interference?  That was — it felt like that was what you were implying.

MR. KIRBY:  It — it —

Q    Or is it there was no new message?

MR. KIRBY:  It — there was no new message today delivered on that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No — no, go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, you said earlier that two hundred and — more than 280 aid workers died since the start of the war.  Could you tell what the timeframe is for that?

MR. KIRBY:  Since the start of the war in — in October.

Q    So, since October 7th — 7th?  Okay.

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a tick tock for you on —

Q    Right.  But roughly around then.  So, more than 200?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s our — that’s our — that’s our estimate here —

Q    Okay.

MR. KIRBY:  — over the course of these many months.

Q    So, did the President — has the President reached out to any other head of, you know, a humanitarian organization before today —

MR. KIRBY:  I —

Q    — after an IDF attack?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll take the question.  I don’t know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  We’ve got to — we’ve got to wrap it up.  Go ahead, Andrew.

Q    Thank you.  John, you described — you described the — the strike as a possible mistake by Israel.  According to Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, it wasn’t one strike but three:  the first one; then an interval during which aid workers got of their vehicles, removed the wounded, tried to move to another vehicle, which was struck; and then a third strike what — as they tried to move and escape in a third vehicle, at which point all of them were dead.

How would the second and third strikes of these marked vehicles be a mistake?  And why would the U.S. not more forcefully set conditions on the use of U.S.-made weaponry when it is being used to target aid workers?

If the first one was a mistake, the second two were targeted with the intent of killing everyone in that convoy.  So, how do you respond to that?

MR. KIRBY:  All right.  Well, first of all, there’s an investigation going on.  So, why don’t we let it get done and why don’t we see what they find, in terms of the decision-making process that led to this terrible outcome?

The Prime Minster and the IDF have noted that it was their error.  If you don’t like the word “mistake,” their “error.”

They’re investigating it.  Let them do that work and let them see what they come up with, and then we’ll go from there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. (Inaudible.)

Q    Thank you, Karine.

Q    Sorry, one — one more, John.  Two years ago, the IDF killed an Al Jazeera journalist.  They said that that was a — a mistake, that she was wearing a marked press vest.  She was shot anyway.  (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  They investigated it.  And they released the findings of their investigation, which found that they were at fault.

Go on.

Q    They did.  But my — my question, sir, is: In that case, the Is- — the Israelis did not initiate any criminal proceeding; in this case, if it’s found that the marked convoy was deliberately targeted, if not with the first shot but the second two shots, would the U.S. support any criminal penalties?

MR. KIRBY:  As I said, we would expect that should there be a need for accountability, that accounta- — that accountability be properly put in place for whoever may be responsible for this.  But again, that’s going to — a lot of that is going to depend on the investigation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just want to (inaudible).  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Two questions on China.  Admiral, this is an election year.  Does the President feel political pressure to act tough on China?

MR. KIRBY:  The President, as Commander-in-Chief, feels obligated and responsible for protecting the national security interests of the United States.  And much of his conversation with President Xi this morning — which was candid and constructive, very professional and businesslike — was arranged around those priorities that President Biden holds so seriously.

Q    Is TikTok part of the conversation part today?

MR. KIRBY:  TikTok came up today, yes.

Q    Have you talked to previous Secretary Mnuchin about his plan to buy it without the algor- — algorithm?  Or do you accept this plan?

MR. KIRBY:  Have we talked to Mr. Mnuchin about his — no, not that I’m aware of.  I mean, that — he — he should to speak to that as a private businessman.

Q    Can you share more details about the conversation on TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  The President reiterated our concerns about the ow- — the ownership of TikTok.  He made it clear to President Xi that this was not about ban of the application, but rather our interest in divestiture so that the national security interests and the — the data security of the American people can be protected.

Q    Have you made progress?

MR. KIRBY:  Is there progress?

Q    On the deal to —

MR. KIRBY:  I — I know of no progress on — on that.  As far as I know, legislation hasn’t reached his desk, and it’s — it’s still on Capitol Hill.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Final question.

Q    Thank you.  John, I have a question on Ukraine and — and on Ramadan. 

So, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is warning about a new Russian offensive coming in end of May or June.  Meanwhile, Speaker Johnson is ignoring calls to put to the floor the Senate-approved legislation and coming up with a new Ukraine aid. 

Do — does the administration have a deadline, which — after which you might consider emergency — some measures to support Ukraine without the (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ve already executed some emergency measures.  You saw the Pentagon was able to — to cobble together $300 million to support them in an emergency aid package.

We’re going to continue to look and see what more we can do.  But, quite frankly, our hands are — are very much tied here.  We need the supplemental.  That’s what is — what — that’s what will make a difference for Ukraine.

Q    Is there a deadline after which you would try to do something more?

MR. KIRBY:  The deadline was weeks, if not months, ago, when we needed the supplemental passed.  The time is now.  It’s past now. 

The Ukrainian commanders on the ground are making difficult decisions about where — what positions they’re going to hold, what weapons they’re going to use.  And in certain places of the Donbas, they are losing ground to the Russians.  So, it’s — it’s way past time.

Q    And one on Ramadan.  Why the President Biden has not included Muslim community leaders in the iftar.  And why is the event is not open press as it has been in previous years?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m — I’m going to — I’m going to — that’s a great segue for me to turn it right over.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much.

Q    Well, Karine, can you answer this question please?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  So, just a couple of things on — on that question.  Look, you saw the President put out a statement very early on last month about — about Ramadan and, obviously, respecting — respecting the religion and respecting the event.

I will say, about tonight, that the President is going to continue his tradition of honoring the Muslim community during Ramadan.  And so, President Biden will — will host a meeting with Muslim community leaders to discuss issues of importance to the community.  So, he is going to be meeting with Muslim leaders, to your question.  He will be joined by the — Vice President Harris, senior Muslim administration officials, and senior members of his national security team.

And to continue the White House tradition of honoring Ramadan, as he did just last month, after the meeting, we will host a small breaking of the fast prayer and iftar with a number of senior Muslim administration officials.  So, that is what the President and the Vice President is going to be doing later today.

Q    But not — why not the community leaders?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I want to be really clear here.  So, community leaders expressed the preference of doing — of doing a meeting — a working group meeting, if you will.  They — they wanted to make sure that there was an opportunity to discuss the issues at hand.  They thought it would be important to do that.

And so, we adju- — we — we did that, we listened, we heard, and we adjusted the format to — to be responsive and so that we can get feedback from them.  And this is a request — this was actually a request from members of the community.  This is what they wanted.  And we understand that. 

They wanted to — they want the President and the Vice President and senior administration officials, obviously, national security folks, as well, who will be joining the meeting, to hear directly from them.

So, this is going to be seen as a working — working group meeting, and we are — the President, the Vice President — we are looking forward to having that — that opportunity.

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We discussed earlier former President Trump is describing the situation on the border as a “bloodbath.”  But on Friday, we’re going to get jobs figures, and past jobs reports have shown that immigrants are helping the U.S. economy.  Is the view of this administration that the inflow of immigrants do more to strengthen the United States or hurt the United States?  Does it do more?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, Josh, I appreciate the question.  And I think it’s an important question, as we’re hearing clearly awful rhetoric from the other side.  So — but what we know and what this President believes — and you’ve heard this President say this before — is that we know immigrants strengthen our country and our economy as well.  It goes hand in hand here.

Think about the critical work eight immigrants — these eight immigrants were doing on Key Bridge when it collapsed — when it collapsed. 

While Congress failed to act on President Biden’s comprehensive immigration reform — remember, he introduced that on the first day of his administration because he understood the importance of fixing — fixing immigration, a system that had been broken — that has been broken for decades.  His administration has led the largest expansion of lawful immigration pathways in decades.  And we continue — we continue to work [to] ensure employers and immigrants can effectively navigate the laws in place.

And so, reforming our immigration system only strengthens our economy.  You hear the President talking about that, about making sure that we have an economy that works for everyone, making sure that there is dignity and respect for everyone.

And so — and by doing that, it boosts our labor supply, it helps solve workforce shortages and — some businesses are facing — right? — that we see businesses are facing. 

And so, we took a step forward not too long ago.  We spent two months working with the Senate, working with Republicans and Democrats, to try and figure out how do we deal with this broken system.  We saw — they — we put together what would have been, if put into law, the toughest and fairest piece of legislation that we have seen in some time.

But what we heard from the last ad- — last administration, from President Trump — and you heard me say this over and over again; you all reported this — that he told Republicans to reject that proposal because it would hurt him and help the President. 

That’s not how this President sees this.  This President sees the immigration system as a — as an issue that majority of Americans care about and that we should fix.  We should get to the bottom of this.

So, we’re going to continue to urge Congress, Republicans, to come back — right? — to get — come back to the table, move forward with that proposal, get it out of the Senate, and then move it over to this Hou- — the House, get it out of the House, put it in front of the — in front of the President.  He will sign it — the toughest and fairest law that we have seen in some time.

And this is not about politics for this President.  And to — just to go back to the beginning of — of answering your question, we know immigrants strengthen our country and also strengthen our economy.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just to follow up on the TikTok question.  The President brought it up with President Xi. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  President Xi.  Yeah, he did.

Q    Has he also raised the issue with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?  Because the bill is — hasn’t been taken up by the Senate.  I mean, that’s where it is held up.  Has he conveyed those same concerns about ownership, about, you know, divestiture, like, to — to Schumer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we are in regular communication, this administration is, with leaders of Congress, including Senator Schumer — Leader Schumer and others.  And so, I don’t have a specific readout to — to give you about the President’s conversation on this particular issue. 

As — as my colleague — as the Admiral said, TikTok did come up and was raised on the call with President Xi.  I think that’s important.  The President has always been very clear about his concerns, and he’s been very public about that. 

There is a real threat po- — posed by certain technology services, and so — operating in the United States that put at risk Americans’ personal information and broader national security.  He’s been very clear about that, including the manipulation. 

So, he’s been public about it.  He brought it up with President Xi.  This is an issue, certainly, that we will continue to have that discussion.  I just don’t have anything specific to read out to you with any conversations with members of Congress —

Q    Does he want —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — on the President — on the President’s schedule.

Q    Does he want the Senate Majority Leader to bring the bill to the floor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have said we support that bill.  We welcome that bill.  We do not see it as a ban, right?  We see it as a divestment.  We’ve been very clear about that as well.  And we welcome that bill.  So, we want it to go through the process. 

We’ve been offering technical support of you — as you’ve heard us speak to before.  You’ve heard the National Security Advisor speak to this very recently, the last time he was at the podium.  You’ve heard me say that.

And so, we’re going to continue to provide technical support.  We’re going to continue to have conversations with members of Congress.  I don’t have any — don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    So, during the call, did President talk to President Xi about supplying components to Russia to enhance their defense industrial base?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’ve always been very clear, and the President did raise that we are deeply concerned, obviously, about the PRC’s support for Russia’s war against Ukraine and its efforts to help Russia reconstitute its defense industrial base.  That came up.

I’m not going to go beyond that.  But that did come up on the call.

Okay.  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is there anything you can say about President Xi Jinping’s reaction to all of the concerns that Biden laid out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would let President Xi speak for himself.  I’m not going to respond to him — for him.

Q    Any color about the tone of the conversation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — you — there’s a readout of the call.  I’m not going to get into — get into reactions, personal reactions.  I will let President Xi speak for himself.

Q    And just lastly, the cost to attend a number of New England colleges this fall is topping more than $90,000 a year.  What’s the White House’s reaction to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we have been very clear about how the cost of college is — is crushing many, many families.  We’ve talked about that.  And that’s why one of the things that the President has been very focused on is giving that student debt relief to — to many Americans and families out there.

While we tried to put for- — something forward, Republicans blocked it, and the President continued to find ways to move forward in trying to find really comprehensive measures to make sure that we’re giving relief to — to Americans so that they can — you know, so that they can start a family, so that they can buy a home.

And so, we’ve done that.  You’ve seen us announce a bunch of — a bunch of actions which the President is proud of and is going to continue to find ways to give that relief. 

The Department of Education has — has talked about the cost of — of college and has certainly worked with wor- — worked with students in fi- — in — in figuring out ways for them to afford going to school.  It’s important.  If someone wants to be able to go to college, they should be able to do that.  And they should be able to afford to make that decision.  Their family should be able to make that decision and not — and not go into debt.

And so, the President has been very, very clear about that.  He’s talk- — he’s talked about his own experience.  And so, you know, look, we’re going to continue to find ways to make sure that Americans get a little bit of breathing room, get a little bit of opportunity to move their — their lives forward, to reach their dreams the way that they choose.

And so, yeah, you know, we’re aware — we’re aware of how costly college can be.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  The owner of the ship involved in the Key Bridge collapse has denied responsibility for the accident, and they’ve filed a federal lawsuit trying to limit the amount of damages that they would have to pay.  What is the White House’s reaction to that lawsuit?  And is there going to be an effort to force them to pay more damages?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t want to get ahead.  As you know, there is an investigation currently happening.  The Department of Transportation is — is leading.  So, want to be really mindful, not get ahead of that, and not going to talk to an active lawsuit, as you just announced, from — from the ship owner.

But, look, I think it is important that we get to the bottom of this not just because — for us, but obviously the people of Baltimore, the people in Maryland need to have an answer here.  And so, we’re going to do everything that we can.  There’ll be investigation.  I want to be really mindful here.  But it is always important to make sure people are held to account.

For the President, he is going to do everything that he can, use a whole-of-government response, as you have seen from this administration, to continue to make sure that we do the recovery, to make sure that we rebuild that bridge, make sure they reopen the port. 

And you’re going to see the President on Friday doing that visit — visit to Baltimore.  We’ll have more details on that.  But just want to be really, really mindful.  If there’s investigation going on, don’t want to get ahead of that.

Q    Will he have any conversations with congressional leaders ahead of his trip to Baltimore to talk about getting funding rolling, knowing he will likely hear from local and state —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it —

Q    — leaders about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s a good question.  Look, we have said that we will fu- — the federal government will fully fund the — rebuilding that bridge.  That’s a commitment that the President is going to stand by.  Obviously, there are m- — there potentially could be an opportunity or will be an opportunity for — for Congress to get involved, and we’ll have those discussions.

We con- — we do — we are having those conversations with congressional members.  I can’t speak to what the President has on his calendar as far as speaking to congressional members about this particular issue ahead of Friday.

But I can assure you it is a conversation that members of his team are continuing to have and will continue to have as we move forward in making sure the people of Baltimore — you know, the community gets back on their feet as it relates to getting this bridge back, opening up the port.  It is critical.  It is important.  And we want to make sure we get that done.

Go ahead, Kelly.

Q    In the way you described the celebration with the Vice President and Muslim leaders and so forth, smaller-scale working group, isn’t that, on its face, really an acknowledgement that there is a great tension between the President and the Muslim community —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — and that you can’t do it publicly because you would be concerned about protests?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   So, look, I mean, the community leaders expressed their — their preference here.  They said this is what they wanted to — to see.  They wanted to make su- — they wanted to have a working group meeting.  That is something that they asked for.  It is — and we listened.  We heard them.

As you know, senior officials have been — you know, senior White House officials have been traveling the country, having really important conversations with members of that community — the Muslim community, the Arab community, the Palestinian community — because we understand how painful this moment is for them and we want to hear directly from them. 

This is a request from them.  They wanted to — they wanted to have a — again, a private working meeting.  They wanted this meeting to be held private.  So, we’re respecting that.  We’re respecting the fact that they want privacy. 

It is not the first time that they’ve requested a — a situation where it is private.  And so, that — this is what we heard during our outreach, and we’re going to respect that.  And this is what we’re doing today.

It doesn’t take away — it doesn’t take away how we’re going to continue to honor the tradition of the Muslim community as we speak about Ramadan, during Ramadan.  This is something that we’re going to respect and continue to do so.

But in this particular instant, they wanted — they wanted a working group meeting.  They wanted it to be private.  And we’re going to respect that.

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Going back to the “bloodbath” question.  The former President used that terminology a week or two ago, but he’s talking about it again today.  What’s the White House reaction to the use of that term “bloodbath”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really mindful here because it is — the President — the — the — obviously, the former President is also a candidate here, so want to follow the law with the Hatch Act.

But we have to denounce — our response is we have to denounce any — any violent rhetoric that we hear, certainly from our leaders — right? — that tears our country apart.  It could tear our country apart and puts our fellow Americans in harm’s way — in danger.  So, we have to denounce that.

And look, you know, I think and we think that the American people wants to see the country coming together.  That’s what they want.  They want to — they want to make sure that we respect our democracy.  They want to make sure that we respect the rule of law.  That’s what they want.

And so, that is what the President is going to continue to fight for.  I’m — we’re going — any type of violent rhetoric, we’re going to denounce that.  It doesn’t matter who it comes from.  We’re going to denounce it.

Q    Does the White House believe that there is a “bloodbath” taking place or a wave of migrant crime?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’ve been very clear about — I just laid out to Josh, when it comes to immigrants, how important they are to — to the fabric of this country, how important they are to the strength of this country, to our economy.

And that continues to — to be true, right?  That’s something that this President believes.  And we’ve always called out any — if there is any form of — of violence that — that’d be — could be caused by one person — right? — that we may have seen, we call that out as well.

And — and that is always important to do.  But in this instance, it is used to — in the way that this violent rhetoric is being used, it is being used to tear our country apart.  That’s how it’s being used.

And we have to — we can’t allow that.  Right?  This is not what Americans want to see.  Americans want to see us bringing the country together.

And — and so, that form of rhetoric, it is — it’s not helpful to us.  So, we’re going to continue to call that out, and we’re going to be very, very clear about that.

But this — you know, if — if a violent act is — ha- — happens, as we have seen, and someone is killed, we want to make sure that — that — you know, we’ve got to condemn that and want to make sure that the law comes into place and we let the law enforcement on the ground deal with that. 

But to denounce an entire community — we can’t allow that.  We have to denounce that, any type of violent rhetoric. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, just a quick point of clarification — Karine.

So, when Donald Trump is talking about a “bloodbath,” it is violent rhetoric.  What was it when Joe Biden said, in 2020, “We — what we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really mindful and careful about Donald Trump, but if you read — because he is a — he is a candidate.  We’re talking about the 2024 election.

You should read h- — what he said in its context.  So, you’ve got to read what he said in context.

Q    I understand.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wh- —

Q    “Bloodbath” is an ugly word —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve go- —

Q    — when Trump uses it.  What is it when Biden uses it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s not — no, no, no.  Let’s be very clear: You’ve got to actually ask me the question in context of what it was said — right? — and what the — what was said when he said that — right? — in his remarks, in his speech.  Right?

And so, that’s being disingenuous in your question.

Q    I’m reading a direct quote from Joe Biden: “What we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s talking about — he was talking about a group of people — a group of people.  That’s what he’s talking about. 

What the President was talking about during the primary was not to allow it to be — the words in — in the primary and that election to become negative.  Two different — two different things. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They’re not the same.  They’re not the same.  And your question is disingenuous. 

And so, look, I’m going to be really mindful here.  I’ve got to be really careful.  We have to denounce violent rhetoric, which — wherever it comes from — a former leader — we have to denounce that.  Because we saw what happened on January 6th.  We saw what happened there. 

When you have a mob of 2,000 people go to the Capitol because they didn’t believe in free — the free and fair election that just happened months prior because of violent rhetoric —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — you’ve got to denounce that.  That’s not what leaders should be doing. 

All right, I think I have to go. 

Go ahead, Erica.  I — I rarely call on you.  Go ahead, Erica.

Q    I — rarely raise my hand.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  You rarely raise your hand, so — (laughter).

Q    Back to college costs.  There are hundreds of thousands of families across the country waiting to see if their — their students will be able to afford college due to the botched rollout of the FAFSA.  And just this week, I mean, almost every day, the U.S. Department of Education is announcing another setback. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    It’s — it’s April — (laughs) — and, you know, I’m wondering what — what the White House is doing, what the oversight looks like, and what accountability will look like for these families, particularly the ones who rely on financial aid to go to college.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a really good question.  And I just want to say that the administration is — is committed to ensuring that students have access to the maximum financial aid possible. 

So, like with most major changes, implementing this new system has brought certain challenges.  And we’ve been very honest about that, and we’ve been very clear about that.  Yes, we have had some challenges here. 

But we don’t want to forget: Over 6 million — 6 million records have been processed — and that’s important — and delivered to schools.  And the department has an all-hands-on-deck team to address issues quickly and get information out to schools and families. 

Our top priority is, again, to ensure that students can acces- — access maximum financial aid possible.  We understand how important it is to get this aid.  And so, we want to make sure that we get that done. 

There’s an all-hands-on-deck scenario.  And, yes, we have had some challenges.  And we — we acknowledge that, and we’re doing everything that we can to fix that.

Thanks, everybody.  I’ll see you tomorrow.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

2:39 P.M. EDT

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

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

6:07 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Thank you all for joining us this evening for a call on the United States’ bilateral engagement with the People’s Republic of China. 

Just a couple of quick ground rules.  For awareness but not for reporting, joining us on the call this evening is [senior administration official].  The call is going to be held under embargo until noon tomorrow — that’s April 2nd, noon Eastern Time. 

And with that, I won’t hold us up any further and I will turn the call over to [senior administration official].  She can be attributed on background as a senior administration official.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks so much.  And, folks, thanks for joining us on a Monday evening. 

Tomorrow, on April 2nd, in the morning, President Biden will hold a phone call with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China.  Ahead of that, we thought it would be useful to give some context on the expected shape of that call and what we plan to raise. 

As many of you are tracking, the two leaders met face-to-face in Bali in November 2022 and then held a summit meeting in Woodside, California, in November 2023.  At Woodside, the two leaders agreed to maintain regular open lines of communication to responsibly manage competition and prevent unintended conflict.  And this phone call really is just part of that ongoing effort. 

I will note just for folks’ awareness, the last call between the two leaders was July 2022.  So it’s been a bit since we’ve done a telephone call between President Xi and President Biden. 

This call, of course, builds on the in-depth meetings between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and CCP Director of the Office of Foreign Affairs Commission and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Bangkok on January 26th, 27th of this year, and Secretary Blinken’s meeting with Wang Yi in Munich in February. 

On the call tomorrow, we anticipate President Biden and President Xi will discuss the U.S.-China bilateral relationship, the continued importance of strengthening lines of communication and managing competition responsibly, and a range of regional and global issues. 

I should note as well, of course: We have not changed our approach to the PRC, which remains one focused on the framework of invest, align, and compete.  Intense competition requires intense diplomacy to manage tensions, address misperceptions, and prevent unintended conflict.  And this call is one way to do that. 

There are also, of course, areas of cooperation where our interests align, and it is important to work together to deliver on issues that matter to the American people.  These areas include counternarcotics, risk and safety issues related to AI, resumption of mil-mil communication channels, and climate issues.  We expect the leaders will discuss progress on each of these issues since the Woodside Summit. 

On the upcoming call, we expect President Biden to emphasize the need for continued progress and substantive action on counternarcotics to address the scourge of illicit narcotics trafficking. 

Since Woodside Summit, we have seen the PRC implement some initial measures to restrict and disrupt the flow of certain precursor chemicals used to produce illicit synthetic drugs.  But, of course, the drug trade is continually evolving and changing.  And in order to ensure that we are disrupting this trade flow, we, the U.S. and China, need to maintain close consultations, both law enforcement to law enforcement, at the technical level and otherwise, to really drive that substantive law enforcement action. 

We also urge the PRC to follow through by scheduling chemicals agreed upon by the international community at the recent U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs. 

On mil-mil communication, another outcome of the summit, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown, held a virtual meeting with his counterpart in December.  The Defense Policy Coordination talks took place in early January. 

This week in Honolulu, operator-level Military Maritime Consultative Agreement meetings, the MMCA — it just rolls right off your tongue — will take place.  The goal of that is really to talk at the operator level about how to avoid and better understand the actions of the other party. 

We also expect communications at the minister-secretary level and between theater commanders in the coming months. 

All of these interactions from the operator up to the very top, SecDef level, are important to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. 

President Biden has made clear that this mil-mil communication is critical at all times but especially during times of heightened tensions. 

Another outcome from the summit: On AI, we are working towards a U.S.-China dialogue in the coming weeks aimed at managing the risk and safety challenges posed by advanced forms of AI. 

I will note as well: On March 21, the PRC supported a landmark resolution on AI at the United Nations as a co-sponsor, along with more than 120 countries, including the United States.  We think it is critical for the U.S. and China to better understand respective views and approaches to managing the risks associated with AI applications and to communicate about particular areas of concern.  That’s just what this AI dialogue will do in the coming weeks. 

We’re also continuing discussion in key channels on climate and economic issues, and seeking to strengthen ties between the people of the two countries, including by expanding educational and other exchanges. 

The call will also be an opportunity, as I mentioned, for the President to raise issues outside of bilateral issues.  We expect him to touch on a number of those.  This call will be an opportunity for the President to reaffirm the U.S. One China policy and reiterate the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, especially given the upcoming May presidential inauguration in Taiwan. 

The President may also express concern over destabilizing PRC actions in the South China Sea, including the dangerous recent action of the PRC coast guard against routine Philippine maritime operations near Second Thomas Shoal. 

He will likely also raise concern about the PRC’s support for Russia’s war against Ukraine and its efforts to help Russia reconstitute its defense industrial base.  We’re increasingly concerned that this action will impact longer-term European security.  And I think you heard many of these same concerns voiced by the French foreign minister in Beijing over the weekend. 

We also expect the two leaders to cover a range of other regional and global issues including efforts to advance the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

On economic and trade issues, President Biden will likely reiterate concerns about the PRC’s unfair economic practices and convey that the U.S. will continue to take actions to protect our economic and national security interests.  This includes, among other things, ensuring a fair and level playing field for American workers, as well as preventing advanced U.S. technologies from being used to undermine our national security. 

And all of this is focused on de-risking, not decoupling, and the President will make clear that is the direction we continue to follow. 

In his many conversations with President Xi, President Biden has consistently underscored the critical importance of respect for human rights.  And I expect the President will again raise concerns regarding the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and PRC human rights abuses, including in Xinjiang and Tibet.

I also expect the President will repeat his call for China to release U.S. citizens wrongfully detained or under exit bans.

There is no substitute, of course, for regular communication at the leader level to effectively manage this complex and often tense bilateral relationship.  Following the leaders call, we will continue to advance our interests through cabinet-level diplomacy, including visits to the PRC by Secretary of the Treasury Yellen in the coming days and Secretary of State Blinken in the coming weeks.  We also expect a SecDef-Minister of Defense call soon.  And of course, paired with this is travel by PRC officials here to the United States as well.

I’ve gone on for a bit, so I’ll leave it there for now.  And I welcome any questions you all may have.

MODERATOR:  With that, we’ll begin to take your questions.

Our first question will go to MJ Lee with CNN.

Q    Hey.  Thank you so much for doing this call.  I had two questions for you. 

First, before the summit in Woodside last year, it was clear that U.S. and Chinese officials had done the legwork ahead of time so that coming out of the summit the two leaders could announce the restoration of the military (inaudible) and also the announcement on curbing fentanyl.  Are there specific, sort of, gettables that the Biden administration has been working towards that are likely to be announced after their phone call tomorrow? 

And second, do you expect President Biden to follow up on Xi telling him in their last meeting that China doesn’t want to interfere in the 2024 U.S. election?  And did the President sort of take him at his word on that? 

And how do you expect the President to sort of talk to President Xi about Chinese hackers targeting U.S. critical infrastructure? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks so much for the questions.  On the first one, on any announcements or outcomes from the call, you know, we approach calls a little bit differently than we do summits.  You know, summits generally once a year.  Really a lot of effort to go in to lay the groundwork through secretary level and other engagements to drive towards outcomes.  I would take a phone call more as a check-in, so checking in on the three outcomes from the summit, trying to drive progress in that area.  But don’t anticipate new outcomes from this. 

Really, this is kind of what the responsible management of the relationship looks like.  In between those top-level, senior-level meetings that can occur about once a year, really finding a chance for the two leaders to talk through the tough issues and ensure that we’re responsibly managing the competition between the two countries. 

But as I mentioned before, I do expect a discussion of those outcomes from Woodside and, again, a goal of trying to drive additional efforts in each of those baskets. 

On your question regarding election influence or interference, you know, this has been a topic at, I would say, nearly every, if not every, senior-level engagement, ensuring that we are being crystal clear about our concerns that any country interfere or influence our elections.  We have undertaken a whole-of-government effort to protect our elections against these foreign attempts to interfere or influence. 

And I would say, like with any message we deliver to China or to other countries, it is one of continual reinforcement of concern.  And I don’t think we ever really take the Chinese at their word when they say they will or will not do something.  It is about verifying what the president says, verifying the results we see, the actions we see, and then continuing to underscore and press home what our concerns are.

On cyber-related issues, another longstanding concern the U.S. has had with China, of course: We’ve been clear both publicly and privately that we will take actions to address threats to our national security for malicious cyber activity.  We’ve done that through attribution.  We’ve done that through work with multilateral partners.  And we’ve done that through other unilateral means.  We’ll continue to convey to the PRC these concerns about accesses on U.S. critical infrastructure, on hacking.  And again, this is another issue I see as a longstanding one we’re going to have to continue to message at and take action on.

MODERATOR:  Next, we’ll go to Ed Wong with the New York Times.

Q    Hi.  Thanks.  A couple of questions related to America’s partners in the Asia Pacific region.  I was just in Taipei and I heard concerns from Taiwanese officials who insist that China has been ramping up its gray zone activity, whether it’s incursions across the median line using fighter jets, or ship activities around the offshore islands.  And also, we’ve seen, as you mentioned, the very active measures taken by Chinese ships towards the Philippine military ships around the Second Thomas Shoal. 

The U.S. has rhetorically pushed back on all of these, but China continues these activities.  What else can Biden be doing or saying to Xi to try and get China to limit these activities?

Second, obviously, China has great concerns about the ramping up of military ties between the U.S. and its partners and the upcoming Three Leaders Summit this month between the presidents of the U.S. and the Philippines and the prime minister of Japan.  So, will Biden mention this to Xi or try and placate any anxiety Xi about this?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the questions, Ed.

On the first one, on gray zone activity, you know, I think this has been a longstanding PRC practice to (inaudible) slowly, or sometimes more quickly ramp up pressure (inaudible).  Sometimes it’s through military activities, sometimes it’s through economic tools, some through diplomatic pressure.  So I don’t see anything particularly new here with PRC behavior in the Cross-Strait or South China Sea.

Our toolkit with which we respond is similarly, I think, a wide range of different tools, whether it’s diplomatic messaging.  You mentioned the Japan-Philippines-U.S. trilat and the bilat engagements later this month.  Certainly, South China Sea and what we’re seeing in that space will be a topic of discussion. 

Similarly, you’ve seen it come out in statements.  G7 and otherwise are concerned about coercive activity in the South China Sea and Cross-Strait.  So, messaging is a piece of that.  Of course, we have economics, (inaudible). 

This is just, unfortunately, business as usual.  And I think pushing back on that gray zone coercion is both about U.S. actions but also working closely with allies and partners, (inaudible) doing with the trilat later this month. 

We’ve been clear, both from the President but all the way on down to Secretary of State and at high level as well, that U.S. alliances and partnerships are not about China.  They’re about the partnership.  They’re about the affirmative engagement.  But oftentimes, Chinese action motivates a lot –much of what we talk about.  But that is — you know, that is something certainly well within China’s control, what it says and does, and the impact it has on U.S. partners and allies throughout the region. 

But certainly, I would expect at the upcoming meetings China to be a topic of conversation.

Over.

MODERATOR:  Next, we’ll go to Selina Wang with ABC. 

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  I have a few questions.  So, on the first one, how did the call come about?  Which side initiated this call?

Secondly, is the President going to use this call to pressure China to use its closeness with Iran to influence the Israel-Hamas war?

And just lastly, any reaction from the administration on, you know, a group of CEOs, including American CEOs, that recently met with Xi Jinping?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks so much, Selina.  On the first one, on the call, you know the diplomatic dance that usually precedes scheduling up a call like this. 

You know, at Woodside, just to take it back to that meeting last November, both President Biden and President Xi agreed that they would try to pick up the phone a bit more; use that tool as a means of responsibly managing the relationship, of being in closer touch at the leader level, which is so very critical in the Chinese system, on a more regular basis. 

So, you know, looking back between the last two summits, November 2022 and November 2023, we did not have a leader-level call.  And I think both sides realized that it’s important to do that to really manage the relationship in a more responsible fashion. 

So, after that agreement in Woodside last year, National Security Advisor Sullivan saw Director Wang Yi in Bangkok in January, discussed trying to do something in the first quarter of the year.  And then it was, of course, a trade-back of dates and times.  That 12-hour time difference does not make for easy scheduling, I can tell you.  From a granular working level, not an easy thing to do.  But landed on this week as a good chance to do it in almost the first quarter of 2024. 

On your second question, on Middle East: This, of course, has come up at — most recently, Secretary Blinken, before that National Security Advisor Sullivan, both with Director Wang Yi, and of course, back in Woodside as well.  We’ve been pretty clear in these high-level engagements of the role that the PRC should play in using its leverage with Iran, particularly to bring an end to Houthi attacks against civilian ships in the Red Sea.  These are exacerbating regional tensions, instability, and of course, impacting trade flows.  China should have a very direct interest in trying to limit that fallout.  So I suspect that, of course, could come up in conversation again. 

You asked about the U.S. CEOs meeting in Beijing.  Of course, saw the reports.  I think it’s pretty standard for U.S. CEOs to meet with Chinese leadership when they go back to China for the CDF, the China Development Forum.  I think it’s often a two-way conversation.  Of course, they’re raising their concerns about the business environment as well. 

But encourage you to reach out to them for more detail on that.  I don’t have any additional information.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Next, we will go to Demetri with the Financial Times.

Q    Thank you.  Good evening.  Two questions.  The first is: There appear to have been no, quote, unquote, “risky and coercive” intercepts by Chinese fighter jets since San Francisco.  I’m just wondering, why has China shifted course there?  Was it something that was agreed between the two sides, or was that a unilateral move by China?

And then separately, is there anything that the U.S. should be doing differently around the Second Thomas Shoal to make sure that that flashpoint doesn’t erupt even more?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the questions, Demetri.  On the unsafe intercepts, you know, this has certainly been a feature of mil-mil communication going way back, just raising these areas of — raising the chances that an unsafe intercept could very quickly lead to loss of a ship, loss of an aircraft; it could lead to loss of life.  Just incredibly risky behavior that could spin up into conflict, (inaudible) — but could spin us into unanticipated consequences quite quickly. 

It certainly has been discussed in track two channels.  It’s been discussed in Secretary Blinken’s meetings, National Security Advisor Sullivan, and it did come up at Woodside as well. 

I would not say there was an agreement to stop doing this, but we have consistently raised our concerns about the behavior and how irresponsible it is in a relationship between — one like between the United States and China.  I don’t know what motivated China to pull back from that.  I’d encourage you to reach out to them and see if there’s any additional detail there. 

But we have seen a reduction in that kind of activity, which is a welcome sign and a welcome signal of more responsible behavior in some aspects.  Right?  I would hasten to note, of course, we have not seen a reduction in some of the unsafe behavior around Second Thomas Shoal and around some of our other partners’ engagements with China, whether it’s Japan or Australia, in different areas in the Pacific. 

So a good sign, and hope that we will see additional pullback from some of that unsafe or risky behavior. 

You asked about a second question, which I foolishly did not write down.

Q    Yeah.  Should the U.S. be doing something differently with the Philippines around the Second Thomas Shoal to reduce the chances of that flashpoint erupting in a serious way?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Are you asking me if our policy is incorrect in any way, Demetri?  (Laughs.)

Q    I’m asking you if it’s perfect.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Laughs.)  Look, I think this is an area — again, another one of longstanding discussion between the United States and China going back years, going back since the grounding of the Sierra Madre.  It’s come up in every high-level engagement I’ve recently been in.  We are increasingly concerned that PRC’s behavior in this space could lead us closer to, really, unintended consequences, both with our Philippine partners. 

But of course, we’ve talked about the mutual defense treaty as well.  We’ve made clear we remain committed to promoting freedom of navigation and overflight, respect for international law, peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea, and close coordination with our allies and partners. 

But I think it’s fair to say just increasingly risky behavior in that space has us quite concerned and that I expect this will be a topic of conversation between Japan, Philippines, and the U.S. when the three leaders meet later this month both trilaterally and bilaterally.

MODERATOR:  Our next question will go to Zeke Miller with the AP.

Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  Just a technical question in terms of the timing of the call.  When this call comes off embargo, will the President have already had that conversation, or will it take place in the future?  Just so we can describe it accurately in our reporting.

And then, will there be any further discussion of a potential — yet another summit this year?  Obviously, it’s an election year, but some other face-to-face meeting between the two leaders at the leader-to-leader level this year.  Thank you. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take the first, which is: The call will have occurred by the time the embargo lifts. 

And just another logistical flag for this group: It is likely that we will move up the lifting of the embargo.  So please be looking out for outreach from me on that front.

And I will hand the second question over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks so much.  And thanks for the question, Zeke. 

You know, I think both sides recognize the value in more regular touch points between the leaders.  We’re doing that now via calls.  I would anticipate, you know, depending what happens in the coming year, there would be — we would hope there would be a chance for another in-person meeting, but don’t have anything even to speculate on when that might be.  But certainly, value in that in-person meeting and the calls in the interim.

MODERATOR:  And our last question is going to go to Aurelia End with the AFP.

Q    Thanks for taking my question.  I was just going to follow up.  How hard do you expect the President to put pressure on President Xi regarding the PRC’s links with Iran and Russia?

And another one that’s not about the call itself but somehow related to the issues in the region.  According to the Yonhap News Agency, North Korea just fired a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan.  And I was wondering whether you could confirm that and also comment maybe.  Thank you so much. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that, Aurelia.  On the first question, Iran/Russia, certainly expect the topic to be raised on the call. 

You know, on Russia in particular, this has been a part of our diplomatic conversations with the PRC since the start of Russia’s war on Ukraine.  Started out talking about lethal assistance and concerns around that, use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine.  Both of those issues, I think thanks in part to the diplomacy not just by the United States with China but European partners as well, we saw more positive action from China on. 

But as time has gone on, we’ve really seen the PRC start to help to rebuild Russia’s defense industrial base, essentially backfilling the trade from European partners, helping provide the components that get us slowly towards increasing Russia’s capabilities in Ukraine.  And that has, of course, longer-term impacts on European security as well, as, again, you heard from the French foreign minister in Beijing over the weekend. 

So, quite a bit of concern around this.  China, of course, is a sovereign country; it will make its own decisions about its relationships.  But quite concerned about the direction of travel on this one, and I’m certain it will come up.

You asked as well, sorry, on the missile launch.  I don’t have a comment on that.  Will perhaps refer you to [senior administration official] to come back on the DPRK missile launch.  But certainly growing concern about DPRK’s provocations and the risks of its growing economic, military, and technological partnership with Russia.  You know, we certainly continue to underscore these concerns to China while also reiterating our readiness to conduct diplomacy with North Korea and our determination to take steps to deter further provocations by the DPRK.

MODERATOR:  And with that, we’re going to conclude this evening’s call.  Thank you all for joining us.  We anticipate that we will issue a transcript of the call following the call. 

And just as a final reminder, the embargo is currently set to noon Eastern Time on April 2nd.  Thank you.

 6:35 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call on the Bilateral Relationship with the People’s Republic of China appeared first on The White House.

12:38 P.M. EDT

(A costumed Easter Bunny approaches the podium.)

Q    Awww!

Q    Happy Easter!

(The Easter Bunny gestures to take questions from the press.)

Q    How has Easter been for you this year?

Q    Are you the President of the United States?

(The Easter Bunny shakes its head.)

Q    Are you the Vice President of the United States?

(The Easter Bunny shakes its head.)

Q    Are you a senior White House official?

(The Easter Bunny shrugs.)

Q    Bring any chocolate for us?

Q    Are you John Kirby?  (Laughter.)

(Ms. Jean-Pierre enters the Briefing Room.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hey.  Hi.

Q    How was the Easter Egg Roll today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  How was —

Q    How was the Roll?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — thumbs up?

(The Easter Bunny makes a thumbs up gesture.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thumbs up.  Two thumbs up from the bunny.

All right.  Thank you.

(The Easter Bunny departs the Briefing Room.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Happy Easter.

Q    Are you someone who works here at the White House?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, hello, everybody.  Happy Easter Monday.

So, I have something at the top for all of you, and I think you’ll be really interested in this.  So, President Biden is scheduled to announce he is revoking the Hatch Act.  So, as a gift to all of you — so, now I can actually take all your questions about 2024.  (Laughter.)

Q    Good one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No?  I thought you would love that.

Q    No.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Okay.  April Fools.  April Fools.  April Fools.  It is April 1st.

Q    That’s a pretty good one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — thank you.  I thought was pretty —

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I thought it was pretty slick of me.  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

All right.  With all — in all seriousness, a couple things at the top.

So, First Lady Jill Biden — Dr. Biden — a teacher for more than 30 years, is continuing her theme of “EGGucation” for today’s White House Easter Egg Roll, transforming the South Lawn and Ellipse into a school community full of fun educational activities for children of all ages to enjoy. 

In total, approximately 40,000 people will take part in this year’s event — 40,000 people.

We do want to say a special thank you to the American Egg Board and America’s egg farmers for continuing its more than 45-year history of support for the event and for its donation of 64,000 eggs used on the South Lawn and another 64,000 donated to the Capital Area Food Bank to match the eggs used for the Roll.

And I have some news for you at the top.  I know many of you were asking this question over the weekend.  President Biden will travel to Baltimore on Friday to visit the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge, meet with state and local officials, and get on-the-ground — an on-the-ground look at federal response efforts.

The President is continuing to lead a whole-of-government approach to the collapse. 

President Biden and his team are working with Governor Moore, the congressional delegation, Mayor Scott, and numerous state and local ol- — officials to reopen the port, rebuild the bridge, and support the people of Baltimore. 

Through the unified command, the U.S. Coast Guard is coordinating a complex and highly coordinated effort to remove the wreckage, with resources from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state of Maryland, and others. 

Crane barges are on the scene, supporting the mission. In addition, the Chesapeake 1000, the largest heavy-lift crane barge on the East Coast, which is nearly 200 feet long and can lift 1,000 tons, arrived Thursday night.  And on Saturday, the unified command successfully removed the first piece of wreckage.

Last week, within hours of receiving the request, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the immediate availability of $60 million in “quick release” Emergency Relief funds for the Maryland Department of Transportation.

We’re also doing everything that we can to help address economic impacts. 

On Saturday, the Small Business Administration quickly approved a disaster declaration and will provide low-interest disaster loans to eligible affected business — businesses. Today, the SBA is launching two Business Recovery Centers in Baltimore County.  These centers will support impacted business owners in com- — in completing their disaster loan applications.

The Department of Labor is working with local and state officials to determine how to assist workers out of — out of work due to closure of the port.  Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su is in Baltimore today meeting with stakeholders. 

And twice last week, the White House convened a meeting for the Biden-Harris administration Supply Chain Disruptors [Disruptions] Task Force to discuss potential impacts on regional and national supply chains.

As the President said within hours of the collapse, this administration will be with the people of Baltimore every step of the way.  We are with you, Baltimore, and we will be there until — until we get this done.

Q    Karine, is he viewing by air, land, and sea, like flying by Air Force One?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We will — we will have more — we will have more information as we get closer to — to Friday.  I think the important thing is the President has said we just — he was going to go as soon as possible.  Now he’s — he is going to go on Friday.  We certainly will have more information to share.  I just don’t have any details at this time.

Go ahead, Will.

Q    Thank you.  So, the criticism over the Transgender Day of Visibility.  The White House said that the President wouldn’t abuse his faith for political purposes.  Does the President think that’s what Republicans are doing on this issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, just a couple of things. And really, so surprised by the misinformation that’s been out there around this, and I want to be very clear.

Every year, for the past several years, on March 31st, Transgen- — Transgender Day of Visibility is marked.  And as we know — for folks who understand the calendar and how it works, Easter falls on different Sundays — right? — every year.

And this year, it happened to coincide with Trans- — Transgender Visibility Day.  And so, that is the simple fact.  That is what has happened.  That is where we are.

And I do want to say a couple of things, because I think it’s important here.  As you just stated in your question, what we’ve been hearing out there — a lot of misinformation done on purpose. 

And as a Christian who celebrates Easter with family, President Biden stands for bringing people together and upholding the dignity and freedoms of every American.

Now, sadly — and it’s not surprising, right?  It is actually unsurprising that politicians are seeking to divide and weaken our country with cruel, hateful, and dishonest rhetoric.  It is dishonest what we have heard the past 24 hours.  It is untrue what we heard over the weekend.

And, you know, we — we were, at first — I want to be very clear — confused on their coverage.  We’re grateful that Fox agrees with President Biden about the importance of recognizing Trans Day of Visibility.

And I’ll just quote something that Fox said back in 2021.  They tweeted this.  “Trans Day of visibility is dedicated to celebrating transgender people.  To all the transgender men, women, and non-bari- — binary folk, we see you and stand with you.”

President Biden will never abuse his faith or — for political purposes or for profit.  That is not what this administration is about.  That is not what being a leader is about.

And this misinformation out there is just — it’s just — it’s bad.  And it is dividing — it is caused to divide us.

And I want to say one more quote.  This is what Politico covered.  “Every year” — and I said this at the top of my answer — “Transgender Day of Visibility is on March 31st.”  This year, March 31st just so happens to be also Easter, the date of which changes every year.  That’s how I started out.  And that’s how I’ll end.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Why are the U.S. and Israelis meeting virtually today instead of having that in-person meeting on Rafah?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, I can confirm that there is a virtual mee- — meeting happening today with both U.S. officials, Israeli officials to discuss Rafah — the situation in Rafah and, obviously, the next steps that we have been hearing that the Israeli government wants to take. 

This is — this is following the discussions that we — we all talked about last week with the Israeli Minister of Defense and his delegation.  And this conversation today is being led by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

Look, I think it’s important to note that we were rea- — we were able to reschedule this on Friday.  And we wanted to move very quickly on this.  And, today, the meeting is happening virtually, because we understand — and, obviously, you all understand — how important it is to have this conversation.

We have been very clear about our concerns about a military operation into Rafah.  We know that there are more than a million Palestinians who are in Rafah right now, who moved from the north to go into Rafah. 

And so, we want to make sure, if there is going to be a military operation — we also know that there are Hamas operators in Rafah as well — but if they are going to move forward with a military operation, we have to have this conversation.  We have to understand how they’re going to move forward.

We — and I’ll say one more thing.  When Jake Sullivan was here at the podium not too long ago, he believed and he said there are alterniv- — alternative ways of doing this –alternative ways of going after Hamas. 

And so, they’re going to have the discussion.  I think it’s important that it happen as quickly as — as it did, even though it’s virtual.  And we’ll certainly have more to share.

Q    Are there still in-person meetings planned and, if so, when this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We — we will have more to share on the next steps.  We’re going to have a readout of this conversation.  But I think — rescheduled on Friday.  Today, Monday, we’re having a conversation.  We have laid out our concerns about this for some time.  And I think it’s important that both sides are having this discussion. 

Q    And just lastly, Speaker Johnson said there will be a vote on Ukraine soon when the House comes back from recess.  But he said it would include some “innovations,” like making some portion of it a loan.  If that’s the only way to get Ukraine aid passed, would the President sign that kind of bill?

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

We’ve been very clear.  We believe if the Speaker were to put the national security supplemental on the floor — obviously, it includes Ukraine, humanitarian aid, Israel, the Indo-Pacific — we believe and it is fact that it would get majority bipartisan support on — on the floor in the House. 

We saw, 70 to 29, it passed out of the Senate — bipartisan support — overwhelming bipartisan support.  We believe it would get overwhelming bipartisan support if he would put it on the floor.  That’s all he needs to do. 

And so, that’s what we believe the — the Speaker — how it should be moved forward.  I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals.

Go ahead.

Q    Do you expect specific decisions to come out of the Rafah meeting today, Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get ahead of the meeting.  We will have a readout of — of that meeting.  I’m just not going to — I’m not going to get ahead of it.

Q    And then, secondly, the — the Israelis bombed Iran’s consulate building in Damascus today.  It apparently killed an Iranian military commander.  Did you know about this in advance?  Are you concerned this is an escalation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m aware of the reports.  Our team is looking into it.  So, I’m not going to get ahead of anything just yet.  But, obviously, we’re aware of the reports, and our team is looking into it.  I’m just not going to go beyond that. 

Q    And then, lastly, if I could, do you have an update on how to pay for the new bridge?  Have you — have you had conversations with House Republicans about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as — as I mentioned at the top, we — Department of Transportation was able to release $16- — $60 million, which, obviously, is going to be really important — a kind of a down payment, if you will, on getting — on dealing on — on getting that bridge rebuilt. 

We’re going to have continued conversation with the state of Maryland to get a sense of how much this is going to cost.  And we have said we’re going to certainly continue to talk to Congress to get some assistance here. 

The President has been very clear.  He’s going to be there for the people of Baltimore.  This is a whole-of-government approach, and we are going to do everything that we can to make sure that that bridge gets back up.  I don’t have anything further to share on congressional conversation.  But that’s a commitment that the President has made.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  “60 Minutes” reported last night on a connection between anomalous health incidents and a unit of the Russian military intelligence service.  What’s the White House’s reaction to that reporting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful here.  The intelligence community has not concluded that.  Obviously, there was an assessment that intelligence community made.  And so, I would have to refer you to the — to ODNI on their assessment.  But that particular piece about Russia — I know that they had not concluded that.

Q    Right.  And I know that the — the intelligence community has said that it’s — they still think it’s un- — not likely that a foreign power is responsible.  How can the administration continue to believe that when you have so many credible U.S. officials who have experienced this saying otherwise?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, this is an intel- — intelligence community assessment.  ODNI can speak specifically on how they got to that assessment, how they got to that conclusion.  So, I want to be super mindful. 

What I can speak to is what we have done since 2023 since the intelligence committee assessment.  And we have taken this very seriously.  The President takes U.S. personnel — making sure that they are protected is the most important. 

A couple of steps that we took: We prioritized investigations into the cause of AH- — AHIs and to examine reports thoroughly. 

Now, this is something that the President directed the departments in the federal government — obviously, across the federal government — to do: ensure that U.S. government personnel and their families who report AHIs receive the support and timely access to medical care that they need and — and to take reports of AH- — AHIs seriously and — and threat to personnel with respect and compassion. 

So, we have taken some actions that will — that — that the President directed his agencies across the federal government.

At — any specifics to the intelligence assessment, I would have to refer you to ODNI.

Q    And the Pentagon confirmed another aspect of “60 Minutes” reporting today, that a Department of Defense official who was in Vilnius for the NATO Summit last year also experienced what appears to be AHI.  Can you give us any update on that person’s condition?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have any update.  I’m very careful about speaking to any personnel-specific case.  So, I can’t — I don’t want to do that from here.  I would have to refer you on Department of Defense, since that came from the Department of Defense. 

Q    Bottom line: Are U.S. officials who are working on issues related to Russia — particularly overseas — are they safe?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we are going to continue to emphasize the importance of prioritizing — right? — making sure that personnel are, you know, protected.  And we are going to do everything that we can.  This is something that this President believes is important. 

And so, look, we’re going to get to the — we’re going to continue to do a comprehensive examine — examination of the effects here that we’re seeing and the potential causes of AHI.  That’s something that we’re going to continue to look into. 

And, look, we take this very seriously.  We take this very serious.  This is why we have taken an all-of-government approach and — and have directed agencies to do the three things that I listed out.  And, you know, it — this is — this is important.  We see this as a — as — as a important issue that we want to — to, certainly, prioritize.  And that’s what we have been doing since 2023. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Is the President hosting an iftar dinner tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to confirm here.  As you know, very early on this month, we put out a statement marking the first day of Ramadan.  This is March, obviously, we did that. 

The President wishes all who observe Ramadan a safe, healthy, and blessed month.  In his statement, he spoke to the appalling resurgence of hate and violence towards Muslim Americans.  He also spoke to the need to secure a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal in our efforts to signif- — significantly increase humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

And that’s something that you’ve heard us talk about.  You’ve heard us actually take actions in the past couple of weeks, whether it’s the pier, whether it’s the plane drop and working with Israel, obviously, to get that — increase the humanitarian aid.  And so, we’re going to continue to do that. 

We don’t have — I don’t have anything to — to share with you at this moment. 

Q    But if he does host an iftar dinner, would you announce that in advance the way you do for Hanukkah gatherings —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — or other kinds of gatherings?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything to share on — on an event com- — an upcoming event at this time.  I just don’t have anything to share.

Go ahead.

Q    On LNG and Ukraine aid.  Can you say, is the President open to suspending the pause on — the administration’s pause on — on new LNG approvals in exchange for Ukraine aid?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as we said repeatedly, the House needs to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental.  I’ve been saying that.  It was the first thing I said when I came to the podium — one of the first things.  And we want to see that as soon as possible.  We know it would get bipartisan support overwhelmingly if it were to go to the floor of the House.  That’s what we want to see. 

As I stated, it’s already passed the Senate 70-29.  So, it’s important to move forward. 

And we’ve also talked about — Jake Sullivan has talked about, my National Security Council colleague has talked about this as well — is that we — or Ukraine can’t afford any more delays.  We have seen what’s been happening the past several weeks, the past several months in Ukraine.  They are losing ground on the battlefield. 

Q    So, are you saying it’s still on the table?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, what I’m saying is that we have to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental.  That’s what we want to see.  If we want to —

Q    All right.  So, you can’t say if Biden is — is willing to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We — look —

Q    — make that exchange?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is — this is where we are at this moment in time.  We want to make sure that national security supplemental is moved forward.  It could get bipartisan support.  We know it will.  We know it would get overwhelming support if they put it on the floor, right?

And Congress’s inaction has led to Ukraine losing footing in the battlefield.  That’s what we’ve seen.  That’s what we’ve seen.  And so, Congress needs to act.  It is — in order to actually deal with this, in order to give Ukraine — the Ukrainians what they need, the brave Ukrainians on the ground what they need —

Q    So, can you say if the President is open to (inaudible) with the Speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just — I’m just not going to negotiate from the podium.  That’s what we — we’ve always been very clear from that — from here.  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. 

We know what needs to be done.  And what needs to be done is to put that national security supplemental — passed out of the Senate in a bipartisan fashion, 70 to 29 — we believe it can get passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion in the House.  I just want to be mindful and not get into hypotheticals from here.

Go ahead.

Q    On the reporting about the health incidents.  Because a lot of these concerns and incidents are happening on the President’s and Vice President’s trip, do you know if the President or Vice President have met with anyone who has been impacted by any of these health concerns?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s a good question.  I don’t have — I don’t have any readout or any conversations to — to say or to speak to at this time. 

Q    And then, these officials are saying they’re speaking out because they don’t agree with the ODNI assessment.  Is the President going to, you know, implore Director Haines to look at these claims more closely?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, there was a nat- — an assessment that was done, as you just stated in your — in your statement — in your question to me.  I would have to — we trust our — our intelligence community, right?  And they put out an assessment.  So, I would have to refer you to ODNI.  I can’t get into any sp- — more specifics than that. 

Q    So, the President is standing by that assessment and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is —

Q    — that’s the end of the road?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He is standing by the assessment.  I would have to refer you to ODNI. 

Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, I have two different subjects related to one topic.  When it comes to the Baltimore port, is the President or Democrat- — or are you hearing from Democrats, particularly in this building, that there’s a concern that Republicans aren’t moving in an expeditious fashion?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I can’t — I can’t speak to that right now.  What I can speak to: what the President has been doing.  He has said he’s going to use a whole-of-government approach.  You heard the Department of Transportation — you heard me at the top say that $60 million has been provided to get that bridge done. 

And, look, we’re going to do everything that we can to get the port open as soon as possible, obviously, to build that bridge as — as soon as possible.  The timeline is going to be complicated.  It is a complicated scenario.  So, I don’t have a timeline on that. 

Look, we’re going to have conversations with congressional members.  We’re going to, certainly, talk to them on what else is needed, if there is additional funding — there is going to be additional funding needed to get this done. 

I’m not going to go into — into specifics at this time. 

Q    Are Republicans invited to the White House this week or next week to talk about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any schedule about any congressional conversations here happening at the White House.  But I would say the — you know, our — our Leg Affairs — White House Leg Affairs has regular communication with — with congressional members.  Department of Transportation, as well, has regular communication with congressional members.  And so, that’s going to continue. 

I just don’t have a — a formal — a formal meeting to be happening here —

Q    And the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — on this particular issue.

Q    And the next subject that’s related to this.  After all of us — the world watched how that cargo ship — that multi-hundred-ton barge ran into the pillar, is there a concern about assessing bridges that deal with these kind of things around the nation?  Has there been talk about that?  Because this was — yes, it was catastrophic, but this government seems to be very reactionary.  When something happens, it jumps on to try to fix it.  And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which I think is a good thing.  I think, when something happens, the fact that this administration jumps on top of it and tries to make sure that we don’t forget the communities, we assist, and we get communities put back together — right? — the — the bridge is something that the Balti- — people of the — Baltimore are feeling very acutely.  And so, we’re going to, certainly, do everything that we can to get that bridge back up and to get the port open.

Look — but as you’re asking me about bridges and — and, certainly, infrastructure —

Q    Throughout the nation, that’s (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No — but that’s why the bipartisan infrastructure legislation was so important.  Let’s not forget, that infrastructure law is now going to really deal with infrastructure in a generation.  It is something that is a — an investment in our infrastructure, not just bridges.  We’re talking about tunnels.  We’re talking about roads, right?  We’re talking about broadband, right?

These are incredibly important.  And creating jobs — creating good-paying union jobs.

And so, that is what the President has said he was going to do.  The last administration turned it into a joke.  It was Infrastructure Week every week, and he did absolutely nothing. 

And so, this administration was able to get a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law done.  And so, we are — we are proud to have been able to do that.  Obviously, it’s going to speak to the bridges. It’s going to speak to bridge- — to — to roads and tunnels.  And I think that’s important that that was able to get done within the President’s first term.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  International doctors has been describing horrific scene at the Shifa Hospital.  Three hundred bodies were found.  Some were tied up and executed, including doctors, women, and children.  Is the White House calling for an independent investigation?  And second, do you believe that Israel is in violation of international law?

And just on another topic.  The Israeli Knesset, the parliament, just passed a law banning international media from working in Israel.  You always call Israel as an ally that you share values with.  Is this a value that you share with?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple — you asked me two very important questions, and I want to get to — to them.

So, as it relates to — and I think you were speaking specifically — at least the reports that we’ve seen — is about Al Jazeer- — Jazeera, specifically.  But it doesn’t matter, whichever — right? — journalists more broadly.  But at — to those particular report, we’ve seen the reports, and, certainly, I’m going to refer to Israel for what they may or may not be considering.

But it — if it is true — if it is true, a move like this is concerning.  We believe in the freedom of the press.  It is critical.  It is critically important.  And the United States supports the critically important work journalists around the world do.  And so — and that includes those who are reporting in — in the conflict in Gaza.

So, we believe that work is important, the freedom of the press is important.  And if those reports are true, it is concerning to us.

And to your first question.  So, look, Hamas should not — should not be operating out of hospitals — we have said that — we’ve said that over and over again — and putting civilians at risk.  That’s what we’re seeing.  And we are concerned by how Hamas appears — they appear to have been able to reconstitute in a hospital so quickly.

So, we’ve always ma- — also made clear that we continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself.  But — but as we’ve also said, we do not want firefights in a hospital where innocent people — people — helpless people, people seeking medical care are caught in the — in a crossfire.  We don’t want to see that.

We have urged Israel to take every step to avoid civilian casualties.  And this just points to how challenging Israel’s military operation is because Hamas has intentionally embedded themselves into — into civilian infrastructure, into these hospital.

And so — and so, we’ve been very clear.  As — as it relates to the footage, as it relates to the photos and recordings, we have not verified that photo- — footage.  We’re — we’re going to be reaching out to the Israeli government to get more information.

But obviously, if these reports are true, that is indeed deeply concerning.

Q    But this difference between the civilized world and uncivilized world is sticking to international law at the time of war. 

So, regardless, even if these people were Hamas, do you believe that under international law Israel has the right to execute people, even if Hamas, which you consider a terrorist organization — regardless, you can hold them to the same standard as a professional army that often the White House praise as a professional army, they know what they’re doing, and even sometimes you said, “I wish the U.S. Army behaved like the Israelis”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear your question, and I have said it is deeply concerning if it’s true.  We are reaching out to Israel government to get more information.  And that is also important to do.  We have to make sure that the- — this — what we’re hearing is verified — right? — that the footage is also verified.

But we’ve been very clear.  Like, this is — we also have to call out Hamas here.  They are operating out of hospitals — out of hospitals.  That’s what they’re doing.  They’re embedding themselves in civilian population.  This is what they’re doing.  And so, we have to be, also, very clear about that. 

And we have said we’ve urged Israel to take every step that they — to avoid civilian casualties.  So, we’re going to re- — we’re going to reach out to the Israeli government, get more information on that.  And it i- — if that is indeed the case, it is deeply concerning.  It is deeply concerning.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just kind of going back to the LNG pause for a minute.  In January, when the pause was announced, the President put out a statement, and he said, “This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.”

Does the President still believe that that LNG pause is so necessary?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Nothing has changed.  Nothing has changed in our — in our — in our posture on LNG.

Go ahead.

Q    Great.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Back in 2007, there was another deadly bridge collapse.  It happened in Minnesota.  And days after, Congress reacted.  They passed the funding to replace that bridge.  Is the President disappointed that there isn’t that same sense of urgency as it relates to the Key Bridge in Baltimore?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I can speak to right now — in this time, in this moment — is the — what — what the President has promised: a whole-of-government approach here — response.  That’s what you’ve seen.

The Department of Transportation was able to provide $70- — $60 million.  Just last week, they made that announcement.  You heard me talk about that at the top.  And we will, of course — of course, we are going to work with Congress to ensure that we have the — the resources — right? — needed so that we can make sure that this is fully covered — the rebuilding of the bridge is fully cov- — covered.

I’m not going to go beyond — beyond that.  We’re going to have those conversations.  We’re going to make sure that we are there for the people of Baltimore.  That is the President’s promise.  He said that the federal government is going to fully pay for that.  And he’s going to stand by his word.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Also, on Baltimore.  The six victims of the collapse of the bridge were Latino — from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.  Is the President planning to meet with the families of the victims?  And more broadly, what the White House is doing to help these families that now are facing difficult decisions, for example, where to hold the funeral because some of the family members cannot leave to the home country, some others cannot come here.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, what are you doing about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, going to give you more about what the President is going to be doing on Friday in the next upcoming days.  We’ll have more details to share to all of you.  And so, I’ll leave it there about what — what we’re going to be doing on that day.

As it relates to the family members, you may have heard Tom Perez, last week, met with a couple of the family members when he was in Baltimore.  He did a press conference and talked about that and laid that out.  So, certainly, we’ve been in touch with the family members.

I just want to be super careful.  And, you know, they are mourning at this time.  And so, just don’t want to go beyond that.

Q    Is the White House considering some kind of parole to let the people come and — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything beyond — beyond that.

Go ahead.

Q    Just a couple more on Baltimore.  You went into it a little bit at the top, but what does the President hope to get out of the visit on Friday?  Like, what does he want to see and what does he want to hear when he’s there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, sadly, he — he’s done these kind of — kind of visits.  Not — obviously, not this dramatic with a bridge before, but he has been there for communities when they’ve experienced a traumatic event like the people of Baltimore have. 

And I think it’s important for him for — for people to — for — for folks who are working on the ground, whether it’s the first responders who were there in the first couple of hours or the folks who are there now, to see from — from — to see the President, to hear from the Commander-in-Chief, to know that he appreciates the work that they’ve been doing around the clock, to also be there for the community. 

You know, we’ve seen Governor Moore, we’ve seen the mayor do everything that they can for the community in this time.  And so, the President wants to be there as well. 

He’s going to be — Governor Moore is going to be joining him.  I can share — share that with all of you.  And, certainly, we’ll have more beyond that. 

And so, I think it’s important for — when — when something like this — when something this traumatic — six people died, a community is affected by this bridge — to have the President be there. 

And so, we know that there’s a whole-of-government approach happening here — a response.  And — and so, the President is going to see for himself what happened, see for himself the work that’s being done.

I don’t want to get ahead of what that’s going to look like.  I know I was asked if he’s going to do it by air or land.  I just don’t have any details at this time.

Q    And sea.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And sea.

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  True.  And sea.

We’ll have more details to share if the family members are going to be there.  We’ll just have more details to share.  Obviously, he’ll be there with Governor Moore, and he will assess himself and see for himself and hear directly from — from the people who are on the ground doing the work.

Q    And Governor Moore and Mayor Scott were facing personal attacks in the wake of the bridge collapse last week.  When was the last time the President talked to them?  And did they talk about that?  What’s the White House response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I think Governor Moore said it perfectly on Sunday: We do not have time for this foolishness.  We just don’t.  We don’t have time for this foolishness. 

And our focus is reopening the port, making sure that bridge gets rebuilt, making sure that we are there — we are there for the people of Baltimore. 

And so, I will add that these claims are baseless and they’re just wrong.  They’re just wrong.  And we’re not going to let these misinformation, disinformation — these horrible statements that are being made distract us from the work that the people of Baltimore want us to do. 

And so, we just have no time for — for any of this foolishness.  And that is, I think, the best way that could be said by — by the Gov- — Governor Moore, who said this yesterday. 

Q    Are you speaking of the words “DEI mayor”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Oh yeah.  Yeah.  I — I’m — I’m referring — I mean, Karen could speak to her question, but they’ve been under attack.  There was the “DEI” comment on the mayor.  There’s been other really misguided, misinformed, just awful — awful statements that have been made.  And those are wrong and those are baseless.  And we cannot be distracted here.

Q    Are they racist statements?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I can say is they’re wrong and they’re baseless.  And I think that — that’s pretty — that goes pretty far, right?  And let’s not forget, six people — six people lost their lives.  Six people lost their lives.

Go ahead, Jared.

Q    As you have these conversations with Congress about the funding needed to reopen the port and — and reopen — rebuild the bridge, are there also conversations about any additional legislation that may be needed as it relates to, like, regulation or oversight?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I’m not going to get into — I’m not going to get ahead of the funding conversations here that we’re having.  And I think that’s what is the focus here right now, is to make sure that we have the funding, that we get that bridge built, make sure that we open that port.  I think that’s really important. 

I just don’t want to get into — not going to get ahead.  As you know, there’s an investigation happening.  So, I don’t want to get ahead of that.

Go ahead.

Q    Does the President support the $20 minimum wage that’s going into effect for fast-food workers in California today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me look into that.  I have not seen that — that reporting. 

Obviously, the President believes that every worker should be paid, you know — you know, should be able to — to be — able to be paid to support their family. 

And we hear — you hear the President talk about making sure that, you know, folks are able to live in dignity — right? — and respect — have that dignity and respect to raise their family. 

You hear the President talk about his own experience growing up and how difficult it is to be — when you’re around that — when you’re around the kitchen table making those difficult decisions.

On this particular report, I just — I don’t want to speak — speak in — speak about it until I get more — more information.

Q    Okay.  And — but going back to the LNG export ban.  The Energy Secretary has said that that’s a temporary pause.  I’m wondering how long “temporary” is.  And if it is to the level that — that was read out earlier, you know, related to the climate crisis, are there plans to make it permanent?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the Department of Energy.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  Starting with Turkey, can you just tell us a little bit more about the Turkish President’s visit next month, what priorities the two presidents bring to this meeting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  We’ll have — we’ll have more to share as we get closer to that — to that date.  I don’t want to get ahead of, obviously, what’s actually going to happen in the meeting.  But certainly, we’ll have more to share.

Q    Cool.  Then I’ll move on to — a Chinese national was arrested for trespassing on a California naval base.  Does this speak to larger concerns that the White House has about possible Chinese spying, national security?  And what are you doing about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we take those types of incidents very seriously.  I can’t speak to case — case by case, but, obviously, that’s something that we take very seriously.  We work with folks on the ground when we see those types of cases pop up.  But I just don’t — and I just don’t want to get too fur- — too — too far into it.

Q    And, finally, on Senegal.  The President and the Secretary of State congratulated the new President — the 44-year-old President.  This is leading to other societies in West Africa pushing for quicker elections, for a loosening of their entrenched leadership.  How does the White House see that?  And is that something that you’d support?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that last part — it relates to?  Say that last part.

Q    Sorry.  We’re seeing now that other countries — Mali, Burkina Faso, to name just two — their citizenry are now pushing for democratic transitions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Is that something you guys support?  What are you doing to support that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s important — right? — free and fair elections, democracy working at its best, in this — in this regard.  I think it’s incredibly important. 

I — that is — you know, that is something for each individual domestic country to decide on — on.  But I think it’s important to have free and fair elections, let the civilians — let the people decide who is going to represent them. 

I mean, that’s something that we have said multiple times on every election. 

Q    Will the President host his new Senegalese counterpart?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I don’t have a call to readout or anything to speak to at this point. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Most of the border crossers accused of beating up Texas National Guardsmen in a riot last month were released on their own recognizance Sunday.  How does that make people in this country any safer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have to refer you to Department of Justice and DHS on that particular reporting.  I will say this: As the event unfolded, the Border Patrol was able to act quickly and get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants.  And we were grateful that the Border Patrol was able to do their job. 

Look, there is a challenge at the border.  Right?  Our immigration system has been broken for decades, before — even before this President became president, obviously, three year- — more than three years ago. 

And this President, a couple of months ago, worked with the Senate in a bipartisan fashion to get a negotiation done.  Right?  And what we saw is, from the last president — President Trump told Republicans in Congress not to move forward with this negotiation — this agreed negotiation, this agreed plan, this agreed proposal because it would help Joe Biden.  That’s what was reported by some of you. 

And we can actually deal with this.  We can actually deal with — with what we’re seeing.  And because they didn’t move forward — right? — because they didn’t move forward with this proposal, because of the last president and because they — they put politics inhea- — ahead of the American people, we are seeing chaos. 

And so, we want to get this done.  We did.  We worked with Congress to get this done, to deal with the challenges at the border.  President Trump got in the way.  And because President Trump got in the way, Republicans are now getting in the way. 

Q    So, does President Biden wish that Republicans in Congress would help him make a law that made it easier to deport people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What the President wants to see is he wants congressional Republicans to pass, to move forward with a bipartisan border security agreement — a bipartisan border security agreement that was supported by the Border Patrol union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce — something that we don’t see nowadays.  And we were able to get that done.

What the President wants to see is that being passed.  He wants congressional Republicans to not put politics first, to put — majority of Americans want us to deal with this issue.  That’s what the President wants to see.

Q    Totally different topic.  How worried do Americans need to be about squatters?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  About squatters?

Q    About squatters.  There’s a lot of stories out there: Homeowners are showing up at places that they own where the locks have been changed, some squatter has moved in, and the homeowner has no rights.  Does President Biden think that is right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, if — my understanding is that this is, obviously, a — a local issue.  We are certainly tracking that issue.  The rights of property owners and renters must be protected.  And we believe that, you know, ultimately, what needs to happen is the local government needs to make sure that they address this and they take action. 

And so, everyone in their community in this country wants the same thing, right?  They all want the same thing.  They want their families to be safe.  And that’s what we want as well.  We want to make sure that Americans and their families feel safe. 

Q    In Florida, there’s a new law where victims of squatting can call the cops and have the squatters removed.  Would President Biden support something like that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not going to get into — into hypotheticals from here.  What I can say is that, ultimately, this is a local issue.  And it is critical that — that local governments take action to address it. 

Again, everybody wants the same thing.  They want to feel safe in their communities.  That’s what they want. 

We certainly are tracking these stories. 

AIDE:  Karine —

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

Q    Hi.  So, last week, when Secretary Pete Buttigieg came, he talked about the Baltimore bridge collapse will be affecting 8,000 workers.  I was wondering if the White House had any plans for these workers. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I know that the Department of Labor — the Acting Secretary, Julie Su, is certainly working on to- –is on top of this.  So, cer- — I would refer you to the Department of Labor on what they’re doing specifically to make sure that workers are certainly — are — you know, their — their needs are being addressed. 

But want to be really clear.  We’re taking all of this seriously.  Right?  We’re — we’re taking — this is a whole-of-government approach.  And so, the Department of Labor has — has had meetings with stakeholders, as I said at the top, and looking into this and trying to figure out how we can be helpful here. 

I know I can do one more.  Go ahead.  I haven’t — go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask about Adeel Mangi, who is nominated for a seat on the circuit court.  Can you talk about what you all are doing specifically to get him confirmed after —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which — which —

Q    Mangi is his last name.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Q    M-A-N-G-I. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    There were three Democratic senators now who have said they won’t vote for his confirmation.  Are you all doing anything specific to change their minds?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we — I don’t want to speak — speak specifically to members.  But I have said this many times before: The President was very proud to nominate Adeel Mangi, whose extraordinary qualifications and integrity are gaining him new backing each day, as well as retired Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.  That’s somebody who has supported it. 

He is now being backed by nearly a dozen law enforcement organizers, as well as former New Jersey Attorney General –Attorney General and former U.S. attorneys who served under Republican and Democratic governors and presidents.  He’s also backed by the AFL-C — and CIO. 

We are doing everything that we can to make sure that he gets through.  This Senate should side with qualities that make America exceptional, which Mr. Mangi embodies, not the hateful forces that we’re seeing trying to — to force America into the past. 

And so, we’re going to continue — our — our office here, the President is going to continue to do everything that we can to get him through.  We believe he’s extraordinarily qualified to — for this position.  The President is proud to have nominated him, and we’re going to continue to do the work. 

Go ahead, Brian.  You’re the last one.

Q    Hi.  Thanks a lot.  On the Key Bridge in Baltimore — Key Bridge collapse and the impact it has had on the Baltimore port.  Does President Biden want Americans to be prepared for any supply chain problems?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you heard us — you heard me at the top lay out the meet- — some meetings that we were able to do.  The task force met a couple times last week.  As you just stated, the port is — is one of the nation’s largest, as you were alluding to, shipping hubs.  And — and the Francis Scott [Key] Bridge is critical to travel in the Northeast Corridor. 

So, we have engaged in- — intensively with industry ocean carriers, ports, and labor unions to minimize disruptions as shipments are rerouted while the — the Port of Baltimore is closed to — to ship traffic.  So, the Small Business Administr- — Administration has been quickly activated, obviously.  I said this at the top.  You have the Department of Labor as well. 

This is a whole-of-government approach.  The Department of Transportation; we had the U.S. Coast Guard Admiral here that was able to — who’s running that effort, obviously, to — to deal with the cleanup and what we’re seeing there at — in Baltimore. 

And so, we are going to be there for the people of Baltimore.  That is what the President has said.  We’re going to be there every step of the way.  You’re going to see the President on Friday.  We’ll have more details to share as we get closer to that day. 

But all-of-government approach — Small Business Administration, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, we are going to be there for — for the people of Baltimore.

Q    What’s the President’s current assessment on supply chain disruptions (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re obviously going to be monitoring this.  We’re going to be looking closely into that.  And that’s why we have activated — the President has made sure that we’re doing this in a — in a — you know, in a strategic way, in a smart way, and dealing with all the stakeholders that’s going to be affected by this.

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

Q    Karine, is the President going to throw out the first pitch —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll see you tomorrow, guys.

Q    — at Nationals Park this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll — I’ll see you tomorrow.  I’ll be back tomorrow.

Enjoy the day.

1:23 P.M. EDT

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

11:03 A.M. EDT
 
MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Kirby has a few words at the top, and then as always, we’ll get through as many questions as we can.  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Good morning.  I just wanted to — I got a couple of things here at the top. 
 
First, I want to just take a moment to respond to the –both the nonsense and the propaganda that we’ve been seeing coming from the Kremlin and the Russian government over the past few days about the ISIS terrorist attack on the concert hall, which sadly took the lives of more than 140 people. 
 
Contrary to public statements by President Putin, Federal Security Service Director Bortnikov, Russian government spokespeople, and others who have sought to deflect blame onto Ukraine, the United States, and everyone else who suits their political narratives, it’s abundantly clear that ISIS was solely responsible for the horrific terrorist attack in Moscow last week. 
 
In fact, the United States tried to help prevent this terrorist attack, and the Kremlin knows this.  In advance of the March 22nd attack, the United States government provided clear, detailed information to Russian authorities regarding the terrorist threat against large gatherings and concerts in Moscow.
 
On March the 7th, at 11:15 in the morning, Moscow time, following normal procedures and through established channels that have been employed many times previously, the United States government passed a warning in writing to Russian security services.  In addition, we released a public advisory on the 8th of March, the next day, warning American citizens to avoid large gatherings and concerts in Moscow. 
 
Now, we provided this information to Russia because the United States takes very seriously our “duty to warn.”  We never want to see innocent lives lost in terrorist attacks.  And this warning was one of many that the United States government has passed to Russia since September 2023 about various threats. 
 
Now, while our embassy’s public advisory may have deterred the attackers from attacking on the 8th of March, our warning led — I’m sorry, our warning to the Russian government and the general public accurately identified the terrorist threat posed to concerts in Moscow.  ISIS bears full responsibility for this attack. 
 
The United States will continue to stay vigilant and alert governments around the world whenever we learn of terror plots, regardless of our relationship with them. 
 
It reminds me of something my uncle used to say.  He had a small farm and raised a few cattle in a place near Ocala, Florida.  He used to say that the best manure salesmen often carried their samples in their mouths.  Russian officials seem to be pretty good manure salesmen. 
 
Speaking of Russia, Russia today vetoed in the U.N. Security Council the routine renewal of a U.N. panel that monitors sanctions on the DPRK.  Russia has been violating these sanctions, of course, for some time, including through importing arms for use in its illegal war against Ukraine. 
 
The reckless action today further undermines critical sanctions that the United Sta- — or the U.N. Security Council has imposed in response to North Korea’s multiple nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches. 
 
As Secretary Blinken has said, deepening DPRK and Russian military cooperation should be of great concern to anyone interested in maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.  And that includes the PRC, China, which chose to abstain in their vote today. 
 
The international community should resolutely uphold the global non-proliferation regime and support the people of Ukraine as they defend their freedom and independence against Russia’s brutal aggression. 
 
And with that, I’ll take some questions.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Patsy with VOA.
 
Q    Hey.  Thanks, Sam.  So, I have a question on Somalia.  The Somali government on Thursday said its soldiers, backed by international partners and local clan militias, have killed at least 80 al-Shabaab militants and wounded dozens more in different operations in the country’s south and central regions. 
 
I was wondering what the administration knows about this.  Did you take part at all in any of these operations?  Thanks. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Patsy, I don’t have any information on that today.  I’d refer you to the DOD.  That’s really the best place to go for some context on that. 
 
Q    Okay.  And just on the latest on Gaza, John, if you can brief us.  What is the latest on the building of the pier?  I understand from yesterday’s briefing at the DOD, it’s still happening.  But will it meet the target timeline?
 
And then one question about that also.  Once that’s all set up, will the Israelis also be checking for the convoys in Cyprus as well?  And would that also create a bottleneck, the same way that it has in Gaza?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m going to refer you to DOD for the particulars on this, Patsy.  As I understand it, the components of that temporary pier are still making their way across the Atlantic and into the Mediterranean.  I don’t know what the arrival date of that material is going to be.  DOD will have a better sense of it. 
 
But we’ll — obviously, we’ve got the expertise to construct that temporary pier.  And as I also understand it, we are still talking to our Israeli counterparts and other partners in the region about the actual process through which maritime material is going to be transported to the pier and then from the pier into Gaza. 
 
So there’s — DOD has already talked about this; I’d refer you to them.  But as far as I understand it, they’re still working out all the particulars on that. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Ed with Fox.
 
Q    Thanks, Sam.  Thanks, Admiral, for doing this.  I wanted to ask you quickly: Just any national security concerns about American CEOs meeting with Chinese officials this past week, including with President Xi, given China’s hacking of U.S. infrastructure, as well as the other illicit activities — stealing technology and so forth?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Ed.  I think I’ll let those CEOs talk about their discussions and what they intend to speak to with President Xi. 
 
All I can tell you is we’ve been very clear about putting fences around certain American technology going to China because of national security concerns.  You saw that at the G20.  We’ve also been working with industry quite closely and consistently on making sure we share those national security concerns we have about certain technologies.  As Jake Sullivan and the President have both said very clearly, we’re not trying to decouple but we are trying to de-risk some of the economic relationships we have with China.  And we’ll keep moving in that vein.
 
Q    And just a quick follow-up.  Do you have any, then, warnings then for American companies doing business in China?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, we’ve had a consistent, clear conversation with American companies, particularly in the tech sector, Ed, and those conversations are going to continue.  Believe me, they understand what our concerns are.  We’ve been very plain with them about that. 
 
But if you’re asking me, you know, are we issuing some sort of broadside warning to these particular CEOs as they get ready to go over there, I don’t know of any such specific warning.  We have simply been very, very clear over the course of now many months with American companies about the potential risks. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Seung Min with the AP.
 
Q    Hi all.  Thanks so much for holding the call.  Two questions, if I may.  The first: I wanted to know the U.S. government’s reaction to the new Palestinian Authority cabinet and whether this is the type of cabinet that the administration believes can deliver on those credible and far-reaching reforms like it called for a couple of weeks ago.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, so I would just tell you that we’ve long urged the Palestinian Authority to form a reform — to form a reform cabinet with new leadership.  And so, we’re just seeing these reports, we’re going to take a look, and we’ll be looking for this new government to deliver on policies and to implement those credible and far-reaching reforms. 
 
And we’ve long talked about a revitalized Palestinian Authority and how important that’s going to be to eventually delivering results for the Palestinian people and to help establish the conditions for stability, both in the West Bank and in Gaza. 
 
This is about meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people.  We believe that a reformed and revitalized PA can do that. 
 
And again, too soon to make any broad judgments about this particular new government.  We’re going to reserve that to when we have a chance to get a better sense of what their intentions are moving forward. 
 
Q    Okay.  And my second question: Has the U.S. and Israel agreed on a rescheduled date for that meeting on Rafah?  And can you just walk us through a little bit just how the talks kind of suddenly went back on after being called off in such a dramatic fashion earlier this week?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not going to get into the sausage-making here one way or the other.  I’ll just tell you that we are currently discussing rescheduling that meeting on Rafah with the Prime Minister’s office and our Israeli counterparts. 
 
We’re working right now to kind of finalize a date, circling something on the calendar.  And as soon as we get that and we’re confident in it, we’ll keep you posted.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Haley with Scripps.
 
Q    Hey, thanks for doing this.  I wanted to follow up to that question.  When it comes to a future meeting with the Israeli delegation, can you describe kind of the tones of these discussions as you’re rescheduling the meeting?  Is the intent still for an in-person meeting, or are you looking at alternative options?
 
And then also, just a status check on the discussions for a hostage and ceasefire deal.  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  On the second question, I don’t have an update for you.  We’re still involved in active negotiations and conversations to try to get that deal in place.  But nothing — no updates.
 
On the first question, look, the tone throughout here has been businesslike and has been professional, and we expect that it’s going to stay that way.  We’re hoping that this meeting can be scheduled in person, here in Washington, as was the original plan.  That’s the plan that we’re still working on now.  But again, no final date.  And when we get that, we’ll let you know.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to James with the Financial Times.
 
Q    Thanks so much, Sam.  Two questions.  The first is: There was a report in Bloomberg this morning saying that the U.S. and the UK were reviewing $20 billion crypto transactions.  That may be, like, one of the biggest sanctions violations when it comes to Russia.  And could you confirm?
 
And the second question is on whether the White House is open to structuring aid to Ukraine as a loan rather than direct assistance as a sort of last resort, if it doesn’t get through Congress as direct aid.
 
MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, I’m going to refer you to the Treasury Department.  They’re really the best place to go for something like that. 
 
On the second question, we are still urging Congress, particularly the House, obviously, to move on the national security supplemental request that the President submitted.  We believe that is the best way to provide the support that Ukraine needs over the coming months, especially now as the Russians continue to try to take advantage of some pressure coming west out of Avdiivka. 
 
We would, of course, rather than a new package that would have to also pass the Senate, again, the House should just pass the supplemental.  And we know that it would pass if Speaker Johnson put it up on the floor.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.
 
Q    Hi, thanks for doing this.  One question about the Israeli delegation.  I heard from several sources that they’re planning to be in Washington on Monday and that that’s likely the date of when they’re going to be in the White House.  Can you confirm that?
 
And second, after the visit of the Israeli Minister of Defense, do you have anything to tell us about your impressions on where the operation in Rafah is and whether you feel that you managed to get the Israelis to rethink their plans for such an operation?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Barak.  On your first question: No. 
 
On your second question: We did have the opportunity in the discussions with Minister Gallant to broach the issue of Rafah operations, but those discussions were not meant to replace what we hope to be able to do in a more comprehensive way with the Israeli delegation coming to D.C., or hopefully coming to D.C.  That’s really where we hope to get a better sense of their thinking on Rafah, you know, in more specific terms, and also have an opportunity to share with them some of our thoughts about viable alternatives to major ground operations. 
 
And so I think, you know, we just need to let that conversation happen and take it from there.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Franco with NPR.
 
Q    Hey, Kirby.  Thanks so much for doing this.  Just to follow up on that: In the past, you have mentioned — or, pardon me, Jake has mentioned that the expectation is that there would be no ground invasion until after this meeting would happen.  Is that still the expectation?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yes. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick with PBS.
 
Q    Thanks, John.  Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of Evan Gershkovich’s detention.  Can you confirm that the U.S. — I know you won’t give any details — but can you confirm the U.S. is still trying to find some kind of prisoner swap with Moscow? 
 
And then on Haiti, it looks like as of last night there was some progress with the transitional council.  They released a statement.  Do you believe that we are close to the point where the council can actually begin and that would lead to Henry’s resignation?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, so on your first question: Yes. 
 
On your second question: Again, we’re obviously watching things in Haiti very, very closely.  We certainly welcome yesterday’s statement by members of that transitional presidential council, that we’re vowing to restore order and democratic governance.  So that was certainly, again, a welcome statement. 
 
We certainly look forward to the TPC now finalizing and announcing its members, which I understand they are still working their way through.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.
 
Q    Thanks.  I just want to go back to the Rafah issue.  Can you just explain, John, again, please, that the U.S. insisted that there is no Israeli military operation in Rafah unless there is a viable plan to evacuate 1.4 million civilians?  And also, there are some reports that Israel has accepted some alternative plans, including going after Hamas’s four battalion in Rafah. 
 
So can you just explain again the U.S. position vis-à-vis  what exactly is required now, considering the fact that many, many people, probably including the White House, believe there’s actually no such plan?  Because, practically, you cannot evacuate one and a half million people.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m happy to restate what we’ve said many, many times before: We don’t support a major ground operation in Rafah.  We think it would be a mistake given the, you know, million and a half folks that are seeking refuge down there.  And, you know, we recognize that it’s a tight piece of geography.  There’s not a whole lot of geographic space to relocate people in a safe and secure way.  That would be a difficult chore for any modern military. 
 
So we don’t support a major ground operation.  We want to have the opportunity to talk to our Israeli counterparts about some viable alternatives.  And, my goodness, that’s what we’re hoping to get on the calendar here in coming days.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Aurelia with AFP.
 
Q    Hi, thanks for taking my question.  I wanted to ask you about the situation at the Lebanese border.  So, yesterday, 16 people were left dead after a day of crossfire between Israel and Hezbollah.  How concerned are you about this?  Are you still confident that Hezbollah won’t get fully involved, or more involved that it already is, in the conflict?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, we’re watching closely the hostilities along that blue line.  And we’ve also been very, very clear we do not support a war in Lebanon.  We don’t want to see that happen.  We’ve been crystal clear about that throughout the –since the very beginning of this.
 
Restoring calm along that border remains a top priority for President Biden and for the administration.  And it has to be of the utmost importance, we believe, as well for both Lebanon and Israel. 
 
So we’re going to continue to work towards a diplomatic resolution that will allow both Israeli and Lebanese citizens to return to their homes in a safe and secure way and be able to stay there.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Laura Rozen.
 
Q    Thank you for taking me.  An expert at a think-tank event yesterday said that he understood there was a second indirect U.S.-Iran meeting in Oman in March.  Is that the case? And was it also on de-escalation, like the January meeting?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, can you repeat the second half of your question?
 
Q    And if it took place, was it also like the January meeting about de-escalation in the Red Sea and the region?  Or what was the purpose of the meeting?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I am not aware of any such meeting, Laura.  And frankly, I don’t believe there was one.  But I’m happy to take the question and check on that and make sure.  But I’m not aware of one.  And frankly, I don’t think there actually was one. 
 
MODERATOR:  Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN.
 
Q    Thanks.  Going back to the delegation, is the fact that this is now scheduled once again, or about to be scheduled, does this mean that whatever tensions there were regarding the U.N. Security Council vote and the cancellation of the visit are resolved?  Has the air been cleared?  You spoke about the administration being confused and perplexed.  Is all this behind us right now?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re focused on making sure we have this conversation with our Israeli counterparts.  Again, we really welcome the opportunity to get a better sense from them what their thinking is and to share some of our thinking about viable alternatives here to a ground operation.  And that’s where our heads are.
 
I don’t want to re-litigate nor do I think anybody needs to re-litigate our abstention in the U.N. Security Council.  We were very, very clear about why we took that stance, and we’re focused on moving forward here.  And a big part of moving forward is making sure we can have a robust conversation with our Israeli counterparts about what the future looks like for Rafah. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jihan with The National.
 
Q    Thank you, Sam.  Thank you, Admiral, for doing this.  I have a question about the U.N. Security Council vote.  If the United States supports broadly what the resolution was going to do, why not just support it?  Why take this sort of wishy-washy sta- — what seems to be a wishy-washy stance of just abstaining on it?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I guess I’m just going to have to challenge the premise of the question just a wee bit there.  I don’t think it’s wishy-washy at all.  And as I said right after the vote, and as so did our U.N. Ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, we abstained because we couldn’t support the text, because the text didn’t condemn Hamas.  But we didn’t veto it because, in broad terms, it did reflect what has been our policy, which is linking a hostage deal to a ceasefire.  I don’t know how much more simple I can make it.
 
Q    Yeah, I mean, after multiple vetoing, why not, you know, either — what seems previously was very, kind of, strong stances on resolutions, and so why suddenly this, you know, abstention, which can sort of be interpreted in either way, actually?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, again, I really don’t want to re-litigate this, but I’m happy to take one more stab at it. 
 
The reason we vetoed resolutions in the past was because they called for general ceasefires with no linkage to hostage deals, no mention of getting the hostages out.  It was just this, “Yeah, we call for a ceasefire.”  And number two, the resolutions that we vetoed before didn’t condemn Hamas and what they did on the 7th of October.  And it’s just mind-boggling to me that anybody, no matter where you sit, no matter how you vote at the U.N., could not be willing to condemn Hamas for the slaughter of 1,200 innocent Israelis.  That’s just mind-boggling.  And so, that’s why we vetoed those. 
 
We put one forward last week — I think you saw that — that got vetoed by Russia and China, that did those things — linked a hostage deal to a ceasefire and condemned Hamas.  Now, this last one did do the linkage, which was good, but didn’t condemn Hamas.  So we abstained.
 
I’m not — again, I just don’t understand what’s so complicated to understand about that. 
 
Q    Finally, on the airdrops, we’ve seen reports that 12 people drowned trying to reach aid in the water.  I wanted to ask specifically: Given that these ready meals are not particularly nutritious or edible, particularly for children, what is the value of continuing to do them given how dangerous they are to civilians?  Again, like, how do we weigh their benefit — their nutritional benefits for people who are already starving?  I don’t believe that they are edible for children, let alone nutritious.  Why keep doing them?
 
MR. KIRBY:  What are you basing your assumption on that they’re not edible for kids?
 
Q    I mean, they’re not — they don’t have any nutritious value.  I mean, we’ve seen videos of the contents of these food.  They’re packets that they’re — I mean, for infants, anyway — babies, children who are most at risk of starvation and malnutrition.  I mean, how do we justify?  I mean, are there any studies about how nutritious they are to infants?
 
MR. KIRBY:  They’re not designed for infants, in fact.
 
Q    Yeah, exactly.  So why keep doing that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Because infants and babies aren’t the only people that are hungry.  There’s a lot of grownups and kids that are hungry too. 
 
And let me tell you something.  I mean, I’ve been downrange a bit in my time, and I’ve had to eat those MREs, and they are — there is a nutritional aspect to them.  I’d refer you to DOD, but those things are designed to provide significant caloric intake and nutrients to troops in the field.  That’s what they’re for.  And I can personally attest to the fact that they meet that need.  But, no, they’re not designed for infants.  The whole purpose for MREs, Meals Ready to Eat, is for troops.  So they’re not designed for infants.  That’s number one. 
 
Number two, nobody said — never — never did we say that our airdrops of Meals Ready to Eat were going to be a sufficient supplement for the kinds of humanitarian assistance — food and water and medicine — that can come in by trucks.  And by coming in trucks, there is — we are trying to make sure that there is ample supply of nutrients for infants and toddlers through that way. 
 
But the United States military does not create MREs to feed infants and toddlers.  Just not the purpose of it. 
 
Now, the other thing is, you know — so, two more thoughts.  Number one, obviously, our thoughts are with all those who may have lost their lives in trying to recover some of the material dropped by airdrops.  As I said when we first announced doing this, it is not a risk-free operation to conduct airdrops.  And we have gone to great lengths to try to do them in places where there’s a minimal risk to people on the ground.  And it’s obviously very sad that some people have been hurt or, in fact, lost their lives trying to recover some of this material, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t still a worthy endeavor to try to supplement the needs of people on the ground. 
 
I mean, before we started doing airdrops, we were being asked, “Why aren’t you doing airdrops?  You know, because you clearly aren’t doing enough to help feed the people of Gaza.” And now you’re telling us that we shouldn’t do airdrops because infants can’t eat MREs.  I just find that logic completely baffling.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Yuna with Israel Channel 12.
 
Q    So, John, the IDF released recently just a video from interrogation of one of the October 7th terrorists admitting to rape.  This comes after the firsthand testimony of the released hostage, Amit Soussana, on her sexual assault in captivity.  Is there any comment on this?  I remember President Biden was very clear about this issue.  He had a statement about this when we saw the details that are coming and the testimonies.  I’m wondering if there’s anything to say now when we saw her interview in the New York Times.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that I can comment specifically on this particular testimony or that judicial process, except to say, you’re right, President Biden was very clear that we saw credible evidence that sexual violence was a part of the horrific attacks that Hamas perpetrated on the Israeli people on the 7th of October.  And it just underscores the evil that Hamas represents and the truly — as I’ve said before — the truly genocidal intent of this group towards the Israeli people and the Israeli state. 
 
And that is why we’re going to continue to work with our Israeli partners to make sure that they have what they need to go after that threat and, frankly, to share with them our lessons learned and our perspectives on how to do that in the most effective way possible, without causing additional civilian casualties on the Palestinian side. 
 
But again, without speaking to that specific case, it certainly is totally in keeping with the information that we saw early on of what Hamas not only was capable of but proved that they were capable of doing to innocent Israeli people.
 
Q    Okay.  And also, another question also about the delegation, the fact that there are talks for it to arrive as soon as Monday.  Can you say we’re either at the end of this crisis or that the tensions are de-escalating?  Because it seems now that what we are hearing is very different from what it was just a few days ago.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I kind of got this question a few minutes ago.  Our focus is on moving ahead here, you know?  And we’re glad to be in talks with the Israelis about rescheduling this meeting.  We think it’s an important discussion to have.  And that’s where our heads are.  We’re looking ahead.  We’re not looking at — we’re not looking aft. 
 
And as I said many, many times, we haven’t and we’re probably not going to agree with the Israelis on every single thing when it comes to their military operations, but we both agree on the main, important thing, and that is that we can’t allow Hamas to be able to conduct another attack like they did on the 7th of October.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thanks, everyone, for joining us today.  I think that’s all the time we have.  And as always, if we didn’t get to your question, feel free to email the NSC press distro and we’ll get back to you soonest.  Thanks
 
11:35 A.M. EDT
 

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

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Queens, New York

12:02 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, guys. So much fun. So much memories. Okay, let me just say a couple of things at the top.

So, first, President Biden spoke to Mayor Adams and gave his condolences about the tragic killing of Officer Jonathan Diller. The President offered Mayor Adams, the city of New York, and the New York Police Department his full support in the wake of the tragedy.

And the President also spoke to Hadassah Lieberman to express his condolences to her and her family’s loss.

The President and Senator Lieberman ser- — served together in the U.S. Senate for 20 years. Senator Lieberman was principled, steadfast, and unafraid to stand up for what he thought was right.

And I’ll just say a couple things just about Baltimore and just give you a little of an update.

President Biden continues to lead an all — an all-of-government response to the tragic collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Yesterday, he met with Secretary Buttigieg of Transp- — the DOD [DOT] Transportation Secretary and the Coast Guard Vice Admiral Gautier in the Oval Office. He also spoke to Governor Moore, General Spellmon from the Army Corps of Engineers.

As you heard the President say on Tuesday, his administration will — will move heaven and earth to reopen the port and rebuild the bridge as soon as humanly possible.

Administration officials have been on the record in Baltimore — on — on the ground, pardon me — on the rec- — on the ground in Baltimore and remain in direct communication with the state and local officials.

Yesterday, the President’s Supply Chain Distribution [Disruptions] Task Force met to discuss potential impacts on regional and national supply chains. They will continue to monitor any new developments and coordinate outreach and efforts to assist impacted industries.

And starting today, the Navy is sending contracted bar- –barge — barges and support vessels to the Port of Baltimore to begin clearing debris. This marks a step forward as we continue to recover to — through the recovery process. We’ll continue to share more in the upcoming days.

With that, ma’am. Colleen.

Q Thank you. So, President Biden will be in New York City for most of the day doing fundraising. Former President Donald Trump is going to the wake of the NYPD officer. I wondered if — you mentioned that the President spoke to Mayor Adams. I wonder if he’d spoken to the family of the officer.

And also, you know, Trump is blaming a lot of crime on Biden. I just wondered if you could speak a little bit about that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so — so, I don’t have any private communications to share at this time. Our hearts go out, obviously, to the officer’s family and the broader NYPD family, who have tragically lost one of their own. The President grieves for them and honors their sacrifice.

Look, the President has stood with law enforcement his entire career and continues to stand with them as they put their lives on the line for their communities. Under his leadership, we will continue to support police officers and ensure that they have resources they need to continue — to continue to do the work — the all-important that — work that they have to do on behi- — on behalf of the community.

Look, violent crime — and I’m just going to be really clear about here — I’m going to be careful about saying anything about 2024, but violent crime surged under the previous administration, which repeatedly attempted to cut the COPS program. All of their budgets lar- — targeted that they — that key funding for police. And congressional Republicans just proposed doing it again.

So, this is a President — this Biden-Harris administration have done the polar opposite, taking decisive action from the very beginning to fund the police and achieving a historic reduction in crime under his leadership. And so, we’re going to continue to do that.

One more thing I want to say — that the — the funding — the — because the President’s budget also proposes to fund the police and with billions so federal, state, and local governments can have more — can hire more than 100,000 more officers. And I think that’s important to note as well. I think —

Q Do you have an update on —

Q (Inaudible.)

Q Sorry. Do you have an update on the b- — the bridge funding request, like how much it might be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — and when that will go before Congress?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any update on that. As you heard from the President, we’re going to do everything that we can. The — the gov- — the federal government is going to be there for the city of Baltimore, state of Maryland to make sure that we get that bridge going ba- — built back up.

Obviously, we’re going to ask Congress. We’re expecting Congress to act. I just don’t have anything more to share beyond what you heard from the President and beyond what you heard from Secretary Buttigieg and the Vice Admiral.

Q Does the President plan to attend Senator Lieberman’s funeral tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — nothing to share. As you know, he spoke to — he spoke to Senator Lieberman’s widow. I just don’t have anything to share on pri- — on him attending any private ceremony —

Q Can you t- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — (inaudible) ceremony.

Q Can you tell us what he’s doing this afternoon? There’s a pretty big set of — of unexplained —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — hours on the schedule. (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — I mean, for sure, this trip, as you know, is a political trip, is a campaign trip. So, I really have to refer you to the campaign.

AIDE: (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

And so, just would have to refer you to — to the campaign on that.

Q So, fair to assume it’s all political stuff then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It is fair to assume.

Q Is the President planning to do an Iftar dinner or Eid celebration with the Muslim community —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we —

Q — to mark Ramadan?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We have — we have done that the last couple years. We’re committed to doing that. I don’t have anything to share. But obviously, we’ll share any inf- — any updates or events that — that — on the Iftar that, you know, we’ll certainly share that with all of you.

(Referring to Air Force One preparing to land.) I know, I have to sit.

Q Has the President spoken to the families of the two men that were identified from Baltimore yesterday?

AIDE: (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Yep, no problem.

I don’t have any calls to read out to you. Obviously, you know that Tom Perez was — was there in Baltimore yesterday. And he — as he said in his press conference, he met with the family — some of the families.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Thanks, everybody. We got to sit.

12:08 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Queens, NY appeared first on The White House.

1:26 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone.

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you for joining us. Thank you for joining us.

Okay. I have a couple things at the top. And as you can see, we have guests with us today.

Our hearts go out to the families of the six individuals still missing after yesterday’s bridge collapse in Maryland. As authorities on the ground have confirmed, operations have shifted from a search-and-rescue operation towards recovery efforts.

Secretary Buttigieg and Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter Gu- — Gautier just came from the Oval Office, where they spoke with the President about the situation on the ground.

After he was briefed on the collapse, President Biden immediately instructed his team to move heaven and earth to aid in the emergency response and help build — rebuild the bridge as soon as human- — humanly possible.

Within hours of the bridge’s collapse, President Biden spoke to Governor Moore, Senator Cardin, Senator Van Hollen, Congressman Mfume, as well as Baltimore’s mayor and county executive. The President’s message to them was clear: We will be with the people of Baltimore every step of the way.

The President has remained in close contact with Secretary Buttigieg, who was in Baltimore yesterday to start the discussions about long-term rebuilding efforts and help the on-the-ground response.

The President has directed a whole-of-government response. The Coast Guard has set up a unified command, and the Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FBI, the National Transportation Safety Board, and Federal Highway Administration are all on the ground supporting state and local authorities in their recovery and rebuilding efforts.

Joining us today, as you all can see behind me, to provide additional details about this administration’s whole-of-government response are Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Vice Admiral Gautier, Deputy Comman- — Commandant for Operations of — at the Coast Guard.

With that, I will turn it over to Secretary Buttigieg, followed by the Vice Admiral.

Secretary.

SECRETARY BUTTITGIEG: Thank you very much, Karine. I want to start by thanking the Vice Admiral and the whole Coast Guard for their extraordinary partnership and recognizing the leadership of President Biden, who from the very beginning has been acting to make sure that we have a whole-of-government response to support the people of Baltimore.

Yesterday, America awoke to shocking images of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsing after it was struck by a neopanamax container vessel. And by the time most Americans saw those images, first responders and rescuers had already been at work for hours to save lives. That quick work unquestionably made an enormous difference, and they have our gratitude.

In fact, if not for several factors, including those responders’ efforts, the mayday call, the maintenance closure that was already underway, and the time of day of this impact, the loss of life might have been in the dozens.

But tragically, six people did lose their lives and the seventh was badly injured. These were workers who went out to work on a night shift repairing the road surface while most of us slept.

Work is undergoing to recover their remains. And our thoughts and prayers are with their loved ones, whose lives are never going to be the same.

Even as those families come to terms with this grief and even as those recovery operations continue, work is underway to investigate what happened and to restore the key transportation resources that were impacted.

When it comes to the investigative work led by the NTSB and supported by the Coast Guard, I will respect their independence and not comment on that work. But I do appreciate being able to engage with NTSB, Coast Guard, and other personnel yesterday at the site.

I also spent time with Governor Moore, and I want to express my appreciation for his leadership. The governor has responded to this unthinkable event with focus and compassion. And we’re going to be working closely with him and with his state’s DOT to support Maryland in their work to rebuild the bridge and reopen the port.

I also want to thank Mayor Scott, County Executive Olszewski for their work and their team’s work ensuring all resources are brought to bear in that response.

While the investigation and the response continue, President Biden has made clear that this whole administration will be providing support in every respect for the recovery and the rebuilding process.

From a Department of Transportation perspective, that really comes down to four major focus areas: reopen the port, deal with the supply chain implications until the port does reopen, rebuild the bridge, and deal with the surface transportation implications until the bridge is rebuilt.

Each of those is a distinct line of effort, and we’re already taking steps toward each goal.

With regard to the port, again, the Coast Guard, in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers, will lead on the channel cleanup and the reopening so that that port can get back to full operation.

We are concerned about the local economic impact, with some 8,000 jobs directly associated with port activities. And we’re concerned about implications that will ripple out beyond the immediate region because of the roles — excuse me — because of the port’s role in our supply chains.

This is an important port for both imports and exports, and it’s America’s largest vehicle-handling port, which is important not only for car imports and exports, but also for farm equipment.

No matter how quickly the channels can be reopened, we know that it can’t happen overnight. And so, we’re going to have to manage the impacts in the meantime. We’re working to mitigate some of those impacts, including using tools that didn’t exist just a few years ago.

Following the disruptions to supply chains from the COVID pandemic, President Biden’s infrastructure package included the establishment of a new freight office within our department to help coordinate goods movement in ways that were not possible before.

To be clear, ocean shipping is not centrally controlled the way you might expect with, for example, air traffic control. So, having these tools allows us to create coordination that just didn’t exist before.

It’s helped us to smooth out supply chains after COVID. It’s helped us to manage the Red Sea crisis. And we’re using it now to help the hundreds of different private supply chain actors get better coordinated to keep goods moving.

Tomorrow, I will be convening shippers and other supply chain partners to understand their needs and to promote a coordinated approach as they adapt to the temporary disruptions while we plan mitigations.

That said, the Port of Baltimore is an important port. So, for our supply chains and for all the workers who depend on it for their income, we’re going to help to get it open as soon as safely possible.

Now, for the bridge, we are going to be working with NTSB as they lead their independent investigation. It’s too early to speculate, of course, what NTSB will find, but if they discover or determine anything that should be considered in the regulation, inspection, design, or funding of bridges in the future, we will be ready to apply those findings.

What we do know is a bridge like this one completed in the 1970s was simply not made to withstand a direct impact on a critical support pier from a vessel that weighs about 200 million pounds, orders of magnitude bigger than cargo ships that were in service in that region at the time that the bridge was first built.

We also know that this is yet another demonstration of the importance of our roads and bridges, which is one of many reasons why the Biden-Harris administration worked so hard to get the infrastructure package passed and why roads and bridges are the single biggest category in that package.

We are committed to delivering every federal resource that’s needed — every federal resource needed to help Maryland get back to normal, and we’re going to work with them every step of the way to rebuild this bridge.

It is not going to be simple. When we helped Pennsylvania and California swiftly reopen I-95 and I-10, respectively, there was terrific done work there, but that was addressing comparatively short spans of bridges over land, relative to this span over water. And, of course, in the Baltimore case, we still don’t fully know the condition of the portions of the bridge that are still standing or of infrastructure that is below the surface of the water. So, rebuilding will not be quick or easy or cheap, but we will get it done.

As I mentioned, we’re all — we’re working with city, county, and state. And I also want to add that we’ve been closely engaged with the Maryland congressional delegation, many of whom were on hand yesterday and who are doing a tremendous job advocating for their state. They made it clear that they will work with us to push for any help that we need from Congress.

Bottom line, as President Biden has made clear, the federal government will provide all of the support that Maryland and Baltimore need for as long as it takes, and we will work with Congress to deliver on that.

I’ll end with this. For the families of those presumed lost, for the people of Baltimore who are going to be feeling this closure in day-to-day life, and for everyone affected by the port closure and its supply chain impacts: The President and the whole of government will be here with you until everything is rebuilt stronger than ever.

Our country put its arms around Florida when the Sunshine Skyway Bridge collapsed in 1980. America rallied around Minnesota after the bridge there collapsed in 2007. This will be a long and difficult path. But we will come together around Baltimore, and we will rebuild together.

Admiral.

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary and Karine. So, let me just add to what the Secretary has already briefed you on here.

So, yesterday evening, I think as you know, after an intense and thorough multi-agency search on the water and from the air, the Coast Guard Incident Commander, Rear Admiral Shannon Gilreath, suspended the search for the individuals missing from the bridge collapse. He did this after consulting Governor Moore and many of the other agencies that were involved.

The Coast Guard and the response community is deeply saddened that the — that the missing individuals have not survived. And the Coast Guard appreciates the state of Maryland’s leadership and humanity in supporting the family members of the missing.

I’d like to personally thank the state and local responders for their heroic search-and-rescue efforts. While we didn’t achieve the outcome that we had hoped for, it was a tremendous team effort in the treacherous operational conditions.

As this aspect of the response shifts to recovery operations and consistent with the President’s direction to get the port up and running as soon as possible, the Coast Guard highest priority now is restoring the waterway for shipping, stabilizing the motor vessel Dali and removing it from the site, and coordinating a maritime casualty investigation under the leadership of the National Transportation and Safety Board.

So, just a couple of words on each one of those. Some — in terms of assessing, restoring the waterway, the Coast Guard is very tightly connected to the Army Corps of Engineers as they lead in that role as the lead federal agency for that effort.

As we were in the Oval Office, the President called General Spellmon, the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers, who’s on site. General Spellmon and I had a number of conversations yesterday in terms of the coordinated approach moving forward. And they are moving very aggressively in putting resources and mobilizing the necessary equipment, conducting the analysis and the underwater surveys to do that.

In terms of continuing to stabilize the vessel, mitigating any pollution threat, and removing the vessel from the area, the vessel is stable, but it still has over 1.5 million gallons of fuel oil and lube oil onboard. And it does have 4,700 cargo containers on board; 56 of those contain hazardous materials and 2 are missing overboard. The ones that are in the water do not contain hazardous — hazardous materials. And then, thir- — around 13 or so on the bow of the ship were damaged as the bridge collapsed and it impacted the front of that ship.

So, the Coast Guard has moved aggressively to board the vessel, and we have teams on board. The responsible party, the ship operator, has mobilized, activated their marine salvage plan, in addition to their marine pollution response plan — both things that are required by the United States Coast Guard. That salvor is Resolve Marine Incorporated, and they have begun mobilizing resources to take the next steps appropriate to refloat the vessel and remove it from that area.

The real critical thing here is that, as you know, a portion of the bridge remains on the bow of that ship, and we will be coordinating very closely with the Army Corps of Engineers and their contractors to first effect the removal of that debris before the vessel can then be removed. The vessel bow is sitting on the bottom because of the weight of the — of that bridge debris on there.

And there are underwater surveys that are happening by remotely operated vehicle; divers will be in the water today to complete that underwater survey. There is no indication that there’s any flooding or any damage underneath the waterline to that vessel. And that effort will continue. We’ll keep you informed of that.

And then, lastly, in terms of the — the casualty investigation, as the Secretary has said, this is led by the National Transportation Safety Board. I have had a couple of conversations with Chair Homendy on this account, and basically what we’ve done is we’ve activated a memorandum of understanding between the Coast Guard and NTSB.

And because the multimodal and complex nature of this investigation, we will be providing Coast Guard investigators for what we call a marine board of investigation, which is our highest level of investigation in the Coast Guard that will fold in and coordinate with the NTSB investigation as that moves forward.

I think the Secretary closed with some topline messages. And for us, I can tell you that our Unified Command — which is essentially a term that we use in the United States for how we mobilize against crises with all the appropriate federal, state, local agencies and other stakeholders — we have a tremendous amount of talent on there and a lot of resourcing. And given the magnitude and importance of this response, it’s going to be very, very aggressive moving forward, and we’ll keep you informed of that.

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

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. A couple questions. Go ahead.

Q Thank you so much. Admiral, CNN has obtained a government memo that the Coast Guard is currently evaluating hazardous material that was contained in some of the containers on the ship. Can you update us on that investigation? And is there a threat to the public from any of the materials on board the ship?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: There — there is no threat to the public from the hazardous materials on board. So, we’ve obtained the vessel manifest that container ships carry and done the analysis of the types of hazmats that are on board.

We have a very specialized hazmat team on board called the Atlantic Strike Team. We have three of those around the country. And we have air monitoring them — there to detect if there are anything that are coming off of those containers.

The — the majority of those containers are closer to the pilothouse and are completely unaffected by the damage to the bow of the ship. And there — we have not determined that there is any kind of release at this time.

Q So, you — what do you assess as the risk that some of those materials could leak or spill into the surrounding area?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: So, most of these things are things like mineral oils, and even though they’re hazardous, we — we’ve determined that there really isn’t any kind of threat to the public.

Q And Secretary Buttigieg, for you: President Biden has said the federal government should front the full cost of reconstructing the bridge. What do the early estimates say that cost will be and how quickly can you get that money?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: We don’t have dollar estimates yet. But we actually have provisions that allow us to begin releasing funding, even while that is being determined. My understanding is, as we speak this afternoon, a — an emergency relief funding request has come in from the Maryland State DOT. We will be processing that immediately to start getting them what they need.

Also, later today, there will be a design and procurement-oriented meeting that we’ll participate in — our Federal Highway Administration — along with MDOT.

Again, obviously, it’s early days. But now is the time to begin scoping that out so that they can get to work.

Q Thank you.

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

Q Related to that, Mr. Secretary, how much is — how much existing money is there now within DOT coffers to handle requests such as the one from MDOT? Is — do you have funding through the F- — the Federal Highway Administration, through the infrastructure law? Or — or when do you anticipate having to go to Congress for potentially a supplemental request on the bridge costs?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: So, the infrastructure law did authorize funding into the emergency relief account, which is the mechanism that is most likely to come into play here. Last I checked, there was about $950 million available but also a long line of needs and projects behind that.

So, it is certainly possible — I would go so far as to say “likely” — that we may be turning to Congress in order to help top up those funds. But that shouldn’t be a barrier to the immediate next few days beginning to get the ball rolling.

Q What will be the timeframe in sending that sup request to Congress?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: I think it’s too soon to — to know the mechanics of that.

Q And for the — I’m sorry — for the — for the Vice Admiral. Can you discuss broadly just the safety of maritime shipping in general and kind of the strength of the regulations that govern it? Particularly, the inherent international nature of the maritime business could potentially create issues, especially if you have ships based in different countries with potentially weaker regulations.

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: Sure.

Q Can you speak to those broader issues?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: Yeah. Absolutely. So, despite what happened 36 hours ago in Baltimore, the maritime mode of transportation, merchant shipping, is an incredibly, incredibly safe mode of transportation not just here in the United States but worldwide.

While we do have a regime of regulations that are just comprehensive in terms of the vessel conditions, the cargo that they carry, and how they do that, the qualifications and certifications from the mariners who operate these ships, those are actually networked with a global set of regulations that we negotiate and uphold through the International Maritime Organization in London.

So, this ship was flagged by Singapore. That was the flag state admin- — administration. And I spoke with the administration in Singapore just a few hours ago. They’ll be participating in the investigation.

We do something called flag state examinations to ensure that — even though these are not U.S. flagged vessels coming in, we do an inspection to assure that they meet the high international and domestic standards that we demand.

Q Secretary Buttigieg, I know that you said the recov- — or the rebuilding efforts are just beginning. But when it comes to the actual port, can you give us a sense of what the timeline would be for reopening? Is it days? Is it weeks? Is it months?

And same for the bridge: Are we talking about weeks, months? Are we talking about years?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Too soon to be certain. What I’ll say in the case of the bridge is that the original bridge took five years to construct. That does not necessarily mean it will take five years to replace. But that — that tells you what went into that original structure going up.

Again, we need to get a sense of the conditions of the parts that look okay to the naked eye, but we just don’t know yet, especially in terms of their foundational infrastructure.

So, it is going to be some time where commuters are going to need to depend on that 95 and 895 tunnel, and it’s going to put pressure on them.

As far as the port, again, too soon to venture an estimate. The vast majority of the port is inside of that bridge, now, which means most of it cannot operate; although, there is a facility at what’s called Sparrows Point that can handle some amount of cargo shipping but nothing close to the totality of Baltimore.

Q And for the port workers, you mentioned there’s going to be an economic cost but also incurred to them, I’m sure. Any of the funding that you’re talking about, in terms of emergency funding — would that cover them as well?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Yeah. This — this is a major concern. The President has directed the administration to find any and all resources that could come into play here.

I don’t know this to be an automatic eligibility for the emergency relief funding that I mentioned earlier. But we’re going to turn over every stone we have. And of course, beyond DOT, there may be other resources that come into play.

Q And, sorry, just one more quickly. Have you been in any communication with the owners of this vessel in terms of them paying some kind of consequence here?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: I have not, and I’d really defer to NTSB and law enforcement for that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Kelly O.

Q Mr. Secretary, do you envision that this would be constructing a very different bridge going forward? You referenced the 1970 state of affairs. Then do you believe it would be an entirely new span? And would you envision different safety mechanisms as you are assessing this at this point?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: I can’t speculate on that.

What I will note is that some of the other bridge collapses that are — were of these proportions — notably, the Minnesota bridge collapse — happened because of a design flaw and the bridge spontaneously collapsed.

This is, of course, not that. This was the result of an impact. But we don’t yet know what NTSB will find or how that might inform plans going forward.

Q And based on what you’ve seen so far, do you recommend that any other spans take any steps based on what we’ve learned about — however remarkably unusual it was for that impact — do you think there need to be different steps to protect others spans going forward?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Some modern bridges around the world, especially after the 1980 Tampa incident, have been designed with different features to mitigate impacts and protect their piers. Right now, I think there’s a lot of debate taking place among the engineering community about whether any of those features could have had any role in — in a situation like this.

Again, it’s difficult to overstate the impact of this collision we’re talking about. It’s not just as big as a building. It’s really as big as a block — 100,000 tons all going into this pier all at once.

But one other thing I would add, more broadly speaking, is that the President’s infrastructure package has the first-ever dedicated federal fund for resilience. Largely, that’s been construed in terms of seismic resilience and resilience in the face of extreme weather events. But, certainly, it’s something we’ll be looking at going forward, knowing what we’ve experienced in Baltimore.

Q And lastly, the status of the crew of the cargo ship. Maybe the Vice Admiral is better suited for that. Are they still on board? And are they fully cooperating with what you need?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: The crew is cooperating with what we need. They’re the — they remain on board, and predominantly an Indian crew with one Sri Lankan crew member on board. But they’re still there and very much engaged in the dialogue and the investigation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Sabrina.

Q Thank you. To the Vice Admiral, are there any early indications of what caused the Dali to lose propulsion during its voyage? And what are some of the areas of focus so far when it comes to the investigation into the accident?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: Yeah, I think we all want to know as quickly as possible at least some initial findings. But I really need to refer you to the National Transportation Safety Board and their messaging in terms of moving forward very deliberately in a factual basis to uncover some of those answers.

Q And then, Secretary Buttigieg, you talked about, you know, how, you know, the bridge simply was not built to withstand an impact of this nature. But do — is it your view that the bridge was built strongly enough? Why didn’t it have some of the defensive structures around the support column, as many other bridges do?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Again, I don’t want to get ahead of any investigation either. I will say that a part of what’s being debated is whether any design feature now known would have made a difference in this case. We’ll get more information on that as the investigation proceeds.

Q Thank you. Secretary Buttigieg, you’ve been talking about the President vowing to pay for the cost of the bridge in full to expedite that rebuilding process. But are you going to go after the shipping company?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Any private party that is found responsible and liable will be held accountable. I think our emphasis and the President’s goal is to make sure that that process is not something we have to wait for in order to support Maryland with the funds that they need. And that’s what these emergency relief tools can help us do.

Q What could that accountability look like?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Again, I don’t want to get ahead of law enforcement, NTSB, or any of the other players here. But needless to say, there’s a lot — going to be a lot of focus on that. Anybody who is responsible will need to be accountable.

Q Rebuilding obviously won’t be cheap. And you talked about possibly needing to give that supplemental request to Congress. How much money are we talking about?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Just too soon to say.

Q And just one question for the Vice Admirable — Admiral. When it comes to, you know, getting the situation cleaned up and recovery efforts, what are the biggest challenges that you’re facing and the kind of equipment that you have to move in?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: I think the main challenge here is — as you can see by the imagery on scene, is removing that — those large trusses and steel members off the bow of the ship. Once that happens, we’ll have the underwater survey complete in terms of how that vessel is connected to the bridge pier there. But I think once that’s done, I think the salvors will be ready to do the necessary actions to refloat that vessel and remove it.

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

Q On the contents of the ships, sir — on those 4,700 containers. Besides the fuel and oil and hazardous materials, can you give us some general categories of what other goods are on board? Is it —

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: (Inaudible) on any given container ship, you can have a very, very wide range of packaged ha- — packaged materials, consumer goods, and many, many other things. So, it’s going to be a very, very broad cross-section of cargoes.

Q Okay. And then on the other ships that are stuck in the port. Can you talk a little bit about what coordination is being done with those ships? And what kind of cargo they have? And — and where they’re bound for?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: Yeah, absolutely. So, I think we can give you some more specifics on the ships in the port, but I think roughly we’ve got about a dozen ships that remain in the port that are unable to get out. The majority of those are foreign-flagged vessels and, I think, just sort of typical of what we see in the Port of Baltimore in terms of dry — dry bulk carriers, car carriers, and other things. There are a number of Maritime Administration ships that are there as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nandita.

Q Thanks —

Q And then, Secretary Buttigieg, on regulations and requirements. Are you discussing waiving any regulations or requirements to help speed along the reconstruction of this bridge?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Too soon to say what exact administrative issues may come up. But, certainly, we have a clear direction from the President to tear down any barriers, bureaucratic as well as financial, that could affect the timeline of this project.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nandita.

Q Thanks, Karine. This is for the Secretary. You mentioned you were meeting with shippers and supply chain operators tomorrow, but just sort of curious about your early assessment so far. Do you expect the closure of the poor to lead to a full-blown supply chain crisis? Or what is your early assessment so far?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Well, this is not of the proportions of, for example, L.A. and Long Beach when it comes to container traffic. That’s — that’s one port complex — or two ports that collectively represent 40 percent of the U.S. container traffic. It’s nothing like that.

But it is an important port and an important system of the East Coast ports. Now, a lot of the goods that come on or off there go as part of runs where ships also visit the ports of New York and New Jersey and Virginia. And so, right now, I think there are already diversions taking place to those and other East Coast ports helping to absorb some of that need. So, those are the kinds of things we’re getting more information on right now. And I’m looking forward to getting a better sense tomorrow after talking to the shippers.

Q Okay. And a quick question on sort of safety reviews. You know, obviously the ship was involved in an accident in Belgium, I believe, in 2016. Is this incident going to prompt a full-scale review of vessels like this?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: So — so, we’ve seen what’s in the news in terms of that particular incident. I don’t know whether that’s particularly informative to this — probably a different vessel crew, different pilots, different weather conditions, and so on and so forth.

But nevertheless, we have — the Coast Guard keeps the histories — the safety histories of all the vessels that call into U.S. ports. And so, we’re reviewing that and in terms of the investigation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Toluse.

Q Thank you. For the Vice Admiral, can you discuss your decree — your degree of confidence in the victim numbers that we’ve heard so far? We have seen evidence that there is sonar that’s picked up cars at the bottom of the river. Do we know that all those cars belong to the construction workers? Or is there a chance that other cars may have fallen into the river?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: So, we’ve heard similar reports in the news. And so, basically, the Coast Guard is going off of the numbers of individuals that had been provided to us by the state of Maryland, as they were the ones who are administering the bridge and had the best idea of how many individuals might have been involved.

Q And for Secretary Buttigieg, you mentioned earlier that there is not an air traffic control-type body for shipping. Is that an indication that you think that there should be something like that for the future?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: No, it’s — it’s a very different system. But I do think it’s important for the public to understand that if a runway or an airport goes out of service, and then there’s immediate instructions from a central authority on what to do and where to go. It just doesn’t work that way in shipping.

What I will say is we have felt, especially since the summer of 2021, that there needs to be more coordination than there — there has been in the past. And I think sometimes even — not just as a matter of practice, but as a matter of culture, different shippers and other entities that have been rivals just don’t coordinate.

We built a program called FLOW, which invites different participants — cargo owners, shippers, ports, terminal operators, and others — to begin sharing data. That’s something that served us well going to the Red Sea issues. It’s certainly serving us well right now, because that data can help us get a sense of how these effects are rippling through other ports.

So, we welcome that coordination. We’re trying to promote it. But that doesn’t mean that it’s happening on a command-and-control basis.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. Secretary Buttigieg, when was this bridge last inspected? Was it on a list for replacement? It’s more than 50 years old. And can you give us a ballpark figure of when you’ll reopen the port? You said five years on the outside to rebuild the bridge, but just ballpark it for me — days, weeks, months, years — to reopen the port?

And finally, what’s the estimated economic impact for the closure of this port and — and the downing of this bridge?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: So, on the first one, I’ll refer you to the state. They’ll have the most up-to-date information on the bridge. On the —

Q Well, according to the state, they inspected it — it — but what — what I’m asking: Was it on a list of — and — and they noted it was 50 years old, and they also noted that it had some questionable parts to it. But was it on a list to be replaced with the infrastructure bill?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: It certainly was not the subject of an immediate discretionary grant to replace it or something — anything like that. We do have some work going on — on a — on I-895. But to my knowledge, nothing immediate in terms of any discretionary grants going to the — to the bridge.

Economic numbers. About 8,000 jobs, we think, are directly implicated, and over $100 million of cargo moves in and out of that port a day.

And what was the middle question?

Q The — ballpark it when you’re going to — when the port will be reopening.

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: I’ll say this: Reopening the port is a different matter from rebuilding the bridge. The —

Q Yes.

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: — the port, that’s just a matter of clearing the channel. Still no simple thing, but I would expect that can happen on a much quicker timeline than the full reconstruction of the bridge.

Q So, can you ballpark it just a little?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: As you can imagine, I’m asking our teams the same question, but I don’t want to —

Q But days —

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: — put something out just yet.

Q — weeks, months, years?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We just got to keep going.

Q I understand, but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We got to keep going.

Q — just give us something there. The — just give —

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: As soon as we have something, I’ll tell you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, go ahead, Jon. We got to — we got to (inaudible.)

Q Thanks, Karine. Secretary Buttigieg, another supply chain issue for you has to do with a significant amount of automobiles, cars, trucks, coal, LNG that goes through the Port of Baltimore. What will be the impact on the supply chain on those specific industries?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Yeah, so, this is one of the key ports, again, for — for vehicles, and some vehicles are actually finished at facilities that are on port grounds, so it is significant.

That being said, of course, it’s not the only facility that can accommodate roll-on/roll-off vehicles. You see that in Savannah; certainly, in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. The tractor equipment will be more complicated than the ordinary light-duty vehicles. These are exactly the kinds of information that we’re going to be seeking over the coming days, including at tomorrow’s convening.

Q And you expect, because of those supply chain issues, that we could see impacts on the U.S. economy as a result of those supply chain issues?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: We want to get a little more fidelity on how disruptive it can be. Again, we’re not talking about a single point of failure that it’s the only possible place to get through or even something that is as impactful as some of the issues that affected the Panama Canal, for example.

This does not automatically mean that a trip to the East Coast has to be substituted with a trip to the West Coast, which would be much more of a cost impact. It could probably be accommodated up and down the East Coast. But the effect clearly will not be trivial.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We got to start wrapping up.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you said that you had received a request for emergency funding from the Maryland authorities. Can you tell us what that number was or is?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Those don’t necessarily include a full estimate of the costs. But they —

Q Just initial.

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: — do make it possible through what’s called a quick-release authority for us to start getting dollars out.

I was just notified that this is coming in as I was stepping out here, so I — I don’t have more details than that right now.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Hi, Secretary Buttigieg. So, just purely speaking about economic impact, each day that the port is shut down, what is the economic impact per day?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Well, again, there’s between a — last I checked, between $100- and $200 million of value that comes through that port every day, and about $2 million in wages that are at stake every day. And that’s one of the areas we’re most concerned about.

It’s one thing for a container or a vehicle or a sugar shipment to be absorbed or accommodated somewhere else. But these longshore workers — if goods aren’t moving, they’re not working.

Now, right now there is work taking place, even inside of that bridge, because of the work that has to be done to offload some of the vehicles that are — that are stuck there and get that back onto the surface transportation to go out to other sites. So, they’re — they’re likely working right now. But that work won’t last long. And that’s one of our main areas of concern.

Q And for the Vice Admiral — thank you very much. So, then you look at CFR — you know, the Code of Federal Regulations — you earlier talked about how, you know, you inspect these vehicles — right? — the Coast Guard inspects these vehicles. Is it done on a regular basis to see if all of those items are, you know, being followed or do you do spot checks?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: Pretty thorough. So, every ship that comes to a United States port has to report to the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection 96 hours in advance.

What we do then is look at cargo, look at the vessel history, look at the individuals onboard. And we’ll put them through a risk matrix to determine based on their past history and ano- — another set of factors on whether we should board and inspect or not, but it’s a pretty thorough process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, April.

Q Vice Admiral and Mr. Secretary, when does cleanup begin? Because we’re hearing after the first stage of rescue and recovery, cleanup begins. And the question is: Once cleanup starts, will there be at least one channel to come through because of the importance and the uniqueness of this port not just for Baltimore but for the country, to include the Midwest with the farming equipment that goes on the CSX line that’s right there?

And also, how are you going to push back to Republicans who don’t want anything to go through from this Biden administration budgetarily when the President says he wants to pay for everything?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: I’ll take the latter and leave it to you on the channel, if you want. (Laughter.)

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: So —

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: I’m fine with that. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Look, infrastructure is or at least ought to be a bipartisan priority. I know that partisanship has gotten in the way of some important functions and expenditures.

But I would also note that the infrastructure package that was passed is known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for a reason. Some — not all — Republicans crossed the aisle to work with President Biden and work with Democrats and get this done. It is our hope that that same spirit will prevail here.

And I would also remind any member who might find themselves on the fence when this — when any request that might come through materializes that, you know, today, this is happening in Baltimore; tomorrow, it could be your district. And we really need to stand together — red, blue, and purple — to get these things done.

Q And what about the channel? The cleanup and the channel. That’s right. Yes.

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: So, in terms of cleanup — in terms of the debris assessment removal now, again, the Army Corps of Engineers under General Spellmon are being very aggressive in mobilizing equipment, beginning the underwater surveys and the necessary actions and — in order to first understand what they’re facing in terms of challenges with the — not just the debris on the surface but underwater. So, they can give you an idea on sort of what their assessment looks like.

Q So, we can safely say the process for cleanup and possibly opening that channel is already underway, because you are assessing what’s going on down below?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: So — so, Admiral Gilreath, the Coast Guard Incident Commander, and General Spellmon from the Army Corps are very tightly linked and coordinated on the necessary actions to do this — not waiting in order to begin this process.

Now, we do need to be sensitive because the state of Maryland is conducting the body recovery operations in and around the same area where that debris assessment removal needs to take place.

But, again, in terms of those details, Army Corps is best to answer that.

Q Thank you so much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Ed.

Q Thanks, Karine. Mr. Secretary or Vice Admiral, what kind of changes could this lead to the operations at the ports, like could we see tug escorts going through for bridges like this? And would that make a difference in this?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: For us, again, I think it’s too soon to speculate whether any design feature or other practice would have made a difference. But that’s the kind of thing that NTSB does, and they do it well. At the end of their investigation, they issue recommendations which often become part of policy, design, or even technology for the future. And it’s part of why we’ll be very interested in their work.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us if you are seeing an impact on inflation? And you said that the bridge was not made to withstand such an impact, but should it have been reinforced during the past decades?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: So, again, I don’t know how a bridge possibly could withstand the forces that were at play when this vessel, about the same size as the Nimitz-cra- — -class U.S. aircraft carrier, struck the key supporting beam for that bridge. But we will always — as always learn from — from the NTSB investigation.

What was the first bit?

Q About the impact on inflation?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Too soon to — to say. I think, you know, this is a — definitely a different ballpark from what we saw of the West Coast issues in 2021. But that’s part of what we hope to gather more data on soon.

I will say, you know, a lot of the disinflation that we’ve seen has been a result of the work that the President led to improve and smooth out our supply chains. So, we see a clear relationship between supply chains and inflation. But this is more localized and more specialized than what we saw in 2021.

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

Q Secretary Buttigieg, have you or the President been able to reach the family members of the six victims or do you plan to try to contact them?

SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: First of all, our hearts and our thoughts are with them. I know right now they are shifting from yesterday, where they were really in the mode of — of hoping for news to today facing the worst kind of news you possibly could.

I can’t speak to anybody else’s conversations with them other than that I know Governor Moore spent time speaking with them.

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

Q For the Vice Admiral, you had said earlier that there’s a process by which the Coast Guard will keep track of ships that may have been involved in previous incidents. And we already know that the Dali was involved in a — in a previous incident not similar to this one but an incident nonetheless. So, was the ship on the radar for the Coast Guard in terms of, you know, keeping an eye on it?

And if not, a second follow-up question is: If ships have already been flagged, if you will, for having been involved in incidents, what’s the process for that when they’re coming into a United States port?

VICE ADMIRAL GAUTIER: So, maybe I’ll answer the first part of that question first. It’s — it’s the same process for every ship. We get the notification 96 hours in advance of arriving at a U.S. port. We do an examination together with Customs and Border Protection — a review of the histories of these ships and other factors, cargoes that they carry, and so on and so forth — to do a risk ranking and then make a determination about whether a local Coast Guard team — and CBP participates as well — whether we should do a boarding and do a safety examination there.

In terms of the history of the ship, again, I think this one incident that has been discussed within the media — I think it — we need to take that within context in terms of what may or may not have happened with a different crew on board, different situation, different pilots, and so on and so forth — maybe not related to the vessel condition, so to speak.

But in terms of our examination, this particular ship had a fairly good safety record.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Thank you so much, Vice Admiral. Thank you so much, guys.

Q What are the tugboat rules for guiding cargo ships in that port, sir?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Thank you. Have a g- — have a great week.

Q What are the tug boat rules for guiding cargo ships in that port, sir?

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

All right, thanks, guys.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you so much, Vice Admiral. Thank you so much, Secretary Buttigieg.

All right, I have a couple of things at the top before we continue with the briefing.

So, just a few more updates here to share that I — I — and then, as I said, I’ll take some questions.

So, last night, voters in Alabama made their voices heard and voted overwhelmingly for Marilyn Lands, who made clear that she would fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare, including IVF. It was a decisive victory in a la- — in a long-held Republican House district. And the President congratulates her on her win.

As we saw last year in Ohio and previously in Michigan, California, Kentucky, Vermont, Kansas, and Montana, in every state where abortion has been on the ballot, the American people overwhelmingly vote to protect reproductive freedom.

President Biden and Vice President Harris stand proudly and firmly behind the majority of Americans in this fight. And they will continue to take action to protect this fundamental freedom that is under relentless attack by extreme Republican elected officials.

But the fact remains that the only way to ensure the right to choose for a woman in every state is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law. Only — only Congress can pass that law, which President Biden — if it were to get to his desk, he would indeed sign it.

Now, today, we had another announcement. The Biden-Harris administration also launched the SAVE Day of Action to promote SAVE, the most affordable student loan repayment plan ever, which President Biden announced just last year. The SAVE Day of Action is a coordinated effort to bring together public, private, and NGOs that could reach 100 million Americans with information about SAVE.

Vice President Harris kicked off the campaign this morning, encouraging people to visit StudentAid.gov/SAVE, where they can join the more than 7.7 million borrowers representing every congressional district who are currently enrolled.

Thanks to SAVE plan, more than 4.5 million borrowers have a monthly payment of zero dollars, and an additional 1 million borrowers have payments of less than $100.

Finally, I want to acknowledge a solemn anniversary that will happen later this week. Friday will mark one year since American journalist Evan Gershkovich was arrested and wrongfully detained in Russia.

Just yesterday, Russia extended his detention after yet another sham hearing. In yesterday’s hearing, the Russian authorities did not even provide any evidence of a crime. In fact, they have provided no real justification for holding him. That is because he has done nothing wrong.

Journalism is not a crime. Let me say that again. Journalism is not a crime.

This administration will continue working every day to secure his release. We will continue to push back against Russia’s attempts to use Americans as bargaining chips. And we will continue to stand strong against all those who seek to attack the press or target journalists.

To Evan, to Paul Whelan, and to all Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad: Keep the faith, we are with you, and we won’t stop working to bring you home.

With that, Seung Min.

Q Thank you. A quick one. Any update on when the President would go to Baltimore?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have an update for you. Obviously, we want to — we want to do it when it is the appropriate time on the ground. We’re going to continue to have conversations with, obviously, local officials on the ground to get — to get a sense of what their needs are. But we want to make sure that we do not disrupt their efforts.

You just heard from the Secretary and Vice Admiral: This is a major, major undertaking. And so, we don’t want to get in the way. But you heard from the President. He wants to get there as quickly as he can.

Q And one on Israel. Our understanding is that talks are restarting between the U.S. and Israel about rescheduling that meeting that was supposed to be held this week on Rafah. So, what is the U.S.’s understanding of why Prime Minister Netanyahu is having this apparent change of heart? Did the meetings with Defense Minister Gallant go particularly well this week and came to the conclusion?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, obviously, I’m going to let the Prime Minister speak for himself on that first part of the question.

What I can say on — on Israel more broadly, as you asked me about meetings that we — that were held here — they were constructive discussions with Israel’s Defense Minister over the last two days. Rafah was one of the many topics discussed with Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, and Bill Burns.

The Prime Minister’s office has agreed — has agreed to reschedule the meeting dedicated to Rafah. So, we’re — we’re now working with them to set — to find a convenient date that’s obviously going to work for both sides. But he — his office has agreed to — to reschedule that meeting that would be dedicated to Rafah, which is a good thing.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Karine. And actually, on that note, we have received a statement from the Prime Minister’s office saying that Netanyahu did not approve the departure of the delegation to Washington. So, disputing that they agreed to the rescheduling, could you just talk about what might be going on?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I would say that we are working to set a date. The Prime Minister’s office agreed to reschedule this meeting. You — you saw that the defense — the Israel Defense Minister was here for two days — extended a day and added another day — to meet with Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, and Bill — and Bill Burns.

So, that is the conversation that we’re having. We are working to convene that — that meeting — an important meeting on Rafah. And when we have a date, certainly, we’ll share that with you. That is what we know from our side.

Q And what is the message that Defense Secretary Austin had to Gallant about the alternatives in Rafah?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to get into specifics of — of those conversations. Obviously, as I just stated, Rafah — the operations — the military operations, more broadly — Rafah was — was indeed discussed, but I’m just not — as topics, obviously, that were discussed. I’m just not going to go into further details.

Q And have talks for that hostage deal and ceasefire — have they reached another stalemate? And what are the sticking points on it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can confirm that talks continue and we are — the United States is actively engaged in those conversations. We remain hopeful that we can bre- — we can broker a deal to secure the release of hostages and establish a temporary ceasefire. This is something that we’ve been asking for some time.

A ceasefire and this hostage deal, obv- — obviously, would allow us to bring home some hostages to their — to their family, to their loved ones, and they include American hostages as well. And as well, bring into Gaza that all-important humanitarian aid that is needed in Gaza on the ground. I don’t have anything beyond that.

But we can confirm that — that we continue to have this incred- — incredibly important conversation on getting that hostage deal, which would lead to a ceasefire.

Go ahead.

Q Just following up on what Selina was saying, Karine. Does the administration believe it was able to convince Israeli officials to take a relook at a potential Rafah operation after the series of meetings that he had with the administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I — I mean, Rafah, obviously was part of the — part of the agenda — their military operations. And so, I’m not going to go into detail. It is important that we have heard from the Prime Minister’s office that we’re going to reschedule and try to lock in this meeting with — with their — obviously, their folks on — on the Israeli government side and — and folks here. And so, I think that’s important.

I’m not going to get into — into that. They — I — you know, they — I would say they discussed how best to ensure Hamas’s lasting defeat in Gaza, and the need to — to protect civilians. So, of course, that was part of the conversation. But I’m not going to provide any more details beyond that.

Q And is the President thinking about reconsidering sending arms to Israel given, you know, the unfolding situation and the — the unfolding humanitarian situation in Gaza?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is — that is —

Q Any fresh thoughts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — that is — there is nothing new there. There is — that is not under consideration.

As you know, we have — we have — we have done more to get humanitarian aid into Gaza with the airdrops. You know about the pier.

And we’re working with — obviously, with Israel to get — to make sure that we get more of the trucks inside of Gaza. It is incredibly important. We know the dire situation in — in Gaza as it relates to humanitarian aid.

And — but the most important thing — the most important thing here is to get that hostage deal so we can get the humanitarian aid, to get those hostages back home to their family. And it is — and it would — we believe, would lead to a ceasefire, obviously. And so, that is what we’re working towards. We got to get that hostage deal done, and we are actively, actively continuing those talks.

Q Because restricting weapons to Israel should also be a top consideration, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m not going to get into — into, you know — into hypotheticals, into conditions from here. We’ve been very clear where we stand, and we’ll continue to do so.

We want to get that hostage deal done. The talks can — is active. They continue. That is important: to get the hostage deal, to get the ceasefire, to get that humanitarian aid into Gaza. It is incredibly, obviously, important, as we — as you all have reported the dire situation in — in Gaza. And so, that is our focus.

We’re going to get that pier going. We’re going to continue the airdrops, continue to get those trucks in. Working with Israel on that.

I just don’t have anything else beyond that.

Go ahead.

Q On the Rafah talks, you said that both sides are working to find a new date that works with schedules. But what level of urgency does the administration assign to holding those talks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, it’s — it’s urgent. It’s important. We have said that. The President has said that. The National Security Advisor was here at this podium saying those — those very words — the importance of making sure that there is a plan and that — that we protect civilians. You’ve heard — you’ve heard us say there’s more than 1 million Palestinian civilians in Rafah — about 1.5. We have to make sure that they are protected.

But at the same time, we want to make sure that — that Israel also makes sure that Hamas is no longer operating. Right? And so, that is important as well.

But these talks will get us into a place where there is a plan — that we hear their side; they hear our side. I think the Defense Minister being here from Israel was really important for two days having those all-important, all-critical conversations about Rafah, about military operations. I’m just not going to get beyond that.

When we have a date locked in, certainly we would share that with all of you.

Q There’s been reporting that the talks could happen as soon as next week. Do you see that as feasible?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — I’m just not going to get into a — a set date or time here, but we want it to happen. Obviously, it’s urgent. We think it’s urgent. It’s important to — to lock this in, and so we’re going to work really diligent to make sure that that happens.

Go ahead, Kelly.

Q Tomorrow, the President will be in New York, and he is going to be with two former presidents. I’m not asking about the campaign piece of that. Could you speak to the historical significance or the stature of the moment to have three presidents together?

And while he is in New York, you, I’m sure, have seen reports there was a New York City police officer who died in the line of duty. Any plan to acknowledge that officer?

So, a two-part question, but first about the historical significance of the presidents being together.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me — and I’m going to get be really mindful, and I have to say this. This is a Hatch Act. I am a federal employee, and I’m going to follow the law and not comment on 2024 campaign, but I’ll say a couple of things at the top.

That President Obama and President Clinton strongly support President Biden’s leadership and obviously his agenda. All three have — agree overwhelmingly on the issues that this President has been fighting for for the past three years, including an economy that works for all, leaves no one behind; that is an economy that’s built from the bottom up, middle out; making sure that we protect our critical freedoms — that is something that they all three agree on — like a freedom to choose or protecting our democracy.

And so, they are, of course — there are, of course, many conservative leaders in the country who oppose the dark vision put forward by extreme Republican officials that would drag us into the past with trickle-down take — tax giveaways to the rich, cuts to Medicare and Social Security, radical abortion bans, and attacks on the rule of law. That is not these three presidents.

So, we understand the importance of the three of them being together. Obviously, this is going to be an up- — and important — an important event.

I want to be really careful and not speak to a campaign event. Obviously, the campaign could speak more — more specifically to — to the broader significance of them being there.

But look, these are — these are presidents — two former presidents, the current president — that believe in what we’re trying to do in the Biden-Harris administration, trying to move this country forward, try and make sure we’re protecting our democracy, protecting our freedom, building an economy that leaves no one behind. And I think that’s what — the most important here.

As it relates to the death of the officer, look, our hearts go out to this officer who tragically lost his life in the line of duty. We’re also praying for his family during this difficult time, who now has an empty seat at their dinner table.

President Biden is deeply grateful for the sacrifices police officers make to keep our community safe.

This shooting is yet another painful reminder of the toll of gun violence that — what it’s — what it’s doing to inflict on families and our communities and our nation.

And that’s why the President signed more than two dozen executive actions. That’s why we’re able to pass a bipartisan agreement to deal with the gun violence that we’re seeing in this country. Obviously, more work needs to be done. We need Congress to continue to act on making sure that our communities are safe.

And, again, our hearts go out to the — to this officer and — and his family. It’s a difficult time for them.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Sabrina.

Q Thank you. Do you have any comment on the decision by a federal appeals court today to continue blocking Texas’s migrant deportation law, SB 4?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things on that. Obviously, I want to first take a step back and just remind us how we got here.

We have said from the beginning that SB 4 is an extreme unconstitutional law that will burden law enforcement and make communities less safe. We disagreed with the Supreme Court order yesterday letting the law go into effect, and we welcome the Fi- — the Fifth Circuit and their decision overnight oppose — pausing the implementation of it.

Ultimately, we need real solutions, right? We need that decision, that negotiation proposal that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. We need that to move. We need it to move out of the Senate. We need it to move out of the House and to get to the desk of this President.

And we believe — we believe that that bipartisan border security agreement would not only be the toughest but it’d be the fairest. And it took us a couple of months to work on it. It got support from the Border Patrol union. It got support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, something that you don’t see nowadays.

And so, we are going to continue to encourage Congress to move forward. As we know, the former president, President Trump, told Republicans on the Hill to not move forward with it, to reject it because it would help — it would help us. It would help Joe Biden, and it would hurt him.

And that’s not how — who we should be as a country. We should be where — where majority of Americans are. They want us to deal with what’s happening at the border, and they want us to fix this immigration system.

Q In the back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. We’ll go — go ahead, Aurelia. I haven’t called on you.

Q Thank you. On airdrops and humanitarian aid. Eighteen people have died in Gaza on Monday during an airdrop. Twelve of them drowned trying to fish out food from the water. So, does the administration intend to continue with these operations? And if so, is there a way to make them safer or should we just expect to see more people dying like that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we — we express our condolences to the families of those who died — who were — while trying to retrieve desperately needed humanitarian aid. We know — we understand what’s going on on the ground. We know that the humanitarian situation on the ground, as I’ve stated many times already just in the past couple of minutes, is dire.

And so — which is why we’re working around the clock to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance going on — into — going into Gaza. So, we’re going to continue to do that.

Look, you know, this is, again, why that hostage deal is so important — why we’re going to do everything we can, working around the clock to get that hostage deal done because, yes, it’s about getting the hostages home to their families and their loved one, which is critical, important — let’s not forget there are American hostages, as well, included — and to get that humanitarian aid, to lead to a ceasefire, but also get to that all-needed humanitarian aid.

Our hearts go out and our condolences go out to the families. It is a devastating situation. We have to make sure that we continue to get that humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q Thank you, Karine. On the delegation issue. You know, I heard messaging from the administration earlier this week explaining, you know, that the U.S. abstaining from that U.N. vote and allowing it to go through didn’t really matter because it was a nonbinding resolution. But if it doesn’t really matter, you know, why not vote no again and avoid this whole fallout with Israel, because it obviously mattered to them?

And so, I guess where I’m coming from is how did we get here? You know, what — what caused this? And is it politics?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the principles of the deal were there. Right? It talked about a ce- — it talked about a ceasefire. It talked about hostages, which we believe the principles were there.

But we believe the only path forward to a ceasefire is to negotiate a release — the hostage deal — a hostage release as well. Right? We believe those two things are both important and to do that together.

And so —

Q You guys —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — this —

Q — didn’t do that though. It didn’t condition that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, that’s not how we saw it. Right? And so, we have long said — we have long said a ceasefire will not be achieved in the Security Council but through diplomatic — diplomacy on the ground. That’s what we have said. We have to see that diplomacy on the ground.

And so, the resolution, as I’ve stated, as you just stated in your question is nonbinding and does not create new obligations under the international law, such as what the council does when it imposes obligatory sanctions.

But nevertheless, that shouldn’t matter. Even though the resolution lacks the binding provision, all Security Council resolutions carry great weight and should be implemented.

In this case, however, it is irrelevant whether the resolution imposes any new legal objections, as the text demands exactly what the United States has long been pushing: both. We want both a hostage deal and a ceasefire, making sure that humanitarian aid gets in. And that’s what we want to see.

That’s why we believe the principles were right. But we didn’t feel like it did exactly where we stand on our — on our policy.

Q This wasn’t — it wasn’t nothing. You know, the U.S. has blocked previous votes from going through that looked exactly like this. So, what caused the shift? And what is the President’s reason for allowing this to go through? It is a change.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it is not. It is not a policy change. We’ve been very clear.

Q It’s a messaging change.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, no. We disagree — disagree. We’ve been very clear that in or- — in order to get a hostage deal that would lead to a ceasefire, we also got to get that humanitarian aid. We believe it is all connected in that way.

And so, that is where we stood. That’s where we’ve been.
It is not a policy change. The principles were there, but we needed to — we — we have a way that we want to do this — right? — a hostage deal.

Those are the critical conversations that are happening — the active conversations that are happening, making sure that we get those hostages home — American hostages are also included — to their loved ones. We also got to get that humanitarian aid. And we believe that diplomatic effort — the diplomacy — the diplomatic work that is being done would lead us to that.

And so, we’ve been very clear and s- — and steadfast about this. And that’s what we’re going to continue to be.

Q So, no part of this is —

Q One in the back?

Q — linked to the President worried about losing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No —

Q — support from Gen Z or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, this is — let me be very clear. Let me be very clear. This is not about politics. It’s not. The President does not lead his national security or things that are the right thing to do, in this sense — right? — getting that hostage deal, making sure hos- — hostages come home — including, as I said over and over again, American hostages; getting that humanitarian aid into Gaza and making sure that it — it — we believe that would lead to a ceasefire — that is not about politics. That is about the right thing to do.

This is why we continue those active conversations and making sure that we can get there. It is important to get this done.

Q One in the back?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Why do you think that the United States, which is Israel’s most important ally, seems to have so little clout right now with Israel?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I disagree. I don’t think that is — that is the case. You know, our position is going to continue to — to remain the same. We have been really clear. We are committed to supporting Israel in — in its fight against Hamas. We’ve shown that. We are committed to that. And we’ve — we’ve said Hamas has said that they’re going to repeat — they’ve said this — they’re going to repeat October 7th again and again until Israel is annihilated. And because we — we cannot expect Israel to accept a situation in which their citizens continue to live under that threat.

At the same time — at the same time, it’s critical that Israel do everything possible to protect civilian casualties —

Q Do you feel they are?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — and conduct operations.

Look, we are having those diplomatic conversations. We are. We — you — you just heard me lay out how the Israel Defense Minister was here. He stayed for two days. He met with Jake Sullivan. He met with Lloyd Austin. Those are high-level —

Q Netanyahu has been very clear —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — those high-level — those high-level conversations. And that is important.

And the Prime Minister’s office said that they — they want to reschedule this — this meeting so that we can talk about the Rafah operations. We welcome that. And we’re going to work with their teams to make sure that happens.

Q But you — but your op- — you have made it clear that you think a land invasion of Rafah is a mistake. Netanyahu has made it clear that he’s going to go ahead and do it anyway. So, I’m just wondering —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Hold on. But wait. Their — they have agreed to come and have a discussion about that. That’s important too. We can’t miss that. We can’t miss the fact that there’s an agreement to have a meeting here to talk about the Rafah operations. That is what we’re going to do.

The Israel Defense Minister was here for two days — for two days. That was on the table — was part of — Rafah operations was certainly — Rafah was certainly — one of the agenda items. That’s important.

So, conversations are happening. We’re going to set — set this date in the upcoming days to have this meeting about the Rafah for operations. We’re going to share our side; they’re going to share their side. And that’s what you do. That’s what diplomacy is about. And I think that’s also really important.

I know I have to wrap.

Q To the back. One more?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This has been a very long briefing.

Q Is the President concerned about the college —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. I haven’t called you. I haven’t —

Q — financial aid delays?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — called you. Go ahead, go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. Has the President spoken with or plan to speak with those that were rescued from the bridge collapse or to the families of those who were lost?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know Secretary Buttigieg was just asked that question. I think it might have been the la- — one of the last questions he got before leaving here.

Obviously — obviously, as I started off this briefing, our hearts go out to the families of the — of those six — six people and — who are now missing. And I can’t imagine how hard it is for them right now.

And so, I don’t have anything to read out to you about a president conversation or a call. But we’re thinking of them. And this is a President that has always said he will be there for that family. I just don’t have anything else to share.

Q And — and the Republican National Committee has been asking those seeking employment within the organization if they believe the 2020 election was stolen, serving as an apparent litmus test for hiring. Do you have any comment about this kind of prerequisite from (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I mean, I want to — do say a couple of things. I want to be mindful not to comment on 2024.

But I’ll say, more broadly, this is a president that believes in the rule of law, believes that — the need to respect the officers who put their lives at risk on that day on — and to keep everyone safe. We saw what happened on January 6th. Some of you covered that. Our democracy was on atta- — under attacked. We lost lives.

And it is — it is — what we saw was because of the dangerous conspiracy theories. There were people — 2,000 folks — right? — 2,000 people who were mobsters — who were mobs, who — and — and they were there because they didn’t believe in a free and fair election. And that’s why they were there.

The Trump administration itself certified that the 2020 election was the most secure in our history. But yet, this is what we saw.

And so, we’re going to continue to stand with law enforcement. We’re going to continue to fight for our democracy.

And I’m going to be very careful not to speak beyond that on what the RNC decides to do.

All right, everybody. Thank you so much.

2:34 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and Deputy Commandant for Operations for the U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter Gautier appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Raleigh, North Carolina

2:00 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  A couple things at the top.  I know we’re going to have to go real quick here.

So, you all heard from President earlier on the tragic collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland.  This morning, the President conveyed senior members of his team for a briefing — convened, pardon me — senior members of his team for a briefing on the ongoing response.

During his — this morning’s briefing, the President directed his team to ensure all federal resources be made available to assist in the immediate search-and-rescue efforts and subsequent rebuilding of the bridge.

The President spoke with Governor Moore, Mayor Scott, Senator Cardin, Senator Van Hollen, Congressman Mfume, and the Baltimore County Executive to discuss ongoing rescue efforts and commitment to provide any and all necessary federal assistance.  He also spoke with Secretary Buttigieg, who is on the ground right now.

The President will continue to receive updates from his team.  And throughout the day, White House and adminis- — and administration officials will remain in close contact with the state and local officials.

Our prayers are with everyone involved in this terrible accident and all the families, especially those waiting for news right now.  We’re incredibly grateful to the brave first responders who immediately rushed to the scene.  To the people of Baltimore, we’re with you and we — and we’ll [you’ll] have our support for as long as it takes.

And today, as you know, we’re on our way to Raleigh, North Carolina, where President Biden and Vice President Harris will lay out their vision to protect and strengthen the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and Medicare and lower healthcare costs.

Their vision stands in stark contrast to the vision laid out by congressional Republicans through their most recent budget proposal.

Forty-five — this is what they laid out — 45 million Americans, including 1.4 million North Carolinians, would lose health insurance; 100 million Americans would — with preexisting conditions would lose those protections, including 1.8 million people in North Carolina; young people would be kicked off their parents’ coverage; prescription drug prices would skyrocket, stripping Medicare’s authority to negotiate lower prescription drug costs, repeal 35-bucks-per-month insulin and $2,000 po- — $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for healthcare costs.

All right.  Let me just get to the last thing because I —

And today, the President approved an urgently needed assistance package for Haitian security forces to help them protect civilians and critical infrastructure against organized and targeted gang attacks.

Our assistance package for up to $10 million, which draws from excess Department — Department of Homeland Security stocks, may include weapons, ammunition, bulletproof vests, and helmets.

Our support is intended to help Haitians restore security, order, and the rule of law and protect civilians, while at the same time remaining committed to supporting Haitian-led effort for a peaceful transition of power.

With that —

Q    Yeah, hi —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, Chris.  Yeah.  Sorry, I couldn’t find you.

Q    Hello.  So, is the President going to send a proposal to Congress asking for more funding?  Is it going to be a supplemental proposal?  What is that going to look like?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which — which part are you —

Q    Sorry, the bridge.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  On the bridge.  Okay.

So — so, you heard him.  He’s directed his team to move heaven and earth to reopen the port and rebuild the bridge as soon as humanly possible.  And the President and his team his team will — will be with the people of Baltimore, as you know, every step of the way.

His expectation is that federal government will cover the entire cost to rebuild this important bridge in the region.  We will work with Congress to ensure this happens, obviously.  But ri- — we are going to cover the cost, and we’re going to make sure that we work on Con- — with Congress on all of this.

Q    And — and, obviously, you know, the President has made infrastructure a big part of his administration.  You know, what is this incident — you know, the fact — you know, a crowded harbor, a boat striking this bridge — you know, big picture, what does this kind of say about the — the status of America’s supply chains and infrastructure?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, right now our focus is on the resc- — search-and-rescue efforts.  That’s what we’re going to focus on right now.  Obviously, we’ve been in touch with Governor Moore and a- — and local elected officials on — on the — on the ground. 

And so, look, you know, we’re going to focus on that.  We’re going to make sure that we rebuild this bridge.  We’re going to do everything that we can, move — as — as I said, move heaven and earth to get that done.  We’re going to work with Congress.

And, of course, we’re going to monitor all of the, you know, supply chain and all of the potential effects of this.  But we want to focus on the search and rescue that is critical right now in this — in these — in these upcoming hours.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — just to quickly follow up on that.  I mean, any early assessment on how this incident may impact shipping along the East Coast?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, this is very similar to what — obviously, what Chris just asked me.  Look, we’re going to monitor all of those things.  Our focus right now is the search and rescue and to — and the promise that you heard the President make to the people of Baltimore, the people of Maryland that we’re going to do everything that we can to provide the federal assistance to get this bridge back.

But — well, obviously, we’re going to monitor —

Q    And a quick one on, you know, the President’s point about moving heaven and earth.  Does that mean the White House and the administration are willing to waive any environmental review process, any permits that are required to build the bridge?  I mean, are you thinking about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, there was already a bridge there.  So, it’s like — it’s replacing a bridge that already existed.  So, I mean, let’s not forget that piece of it.

So, we’re going to work with — work with the state.  We’re going to do everything that we can to get a bridge that was already there that obviously collapsed back up.  And it is an important bridge to the people of Baltimore and the people of Maryland.  So, let’s not forget that piece as well.

Q    Could the White House tap funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act to potentially rebuild this bridge?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re going to cover the entire cost of — to rebuild the important bridge in the region.  We’re going to work with Congress to ensure this happens.  We’re going to be in close touch with Governor Moore.  And so, we’ll work hand in hand with this team on whatever is needed to make sure that happens.  I just don’t want to get ahead of it.

Q    Karine, has there been any update on the Middle East — the peace talks and if there’s any assurances yet from Israel about protection of civilians in Rafah?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, I think it might be happening right now.  National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Minister Gallant had a good, productive meeting.  And so, they discussed on how — the best way to ensure Hamas’s lasting defeat in Gaza. 

Jake also conveyed Pres- — President Biden’s ironclad support for Israel’s security and defense against all threats, including Iran.

They also discussed the need for Israel to do more to sustain and expand humanitarian assistance going into — into Gaza.

Jake also welcomed Minister — Minister Gallant’s commitment to take additional steps to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

So, I think it’s important that Jake had this meeting — or is having this meeting currently.  And so, those conversations, as we have said consistently over the past several months, they’re happening daily with — with our count- — with our counterparts.

Q    So no additional fallout from the U.N. Security Council yesterday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve been — we’ve been very clear about this.  We’ve been very clear where we stand here.  Our position remains the same.  It has not changed.

So, we remain committed to supporting Israel in its fight against Hamas, which has said it wants to repeat October 7th again and again until Israel is annihilated, because we cannot expect Israel to accept a situation in which their citiz- — their citizens, including — I’m sorry, continue to live under active threat. 

At the same time, as I just said before, it is critical that Israel do whatever possible to — to prevent civilian casualties and to conduct operation as strategically and precisely as possible in target operations to protect civilians, including Rafah.

As you know, this meeting that Jake is having with the Minister is an exter — is an extra day added on because they believed it was important to continue the conversation.  And I think that’s important to note as well.

Q    Karine, really quickly on a different subject.  Venezuela’s regime blocked the leading opposition candidate to Nicolás Maduro from participating in July’s election.  I mean, many polls have shown that the opposition candidate was actually leading Maduro.  Does the White House have any reaction to this?  And would there be potential consequences, like sanctions, if there’s not a free and fair election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Obviously, we’re deeply concerned by the National Electoral Council’s decision to prevent the registration of the democratic opposition party’s candidate, Dr. Corina Yoris.

We are working with our — with other members of the international community to ensure that Venezuelans can participate in inclusive and competitive elections and urge the representatives of Maduro to allow all candidates to run.  We support the will and right of Venezuelans and the Venezuelans’ political parties to select their presidential candidates. 

We are monitoring the situation closely.

To your question about sanctions — as we stated back in January, not too long ago — we are committed to maintaining sanctions relief if Maduro holds up — upholds the commitments outlined in the agreed-to Barbados electoral roadmap.  It is critical that the Maduro regime recognize and respect the right of all candidates to run.

And so, we urge — obviously, we urge Maduro to do just that.  I don’t know have any —

Q    And just real quick on the bridge.  I might’ve missed it at the top.  Has the President talked to congressional leaders yet?  Schumer, Johnson — he’s talked to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.  So, meeting — I’m so sorry.

Q    About — about the bridge and about what he’s going to ask Congress to do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I — I can’t speak to the leadership in Congress.  I can speak to — we did give out a readout of the delegation — the Maryland delegation that he reached out to — obviously, Governor Moore, the mayor.  I just don’t have anything outside of that.

Obviously, the Office of Leg Affairs is always in close touch with leadership and congressional — obviously, congressional members.  I just don’t have anything specific to read out as to the leadership.

Q    And Congress is out for the next two weeks.  Do you have any sense of the timeline on how quickly this funding is going to be needed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is for the bri- — this is going back to the bridge?

Q    For the bridge.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I don’t have a timeline for you.  The President’s commitment is ironclad.  And, obviously, you heard him: We’re going to move heaven and earth to make sure that we re- — that brad — that bridge — we replace that bridge.  We know it’s important to — to the community, to — to Maryland, more broadly.  And it is definitely a commitment.  You heard it directly from this President.

Q    Are you trying to reschedule the U.S.-Israeli meeting that Netanyahu withdrew from?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, as you know, National Security Advisor, as I just mentioned, and also Minster Gallant, their team is having — continuing their meeting, which is important, and — from yesterday, to discuss Israeli operations — military operations in Gaza, including alternative course of action for dealing with Hamas presence in Rafah while protecting civilians.

So, I think that’s important.  That conversation is continuing.  I just don’t have anything to share beyond that.

Q    And another quick one on the bridge.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    There were some indications that the ship had previous safety issues.  Is the White House exploring any new regulations for foreign ships to avoid something like what happened today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — look, I don’t want to get into — into speculation on what’s out there right now.  As you know, Secretary Buttigieg is on the ground.  He’s on site.  You know, there’s going to be, obvi- — an investigation, so I don’t want to get ahead of that either.

And with that, we’re going to have to — we’re going to have to wrap it up because we’re literally landing.

Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you on the ground. 

2:11 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Raleigh, NC appeared first on The White House.

2:02 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Good afternoon, everyone.  Just have a couple things at the top before we get going. 

President Biden — today, he called Taoiseach Leo Varadkar of Ireland to recognize his years of service as a leader of Ireland and of the good relationship they have developed.

Having recently celebrated St. Patrick’s Day at the White House, the leaders reflected on their cooperation over the years on shared priorities, particularly deepening U.S.-Ireland ties between our people and our economies. 

They noted recent progress in Northern Ireland with the restoration of its Executive and Assembly, reaffirming the critical role these institutions play in preserving the gains of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement.

The President conveyed that he looks forward to continuing to build a vibrant future for U.S. rela- — Irish relations with the new Taoiseach once elected by the Irish Parliament. 

Additional news from this morning.  As a — as part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, today our administration announced the single-largest investment in industrial decarbonization in our nation’s history.

The Department of Energy will provide $6 billion for 33 projects across more than 20 states, reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions, revitalize industrial communities, strengthen the nation’s manufacturing competitiv- — competitiveness, and support good-paying union jobs. 

With this investment, the Biden-Harris administration will spur the next generation of decarbonization technologies and keep America’s key industries competitive. 

I want to turn to two pieces of news looking ahead to Tuesday.  First, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the administration’s appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision on mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortion that the FDA first approved as safe and effective over 20 years ago.

This administration will continue to stand by FDA’s independent approval and regulation of mifepristone as safe and effective, and we will continue to fight back against unprecedented attacks on women’s freedom to make their own health decisions. 

As the Department of Justice continues defending the FDA’s actions before the Supreme Court, President Biden, Vice President Harris remain firmly committed to defending women’s ability to access reproductive care, and they will continue to urge Congress to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade. 

Finally, I want to briefly preview tomorrow’s travel.  President Biden and Vice President Harris will head north — to North Carolina to discuss the administration’s vision for the future. 

On the other hand, Republican elected officials are proposing a very different ver- — vision for the nation.  Last week, Republican Study Committee released a budget which proposes devastating cuts to Medicare, to Social Security, and Affordable Care Act.  It would increase prescription drug, energy, and housing costs, all while forcing tax giveaways for the very rich.

Tomorrow’s trip is an opportunity to contrast those visions, and we’ll be sure to have more to share with you on this trip as well. 

With that, my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, is here to discuss Israel and the U.N. Security Council resolution that you all are covering today. 

MR. KIRBY:  Good afternoon, everybody.

Today, as you all know, we abstained on the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza until the end of Ramadan and the release of all the hostages.  Our vote does not — I repeat — does not represent a shift in our policy. 

We’ve been very clear, we’ve been very consistent in our support for a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal.  That’s how the hostage deal was structured and the resolution acknowledges the ongoing talks. 

We wanted to get to a place where we could support this resolution.  But because the final text does not have key language that we think is essential, such as condemning Hamas, we couldn’t support it.  Though because it does fairly reflect our view that a ceasefire and the release of hostages come together, we abstained.

Defense Minister Gallant is here today meeting with Mr. Sullivan — in fact, as we speak.  He’ll have other meetings while he’s in town today and tomorrow, certainly with Secretary of Defense Austin tomorrow. 

And cert- — we certainly look forward to having those discussions with him and making it clear to the defense minister that the United States continues to stand with Israel as they fight Hamas and will continue to work with might and main to get those hostages back with their families where they belong.

Thank you.

Q    John, what was the President’s reaction to the decision by Netanyahu not to send an Israe- — Israeli delegation this week?

MR. KIRBY:  I got to tell you, Steve, we’re — we’re kind of perplexed by this.  A couple of points that need to be stated and, in fact, restated. 

Number one, it’s a nonbinding resolution.  So, there’s no impact at all on Israel and Israel’s ability to continue to go after Hamas. 

Number two, as I said in my opening statement, it does not represent a change at all in our policy.  It’s very consistent with everything that we’ve been saying we want to get done here. 

And we get to decide what our policy is.  The prime minister’s office seems to be indicating through public statements that we somehow changed here.  We haven’t.  And we get to decide what — what our policy is.

It seems like the prime minister’s office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don’t need to do that. 

So, again, no change in our policy.

Q    What does this do to the relationship between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  I have no doubt that the two leaders will have follow-on discussions, as they have, as appropriate throughout this conflict. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Thank you, Admiral.  You say it’s not a shift in policy by voting for this today.  Get specific with us as to why again.

And to the charge that by even abstaining — because, normally, there may be some attempt at the Security Council or the U.N. overall to condemn Israel every so often for whatever reason, the U.S. usually stands up and vetoes those resolutions. 

Here, now, for the first time in a while, the United States is at least abstaining and allowing it to go through.  So, the perception broadly is that the U.S. has no longer got Israel’s back when it comes to conversations like this with the U.N. 

MR. KIRBY:  No, that’s just not true, Ed.  There’s a — nothing could be further from the truth, quite frankly.  Of course, we still have Israel’s back.  I mean, as you and I are speaking, we are still providing tools and capabilities, weapons systems so that Israel can defend itself against what we — we agree is still a viable threat to [of] Hamas.

Again, no change by this nonbinding resolution on what Israel can or cannot do in terms of defending itself.

But, you know, the other day — Friday when I was up here, Brian was asking me about, you know, how — how come it was okay for — or — or not okay for Russia and China to veto a resolution that we drafted on Friday when we vetoed similar ones prior to it.

And — and I — my answer then is going to be my answer today: because of the substance of it.  The ones we vetoed didn’t condemn Hamas.  This one didn’t condemn Hamas, which is why we couldn’t support it.  But we didn’t veto it because, in general, unlike previous resu- — resolutions, this one did fairly capture what has been our consistent policy, which is linking a hostage deal and the release of those men and women with, of course, a temporary ceasefire.

Q    There are U.S. officials today saying Netanyahu is acting this way because he’s facing some domestic political pressure; there’s domestic political issues going on.  Aren’t there also domestic political pressures facing President Biden, and that’s part of the reason why you all are allowing this to happen today?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I can’t speak for —

Q    You’ve got — you’ve got members of the Democratic Party saying he’s doing this wrong.  You’ve got the general public suggesting his support for Israel is misplaced.  Is that part of why this is going through today?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  No, absolutely not.  And I got to take issue with the premise of the question.

The President makes decisions based on the national security interests of the United States.  And this decision to abstain on this resolution is in keeping with the national security interests of the United States.  And, quite frankly, it’s in keeping with the national security concerns of the Israeli people.

Q    The customs and border policy — Border Patrol chief yesterday suggested in an interview that the situation at the southern border is a national security threat because of the roughly 140,000 known got-aways, or those that crossed the border and were detected as crossing illegally.  Is that the position of the whole Biden administration or the White House, that the situation down there remains a national security threat?

MR. KIRBY:  The President has spoken to this.  I mean, he’s talked about the — the urgent need for additional funding for key capabilities at the border.  And if you care about the border, if you care about the security of the border — and the President sure does — then we ought to get that national security supplemental passed.  That’s what that funding will do.

You — there’s only so much that he can do through executive action.  In order to get more resources to prevent more people from getting in illegally, you got to have funding.

Q    But a national security threat is going a little further than the broad concerns the President — and more specific —

MR. KIRBY:  DHS monitors all available intelligence at the border every single day, Ed.  We’re certainly aware that — that there could be national security threats that can arise at the border, which is why we’re — we’re arguing so hard to get additional resources and capabilities down there.

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

Q    Two questions on Israel.  I know you said earlier today that the meetings with Defense Minister Gallant weren’t necessarily supposed to be a replacement for the — for the delegation that was supposed to come here this week.  But how much of those conversations with senior officials naturally become about alternatives to Rafah — what the intent of the meeting was supposed to be this week?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I also said I fully expect that Rafah will come up in the context of these conversations — the one he’s having with Jake right now; I think he’s going over to the State Department this afternoon; and, of course, at the Defense Department tomorrow. 

Absolutely, I think we’ll have an opportunity to talk about Rafah.  But — but it — it probably won’t be a full replacement for what we were hoping to do with a broader and larger delegation of Israeli counterparts.

That said — and I also said earlier today that just because this meeting is now not going to happen doesn’t mean that we aren’t still going to look for an avenue and an approach to be able to share those alternatives with the Israelis.

Q    And following up on what Steve asked.  Doesn’t this speak — doesn’t this whole episode speak to a pretty poor state of relations between U.S. and Israel right now?  And is — how much is the President losing his ability to influence Bibi Netanyahu with everything that’s happening?

MR. KIRBY:  Israel is still a close ally and a friend.  The Defense Minister is here as we speak, just in the other room.  We still have a very close relationship with — with our Israeli partners and with the government in place.

As we’ve said many times, it doesn’t mean we’re going to agree on everything.  And, my goodness, we don’t.  But that’s what friends can do.  You can disagree.  You can have those conversations.

But, you know, we all recognize how important it is that Israel still be able to defend itself — at the same time, making sure that humanitarian assistance is getting in, civilian casualties come down, and we get those hostages out.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Just following on that question, how would you characterize the relationship in specific between Netanyahu and President Biden since he didn’t call President Biden to notify him about the cancellation of this delegation visit?  Is their relationship at a new low?

MR. KIRBY:  I wouldn’t describe it that way at all.  I — I don’t really have much more to add.  I think I got the same question on Friday.  These are two leaders who have known each other for going on, now, four decades.  And they — they haven’t, in the past, agreed on everything, and they don’t agree on everything right now.

But they both agree on one really important thing, and that is the importance of the State of Israel, the importance of the security of Israeli people, the importance of making sure that an attack like the 7th of October doesn’t happen again.

Q    But is the President concerned about that Rafah invasion now moving forward in a way he doesn’t want it to since he’s not able to have this meeting with the delegation?

MR. KIRBY:  We have the same concerns about a major ground offensive in Rafah that we had yesterday and the day before.

Q    And just lastly, an administration official said there could be domestic political reasons for why Netanyahu responded in the way he did.  Could you elaborate on what those domestic issues in Israel could be?

MR. KIRBY:  No.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Admiral, is it your expectation that the Defense Minister has with him the kind of operational details you’ve been looking for on a potential Rafah mission?  Do you think he possesses that and would that likely come up in — in the meeting?

MR. KIRBY:  No, he’s — look, he’s in — in the — at the top of the chain of command of the Israeli Defense Forces.  So, we’re quite certain that he has enough visibility on what their thinking is about Rafah to be able to share that if he chooses to.

Q    Does the President feel the delay of this other delegation meeting that he wanted — is there a sense that there is an urgency in terms of lives when you’re considering humanitarian crisis we’ve talked about, the potential for military operation?  Does he view this kind of a delay on that sort of meeting as potentially causing much further harm to those in Gaza or this very delicate situation?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, there’s two ways to approach that. I mean, one is we haven’t seen any indication that the Israelis are imminently getting ready to conduct a ground operation in Rafah, and we have not seen their plans for that — operational plans for that.  

So, there is no — just to be clear, there’s no sense right now that this is about to happen in coming days. 

Now, when it would happen is — of course, would be up to the Israelis.  So, just in terms of timing, it seems like they’re a ways off here from actually moving into Rafah. 

That said, does the President feel a sense of urgency about the suffering in Gaza?  Absolutely, which is why we’ve been pushing so hard to get additional crossings open, get more trucks in.  Even — even while we’re negotiating for a hostage deal, still trying to do everything we can to improve the humanitarian situation on the ground, continuing to do airdrops.  Now we’re — you know we’ve got this temporary pier that’s at sea moving its way over to the Mediterranean as — as we speak today.

The President has put a lot of energy and effort and made the team put a lot of energy into effort — and effort into alleviating that suffering.  Yes, there is a keen sense of urgency.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Sabrina.

MR. KIRBY:  Sorry.

Q    Thank you, Admiral.  Now that the Israelis have canceled this visit, is the U.S. moving closer toward withholding or conditioning weapons to Israel?  Is that something that Secretary Austin might raise during his meeting with the defense — Israeli defense minister tomorrow?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals and — and speculate about that one way or the other. 

Q    Why does the administration believe that the right path for the U.S. here is to conduct these airdrops, to build this pier, but not to leverage everything it can, including conditions on weapons, to open up more land routes and better protect civilians in Gaza?

MR. KIRBY:  We have — I would take issue with this idea that we’re not leveraging everything we can.  First of all, it’s not a leveraging exercise.  It’s not about trying to — to use some sort of power dynamics here with our good friend and ally, Israel.  It’s about helping them defend themselves.  We need to remember what happened on the 7th of October.

Number two, from the very beginning, we have — at the same time as we’ve been providing them the capabilities, we’ve also been able to influence some of their decisions on the ground and the — some of the way they have prosecuted operations and in- — including increasing the amount of humanitarian assistance that gets in. 

It’s not enough.  I recognize that.  A lot more needs to be done.  But we believe you can do both at the same time, and that’s the approach that we’ve been taking.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  John, on this resolution that the U.S. abstained for — abstained to today that was within the power of the United States to block, the Prime Minister said, “It gives Hamas hope the international pressure will allow them to accept a ceasefire without the release of our hostages.”  Is he wrong?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes.

Q    Does the U.S. still have leverage to change language in future resolutions now that this language without the Hamas component has been put into place?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, let’s see.  I mean, they just voted on this nonbinding resolution today.  I don’t know of additional text that’s coming.  But we’ll take each one in turn.

Q    And quickly on the border.  Is the administration still considering executive action on the border?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any announcements to make with respect to executive action.  I would remind that, you know, this i- — this argument that the President hasn’t taken executive action or — or — is just not true.  He has kept American troops down there at the border.  He has worked as Commander-in-Chief with the government of Mexico to — to improve their ability to try to stem that flow and to go after fentanyl traffickers.  I mean, it’s not as if he hasn’t. 

But there is a real limit that — what really needs to be done, if you really care about the border and stemming the flow, is additional resources.  And the President can’t just sign those into being.  You got to have funding behind that.  You have to have a checking account for that.  And that comes from the power of the purse and that comes from Capitol Hill.

Q    So, is there nothing more that he could do outside of Congress?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into anything more or he would or wouldn’t do.  I certainly won’t get ahead of the President’s decision space on this.

But the idea that he hasn’t taken executive action when warranted is just not true.  He has.  But there is a real limit to executive action in terms of what’s needed down there.

What’s needed is funding, more than anything.  And, again, for all the people out there expressing concerns about the border, number one, we share those concerns, which is why the President put, you know, billions of dollars into a national security supplemental to give the Border Patrol, to give the customs courts additional resources.  You got to have funding for that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Josh.

Q    Some of these meetings are proceeding this week.  Can you help us understand what the American position — what the alternative is?  What wou- — what would you have suggested to the Israelis? 

MR. KIRBY:  Well, because I think we’re going to still continue to try to have those conversations, I’m going to let those conversations happen before announcing it from the podium.

Q    Can you tell — talk about when those conversations might happen?

MR. KIRBY:  I —

Q    Are these through the regular channels you referred to —

MR. KIRBY:  I wish I could.

Q    — or is there hope of talks happening —

MR. KIRBY:  I wish I —

Q    — a week or two down the road?

MR. KIRBY:  I wish I could right now.  But, I mean, this decision just happened in the last couple of hours.  So, we’re going to have to see where it goes.

Q    And is there any circumstance that the U.S. would support a Rafah operation in the future?  Are you ruling it out entirely, or are you ruling it out for now?

MR. KIRBY:  I think we’ve been very clear.  We don’t believe that a major ground operation in Rafah is the right course of action, particularly when you have a million and a half people there seeking refuge and no conceived plan, no verifiable plan to take care of them.  We’ve been very consistent on that.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thank you so much.  On the nonbinding thing, the U.N. Secretary General said after the vote, “This resolution must be implemented.”  You say it’s nonbinding.  So, who is right here? And if it’s nonbinding, if, as you say, it does not change anything, why has the administration blocked so many pretty similar resolutions in the past?

MR. KIRBY:  Because they didn’t condemn Hamas.  I’ve said that repeatedly.

Q    This one doesn’t condemn Hamas, either, but the — 

MR. KIRBY:  Because they condemn Hamas and because they also just called for a ceasefire with no linkage to the hostages.  This one, the reason why we can’t support it but didn’t veto it is because it does link hostages and a ceasefire, which is in keeping with our policy.

Q    And on the binding thing, is it binding, nonbinding?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s a nonbinding resolution.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you, John.  Steve asked this question earlier, but what was the President’s personal reaction to the Israeli delegation canceling their trip, given that he had personally requested that they make this trip to Washington?

MR. KIRBY:  I have not talked to the President, so I don’t have his personal reaction.

Q    Okay.  On the U.N. Security Council resolution, if there were to be language added to it — updated to it that condemns Hamas, would the U.S. support that resolution?  Is that what you are saying?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s pretty speculative, M.J.  I don’t know if I can go there.  I mean, this one just passed.  As I said, it’s a nonbinding resolution.  I don’t know of any additional text that’s coming up before the Security Council.  So, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are right now.

Q    Well, you were specific about the language and the reasons in the past for vetoing it and now just abstaining from it.  So, I’m just wondering: If the language were to be updated to —

MR. KIRBY:  I know of no plans to update the language that was just passed this morning.  So, again, we’d have to — if additional text gets brought before the council, then I guess we would have to examine it like we do every time, but I don’t think it would be useful exercise to speculate on language that doesn’t exist right now.

Q    And then, just finally, on the ground incursion into Rafah and talking about alternatives to that: Are U.S. officials basically envisioning, you know, highly precise, targeted military operations as opposed to a major military operation?  Can you just talk to us a little bit, even if it’s in broad strokes, about what the administration believes is possible that is an alternative to a ground incursion into Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  The way I would put it is that based on our own experience going after terrorist networks — places like Iraq and Afghanistan, Somalia; places in the Sahel as well.  We — we feel like we’ve learned a lot of key lessons.

Now, you know, not every one applies to Gaza.  Gaza is a unique environment.  You’ve got meters and meters of tunnels under the ground.  You’ve got a much more ur- — urban environment, very densely populated, small geographic space.  So, you’ve got to be careful in terms of apples and oranges here.

But we still believe that we have learned some key lessons about how to dismantle a terrorist network, how to decapitate its leadership, how to starve it of resources, how to put pressure on its fighters on the battlefield.  And we were looking forward to and I think still are looking forward to having the opportunity to share some of those lessons and perspectives with the Israelis. 

Now, what exactly that would look like, I’d really rather not go into it from the podium. 

Q    But that’s the kind of idea that we can expect U.S. officials to discuss with their Israeli counterparts, I mean, even today with Minister Gallant?

MR. KIRBY:  Broadly speaking, yes.  And — and we’ll see what the conversations with the Defense Minister look like here.  Again, he’s talking to Jake right now.  So, we’ll have a readout of that, of course.  And, he’s — again, more discussions over the next day and a half.

We’ll obviously expect that a key part of these discussions is going to be how we’re going to continue to support Israel.  So, let’s not forget that.  I mean, this was a prescheduled — long-scheduled trip by the Defense Minister, largely to talk about how the United States is going to continue to support Israel and the tools that they need. 

But I certainly would envision in the context of what happened this morning, with the Israelis canceling that delegation, that we’ll take advantage of the opportunity to also talk about Rafah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Francesca.

Q    Thank — thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, Francesca.

Q    Oh, thank you.  Has the Pr- — has President spoken to the Prime Minister today?  And does he have any plans to?

MR. KIRBY:  No, and I don’t know. 

Q    Okay.  And will he join any of these meetings now with Gallant given the ra- — the latest that’s happened?

MR. KIRBY:  I know of no plan to have him join the meetings with Defense Minister Gallant.

Q    Okay.  And then, finally, before the meeting with Jake Sullivan today, the Defense Minister — he stood out in front of the White House; he delivered a statement.  He said, “We will operate against Hamas everywhere, including in places where we have not been,” end quote. 

So, it seems that they expect to discuss Rafah as well.  What leads you to believe that they’re open to these other alternatives that you’re laying out or that the U.S. could even walk them off of an operation there?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, they had agreed to come — to send a delegation to Washington, D.C., a week or so ago.  That expressed some interest.  Now, they canceled the meeting because of what happened at the U.N.  But our indications at work at — at the working level are that they are interested in hearing our perspectives.  So, we’ll see.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  A couple more.  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you.  I have a technical question and another question.  On the technicality, you said the resolution is not binding.  Is it nonbinding, or is it binding but not enforceable and no consequences for Israel, for example, if they don’t abide by the ceasefire?

MR. KIRBY:  My understanding is it’s a nonbinding resolation — resolution.

Q    Okay.  Are you aware of the reports that Palestinian women were sexually harassed and some even were raped in Al-Shifa Hospital by the Israeli army?  And have you seen, also, videos of Israeli drones targeting civilians in Khan Yunis?  And if you’re not aware of these incidents —

MR. KIRBY:  I — I am not.  This is the first I’m hearing of that.

Q    Okay.  I — I mean, if you w- —

MR. KIRBY:  Th- — those are troubling allegations, obviously.  Troubling reports.  So, I —

Q    Yeah.  The State Department confirmed one of them.

MR. KIRBY:  Right.  Let me take the question back.

Q    Okay, please.

MR. KIRBY:  We’ll see if we can get you a better response.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Toluse.

Q    Thank you, Admiral Kirby.  A member of the Israeli War Cabinet, Benny Gantz, essentially broke with Prime Minister Netanyahu over his decision to pull back this delegation.  He said that the delegation should come.  And in — in addition to that, he said that Prime Minister Netanyahu himself should come and meet with President Biden.  What’s your reaction to that? And is there a sense that the War Cabinet is not unified as it was earlier?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s the first I’m hearing that Minister Gantz made that remark.  I would certainly respect his desire to — his right to speak to his comments one way or the other. 

As I said a couple of hours ago, it’s disappointing.  Obviously, we would have preferred to have that meeting here this week to talk about viable alternatives.  And as I think I mentioned to Josh, we’re going to continue to look for an opportunity to have those conversations going forward. 

I can’t speak to the dynamics on the War Cabinet.  That’s really for them to speak to.  I wouldn’t get into that.

Q    When it comes to you characterizing their decision as “disappointing” and “perplexing,” is there also a sense of offense — of being offended by the Israelis’ decision to pull back its delegation.  A lot of countries would love to have an invitation from the White House to have a — a meeting.

MR. KIRBY:  (Laughs.)  I think I’m just going to leave it the way I described it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, John.  Until recently, when I or one of my colleagues here asked if the U.S. would consider withholding military aid to Israel if they don’t allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, you said that the administration would always make sure that Israel has the right to — has what it needs to defend itself.  Now you are saying, in response to those same questions, that you will not get into hypotheticals. 

Should we read anything into that that now this is something that is being considered or discussed within the administration, that it is now a hypothetical being batted about back behind you in — in those rooms?

MR. KIRBY:  You — the short answer to your question is: No, you shouldn’t read anything more into it than what I’m — than what I’m expressing.  Even as we speak, the Defense Minister for Israel is just a few steps away meeting with our National Security Advisor in a — in a long-scheduled meeting, which was, in part, designed to talk about what we can continue to do to help Israel defend itself against a still-viable threat. 

You can still do that.  You can still have those conversations.  You can still provide those capabilities, at the same time, disagreeing with your good friend and ally about things like civilian casualties, humanitarian assistance, and where things are going up in New York City. 

So, we’re going to continue to have those talks.  But I — I’m not going to — I’m just not going to get into the parlor game of what tripwire would be in place or what we would consider a tripwire in order to change the way we’re supporting Israel in the field. 

Q    And on the subject of humanitarian aid.  Last week, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron said that he was blaming Israel directly for the hunger crisis in Gaza because “arbitrary denials” were keeping food and other humanitarian goods from getting into Gaza.  Is the provision of aid into Gaza something that Mr. Sullivan is discussing with Mr. Gallant right now?  And how urgent is it that Israel stop what the foreign secretary described as “arbitrary denials”?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, humanitarian assistance will be on the agenda in Jake’s meeting and, I suspect, in the other meetings that the defense minister will have.  And we need Israeli — Israeli support and facilitation of humanitarian assistance.  They’re a critical player in this.  They have a real key role to play. 

And — and we’re going to continue to urge them to do more, to allow more humanitarian assistance in. 

Q    And one last thing.  You just now talked about how you weren’t going to describe tripwires that would potentially stop the provision of defense assistance. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  Some of you call them red lines too.

Q    That’s true.  People have called them red lines before. 

But the fact that you are not going to discuss them, should we in- — should we infer that they now exist somewhere on some paper —

MR. KIRBY:  No, I —

Q    — or in some memo or proposal?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I appreciate the effort.  And I understand where the question is going.  I’m just simply not going to engage in that kind of speculative talk.  We are still providing Israel the capabilities they need to defend themselves.  That is one of the reasons why the defense minister is here. 

And at the same time, we’re having conversations with the Israelis about what they can do to increase humanitarian assistance. 

I want to go back just real quickly — and I apologize, Karine — but on the humanitarian assistance, let — let’s also not forget that Hamas chose to break a ceasefire that was in place on the 6th of October.  They — they precipitated the conflict, and they continue to hide behind civilians, in civilian infrastructure, including in hospitals.  And they know exactly what they’re doing.

So, while, yes, there are things that the Israelis can and should do more to get more trucks and humanitarian assistance in, Hamas could solve all these problems right now by putting down their arms, letting all those hostages go. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  John, last question. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, you made a point throughout the briefing about mentioning that this was a nonbinding resolution that the U.S. abstained on.  Last week’s resolution that the U.S. brought forward, was that binding or nonbinding?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I’d have to get an answer for you and go back — go back on that.  I —

Q    You don’t know that answer? 

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have that answer for you.  But I’ll take the question, and I’ll get back to you. 

Q    And if it was binding or nonbinding, why would it matter?  Why would that matter?  Why — why is that important in terms of that resolution that the U.S. put forward last (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, let me get an answer for you and then I’ll answer the second one as well. 

Q    Okay.  And then one additional thing.  With the resolution that the U.S. put forward last week, why couldn’t the U.S. have put that same resolution forward a week before or a month before?  Why —

MR. KIRBY:  Because we were working with previous texts for — that previous countries were putting forward to try to get them into a better place.  You know, it wasn’t like — you know, it’s not — it’s not like — y’all don’t — the — this language doesn’t just get cooked up and thrown onto the Security Council floor in a matter of 30 minutes.  It’s usually worked over time. 

And we were working with the authors and other countries to try to get the language into a better place.  And when we couldn’t, we were left with no alternative but to veto. 

In this case, we chose to abstain because it didn’t mention anything about Hamas.  But yet, because it did reflect our policy view that a hostage deal has to be linked to a ceasefire. 

Thanks, everybody. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral.

All right.  Seung Min.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.

Q    Just one on Ukraine aid.  Speaker Johnson said last week that, quote, “There is a big distinction in the minds of a lot of people” — referring to members in his conference — “between lethal — lethal aid for Ukraine and the humanitarian component.” 

Now, I know the White House’s preference is, obviously, to get the Senate passed — package passed by the House.  But is there any consideration in the White House to just focus on delivering lethal aid to Ukraine if that’s what can get a majority in the House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the national security supplemental as it is could get a majority in the House.  That’s what we know.  We understand that to be true.  It can get overwhelming support, which means it includes Republicans as well as Democrats, if it just got put to the floor. 

I think what’s happening is the Speaker is giving an excuse that is not warranted, that is not needed.  Because we know that if it — if he were to put it on the floor, it would — it would get through. 

And so, that’s why I’m not even going to take that — really dive into that question, because he’s bypassing what we understand — right? — 70-29 coming out of the — coming out of the Senate.  That’s a bipartisan — overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate. 

And we know, hearing from Republicans in the House, we know where Democrats — majority of Democrats stand that if he were to put it on the floor, it would get support.  So, that is the facts.  That is how we see it. 

We encour- — we would encourage and continue to encourage the Speak- — Speaker Johnson to put that bill on the floor. 

Q    And Chairman McCaul was on the show yesterday talking about how the Speaker has made — has — has made it clear that he would move on this after the Easter break.  And does the White House have any specific commitments from Speaker Johnson on moving on Ukraine aid in whatever iteration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can’t speak to a commitment.  What I can speak to — agreements — right? — from the — from even when the — the Big Four met with the President not too long ago, earlier this year, that the understanding that we needed to move forward with this Uk- — this aid for Ukraine.  We need to move forward with the national security supplemental. 

That was an understanding among them.  They agreed with the President and the Vice President. 

And so, that’s what we want to see.  I can’t speak to their timeline.  We want this to happen right away.  Right away.  The — we originally put this forward back in October of last year. 

And so, there’s a need.  We see what’s happening — as we were talking about Ukraine specifically in your first question to me, we see what’s happening in Ukraine.  They’re losing ground and — on the battlefield.  And that is because — partly because — why Russia is being even more aggressive is because the inaction of Congress.  And that’s what we see.  That’s what the CIA Director told the Big Four not too long ago, right here in the White House. 

So, he — they need to move forward.  It is about our national security — just as we’re talking about aid to Ukraine, but it is also our own national security.  It’s all connected here. 

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  If the Supreme Court decides to restrict access to mifepristone, what will the President do?  What options does this White House have to ensure access to the abortion pill?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  I want to be super mindful here.  We have confidence in our arguments before the court.  And — and so, there’s a DOJ — obviously, ongoing litigation I just mentioned at the top.  It’s going to be — it’s going to — you know, it’s going to be a process that’s going to begin tomorrow.  So, I want to be super mindful.  Don’t want to get into hypotheticals. 

But the President and the Vice President have been very clear.  We’re going to continue to certainly defend FDA’s approval.  It is independent.  It uses science.  It is — it is a medication, as I said at the top, that has been around, when you think of mifepristone, for more than two decades.  And this is science based.  This is science based, as FDA — when they move forward on these types of scientific judgment, if you will.

But not going to get into hypothetic- — hypotheticals.  And we have confidence in our arguments. 

Q    And Russia continues to indicate without evidence that Ukraine played some kind of role in the terror attack.  Just how worried is the White House about that and the use — Russia using that to justify its war in Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’ve been very clear.  You heard our — you — you heard — you saw our statement from over the weekend.  This was a terrorist attack that was conducted by ISIS.  Mr. Putin understands that.  He knows that very well.  And, look, it is — there is absolutely no evidence that the government of Ukraine had anything to do with this attack.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

I do want to step back for a second and offer up our deepest condolences to those who lost loved ones, those who were injured because of this horrific, horrific attack.  We continue to strongly condemned the heinous terrorist attack in Moscow.  And we said this before that, you know, we — in early March, the United States, the gov- — this government shared information with Russia about a planned terrorist — terror attack in Moscow. 

We were very clear about that — on March 7th.  We actually informed Americans in Russia to — to — did a public advisory, to be more specific.  And, you know, ISIS bears the sole responsibility here — the sole responsibility.  And Mr. Putin understands that.  We shared that with — with their government.

And so, there is no evidence — absolutely no evidence that Ukraine was involved here.

Q    How did you go about sharing that information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to —

Q    Was it through the State Department, U.S. Embassy, NSC —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into specifics.  We — the U.S. government shared that with Russian authorities.  And I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    And what do you make of Russia’s decision not to act on that warning? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something for — that’s for Russian authorities to speak to their own security operations.  That’s for them to speak to.  You know, when we have imminent –imminent — when we have information about imminent threat to civilian populations, we provide that information to the respective authorities.  And that’s what we did.  We did that in early March. 

It is up to Russian authorities to speak to what they do with that infor- — what they did with this particular information that we provided early March. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I wanted to ask you about former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel being hired by NBC News.  Given that this is a White House that has condemned lies about January 6th, condemned lies about the 2020 election, what do you make of the network hiring somebody who participated in a phone call, you know, pressuring Michigan officials to not certify certain votes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re going to — we’re always very mindful about personnel decisions, in this — in this instance made by a media organization.  I’ll say a couple of things, and I’ll quote the President in a second. 

So, you a- — you all heard him at the Gridiron Dinner very recently — about two weekends ago.  He spoke directly about the critical role that journalists play and — and they have in protecting our democracy by making sure that the public knows the truth, that the public knows the facts. 

And what he said is, “We need you.  Democracy is at risk, and the American people need to know.  In fractured times, they need a context and a perspective.  They need substance to match the enormity of the task.”

It is a big task that journalists have.  And we understand that.  And the facts and the truth are critical here. 

I’m not going to make any comments on that person- — on a personnel decision.  But as more broadly speaking, it is — it is important.  It is — it is a burden on all of us here — right? — to be really mindful about that and that the public understands what the facts are and what the truth is. 

Q    Well, you’re — so, you’re quoting the President talking about that kind of —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — burden.  I mean, do you, does this White House, does the President believe that that kind of voice — the voice like hers — that there’s room for her in the national political discourse?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’ll — I’ll say — I’ll answer it this way.  We saw what happened on January 6th.  We saw what happened when 2,000 people, a mob, went to the Capitol and undermined our democracy, attacked our democracy because they didn’t believe in free and fair elections. 

And so, we understand and we saw that.  And you — some of you may have been there; som- — many of you reported it.  And it was an attack on our democracy, and it is important — it is important that we are very clear to the public about the facts, that we are very clear to the public about the truth.  And we understand the burden that you all have. 

And — and so, I just want to be super mindful.  Not commenting on a personnel decision.  But more broadly speaking, that is where we are.  That is where we are as a country. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, Senator Tim Kaine said yesterday that — talking about immigration and executive orders, he said Congress should act.  But he also says: Where the President can act, he should.  Is the President receptive to this type of advocacy from senior members of his own party on this issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the senior senator — speaking about a senator — bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate to deal with the — to deal with immigration, to deal with immigration policy and the challenges at the border.  There was a bipartisan agreement that, if it went into law, if — if it’d gone through the process of the Senate and the — and the House and — and the President got it to — got it to the — to his desk and signed it, it would have been the toughest and fairest, you know, action on immigration in decades, in years.

And so, that is what the President continues to speak to.  We believe that is the direction to go.  That is the way that we can stand on some legal ground here.  And we know that it was done in a bipartisan way to move it forward. 

And so, that’s what this President wants to see.  Obviously, we’re in constant conversation, communication with leadership in Congress.  That is something that we do pretty regularly. 

But there’s a deal.  There was a deal that was made.  And the last former President — the last president, President Trump — said to Republicans — some of you rep- — some of you reported this — to reject that deal because it would hurt him politically.  And that’s not what we’re about here. 

What the President wants to focus on is what Americans care about.  A majority of Americans care about what’s happening at the border.  And we took a step to do that.  We took a step.  The President, along with Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in the Senate, took a step to actually deal with this issue. 

We’ve been very clear about executive actions.  Will we look at execuv- — executive actions to see what could work?  Sure, we always do that. 

But here’s the thing.  What we understand, the bottom line is that we have to move forward with legislative action to actually make a difference here.  And that’s what we want to see.

Executive action won’t do it.  It won’t have the impact that this bipartisan agreement — negotiation that came to fruition.

Q    Do you have any expectation, though, that the Congress is going to act?  That — that deal has been out there for a while.  Congress is out for the next couple of weeks.  The former President is against it; his party is now against it.  I mean —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear you.  I hear you.

Q    But — but in that case, it could be — Congress, you know, often doesn’t deliver what you guys want.  Isn’t that where then the White House steps in?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look — look, I hear you. 

So, look, we were able to get some additional funding for border security operations through the — through the budget agreement.  So, that was a good thing.  But we need to take a step further. 

And so, look, we’re going to continue to doing the work.  We’re going to continue to have those conversation.  And we’re going to continue to be very, very clear — take it directly to the American people.  You saw the President do when he went to Texas — Brownsville, Texas — and be very clear on where we stand. 

The split screen that day could not have been more clear about where the President stands and what he wants to do.  And he has offered — continues to offer an olive branch to the other side to get this done. 

If you — if they truly care about this, there’s a way to do this.  There’s a way to meet where maj- — meet — meet the American people where they are — majority of them — is to move forward with that border — border deal.  That’s the way to move forward here. 

Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q    President Biden has recently talked about Donald Trump’s financial issues in jest at fundraisers and so forth.  Today, there was action reducing the amount that Mr. Trump has to put forward in order to stave off the judgment as he continues it.  Does the President have any comment on that and also the setting of an April 15th trial date in one of the cases involving the former President?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be super careful.  It’s an ongoing matter, so I’m not going to speak to it.  And I’m sure the President will have opportunities to speak to it himself.  And so, I’ll leave that to him.  I’m just not going to speak for — to — to that particular or any ongoing litigation or case from the podium.

Go ahead, Josh.

Q    Can I ask you a bit about whether you can share any preview ahead of the Japanese Prime Minister visit on April 10th?  And, in particular, has the government been in touch with the Japanese government on the Nippon Steel-U.S. Steel deal?  Or has that been not a subject that has preceded this visit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t have — I’ve seen the reporting.  This is the — the FT reporting that you’re speaking to, or is —

Q    Well, that — that’s linked to it. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But there would be some sort of — whatever you can share on that is great too.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But, I mean, more broadly, have —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — have the governments discussed this steel deal at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   So, I just don’t have anything to share.  Obviously, that — that visit is — is just in a couple of weeks.  We’ll certainly — there’s going to be many items on the agenda to discuss.  I just don’t have anything to share on that particular question. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  At the end of the week, it will be one year that Evan Gershkovich was detained.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is there any update on the negotiations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I wish I — I had one for you.  I really do.  I wish I had an update on Evan.  I wish I had an update on Paul.  As you know, we have been really focused on getting them released.  And we have been — it is a priority for this President.  I just don’t have anything to share at this time. 

All right, guys.  I have to go.  Go ahead, Emily.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I just wanted to check in to see if the President or First Lady reached out to the British Royal Family.  I know cancer is a personal issue to them.  And did they call or write a letter or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think you saw the President’s tweet.  Is it a “tweet” now?  Whatever it is.

Q    Post.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Post.  The President’s post. 

Obviously, our — our hearts go out to — to Princess Kate and — and her family.  We understand it’s a difficult time. 

As you know, this is something that the — the President the First Lady understand very personally. 

I don’t have a call to read out to you.  But, certainly, we wish her a full recovery.  And our hearts — our hearts and thoughts are with her and her family during this very difficult time.  As you know, she has little children, and I cannot even — do not want to even imagine what they’re going through right now.

With that, folks —

Q    One in the back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — we’ll see you — we’ll see you on the road tomorrow. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thank you.

   2:48 P.M. EDT

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

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
Via Teleconference

11:12 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Sorry, again, we’re running a little late.  Kirby has a few words at the top, and then we’ll try to get through as many questions as we can.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.  I think you probably saw — today we abstained on a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza until the end of Ramadan and the release of all the hostages. 

Our vote does not — and I repeat that — does not represent a shift in our policy.  We have been clear and we’ve been consistent in our support for a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal.  That’s how the hostage deal is structured, and the resolution acknowledges the ongoing talks. 

We wanted to get to a place where we could support that resolution, but because the final text does not have key language that we think is essential, like a condemnation of Hamas, we could not support it.  Though because it fairly does reflect our view that a ceasefire and the release of hostages come together, we abstained.

Now, I do have a quick scheduling note.  I think you all are aware Vice President Harris will welcome President Bernardo Arévalo of Guatemala to the White House today.  The visit underscores the United States’ commitment to supporting good governance and democracy in Guatemala, following President Arévalo’s inauguration in January of this year.

We look forward to strengthening the U.S.-Guatemala bilateral relationship and advancing joint ongoing efforts to promote development, bolster democracy, and address the root causes of migration in this hemisphere.

With that, I’ll take some questions.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thank you.  And thanks for your words about the U.N. resolution.  It sounds like Netanyahu is threatening to cancel the visit of the high-level delegation this week over this whole situation — and, in fact, may have already canceled it.  What’s your reaction to this?  Is this open revolt from the Israelis?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, I would just note that Defense Minister Gallant is in town today and tomorrow.  He’s meeting with Secretary Blinken, and he’s going to meet with Jake, and he’s also going to get a chance to meet with Secretary Austin.  And I have no doubt that in those discussions we’ll have ample opportunities to talk with him about what’s going on with their planning for Rafah, and as well as what’s going on inside negotiations to get all the hostages out.

So we’re focused on moving things forward.  We’re focused on getting all those hostages out, getting aid in, and doing everything we can to support Israel as they continue to fight Hamas.

Q    And have you been formally notified that the Israeli delegation is not coming?

MR. KIRBY:  As you and I are speaking right now, Steve, I don’t have any information that we’ve been notified that there’s any changes to an Israeli delegation coming over to talk about Rafah.

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

Q    Hi.  If I could follow up.  I think there’s a distinction between Gallant being here now and the fact that Ron Dermer and the National Security Advisor were due to arrive Tuesday for Wednesday meetings.  So the Israelis had said if we let this pass, this resolution pass — which we have, by abstaining — that that would mean that Ron Dermer, the closest advisor to Netanyahu — and can you also, John — can you clarify reports in Israel that Israel has now accepted the hostage release outline that was on the table this weekend with Bill Burns and Barnea and that it’s now up to Hamas whether to accept this latest deal with a proportion of (inaudible) released or hostages released?  Thank you very much.

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Andrea.  No, I’m not able to confirm any specifics coming out of the discussions over the weekend.

As you know, there were active conversations in Doha.  I would just point you back to what Secretary Blinken said at the end of last week, that he believes that we’re closing the gaps, but we’re not there yet.  I just can’t confirm any specific back and forth over the course of what happened this weekend.

And then to your first point about Dermer — again, I would refer you to the Israelis to speak to their plans for a separate delegation visit —

Q    Well, they have said — they’ve said this morning, to me personally, that Dermer would not be coming if we let this pass.  And we’ve let it pass by abstaining.

So how disappointing is it that the closest advisor to Netanyahu will not be physically here for meetings, unless they change their mind?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just tell you we were looking forward to having an opportunity to speak to an Israeli delegation later this week about exploring viable options and alternatives to a major ground offensive in Rafah.

I’ll let the Israelis speak to whether they’re coming or not.  And I saw what Prime Minister Netanyahu said he would do, and I’ve seen some early press reporting in just the last couple of minutes that they have moved forward with that.  I can’t confirm it.  They can speak to that.  That’s really for them.

All I can tell you is we were looking forward to having a discussion with them about alternatives and options to a major ground offensive because we don’t believe that a ground offensive in Rafah is the right course of action, especially given the 1.5 million people who are seeking refuge down there — seeking refuge, by the way, as the result of Israeli operations that were taking place in Khan Younis earlier and, before that, Gaza City.

So we felt we had valuable lessons to share, valuable perspectives to offer.  And we were looking forward to doing that. 

If, in fact, there’s not going to be a delegation visit this week, then we will obviously keep having conversations with our Israeli counterparts and doing the best we can to continue to share our perspectives with them.

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

Q    Thanks, John.  On a different topic: You’ll see that Treasury is about to announce a series of sanctions on the Chinese Ministry of State Security related to the Volt Typhoon

intrusions into U.S. infrastructure.  I think this is the first time that you have ever named the Ministry of State Security as the force behind this.  And I’m wondering whether or not you can just walk us a little bit through what went into this since, obviously, the topic came up at Riverside.  There were efforts to quietly work out with the Chinese a halt to the Volt Typhoon intrusions, and I take it from the Treasury sanctions that that has failed.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, David, I’m afraid I’m going to be completely unsatisfactory to you today on this.  As you know, we don’t preview and talk about sanctions in advance.  And I’m afraid I’m going to have to refer you to Treasury on that one.  I’m sorry.

Q    Okay.  It’s only 10 minutes out, so you’re not that much in advance.  I mean, they’ve — you know, they’ve embargoed.  But the problem is we need — I think we’re going to need something from the NSC — and if you want to do it after Treasury, it’s fine — that sort of takes us through the national security side of this, which Treasury is not going to go do, as you know.

MR. KIRBY:  I get it.  We can follow up with you afterward.

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

Q    Hi.  Thanks a lot.  Kirby, I understand you said that the abstention doesn’t change the overall tenor of how the U.S. feels about this issue.  But I just wonder, given the outcome of the vote, how you think this is going to affect the talks with Gallant even.  You know, does this change how things are being discussed?

And it looks like — you know, just to reiterate, it looks like Netanyahu has canceled the visit this week.  So I just wondered, like, how do you move forward from here?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, the Israeli government can speak to their plans or canceled plans one way or the other.  I’ll let them speak to that. 

Those meetings with Defense Minister Gallant haven’t happened yet, so why don’t we have the meetings and see how they go.  We’ll give you a readout of them. 

They were not intended — these discussions with Gallant, by the way, were not intended, as we said last week, to replace what we had hoped to do with an Israeli delegation, specifically on Rafah.  Now, clearly, Rafah will come up in the meetings with Defense Minister Gallant; I have no doubt about that.  But those meetings were long scheduled and were considered separate and distinct from what we were hoping to get done with the Israeli delegation.

But again, now that that delegation may not be happening, we’ll see how the meetings go with Defense Minister Gallant.  Again, three meetings over the course of the next 24, 36 hours with our Secretary of State, our Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor.  Those are pretty weighty meetings.  Those are pretty — I would suspect that they’ll be significant discussions.  And as I said in my earlier comments, we’re looking forward to having them. 

And then, you know, to your broader question about how things go forward, we’re going to keep having discussions — as we will today and tomorrow — with our Israeli counterparts about the prosecution of their operations against Hamas.  We will keep making clear to them that they continue to have the support of the United States when it comes to eliminating that threat, as well as, you know, making it clear that we still want to see more humanitarian assistance get in, that we still want to see a reduction in civilian casualties, and just as critically — and I know I’m beating the drum here — but just as critically, that we get a hostage deal in place, a ceasefire in place that will allow us to get all the hostages out and increase that level of aid. 

So those discussions are going to keep happening notwithstanding what appears to be, you know, Israeli frustration with our abstention at the U.N. today.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go Yuna with Israel Channel 12.

Q    Hi, John.  Thank you.  Do you see this — does the White House see this as some sort of escalation, the fact that the delegation is not coming, the message about the U.S. not voting against, not putting on a veto?  Because the language that we’re hearing from the Prime Minister’s office, from the Israeli government is very, very different from what we saw until now.  And is that the way the White House sees it also?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s no reason for this to be seen as some sort of escalation.  There’s no reason for it to actually be any kind of escalation of tensions here. 

Again, I will go back to what I said at the very top: Nothing — nothing has changed about our policy.  Nothing.  We still want to see a ceasefire.  We still want to get hostages out — all of them.  And we still want to see more humanitarian assistance get into the people of Gaza. 

The reason we abstained is because this resolution text did not condemn Hamas.  And we really believe that Hamas should be condemned for what they did on the 7th of October.  That was in our language that we submitted late last week that got vetoed by Russia and China.  So that’s what led to the abstention, was the fact that we were, you know, disappointed that there was no language in there about condemning Hamas. 

But as I said at the beginning, the broad outlines of what we support are supported in the text of the resolution, which is a ceasefire for hostages to come out. 

So that’s where we are.  Nothing has changed about our policy.  I’ll let the Israelis speak to their views of what happened up in New York City today.  But we’re keeping on.  We’re keeping on in terms of supporting Israel.  And we’re going to keep on in terms of trying to see if we can get those hostages out through a — to a ceasefire.

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

Q    Hey there.  Thank you so much for taking the time.  John, can you give us the latest of your understanding of the situation of the attack in Russia, the terror attack, and in particular whether the U.S. believes that ISIS-K is changing strategy or on the rise, or whether this is sort of part and parcel with expectations of that group?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t really have a whole lot more to offer.  I think you know — you saw we put out a statement over the weekend.  We continue to strongly condemn that terrorist attack.  And, again, our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who lost their lives and to the loved ones that are left behind and for all those that were hurt and injured in this attack. 

I mean, the Russian people were the victims here.  And just like any other innocent civilians elsewhere in the world, they certainly didn’t deserve that. 

Again, as we made clear, we did warn Russia in early March about a planned terror attack.  And as you saw, we also issued a public advisory to Americans in Russia on the 7th of March.  And we also saw — we said ISIS bears sole responsibility for this attack. 

I would just say that with respect to ISIS writ large, and even ISIS-K specifically, we are very vigilant in monitoring this group’s activities and their planning as best we can.  We said that we’re going to be able to keep a tab — keep tabs on them and other terrorist groups, and we’ve been doing it.  We have been doing that. 

In fact, it was because of the aggressive way in which we have been monitoring ISIS that we were able to give the Russians a warning that, in fact, they were heading for a potential terrorist attack in the very near future.  That’s the fruit of a lot of the work that we’ve been putting and a lot of attention that we’ve been putting on this group. 

Now, I would also tell you that because we’re watching it very, very closely, we don’t see any sort of credible threat by ISIS to the American homeland.  But again, not something we’re taking for granted.  Watching them very, very close.  And as — again, as I think we demonstrated, we have the ability to monitor this group pretty closely. 

Q    And on a very different topic: We’re a couple weeks out from the Japanese Prime Minister’s visit.  I’m wondering if you can give us any details about whether the administration has spoken with the Japanese administration about the Nippon Steel bid or agreement to take over U.S. Steel, or whether the two governments haven’t talked about that, as opposed to talks with, for instance, the union or the private companies.

MR. KIRBY:  Let me take that question, Josh, and get back to you.  I don’t have anything on conversations that we’ve had, but it’s entirely possible that I’m missing something.  So I’m going to take that question.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Kellie with NewsNation Now.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for taking my question.  I just wanted to follow up on the previous question.  And you mentioned we don’t see any credible threat to the American homeland.  Just wanted to check on the concerns that the U.S. Central Command chief told lawmakers in Congress that ISIS retains the capability and the will to attack U.S. and Western interests abroad in as little as six months with little to no warning, and then the concerns from Republicans on Capitol Hill that they would use the border to do so. 

Just wanted to see if this is something that you’re monitoring or concerned about.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, of course, we’re monitoring the threats coming — potentially coming to the homeland.  DHS continuously monitors all available intelligence to them down at the border.  As I’ve said, the farthest I can go with you today is that we don’t see an imminent, credible threat by ISIS to the homeland.  But again, I also said in my previous answer: We don’t take that for granted, and we’re watching it every single day. 

And for the Republicans and people that are worried about potential security threats at the border, they ought to pass the border security bipartisan funding bill that we asked for and the supplemental request that we asked for, because it would give us more Border Patrol agents, it would give us more capabilities down there, and it would certainly give us an opportunity to better protect the border. 

So if you’re serious about protecting the border, then you ought to be serious about passing the supplemental funding that the President asked for and that the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thank you.  Can I push you a little bit on the fact that you’re saying this is not a change in policy?  This resolution does not link the ceasefire with the hostage release.  It describes the ceasefire in the context of Ramadan.  So how is that not a change in policy, given what the U.S. has been trying to do with the Security Council recently?

And can you talk —

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Nick —

Q    Yeah, you go.

MR. KIRBY:  As far as — I’ve looked at it.  It does talk about the need for an immediate ceasefire and a release of the hostages.  That is what we want.  We want an immediate ceasefire so that the hostages can all be released so aid can get in there. 

Anyway, go ahead.  You had something else.

Q    No, no.  So you see this as linking the hostage release to a ceasefire, bottom line?  That’s what you — that’s how you read this resolution?

MR. KIRBY:  It talks about an immediate and sustainable ceasefire and to secure the immediate release of all the hostages, as well as alleviating the tremendous suffering of the civilians of Gaza.  Those are the same principles that we’ve been arguing for now for many months.

Q    And can you talk about the shift in Rafah that the administration has gone through in the last few days or weeks, from “we need to see a credible plan” to, as you just put it today, “we don’t believe a ground offensive is the right course of action”?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, repeat that one again?  You broke up a little on me.

Q    You know, a few days or weeks ago, the language on Rafah was “we need to see a credible plan,” and the language in the last few days or so, as you repeated today, is “we do not believe a ground offensive is the right course of action.”  Can you talk about what seems like a bit of a shift in policy on Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, no shift in our policy.  We said even — we said weeks ago that we don’t believe — in fact, we said that we believe a major ground operation in Gaza would be a disaster absent any proper accounting for the safety and security of the refugees that are still there.  We still believe the same thing. 

I think — I don’t see any change in the rhetoric there.  We don’t support a ground operation into Gafah [sic] — Ra- — I’m sorry, Rafah.  And we were looking forward to the opportunity to having a discussion with our Israeli counterparts about some viable alternatives to that. 

I want to go back to my previous answer, making correct — a small correction, and my staff and team reminding me here that in the Senate bipartisan bill there was not border security funding.  So I just want to make sure that you know I know that I made a mistake on that. 

But nevertheless, if you’re serious about border security and you’re in the House of Representatives, you ought to be moving forward on the President’s supplemental request.

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

Q    Hi, thank you, Admiral.  With Netanyahu canceling this meeting with the delegation, is there any chance the U.S. can convince Israel to change their stance on Rafah?  What chance is there?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’ll have to see, won’t we?  It’s certainly not ideal that they won’t be coming to D.C., apparently, to have this discussion.  But as I said earlier, that doesn’t mean that our ability to talk to them and to have conversations have been eliminated.  And as I said, Defense Minister Gallant is here for the next 24, 36 hours, and so we look forward to having conversations with him too, and we have every expectation that Rafah will come up as a part of those discussions. 

Q    And on Gallant, it’s no secret that there is this rift between Gallant and Netanyahu.  So you talk about the various meetings he’s having with the administration, but what influence does the administration actually believe he can have on Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s between him and the Prime Minister.

Q    And just lastly, VP Harris told ABC News that the U.S. has not ruled out consequences if Israel invades Rafah.  I know you’ll say you won’t get into hypotheticals, but has that message been conveyed to Israel?  And what could those consequences be?

MR. KIRBY:  You’re right, I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals.  We have been crystal clear throughout that we’re going to do what we have to do to support Israel to eliminate a viable threat by Hamas.  That support is ongoing.  I feel like I say that every day, and maybe I’m not saying it in a way that makes it stick, but we are still supporting Israel and their ability to go after Hamas.  That hasn’t changed. 

At the same time, we have candid, frank conversations with them about the need to be more mindful of civilian casualties, to allow more humanitarian assistance to get in, and to help us as we all try to get those hostages out.  You can do two things at the same time.  That’s what we’re focused on.

Q    Right.  But has that message, that consequences have not been ruled out, has that been conveyed to Israel?  Those three things can also be true at the same time.

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything to add with respect to specific conversations.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN.

Q    Thanks for taking my question.  Just going back to the issue of Rafah and the comments Vice President Harris yesterday, do you see a situation in which if Israel does decide to go on its own for a ground operation in Gaza, that the U.S. will restrict the types of arms and ammunitions that it’s providing Israel in order to carry out this operation?  Or are these things totally separate from each other and the U.S. will continue its military support regardless of an Israeli operation in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not going to get into a hypothetical situation here.  I’ll just tell you that we continue to support Israel as they go after Hamas.  And nothing has changed about our view that a major ground operation in Rafah would be a mistake.

Q    But could you see U.S. arms and ammunitions being used in that type of an operation?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to speak hypothetically for an Israeli operation that hasn’t occurred yet. 

MODERATOR:  Our next question will go to Vivian with the Wall Street Journal.

Q    Thanks so much, Sam.  Hi, John.  I just want to follow up from Selina, because she mentioned it a moment ago but you didn’t quite react.  Bibi Netanyahu has now officially said that he will pull out of the meetings.  And so, if you can give us just a straight reaction to their decision not to participate in the interagency, that would be great.  And then, I do have a follow-up as well.

MR. KIRBY:  It’s disappointing.

Q    I mean, can you elaborate?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re very disappointed that they won’t be coming to Washington, D.C., to allow us to have a fulsome conversation with them about viable alternatives to going in on the ground in Rafah.

Q    Okay, thanks for that.  And just really quickly, sort of a follow-up also to Nick: You talked about, again, that this is not a shift in U.S. position regarding the U.N. resolution, the abstention — that it’s not a shift in U.S. policy.  But I really wanted to push you on the Hamas element of it.  You know, previously, in previous months, the failure or the absence of blatant condemnation of Hamas’s actions would have been a non-starter for the U.S., and now the U.S. has chosen to abstain from a vote that does not include that language.  And so, I wanted you to address that particular issue. 

You know, I don’t question whether or not you all condemn Hamas’s actions, but does this at least show a shift in terms of where the priorities lie right now, the urgency of a ceasefire or the humanitarian condition?  I mean, can you just kind of explain why now you abstain from something that lacks that condemnation of Hamas’s actions versus, before, where you would not have done that — the U.S. would not have done that?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, can you repeat?  I’m sorry, I lost you for a second there.  Can you —

Q    Just in terms of, you know, the fact that now the U.S. is abstaining from a resolution that does not blatantly, outwardly condemn Hamas’s actions, that would have been a non-starter previously.  And so, I’m just wondering if you can address that change.  You’re saying it’s not a shift in position.  So why now would the U.S. be willing to abstain from a vote?  Is there a shift in terms of the urgency of the ceasefire, humanitarian situation?  I mean, I just want to understand why now we abstain from a vote that doesn’t condemn Hamas versus, before, where that would have been a non-starter.

MR. KIRBY:  Okay, yeah, you broke up again, but I think I got the gist of it. 

As I said at the top, there’s no change in our policy here.  And if you look in the resolution, in the very same paragraph it calls for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages.  And that is — broadly speaking, that is in keeping with what has been our policy.  We want to see an immediate ceasefire so that we can get all the hostages out.  And, again, those two things are covered in the very same paragraph of the resolution.  But it did not — it did not condemn Hamas.  And the one that we submitted on Friday did have a condemnation of Hamas. 

We believe that that should be a no-brainer.  Anybody — everybody should be willing to get behind a resolution that condemns Hamas for what they did on the 7th of October.  But it didn’t.  And so, because absent that — it did broadly reflect our views that it was important to have a ceasefire so that you can get hostages out — we decided to abstain.  We couldn’t support the resolution because there was no condemnation of Hamas.  But because in other broader ways it did reflect our policies and our views, that we abstained.

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

Q    Thank you.  Can you say who that delegation, that’s now been canceled, who they were supposed to have been meeting with?

And when you talk about alternatives, are you able to provide any more details about what the alternatives that the U.S. is proposing would look like?  You know, how many are there?  Is it a suite of options?  Is it one option?  Is it on the humanitarian front?  Is it about going after Hamas?  Can you fill out any more of those details?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to be able to be very satisfying on either of those.  I mean, since, obviously, there’s not going to be a meeting later this week, there’s no point in going through what the delegation on our side would have looked like.  Clearly, Mr. Sullivan would have been hosting that meeting and would have been personally involved, but I don’t have any more detail on who else might have been in the room. 

Again, it’s disappointing that they’re not going to be able to come and that they’re not going to be able to participate in that conversation. 

As for the viable alternatives, since we obviously aren’t going to get the chance later this week to lay them out, I think I’m going to reserve public discussion of them with our hopes that we’ll still get an opportunity to share those with our Israeli counterparts over coming days, obviously in some different form.  But I don’t think it would be useful for me to lay them all out publicly when we haven’t had a chance to discuss them privately with our Israeli friends.

MODERATOR:  Our last question will go to Anita with the VOA.

Q    Thank you so much, John.  I’ll ask about Russia.  Now that the U.S. and Russia have a common enemy in ISIS-K, will this, could this, or should this open the door for security cooperation between the two countries?

And then, we’ve seen that Russia is obviously blaming Ukraine for this terrorist attack.  Do you see a danger of this information influence campaign on, you know, support for Ukraine and Russia and the possibility that it might escalate this conflict?

MR. KIRBY:  What conflict?  The conflict in Ukraine?

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, there’s not going to be any security assistance with Russia and the United States, if that’s what you’re asking. 

We had a duty to warn them of information that we had, clearly that they didn’t have.  We did that.  I’ll let them speak to what they did or didn’t do with that information.  But clearly, there was a successful terror attack along the lines that we warned them there could be. 

And as for escalation with Ukraine, it should surprise exactly nobody that Mr. Putin and his cronies in the Kremlin keep trying to find a way to pin this on Ukraine.  There was no linkage to Ukraine.  This was an attack carried out by ISIS-K operatives — period, end of sentence, end the story.  No connection to Ukraine.  And this is just more Kremlin propaganda, anything that they can do to try to link it back to what they’re doing in Ukraine and to try to scramble to scratch out some sort of justification for the continued violence and depravations that they have been visiting upon the Ukrainian people now for more than two years.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  That’s all the time we have.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to your question, please reach out to the NSC distro and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.  Thanks.

   11:45 A.M. EDT

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

Via Teleconference

5:04 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining today’s call. This is Kelly Scully from the White House Press team.  Thanks for joining today’s call with Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the President Anita Dunn to discuss the adminis- —

(Cross-talk.)

— to discuss the administration’s work to make healthcare more affordable and accessible ahead of President Biden and Vice President Harris’s trip to North Carolina tomorrow.

Remarks at the top will be on the record.  We will then transition to the QA portion of the call, which will be on background and attributable to a “senior administration official.”

For your awareness and not for reporting, joining us for the QA portion of the call is [senior administration official]. 

As a reminder, this call and the factsheet I sent around earlier are embargoed until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m.

And with that, I will turn it over to Anita to kick us off.

MS. DUNN:  Thank you, Kelly.  And thank you — excuse me — everyone who has joined the call this afternoon.  (Coughs.)

PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.)

MS. DUNN:  I know.  Sorry.

Tomorrow, in Raleigh, North Carolina, President Biden and Vice President Harris will deliver remarks laying out their vision to protect and strengthen the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and Medicare.  They will also discuss their plan to lower healthcare costs, including for prescription drugs.  This stands in stark contrast to a budget proposed by congressional Republicans just last week that would gut healthcare coverage for millions while allowing Big Pharma to drive up prescription drug costs.

The difference is simple: The President and Vice President have always believed that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. 

Fourteen years ago last week, then-Vice President Biden stood by President Obama’s side as President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law.  And as the Vice President so memorably said at the time, it was a big deal. 

After more than 50 attempts by Republicans to repeal it, including attempts that had the strong support of the President’s predecessor, the ACA stands stronger than ever thanks to the Biden-Harris administration.

In 2024, more than 21 million Americans, including over 1 million North Carolinians, signed up for ACA healthcare coverage.  Forty states, including D.C., have passed the Medicaid expansion.  Four of those happened under this President’s watch. 

One year ago, thanks to Governor Roy Cooper’s leadership, North Carolina passed Medicaid expansion, helping over 400,000 North Carolinians.  And Governor Cooper will be joining the President and the Vice President tomorrow. 

Americans are saving an average $800 a year on their premiums thanks to, first, the ARP and then the IRA.

But the Affordable Care Act is still very much under attack by Republican officials.  Just last week, the Republican Study Committee that represents every member of the House Republican leadership and 80 percent of the House Republican Conference introduced a budget that would gut the ACA, gut Medicaid, and end protec- — protection for preexisting conditions.  

So, if they got their way, these Republican officials would want a country where 45 million Americans, including 1.4 million North Carolinians, lose their health insurance.  One hundred million Americans with preexisting conditions would lose those protections, including 1.8 million people in North Carolina.  Young people would be kicked off their parents’ coverage.  It would be harder for millions of seniors, people with disabilities, and children to access healthcare. 

And prescription drug prices would skyrocket, because once you strip Medicare’s authority to negotiate prescription drug costs, you repeal the $35 insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for healthcare costs.  And needless to say, you also increase the federal deficit as well.

Well, President Biden has been clear: not on his watch.  Not only will he protect the ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare, he will expand coverage and lower healthcare costs.  He will make expanded Affordable Care Act tax credits permanent.  These tax credits expire in 2025, and they’re going to need to be renewed.  There’s a real risk of them being taken away by the Republicans.  

President Biden also believes that you should have Medicaid-like coverage to those people in the 10 states that have not (inaudible) the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.  And some of those, as we know, are very large states.

President Biden and Democrats beat Big Pharma.  Now Medicare can negotiate lower drug prices for the first time in history.  He wants to go further and faster: have Medicare negotiate lower prices of at least 50 drugs per year –- 500 drugs over the next decade.  This could save taxpayers up to 200 billion additional dollars over the 10-year period, in addition to the $160 billion that the current program would save. 

And then, finally, expand the $35-a-month cap on insulin and the $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket drug spending to everyone, not just seniors.

Vice President Harris has been leading our fight to defend reproductive freedom, and she will drive a clear contrast on how President Biden’s predecessor handpicked the three Supreme Court Justices who overturned Roe v. Wade and that President Biden has sworn to restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.  And if Congress sends him that bill, he will sign it immediately.

He — she will talk about the fact that Republicans in Congress want a national abortion ban — President Biden will veto that; that in the face of relentless, politically driven attacks by Republican officials, President Biden is fighting for access to contraception. 

And, of course, as you all know, tomorrow is the Supreme Court oral argument on medi- — medical abortion.  So, that is going to be context and background for the conversation tomorrow.

And that’s the split screen on healthcare you will see on clear display.  President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Democrats want to expand access, make it more — make healthcare more affordable for everyone, and defend reproductive freedom.  Republicans want to gut healthcare, raise prices, and rip away those basic re- — reproductive freedoms even more than they have already been endangered.

So, that is the split screen.  That is the discussion tomorrow.  And that is the two very different visions for moving this country forward, as the President outlined in his State of the Union Address. 

So, thank you, Kelly.  And I’ll turn it back to you.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, Anita.  We will now transition to the QA portion of the call, which will be on background and attributable to a “senior administration official.”

If you have a question, use the “raise hand” feature at the bottom of your screen. 

Let’s go to Ron Brownstein.

Q    Hi, guys.  I was wondering, as you noted a little, there are many moving parts in this Republican Study Committee proposal: block granting Medicaid, the premium support voucher idea for Medicare, repealing the ACA, undoing the prescription drug negotiating authority.  I’m just wondering: What — what do you see as the common thread in all of these ideas? 

And could someone talk about what they would mean cumulatively?  When you kind of put all of them together, if you did all of these things, what would be the biggest changes people would see in the healthcare system?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  Happy — happy to walk through that. 

I mean, fundamentally, what you see in the RSC budget is a set of proposals that would take us backwards, raise Americans’ healthcare costs, and leave millions more people without health insurance. 

So, you know, they want to completely repeal the President’s reforms to lower prescription drug costs.  That means higher prescription drug costs for seniors.  It means higher government spending and handouts to Big Pharma, as Medicare can’t negotiate drug prices.

They want to convert Medicare into a premium support program, getting rid of the core guarantee of the Medicare program and leaving seniors facing, you know, higher premiums if they want to stay in the same kind of coverage that they have today.

The cuts to Medicaid, CHIP, and the Affordable Care Act in this proposal are devastating, taking $4.5 trillion out of this program over a decade.  To do that, you would need to zero out the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, you would need to zero out Medicaid expansion, and then, after you’ve done that, you’d need to make further steep cuts to the base Medicaid budget.

These are, you know, astonishing — astonishing cuts that would just devastate a program — a set of programs that millions and millions of people rely on.  It’s 45 million people who would just have their coverage ripped away from them and tens of millions of more who could lose benefits or lose coverage altogether as states, you know, try to react to the, again, completely devastating cuts.

And they do all of this while — while fundamentally undermining and eliminating federal protections for people with preexisting conditions.  So, it’s taking us back to days of medical underwriting and — and ensuring that, you know, insurance companies are once again in the driver’s seat to charge higher prices to people who are sicker or older.

It is a — it is a completely different vision from the one the President and the Vice President have laid out and will continue to lay out tomorrow, where we — where we — instead of moving backwards, instead of raising costs and throwing people off healthcare programs, we need to build on our progress.  We need to lower prescription drug cros- — costs even further, and we need to bring these reforms to more people.  We need to, you know, continue to build on the Affordable Care Act to deliver health insurance, and we need to close the Medicaid coverage gap once and for all.

I think the — you know, the contrast could not — could not be more stark.  And, you know, as — as Anita said, it is — it is quite the split screen when it comes to a healthcare vision.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Tami with CNN.

Q    Thank you for taking my call.  So, the administration has been trying to sweeten the pot for a state — the 10 hold-out states to expand Medicaid.  There were various efforts in Kansas, Georgia.  Mississippi is still ongoing.  Has the — what has the administration been doing to try to get this over the finish line in these Republican legislatures?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  Thanks for that question.

As I’m sure you know, four states have expanded Medicaid since President Biden took office — most recently, North Carolina, where just in the last couple of months, nearly 400,000 people have gained Medicaid expansion coverage. 

But, you know, we are clearly putting points on the board here and getting more Medicaid expansion coverage to — to more people.  You know, the four states that have expanded can deliver Medicaid expansion to about a million people.  So, that’s obviously making a huge dent in this — in this issue and delivering coverage to more folks.

The — as I’m sure this group is aware, the American Rescue Plan included additional financial incentives for states that — that had been hold-outs and choose to expand Medicaid.  And those new financial incentives remain available for any state that wants to take them up and bring lifesaving health- — healthcare coverage to hundreds of thousands of their lowest-income residents.

We continue to be encouraged by conversations that advocates and hospital systems and others across the — across the country are having in their states about opportunities to — to, you know, address funding gaps for their rural hospitals and bring Medicaid expansion coverage to folks who need it.  And we will, you know, continue to work with any state that wants to on how we can drive the ball forward on Medicaid expansion in some of those hold-out 10 states.

MODERATOR:  Courtney with Bloomberg.

Q    Hi.  Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yep.

Q    Thank you.  You mentioned that you’re planning this event tomorrow to happen in the backgrou- — or have in the background the oral arguments at the Supreme Court.  Can you talk about how you’re preparing for any outcome from those arguments?  I understand that you’re (inaudible) hesitant to talk about pending cases, but this is a topic that’s really important to Americans that rely on medication abortion — right now especially, given how limited abortion is in general across the country.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  Thanks for that question. 

You know, DOJ continues to defend the FDA’s actions on this, you know, critical medication that is — is an important part of our healthcare system before the Supreme Court.  And the President and Vice President remain firmly committed to defending women’s ability to access reproductive healthcare.

As you — as you heard from Anita, we’ll hear from the Vice President tomorrow about our broader vision on reproductive health.  For, sort of, particulars on the litigation and next steps, I would refer you to DOJ.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Jonathan with Huffington Post.

Jonathan?

We can’t hear you —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We can’t hear you.

MODERATOR:  — if you’re speaking.

Q    Is that better?  Can you hear me now?

MODERATOR:  Yep.

Q    Okay.  Sorry about that.  This is actually a question for [senior administration official], I think.  There were some reports earlier about Mark Robinson made some statements about the ACA, saying he favored — he didn’t favor repeal and replace, just repeal, some other things.  Is that likely to come up tomorrow?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  So, we have — we have lost [senior administration official], and we are, you know, having this call from the — from the White House.

And so —

Q    Ah.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  — you know, I want to stay focused on the — on, you know, the — the President’s agenda and the contrast with Republicans in Contr- — in Congress. 

But, you know, more broadly, Republican elected officials have made clear that they have a very different vision for healthcare in this country.  And you can absolutely expect to hear from the President and Vice President about the broader contrast.

MODERATOR:  All right.  Let’s go to Sarah.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  I wanted to ask: One of the main criticisms from Republicans of these plans has been that the main reason for high enrollment is subsidies or the premium tax credits that you’re looking to make permanent in the 2025 budget.  So, how is President Biden going to respond to that criticism?  And, you know, what would it do not to have those subsidies extended again in the next year’s budget?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  You know, candidly, I’m not sure how it is a criticism that President Biden has made healthcare too affordable for American families.  You know, we are incredibly proud of the fact that 21.3 million people are enrolled in ACA coverage. 

And a big part of that is because we have made that coverage more affordable for folks, and we are going to keep — keep standing up for that affordability and ensure that Americans continue to see those low premiums and can get access to healthcare they need at a price they can afford.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Joyce.

Q    Yeah, hi.  Thanks for taking my question.  It sounds like tomorrow is all about contrasting the Biden administration agenda with the — what the Republicans are doing.  I’m just clarifying that — are there going to be any new initiatives announced tomorrow?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t have anything in particular to preview beyond what is in the factsheet.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Amy with InsideHealthPolicy. 

Q    Yeah.  Hi.  I want to know if — we’ve heard about the — keeping the a- — the enhanced subsidies and a couple other policies.  But I’m curious — I’m not hearing public option or turning — changing it from — changing the benchmark from silver to gold and things like that.  I’m just curious if those policies that were from a couple years ago are still in play.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  Thanks for that question, Amy.  The President’s budget for FY ‘25 laid out a clear set of commitments in healthcare.  It includes extending the enhanced subsidies for Affordable Care Act coverage; closing the Medicaid coverage gap; making a series of other changes to make it easier for kids, in particular, to get and keep health insurance; taking on — taking on junk facility fees; and continuing to lower drug prices, of course.

And so, that — that’s the — that’s the agenda that the President’s budget, you know, clearly laid out and that the President and Vice President will be — will be talking about.  Those are obviously not the only ideas in health policy that are important to American families and can lower — can lower healthcare costs. 

But — but that is the — that is the agenda that the White House has articulated and that you’ll hear from the President and Vice President about tomorrow.

MODERATOR:  Okay.  Seeing no additional questions, we can wrap the call. 

As a reminder, this call and the factsheet I sent over are embargoed until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m. 

If you have additional questions, you can follow up with me directly. 

Thank you, everyone.

5:23 P.M. EDT

The post Press Call by Senior Advisor to the President Anita Dunn and a Senior Administration Official on Historic Action to Make Healthcare More Affordable and Accessible appeared first on The White House.

2:08 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone.

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I wanted to just start off at the — at the top that we just heard — obviously, all of us just heard the terrible news. Our thoughts are with the Duchess of Cambridge and her family members and friends during this incredibly difficult time. And certainly, we wish her a full recovery.

And I think it’s important that we respect their privacy, especially at this time, so I’m not going to go further — further than that.

I’ll just — I will do one more thing before that, though. I know folks are going to ask if the President has spoken to her or the family. I can just say right now that we don’t have anything to share at this time. But obviously, we — we wish the Duchess of Cambridge a full recovery and we are incredibly sad to hear of the news.

Q Is the First Lady going to send her a note?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to share at this time. We — this news just broke, obviously. So, we are taking this in — this terrible news — as all of you are. And so, just don’t have anything to share.

We want to make sure that we certainly respect their privacy at this incredibly difficult time — not just for her but her family. So, I’ll just — just leave it there.

Q Did the palace give the White House any kind of a heads up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would just say we learned just like all of you. And we want to be incredibly respectful to their privacy.

So, I have a couple of things at the top. Obviously, we have a guest. The Admiral is here today to talk about a couple of things in the Middle East and more broadly.

So, tomorrow marks 15 years since the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land. President Biden believes that healthcare is a right not a privilege. And since taking office, he’s been focused on historic actions to lower healthcare and prescription drug costs and expand access to coverage.

So, ahead of this historic milestone, I want to go over some key statistics which I think is incredibly important.

Under President Biden, more Americans have health insurance than under any president. A record-breaking 21 million Americans signed up for health coverage this year, with a majority of shoppers able to find coverage for less than $10 a month.

Americans are saving, on average, 800 bucks a year on premiums.

Four states have ex- — expanded Medicaid since the President took office. And millions have benefited from ACA’s critical protections, which have prevented people from being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or being charged with more for being a woman.

But President Biden is not rist- — resting on these accomplishments. He has a bold agenda to continue to bring down Americans’ healthcare costs. He’s calling on Congress to — to make expanded Affordable Care Act’s tax credits permanent so Americans can continue to save on premiums.

After decades of failed attempts and without a single Republican vote in Congress, President Biden beat Big Pharma by passing the Inflation Reduction Act. Already, the law is lowering prescription drug prices.

Now President Biden wants to expand the amount of drugs that Medicare can negotiate lower prices for to at least 50 drugs per year. And he wants to expand the 35 bucks a month cap on insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on drug spending to everyone.

Despite all of this, Republican officials are still working to end the Affordable Care Act, repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, and gut Medicaid. In fact, congressional Republicans have attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times, including during the last administration with the support of the President’s predecessor.

President Biden has been clear he will never let that happen and he will never stop working to protect and strengthen the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Speaking of healthcare, this week Republican Study Committee, which represent 100 percent of House Republican leadership and 80 percent of their conference, released its budget.

Now you’ve heard the President say this. His father has an expression that goes, “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value.”

So, let’s look at what House Republicans actually value. First, their budget endorses a national abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest. It puts IVF treatment on the chopping block through House Republicans’ support for the Life at Conception to Act.

The President believes we must restore the right to choose and protect other freedoms, not take them away.

The Republican Study Committee budget would make devastating cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and the Affordable Care Act; increase —

Q Your mic is dropping out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s —

Q Your mic is dropping out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s dropping down? Can you guys hear me?

Q Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was on a roll. (Laughter.)

All right. But I want to make sure you hear me.

All right. So, the Republican Study Committee budget would make devastating cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and the Affordable Care Act; increase housing and prescription drug costs for families; give more huge tax cuts to the wealthy and the biggest corporations. Put simply, their budget lays out a dark future for America.

This is about our visions for the future: whose side we are on. President Biden is on the side of the American people. He believes in giving the middle class a fair shot, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and securing Americans’ rights and freedoms. He will never stop fighting for that future.

(Referring to the microphone audio.) Is there still an issue? I hear some rumbling. We’re all good? Okay, great.

And then, next, before I turn it over, I wanted to turn to the latest from Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives just voted to pass the funding bill to keep the government open, invest in the American people, and strengthen our economy and national security. The Senate should pass — pass it as quickly as possible.

To be clear, this bill is a com- — compromise reached by congressional appropriators, so no side got everything it wanted.

But it expands access to child care, Head Start; invests in cancer research; funds addiction prevention programs; and advances American leadership abroad.

It also provides resources to secure the border that Republicans opposed. We fought hard for additional resources and were successful in preventing Republicans from severely underfunding DHS.

But it’s not enough. Republicans have blocked our multiple requests in increased border funding and the bipartisan border security agreement.

Congress should pass that agreement to give border personnel the policies and funding needed to secure the border. The House must also pass the bipartisan national security supplemental to advance our national security interests.

And I do have one — one last thing.

Turning to the President’s schedule and upcoming visit, we recently announced that, on April 15th, the President will welcome Prime Minister Sudani of Iraq to the White House to coordinate on common priorities and reinforce the strong bilateral partnership between the United States and Iraq.

The leaders will reaffirm their commitment to Strategic Framework Agreement and deepen their shared vision for a secure, sovereign, and prosperous Iraq fully integrated into the Board of Regents.

President Biden and Prime Minister Sudani will consult on a range of issues during the visit, including our shared commitment to the lasting defeat of ISIS, an ev- — an evolution of the military mission nearly 10 years after forming the successful Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.

They will also discuss ongoing Iraqi financial reforms to promote economic development and progress towards Iraqis’ energy independence and modernization.

And I do have something about the week ahead.

On Tuesday, March 26th, the President and the Vice President will travel to Raleigh, North Carolina. We will have more to share soon, but you’ll hear the President and the Vice President highlight how they are fighting for all Americans and their vision for the future. So, we look forward to seeing you on the road.

With that, Admiral John Kirby is here to — to give us an update, discuss Ukraine and the Middle East and the President’s morning call with the President-elect of Indonesia. Thank you for your patience.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine. Th- — I’m going to thank you in advance for your patience —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

MR. KIRBY: — because I do you have a few things I — I’m going to try to get through here. Let me put my cheaters on.

First, before I go through what I had prepared to talk about, obviously, we’ve all seen the reports and the video coming out of Moscow — this violent shooting at a — looks like a shopping mall. Can’t speak much to the details of it. I mean, this was all just breaking before I came on out here.

So, we’re trying to get more information but really would refer to Russian authorities to — to speak to it. The images are just horrible and just hard to watch. And our thoughts, obviously, are going to be with the — the victims of this terrible, terrible shooting attack.

And I think, you know, you look at that video, if you have, and you got to recognize that there’s some moms and dads and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters that haven’t gotten the news yet. And this is going to be a tough day. So, our thoughts are with them.

You might have also seen — hopefully you saw — our State — State Department, our embassy there, put out a notice to all Americans in Moscow to avoid any large gathering — concerts, obviously, shopping malls, anything like that — just for their own safety. They should — they should stay put where they are and stay plugged into the State Department for any additional updates and information.

I’m afraid that’s really all I have on that.

Now on Ukraine. Today, Russia launched a massive wave of missiles and Iranian-made drones against Ukraine cities and civilian infrastructure, which Ukraine reports is the largest series of airstrikes that Russia has launched against Ukraine’s energy grid since the start of this war.

Ukrainian officials say that at least 10 different regions of their country were struck, leaving more than 1 million homes without electricity. Our hearts go out to all the families of those civilians who were killed, and we’re praying for a quick recovery for those who were wounded by these attacks.

They demonstrate once again — the attacks do — how vital it is that we continue to provide Ukraine with air defense systems and capabilities, interceptor missiles — the tools that they need to protect themselves and their infrastructure.

Mr. Putin is not waiting. He’s not sitting on his hands. He’s making lethal use of every single minute available to him while our own Congress refuses to act. He’s not wavering, neither should we.

The House of Representatives must pass the national security supplemental as soon as possible so that we can provide Ukraine with this vital equipment. And as we’ve seen in just the last couple of days, every single day the House delays is another day that the Ukrainians have to pay for it with their own blood.

Now, also today, the United States put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council that supported ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at securing an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as part of a hostage deal. Notably, the resolution condemned Hamas for the October 7th attacks, which we believe is long overdue — blaming Hamas, condemning Hamas — especially in light of the U.N.’s recent report confirming that Hamas engaged in conflict-related sexual violence.

This was a balanced, timely text, and it is in line with our longstanding calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza over a period of at least six weeks as part of a hostage deal. Nothing new there.

The vast majority of the council voted in favor of the resolution — some 11 other nations. Unfortunately, Russia and China vetoed it. That was hardly a surprise. They’d rather shoot down something that we authored simply because we authored it, rather than consider the strength of what it called for with overwhelming council support.

And what did it call for? An immediate ceasefire, all hostages released, more aid getting in to the people of Gaza, and Hamas condemned for the slaughter of innocent Israelis.

It’s difficult to look at that text and find what — what’s objectionable about it, except the fact that the United States is the one that authored it and put it forward.

Now if I can switch to Mexico and some sanctions. On efforts to counter illicit fentanyl, part of President Biden’s Unity Agenda efforts to save lives by stemming the flow of illicit trafficking of drugs, the Treasury Department today sanctioned 15 Sinaloa Cartel members and six businesses operating in Mexico that are engaged in the trafficking of these deadly drugs.

Now, these people are involved in what’s known as a black-market peso exchange. It’s a scheme to launder illicit fentanyl proceeds for the Sinaloa Cartel. And the cartel, if you don’t know, if you’re not tracking, is one of the most violent drug trafficking organizations in the world, responsible for a significant portion of the illicit fentanyl and other deadly drugs trafficked into the United States.

Today’s sanctions were possible thanks to ongoing U.S. law enforcement collaboration and strong partnership with the government of Mexico, with which we coordinated closely and for which we are grateful.

And, finally, President Biden spoke earlier today with President-elect Prabowo Subianto of In- — of Indonesia to congratulate him on his election victory. President Biden pledged to expand cooperation with Indonesia under the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and to work together towards an Indo-Pacific that is free, open, prosperous, and secure.

And with that, I’ll take some questions.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you for your patience.

Q Thanks. Appreciate it.

On Monday, Jake Sullivan stood here and said that a major military operation from the Israelis into Rafah would be a mistake. That was after a phone call with President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Of course, today, we saw Secretary of State Blinken say that — warn again even more about a military operation in Rafah. And yet, we saw Netanyahu say that they are prepared to “do it alone.” So, are we to understand that President Biden has just lost all of his sway here?

MR. KIRBY: I would also note that Prime Minister Netanyahu said he recognizes there’s a debate about Rafah. I would also note that the Israeli government will be sending a delegation here in coming days to — to talk to us from — in an interagency perspective about some viable options and alternatives to a major ground operation.

The President and Prime Minister Netanyahu just spoke a few days ago, and they will speak again, no — no question about it. We’ve not shied away from expressing our concerns to them, and they have not refused to listen. And there had been examples in the past — I’ve gone through it from the podium — where they have actually taken on board the advice and counsel we provided.

Q So, you’re convinced that you have some reason to believe that you can still convince them to change course?

MR. KIRBY: We are going to share with them our lessons, our perspectives. We’re going to share with them some alternatives about how they can eliminate the threat of Hamas in Gaza, particularly in the Rafah area, without conducting a major ground offensive. As you heard Secretary Blinken say today, we still believe that a major ground offensive is a mistake.

Q But while he was on the ground, Netanyahu still said again that they are prepared to do it alone. If you guys have a disagreement this big, is that grounds to consider withholding military aid?

MR. KIRBY: They’re coming here, hopefully, next week, it looks like, to — to have a discussion about viable options. Why don’t we have that discussion, see where that takes us, before we leap to conclusions?

I would add a couple of things. Yes, we saw what the Prime Minister said. And he should speak to his comments, to his — to the Israeli people. That’s for him to talk to. But we haven’t seen them go into Rafah, have we? They haven’t conducted a major ground offensive yet.

So, we believe there’s still grounds — I’m sorry, still time until — and space to — to have these discussions and to share with them what we’ve learned.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. We don’t — got to (inaudible). Go ahead. (Inaudible.)

Q What — what will make this — is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, go ahead. No, I was just saying we don’t have a lot of time.

Q What would make this meeting next week a success, John, between the United States and Israel?

MR. KIRBY: We’re not putting benchmarks on it, Steve. We’re — we’re looking forward to the opportunity to have a delegation here from Israel to — again, to share some of our thinking about viable alternatives. And we’ll see where it goes from there.

Q And if Netanyahu comes to speak to Congress, would the President take the opportunity to meet with him while he’s here?

MR. KIRBY: I couldn’t answer that question since we don’t — we don’t have a visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to. I would just note that these two guys have known each other a long time, and they’re speaking frequently.

Q Israeli Defense Minister Golan is scheduled to go to the Pentagon on Tuesday. Has that broader meeting with the other officials — has a date been set for it yet?

MR. KIRBY: We’ll have more to share in the — in coming days about what the schedule is going to look like. But we expect that the meeting will take place next week.

Q And does the President feel that he —

MR. KIRBY: Let me just add: It would be a — you know, that — that delegation is a — that — that meeting about Rafah is a separate meeting than the Defense Minister’s meeting with Secretary Austin, which was long-scheduled.

Q And does the President feel that he does have tools in his toolbox, perhaps, to exercise harder leverage against Israel if they do move forward with going into Rafah?

MR. KIRBY: We’re going to continue to approach this with Israel as we have in the past, which is to make sure that they have the tools they need to defend themselves against a still-viable threat, while at the same time using the strength of the relationship between the United States and Israel — and, yes, the strength of the relationship between the Prime Minister and the President — to continue to — to urge them to minimize civilian casualties, to allow more humanitarian assistance to get in, and — and it’s getting — you know, we haven’t once talked about in this press conference today about the hostage deal — to move forward on that hostage deal, which, again, we think those talks are making progress.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Can you talk a little bit about how much progress? I mean, Secretary of State Antony Blinken yesterday said “gaps are narrowing.” Do you think that it’s close? Could it come next week?

MR. KIRBY: We do — we do believe that we’re getting closer. I couldn’t give you a date certain on the calendar, but that — the discussions are still happening, and that they are happening at the pace at which they are and with the participation that we’re seeing on all sides, it’s a good sign.

And, again, I don’t want to get too sanguine here. Nothing’s negotiated until it’s all negotiated, but — but we’re — but we do believe that the gaps are narrowing and we are getting closer.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Can you speak to the — the phrase of the U.N. resolution that the U.S. proposed? It says that the Security Council would “determine the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire.” Why not just call for a ceasefire directly? What — why — why phrase it like it has?

MR. KIRBY: It’s — I mean, I don’t — I don’t want you to read too much into the vernacular here. What — what we called for in this resolution is perfectly in keeping with what we’ve been saying now for weeks. We want to see an immediate ceasefire so that a hostage deal can take place. You’ve got to have a cessation of hostilities to get hostages out and to be able to get aid in.

And what we’re looking for — and it’s in the resola- — resolution — is a firm period of about six weeks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Tam.

Q Just a clarification. Do you have any details you can share about who will actually be in this meeting with the Israeli delegation when they come? Who on the U.S. side? Who on the Israeli side?

MR. KIRBY: We’ll have more details — we’ll have more details in the coming days.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thank you. On Venezuela, do you have a reaction to the arrest that happened this week of two people close to María Corina Machado?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah.

Q And how do you — how does this affect the calculation of the United States to reimpose sanctions in April? Is it still possible to have free elections in Venezuela?

MR. KIRBY: Well, we’re deeply concerned by — by these reports of these arrests.

What I would say on — on sanctions relief is we’re still willing to consider sanctions relief on the Maduro regime and on Venezuela if they meet their obligations that they made in the fall in Barbados. And reports of arrests like this certainly give us pause to think about how serious they are about meeting those commitments.

Q Has there been any conversations with them recently?

MR. KIRBY: I — I would refer you to the State Department. I’m not — I’m not aware of any conversations from the National Security Council, but you should talk to the State Department.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Weijia.

Q Thank you. Thanks, John. Can you talk about in a practical sense what it means that the U.S. thinks it’s a mistake for Israel to go into Rafah with a ground offensive? Will you halt aid and weapons?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I think I just got the same question. I’m not going to get —

Q Is there an answer?

MR. KIRBY: Well, you didn’t — there was an answer. Maybe you didn’t find it satisfactory, but that’s okay. (Laughter.)

What — what we’re talking about here is — is making it
clear to the Israelis our deep concerns about any ground offensive into Rafah. There — there’s a million and half people there. And it’s not a big — it’s not a big space. They’ve got to be accounted for. Their safety and security has got to be protected.

And we believe that a major ground offensive is a mistake. We believe that it will be, as I’ve said many times and you’ve heard from other officials, a disaster — certainly for those million and a half refugees in Rafah.

And so, we want to present to the Israelis some viable alternatives and options about how they could go after the legitimate threat of Hamas there in Rafah without sacrificing the safety and security of those people.

Q Is it a mistake, or is it a violation of the national security memo that would, in turn, result in the halt of aid and weapons? Would it be (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY: I believe the State Department has already talked about that. The Israelis have submitted their — their letter, in keeping with the national security memo. And Secretary of State has determined that the information they provided was credible and was reliable.

Q And then just one more quick one, because you’ve said so many times from this podium, John — you’ve said repeatedly the U.S. is not going to tell Israel how to conduct its military operation. So, if you’re willing to do it now, why not before?

MR. KIRBY: We’re not doing it now.

Q You’re not telling them not to do something (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY: No, that’s not what this meeting is about. We’re not — we’re not going to lay out terms. It’s a sovereign country. And the — they have their own military, and they have their own operations to conduct. They have to make those decisions.

But as a friend of Israel and an ally, as before, today and next week, we want to make sure that they make those decisions fully informed with our lessons learned from urban warfare and this kind of fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, do they have to listen to our advice and counsel? No. But we have seen in the past where they have taken some of it on board. We hope they take this on board.

Q Thank you.

Q Thanks, Karine. Hey, John, there’s a report that the U.S. is urging Ukraine to stop attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure out of fear that it’s going to drive up oil prices.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah.

Q Can you confirm those conversations are happening?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to speak to the specifics in that press reporting. The only thing I would tell you is what I’ve said before: We do not encourage or enable the Ukrainian military to conduct strikes inside Russia.

Q But are you concerned about this at all, that these attacks are happening against their energy infrastructure?

MR. KIRBY: We do not encourage or enable Ukraine to strike inside Russia.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, April.

Q John, do you have any updates on the U.S. involvement when it comes to Haiti? And, also, what are the conversations, if any, about changing or fixing the immigration status when it comes to Haitians who cannot file for asylum in the country, as it’s been overtaken by gangs, which is considered a coordinated militia, and they come here?

MR. KIRBY: On your second question, I’d refer you, April, to the State Department to speak to the particular policies on asylum seekers.

But can you repeat your first question because I’m not sure I totally understood it.

Q Do you have an update on U.S. involvement when it comes to Haiti?

MR. KIRBY: An update on U.S. involvement? So, I think — I would say, look, our lines of effort are really kind of three things right now. One is working with the Haitians on a Haitian-led political transition process and that — that presidential council that is — that transitional council is up and running. And, hopefully, we’ll see some movement here in coming days about their selection of — of individuals for governance in Haiti that can be credible and can meet the aspirations of the Haitian people.

Number two, we’re working with Kenya on a Kenyan-led multinational security support mission, which would not include U.S. troops on the ground as part of that mission. But we are working with — with Kenyans on what that can look like, what support they might need externally from the United States.

And then, thirdly, and this is — clearly, we’re — we’re doing what we can to help those Americans who want to leave Haiti get out safely. And there were some additional helicopter movements today, as a matter of fact.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thank you. So, question: Did the U.S. have prior knowledge of this attack in Moscow, given that the U.S. Embassy had issued warning beforehand?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not aware of any advanced knowledge that we had of this —

Q On —

MR. KIRBY: — this terrible attack.

Q On March 8th, the embassy warned of imminent attack in Moscow by extremists.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I think that — I’ll let the State Department speak to that, I think. But I don’t think that was related to this specific attack.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just a couple of more. Go ahead.

Q John, today, the Vice President said that she had seen the plans and that there was no credible way to allow for the relocation —

MR. KIRBY: I believe she said she saw —

Q A map.

MR. KIRBY: She looked at a map.

Q Map.

MR. KIRBY: She saw maps of Gaza.

Q And said that there was no credible way to relocate those who were sheltering there. Was it ever feasible?

MR. KIRBY: As I’ve said from the podium myself, a million and a half people in a very confined space — that that is a tall order for any military to find a place for that many people to go where they can be safe and secure, where they can have access to medical care, food, water. That’s a tall order for any military.

And I think the Vice President is speaking plainly and candidly about the scope and the scale of that kind of a challenge.

Q For weeks, though, the U.S. was saying the only way they would support a ground invasion in Rafah was if there was a credible plan to relocate those civilians.

MR. KIRBY: That’s correct.

Q So, the position now is that’s not possible. Was it ever possible?

MR. KIRBY: We have not seen such a credible plan. And one of the things that we want to talk about with this Israeli desig- — delegation next week is exactly that. I mean, we’re getting focused on the ground offensive, but the other thing we want to talk to them about is the humanitarian situation there in Rafah.

Q Should we expect the President to be a part of this meeting next week, or you would not expect that, with the Israeli delegation?

MR. KIRBY: We’ll have more details about participation in coming days.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Danny. And then, Brian, you have the last one.

Q Thanks.

Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Admiral. On the attack in Moscow, I know you’re still gathering information, but do you have any sense whether this could be linked at all to the conflict in Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY: There is no indication at this time that Ukraine or Ukrainians were involved in the shooting. But, again, this just broke. We’re taking a look at it. But I would disabuse you at this early hour of any connection to Ukraine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Brian. Last question.

Q A quick follow-up and then a ques- — well, first question. (Laughter.) Sorry, John.

Is there — can you explain the difference between the veto that was offered by China and Russia to a peace — to peace in the Middle East — a ceasefire — and one that we offered in February? What’s the difference?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, ours was — ours was based on substance. Ours was based on the actual content in the resolution, which just called for an immediate ceasefire, no condemnation of Hamas, no connection to getting the hostages out, nothing in there about humanitarian assistance.

We support an immediate ceasefire but, as our resolution said, in connection with a hostage deal that gets those people home, gets more aid in, and actually, for the first time, in the — at the Security Council, condemns Hamas for what they did on the 7th of October.

Our objections and our vetoes were based on substance and content. The objections in the vetoes today by Russia and China were simply based on politics. Because we authored it, it had to be bad.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks. Thanks.

Q And then a follow-up on —

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

Q On — wait. Real quick, the follow-up on Russia is: Is there any indication — there has been speculation that it shows that the protest that was brought up with Aleksey’s death, that there is some pattern of instability now in the Russian regime. Would you confirm that? Or do you think it’s too early to say that?

MR. KIRBY: I — I think it’s difficult with the news today to make some broader point about instability in Moscow or in Russia. Clearly, you know, there are people in — in Moscow and in Russia that object to the way Mr. Putin is governing the country.

But I don’t think we’re — at this early hour, we can make a link between the — the shopping mall attack and — and political motivations. I think we just — we just need to — we need more time, and we need to learn more information. ‘

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Awesome. Thank you so much, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY: Have a great weekend, everybody.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Have a great weekend. Thanks, Admiral.

Q Thanks, John.

Q Thanks, John.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Chris, what you got?

Q So, the spending vote is today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q (Inaudible) will let us reach durable spending agreements with House Republicans. What’s your response to the motion to vacate that was filed against Speaker Johnson and, you know, the future of those (inaudible) negotiations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we’ve always been very clear: We are not going to get in the middle of what’s going on in the House leadership. That’s not going to be our focus. The President has been very clear. He’s going to continue to focus on the American people.

You saw him in Arizona, where he made a really important chips announcement on semiconductors. Going to create 30,000 jobs in — in Arizona — good-paying union jobs. The — the, you know, $8.5 billion commitment that’s going to actually with — with Intel — that’s going to actually spur more investment into this country — on manufacturing investment, doing more semiconductors right here in the U.S.

And so, that’s what the President wants to focus on: creating jobs, actually investing in America. You saw him go through three states in two days to talk about how he sees his vision for this country. He has been, also, very clear.

Look, there are a couple of things that are on the floor of the House — right? — or one of them is — should be on the floor of the House, which is the national security supplemental. We know it would get overwhelming support. We need to see them move forward on it. You just heard from my colleague from NSC how important that — for Ukraine to have the funding that they need or have the assistance — security assistance that they need to continue to defend themselves. We want to see that go through.

And there’s the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate — Republicans and Democrats coming together to try and deal with what’s going on at the border.

We’re just not going to speak to what’s going on with the leadership. I guess, get — grab — you know, get your popcorn, sit tight, and watch what’s happening.

Q And what’s the risk if the Senate does not immediately move on the spending legislation and potential for partial whenever shutdown of —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look — look, there is still time to prevent a partial shutdown. You know, the House passed the funding bill, as you all know, and the Senate still has time to pass it today. And there is no reason for it to not move forward.

This is about — this is not about this President. It’s not about the White House. It’s about the American people. We’ve always said that. This is about programs that American families need.

And so, we — we sh- — we should be able to avoid a partial f- — shutdown. It is possible to do so. And so, we want to see the Senate move quickly on this.

Q Thanks. Has the President seen that dramatic video of migrants surging past National Guardsmen in Texas in — in El Paso?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I have not spoken to the President about that video. What I can say is this: You know, I really, truly believe that’s a question for, you know, the Republican governor of Texas, right? This is — this is something that he should address, that he should actually speak to.

The President has worked with Congress in the Senate, as I just spoke to, about getting an immigration bill done, making sure that — making sure that we deal with the border challenges that we see — that we’re now seeing. And you have a — a governor of Texas who’s continued to politicize this.

I do want to say we are grateful for the Border Patrol’s quick work to get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants. So, that’s important.

But congressional Republicans need to move on this. What they’re doing instead — and this is the bipartisan agreement, obviously — is listening to the former President, President Trump, tell them not to get involved in moving forward this bipartisan agreement because of his own personal politics, because it will help this President.

You all reported that. It’s not coming from us. You all reported that.

And it is unfor- — unfortunate that Congress Republicans are not getting on board with what majority of Americans care about. And you have a governor in — in Texas, Governor Abbott, who is continuing to make this — make this, sadly, a dangerous situation, a chaotic situation. Let’s not forget who they pass by to — to do — to pass by the razor wires. They pass by the Texas National Guards that the Republican governor put — put at the border.

Q But are — are you saying that Americans should just expect that there will continue to be a standoff between the National Guardsmen —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There shouldn’t be —

Q — and the border agents?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But — but he —

Q What is the resolution there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There shouldn’t — the resolution is — is pushing for — with the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate with Republicans and Democrats. That’s the solution.

Q But with all due respect, it doesn’t seem like it’s going anywhere.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s not — there’s no —

Q So, what’s the solution —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There’s — there’s no — there’s no “all due respect.” You are asking me a question. I am telling you the solution.

The solution is for Congress to move forward and Republicans to get out of the way or get involved — get involved.

Republicans in the Senate got involved with the Democrats, got involved with us as well for a couple of months to come up with this bipartisan agreement — an agreement that was supported by the Border Patrol union, an agreement that was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that was — that if it is put into effect — it does become law if they give them — the President the opportunity to sign this bill, it would be the toughest and the fairest legislation or law that we have seen in some time to deal with the border.

I mean, honestly, this is a question for the — for the governor of Texas. Seriously, that question is for — he is the one who — the razor wire, that’s him. The National Guards, that’s him.

The Border Patrol agents still did their job, even though it was — it was — you know, they got — you know, they got in the way. Like, the governor’s plans got in the way.

Q It just — it sounds like, right now, the White House and the President — the administration is not considering anything else to stop future events like that. Right now, the blame is the Texas governor and Congress.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You have a governor who has politicized this issue. Fact. That is just fact. He has politicized this issue.

You have a former president who has said to Congress — Republicans in Congress — do not move forward with a bipartisan agreement that was agreed upon by — by senators because it helps us — it helps Joe Biden, when we’re not thinking about helping Joe Biden. We’re thinking about helping the American people.

The majority of the American people want us to do something on this issue. And Republicans are allowing the former President to get in the way.

So, we’ve done the work. We have. We have done the work. And we need more. Yes, we were able to secure more funding for DHS with this — with this budget deal, but we need more resources. We do.

And so, there is an agreement — there is an agreement that took two months to get to. I don’t know. It’s up to them. They have to answer that question.

Go ahead.

Q On that same issue. Today, Governor Ron DeSantis said that he’s also looking at implementing a law like Texas that would allow Florida to arrest migrants as soon as they cross the Florida border. Are you concerned that other governors will be looking into, kind of, stricter immigration laws like this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m concerned about the politics that’s being played here instead of dealing with the issue, instead of the governor in Florida saying, “Hey, senators — my senators in my state, we need to work on the issue at hand here. There is a bipartisan agreement that is in your chamber — right? — that is in the Senate that was agreed upon in a bipartisan way. Can you guys move forward with that instead of playing politics?”

That’s what we want to see. We want to see an issue actually dealt with that majority of Americans care about.

There is a bipar- — I cannot say this enough: There is a bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate. Republicans were asked to reject it because of the former President, because of helping th- — his own politics.

That’s not how we should be moving forward as a country. That is just not. And that’s not what the President believes.

Q Thank you. So, on this border video. What does President Biden think should happen to adult men who are assaulting and overpowering U.S. National Guardsmen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me just first say, we’re grateful — and I said this moments ago — to Border Patrol agents for their — to — to quickly — to quickly work and get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants.

So, l- — I want to be really clear that everyone who was apprehended was apprehended by Border Patrol. They were able to do their job, even though it’s made it more — even though Republican governor — in particular, Governor Abbott — has made it difficult for them.

They need more resources. We need more personnel. I mean, we have to have the backs of our law enforcement on the ground are — who are dealing with this every day. But Republicans are getting in the way. Republicans in Congress do not want to help. And you have a governor, Governor Abbott, who is politicizing it. That is what’s happening.

Border Patrol agents did their job, even though, you know, the governor is getting in the way of them doing their jobs.

Q But — I get that you guys — you talk so much about having a more humane immigration system. This video does not show helpless women and children begging for a safe place to come in. It shows adult men landing haymakers on U.S. troops in uniform. If that was happening anywhere else in the world, wouldn’t President Biden send reinforcements?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, two things. Everyone was apprehended by the Border Patrol agents. That is important to note. They were apprehended.

Q Were they deported?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wh- — they were apprehended. I can’t speak to indivil — individual cases. That’s not something I can do from here. But they were all apprehended. That’s number one.

And it — the reason why you’re talking about the Texas National Guard, they were there because of the governor of Texas. The governor of Texas put the Texas National Guard there. We didn’t put them there. He put them there.

What we need is actually real solutions. We need to see resources. The Border Patrol agents deserve resources. They deserve to be able to do their jobs. And we’re not getting that
from Republicans. They’re rejecting a bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.

Q And last one. There is a Venezuelan migrant with half a million followers on TikTok who is telling border crossers they can live in empty houses in this country. Would President Biden support a law that would make that kind of squatting illegal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have not seen that TikTok video, so I can’t comment on that.

Go ahead, Akayla. Oh, maybe not. (Laughs.)

Q Oh, yes. Does the President have plans to speak to Hakeem Jeffries now that there has been a motion to vacate Speaker Mike Johnson about whether Democrats will support him if that vote happens?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s something for Democrats to — to speak to. We’re not going to get involved. We do not get involved. We’ve been pretty — pretty consistent. Regardless if it’s Republicans or Democrats, we’ve been pretty consistent in that.

We trust Hakeem Jeffries’s leadership. He’s the leader of the Democrats. That is for them to decide on. I’m not going to comment on that.

Q But if Democrats were to force him to bring a vote to the national security supplemental bill, would Biden then support their support of the Speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Look, Democrats are going to make their decision. Democrats’ leadership, Hakeem Jeffries is going to make their own decision on how to move forward. We’re going to be consistent here on how important it is to move the national security supplemental.

We’ve been very clear. It passed 70-29 out of the Senate. Overwhelmingly — we believe it would pass overwhelmingly in the House if it was put to the floor. And there’s no — there’s no time to wait here. There’s no time to wait.

We see what’s going on in Ukraine. A lot of that is because of congressional inaction. We can’t — we can’t continue to allow that to happen. Ukraine needs the funding, the security, obviously, to continue to defend themselves. And that’s what we’re going to continue to speak to.

Go ahead.

Q Just a quick housekeep- — housekeeping matter. Will the President head to Wilmington regardless of whether the shutdown is going to be averted or not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you hear us say this all the time. This is still the case with this situ- — this scenario that we’re seeing, obviously, in Congress right now, is that the President is the President wherever he is, and he can do his business wherever he is.

I just don’t have a change in his — his schedule at this time.

Go ahead.

Q The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been closing in on 40,000 this week. It’s down a little bit today. But does the President see that as an economic achievement, or does he view that — in his view, is the stock market not necessarily representative of the economy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what we’ve said many times here — you’ve heard that from our economists; you’ve heard that from me — is the stock market is not the economy. We understand that. It is clear that President Biden’s economic plan is working to grow the middle class, spur investments in manufacturing.

You just heard me talk about what we saw in Arizona, what the President was able to announce in Arizona: semiconductors from — that came out of the CHIPS — CHIPS and Science Act — incredibly important bipartisan legislation; infrastructure and outperform other countries. That’s what we’re trying to do here.

So, record stock market highs under President Biden are good for retirement accounts, obviously, household wealth, which is why we would never root for a stock market crash or for Americans to lose their jobs. That’s not what this President is all — is about.

Q Could you — if there — there could potentially be a lapse in funding if they can’t get this passed in the Senate by tonight. Can you speak to what the op- — or the planning has been like for White House operations here, like who would be deemed essential? Can people work over the weekend? That kind of thing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, Congress can prevent this — this partial shutdown. We believe there’s still time to do that. So, I want to be very clear here. But like every other agency, we are reviewing and updating our contingency plan. This is something that we do regularly. And we’ll have more to share, obviously, once — once that is finalized.

But federal employees just across the government will — will furlough, and that includes White House staff, just to give you a little bit of what that would look like.

But we believe there is still time. There is still time for Congress to prevent a partial shutdown. We — you know, this — this doesn’t have to be. This doesn’t have to be. And obviously, we’re always — like every agency, we look at all options.

Q If I could ask one question related to the royals. When King Charles had been diagnosed with cancer, President Biden had said that he had hoped to speak with him. Did they ever connect?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I have — don’t have a call to read out about what the President and the King — and King Charles. I just don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q Do you expect the President will reach out to King Charles over the weekend about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, look, as I said before, obviously, it is a tragic news. It is devastating news. And we certainly — the Duchess — wish the Duchess of Cambridge a — a full recovery. We want to respect their privacy, especially at this time. They have young children. They have a family, so we want to respect their privacy.

I don’t have anything to share on the President reaching out. We just are learning this news. Literally, as I walked out, this news came — came to be. And so, it is incredibly devastating to hear, and we wish her, again, a full recovery.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thanks. It was just over a week ago that the White House announced the new weapons package for Ukraine, and Jake Sullivan had said at the time it could move very quickly to get there. Do you have an update on whether that assistance has reached Ukraine and reached the battlefield yet?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, it was important to be able to — to have that extra additional as- — funding for — to give the additional assistance. Ukraine obviously needs that. They are — they have lo- — lo- — been losing ground in the battlefield. So, obviously, Jake came here and gave a lowdown — a laydown of how important that is.

I don’t have any specifics on where we are on getting that funding — or not getting that funding — getting the assistance to — to the Ukrainians. I would refer you to the Department of Defense. But it was important. It’s critical to do everything that we can to make sure Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself.

But that is not enough. You also heard Jake Sullivan say that from here. That is not enough. We have to move forward and get the national security supplemental. They — it has to get out of the House. We know it we got out of the Senate. It’s important to do that.

(Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know we’ve got to wrap up. Go ahead, Jon.

Q Thanks, Karine. The House Republican majority will narrow even further next month. Mike Gallagher announced that he’s stepping down from Congress on April the 19th. Does that present an opportunity for the White House to try to pass that national security supplemental, given the fact that the numbers, the dynamics may be changing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I mean, we don’t even need the dynamics to change — right? — in the House to get this done. We really don’t. If the Speaker were to put it on — on the floor — would have put it on the floor weeks ago, today, it would pass overwhelmingly. We know that to be true because we’ve heard from Republicans; you know where Democrats stand. We know that.

And so, we don’t need the dynamics of the House to change. We just need the Speaker to do his job and put forth on the floor something that we know, a — a — this national security supplemental, a bill that we know would pass overwhelmingly. That’s what he needs to do.

We need it. We need it for our own national security. It is important to get this done on behalf of the American people.

All right, everybody. Have a great weekend. We’ll see you next week.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, everyone.

Q Thanks, Karine.

2:54 P.M. EDT

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

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Dallas, Texas

5:07 P.M. MST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. I just have two things at the top, and then I’ll turn it over to the Admiral for his update.

Today, in Chandler, Arizona, President Biden announced a preliminary agreement with Intel for a CHIPS award for up to $8.5 billion. The investment will unlock over $100 billion in private investment by Intel and will create nearly 30,000 jobs, many of which are union jobs in construction and manufacturing across Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon.

In Arizona and Ohio, Intel investments are among the largest private-sector investment in each state’s history. Because of investments like the one President Biden announced today, semiconductor manufacturing is growing, semiconductor jobs are making a comeback.

Building off of the President’s State of the Union Address, this investment is in line with the President’s vision to build the economy from the middle out and bottom up, create good-paying jobs in America, strengthen U.S. supply chains, and protect national security.

One last thing. And as President Biden is presenting his economic vision today, so are House Republicans. President Biden warned in his State of the Union Address that many of his Republican friends in Congress want to put Social Security on the chopping block.

And as — as — and he was clear that “if anyone here tries to cut Social Security or Medicare,” he would stop them. That’s a quote from him in the State of the Union.

He’s already keeping that promise because, today, House Republicans are at it again. The Republican Study Committee, which represents about 80 percent of House Republicans and 100 percent of their leadership, just proposed yet another budget that cuts Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Cutting the Medicare and Social Security benefits and — that Americans paid to earn is wrong, and President Biden strongly opposes this latest House Republican plan to do it. The last thing we should do is raid Medicare and Social Security, while giving more giant tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations.

President Biden has a di- — has a different vision for how we move into the future: make the big corporations, the wealthy, and special interests pay their fair share while strengthening Medicare and Social Security.

With that, the Admiral, I believe, has an update for you all.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine.

Two things: Ukraine and Haiti. Today, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan traveled to Kyiv to meet with President Zelenskyy and senior Ukrainian officials to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to supporting Ukraine as they continue to defend themselves.

Mr. Sullivan underscored the multiple lines of U.S. effort to Ukraine, following yesterday’s successful Ukraine Defense Contact Group that Secretary Austin hosted in Ramstein, which included a number of pledges from several co- — countries, including a significant contribution by Germany — more than 500 billion euros from Germany alone.

And, of course, he stressed the urgent need for the U.S. House of Representatives to pass the national security supplemental to meet Ukraine’s critical battlefield and humanitarian needs.

He emphasized how, two years into this war, the United States stands with the people of Ukraine, and he stressed that our commitment to doing so — our commitment to continue doing so every day.

Mr. Sullivan discussed ongoing efforts with allies and partners to hold Russia accountable for its aggression as we continue to impose severe sanctions and export controls on Russia and our efforts to mitigate the economic and humanitarian impacts of the war in Ukraine.

They also discussed progress on anticorruption and other key reforms needed to further Ukraine’s European — Euro- — Euro-Atlantic integration.

He did a press conference in Kyiv. The transcript has been posted. Some of you probably — may have already seen it.

If I could quickly turn to Haiti and some of the things we’re doing to help American citizens that are — that are there.

First, I think it’s important to note that we have had a “do not travel” notice and advisory alert to Haiti in place since 2020 precisely because of the ongoing instability caused by the gangs. And we’ve been stressing that the United States government cannot guarantee American citizens will all be evacuated given the treacherous situation on the ground.

That said, we have informed Americans who are registered with the State Department that we’re exploring various options to help them depart from Port-au-Prince and also from Cap-Haïtien.

On Sunday, we were able to evacuate a small group on a U.S. government-organized charter flight. They were American citizens that were ready to — to depart and were able to get to Cap-Haïtien on their own safely.

Earlier this afternoon, a U.S. government-organized helicopter with approximately 15 American citizens departed from Port-au-Prince and landed safely in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. And as circumstances permit, we’ll be able to repeat this. We hope to able to repeat this in coming days.

The United States government has no higher priority than the safety of Americans who are overseas. All of our contingency planning and assistance, however, must take into account the security environment, and that’s what we’ve been doing since the end of February.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q On Jake’s meeting today, did he glean any sort of new insight or new information on how dire the conditions are on the ground in Ukraine and what their capacity is, where their weapons levels are, and things like that?

MR. KIRBY: He did have a chance to talk to Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy’s national security advisor, and, quite frankly, the president himself about the situation on the battlefield and got an update — particularly, the — the difficulty that they’re having in the Donbas, in particular. That is where the Russians are really trying to push west out of Avdiivka.

And the Ukrainians have formed about three defensive lines. That first defensive line, just a few kilometers to the west of Avdiivka, is the one that’s under the most stress and pressure right now.

Now, the Russians have been bragging quite a bit. Mr. Putin was bragging a little bit about some of the towns and villages that they’ve taken. None of these have any strategic value. It’s really just an effort, particularly in the wake of his election, to prove that they’re sort of making progress.

And, look, I’m not going to dispute, they are making progress. They are going — they are pushing west, and the Ukrainian commanders are having to make some really difficult decisions about what they’ll spend and what they won’t spend to try to defend that territory.

Q And I know Jake ment- — was asked about this at the press conference, but did the issue of a loan rather than an aid actually come up in his meetings with Ukraini- — Ukrainian officials?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t have that level of detail, that — in what capacity they talked about the continued support, but Jake did make it clear that — that he believes it’s really important for the House of Representatives to move on this supplemental.

And you’ll see it in his transcript. He got asked a little bit about our level of optimism. And he — he said on the record that he felt sure that we were going to get there.

Q Can you give us an update on the peace talks and the possibility of a six-week ceasefire? Would you say that it’s getting closer, is imminent, or still quite a ways away?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t really have an update for you, Jeff. The discussions are ongoing. You know, Secretary Blinken is in the region as we speak. He’s in Saudi Arabia today. He’s got a — he’s going to Cairo, and then he’ll wrap up his trip in Israel. And this will be a key focus of him, getting a sense from our counterparts there of how the discussions are going.

Q Also on Israel. Canada is the first Western nation to stop supplying arms to Israel. What does the White House think of this decision? And has the administration communicated at all with any Can- — Canadian officials about this?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not aware of any conversations that we’ve had with Canada about this. This is their decision to make — sovereign country, we certainly respect that.

What we’re focused on is what I just talked about in terms of Jake’s visit: making sure that we can get that supplemental from Congress, making sure we can continue to find ways to — to support Ukraine.

It gets — it gets kind of buried a little bit because we do them so often, but these Ukraine Contact Defense Groups are really important meetings — more than 50 countries. And, as I said, Germany really stepped up in a big way after the most recent one. So, our allies and partners are also doing everything they can.

Q Also on Israel. Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu was speaking to Senate Republicans after Senator Schumer called for new elections in Israel. Schumer declined to have him speak to Senate Republicans. Did Schumer consult with the White House on this decision? And what does the White House think of this decision not to have Netanyahu speak to Democrats?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not aware of any consultation with the — with Leader Schumer. And I’m happy to go back and ask that question. But I’m not aware that there was any coordination on that. We respect the — the Leader’s prerogatives here in terms of — of not accepting that invitation.

Look, I mean, the prime minister can decide for himself, of course, who he wants to — to talk to and how he wants to handle that. But I do think it’s important to remember that support for Israel, for Israel’s sovereignty, for Israel’s security, for the Israeli people has been a longstanding bipartisan issue in this country going back multiple, multiple administrations. I mean, heck, back to Harry Truman.

And — and it’s indicative, I think, of the broad support that the Israeli people know they can count on from the American people. And it’s important that that support stay bipartisan.

Q John, in the press conference, Jake, as you said, expressed confidence that the aid package would pass and also said that he didn’t see a reason to move on from plan A, the supplemental that you’ve offered. Is that sort of the hopeful thinking that we’ve heard from Jake for the last three or four months? Or does that suggest that now that the funding deal has gotten wrapped up on Capitol Hill, some sort of breakthrough with Speaker Johnson on — on moving forward with that package?

MR. KIRBY: I think — again, I think it speaks to — to Jake’s sense of where we’re at and — and how the discussions are going, and I can’t really improve upon it th- — than what Jake said.

Also important to remember as we’re talking about bipartisan support for Israel: There is bipartisan and bicameral support for Ukraine. That’s clearly obvious. And you’ve heard Kar- — from Karine many, many times: If it — if it came to the floor, it would get voted on.

So, I think Jake is talking — I mean, he’s speaking from the realities here, that we — that we know there’s strong bipartisan support for Ukraine, and — and we’re hopeful that they’ll — they’ll be able to get this done.

Q Hong Kong passed a new security law. I was wondering if you guys had a reaction on it both generally — because, obviously, it’s been a flashpoint over the last few years there — and then if there were specific concerns about how this might impact Americans or American companies that are in Hong Kong.

MR. KIRBY: I think it’s a little early to know exactly how it’s going to affect American companies. But we certainly saw the reports and we’re — and we’re concerned about what this could do to the open society that Hong Kong was so famous for and so rightly respected for.

Q Admiral, on Haiti. Governor DeSantis of Florida had brought back some Florida citizens who were there. Did you guys have a heads-up on that, and did you offer any support?

And then, also, as you said, your priority is to protect Americans. Are you thinking U.S. boots will end up on the ground there?

MR. KIRBY: In Haiti?

Q Yeah, in Haiti.

MR. KIRBY: On your first question, no conversations with the governor that I’m aware of, and we were not involved.

The focus right now for Haiti is not only supporting the political process, and that’s moving forward — and Secretary Blinken was a key part of those discussions back in Jamaica last week — and then continuing to work with Kenya on a Kenyan-led multinational security support mission that — that they’re still working on — on putting together.

But no — no decisions one way or another right now about — about any kind of American military support.

Q John, also on Haiti. Are there any plans at this point if the number of folks seeking asylum or migrants coming out of Haiti were leaving the country — is there a concern that there would be an increase in Haitians coming towards the U.S.? And is there, at this point, a contingency plan or any plans to — to try and —

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, sure. Look, I mean, the — we’ve — we’re watching this very, very closely. And we are certainly working across the interagency — and that includes with U.S. Southern Command down in Miami — to make sure that we’re prepared should there be a mass migration movement out of Haiti.

Now, I’ll tell you, we’re just not seeing that right now. We’re watching it real close, but we’re just not seeing it.

But absolutely. And we are a — as an interagency — a planning organization, and we’re certainly working through what the contingencies and the capabilities that might be required.

But, again, we’re not — we’re just not seeing it in those numbers.

Q John, on Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu says he has already approved the operational plan for Rafah. Has the White House seen those plans yet?

MR. KIRBY: I am not aware that we have actually seen the — the plans.

Now, as you know, we’re looking forward to having a discussion hopefully next week with an Israeli delegation here in Wa- — or in Washington to — to offer some viable options for them to think about as they think about going into Rafah.

Again, we do not support a major ground offensive into Rafah — you heard Jake talk about that the other day — certainly not without due consideration for the 1.5 million people that are seeking refuge down there.

Q Admiral, has the President spoken to the Irish Taoiseach since he said he was going to resign? And did that come up at all when the Taoiseach was here? What was the President’s reaction?

MR. KIRBY: He has not spoken to the Taoiseach since the news broke today. And I — I won’t go beyond the readouts of the conversations.

Okay.

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks.

Okay. What you guys got?

Q A couple of topics. One, House Oversight Chairman Jamie Comer is now mo- — more and more talking about doing criminal referrals as it relates to his committee’s investigation since impeachment seems to not be going very well for them. Is the — what is the White House —

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

Q What is the White House’s reaction to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q And — actually, first of all, what’s the White House’s reaction to Comer floating that option out there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. And I’m glad you said that it’s not going well for them at — at all. And just want to reiterate that.

Let me just say something about today’s hearing. And I’ll say this: It’s just the latest example, and it kind of answers your question as well, of how House Republicans’ impeachment stunt has dragged on for months and months, yet has uncovered zero evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.

It’s obviously time to move on. That’s what we believe. You saw the letter from the White House Counsel’s — White — the President’s White House Counsel last week.

And so, Republicans need to drop this stunt and join the President in focusing on real issues that matter to the American people.

And so, that’s kind of what we believe. It’s time to move on. We need to focus on the American people. This is something that has just not gone well for House Republicans.

Let’s focus on issues, on matters that really, really are important, like the national security supplemental that would pass, as we’ve stated over and over again, in a bipartisan fashion if the Speaker were to put that on the floor; like the — the bipartisan agreement that came together in the Senate to deal with a real issue on the border and immigration. That would actually make — that would actually meet the — some of the things — a few things that meet what we need as — for the American people.

And let me just add: It is majority — as we — as I’m talking about the border — the border challenges, and a majority of Americans want that. It is something that would be important. We want them — see it move forward. And that’s what they should be focused on: real matter, real issues.

You heard me talk at the top about their — their budget. The President has said we got to protect Medicare; we got to protect Social Security. Those are the issues that the President wants to talk about, you know, not — not baseless — baseless — baseless issues that they’re bringing up or wanting to go after the President and his family. Let’s focus on the American family.

Q I guess, specifically on a criminal referral, is there any concern at the White House that if there is a second Trump administration, that a Trump Justice Department could actually do something with those criminal referrals targeting the President and his family?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not — I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals from here. Let’s focus on the here and now. There are real issues that the Pres- — the — we believe, that the President believes American families and Americans want us to focus on. You heard him talk about many of those issues as he talked about his vision in the State of the Union. That’s what we want to focus. I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.

Q (Inaudible.)

Q I was just going to ask a follow-up, if the President got briefed on the hearing today, or is it just out of his mind?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I got to tell you, the President was pretty busy today. If he was able to even catch a glimpse or really get any type of update, I’d be surprised. As you know, we — we’re leaving Arizona, where he was able to tour Intel. He made a major announcement for the people of Ar- — Arizona on chips — chips manufacturing, semiconductors — incredibly important; creating, you heard me say, 30,000 jobs –all important.

And so, he’s just really been busy. And so, I cannot imagine the President — (laughs) — had any chance to get an update. As you know, now, we are all going to Texas, and he’s going to do some campaign events, as you all know.

Q On another topic. There is now a Democratic senator on record opposing Adeel Mangi — Man- — Mangi for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. And Senator Cortez Masto mentioned his — his position on the advisory board for the Alliance of Families for Justice.

I’m wondering: One, what is the White House doing to get this nomination back on track? And, two, is that a fair reason for Senator Cortez Masto and potentially other Democrats to oppose his nomination?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be careful. I’m not going to speak to or respond to specific members. I’ll say this, and I’ve said it before: The President is proud to have nominated Mr. Mangi, whose extraordinary qualifications and integrity are gaining him new backing each day, including from the seventh law enforcement organization to endorse his confirmation, as well as retired Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

Mr. Mangi, who has lived in the — who has lived the American Dream and proven his integrity, is being targeted by a malicious and debunked smear campaign solely because he would make history as the first Muslim to serve as a federal appellate judge. Senate Democrats should side with the qualities that make America exceptional, which Mr. Mangi embodies, not the hateful forces trying to force America into the past.

So, we are proud — the President is proud to have nominated him, and we’re doing everything that we can — working, talking to congressional members, congressional staff, obviously, on the Senate to move forward with his nomination process.

Q Given that we’re on the way to Texas, regarding the immigration enforcement law out of Texas. The Supreme Court said that it could go into effect. The lower court said that it could not go into effect. Do you believe that the overlapping orders from various courts is — are creating confusion? And how should local law enforcement navigate this uncertainty?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just take a step back for a second. So, we’ve said from the beginning that SB 4 is an extreme, unconstitutional law that will burden law enforcement and make communities less safe. We dis- — we disagreed with the Supreme Court order yesterday letting — letting the law go into effect, and we welcome the Fifth Circuit overnight pausing implementation of it.

Ultimately, we need resolutions. You’ve heard me talk about that just in the past couple of minutes. Congress should pass the bipartisan border security agreement immediately — immediately. And that is where we are. That is where we stand. And we’ve been very clear — we’ve been very vocal about SB 4.

And so, Congress — this is — this is an opportunity for Congress, if they really care about what’s going on at the border, if — I’m speaking of House Republicans; Republicans more — more broadly — if they truly care about the border and what’s going on, the challenges, and — and truly dealing with immigration, they should move forward with a bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.

And I’ve said this many times. I’ll say it again. It got support from the Bor- — Border Patrol union. It got support from the — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Those things you don’t normally see.

And so, it is something that Americans care about. It’s — what we’re seeing with SB 4, it’s not going to protect communities. It’s just not. It is part of a — of a political stunt that we continue to see from the Governor of Texas. But we can fix this. We can fix this if Republicans would get out of their own way and move forward with this.

Q On — on SB 4. Does the President plan to address SB 4 in Texas? And, also, you know, if it does go into place, could there possibly be a federal government plan to train officers that are now going to have the added authority to arrest migrants?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, it’s a campaign — he’s doing campaign events, as you know, in Texas. I’m not going to get ahead of him. If you want specifics on what he’s going to be doing, I would refer you to the campaign.

I’m not going to get into hypotheticals and what — what could happen, what may happen. We know where we are legally today. What we are going to continue to do is be very clear and — you know, and say that Congress needs to move forward with a bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate. It took multiple months to get that done. The President’s team worked on this. And we have to actually deal with an issue that’s affecting Americans and their families, an issue that majority of Americans care about.

This is — this is actually an easy one. It’s not hard. It’s not difficult. Pick up the bi- — pick up that proposal that they came together with, the bi- — the senators, Republicans and Democrats. Pick it up, look at it, take a look at it.

The former President, Donald Trump, is getting in the way here. He’s — he — and you’ve heard this President talk about it. From what we heard and you all reported, he picked up the phone — this is President — President Trump — and started lobbying Republicans in Congress to not support this bill because of his own political gain.

So, this is not who — this is not who we should be. This is not. We should actually meet the needs of the American people and move forward in a bipartisan way.

Q Karine, is the President and the White House tracking some of the issues that Boeing has been having? And what’s his level of concern about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t know if you all saw the interview. There was an interview on NBC with — hold on a second — with the FAA Administrator. So, obviously, he spoke to this. So, let — I would let whatever — you know, what — that interview stand for itself.

What we will say is we stand by the actions that the FAA is taking to increase its safety — its safety oversight of Boeing. And so, we want to make sure that, you know, that continues. Obviously, the safety of Americans is the number-one priority — not just for the FAA, obviously, for the President. And that’s what we — you know, we support the actions that they’re taking.

Q Separate —

Q Karine, really quick on Intel.

Q Small separate issue.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure.

Q The President yesterday in his remarks used the phrase “make America great again.” And it was not in reference to President Trump’s campaign slogan. Just wondering if that was an ad lib —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q — or what he meant by that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think the President is always going to be focused on the American people. He’s always going to be focused on a vision on how to move us forward, whether it’s with the economy, whether it’s dealing with the climate change crisis, whether it’s abroad in our relationship with our partners and allies. And that’s always going to be where he is, like, zeroed in on.

And we would say, the last three years — and not speaking to, obviously, the campaign or anything like that. The last three years, the President has turned the economy around. He’s built an economy from the bottom up, middle out, making sure no communities are left behind. You saw him visit Latino communities and continue to speak to what he’s going to do not just for Latino communities, for all communities.

And so, that’s going to be his focus. And I’ll just — I’ll just leave it there for now.

Q Quickly on Intel. The Intel CEO said yesterday that — you know, this is obviously a very large investment that the administration made, but he says there’s more that still needs to be put into manufacturing semiconductors. And he called for a CHIPS Two —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q — like, a second act. Did he share that — that idea with the President? Does the President know that he — he’s already out there saying this? And does the White House agree that there does need to be a second round of this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look — so, I’ll say this. I — I have not spoken to the President about those par- — that particular comment that you just presented with me. I’ll say this. The President is very proud of this bipartisan legislation — obviously, now law — the chips manufacturing act that was able to be done. It’s going to bring home manufacturing here — America — America made.

As we saw today just in Arizona, it’s a big deal. It is a big deal. Is the President always going to want to do more, making sure that we’re making — bringing manufacturing home, creating good-paying jobs, good union jobs? Some of those jobs, you don’t need a four-year college degree. You can make a — the folks can make 100k a year. That’s a big deal. That’s a big deal. It’s a big deal for the communities. It’s a big deal for job growth.

And so, the President is always going to want to make sure we continue that. I haven’t spoken to him directly. But chips manufacturing act is critical. It’s important. We saw that today in Arizona alone.

But the President has barnstormed the country where we’ve talked about manufacturing that’s coming back in that particular community and what that means to that community.

And so, I’m glad that — I’m glad that he’s excited about it — (laughs) — that he wants a CHIP Two.

All right, guys. Thank you.

Q Thank you.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ll see you on the ground.

5:32 P.M. MST

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

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Reno, Nevada

12:01 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Welcome to our three-state trip in two days. Exciting.

All right. This afternoon, in Las Vegas, the President will double down on his plan to lower housing costs for American families. Under his leadership, we have already taken action to lower housing costs and increase the housing supply by reducing mortgage insurance premiums, expanding rental assistance, and building tens of thousands of affordable housing units.

While on the ground, the President will meet directly with everyday Americans, everyday people who have been able to secure affordable housing as a result of these investments.

In this state alone, the President’s American Rescue Plan, which every Republican in Congress voted against, provided $1 billion dollars to boost affordable housing, lower — lower housing costs, and keep hone- — homeowners and renters in their homes.

Still, the President knows that more must be done to help American families who are still struggling with the cost of housing. That’s why he’s calling on Congress to pass his housing plan, which some of — some experts are calling the most consequential housing plan in more than 50 years.

The President’s plan would build on the efforts we have already taken to lower — lower housing costs by providing a $10,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, cracking down on corporate actions that rip off renters, and building and renovating more than 2 million homes.

Republicans in Congress should pass the President’s plan to lower housing costs rather than try to cut taxes for the wealthy and large corporations. And you’ll hear that from the President later today.

With that, Seung Min.

Q Does the White House have a reaction to the spending deal that the congressional leaders reached? And is the White House satisfied with how that package approaches DHS funding, in particular?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we put out a statement this morning. You probably were not able to see it —

Q Probably in flight, yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, in flight — in flight.

So, this agreement on the six remaining funding bills, including DHS — this agreement abides by the Fiscal Responsibility Act and provides the remaining agencies with funding through the rest of the fiscal year.

The House and Senate appropriations committees are in the process of finalizing the text for Congress to review and pass as soon as possible to keep the government open, and the President will sign it immediately.

Congress must also pass the bipartisan national security supplemental. As you know, it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. We want to see the — the — we want to see the Speaker put that on the floor and — this is — and — and also the border sec- — border agreement, which also came out on the Senate — obviously, wasn’t passed out of the Senate because of politics — politics was put — put in the way of even moving forward the border agreement — but to provide reforms and funding needed to secure the border.

And so, we want to see those two — the border — border agreement negotiations go through the process. And we want to see the national security supplemental that was passed by 70-29 out of the Senate go to the floor of — of the House so that we know — we know for a fact that we would see overwhelming support from the House. We want to see that movement as soon as possible.

Q And does the administration have any more specifics on when that meeting with the Israeli officials will take place with the administration —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —

Q — when, where, who?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so, we’re working on scheduling and preparations. It will likely be early next week, is what we’re anticipating. But obviously, we’ll let you know more when we have more to share.

Just to give you a little bit of what Jake said yesterday. So, ye- — so, the President asked Prime Minister to send senior interagency team r- — composed of military, intelligence, and humanitarian officials to Washington in the upcoming days, as I said, probably early next week.

As far as who on our side, it’ll be senior members from the administration acro- — across the administration will participate.

Q Karine, can you give us an update about the peace talks going on in Qatar today? And also a comment on — the U.N. Human Rights Agency said that because famine is coming closer or already there in Gaza, that would be a war crime by Israel. Does the United States view that as well?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, what I can say is this, as it relates to the report that we all — all of you has been reporting on. So, we certainly are deeply concerned about the report yesterday indicating, as you just stated in your question, about the imminent famine in Gaza. And so, as the report makes clear, despite ongoing and tireless efforts, including by this administration, the amount of aid reaching people in Gaza and particularly those most need — need remains insufficient.

So, we have been clear that there is more that needs to be done and that this report is a stark and devastating reminder of this.

Everyone needs to do more. Israel needs to provide sustained and un- — unimpeded access for assistance to enter both Northern and Southern Gaza. Donors, the international community also need to make sure that the right type of assistance is getting to the most vulnerable.

Obviously, this is why we’ve been working towards the hostage deal to make sure that — not only that we get a temporary ceasefire to get those hostages home — let’s not forget, there are also American hostages that are being held by Hamas — but also to get that all-important, needed aid to the — to the Palestinian people in Gaza.

So, we’re continuing to do that work. I know that Jake spoke to this as well when he was at the — at the podium yesterday. So, we’re going to continue to push forward and do everything that we can to get that hostage deal so that we can get more humanitarian aid and, obviously, get hostages home.

And we’re — we’re up — as you know, we’re increasing our humanitarian efforts into Gaza with the pier, with the airdrops. And, also, as you know, we also announced more funding — more humanitarian funding over the past week or so. So, that is — that is our — and we see that as an imperative, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

Q And — and specifically on the allegation that Israel is using hunger as a weapon, which would be considered a war crime?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — obviously, I can’t speak to that. What I can speak to is the efforts that we are making to make sure that we’re getting humanitarian aid into — into Gaza. We’ve had conversations, as I’ve stated in — earlier, with the Israeli government to — for them also to do more in getting that humanitarian aid, getting the trucks in — right? — getting — and doing more, keeping — keeping those — keeping — keeping that going.

And so, that’s what I can speak to at this time.

Q Karine, Hong — Hong Kong passed its controversial new security law — Hong Kong.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, Hong Kong. Okay.

Q An- — and I was wondering if you guys had any reaction or if you were at all concerned about the impact on American businesses that were operating there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I saw that reporting. I haven’t had a chance to talk to our team yet so — so I can give you a full- — full-throated answer. So, I’m going to have to go back. But I saw that this morning. I just haven’t had a chance to have the conversation.

Q One other one on Ukraine. There have been a series of Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy facilities that are processing oil. Is that a concern that the U.S. has, that it could potentially lead to higher global oil prices? And is that something that you’ve conveyed to the Ukrainians?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President has done everything that he can to deal with — to deal with oil. Obviously, lowing down — lowering — the actions that he took led to lowering gas prices. So, we’re — we’re always monitoring. We’re always watching. I don’t have anything specific on — on what could potentially happen in that particular incident. But, obviously, this is something that we monitor and keep —

Q Karine, on Ukraine. There’s been some talk among Republicans about possibly making aid to them a loan. What is the White House’s thoughts on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — and I just said this moments ago: The House needs to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental. That’s what we need to see. We saw it come out of the Senate — again, I just said this earlier — 70 to 29. It is imperative that gets done.

Ukraine needs — needs the assistance. We have to continue our commitment to the brave people of Ukraine as they’re fighting and doing everything that they can to fight for their democracy. So, we got to — the Speaker has to bring it to the floor. He has to put politics aside. We know what happens when you don’t — when we don’t stop a dictator, when we don’t address tyranny.

And so, that’s what we’re going to continue to call for. And we’re going to stay steadfast on that.

Q In a — in a new book, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer expresses his concern about the direction of the Supreme Court. A new article in The Atlantic also calls for Justice Sonia Sotomayor to retire. Where does the White House stand, kind of, in a post-Dobbs world on Supreme Court reform? And has the White House considered asking Justice Sotomayor to retire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, that’s a personal decision for her to make. That is something that — (laughs) — that she has to make. It’s not something that we make — we — we lean in on or get involved in. So, I’m not even going to address that — that question.

As it relates to the Supreme Court, look, we saw
what happened with Dobbs — the Dobbs decision. We saw, with that decision, it led to Republicans introducing three national — national abortion bans. And that has caused — because of the Dobb’s decision, because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it’s caused chaos.

You’ve heard us talk about IVF, how now there’s legislation — we saw legislation in Alabama to take away the right for a family to make a decision — right? — for — you know, for a couple or for an individual to make a decision on when to start a family. And that’s because of the chaos that — overturning Roe v. Wade.

And so, the Supreme Court made that decision. It was very clear what the last President said. He wanted to put — put together a Supreme Court that would do that, that would overturn Roe v. Wade. And so, we’ve seen their action. We’ve seen it with affirmative action, what they’ve been able to do there.

And so, I think that speaks — their actions speak for themselves. I’m just not going to go beyond that.

Q Karine, Chef José Andrés was pretty critical of the President’s efforts to get humanitarian aid and specifically food on the ground in Gaza. This is a person who obviously works to feed people all over the world, and he said the efforts from the White House weren’t enough, the maritime direction wasn’t the best way to go.

Who is the White House working with on the ground to get that sense of what the best way forward is to feed people in Gaza?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you know, there are organizations on the ground — right? — that — that we work with and that we know are — are helping and assisting getting more aid to — to Palestinians in — Palestinian citizens in Gaza. So, that is obviously a way that — that we have seen that process go.

Look, we have upped our — we’ve upped what we’ve been trying to do in getting more aid — more humanitarian aid into Gaza. We believe a mar- — the maritime — the pier is one way to do that. The airdrops is another way to do that. We are doing everything that we can to get that hostage deal.

We understand what’s happening in Gaza. There’s a humanitarian crisis that innocent Palestinians are dealing with, and so, obviously, we take — we’re very concerned about that. And we’re going to do everything that we can to continue those efforts.

We know we need to up our efforts. And so, that’s why you’ve heard us almost every week announcing new ways to do that.

We have to get this hostage deal. We are — we are doing — working 24/7, leaning in, and trying to make sure that we get that — get that hostage deal, so that we have a temporary ceasefire so that we can — we can get that all-important aid into — into Gaza. So, that’s been a — very much a big focus, as well as getting American — American hostages and hostages, obviously, back home to their friends and families.

Q Did you guys see the statement from the chef? Do you have a specific reaction?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I did not see the statement.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can speak to is our efforts here. And we’ve been pretty consistent. You know, we’ve been talking about ways that we’re trying to make sure that we get that aid in. We understand what the crisis that’s going on in — in Gaza. We see it, you know, and — and we want to do everything that we can to get that aid in.

And so, you’ve heard from USAID. You’ve heard from the State Department. Sec- — Secre- — Secretary Blinken right now is in the region, which is important — having important, critical diplomatic conversation. That’s going to include humanitarian aid.

And so, the President and his team has been really, really focused on that — that approach as well: getting humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Q We’re heading to a couple of border states. In Arizona and in Texas, they’re considering laws that would essentially make officers able to arrest undocumented immigrants they suspect crossed to the state illegally. Is there more that the White House can do to prevent these states from essentially setting up their own immigration enforcement laws?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I’ve — I’ve mentioned this multiple times already. We got to get that border supp- — that border deal — that border security deal done. We need to provide DHS with more funding, more — with more resources to actually deal with the challenges at the border.

And so, that has been our focus. Let’s not forget, this se- — this — this border security deal was a bipartisan deal that came out of the Senate — Republicans, Democrats. It took us months to get the — to get us there.

The President directed his — his team to work with them. And — and we were able to get something done that was supported by the Border Patrol union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is something that you don’t see in this type of political discourse. Right? And we were able to get that done.

Now, Republicans blocked it because of politics, because of the former President. And if we want to be where a majority of Americans are — wanting to deal with the immigration system, wanting to deal with the challenges of the border — we got to get this done.

And so that’s our answer there: We want to move forward. We think that the Senate and the House need to — need to get that done. We have — we have a deal. We have a negotiation that took months to get done — months to get done that will actually address this issue or start the process.

It — if it is put into law, it would be the toughest and the fairest immigration border security deal that we have seen in years. And so, that’s what the President has been — continued to — to speak to, and that’s what we want to see.

Q Going back to the loan question. I mean, obviously, I know the White House’s preference is for that supplemental to pass the House. But is the loan option something that the administration has researched, whether it’s OMB or elsewhere, whether it’s even possible or workable in the way that some Republicans have been discussing it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, rather than go back to basics, we’re — we don’t — we want to see — we want to see —

(A reporter picks up a binder tab and returns it to Ms. Jean-Pierre.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Is that mine? Oh, my gosh. Thank you so much. My tab. (Laughter.)

We want see the bipartisan — the bipartisan nat- –national — national security supplemental. We — we don’t want to go back to basics. That’s not what we want to see, and time is running out.

We’ve talked about this over and over again. You’ve heard from Jake. You’ve heard from my colleagues at NSC. You know, we see that Ukraine — because of the inaction of Congress over the last couple of months, Ukraine is actually losing ground in the battlefield. And it is, you know, due to our inaction.

And so, they’re fighting for their sovereignty. They’re fighting for their democracy. And we know what it means if we don’t get involved here, if we don’t stop a dictator. You know, they’re fighting against a tyrant. And so, that is the best way to deal with what — to give Ukraine what they need is to get that national supplemental passed.

And we know — we know for a fact that there are multiple Republican congressional members in the House who have said that they would vote for it if it goes to the floor. We know where Democrats are on this. So, overwhelming support. The Speaker has to put it to the floor and not put — and not get — let politics get in the way.

Q Karine, former President Barack Obama was at 10 Downing Street yesterday. Did he give the White House a heads-up on that meeting? And do you know what he discussed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, yes, we were aware in advance of the meeting, and President Biden’s — Pre- — pardon me, Presid- — President Obama’s team reached out to the White House ahead of the meeting.

But as we — and I think it’s been reported that this was an informal courtesy call conducted by a private citizen in his personal capacity. It’s — it’s not our — it’s not our conversation to speak to. We leave it to the pres- — the — President Obama and his personal office to speak to. But yes, obviously, we were given a heads up.

Q When was the last time President Biden and President Obama spoke?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have a call to read out to all of you. But as you know, they’re close; they’re like family. They speak regularly. And just don’t have anything — don’t have anything else to share.

All right —

Q Karine, the admin- — the administration is announcing that it is soft- — is softening fuel economy standards, which will slow the — slow the transition to electric vehicles. Is there any concern in the White House that that will make it harder for President Biden to achieve his overall climate goals?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, we don’t have any concerns. Look, the President is really proud of the historic piece of legislation that he was able to get done as it relates to electric vehicles. Obviously, the Inflation Reduction Act is a part of that. The bipartisan infrastructure legislation is a part of that. And so, we’re — we’re going to stay really focused on — on the goal ahead. But no, we don’t have
concerns.

Q But is the — the need to, sort of, be less stringent with the fuel economy standards an acknowledgement that the infrastructure just isn’t there yet and that the demand just isn’t there yet for EVs?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, the Infla- — the Inflation Reduction Act was so critical and important because it was the — it was the most comprehensive piece of legislation — now, law, obviously — to deal with climate change. And the Pre- — the President is certainly focused on that. It is a — he called it, when he walked in, part of one of the four crises that we had to deal with not just as a cou- — a country but as a — the world — right? — which is the climate change crisis.

So, look, we know with these types of things it takes — it takes time. And we understand that, but we’re still going to stay committed to our goals.

Q The White House (inaudible) said the President would sign legislation to force ByteDance to sell TikTok. But has the President spoken with senators to ask them to vote for the bill? And is the White House encouraging the Senate to move on this quickly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’ve encour- — we — we welcome the bill. We’ve said that. We’ve said that before — it — while it was going through the House, when it came out of the House. This is a divestment. This is not about banning TikTok. That’s how we see this bill, how — that’s how it’s written.

And so, obviously, we have provided technical support for — for this legislation. It’s in the Senate now. The Senate is — is taking a look at it.

I don’t have any calls to read out that the President has had with any members of the Senate or Congress or congressional members on this particular piece of legislation. But, look, we welcome it. We think it’s important to this — this legislation — this is a divestment bill, not a ban. And so, I’ll just leave it there.

All right.

Q I think when you first spoke to the TikTok legislation at the briefing, you mentioned the legal issues that the White House had raised and were working out with the sponsors. Have those technical issues, legal issues been fixed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I don’t have an update for you on that. Obviously, we think that’s important, right? And we’re providing those technical assistance, as I just mentioned. I just don’t have an update on where they are in that process.

But it’s in the Senate. The Senate is looking at it. We welcome the bill. We think it’s important to deal — to deal with the — to — and I think this is something that the National Security Advisor said — right? — just last week, which is we — it — it is incredibly important to know where data lives — where privacy data — where American data lives. Does it live here or does it live in China? Right? When we talk about ownership, is ownership here or is ownership in China?

And we want to make sure that — that we’re able to protect — it’s about national security, right? — protect that data. And so, that’s what you’re seeing.

It’s a divestment; it’s not a ban. And so, we are providing technical support.

Now, it’s in the Senate. And so, we’ll let it — we’ll let that process move forward.

Don’t have anything else to share.

Okay. Thanks, everybody.

Q Thank you.

12:22 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Reno, NV appeared first on The White House.

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

9:02 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Hello, everyone, and good morning. Thank you for joining us today. This is Jessica Kosmider with the NSC press team, and I’ll be facilitating today’s call.

As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials.

Not for your reporting, but for your information, today on the line we have [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].

We’ll try to get to as many questions as we can in the time that we have available. Please keep your phones on mute unless you’re called on for a question.

With that, I’ll turn it over to senior administration official number one for any opening comments.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, everybody. Thanks for taking the time. We’re joining extremely jetlagged here in South Korea.

But we just concluded a successful first day of the Summit for Democracy that South Korea is hosting this year. And an important focus for the United States and for many of the countries present was countering the misuse of commercial spyware.

So we wanted to just bring to your attention a few developments and a few events that we had here that I think are a powerful reflection of the shifts happening in this domain.

The first is that we announced the addition of six new countries to the joint diplomatic statement that we first unveiled a year ago at the second Summit for Democracy. This joint statement, which is the first of its kind, outlines a shared vision of the threat posed by the proliferation and misuse of commercial spyware, and outlines both individual and collective actions that governments are prepared to take.

And at the summit, in remarks that Secretary of State Antony Blinken provided, he announced that six new governments — Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Poland — have also joined the joint statement, which now means that the coalition has grown to 17 likeminded governments that are focused on countering the proliferation and misuse of commercial spyware.

The Secretary of State also held a photo with representatives from the joint statement countries, including the new countries. And the United States also hosted a signature side event at the conference, the only one today during the ministerial portion of the Summit for Democracy, where we held a panel with four representatives from different parts of — there’s essentially four different stakeholders in this area, including a journalist who was a target of commercial spyware — his name is Ricardo Avelar from El Salvador; a reporter from Lebanon, Alia Ibrahim, who was part of the founding group of reporters around the Pegasus files from 2021; representative from the investor community, Jamil Jaffer, from Paladin Capital Group. After, they and several other investors outlined voluntary principles and commitments around the responsible use of trusted capital. And we also had Shane Huntley, the head of Google’s Threat Analysis Group.

And they all outlined work happening in their respective domains that are all converging now, a year since the last Summit for Democracy, where all of these different stakeholder groups are all rowing in the same direction in both recognizing the risks and the threats posed by the misuse of commercial spyware, but also recommending concrete actions that are aligning between all of these communities.

We also had, in a very powerful set of remarks, the Polish Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs speak at the end of the event, explaining why Poland, since they are wrestling with the fallout of commercial spyware use within their own country, are signing on to the joint statement. And it was both moving and powerful to see the Deputy Foreign Minister outline the reasons why Poland is both committed to the principles outlined in the joint statement, but also noted that he heard echoes of what his country has gone through in what some of the panelists outlined during the preceding panel.

And finally, what we would also emphasize, as we thought today was also a powerful reflection of concrete action that the United States has taken, including recent steps, like a visa ban policy that the Secretary of State announced a few weeks ago and U.S. financial sanctions that the U.S. Treasury Department imposed on a number of commercial spyware vendors and two individuals — demonstrate that there’s growing momentum in this space but also that there’s more room for collective action. And this will be a focus of ours moving forward.

So I’ll pause there.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For anyone who would like to ask any questions, please raise your hand and I will start calling on folks in quick order here.

First up, we’ll go with Chris Bing. I am going to — you should be able to unmute yourself here.

Q Thanks for the update. And good luck on your trip to South Korea.

Yeah, I just wanted to ask, I guess, a few questions. First, what is the feedback that you’ve been receiving from other Western nations in terms of some sort of agreed-upon framework when it comes to exportation of spyware? Are countries eager to put something in paper? In the past, it’s been hard to get to a combined agreement or even framework due to how these tools are used for law enforcement purposes as well.

And then the second question I wanted to ask you was: To what degree is the NSC and the administration looking at controls or the issue of the exportation of exploit code by American developers overseas to some of these companies? This is a component of the ecosystem that isn’t talked about very much but there is still sale of exploits and zero days from American researchers abroad. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Chris. So, first, I would note that, you know, the joint statement outlines a series of steps that governments that sign on should be looking to take both individually, including with regard to export controls, as well as collectively.

You may have seen that among the countries that have signed on, Ireland also joined. And Ireland also put out a statement today, in case you haven’t seen, explaining their commitment to adhering to this. And this was done in recognition of the fact that a number of spyware vendors have sought to use Ireland as a place — essentially as a financial pass-through for some of their activities. And you may have seen that the Treasury Department actually placed two entities that were domiciled in Ireland — placed financial sanctions on them just a couple of weeks ago.

So I think what we’re trying to do is very deliberately build out a group of likeminded countries, including some in Western Europe but also beyond that. So, you know, I think notable that we have Japan and the Republic of Korea that have also joined the statement. And this is going to allow us to actually begin those conversations and to grow the number of countries.

We’re actually going to be convening all the joint statement countries tomorrow, during the second day of the summit. This will be the first in-person convening where we’re going to be talking exactly about these steps that we can take and the lessons learned to see if we can galvanize more collective action.

On the second issue regarding the exploit market, what I will say is that the United States actually joined and signed on to something called the Pall Mall Process, if you’re familiar with it, that the UK and France initiated, which is a recognition that there are a broader set of issues that we also want to begin looking at addressing.

One thing, though, that we’ve been very clear about is we want to make sure that we are able to take concrete and impactful measures. And we have been able to do so with regard to the commercial spyware vendors themselves, but we are looking at what impactful actions we might be able to take in other domains, but to do it in a collective fashion, which is why we are having those conversations with some of our partners through this Pall Mall Process.

MODERATOR: Thanks, Chris. Again, if anyone would like to ask any questions, please raise your hand and I’ll be able to unmute you. Thanks.

All right, if we don’t have any additional questions — oh, Chris Bing from Reuters. If you’d like to do a follow-up, that’s —

Q Yes, that’d be great. I’m happy to keep it going.

Two things that are interrelated. One, is there any representation — I haven’t seen the full list of representative countries, but is there any representation from the Gulf, from Israel or India? The first question.

And the second is: Have you had a chance to speak with some of the large vendors, specifically Google and Apple, while working on policy? It’s our understanding that Apple is looking at changing how it does its threat notifications, so to victims who have been targeted with spyware in the aftermath of an angry response that they received from the Indian government. And we could see changes to that notification process as soon as this week. And so I wanted to get your take on that if you’re tracking at all.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sorry, can you clarify? So what are the changes that you’re noting?

Q Yeah. So, in particular, the Apple threat notification process. I’m sure you’re familiar with it. Typically, the message that one would receive after they’ve been targeted and Apple was aware, it would say that you had been a target of state-sponsored hacking. That — there will be a change in edit, which cuts out “state-sponsored,” in response, it is our understanding, to the anger that Apple faced by the Indian government following their last round of notifications.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, so on that note, I can’t speak, obviously, to what Apple may or may not be doing. What I can say is that, you know, we had a representative from Google on our panel who spoke very powerfully about the effort by his company and others in this space to identify and expose commercial spyware misuse. And in particular, he cited work done — published in our recent report you would likely have seen by the threat analysis group at Google.

And this was a common theme, essentially, that, you know, dogged reporting, civil society work, and tech companies are all committed and working to identify and expose commercial spyware misuse, which I think is going to be a feature moving forward. We highlighted, for example, the fact that leading philanthropies are donating — have identified money for civil society organizations to continue their work, including donations in part provided by Apple. So you may have seen the Ford Foundation announce a $4 million donation a couple of weeks ago. So that was something that was also highlighted.

And, you know, the notifications provided by Apple and others are vital, and they have informed a lot of our work and work by groups around the world. But I obviously can’t speak to any changes that may or may not be happening.

Your first question again, if you don’t mind?

Q Yeah, not a problem. I have not seen the full roster of countries that are engaged in the Democracy Summit or in some of these spyware conversations recently, and I asked if there had been representation from Gulf countries, India or Israel.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, so both India and Israel did have representatives at the summit.

Q Okay. Great. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.) Sorry, in the ongoing summit. Yeah.

MODERATOR: All right. Next up, we’re going to go to Lorenzo from TechCrunch. You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hi, everyone. Thank you for doing this. You briefly mentioned that Paladin Group and other investor groups are involved in this process. Can you expand a little bit about that? Like, what are they committing to?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. And obviously, I would point you to Paladin. And I think our press team might be able to connect you with their representative, Jamil Jaffer.

But Paladin and several others — investors — came to the White House a couple of weeks ago and outlined for us voluntary principles and commitments regarding trusted capital and the investment of trusted capital in a variety of technology domains that include — and a big feature of the conversation with them was on commercial spyware but also AI, cybersecurity.

So Mr. Jaffer was on the panel as well. And for us, it was an important first step in having an investor outline both the recognition that investments should not be going towards companies that are undertaking or selling products and selling to clients that could undermine free and fair societies, but also a recognition that the U.S. government is not prepared to do business with companies, through our executive order, that are engaged in selling products that could pose a counterintelligence threat on the one hand, but also can enable human rights abuses around the world and threaten the privacy of Americans.

So they have put out these voluntary principles that we can point you to.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next up, we’ll go to Rishi from CNN. Rishi, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hi. I’m actually with Foreign Policy Magazine. I don’t know —

MODERATOR: Oh, I’m so sorry, Rishi. My bad.

Q No, no, that’s fine. I used to work at CNN, so maybe there was some old — something that came in somewhere.

But anyway, thanks for taking my question. My question is: I believe you said 17 countries have signed on between, like, the 11 last year and then 6 more this year. What is your sense — what reasons have, sort of, countries given for joining this?

And can you talk a little bit more about the countries that haven’t joined and what the administration — whether the administration is doing anything to sort of pressure or convince other democracies in particular to sign on to these agreements?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks for your question. So we’ve actually taken a very deliberate approach to engaging likeminded partners and gradually growing the number of countries that are committed to the commitments in the joint statement. And the reason is that we want to ensure the integrity of this joint statement that it is a vehicle for countries to act, both domestically and collectively, to share information.

And we’re also very conscious that we don’t want it to be, essentially, a statement that can serve to whitewash reputations by countries that may be either misusing the tools themselves or serve as hosts for vendors that enable misuse and human rights abuses.

So that’s why we had initiated deliberate engagements prior to the last Summit for Democracy that ultimately led us to join with 10 others for a total of 11 countries. And we announced it during the second Summit for Democracy. And similarly, since then, we started having careful conversations with a number of countries that ultimately led us and led these six — so, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Poland — to join. And each have different reasons for doing so.

I think the Republic of Ireland — sorry, for Ireland, I would point you to what they put on their website. They posted today, actually, a statement explaining their commitment.

Poland: They have been very clear that in light of the challenges they have faced within their own country, this reinforced their desire to be part of a coalition looking to counter the misuse because they have seen the effects — kind of the corrosive effects within their own society and their own political system of the misuse of spyware.

And in that, I would — you know, I’d obviously point you to the other countries, but I think there is what is an increasing shared understanding that the unregulated spread of these really sophisticated tools can have corrosive effects domestically but also can create longer-term problems if they’re not regulated within particular countries.

So I think as a result, we have this kind of shared understanding that we are now growing over time. And it is quite remarkable: If you look back two years ago, there was nothing of the sort. You know, over the past two years, we have built a coalition that, again, is very careful, very deliberate, and I think is reaffirmation that — sorry, an affirmation that we are building momentum in this space.

Q Thanks. Just a real quick follow-up.

MODERATOR: Last question we’ll have Jonathan from The Record. Jonathan, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hi. CNN reported last night that there’s a new batch of U.S. government officials who have been hit with spyware. Could you talk about that? And is it more than 10? Is it a handful? And how long ago were these people targeted with spyware?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, Jonathan. Unfortunately, I’m not able to speak to that. What I can tell you, though, is that beginning two years ago and ever since, we have been very focused on understanding the extent to which U.S. personnel and their family members may be targeted by commercial spyware. And that’s based on a recognition that governments that acquire this sort of sophisticated surveillance technology more likely than not will first use it against their own populations but, secondarily, may use it against diplomats and others from the United States or other governments, either to surveil them or also to understand who from their own societies are talking with these diplomats in their country.

So, all I can say is that we are intensely focused on better understanding the extent to which U.S. government personnel and their family members may be targeted.

MODERATOR: All right. Thanks, [senior administration official]. Everyone, this is all the time we have today. If you have any follow-up questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

As a reminder, this call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials. Thanks so much for joining us.

9:24 A.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call on U.S. Efforts to Counter Misuse of Commercial Spyware and the Third Summit for Democracy appeared first on The White House.

2:16 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, good afternoon, everyone. Happy Monday. Happy Monday. I have two items at the top before I turn it over to our National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan.

Today, to mark Women’s History Month, President Biden, alongside the First Lady and the Vice President and the Second Gentleman, signed a historic executive order that will direct the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken to expand and improve research on women’s health.

These directives will ensure women’s health is integrated and prioritized across the federal government and will galvanize new research on a wide range of topics, including women’s midlife health.

The President and First Lady also announced more than 20 new actions and commitments by federal agencies, which includes the launch of a new NIH effort that will direct key investments of $200 million toward — towards this work.

These actions also build on the First Lady’s recent announcement that the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health Sprint for — Sprint for Women’s Health is committing $100 million towards transform- — transformative research and development in women’s health.

In his State of the Union Address, the President called on Congress to invest $12 billion in new funding for women’s health research and he laid out his bold vision for transforming women’s health research. And with today’s announcement, he’s keeping that promise.

Now, second, today the White House Office of Public Engagement will convene a roundtable on President Biden’s efforts to support Black men’s health. This event will be moderated by Charisse Jones of USA Today and feature actors Courtney B. Vance and Lamman Rucker; recording artist Raheem DeVaughn; licensed psychologist Dr. Robin L. Smith; and public health analyst from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Dr. Walker Tisdale.

Since the start of his administration, President Biden has prioritized tackling the mental health crisis. In 2022, he released a comprehensive mental health strategy designed to strengthen system capacity, connect more people to care, and create healthier environments.

To support this work and help advance how we transform mental health in the United States, the Biden-Harris administration launched 988 hotline, expanded community mental health centers, established new Centers of Excellence to help promote mental health.

The Biden-Harris administration has and will continue to invest critical resources to expand mental health and substance use support — substance use support to Americans, including through the Biden — the President’s — President Biden’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2025.

And with that, I’m going to turn it over to our National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, who has an update on the Middle East region.

Go ahead, Jake.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Ka- — excuse me — thank you, Karine, and thanks, everybody. I’ve got a few opening comments and then I’d be happy to take your questions.

Earlier today, President Biden spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, as you all have heard. The two leaders discussed the latest developments in Israel and Gaza, and they spoke about the state of Israel’s military operations.

The President emphasized his bone-deep commitment to ensuring the long-term security of Israel. And he affirmed, as he did in the State of the Union, that Israel has a right to go after Hamas, the perpetrators of the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

Israel has made significant progress against Hamas. They’ve broken a significant number of Hamas battalions, killed thousands of Hamas fighters, including senior commanders. Hamas’s number three, Marwan Issa, was killed in an Israeli operation last week. The rest of the top leaders are in hiding, likely deep in the Hamas tunnel network. And justice will come for them too, and we are helping to ensure that.

At the same time, more innocent civilians have died in this conflict, in this military operation than in all of the wars in Gaza combined, including thousands of children. A humanitarian crisis has descended across Gaza. And anarchy reigns in areas that Israel’s military has cleared but not stabilized.

When the President visited Israel on October 18th — the first U.S. president to make a wartime visit to Israel, I might add — he said both privately and publicly that the United States has learned a vital lesson over the course of several wars: a military plan cannot succeed without an integrated humanitarian plan and political plan.

And the President has repeatedly made the point that continuing military operations need to be connected to a clear strategic endgame.

The President told the Prime Minister again today that we share the goal of defeating Hamas, but we just believe you need a coherent and sustainable strategy to make that happen.

Now, instead of pause to reevaluate where things stand in the campaign and what adjustments are needed to achieve long-term success, instead of a focus on stabilizing the areas of Gaza that Israel has cleared so that Hamas does not regenerate and retake terri- — territory that Israel has already cleared, the Israeli government is now talking about launching a major military operation in Rafah.

The President and the Prime Minister spoke at length about Rafah today. The President explained why he is so deeply concerned about the prospect of Israel conducting major military operations in Rafah of the kind it conducted in Gaza City and Khan Younis.

First, more than a million people have taken refuge in Rafah. They went from Gaza City to Khan Younis and then to Rafah. And they have nowhere else to go. Gaza’s other major cities have largely been destroyed. And Israel has not presented us or the world with a plan for how or where they would safely move those civilians, let alone feed and house them and ensure access to basic things like sanitation.

Second, Rafah is a primary entry point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza from Egypt and from Israel. An invasion would shut that down or at least put it at grave risk right at the moment when it is most sorely needed.

Third, Rafah is on the border with Egypt, which has voiced its deep alarm over a major military operation there and has even raised questions about its future relationship with Israel as a result of any impending military operation.

Now, the President has rejected — and did again today — the strawman that raising questions about Rafah is the same as raising questions about defeating Hamas. That’s just nonsense.

Our position is that Hamas should not be allowed a safe haven in Rafah or anywhere else. But a major ground operation there would be a mistake. It would lead to more innocent civilian deaths, worsen the already dire humanitarian crisis, deepen the anarchy in Gaza, and further isolate Israel internationally.

Most importantly, the key goals Israel wants to achieve in Rafah can be done by other means.

On the call today, President Biden asked the Prime Minister to send a senior interagency team composed of military, intelligence, and humanitarian officials to Washington in the coming days to hear U.S. concerns about Israel’s current Rafah planning and to lay out an alternative approach that would target key Hamas elements in Rafah and secure the Egypt-Gaza border without a major ground invasion.

The Prime Minister agreed that he would send a team. Obviously, he has his own point of view on a Rafah operation, but he agreed that he would send a team to Washington to have this discussion and have this engagement. And we look forward to those discussions.

The President and the Prime Minister also discussed the ongoing negotiations for an immediate ceasefire for several weeks in return for releasing hostages currently being held by Hamas and other militants in Gaza. We would look to build on that ceasefire into something more enduring and use the space created by a cessation of hostilities to surge humanitarian assistance at a vital moment.

So far, this deal has been more elusive than we would have hoped. But we will keep pressing because we regard this as an urgent priority.

As I’ve said before, Hamas could, of course, end this crisis tomorrow if it chose to do so. And as I’ve said before, far too little of the energy and the pressure to end this conflict has been applied to Hamas. We will keep pointing that out.

The President and the Prime Minister agreed to stay in close touch in the days and weeks ahead on all of these issues. And, of course, their teams are in daily contact on every element of this crisis, as well as the other threats that Israel faces from around the region and the shared threats that the United States, Israel, and others of our allies and partners face from Iran and its proxy forces across the Middle East.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

Yeah.

Q Jake, you mentioned that the — the ceasefire deal had — had been elusive. Understand that — that Hamas put a proposal forward. Is that still what you guys are working with? And is that still a live option at this point?

MR. SULLIVAN: Hamas has put a proposal on the table. This is after Israel, working with Qatar, Egypt, and the United States, had indicated a willingness to move forward on a six-week ceasefire in — in return for the release of a number of hostages, leading to further phases from there, and Hamas having given us nothing for quite some time.

And the last time I stood at this podium, I pointed out something I believe today: If Hamas just handed over the elderly, the women, and the wounded, tomorrow, there would be a six-week ceasefire.

They’ve put a proposal on the table where they’ve added a series of other conditions as well. Now, the Israeli government has responded by saying they can’t just accept that. They regard some of those conditions as going too far. But that’s what a negotiation is about.

So, as we speak today, in Qatar, you have teams from Israel, Qatar, and Egypt sitting down and banging through those details to try to arrive at an outcome over the next few days where there is actually a deal. And we believe that those discussions are very live, that a deal is possible, that we should be able to achieve it, and that it is the best way both to get hostages home and to alleviate the suffering of the civilians in Gaza.

And from our perspective, we, the United States, are going to keep pushing on that. And the President had the opportunity to discuss that with the Prime Minister today.

Yeah.

Q And, Jake, why —

Q Thank you, Jake.

Q — why did the President feel that this was — that this was an appropriate time for this delegation to come from — from Israel? And why did he feel that these conversations would succeed in ways that your outreach to the Israeli government have not previously?

MR. SULLIVAN: Look, this is the natural evolution of a discussion between partners. We’ve had many discussions at many different levels between our military, our intelligence, our diplomats, our humanitarian experts, but we have not yet had the opportunity to have an all-encompassing, comprehensive, integrated, strategic discussion about how to achieve two things: one, the ultimate defeat of Hamas and, two, the protection of civilians and the stabilization of Gaza in a way that will lead to the long-term security of Israel as well as the — the protection of innocent human life that is in Gaza.

So, from the President’s perspective, we’ve arrived at a point where each side has been making clear to the other its perspective, its view. And now we really need to get down to brass tacks and have the chance for a delegation from each side on an integrated basis — everyone sitting around the same table, talking through the way forward.

And from the U.S. perspective, this is not a question of defeating Hamas. And anytime I hear an argument that says, “If you don’t smash into Rafah, you can’t defeat Hamas,” I say, “That is a strawman.”

Our view is that there are ways for Israel to prevail in this conflict, to secure its long-term future, to end the terror threat from Gaza, and not smash into Rafah. That’s what we’re going to present in this integrated way when this team comes.

We’ll have a back-and-forth, and we’ll let you know how that unfolds as we go forward.

Yeah.

Q Can you describe the tone of the call? There have been reports that they can be very tense, that they have ended abruptly. Can you sort of characterize what the tone was? And then, also, did the President say that an invasion of Rafah is the — is his red line? And what does that mean?

MR. SULLIVAN: I went over the red line issue, which I know is the obsession of this group, last week. I’ve got nothing more to say on that front.

As you know, particularly for me, I think that’s something that is posed in your questions; it’s not stated as a declaration of our policy. And we’ve made that clear.

With respect to the call, I’m probably not the best person to, you know, give a, kind of, assessment of body language and tone. I can confirm it did not end abruptly. It ended in a totally normal way when they had each gotten through all of their points. And I would say it was very businesslike.

Each of them recognize that we are at a critical moment in this conflict. They share a common objective — that is for Israel to prevail over Hamas. And they have a different perspective on this operation in Rafah, and they went into some detail on that and had the opportunity, really, to elaborate each of their respective views in a full-throated way, in the way they always do when President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu talk.

So, in that sense, I would say this call was much like previous calls that the two of them have had. They each agreed to have the teams get together, and then they agreed that the two of them would stay in touch as we go forward.

Yeah.

Q Thank you, Jake. The deadline for Israel to comply with the National Security Memorandum 20 is coming up on Sunday. Has Israel responded in writing?

MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, when you say “to comply,” what they have to do by Sunday is just provide credible and reliable assurances that they will abide by their international obligations, not obligations we’ve imposed upon them, but — but obligations they have freely accepted with respect to international humanitarian law, which, of course, includes not arbitrarily impeding the flow of humanitarian assistance where they can control that.

So, I cannot tell you today — confirm today that they have provided that. Obviously, as you said, they have several more days before they have to do so. And we anticipate that they will.

Q And then, on a related note, Jake. On March 1st, President Biden said that he was going to insist that Israel facilitate more trucks and more routes to get more people the help they need. On today’s call, did he make that clear?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, even before today, the results of the President making clear that this was a priority for him and his team working that at a detailed level, operationally, on the ground in Israel, has resulted in certain steps, including the opening of a new gate that we have seen since the President gave the State of the Union and work to flow more convoys to the north along the beach road as well, in addition to other steps, like the landing of the first ship through a maritime corridor on the beaches of Gaza and active work going forward to get that pier that the President announced set up off the coast of Gaza as well.

So, we have taken steps. The President reaffirmed today the need for Israel to do everything in its power and even more than it has already done to address the humanitarian crisis.

And obviously, we saw a U.N. report today, which Director Power of USAID spoke to quite eloquently. It’s an alarming report about possible impending famine if everyone doesn’t do their responsibility to ensure we address that.

That starts, first and foremost, with Israel, who has an obligation to step up and ensure that more is done to deliver food to starving people in Northern Gaza, but it’s also incumbent on us, the United States and the rest of the international community, to step up as well.

We’re proud to be the largest contributor of humanitarian assistance to Gaza, but there’s more we can do, and there is more others can do as well. This has to be an all-hands-on-deck effort.

Yeah.

Q Thank you, Jake. Given that alarming report that famine right now is imminent and the humanitarian catastrophe there, are words enough when it comes to discussions with Israel? Does there need to be some conditions put on military aid?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, first, obviously, words aren’t enough. It’s action that matters. And the action that matters is flowing trucks’ and ships’ worth of humanitarian assistance — particularly food, water, and medicine — to people who are gravely in need of it, as elaborated in that report.

As I said, in the last few days, we’ve seen some steps forward. We need to see those sustained; we need to see them built on. But ultimately, our judgment comes down not to pledges or promises or words; it comes down to action. And we’re going to continue to pre- — to press on Israel to see the kind of action we want to see.

And then we’re going to take responsibility to do our part. And that’s, for example, what the temporary period is all about.

Q And there are reports that more than 20 people have been killed in that hospital attack. How confident is the U.S. that Israel is doing everything in its power to protect civilians?

MR. SULLIVAN: I’d make three points about the reports of the attack at Al-Shifa Hospital overnight last night and into today. First, Israel states that it was going after senior Hamas commanders and Hamas militants, and it is clear that Hamas fired back at Israel from that hospital.

Second, we have seen Hamas, over the course of this conflict, use civilian facilities, including hospitals, to store weapons for command and control and to house fighters. And that places an added burden on Israel that very few militaries have to deal with: an entrenched insurgency, a terrorist group, using the shield of civilian institutions to protect themselves during a fight rather than meeting Israel on some open field of battle.

And then, third, it also tells us something else that — of some concern that I spoke to in my opening comments. Israel cleared Shifa once. Hamas came back into Shifa, which raises questions about how to ensure a sustainable campaign against Hamas so that it cannot regenerate, cannot retake territory.

And from our perspective, it is connecting Israel’s objective to a sustainable strategy that is the vital thing we need to focus on right now, rather than have Israel go smash into Rafah. And that is what the President talked to the Prime Minister about today.

Yeah.

Q During the call, did the President threaten at any point to withhold military aid to Israel if Israel moves into Rafah or a famine does ensue in Gaza?

MR. SULLIVAN: The President didn’t make threats. What the President said today was, “I want you to understand, Mr. Prime Minister, exactly where I am on this. I am for the defeat of Hamas. I believe that they are an evil terrorist group with not just Israeli but American blood on their hands. At the same time, I believe that to get to that, you need a strategy that works. And that strategy should not involve a major military operation that puts thousands and thousands of lives — civilian, innocent lives at risk — in Rafah. There is a better way. Send your team to Washington. Let’s talk about it. We’ll lay out for you what we believe is a better way.”

And I will leave it at that.

Q Did they talk about —

MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah.

Q — Senator Schumer’s call for new elections? And what did the President say about that?

MR. SULLIVAN: So, the Prime Minister did raise his concerns about a variety of things that have come out in the American press. I’m not going to talk specifically about any one of them because I want to, you know, let the Prime Minister speak for himself and also protect the — the discretion of the call.

And I will just say that, from President Biden’s perspective, this is not a question of politics. It’s not a question of public statements. It’s a question of policy and strategy. That’s what he’s focused on. That’s what he was focused on in the call.

Yeah.

Q Can you give us any detail on the timing of this meeting here in Washington? Is that in the coming days and weeks? And is it your expectation or did Israel commit to not proceeding with any Rafah invasion until that meeting takes place, or is that unclear?

MR. SULLIVAN: We have every expectation that they’re not going to proceed with a major military operation in Rafah until we have that conversation.

And I ex- — they talked about as soon as the end of this week. It could be the beginning of next week. They have not fixed a particular date because each side needs to prepare effectively. But within that timeframe, not a longer timeframe.

Q Sorry. Just to clarify. That’s your expectation, or did he exclusively commit on the call to not proceeding with a Rafah operation?

MR. SULLIVAN: I’m not going to put words in their mouth on this. I don’t want to do that. You can ask them. But I think you will find that, when asked, they will indicate to you that they’re not going to go ahead with this before we’ve sat down and talked this all through.

Yeah.

Q Thanks, Jake. Vladimir Putin in a press conference spoke about a possible Navalny prisoner swap. He said — he claimed they had agreed to exchange Navalny for prisoners in the West on the condition that Navalny never come back to Russia. Can you speak to this? Was there any plan in place?

MR. SULLIVAN: We have spoken to Russian officials over the course of months and years with respect to American detainees who are unjustly being held in — in Russia. We have not heard a Russian official raise Navalny as part of a prisoner swap in any of those conversations.

So, if this is something they were interested in, it certainly sounds like they’re coming to it quite late — in fact, too late, obviously, since he’s no longer alive — because we did not hear that from them before.

Yeah.

Q Thanks, Jake. Prime Minister Netanyahu was on CNN yesterday. He talked about having the support of the majority of the Israeli people for his policies, including going into Rafah. Is there more that the administration — the U.S. administration needs to do to speak to the Israeli people directly so that they don’t support this idea of going into Rafah now?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, first of all, inherent in the question is a — is a — kind of a — an interesting irony, which is you have the Prime Minister speaking on American television about his concerns about Americans interfering in Israeli politics, and then your question is should Americans be speaking into Israeli politics, which, in fact, we don’t do nearly as much as they speak into ours.

But that’s not a constructive answer to your question. Just an observation.

In answer to your question, again, as I said before, from the President’s perspective, this isn’t really about politics or public opinion or public statements. This is about policy and strategy. And so, the President is not focused on what’s popular, what’s not popular, how do you shape public opinion. He’s interested in how do we get to the right result, and the right result is the enduring defeat of Hamas, a two-state solution that has a secure Israel and a Palestinian state that vindicates the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and a broader normalization of relations so that Israel also has peace with all of its Arab neighbors.

He believes we need to drive to that outcome. And while it is true that many voices in Israel can’t see that today, that is not going to alter the President’s view, from his perspective, that that is what is not just in the U.S. national security interest, but it’s really the only solution to Israel’s future as a democratic Jewish state that is secure and at peace with its neighbors, including its most immediate neighbors, the Palestinian people.

Yeah.

Q Thank you, Jake. The head of UNRWA, (inaudible) Lazzarini, said today that he was denied entry to Gaza, the day, as you mentioned, the report that Northern Gaza is facing imminent famine. So, is this an issue that you’re raising with the Israelis?

And on another question, there is 5,000, according to the ICRC, prisoners that’s been missing. Nobody knows anything about them. They’re being held by the Israelis, including doctors and journalists, and the arrest of one of our colleagues at Al Jazeera this morning as well.

What can you do to push the Israelis to at least declare where are these prisoners so their families know where they are? Because most of them, according to our knowledge, there are civilians.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, with respect to Mr. Lazzarini’s efforts to get into Gaza today, this is the first I’m hearing that he was denied access. Obviously, we’ll inquire as to the circumstances of that.

Second, with respect to the detention of an Al Jazeera journalist today, I’ve seen the reports. I saw them just recently before coming into this briefing room. I have not had the opportunity to — to raise that with my Israeli counterparts. We’ll do so.

Obviously, we believe that the protection of journalists and the capacity for journalists to do their jobs, even in difficult circumstances, even in warzones, must be protected. That’s something this administration takes very seriously in all contexts.

And then, finally, we have regularly indicated to the Israeli government that they have a responsibility under international humanitarian law not just with respect to the conduct of their military operations but, obviously, with respect to the treatment of and access to prisoners in their custody. That’s something that we will continue to remind them of as we go forward.

Even as we would also point out that the enemy they are fighting doesn’t even come close to the same sport, let alone the same ballpark of caring a lick about anything to do with international humanitarian law.

Q Follow-up. Thanks, Jake.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah.

Q After the State of the Union, the President was picked up on a hot mic saying he told Prime Minister Netanyahu they were going to have a “come to Jesus” moment. Given what you’ve said about their conversation today on the Rafah operation, was that this conversation today?

MR. SULLIVAN: I’m not going to characterize that on behalf of the President. I will just describe what happened in the conversation, as I’ve done here today. And I’ll let you all draw your own conclusions.

Yeah.

Q Was Jesus on the call at all? (Laughter.)

Q Jake —

MR. SULLIVAN: No comment. (Laughter.)

Q So — so, why is it that it seems so hard for this administration to stand up more firmly to Benjamin Netanyahu? He has been ignoring many of your requests. He’s now threatening to launch an offensive in Rafah. And the answer from the White House so far has been pretty soft, and the U.S. are still sending weapons to Israel. So, it seems like there is a big cautiousness from the White House.

MR. SULLIVAN: That seems more like a statement than a question.

Yeah.

Q I have another question on President Macron. What do you make of his state- — his position becoming more (inaudible) and saying that he might send troo- — not excluding the fact that he might send troops to Ukraine?

MR. SULLIVAN: I can’t speak for President Macron. Obviously, he continues to make his points publicly, and, obviously, he has every right to do that. We’ve made —

Q (Inaudible) troops?

MR. SULLIVAN: We’ve made our position clear, which is that we’re not intending to send U.S. troops to Ukraine. President Biden actually reiterated that before the American people in the State of the Union, and we haven’t wavered from that position. We’re not wavering from it today.

Yeah.

Q Can you talk a bit about Niger. Niger yesterday suspended the security cooperation with the U.S. Do you have any reaction? I think some of the things that they are saying is the U.S. doesn’t really approach them in the right way. They come with this arrogance, which is almost like a form of humiliation, for the Biden administration. Do you have any reaction to the suspension of the security agreement with Niger?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you’ve seen what we’ve said on this subject, which is that we’ve seen the Facebook posts from the CNSP. It came out Saturday night. We’re in touch with them. This obviously follows discussions we had with them about our concerns with their trajectory. And I’ll leave it at that because those discussions with the — the authorities in Niger is ongoing.

Yeah.

Q Thank you so much. Coming back to Israel and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We are now — we have now 1 million people faced with the risk of starvation, and aid is not getting in at the levels necessary to help those people. Who is responsible for that? And during this call, has — was there any kind of commitment from the part of the Israeli Prime Minister to let more aid come into Gaza?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Prime Minister indicated that he intends to push his government to have more aid come into Israel [Gaza]. But as I said to an earlier question, the issue is not statements or representations, it’s action; it’s whether more aid gets in.

We’ve seen certain things over the past few days that represent steps forward, including the opening of this new gate, including other convoys that have gotten to the North, including throughput through Kerem Shalom and Rafah. But we’ve seen that before, and then numbers have dipped for a variety of reasons, some to do with just the difficulty of moving aid around Gaza once it gets inside, as we’ve seen in tragic circumstances.

And from our perspective, the key thing is that we need to flood the zone. We need to use every tool at our disposal — every land route, every possible number of trucks, as well as sea routes, as well as airdrops to get as much aid in as possible.

Israel has a responsibility in this regard to facilitate the aid, and they can do more. The international community, including the United States, has a responsibility as well. We have done a significant number of things. We can do more.

So, from our point of view, this is an urgent undertaking, an urgent priority, and we will keep at it.

Yeah.

Q Quick one on Russia and a follow-up on Haiti, if possible. I know you said, when asked about President Putin’s comments yesterday, that you hadn’t heard of a Russian official raise Aleksey Navalny as part of a prisoner swap. You said that they had come to the table too late.

Is that a way of saying that negotiations for — to release reporter Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan are not on the table? Are there any active efforts going on right now for them?

MR. SULLIVAN: We have had a continuous effort to secure the release of both Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich. We will continue until they are free. And that means regular communication at senior levels with the Russian Federation, making a series of offers, which we have done over time and will continue to do.

So, no, we have not slackened one inch in our zeal to get the two of them out. It remains an utmost priority of ours. And that work will continue notwithstanding the tragic death of Aleksey Navalny.
Yeah.

Q One more on —

Q Tha- —

Q — Haiti — sorry. The State Department announced this weekend that more than 30 Americans had been evacuated from Haiti, but they were evacuated from a northern city, not Port-au-Prince. And today, the State Department said that more than a thousand U.S. citizens have reached out asking about their options for departing the island. Are there plans for the U.S. to do more specifically out of the Port-au-Prince area?

MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, my understanding is that more than 1,000 Americans have been in touch with the embassy to seek more information. Some number of those have asked for information about departing. Others have asked for information about how to remain safely or, if they choose to depart in the fu- — in the future, how they might do so.

So, the thousand is really a broad universe that encapsulates a number of different categories.

Second, as you noted, we did have our first evacuation flight out of Cap-Haïtien. More than 30 U.S. citizens were on it. And we will look to continue to operate out of Cap-Haïtien for people to be able to leave from there.

And then, third, of course, if we determine that there is a secure way to move American citizens who want to leave Haiti out of the Port-au-Prince airport or out of some other route, we will do so.

There’s active planning for that. There’s a- — active analysis of — of the risks of doing so. But we will stay in close touch with every American citizen who wants to be in touch with us in Haiti and continue to look for options to ensure their safe passage out of the country should they choose to leave.

Yeah.

Q Why did President Biden wait so long — why did he let 32 days pass between phone calls with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, so, first of all, our teams are in contact every single day at every level. President Biden gets a daily, twice daily — sometimes nine times daily — update on what is going on. And he reserves his calls for the Prime Minister for when he believes there’s a key strategic moment that needs to come forward. That’s point one.

Point two: The Prime Minister, of course, knows how to reach President Biden. If the Prime Minister felt he needed the President for some reason, he would have picked up the phone and called. And, of course, in the last 32 days, President Biden has never declined a — a phone call from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

So, this pretty much the normal give-and-take of two leaders both operating their governments, both operating their foreign policies, both working with their teams, and then at a key inflection point, in the — in the dialogue between the two sides, coming together and talking. I wouldn’t make more of it than that.

Q And there’s a report that when President Biden was told his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas was starting to affect his poll numbers, the quote is, “He began to shout and swear.” So, when he does that, is he shouting and swearing about Netanyahu or about Hamas or about his poll numbers?

MR. SULLIVAN: This is the “When did you stop beating your spouse” question, because I don’t think he ever did that. And so —

Q Excuse me?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you — you used that as the premise of your question, which is, “When he does that.” He — I’ve never seen him do that — shout or swear in response to that. So, from my perspective, that particular report is not correct.

Yeah.

Q What can you tell us about this temporary pier — the timeline for it, how it’s going to be secured, how soon aid may be delivered through those sea routes you’re talking about?

MR. SULLIVAN: So, CENTCOM can go into the operational details on it. What I can tell you is that our original timeline, you know, extended out something like 45 to 60 days to have it fully in place. We’re hoping to beat that, if possible, because we’re moving heaven and earth to get, you know, all of the complex logistics associated with it fully integrated into the — the pipeline for aid going into Gaza. And ultimately, it will be a scenario where CENTCOM assets move the pier off the coast, and then it will be IDF assets who actually secure it so that there are no U.S. boots on the ground in Gaza.

But that effort is very much underway. The CENTCOM Commander feels good about the progress we are making and that he will be able to move this on an expedited basis based on the original timelines that he provided.

Q Jake, to the back?

MR. SULLIVAN: Just one more question. Yeah.

Q Jake, do you have a reaction to Russian President Putin’s victory? He will be president until 2030. Do you accept the result and his victory?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, first, nothing about the election outcome was unpredictable because Putin had closed the political space, had locked up political opponents. Some of his political opponents had tragically died. And so, there was nothing free or fair about this election, and the outcome was preordained.

Second, the reality is that President Putin is the President of Russia. We’ve had to deal with that reality throughout the war in Ukraine, throughout the other aggression Russia has undertaken, throughout the other steps contrary to U.S. national interests that we have seen from this President and from the Russian Federation under his leadership. And we will continue to deal with that reality.

But that reality doesn’t deny the fact that this election was not something that met any kind of benchmark of being free or fair.

Thank you all.

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

Q Thank you, Jake.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Jake.

All right, Chris.
Q So, I have a question about budget discu- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — discussions over —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q — the weekend.

Why did the White House object to plans that were taking shape over the weekend for the homeland security budget? And what do you want to make sure gets included in the final legislation? And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —

Q Last thing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, yeah.

Q Just how close are you at this point, do you think?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m — I’m not going to talk about reporting regarding ongoing negotiations. Going to be super careful talking from the podium here.

One thing that I will make clear is that, look, DHS needs a bill that adequately funds operational pace — pace. Right? And we have seen, during the — this past fiscal year, that that is what the administration is fighting for. We want to make sure that they have the operational funding to do the job that they need to be doing. And that is what I can say.

And I want to also add is — let’s not forget the past 10 months here. DHS has removed and returned more people than — than during every fiscal year since 2013. So, they have maximized their operations, they have done the work to do what they can at the funding levels that there are — that they are — that they currently are operating in. And we want to do everything that we can to make sure that they have that operational pace.

So, I’m not going to get into negotiations from here.
Q So, it sounds like we’re talking about — the issue is a dollar figure. The White House wants more money than is being offered.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just going to be super mindful and not negotiate from the podium. But obviously, we believe that DHS needs additional funding — we’ve always said that — to deal with the security operations and much more that we’re dealing with at the border, obviously, and just more broadly, all the work that the DH- — DHS has to do on behalf of the American people.

Q And you can’t say if there’s been progress today or anything since the weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the negotiations continue, and we are focused, certainly, on reaching an agreement. As you know, the — the shutdown is set for this coming Friday, and we want to get — certainly get to a place where we have — again, DHS has what it needs to have the operational — continue the operational pace that they’ve been having.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. As the Supreme Court considers the case about social media disinformation, misinformation, can you talk about what the administration believes is at stake in this case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be super mindful. It’s an ongoing case. I’m just not going to comment. Would have to refer you to Department of Justice. We’ve been pretty consistent on this over the past year or so. So, I’m just going to be really mindful on that.

Q And then I have a leftover Israel-Hamas question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure.

Q Because, over the weekend, the President talked about the importance of the freedom of the press.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q He toasted them at the Gridiron Dinner. Has he or anyone in the administration pushed Israel to allow foreign media into Gaza to cover it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as Jake said, there’s continuous conversation that we have with the leadership of the Israeli government. I don’t have anything to share on that particular question. You heard directly from the President as it relates to protecting the freedom of the press, protecting journalists. We’ve always been very clear about that. The President has spoken to that numerous of times.

I can’t speak to that particular — a particular conversation on that issue. We want to make sure — right? — we want to make sure that freedom of the press is respected, that — that journalists are protected. And so, that is something that the President has had conversation with leaders over the past three years as it relates to that, as it relates to, obviously, humanitarian issues as well.

We’ve always had those conversations. It doesn’t matter if it’s our — if it’s our allies or friends or whoever it is, we’ve always been pretty consistent. But I can’t speak to any direct conversation that the President has had on that issue.

Go ahead.

Q What are the remaining sticking points on the DHS funding bill? And some Hill aides say that the White House came in at the 11th hour? Is — did the White House step in too late?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, let’s — let’s be very clear here and take a step back. When it comes to funding the government, that is something that is the basic duty of Congress is to do that. Right? It is their job to keep the government open. It is something that Congress has to do on behalf of the American people.

There are critical programs that Americans need, that American families need. The DHS funding, more specifically, is what is obviously being discussed — is important — right? — to — for DHS to do the work that they’re currently doing, as we think about the border, as we think about the immigration system.

So, it is their job. It is their duty. I’m not going to speak into timeline as to when we started to have conversations with them. I’m not going to speak to negotiations that are currently happening. I’m certainly not going to do that at the podium.

We believe it is critical and important to continue the operational pace that — that DHS needs to do their job. Obviously, we’ve been pretty consistent, as well, over the last three years asking for additional funding.

And so, I’m just going to be really mindful and not negotiate from the podium.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Karine. Does the administration still have close contact with social media companies? And, in specific, are there still communications about removing misinformation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m going to be — I — I know there is a — currently, SCOTUS — well, I don’t even know if it’s happening right now. But there is this particular Missouri case. I’m going to be super mindful, super careful, and not to — not to answer a question that is, you know, adjacent to what’s happening with this particular case.

I don’t have any conversations to speak to or to lay out to you about conversation with social media. Obviously, the President tries to communicate with Americans and meet them where they are. You see this — you see us do that pretty consistently. I just want to be super mindful, as there is an ongoing case happening at this time.

Q So, not even speaking about the particularities of the case, more broadly, can you talk about the administration’s concerns on the kind of misinformation that’s on social media —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we’ve been —

Q — though that was specific about COVID?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ve been pretty consistent about the importance of — you know, it is — it is the responsibility of social media to make sure that — that what is on their platform is — you know, is not misinformation, not disinformation. We’ve been always very clear about that.

I just don’t have conversations to lay out or to speak to. But we’ve been pretty consistent for at least the past couple of years on that.

Okay. Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. A temporary pause on SB 4, the Texas — the controversial Texas immigration law, is set to expire at 5:00 p.m. today if the Supreme Court doesn’t take action. What is the administration’s plans if that does go into effect?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. Going to be really careful not to comment on — on a — well, not to comment beyond what the DOJ filings have — have laid out — so, have shared with all of you. So, I’ll say this. I will point out that Department of Justice makes clear that SB 4 is flatly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States in 2012 and more than a century of additional precedent.

But generally speaking, SB 4 is just another example of what we have seen from the governor of Texas, Governor Abbott, attempting to politicize what’s happening at the border, politicize, obviously, what’s happening with the immigration system.

And so, look, the President is going to be focused on — on making sure that there’s significant policy changes and resources we need to secure the border. And so, that is why he’s going to continue to — to call on congressional Republicans to pass the bipartisan border security agreement that came out of the Senate just a couple of months ago, a — in a — an agreement that was supported by the Border Patrol union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and that we worked on for months.

And we believe that is going to meet the needs that — that we have with the border challenges and deal with some real immigration policies. Outside of that, I don’t have anything else to share. But clearly, the Department of Justice has been very clear on their filings on SB 4.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you so much. A domestic question, then two quickies on foreign adversaries.

First of all, what is the White House planning for Iftar this year? And what is your message to Muslim Americans about this particularly difficult year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I — look, we are going to — I don’t have anything to share about an event as it relates to Iftar. What I can say is that we’ve been very consistent and very clear that this conflict is personal and painful for many. And — and the President has been clear on that. We have been clear from this podium.

He respects all Americans to be — to speak out and for their voices to be heard as long — obviously, as long as it’s peaceful, obviously. But we understand that it is a pai- — painful time for a number of communities.

As you know, we’ve had White House official- — senior White House officials meet with members of the different communities, whether it’s Arab, Muslim, Palestinian communities, to talk about their views, to voice their concerns, and we welcome that.

I just don’t have anything to share on any events or beyond that.

Q Okay. So, Pakistan conducted two airstrikes over what they say are militant hideouts in Afghanistan. Was the U.S. consulted on that? Were these coordinated attacks? And are you concerned about the potential for violence escalating in that region?

And then a quickie on South Korea when I’m done — North Korea.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. A quickie. A quickie.

All right. On Pakistan, just a couple of things that we do want to share with all of you. We are aware of the reports, obviously, that Pakistan carried out airstrikes in Afghanistan in response to attack in Pakistan on Saturday at a military post. We deeply regret the loss of life and injuries sustained during the attack in Pakistan and the loss of civilian lives during the strikes in Afghas- — Afghanistan.

We urge the Taliban to ensure that terrorist attacks are not launched from Af- — Afghan soil. We urge Pakistan to exercise restraint and ensure civilians are not harmed in their counterterrorism efforts. We urge both sides to address any differences through dialogue. We remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who wish to harm United States or our other partners or allies.

So, we’ve made that very clear. And we’re going to continue to be consistent.

Q Can you confirm South Korean reports that North Korea sent 7,000 containers of munitions to Russia? And if so, what — what are the consequences of that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything. I have not seen those reports. So, don’t have anything to share on that. I want to be really mindful and careful on that one.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Can you give us an update on the President’s review of the China tariffs, whether that’s nearing a decision point?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know you guys ask that question all the time, which I —

Q It’s a big one.

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

Q Pivoting to the UnitedHealth hack. I’m wondering if you can give us the latest of the administration’s view on whether that is nearing a resolution or if you’re still in the thick of it and whether it’s possible to say whether you know yet whether American health data has been compromised by this hack.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I would have to refer you to HHS. I’ve seen the reporting, obviously, on this. Just don’t have anything for you at this time beyond the reporting.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you.

Q I was just wondering if you could comment on the Russian elections and whether you see Putin as a legitimately elected President.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think Jake Sullivan did a very good job speaking to this. And one of the things that he did say, obviously, Putin — Mr. Putin is the leader of Russia. He spoke to this extensively.

We are — the results, obviously, also were predetermined. No one is shocked by the results coming out of the elections there.

I just don’t have to a- — anything to add beyond what Jake Sullivan laid out pretty well here —

Q Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — just moments ago.

Q Thanks, Karine. It — technically, is it still possible to avoid a shutdown, given the 72-hour review window that has to happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think we have to be hopeful. This is, obviously, a — a administration that is hopeful and hopes that Congress gets to — gets to the bottom of this and gets to a point where we keep the government open. It is, again, their basic duty to do so.

As you know, there’s negotiations I’ve been asked about at — with the DHS. I’m not going to speak to them from here. But this is important. It’s critical that we keep the government open.

It’s not just DHS. There’s numbers of other programs that Americans need that we have to continue. And so, this needs to get done.

Q And then, on the Israeli delegation that’s coming. Do we have a sense at this point of who is going to be leading that from their side or from the U.S. side?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything more to share on that. Obviously, as we get to a point where we’re able to share more information on that par- — when that meeting is going to happen, who will be part of that meeting, we’ll have more to share. I just don’t — don’t have anything, no — any further details than what Jake sa- — shared from here earlier.

Q And is it fair to — to understand from the detailed engagement that Biden is having with Netanyahu and with his government that this means that President Biden feels that the government is legitimate and should continue and that engagement with them can bear more fruit than it has in the past?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that “legitimate” —

Q That Netanyahu’s government is legitimate, that he is — still views him as the legitimate leader and that his appeals to them — to him can be successful.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, let’s be clear, like, that is up to — I mean, Bibi Netan- — Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of Israel. Like, that is something that we know. Right? That is something that is fact. You know, that doesn’t change anything. That is the reason why we’ve been in constant communication with the Israeli government from all levels. Right? And so, that i- — that has not changed. Right? That is — as far as —

Q I ask because Schumer suggested that that maybe should no longer be the case, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, that is something for — as it relates to any elections or any- — anything like that, that’s up to the Israeli government. Right? That is something for them to decide.

I can’t speak to that. What I can speak to is the President and his involvement and his engagement. I think it’s important that he had this conversation with the Prime Minister today about Rafah, about — about how we move forward.

And so, you know, Jake Sullivan did a really good job laying that out — what that’s going to look like, how that conversation went.

The President doesn’t want to see a military operation go into Rafah. He’s been very clear about that. He wants to make sure that innocent lives are protected. And we — and it has to be done in a way that we don’t see Palestinian lives — you know, lose any more Palestinian lives, but understanding that Israel has to go after Hamas — right? — a terrorist organization. We understand that.

So, there’s going to be a conversation with both sides. Obviously, it’s going to happen. But I just don’t have anything else to share further from that.

Q Thanks, Karine. The President has quite a bit of travel this week. I was hoping you could tell us a little bit about what he’s doing beside his political activity, as well as how he’s going to be engaged with these ongoing negotiations to make sure there’s not a shutdown.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m going to answer your — talk about your — the last part of your question first.

Obviously, the President is always engaged, always communicating with his team. It doesn’t matter where he is — if he’s at the White House or anywhere else in this country or the world — he’s president wherever he is. So, I’ll say that at the top.

The President is going to be going to Reno and Las Vegas tomorrow. In Reno, he will participate in a campaign event. So, obviously, I will refer you to the campaign for more details on that particular event.

In Las Vegas, he will deliver remarks on lowering costs for American families, which is the priority as it relates to his economic plan on behalf of the American people.

On Wednesday, the President will be in Phoenix and will deliver remarks on Investing in America agenda. This is — this part of a — this is part of a busy travel schedule following the State of the Union, where the President is hitting the road, meeting Americans, talking to them directly about how he sees his vision, how he sees the future of this country for, obviously, the American people.

We’ll certainly have more details to share. The — the specifics on the political poi- — parts of the trip, I would refer you to the campaign.

Q And then just one more question. Next week, the President is going to be going up to New York, meeting with former President Obama and former President Clinton. It’s a campaign event, but there is a report that came out today about President Biden’s relationship with President Obama indicating that there might be some jealousy involved. I was wondering if you could speak to that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let’s be very clear: The President — the two presidents, President Obama and President Biden, have a very good relationship. You all have seen it over the — the past several years. They — they’re like family to each other. And I’m just not going to — to speak to reporting that we don’t believe to be true.

Go ahead, Aurelia.

Q Thank you so much. Another foreign policy question. On Saturday, Niger decided to cut all military ties with the United States. Can you maybe explain what — what led to this decision? And how concerned are you that Niger is now one of the African countries seeking military cooperation with Russia instead of the United States?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. Jake spoke to this when he was here not moments ago. Let me just say some — two toplines about — about the situation in Niger first, which is: Since the coup last year, we fought — we sought to — we sought to work with the Nigerien junta towards a democratic transition and our shared security interest.

Last week, Assistant Secretary Phee, General Langley, and Assistant Secretary of Defense Wallander were in Niamey for a frank conversation with the CNSP to explore how we can chart a common path forward and our concerns about the lack of progress towards a democratic transition and operational consideration for us to maintain a long-term security partnership.

As it relates to — to Russia, the Russian Federation’s repeated violations of international law, to include its illegal invasion and ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine, represent a clear threat to the rules-based — rule-based international system. So, we are closely monitoring the Russian defense activities — closely, obviously — in order to assess and mitigate potential risk to U.S. personnel, interest, and assets.

And so, that is how we are looking at that relationship in particular.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. Yeah. When will the President hold another news conference so we can ask a question of him without having helicopter noise or jet noise in the background?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to preview — to share. Obviously, the President — the President, as you just say- — as you were just saying, the President takes questions pretty regularly, enjoys having engagement with all of you.

I don’t have a press conference to lay out for you at this time.

Q But is there — is there talk of one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything for you. But as I said, the President enjoys engaging with all of you on a regular basis, and he’ll continue to do that.

I think I have to go. I’ll take your question last. Go ahead.

Q Thank you. The North Carolina Lieutenant Governor and other state officials sent the White House a letter about Awet Hagos, who was arrested in the state last week. I’m wondering if —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that — say that one more time. Arrest of who?

Q Yeah. Awet Hagos in North Carolina last week. I’m wondering if the White House has seen the letter and if you have any information about that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to share on that particular letter. I’m happy to go back to the team and come — and let you know.

Thanks, everybody. See you on the road.

Q Thanks, Karine.

3:09 P.M. EDT

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

3:02 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, hi, hi.

Q    Good afternoon.

Q    Happy Friday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   Good afternoon.  Happy Friday.  We’ve made it today — or this week, I should say.

Okay.  I have a couple things at the top, so please, please bear with me here. 

So, this morning, the President was excited to host Taoiseach of Ireland for a bilateral meeting.  As you all know, this is a longstanding annual tradition — the leaders of our countries — and it is an opportunity to reaffirm the close and enduring partnership between the United States and Ireland and the strong connections between our peoples. 

The President and Taoiseach discussed our countries’ shared commitment to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, and the President commended the people of Ireland for opening their homes to welcome and support over 100,000 Ukrainian refugees who have fled Russia’s brutal invasion. 

They also discussed our global issues, including the urgent need to significantly increase deliveries of humanitarian assistance to Gaza. 

The two leaders welcomed the recent restoration of the Northern Ireland’s Executive and — and Assembly, reaffirming the critical role these institutions play in preserving the gains of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, which has been essential to peace and progress in Northern Ireland. 

This afternoon, the President traveled to the Capitol for the annual Friends of Ireland Luncheon. 

As you’ve heard the President say many times, the bond between the United States and Ireland has grown deeper and stronger over the years.  We look forward to continuing to build a vibrant future for Irish — for U.S-Irish relations, which is something that you all know is very important to President Biden, who is a proud descendant of the Bel- — Belwitt — Blewitts of County Mayo and the Finnegans of County Louth.

Sunday marks St. Patrick’s Day — and also my mom’s birthday. 

Q    Oooh —

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

Q    Happy birthday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Thank you so much.  Happy birthday, Mom.  (Laughter.)

And the President will deliver remarks at a celebration here at the White House as part of our annual tradition. 

And now, if you give me another moment here, I also want to address a heartbreaking development in the tragic loss of Nex Benedict.  For parents across the country, and I know for many of you here and some of you watching — many of you watching, including myself, the cause of Nex’s death was devastating to learn. 

As the President said yesterday, “Every young person deserves to have the fundamental right and freedom to be who they are and feel safe and supported at school and in their communities.” 

Bullying is completely unacceptable.  And it is an all — it is on all of us to take reports of bullying seriously.

There is always someone you can talk to if you’re going through a hard time and need support. 

The President and his administration launched the 988 line to help.  And we have a line dedicated to serving LGBTQI+ young people that can be reached by dialing 988 and pressing 3.

I want to close by saying that, LGBTQI+ young people across the country, you are loved exactly as you are, as the President has made very clear.  And you should know this: The Biden administration — Biden-Harris administration has your back.

Now, this morning, the President released a statement marking the International Day to Combat Islamophobia.  In his statement, the President recognized the violence and hate that Muslims worldwide too often face because of their religious beliefs and the ugly resurgence of Islamophobia in the wake of the devastating war in Gaza. 

Put simply, Islamophobia has no place in our nation. 

That’s why, in 2022, the President asked his team to establish an interagents poli- — interagency policy committee to counter antisemitism, Islamophobia, and related forms of bias and discrimination. 

We are also currently drafting the first-ever national strategy to combat islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination.  And we want to continue to implement the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism amidst the serious increase in antisemitism and to advance the White House Initiative on Hate-Motivated Violence. 

Put simply, we are taking concrete steps to make real for all Americans the promise of America.  And we affirm our commitment to do all we can to put an end to the vicious hate of Islamophobia here at home and around the world.

Now, for more than a year, the United States has engaged Haitian stakeholders across the political spectrum, CARICOM, and other international partners to support Haitian-led efforts for a peaceful transition of power.  Since February 29th, the urgency of the support for Haitians has increased because gangs have escalated violence, exacerbating the humanitarian, security, and political situation. 

On the humanitarian front, the United States remains the single largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Haiti with over $170 million since October 2022, including the additional $58 million we announced just this week alone, $33 million on Monday and $25 million today.  With our assistance, U.N. agencies and NGO partners provide lifesaving assistance to more than 1.5 million Haitians. 

On the security front, we urgently mobil- — we ur- —  we are urgently mobilizing support we and the international community can immediately provide the Haitian National Police to help them restore security.  We are working expeditiously with international partners and Congress to expedite the deployment of the Kenyan-led Multinational Support — Security Support Mission, to which we have contributed a total of $300 million to bolster the HA- — HNP’s c- — capabilities.  That’s the Haitian National Police. 

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan spoke today to his Kenyan counterpart, Monica Juma, reaffirming a shared commitment to supporting the Haitian people and expediting the Multinational Security Support Mission to assist to the HNP.

We have surged law enforcement resources to counter firearms trafficking, and the Justice Department has prosecuted those responsible for smuggling firearms into Haiti. 

On the political f- — political front, Haitians from across the political spectrum and segments of society — including religious leaders, business leaders, and civil society — made tough compromises, which resulted in a Haitian-driven declaration released by CARICOM just this week.  That declaration outlined the contours of an inclusive, broad Transitional Presidential Council.  The TPC will name an independent Permanent Election Council, which was dissolved in 2021. 

We applaud Haitians for creating a road map to establish a new Permanent Electoral Council to support free and fair elections and strengthen its democratic institution. 

A lot of work ahead lies — a lot of work ahead lies — lies ahead, pardon me, and the United States remains committed to supporting the people of Haiti on the humanitarian and security and political fronts. 

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who’s going to talk about Russia and Iran. 

Go ahead, John.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.

As you all know, we have expressed serious concerns from this podium that Russia is seeking to acquire close-range ballistic missiles from Iran to enable its brutal war in Ukraine and that Russian negotiations to acquire those close-range ballistic missiles have been active and they have been advancing. 

Today, I just want to call your attention to a joint statement released this morning by the United States and other G7 countries warning Iran not to go forward with the sale of close-range ballistic missiles to Russia.

The G7 statement reads, in part, and I quote, “Were Iran to proceed with pro- — providing ballistic missiles or related technology to Russia, we are prepared to respond swiftly and in a coordinated manner, including with new and significant measures against Iran,” end quote.

So, we’re speaking with one voice here on this matter, from the United States, Canada, Japan, the EU, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Now, shifting gears, next week, the United States will be sending a high-level delegation to the Summit of Democracy that will be led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken.  The U.S. delegation will also include senior U.S. government officials from the NSC, from USAID, and, of course, from the State Department.

At the summit, being hosted by the Republic of Korea — and we’re very grateful for their leadership in that regard — the U.S. will host a high-level event on the misuse of commercial spyware.  And this is a significant priority for the Biden-Harris administration. 

Our event will, for the first time, convene some of the most-senior government officials around the world with those from civil society, from the private sector, and even from those who have been directly affected by the nefarious effects of commercial spyware.

We’re looking forward to the conversations at the summit and to continuing the important work of strengthening democratic resilience worldwide.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Colleen.

Q    Thanks.  John, can you say anything more specifically on what possible sanctions would be levied?  I had heard maybe they were mulling flights — I don’t know — banning flights.  And I know you’re going to say no, but just if you can. 

MR. KIRBY:  No.  (Laughter.)

Q    All right.  Fine.

MR. KIRBY:  But — but — (laughs) — no, I’m not — I mean, as you know, we don’t preview sanctions, Colleen.  But —

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  But clearly, we’re looking at a range of options here.  And without question, additional sanctions would be on the table of those options.

Q    And what stopped Iran from going forward with ballistic missile sales to Russia already?  Why — why the delay?  What’s happening?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I can’t speak for the mullahs — I wouldn’t do that — or for the Supreme Leader.  We know they’ve provided drones, not only drones thems- — the drones themselves but the — but the ability to manufacture drones organically inside Russia. 

And this is a burgeoning defense relationship that we’ve been watching very, very closely.  We’ve talked about it many times here.  They have — we haven’t seen them move forward other than the negotiation process actively advancing.

And we really wanted to set down a marker here, for Iran and for Russia, that there will be swift consequences for them to do that.  What’s in the — what’s in their calculus, I couldn’t say.

But this would be, obviously, not just really bad for the people of Ukraine but also bad for people in the Middle East, because Iran is hoping to get something out of this too.  It’s not just about sales of ballistic missiles to Russia.  They’re hoping to get Russian military technology for themselves.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Does President Biden want to see new elections in Israel and for Prime Minister Netanyahu to no long- — no longer remain in power?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s going to be up for the Israeli people to decide.

Q    So, what about, beyond what he said in the Oval Office, did the President find good about Senator Schumer’s speech?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, the President spoke about the — the passion with which Leader Schumer made that speech, and the President said that he knows that those remarks, they resonate with many Americans out there.

For our part, we’re going to keep supporting Israel in their fight against Hamas, we’re going to keep urging them to reduce civilian casualties, and we’re going to keep working to get a temporary ceasefire in place so we can get the hostages back home with their families and more additional aid in to the people of Gaza.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    The Netanyahu government says it has approved an operation — military, as well as evacuating of civilians — for Rafah.  What is the administration’s expectation about knowing what’s in that plan, what comes next?  What do you know at this point?

MR. KIRBY:  We haven’t seen it.  We certainly would welcome the opportunity to see it.  And as we’ve said, Kelly, we can’t support a major offensive in Rafah that doesn’t also include a credible, achievable, executable plan to take care to — for the safety and security of the — the more than a million Gazans that are seeking refuge in Rafah.

To move in right now in a major way without a proper accounting for all those people would, as we’ve said, be a disaster.  And so, we’re going to keep talking to the Israelis about this.

Again, we — we — if they’ve got that plan, though, we certainly would welcome the opportunity to see it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, you guys are issuing this warning to Iran two days after renewing a waiver that unlocked $10 billion in frozen funds.  Don’t you think Iran is paying more attention to the actions of this administration than the words?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t speak for the mullahs or what they’re paying attention to or not.  Jacqui, I would remind that this sanctions waiver is renewed or up for renewal every three months.  It’s a quarterly thing.  It’s a sanctions package that was actually put in place by the previous administration, by President Trump and his team, that allows for Iraq to be able to work its way off of Iranian energy so that they can keep the lights on. 

And we’re continuing to work with our Iraqi partners about how to do that.  But right now, they still are dependent for a lot of energy from — coming from Iran.  And so, we don’t want to penalize the Iraqi people for efforts that they’re still trying to get to — to wean off of that.

And I would remind everybody — and we’ve talked about this before, I think; three months ago, we probably talked about this before — none of this money goes to the mullahs; none of this money goes into Tehran.  The sanctions relief that is provided actually is go- — goes to vendors that provide humanitarian assistance to the Iranian people.

So, not only do the Iraqi people not suffer because of this; the Iranian people aren’t going to suffer because of this.

Q    Wouldn’t it be, though, the Iranian people who would suffer as a result of the teeth in the warning?  I mean, you sa- — you’re saying you would suspend flights on Iran Air to Europe if Iran supplies ballistic missiles to Russia.

MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say that.  Press report said that.

Q    It’s not — but it’s not like, you know, the Ayatollah flies commercial.  I mean, that’s — the Iranian people would be the ones who’d be harmed by that if that comes to pass.

MR. KIRBY:  It’s also not like the — the regime and the IRGC are sit- — are thinking this is some sort of windfall, like they’re going to — like this is somehow going to make a big difference in their support for terrorist networks in the region. 

I mean, they continue to support Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis.  I could go on and on.  That hasn’t changed since 2018 when these waivers had been — had been passed by this administration —

Q    Yeah, just –= just in the —

MR. KIRBY:  — and a previous one. 

Q    In the —

MR. KIRBY:  Wait, now.  Hold on a second.

So, we — this is — you’re talking about one of the most heavily sanctioned countries on the planet.  And we’re still going to look at additional options if we need to.

We’ve been nothing but clear and direct and, quite frankly, forceful in pushing back on Iran’s activities in the region.

Q    In the last three months alone, since the last renewal, you had an Iran-backed proxy kill three American soldiers in a drone attack in Jordan; the Houthis in — in the Red Sea firing anti-ship and ballistic missiles, suicide drones at commercial vessels and Navy ships; you had — you know, three atomic bombs, apparently, could be built in Iran with ura- — uranium has been enriched to that extent.  Blinken today addressing that very issue in Vienna, saying there’s still an issue of the IAEA inspectors. 

I mean, what have they done in the last three months to justify another renewal of this waiver?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s a renewal that we go through every quarter.  We — and it’s — it’s really about not penalizing the Iraqi people and the fact that they’re still heavily dependent on Irani- — Iranian energy.

But in the last three months, look what else we’ve done.  We’ve gone after Houthi capabilities ashore.  We’ve got a coalition of ships in the Red Sea protecting against Houthi attacks on shipping there.  We have struck back and forcefully against some of these militia groups in Iraq and Syria. 

We continue to have sanctions in place — significant sanctions on the Iranian regime for multiple reasons: They’re protester — they’re, you know, going after protesters who support for terrorist networks, their nuclear program.  I mean, there’s a lot of sanctions in place. 

And, oh, by the way, we’re still conducting interdiction operations at sea to try to prevent their shipment of materiel and arms to some of these groups. 

So, the idea that we’re just laying back and not doing anything on Iran just doesn’t — doesn’t — just flies in the face of the — of the facts.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thank you, Admiral.  So, you said the U.S. has not seen a plan to protect civilians in Rafah, yet Netanyahu has already authorized an invasion of Rafah.  And that is exactly the scenario that the President said would be a red line.  So, how is the U.S. going to respond?

MR. KIRBY:  As far as I know, th- — they — there has not been an operation in Rafah. 

What we’ve seen today is the Prime Minister’s office saying that they have — have seen a plan that accounts for the operational aspect, the military aspect, and the evacuation aspect. 

As I said to Kelly, we welcome an opportunity to look at that plan.  We still can’t get behind a plan and we won’t get behind a plan that doesn’t properly account for those million and a half refugees in Gaza who need a place to go where they can be safe from the — from the fighting. 

Look, Israel has a right to go after Hamas, wherever they are.  We get that.  We’re going to continue to support their opportunity to do that. 

But as we’ve said a hundred times, if not more, they have a special obligation as well to look after the safety and security of the — of the innocent people of Gaza who are getting caught up in this conflict — a conflict that was started by Hamas. 

Q    Does that signal a turning point in the relationship, though, that the White House has not been briefed on this, you still haven’t —

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    — seen a plan to —

MR. KIRBY:  No, not at all. 

Q    — protect civilians?

MR. KIRBY:  No, no, no. 

Q    And when you talked about the President saying the speech was good and you said Senator Schumer showed a lot of passion, did the President mean the substance of the speech was good, or he was just talking about the passion that resonates?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll leave it at the President’s comments.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

Q    Oh.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right there.  Go ahead.

Q    Oh, I wanted to — Admiral — thanks, Karine.  Admiral, I wanted to pivot to Haiti real quick. 

MR. KIRBY:  Okay.

Q    On Jake Sullivan’s conversations with his Kenyan counterpart, Karine said there was a shared commitment.  I wonder if you can expound on what that means in — in more tangible terms. 

And — and on the topic, the administration urged the speedy confirmation of Dennis Hankins.  On the other side of that, you know, confirmation, what are his next steps?  You know, when does he arrive in Haiti?  What — what does that look like in the days coming forward?

MR. KIRBY:  I’d have to refer you to my colleagues at the State Department to speak to the now Ambassador’s travel plans.  And I have no doubt that he’s going to want to get down there as soon as possible and get started.  I mean, he’s obviously been eager to — to get confirmed.  And we’re really, really grateful that he got confirmed and he’ll be in place.  That will make a big difference down there. 

But, again, the State Department can speak to that.

As for shared commitments — and I do believe Karine actually covered quite a bit of this in — in her opening statement.  We have a shared commit with — with the — with the Haitian people and certainly with the Haitian National Police to make sure that they have what they need to better enforce security and stability in Haiti, which is being, obviously, torn asunder by these — by these gangs and these criminal groups. 

We have a shared commitment, as Karine said, to see a political transition here that is smooth, that is — that is credible to — to a new government that — that can represent the Haitian people and to look after their interests. 

And, of course, they — they just want the same as anybody would want.  They want to live in peace and security.  They want a future for their kids.  And we want to help them, from a political perspective, get there. 

And then, again — again, also, Karine mentioned this: the — the Multinational Security Support Mission.  We want to make sure we’re continuing to work with our Kenyan partners about that.  We want to make sure that the Kenyans have what they need to be effective and successful in this mission.  And so, we’re talking to them and, of course, the Haitian government about that as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, John.  What is the White House view of the latest Hamas proposal, which is 700 to 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 100 pardoned prisoners, in exchange for women, children, the elderly, and ill hostages?

MR. KIRBY:  I would say the proposal that was put forward is certainly within the bounds of — in broad brushstrokes, within the bounds of the deal that we’ve been working on now for several months. 

I don’t want to go into more detail than that, Nancy, because I don’t want to negotiate here in public.  The fact that there’s another delegation now heading to Doha, the fact that this proposal is out there, that there are conversations about it, that’s all good.  That’s all to the good. 

Now, whether it ends up looking like that, I don’t know.  That’s what the team will — will work on.  And we’ll — we’ll stay engaged.

Q    That’s interesting, because the Israeli Prime Minister called it “unrealistic.”  But from the White House point of view —

MR. KIRBY:  The broad brushstrokes.

Q    — do you think that’s in the range?

MR. KIRBY:  We think — we think it’s in the broad brushstrokes of — of the deal that we’ve been talking about.

But the devil is in the details.  And as I said before, nothing is negotiated until everything is negotiated.  And without getting into the specifics of — of these press reports, I can just tell you that we’re — we’re glad that the conversations are going.

Q    More broadly, do you believe — it sounds like you’re saying that things are moving in the right direction.

MR. KIRBY:  In general, we think — look, the fact that there — that we still have active conversations and now another chance to meet in Doha, that’s all to the good. 

Now, I know, for the families out there, it’s just another set of agonizing days to wait.  And we understand that too. 

So, I don’t want to — we’re cautiously optimistic that things are moving in a good direction.  But that doesn’t mean that it’s done, and we’re going to have to stay at this until the very, very end.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Admiral, just to go back to Iran.  Maybe I’m — I’m — I didn’t hear correctly, but those close-range ballistic missiles, did — does the administration think would be used in Ukraine by Russia?  Is there any recent evidence that the Iranian weapons have been used in the war in Iran —

MR. KIRBY:  Drones. 

Q    — I mean, in Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  Drones.  Heck yeah.  Drones by the hundreds — Iranian drones — have been used to kill innocent Ukrainians and hit Ukrainian infrastructure, to hit in- — Ukrainian defense industrial base.  Absolutely, yes, Iranian weapons have been used in Ukraine without question.

We haven’t seen a consummation of this particular deal, which is why the G7 is warning against the consequences of it.

Q    And a question on the — the Taoiseach’s visit.  When he — he came out at the stakeout, and he talked to us.  And he said — and I’m quoting, “None of us like to use — to see the American weapons being used in the way they are. This is not self-defense.”  Is it, Admiral?

MR. KIRBY:  We are — we’ve talked about this before.  Israel has a right to defend itself against a still-viable threat by Hamas, a group that wants to do October 7th again and again.  And we are continuing to support the Israeli Defense Forces as they go after that.

How they go after that threat matters.  And that’s the context of the conversations that we’ve been having at all levels, including at the President’s level, with our Israeli counterparts about how they execute and prosecute these operations.  We want to see — the right number of civilian casualties is zero.  We want to see the numbers come down.  We want to see the damage to infrastructure come down.  We want to see more humanitarian assistance get in.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    It looks like Putin is going to win a new term.  Is the White House ready to — prepared to —

MR. KIRBY:  Shocked.

Q    Yeah.  (Laughter.)

MR. KIRBY:  It’s going to be —

Q    Is the White House ready for another —

MR. KIRBY:  It’s going to be a real nail-biter, isn’t it?  (Laughter.) 

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah. 

Look, we’ll watch this and mon- — monitor and see how it comes out.  I mean, the idea of free and fair elections in Russia is a — is a misnomer.  But we’ll — we’ll see what happens this weekend.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you, John.  I have a couple of things for you.  You just referenced a meeting in Doha.  I’m sorry if I missed this, but are you confirming that the U.S. is sending a delegation to Doha for the —

MR. KIRBY:  We will not be — we will not be participating in this particular delegation to Doha.  But there is a meeting in Doha of the — of the counterparts.

Q    Is there a reason that a U.S. delegation is not —

MR. KIRBY:  I — we’re —

Q    — going to this?

MR. KIRBY:  I — we have been at this, M.J., literally every day.  I mean, believe me, we’re involved in all these conversations.  The fact that we’re physically not going to have a delegation there should not be taken as any kind of signal that this isn’t a serious, positive move forward.  We think it could be. 

Q    And has the White House asked the Israeli government to see its Rafah plans?

MR. KIRBY:  We have made it clear to our Israeli counterparts that we would welcome the opportunity to see their — their plans.  But it’s a sovereign country, and these are their military plans.  And certainly, they — they should speak to them, appropriately so.  We’re not interested in speaking for the IDF.  But we’ve made it clear we would welcome the opportunity to see it.

Q    And just circling back to one thing you said earlier.  Does the U.S. think that there is an achievable and executable plan, to use your language, that guarantees the safety of civilians in Rafah before a major military incursion into the area?  If not —

MR. KIRBY:  I think I kind of answered that already, though.  I mean, lo- —

Q    Do you — well, do you think that’s logistically and physically possible, given how many people are in that region?

MR. KIRBY:  I guess it would depend on the plan.  Make no mistake about it, that’s a — that’s a tall order.  You’re talking about more than a million folks — probably about a million and a half in — in a strip of ground that’s 12 miles wide.  I mean, there’s not a lot of places for them to go.

So, having our own experience at doing noncombatant evacuations and — and urban warfare points to certain lessons about — about how this can be done and what some of the pitfalls are.  I won’t get into that here from the podium, but accommodating for a million and a half people in a confined urban environment with not a lot of geography is a very, very tall order for any military to do.

Q    And could I just ask you to clarify one more thing?  When the President used the red line language last weekend, was he saying that Israel going into Rafah, period, was considered a red line, or did he mean Israel going into Rafah without a civilian evacuation plan in place, that that would be crossing a red line?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I’m not going to parse the President’s words.  Again, we’ve been very consistent, M.J., that we, the United States, can’t support an operation in Rafah that doesn’t include a executable plan for the safety and security of the million and a half Gazan refugees that are down there at Rafah.  They — that has to be fa- — factored in and baked in and has to be accommodated.

That’s — that’s our view, and that — the President was restating our view.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    John, on humanitarian aid to Gaza.  The humanitarian ship Open Arms arrived in Gaza today with about 200 tons of aid.  Do you see that as a one-off?  Is it something that could be replicated more?  I mean, it’s been described as a pilot project.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, difficult for me to speculate what the future is going to be on that.  Look, any assistance, any food, any humanitarian goods that can get to the people of Gaza is good for the people of Gaza, no matter what the size is.  But we’re constantly looking for multiple opportunities to get it in.

I mean, we’re obviously still — the Israelis opened up the 96 gate.  There are other crossings into Gaza we would like to see them open up, because trucks by the ground is the best way to do this by volume.  We’re working on this temporary pier that — that could allow for additional shipments by sea.  There’s just no, really, good port on the Gazan coast.

So, I mean, whether it’s a one-off or not, I don’t know.  We certainly would like to see more aid get in more quickly from a variety of different ways.

Q    Has the Biden administration asked countries like France to stop talking about sending troops to Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  No. 

Q    Why —

Q    But would the U.S. oppose any nation sending troops to —  

MR. KIRBY:  No, that’s go- — those are sovereign decisions that a — a nation has to make.  I can just speak for this sovereign nation and this Commander-in-Chief, and he’s made it clear that we will not put U.S. boots on the ground.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, John.  I have a question on Indo-Pacific and then Ukraine.  So, in Indo-Pacific, Fiji just decided to uphold the policing cooperation agreement with China.  We know the Biden administration been working with the Pacific Islands for a few years right now.  But it seems that country is still cozy with China.  Is the United States losing the competition over there?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t ask countries to choose between us and China.  They’ve got to make their own decisions.  These are sovereign decisions as well.  We are deepening our partnership with Pacific Islands countries, and we’re going to continue to do that across a range of — of capabilities, not just military security capabilities. 

But each — each nation has to decide for itself.  We are not asking people to choose between the United States and China.  We have a bilateral relationship with China, which we greatly value and — as you saw in the fall when we went to San Francisco.

Q    Regarding the allies in the Indo-Pacific, we know Japan, of course, is a trustworthy ally.  But we’re also seeing President Biden seems to opposing the Japanese company Nippon Steel to purchase the U.S. Steel.  So, if Japan is not trustworthy enough to invest in United States, who else is?

MR. KIRBY:  The — the relationship with Japan is extraordinarily strong.  It is one of the strongest alliances we have in the world.  Five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Pacific, and that’s — that’s a key one.

And I think you’re going to see it — you’re going to see the — the power and the promise of that alliance in full flower here when Prime Minister Kishida comes for the state visit.  There is an awful lot to talk about.

The President has also been clear about making sure that steel workers in this country know that he has their back, and he’s made his — he made his views known on this potential merger.  But that doesn’t take away one bit from the terrific relationship that we have now and will continue to have with Japan.

Q    Last on Ukraine.  Sorry.  At least 20 people were killed and a dozen injured in Russian double strike on Odessa.  What can the United States due to ensure Ukraine their needed air defense capabilities going forward, given, right now, the Congress situation?

MR. KIRBY:  Your question should have been what can the Congress do to ensure.  They can pass the supplemental bill so we can get critical air defense capabilities to Ukraine.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Vladimir Putin said that Russia is going to launch a nuclear power unit or some kind of a nuclear (inaudible) into the space.  So, should the United States take it seriously as a serious threat?  And are there any ways to deter Putin in space?

MR. KIRBY:  I haven’t heard that particular comment, so I can’t — I haven’t heard him — I haven’t heard that actually been said.  But just broadly speaking, your question is do we take it seriously.  Yeah, ob- — obviously we do.  I mean, the — the nuclear rhetor- — rhetoric coming out of Moscow — not just from Putin but from Lavrov and Peskov and others — is — is worrisome and you have to take it seriously with a nation with that kind of capability.

I would just tell you a couple of things.  One, we monitor it very, very closely, and we see nothing that has caused us to believe we need to change our own strategic deterrent posture.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Just a couple more.  Go ahead, Andrew.

Q    Thank you.  Congress is still debating raising the cap on A- — on visas for Afghan allies, who — many of whom are still waiting to get into the country and waiting in pretty inhospitable places.  What’s the administration’s position on the number of visas that the President would like included?  Republicans are trying to keep it down under 4,000.  And if they don’t get this into the upcoming appropriations bill, is there a plan B?

MR. KIRBY:  We — I think I talked about this a little bit yesterday.  We think that by the end of summer, we’ll probably — at the rate we’re processing SIVs, we’ll go — we’ll blow through the 7,000 we have left, and we’re asking Congress for 20,000 more.  And we think that that will really be able to help us get all those worthy SIV applicants safely out of Afghanistan.

Q    How hard is the President willing to fight for that 20,000 number?

MR. KIRBY:  He has been clear since the beginning.  We may have ended the war in Afghanistan; we never ended our commitment to our Afghan allies.  He is 100 percent committed to doing everything he can — and the rest of the administration as well — on working with Congress to get those SIV visa applic- — visa allowances in place so we can get those Afghans back —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

MR. KIRBY:  — out of Afghanistan.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aurelia.

Q    Thank you so much.  Question about the Houthis.  They have warned that they will expand their operations and start attacking the ships taking the longer route, the one going around the Cape of Good Hope.  So, how serious is this threat, in your view?  And, also, how actively is Iran supporting the Houthis right now?

MR. KIRBY:  They’re still supporting the Houthis.  They’re still providing all the capabilities.  We keep working to degrade those capabilities.  And we take those threats seriously.  We have to.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  There’s a report that Israel is exploring using an international private security contractor to try and help protect international humanitarian aid going into Gaza.  Is that something that the U.S. would support?

MR. KIRBY:  First of all, that would be up for the Israelis to speak to about how they might want to help with the security of — of humanitarian assistance that comes in by sea and then further distribution inland.  Again, that would be for them — something for them to speak to. 

What I can tell you is that, as you know, we are already starting to move the first — the first components of this temporary pier.  It’s called a joint logistics over-the-shore capability.  And those are just starting to move from the East Coast over there.  It’s going to take some time to get in place.

And while we have that time before they get into place, we are working with allies and partners, including the Israelis, about the details of — of how that temporary pier will be supported, how the aid that gets to the pier and gets to the people of Gaza, how that happens.  All of that is still being discussed. 

We’re just not — we’re not at a point where we have final answers for that.

Q    And then, just to follow up on M.J.’s question, you said that you would welcome the opportunity to review this.  But is it your expectation that you will get that opportunity —

MR. KIRBY:  We would —

Q    — to see the —

MR. KIRBY:  We would welcome the opportunity to see it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Phil.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  This week, the Russian Foreign Ministry included Jeff Seldin, a VOA reporter, in its latest round of sanctions.  And earlier this month, the Russian Interior Ministry issued an arrest warrant for Washington Examiner columnist Tom Rogan, who is a U.S. citizen.  What’s the administration’s response to this effort by Moscow to intimidate and target U.S. journalists?

MR. KIRBY:  Sadly, it’s consistent with the — the Kremlin approach to particularly journalists and — and the crackdown by the Kremlin on free speech and speech, in fact, that — that Mr. Putin finds offensive or inimical to his own selfish interests.  So, it — it’s, I think, just another reminder. 

And I think it underscores, first of all, the danger to Americans who may be in Russia and the need not to be there but also the real danger of an autocrat like Putin and what he’s really after here.

Q    Thank you, sir.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Raquel, you have the last question, way in the back.

Q    Thank you so much, Karine.  Hi, John.  Two questions, John.  One on the Russian election, including those who are — that are taking place in Ukrainian territories.  Will —

MR. KIRBY:  Which are illegitimate.

Q    Will the United States recognize these results?

MR. KIRBY:  No, of course not.  No.

Q    And the — on Haiti.  As you were saying, the White House is ready to support a transition in Haiti.  But how can the U.S. help with this transition — or how effective can be the help — the $3 m- — $300 million be effective when it’s not even clear who is in control?  And is the White House concerned that the gangs could take over the country?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, the gangs already have an awful lot of influence and power in certain places, particularly Port-au-Prince.  There are parts of the c- — of the country that are not suffering the instability that these gangs and — and criminal thugs are — are perpetrating on the — on the Haitian people.

How much more?  I mean, again, as Karine said right at the top, we’re very committed to this.  And we’re going to stay committed to it.  And we just announced another $25 — I think, $25 million today in humanitarian assistance, and I suspect you’ll see more coming from the United States.  Not just from us, though, but from some of our allies and partners as well. 

The situation on the ground is dire.  We understand that, and we’re doing everything we can to support a truly international effort to — to better improve security and stability for the Haitian people.  But it could take some time.  We’re going stay committed to it. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral.  Have a great weekend.  Thank you so much.

Q    Thank you.  Thank you.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Got a new mat.

All right.  Colleen, what have you got?

Q    So, Speaker Johnson has said that he would be willing to put forward Ukraine funding and Israel funding once the shutdown situation is ended.  I wondered if he has communicated that to the White House, if that’s the White House’s understanding, and, you know, how you think the proceeding will be.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, we’ve seen those reports.  And I’ll say this.  You know, we’ve said repeatedly: The House needs to move forward the bipartisan national security supplemental, which, let’s not forget, passed in overwhelming fashion in the Senate, and they need to put that in the — on the floor.  We know that if they put that on the floor — if the Speaker puts that on the floor, it would get — it would get overwhelming bipartisan support. 

We need to make sure that we continue to stand with Ukraine as a defense against Russia’s brutal invasion.  We have to continue to do that, to stand with them, to stand as they’re fighting for their democracy, as they’re fighting for their freedom. 

And it is — you know, Ukraine is losing ground.  You’ve heard us say this before.  You’ve heard this from the NSC.  You heard it from my — my colleagues.  They’re losing ground on the battlefield because Congress is not taking action. 

And so, we need them to move.  We need them to put that on the floor.  We need to — that to happen as soon as possible.  And we’re going to continue to be very clear about that.

Q    What happens, you know, as American support for Ukraine funding continues to, sort of, degrade?  How — what else can the White House do to articulate the importance of it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re going to continue to speak to it.  But here’s the thing: In Congress, there’s bipartisan support.  There’s overwhelming bipartisan support.  We saw that in the Senate.  And we know that to be true — to be a fact in the House.  That’s what we know. 

And so, we have to — the President understands the important role that Americans — that Americans play.  We — as the United States of America, we play a leading role in making sure that we’re continuing to fight for democracy.  And the President will c- — will speak to that directly to the American people as he has in the past two years. 

We know history shows us what happens if we do not stop a dictator.  It shows us what happens.  We know — we know what c- — where we can end up.  And so — and we understand Americans understand that.  They’re smart enough to get that. 

And so, Congress needs to — to move.  They need to act.  Their inaction is, you know, leading to Ukraine losing ground in the battlefield.  We heard that from the CIA Director.  The Big Four, when they were here meeting with the President, they heard that directly from the CIA Director. 

You know, it is — it is un- — it is unfortunate that they’re putting — that the Speaker is putting politics ahead of what our role should be, which is fighting for democracy and making sure that Ukraine has what they need for them to fight for democracy.

Go ahead, Jordan.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Did the President have a chance to talk with Speaker Johnson at the luncheon today about Ukraine aid?  And if so, what was his message?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have to say, I have not touched base with the President.  So, I do not know if they connected and what — if they did, what their conversation was.  I don’t have anything to share. 

We try to keep those conversations very private, obviously.  What I will say — I don’t think — the President is always very clear what he says publicly and in private — right? — which is when it relates to, obviously, the national security supplemental, it needs to be put on the floor.  The Speaker needs to do this. 

He didn’t hear this just when the Speaker was here — the Big Four — meeting with the President and the Vice President.  He just di- — he didn’t hear it just from the President.  Right?  He heard that from the other leaders as well, his counterparts — right? — his peers in Congress.  And they all agreed that we needed to move forward on this. 

So, the President is going to — it really doesn’t matter, because the President has been very clear.  The Speaker needs to put the national security supplemental on the floor.  It will get bipartisan support.  It will get overwhelming bipartisan support.  That’s what we know.  That’s what we understand.  And that’s what we’ve heard from congressional members. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, the majority of Palestinian American, Arab American, and Muslim organizations that the White House reached out to for a meeting this week rejected the invitation.  So, what is the White House strategy on this?  And are there plans for the President to directly engage with these communities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President, as you know, has had an opportunity to meet with members of that community not too long ago — leaders of that community, the Arab American community, the Muslim American community, not too long ago.

And so, look, what I will say is we understand that this is a difficult time, that this is a painful time.  We understand that the events of October 7th that — you know, that killed more than 1,200 — 1,200 souls — right? — took more than 1,200 souls in Israel and also took — Hamas, the terrorist organization, also, as we know, took hostage more than 200 people.  And what that led to — that war that led to is incredibly painful.  We understand that. 

And so, you know, look, we’re going to continue to — as you know, the President — senior officials from the White House met with members of that — of tho- — of those communities in — in Illinois just yesterday, and we’re going to continue to have those regular meetings to hear directly from them. 

And — and the President believes that’s important to do —

Q    But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to hear from those voices.

Q    — the majority of the groups that the White House reached out to for that meeting in Illinois rejected the request.  And when was the President’s last meeting directly with communities?  What date was it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I mean, look —

Q    It was months ago, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear — I hear what you’re saying.  But the point is that we — the White House is actively engaging with the community.  And we have been, and you know this.  You know that to be true.  We’ve been actively engaging with them regularly since October 7th.  And we’re going to continue to do that.

I’m not going to speak to who attended.  That is not for me to do from here, because the point of those meetings actually is for them to be private, for them to — so, we want to keep that private, obviously, so that — so that members of their community could speak freely.

And so, as you know, senior members of — of our administration, they were in Chicago yesterday.  They met with those members — members of the Arab community, Palestinian community, Muslim community.  And this conflict is personal and painful for many, many — for many people.

And so, again, they’re private and — private meeting, and we are committed to the participant that we — so that they could speak freely.  And we think that’s incredibly important.

Q    And where does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s what we can speak to.

Q    Where does the White House think the TikTok — what’s going to happen to TikTok?  Because even if the bill makes it to the President’s desk, the Chinese government needs to approve it, which they’re likely not to.  It could also face significant legal pushback.  So, what does the White House ultimately think is going to happen with TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’m — I can’t get into, you know, predicting here, right?  What we have been very clear about is this bill is an important — is important, and we welcome the step in — in serv- — in — in ongoing efforts to address the threat posed by certain technology, right?

Services operating in the United States put — these — these services put Americans’ data at risk.  You heard the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, speak to this on Tuesday.  It is important for us to have an understanding — right? — where this American data is going.  Do they live here, or do they live in China, for example?  He said that, right?  Do — is the ownership here or is it in China, for example?

And so, those are really important.  And so, that’s why we welcome that bill.  This isn’t a divestment bill.  It’s not a ban. 

I’m not going to get into hypotheticals here.  It’s going through the process.  We’re going to offer technical support as it moves, obviously, from the House into the Senate.  But this — we welcome this bill, and we — this is about our national security.  That’s what this is about.

Go ahead.

Q    There was a settlement in the National Association of REALTORS case that effectively ends the 6 percent commission.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that again.  Can you start at the top?  Sorry.

Q    There was a settlement in the National Association of REALTORS case that effectively ends the 6 per- — 6 percent commission on house sales.  You know, the Biden administration made a lot about fees and costs and consumer costs.  Has the White House been tracking this — this case?  And any reaction to the settlement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can’t speak to the settlement.  Obviously, you’re talking about junk fees and how important it is that we —

Q    Yeah, I’m not calling —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — this a junk fee.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    I’m just saying that you guys have been focused on consumer fees, consumer costs.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    This is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — kind of in line with those things.  We’re seeing that, effectively, the 6 percent commission is going away.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to be very careful, because I don’t know much about this case, so I don’t want to speak to this case.  But I can speak more broadly to what the President has tried to do.  Right?  He is trying to make sure that consumers don’t get taken advantage of by corporations.  He’s made that very, very clear.

That’s why we speak to junk fees.  That’s why there’s a Competition Council.  And that’s why we try to find out — find out ways to save Americans money.  You know, we’re talking about billions of dollars — billions of dollars that Americans have to pay because of these junk fees, because we don’t — we see coperat- — cooperation [corporations] not passing on their — you know, their — their wealth, what they have been able to incur, to — to the consumers.

So, look, it is very important.  The President has always said he’s going to stand up for Americans.  And he believes corporations, obviously, should pay their fair — their fair share here and — and not — not treat Americans like suckers.  He has said that over and over again.

And so, I can’t speak to this particular case.  But obviously, this fits in more broadly in what this President has been trying to do.

Q    Sure.  On Biden’s opposition to the proposed purchase of U.S. Steel.  I’m wondering if his comments were as a citizen or as somebody — or a sign he’s going to use his authority to actually block the deal. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that one more time.  You wonder what?

Q    I’m — I’m wondering whether he — Biden, yesterday, made a statement about opposing the U.S. Steel purchase.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Mm-hmm.  Yeah.

Q    I was wondering whether it’s more simply — is that a sign that he’s going to use some executive authority to actually block the deal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I can say is this.  When it comes to American owned and operated U.S. steel companies, they’re incredibly vital to our supply chains and our national and economic security.  That is what you heard from this President when we put out a statement on this.

And so, look, the President has always said he has steelworkers’ back.  And he’s certainly committed to the iconic American steel companies remaining in America.  This is why he’s done the work that he’s done to make sure that manufacturers come back to this country, that we’ve created more than 800,000 jobs — American — American — American manufacturing jobs.

And so, that’s what the President’s focus is always going to be — make sure that he puts Americans first here.

Q    Sure.  Last question.  A lot of bad headlines around Boeing.  Some news today.  Wondering if — if the White House thinks Americans should be concerned about flying commercial Boeing airlines?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, there are investigations happening by the N- — NTSB, so I would have to refer you to them.  On the specifics as it relates, in this particular instance, to Alaska Airlines, FAA is also conducting its own investigation and au- — and audit of — of Boeing.

Look, we take this very seriously.  The F- — FAA takes this very, very seriously.  But there’s investigations happening.  FAA — and we stand by FAA and the actions that it is going to — that it’s taking to increase safety oversight of Boeing. 

And so, I’m just going to leave it there.  But N- — NTSB certainly will have more to share because it is their — they are an independent agency that’s looking into it.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Just following up on that.  I know I’ve asked you this question in the past.  But given the additional Boeing-related headlines recently, does the President still believe that it is safe for Americans to get on Boeing airplanes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what our commitment is, is to make sure that we want to put the safety of Americans first.  And that’s what FAA is doing.  And so, they are taking actions — we stand by those actions — to increase safety.  Obviously, an oversight of Boeing.  And I think that’s important.

There’s investigations that’s still continuing by NSTB — NTSB, pardon me, and also FAA.  And so, you know, we’re going to do — the FAA is going to take the action to do what they can — everything that they can to make sure that it is safe and take those actions.

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

Q    But would he tell the American people, though — obviously, there is a lot of concern right now and nervousness that it is safe to get on an —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think what he —

Q    — Boeing airplane.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think what Americans should know is that FAA is doing everything that it’s ca- — that it can to make sure that Americans feel safe.  They are taking the actions.  We stand by those actions to make sure that there is — there is increased safety, oversight of Boeing.

And that’s what the Americans pe- — the American people should feel reassured by, that FAA is doing everything that they can to make sure that we get to the — to the bottom of it.

Q    Just on a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, sure.

Q    — different topic.  CNN reported yesterday that some Democratic senators have told the White House that there aren’t enough votes in the Senate, including support among some Democrats, to confirm the President’s judicial nominee Adeel Mangi.  Where do you think his nomination goes from here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to get into speculation.  Obviously, the President put forth Mangi because he believed that he was the right person for the job.  He was — you know, has the experience to — to get the job done on behalf of the American people.  He stands by — certainly stands by his appointment.

I just don’t have anything else to share about how this is going to turn out.  But certainly we — we support his continued process, and we think that Congress needs to move and make sure that he gets — he gets confirmed.

Q    Does the President himself believe that Mr. Mangi was targeted for being Muslim American?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, that is something that Congress needs to speak to themselves.  Really, that is a question for them.

Q    Well, the White House has said that.  I’m just wondering if —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, he —

Q    — the President believes that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we’ve been very clear.  It is — if that is the case, that’s unfortunate.  That shouldn’t be.  That shouldn’t be.

He is — he has the experience to do the job.  That’s why the President put him forth.  And if that’s the case, that’s certainly shameful. 

Go ahead, Molly.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Two questions for you.  Has President Biden had a chance to speak with Senator Schumer since his speech yesterday that he called (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a — a conversation to read out to you at this time. 

Q    And then following up on Selina.  You know, we reported a lot on a meeting that the President held with some Arab American and Muslim leaders in late October.  Is there another meeting that the President himself personally took part in since that (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have another meeting to read out to you.  But, look, I think it’s important that senior — senior officials in the White House have had regular conversation, regular meetings with the communities — right? — with the Arab community, Muslim community, and Palestinian community. 

I think that’s important that we continue to hear directly from them.  We want to hear what th- — what they are feeling, how — how they’re feeling about the situation.  We understand that is — it is incredibly painful for them. 

And so, we’re going to continue to keep those lines of communication open.  You just saw — you — you — you’re aware or you all know that there was a meeting in Chicago, there was a meeting in Michigan, and there’s been others. 

And so, look, the President gets fe- — gets — gets a readout of those meeting.  He hears directly from the officials who have sat down and had these important, critical conversations. 

We try to keep them private, because we want to make sure the leaders who are attending these meetings can feel — can feel freely to say — have the freedom to say what it is that they want to tell us and want to share with us.  So, we try to keep those meetings as private as possible.

Q    Are there any plans for the President to take part in another one of those meetings —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything —

Q    — personally?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — on — on the President’s schedule as it relates to a meeting with the leaders.

He has met with the leaders, as you know, and he feels that is incredibly important for his White House to continue to have those conversations. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Regarding the Vice President’s trip yesterday to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota, the President has spoken very often about how reproductive freedom is at risk.  So, I’m just wondering why it was the Vice President that made this trip to this clinic instead of the President.  And are there any plans for the President to go himself?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s — I think it’s important just to note that — let’s not forget: The Vice President has been on a tour — right? — she’s been on a tour around the country since the beginning of this year to go to important, critical states to talk about what we’re seeing, to talk about what Republicans — extreme Republicans are doing across the country in these state legislatures — right? — trying to take away a woman’s right to choose — reproductive rights. 

And so, it is — it is something that we — the Pro- — the President even said in his State of the Union.  He lifted up the Vice President for the work that she’s done.  But if you think about the State of the Union, now that I brought it up, it is the first domestic policy that he brought up during the State of the Union, is abortion right, is reproductive healthcare.  That was the first thing that he talked about and leaned into. 

And we are going to continue to stand with majority of Americans on this where they are.  We have to continue to fight for women’s freedoms.  And so, that’s what you see the Vice President do.  The President said that to over 30 million people who watched — the first domestic policy that he leaned into, that he talked about extensively, and he’ll continue to do that. 

What you saw yesterday is part of what the Vice President has been doing for the first couple of months, obviously, in this — in 2024, which is continuing to go to key states where women are affected — are affected by these — these laws. 

And we see — we see in Congress — Republicans in Congress have introduced three pieces of legislation that will ban abortion nationally, and we are not going to stand for it.  We’re not going to stand for it. 

Go ahead, Molly.  Oh.

Q    Sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, which argues that the administration kind of overstepped and coerced social media companies into taking down posts.  I’m wondering if you all are worried about what this case might mean for your ability to communicate with social media companies in the future. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really mindful here.  I’m going to refer you to Department of Justice and their briefing of this case, and that’s where I’m going to have to leave it for now. 

Go ahead.

Q    Just to follow up on an earlier question about Boeing.  The President flies on a Boeing aircraft anytime he leaves Washington.  Is he concerned that the aircraft he flies on might not be safe?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, he’s not concerned. 

Q    So, why — so, why can’t he say that Boeing aircraft, in general, are safe and that Americans should be confident in flying on them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I want to be really mindful.  As you know, there’s an — an investigation happening.  FAA is doing everything that they can to increase security, c- — increase safety for Americans.  And so, just want to leave it there. 

Obviously, this is a major, major priority for FAA to make sure that Americans feel safe.  And so, that’s going to be his — his focus.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Karine — thanks, Karine.  So, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told me on Wednesday that she does not see a smooth path down for inflation.  I’m curious how bumpy a road will it be before we see all prices then fall. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just want to — just going to reiterate a little bit of what she said here.  She said: Inflation is down two thirds from its peak, and the trend — this is a quote, “The trend is clearly favorable,” end quote. She expects it to continue to decline with a strong market and economy. 

And I also want to remind you what caused inflation.  We know that inflation was caused by supply chains that broke down because of the pandemic.  Russia’s war in Ukraine — we know that caused oil prices to skyrocket.  Our economy was disrupted by so many ways because of the pandemic.  That’s what caused inflation. 

And so, because the President took action very early on in his presidency to make sure that Americans got vaccinations and to make sure that we fix and strengthen the supply chain.  He took historic actions on oil so that prices — gas prices could go down.  And so, we have an unprecedented economic recovery here.  That is — that is important to note. 

But I do want to be really, really clear: We have seen inflation go down by two thirds at — from its peak.  And so, want to make sure that it is clear what she said and what the data also shows.

Q    But two — but two thirds from its peak — its peak was a year and a half into President Biden’s office — into — into his term.  He also cancelled the Keystone Pipeline, which also sparked it.  And we passed $5.8 trillion in spending, which also pushes inflation. 

But my question is: How much longer will it be for Americans to then bring down all prices?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, because the President’s unprecedented actions that he took as it relates to the oil, we saw gas prices go down, which in — is important at the tank to Americans across the country.  And that was something that the President took really seriously because he knew what Americans were dealing with.  He wanted to give them a little bit of a breathing room. 

And we have to be — we have to also — you — you’re a data guy.  You pay attention to the data.  The fact that it went down two thirds matters. 

And so, what the President is going to continue to do is making sure that we lower cost.  Right?  He — that is the number one part of his economic plan, to continue to lower costs for Americans.  And we’re going to continue to do that. 

Look, the pandemic, the supply chain, what we saw Putin do in Ukraine — right? — that caused inflation to increase.  And in every part of what I just said — said — what I just laid out, the President has taken action on. 

And so, he’s going to continue to do everything that he can to low- — to lower costs for Americans. 

Q    One more, if I may.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    What does the President think about Bernie Sand- — Senator Bernie Sanders’s plan for a four-day workweek —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — with the same — same level of — of income?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’ll say this.  The President has a very good working relationship with Senator Sanders.  We’ve got to — we’ve got — we’ve been able to get some historic pieces of legislation done on behalf of the American people.  We will review that piece of legislation.  I don’t have anything else to add from that. 

Q    One about the press.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I didn’t hear you mention — someone asked about Adeel Mangi being nominated out of New Jersey.  Is the White House doing anything specific to get him across the finish line given his nomination has been pending for a while now? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’re in continuous conversations with members of Congress and their staff.  And that’s what we normally do.  We think it’s important to get him through.  And we’re going to continue to make sure that that — that that happens. 

Q    Has there been any —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, we think it’s important that happens. 

Q    Has there been any personal appeal from White House staff or certain calls —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m —

Q    — you can read out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — not going to get into specifics on our conversations with — with senators.  Obviously, it’s important — we believe it’s important to — to get Mangi through.  We think he is more than experienced to — to have this role.  And so, we encourage the Senate to move quickly on this. 

Okay.  Thanks, everybody. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  See you next week. 

4:02 P.M. EDT

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