Press Briefings

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
Via Teleconference

11:50 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks again for bearing with us this morning.  Kirby has no toppers, so we’ll go straight into your questions. 

Our first question will go to Aamer with the AP.

Q    Hey, thank you very much.  Two quick news-of-the-day questions, and then I just had one also — a short one that’s like things sort of emerging into next week. 

But on the news of the day, does the President agree with Leader Schumer that Netanyahu has lost his way and that it’s time to hold new elections in Israel?

And secondly, on the TikTok development, does the White House view this emerging Steve Mnuchin effort as a possible solution to the national security issues with the platform?

And then finally, there’s this bipartisan group of senators that wrote a letter to leadership this week, and it’s waving red flags on the Afghan SIV issue with the March 22nd government funding deadline.  What is the administration doing to make sure this gets done?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Look, we know that Leader Schumer feels strongly about this.  I’ll certainly let him speak to it and to his comments. 

We’re going to stay focused on making sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself while doing everything that they can to avoid civilian casualties.  And of course, we’re still focused — laser-focused on trying to get a temporary ceasefire in place so that we can get the hostages out and get more aid in.  That’s where our head is right now. 

I don’t have any information on the Mnuchin effort you’re speaking to, Aamer.  I don’t have any context on that.  We’re still focused on continuing to work, providing some technical support and assistance to Congress as this bill, which just passed the House, moves on to the Senate.  There’s an ongoing legislative process for that.  We obviously want to see the Senate take it up swiftly.  And we’re focused on making sure we’re providing them the context and the information we believe is important so that this bill can actually do and address the national security concerns that we have with respect to TikTok.

But I’ll tell you what I’ll do, since I didn’t have anything on yet for the Mnuchin effort you spoke to, but I will take that question, and we’ll have the team take a look and see if we can get you something a little bit more cogent than what I just gave you. 

And, look, on Afghan SIVs, I think, as you know, we project that all 7,000 remaining Afghan SIV numbers are going to be exhausted by August of this year, so the end of the summer, at the current rates that they’re being issued.  So that’s why we requested from Congress an increase of 20,000 SIVs, which would provide a visa for all individuals with a demonstrated eligibility for the program.  And so we’re going to continue to urge Congress to move forward on that.

Even though our war in Afghanistan ended, our commitment to Afghans and our commitment to those who helped us in that war has not ended.  And we absolutely feel fully committed, and morally so, to do everything we can to get those folks a pathway out of Afghanistan.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Welcome back.  Since you mentioned the hostage deal, give us an update on where things stand with that.  Are there any active negotiations going on right now?  Getting any movement from Hamas on that front?

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Steve.  I wish I had some tangible progress to speak to.  I don’t.  But I can clearly state that discussions and conversations are ongoing.  We are a part of those discussions and those conversations.  And we’re still hopeful that we will be able to get there.  But I don’t have an update for you.

Q    And secondly, the U.S. is imposing sanctions on several individuals related to settlement activity in the West Bank.  Why were these people specifically chosen for the sanctions?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, these three individuals and two entities were sanctioned because they own or control — I’m sorry, sanctioned three individuals and two associated entities that are owned or controlled by those individuals.  That’s what this was about.

These individuals have engaged in repeated violence against Palestinians and, in some cases, Israelis too, in the West Bank.  And as we made clear before, extremist settler violence that we’ve seen increase sharply since the attacks on the 7th of October threatens peace, security, and stability of the West Bank. 

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

Q    Hi.  On the attack — the IDF attack on the UNRWA facility in Rafah yesterday, I wonder how concerned you are about Israel openly targeting either Hamas or police in Rafah at a U.N. facility that is key to resolving the aid issues that you’ve outlined in the south and whether you have any more information on this person who was targeted.

Separately, there’s a report that the Israelis — that the United States is aware of plans that Israel has to relocate people in the south in order to proceed with their Rafah offensive.  I know Jake said yesterday that the United States had not seen any plans.  And I wonder if, in fact, you’ve seen anything.

And finally — sorry, I have one more.  There was another report yesterday that the United States this year has held talks on two occasions, with Iran and Oman, over both the Houthi strikes and the nuclear situation, and I wonder if you could comment on that.  Thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karen.  Lots there. 

So, on the strike at an UNRWA distribution facility, we’re very concerned about that strike that apparently killed and wounded civilians.  What I can tell you is that we are in touch with our Israeli counterparts.  We’re trying to gather some more information about exactly what happened. 

Obviously, we offer our deepest condolences to all those who were affected by it.  And we have called for a swift investigation by the Israelis into exactly what happened.  And as I said, we are and we’ll stay in touch with them to get more information, but we want to see a swift and thorough investigation as to exactly what happened here. 

And I would just reiterate: Again, we certainly understand, respect, and support Israel’s right to defend itself and to go after Hamas leaders, but we’ve also been clear that they have to do this in a way that protects innocent civilian lives and humanitarian aid workers who are on the ground to protect those innocent civilian lives.  We want to see them do everything they can to differentiate between civilians and Hamas. 

And again, I don’t have anything more — or more information about the high-value target that they said that they were going after.  The Israelis can speak to that.  Again, they certainly have a right and responsibility to go after Hamas leaders, but they also have an obligation, as we have said many, many times, to protect innocent civilian life and particularly to protect those who are trying to provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance to those more than a million individuals who are trying to seek refuge down in Rafah. 

And that brings me to your second question.  We’ve seen the reports that they have plans to relocate people out of Rafah into what they’re referring to as sort of humanitarian islands inside Gaza.  We haven’t seen those plans; I’ve seen press reporting of it.  We can’t confirm that that is, in fact, a plan that they have.  We’ve not seen that.  But again, our position has not changed.  We do not want to see large-scale operations in Rafah that don’t — unless there is a credible, legitimate, executable plan to provide for the safety and security of the civilians that are there. 

On Iran, I can’t confirm the reports that you’re referring to.  What I can say, just in general, is that we have many channels for communicating with Iran and for passing messages to Iran.  Again, I will comment on those, except to say that all of these discussions are focused on raising the full range of threats that are emanating from Iran and the need for Iran to cease its escalation across the board in the region and the support that they are providing to various groups that are doing everything they can to undermine peace and security.

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

Q    Hi, Admiral.  Thank you so much.  ABC News spoke with a senior Israeli official who said that the U.S. is slow-walking supplies of ammunitions into Israel and that the pressure is enough that it’s not putting them under threat but it is putting them on notice.  Does the administration have any response to this?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just tell you we continue to provide Israel with the tools, the capabilities, the weapons systems that they need to defend themselves.  And the President has spoken to this.  He spoke — he’s spoken about it numerous times in just recent days.  They have a right and responsibility to defend themselves.  We’re continuing to provide them that critical support.  In fact, as I think you know, we surged air defenses to them in the wake of the October 7th attack.  And I’ll just leave it at that.

Q    Can you speak at all to the speed at which we’re providing them though?  Has it slowed down?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the timeline for every individual system that’s being provided.  We continue to support Israel with their self-defense needs.  That’s not going to change.  And we have been very, very direct about that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jordan with Bloomberg.  Jordan, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    I have a few questions on the statement the President made on U.S. Steel.  Were the Japanese given a heads-up that the President would be releasing a statement opposing the deal? 

And how does the President plan to ease any tensions with Tokyo, especially given the upcoming state dinner? 

And thirdly, wondering if you can clarify if the statement means that the President wants a Nippon Steel transaction to die or does he think it can be changed.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I don’t have any diplomatic conversations to speak to with respect to your first question. 

We have an incredibly close partnership, friendship, and alliance with Japan.  And the President is very much looking forward to Prime Minister Kishida’s visit and to discussing the broad range of issues in our bilateral relationship, whether they be diplomatic, economic, or even in the security front.  There’s an awful lot to talk about, an awful lot to explore. 

The alliance with Japan is stronger than it’s ever been, and it’s a real keystone to peace and security in the Indo-Pacific.  So we’re looking forward to that visit, and we believe it’s going to be a very, very productive one at that. 

And, I’m sorry, you had your third question, which I did not write down and therefore did not remember.

Q    No problem.  Can you clarify whether the President wants the Nippon Steel purchase of U.S. Steel to die, or does he believe it can be changed to satisfy the conditions you laid out in his statement?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not going go beyond what he said in his statement.  I mean, as he said, he has the back of American steel workers, and he’s committed to iconic American steel companies remaining in American hands.  And I think I’ll just leave it at that.

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

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  A couple of things from the other side of the Atlantic.  The first one is about an ally of Navalny, who was apparently attacked in Lithuania.  Lithuania has blamed Russian secret services for that.  Just wondering if you have any — if you’ve got any read on that or any details. 

And the second question is just about the Netherlands, where the far-right leader, Geert Wilders, says he’s not going to stand for prime minister anymore.  Just wondering if there’s any reaction to that far-right figure dropping out of the picture.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, on the second question, I’m certainly not going to speak to domestic political issues in the Netherlands.  We’ll let that individual speak for himself and for his decision-making. 

On your first question: Yeah, we are very, very concerned about this attack on Leonid Volkov.  As you all know, he has been a longtime associate — or was a longtime associate of Mr.  Navalny, and certainly has been outspoken in his criticism of the Kremlin.  Just terrible, terrible, brutal reports coming out about the attack on him by an individual wielding a hammer.  Just incredible violence.  We certain wish him the best for a speedy recovery. 

While we can’t — don’t have much more detail on who did it and the motivation behind it, or any additional context with respect to the actual act itself, it is, I think, a reminder — and it should serve to all of us as a reminder — of the very real threats that civil society members in Russia face on a daily basis.  It certainly underscores the danger and the peril that they face just for the simple act of speaking out in opposition.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick Schifrin with PBS.  Nick, you should be able to — oh, there you go. 

Q    Thanks, Sam.  Thanks, John.  Questions.  First, a clarification on the previous question that Steve asked about the sanctions.  John, can you just confirm one basic fact that this is the first time an actual outpost has been sanctioned rather than just people?  Just wanted to clarify that.

And then, Gaza humanitarian.  What have you seen in the last day or so in terms of Israel’s opening up an additional gate in the north?  How significant is that?  Are you seeing enough trucks that you’ve been hoping to see? 

And do you believe there’s any progress being made on a crucial question that Israel doesn’t seem to have the answer for, at least not publicly, which is how trucks are going to be secured?  Are you working with Israel on that?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  So just to be clear — and if I wasn’t, I apologize — the outposts themselves are not what’s being sanctioned.  The individuals and the entities that those individuals own are what’s being sanctioned, not the outposts themselves. 

On Gaza: You’re right, the Israelis did open up a new crossing; they call it the 96th Gate, which is geographically closer to northern Gaza.  As you know, Kerem Shalom is way down at the south there.  And that’s something that we’ve been pushing for.  There have been — and we would call — we would call it minimal amounts of aid getting through the 96th Gate so far.  And, you know, today we saw some slow-rolling of movement overnight.  So, nothing actually got in overnight.  

But at other crossings, there’s been some improvement.  Too early to tell if we’ve been able to commit to the improving flow — I’m sorry, if the Israelis have committed to improving the flow of assistance. 

But again, just in the aggregate, Nick, not enough is getting in. 

Q    Sorry, can you just clarify why nothing got in overnight?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I think we’re seeing just, I guess, not as much effort being applied by the Israeli side to increase that flow. 

And I want to go back on my original answer to you.  The outposts are, in fact, being sanctioned because they are owned by sanctioned individuals.  I was incorrect on that.  So the outposts were designated, but they were designated due to their ownership or control by designated individuals. 

I apologize for the error, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to clean it up.

Q    Got it.  So the entity referred to, that is the outpost itself?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes.

Q    Got it.  Okay, thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Apologize for the confusion. 

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

Q    Oh, thank you, guys, for doing this.  I was wondering, Admiral, if you could give us an update.  Israel reportedly set a deadline with Hezbollah to come to a diplomatic agreement for tomorrow.  And Hezbollah’s leader has said they’re going to continue fighting.  Is there any update you can give us on what’s happening in the north and concerns over the conflict spreading wider?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any update on this deadline that you’re talking about.  We can take that and come back after the gaggle is over. 

But we have continued to see exchanges or blows from both sides up there.  And as I think you know, Amos Hochstein has been engaged diplomatically with leaders on both sides to see what we can do to keep it from escalating.  I would say that we haven’t seen a dramatic escalation of the violence up there or something that leads us to believe that a quote, unquote, “second front” is about to open up.  But it’s not something we’re taking for granted.  And as I said, we’re actively engaged diplomatically with leaders from both sides here to avoid that outcome. 

But as for the deadline and where that sits, and whether we have an assessment of that, I’ll have to take that and come back to you.

Q    And, Admiral, can I ask a second question?  On Haiti, just, can you give us an update on the situation and what you’re watching for?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, watching it very, very, very closely.  It remains a challenging environment.  The violence has been increasing, not decreasing, as well as the instability.  And of course, the Haitian people are the ones that are suffering as a result.  So that’s why we felt positive about the outcomes of the meeting in Jamaica, which was led by dozens of Haitian stakeholders, all designed to create an inclusive, transitional presidential council. 

And I think — one point I’d like to make: It was a meeting facilitated by CARICOM and certainly supported by lots of our international partners — Brazil, Canada, France, Mexico, even the United Nations.  And of course, we were involved. 

It was a Haitian-led meeting, and it was — and the decisions and the outcomes were derived at by Haitians.  And so we think that’s very, very positive.  And it’s an important message to make sure we continue to reiterate. 

In addition to us participating in that, I think you saw that Secretary Blinken announced an additional $100 million for support for the Multinational Security Support Mission and an additional $33 million for humanitarian assistance. 

So we’re going to keep working really, really hard with our international partners to move this idea of a Multinational Security Support Mission forward, which would be led by Kenya.  And we’re doing everything we can to try to accelerate that deployment in support of the Haitian National Police. 

So there’s still a lot of work to do.  The situation on the ground is still not safe, not tenable for the Haitian people.  We recognize that, our international partners recognize that, and Haitian leaders recognize that. 

So there’s been some good progress on the diplomatic front.  Certainly good progress from the United States on the economic support front.  But we have a lot more work to do to get this Multinational Security Support Mission up and running and on the ground to assist the Haitian National Police.

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

Q    Hey, John.  I wanted to follow up on Nick’s questions a little bit about the aid inside. 

One is: Are there other specific gates that you guys are proposing the Israelis open to get aid in?  But then, kind of on this practical issue of vehicles and trucks inside Gaza that can distribute the aid, can you update us on efforts to essentially get more trucks inside Gaza to distribute the aid?  And then anything you can add more about the security of those trucks once they get in there?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, so — I mean, there are other crossings into Gaza that we are talking to the Israelis about opening and using.  Again, we were glad to see that the 96th Gate opened up.  We’d like to see it get used a little bit more than it has been. 

We have seen an increase in trucks that are, in general, being applied to the crossings and, you know, just across the board, but not enough.  So there’s been a general increase, not at the 96th Gate, but if you look at Rafah and Kerem Shalom.  But it just hasn’t been enough. 

The airdrops, as you know, have continued.  They are helping to supplement, but they’re not going to be as good as trucks can be.  And it’s hard to — one of the reasons why it’s so important to get this temporary ceasefire in place is because it’s hard for truck drivers and for the aid organizations that are supporting the truck drivers to get the material from the crossings to where they need to go for distribution because of the combat, because of the violence.  And that is why we are working so hard on this temporary ceasefire, because with a stoppage in the fighting, it’ll make it a lot easier for these trucks to get where they need to go. 

Q    But just to clarify real quick, I visited Rafah recently and saw all these trucks, but my understanding is those trucks that are all lined up — the thousands of trucks — are not the same as the ones that would go into Gaza because they would do, like, transfers of stuff.  But you’re saying you — your understanding is you’re helping to obtain more trucks for inside Gaza to do the distribution?

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m not aware of any effort to do that.  And that’s not what I meant to convey.  Certainly, it’s always been the case that — in some cases, for some of the aid and, depending on where it’s going, there’s transfers from the trucks that go in across to other trucks that can move it inside Gaza. 

But I’m not aware of any effort that we’re undertaking to provide physical vehicles — additional physical vehicles inside Gaza.  I’ll go back and check on this to make sure I’m not wrong, but I don’t think that we’ve got an active effort to actually man- — or to procure or to provide additional distribution trucks inside — for use inside Gaza. 

When I talked about the increase of trucks, I was talking about the trucks making the crossings.  And there has been an increase in the last week or so in general — not, as I said, through the 96th Gate.  But in general, there’s been an increase, but it’s not enough.  I mean, it’s just several hundred, and it’s just not enough.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michael with McClatchy.

Q    Hi there.  Thanks for doing this.  There’s a vote underway in the Senate to confirm Dennis Hankins as ambassador to Haiti.  I just wanted your reaction to that vote.  It’s been about three years since the last ambassador was there. 

And then secondly, John, you obviously spoke to your efforts to expedite the MSS.  But in the interim, what are you providing, if you can provide any details, to the HNP for them to sustain the fight against these gangs until the MSS can be deployed?  Are you providing ammunition?  What other assistance are you providing?

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, obviously, we certainly urge a swift confirmation for Mr. Jenkins [Hankins] as our ambassador to Haiti.  This is a critical time to make sure that we have an ambassador in place, and we certainly urgently need him in place.  And again, we’re working with our partners on Capitol Hill to get him confirmed as soon as possible.  We certainly hope that that vote proceeds swiftly and in the affirmative. 

On your second question about the HNP, I know we are continuing to talk to Haitian leaders about their needs and about the HNP’s needs.  I don’t have any announcements to make or anything to preview for you, but we’re mindful that the HNP is doing critical work and has come under attack.  And we’re in close discussion with our Haitian counterparts and international partners about the HNP’s readiness and sustainability. 

Quite frankly, that is another reason why this MSS mission is so important, because it would really be, as it says, a security support mission supporting the HNP.  It is the main muscle movement that we’re looking hopefully to get in place soon to do exactly that — to bolster and support the HNP’s efforts.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Kelly O with NBC.

Q    Hey there.  I wanted to go back to the first question, if I could, that Aamer asked.   Was there any advance notice from Senator Schumer about his remarks?  Or did the White House in any way approve what he said?  I know they’re co-equal branches of government, but was there any coordination there regarding his comments about Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Kelly.  He did give our team advance notice.  And I apologize to Aamer if I did not answer that question.  But we did have advance notice that he was going to deliver those remarks. 

And again, we fully respect his right to make those remarks and to decide for himself what he’s going to say on the Senate floor.  We obviously feel strongly about this.  We understand and respect that.  This wasn’t about approval or disapproval or editing in any way.  But it was — but he did give us a heads-up that he was going to do it. 

Q    And if I may, just for time — my colleague Gabe Gutierrez is in the Dominican Republic, and I know there’s been some reporting that Haitian refugees might be processed through Guantanamo.  I wonder if you could comment on that.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’ve seen that.  What I can tell you on that, Kelly, is that — if you can just give me a second, because I had a feeling this question may come up. 

There’s a Department of Homeland Security task force called Task Force Southeast.  And that task force continually watches and monitors migrant flow rates and all the different conditions under which migrants do flow in that particular part of the world, down in the Caribbean.  And particularly, they watch closely maritime migration trends, people that are trying to flee to safety by boat. 

So we’re always monitoring that.  We adjust — they adjust their assets to meet the challenges that come with maritime migration.  And in doing that, they’re always looking at different options to try to address the challenges that maritime migration might incur. 

So it’s our policy to return non-citizens who do not have a fear of persecution or torture or legal basis to enter the United States.  That won’t change.  Those that are interdicted at sea will be subject to immediate repatriation pursuant to, again, longstanding policy and procedure. 

There has been — in the past, one processing location for maritime migrants has been the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay.  It has been used in the past for that exact purpose, for repatriation processing.  It certainly remains an option to look at for, again, that eventuality.  But I don’t have anything firm and I don’t have any concrete plans here to speak to.

I think it’s important for people to remember the context here — that maritime migration remains a challenge in the Caribbean.  We have to monitor it.  We have to assess the flow. We have to do the proper repatriation processes.  And, again, Guantanamo Bay has been used in the past for that.  And so we’ll certainly keep the options open as we continue to look at that. 

I would tell you though — the last thing I’ll say, and I promise I’ll shut up — is that we’re not seeing a heavy flow of Haitian migrants, certainly by sea — actually, by any means right now.  We’re just not seeing a heavy flow of that. 

But because the situation is not getting better, because we know it’s dangerous and unstable for the Haitian people, it would be irresponsible if DHS and the interagency wasn’t taking a look at what we might do should that flow dramatically increase and how we would properly handle individuals that might be seeking to flee.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will — sorry, our next question will go to Nadia.  Nadia, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Yeah, I did.  I did.  Hi.  Hi, Sam.  Hi, John.  The Israeli Defense Minister said that for those who doubt that we go into Rafah, I will tell you, you will see soon.  So how serious do you take his statement?

And second, on building the pier in Gaza, will the Israelis be involved in building or controlling or distribution?

And also, an NGO like World Central Kitchen has managed to deliver 750,000 meals a day to people in Gaza.  And the U.S. government hopes that they will provide 2 million meals a day in two months.  So where do you see the disparity here?

And finally, if you allow me, on TikTok: There was some leaked tapes of pro-Israeli group pushing to ban TikTok because it has unfiltered videos of Palestinian children and women killed in Gaza.  And they believe this is — it’s reaching youth worldwide, especially in the United States.  So are you aware of this?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of the last thing you said.  As I want to just stress, our national security concerns about TikTok have to do with its ownership by a Chinese company.  It is not about First Amendment, freedom of speech, or the content itself.  It’s about divestiture.  It’s about the ownership of apps like TikTok. 

Let me go back to your top here.  On Rafah, I won’t speak for the Israeli military and what their plans are.  They have said repeatedly and consistently that they want to conduct operations in Rafah to go after remaining Hamas leaders and Hamas military units.  They have every right and responsibility to protect their people against those threats, and we recognize that. 

That said, nothing has changed about our concerns that we would not support such an operation unless or until they can properly account for the safety and security of the more than 1 million people that are seeking refuge in Rafah, that sought refuge in Rafah as a result of operations in Khan Younis and, weeks before that, in Gaza City.  They have that obligation, and we’re going to continue to talk to them about that.  That’s still critical to us. 

On the temporary pier in Gaza, there is a lot of work being done right now, largely by the Department of Defense and some of our allies and partners, to move not only the infrastructure itself, the temporary pier and its components, but also to get humanitarian assistance and ships with humanitarian assistance moving in the right direction so that we can use that pier as quickly as possible. 

But there’s an awful lot of work that has to be done to get all the pieces in place and to begin the construction of this temporary pier.  And we are still working with allies and partners about all the particulars and the modalities of how exactly the operational component of it will — actually, that sounds like gobbledygook.  We’re still working with allies and partners about how we will safely operate and use the pier to support the people in Gaza in terms of how the material will flow to the pier, how the material will flow from the pier, and we can make sure it gets to the people that are most in need and get there in a safe and secure way. 

That’s a much better, more English way of putting it. 

But we’re still working our way through that. 

And I did not — your third question about meals per month.  Can you repeat that?  Because I don’t think I quite understood it.

Q    Yeah, sure.  My understanding is an NGO, like World Central Kitchen, has been able to deliver 750,000 meals daily to Gaza, and they’re building something similar to a pier.  And my question to you, John, is: Your plan is to deliver, as the Secretary said yesterday, 2 million meals a day in two months.  So how come an NGO with little resources are able to deliver it now, and the U.S. government needs two more months to deliver 2 million, which is, you know, not far away from almost like 750,000 (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I can’t speak to the reports by the NGO.  Certainly, they can speak to their capacity and their capability.  I’m in no position to judge one way or the other.

We welcome the contributions of everybody and anyone that is willing to get food, water, medicine to people in need in Gaza.  So we commend their efforts.  I’ll let them speak to their capacity.  All I can do is speak to our capacity and what we’re trying to get done.  You’ve heard the Secretary talk about that.  And we’ll see where it goes. 

And obviously, as we have since the beginning here, we will continue to push and prod to get more humanitarian assistance in as much as possible.  It’s why we started doing airdrops — not to replace the trucks, but to supplement the trucks.  It’s why we’re talking about a temporary pier to supplant — not to supplant, but to support efforts by other partners, including NGOs, to get humanitarian assistance in.

Look, more is more.  And right now, more is better.  And so, again, we applaud the efforts of everyone who’s trying to get more in to the people of Gaza, and that includes our own efforts as well.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Yuna with Israel Channel 12.   Yuna, you should be able to unmute yourself.  There you go.

Q    Hi.  Thank you, John.  Thank you for doing this.  Following up also on Rafah, you’ve said before that the U.S. hasn’t seen any programs or anything that would suggest that there is something that would allow moving the civilian population, the evacuation.  Has that changed?  Has the U.S. government seen any plans of that sort?  Has that changed the U.S. perspective on this?

MR. KIRBY:  No and no. 

Q    Have you asked?  Was there a refusal to show these kind of plans?  I’m kind of wondering where it stands.

MR. KIRBY:  No, I know of no refusal to show any plans.  As I said earlier in the gaggle, we’ve seen the press reporting that the Israelis have — that the IDF spokesman said that they’ve got a plan to move — or they’re working on a plan to move Gazans into what they call humanitarian islands.  I can’t speak to those plans.  I’m not disputing their reporting; I’m just saying we’ve not seen such plans. 

Q    And another question, if I may, about the Schumer speech.  You said that President Biden was informed and updated.  And after that — and because this is such a rare speech, after all — is there some sort of a conversation or call being planned between President Biden and Netanyahu or someone else within the administration after the speech or regarding the war in Gaza and in general?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, in general, I mean, we’ve been in touch with our Israeli counterparts dang near every single day at various different levels, including through our embassy in Jerusalem, with Ambassador Lew.  So there’s been constant, daily conversations with our Israeli counterparts at various levels, up to and including the President, of course. 

I don’t have a call with Netanyahu to announce or preview for you today.  They have spoken at various intervals since October 7th.  And you can count on the fact that they will speak again.  No doubt about it.  I just don’t have one to announce right now. 

But we will constantly stay in touch with them, as we should, as we must.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Neria with Israel Channel 12 — 13.  Excuse me.  Israel Channel 13.

Q    Hey.  Thank you, Sam.  Thank you, Admiral, for doing this.  I was wondering: Some may see Chuck Schumer’s speech today as an intervention in Israeli domestic politics.  What do you have to say about that?

MR. KIRBY:  I think we’ll let people speak for themselves and how they want to see it.  And as I said, Leader Schumer feels strongly — obviously strongly enough to make the comments that he did.  I think we’re going to let him speak to his thought process there. 

But again, our focus is on making sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself, that everything is being done to avoid civilian casualties, that more aid gets in, that hostages get out.  We’re still having these conversations about a hostage deal.  That’s what we’re focused on.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll next go to Nathan with KAN.

Q    Thanks so much.  Again, going back to the Schumer speech: Just in general, does the administration have any policy regarding the need for elections in Israel?  This relates also to the national intelligence assessment presented this week that spoke about Netanyahu’s political viability.  Is it the U.S.’s view that it is time for political change in Israel?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s going to be up to the Israeli people.  And the issue of elections is, in the parliamentary process, up to the Israeli government, a government elected by the Israeli people.

Q    Would it be a wise move for Israel to move towards elections after the war is over?

MR. KIRBY:  That is up to the Israeli people.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think we have time for one more question.  We’ll go to Patsy with VOA.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  Hi, John.  I have a question on Ukraine and Yemen. 

But just to follow up on Haiti, can you confirm Prime Minister Henry is being housed at a U.S. military base in Puerto Rico?  And does the administration believe there’s a role for him in Haiti post his resignation?

MR. KIRBY:  I know he’s in Puerto Rico, Patsy.  I don’t know where he is.  He’d have to speak to his specific whereabouts.  But he’s still in Puerto Rico. 

And again, we applaud him for doing the right thing and putting the Haitian people first and being willing to — being willing to step aside.

Q    Can we get your reaction to reports of Speaker Johnson planning to send a Ukraine aid package to the Senate but making it a loan or Lend-Lease program?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get ahead of a legislative process that hasn’t executed yet.  We believe that the supplemental passed by the Senate will answer very well.  Our strong desire to continue to support Ukraine will answer well Ukrainian defense needs, as well as Israeli defense needs and other concerns to our national security around the world. 

So we continue to urge Speaker Johnson to take that bill up, put it on the floor, get it voted on, and get it moving forward.  And we know there’s strong bipartisan support for it if it can be made available to a vote.

Q    And on Houthis, can you confirm their claims that they have this new hypersonic missile in their arsenal and how might this impact U.S. operations in the Red Sea?

And if I can just sneak in an Afghanistan question.  Senator Rubio has introduced a bill asking the U.S. to hold off contribution to the U.N. for aid to Afghanistan until they can confirm that the money won’t go to the Taliban or other terrorist groups.  Does the administration support this bill? Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Look, on the hypersonic thing, those reports are inaccurate.  There’s absolutely no indication that the Houthis have access to a hypersonic weapon.  So I can walk you off of that. 

And, I’m sorry, can you repeat the last question?

Q    Oh, yes.  So, Senator Rubio has introduced a bill asking the U.S. to hold off contribution to the U.N. on aid for Afghanistan until they can confirm that the money won’t go to the Taliban or other terrorist groups.  Do you guys support this bill?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead, again, of a bill that’s still in its early stages.  I would just tell you that, you know, we haven’t recognized the Taliban as the government in Afghanistan.  If they want such recognition, if they want legitimacy, they got to meet their commitments, particularly to women and girls and to human rights in Afghanistan.  And we are not providing direct support to them diplomatically, economically, or in any other way. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thanks, everyone, for joining us.  Sorry we were a little late.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to your question, please reach out to the NSC press distro and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can.  Thanks.

12:38 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.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Milwaukee, Wisconsin

3:02 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hello.  Hi, hi.  Okay.  Got a couple of things at the top. 

All right.  Good afternoon, everyone.  We’re — we’re en route to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the President will announce $3.3 billion to reconnect and rebuild communities in more than 40 states, including those that were divided by transportation infrastructure decades ago and have long been overlooked. 

These projects will increase access to healthcare, schools, jobs, and will strengthen communities by covering highways with public spaces, creating new transit routes, adding sidewalks, bridges, bike lanes, and more. 

Today, the President will announce that $36 million of the funding will go to Milwaukee Sixth Street “Complete Streets” project.  This project will reconnect communities along more than two and a half miles of the Sixth Street corridor and make the roadway and surrounding communities safer, greener, and more welcoming. 

Many other communities will receive funding under this initiative, including Atlanta, Georgia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; Toledo, Ohio; and Detroit, Michigan. 

Today’s announcement will take — take place at the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee, a community hub at the heart of the communities disrupted by the 1960s freeway construction. 

Historic investments in transportation infrastructure, especially highway construction, cut too many Americans off

from opportunity, dividing and dem- — demolishing communities and perpetrating economic and racial injustices.

The President is committed to righting those wrongs and reconnecting those communities.  It’s part of his broader vision he talked about last week in his State of the Union to invest in all of America and make sure we are leaving no community behind. 

With that, I am happy to take your questions. 

Q    Can I start — start with one about TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Start with what?

Q    Start with one about TikTok.  I know you said in the past the President is going to sign any bill that Congress gives him.  But it seems to me that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — not any bill that Congress gives.  That’d be —

Q    I’m sorry.  Well, on this issue, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh — oh, okay.  (Laughs.)

Q    He will sign what Congress gives on this issue.

Is — is there any fear that banning an outlet like TikTok is something an authoritarian government —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s be —

Q    — would do, like in China?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s be mindful.  You heard the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, talk about this.  We — this is not about banning any — any platform. 

So, I just want to — let me just say a couple of things since it did pass, I think, 352 to 65 out of the House.  It’s going to the Senate.  So —

Q    The practical effect would be a ban, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sorry?

Q    The practical effect would be a ban, basically.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, let me — let me just take this on for a second. 

So, we — we are glad to see the bill — this bill move forward.  We will look at — we will look to the Senate to take swift action.  As we have said — and this is something that National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said — this bill is important and we welcome the step in — and ongoing efforts to address the threat posed by certain technology services operating in the United States that put at risk Americans’ personal information and our — our broader national security, including through the manipulation by foreign powers of Americans’ views and beliefs. 

The — the National Security Advisor was very clear yesterday — Jake Sullivan.  He said: Do we want private data that Americans have to be here or in China?  Do we want companies to be owned here or in China?  That was what he said.

So — and I want to be also very clear here: This bill would not ban apps like TikTok, period.

What it would do is to ensure that ownership, as I just stated, of these apps wouldn’t be in the hands of those who can exploit them or to do us harm. 

So, it’s going to go through a process.  We hope the Senate takes action and takes this up very quickly.  And we have said this before on every legislation that’s worked in — in Congress that we have — we are involved in: We provide technical support.  And that’s what we did through — during the House process, and we’re going to certainly do that during the Senate process. 

Q    So, just to be clear —

Q    Karine, are you okay with the bill as it stands?  Just to be clear.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We are going to provide technical support.  Obviously, it’s going to go to the Senate.  So, the Senate is going to look at it.  It’s going to do it — they’re going to do their process.  We’re going to support it in a technical way, obviously. 

And, look, we want to make sure that this bill ensures the threats we face and is on the strong — is on the strongest possible legal footing.  That’s also very important. 

And so, I’m not going to get ahead of any of those discussions from here.  But we want to see the Senate take swift action. 

Q    Karine, are you not concerned that —

Q    Should the Speaker bring it to the floor for a vote?

Q    Are you not concerned that doing this — since for the President to be supporting this move could jeopardize the sort of fragile thaw in relations with China?  You’ve worked really hard.  You’ve sent a bunch of Cabinet members to China.  They’re going back again. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, but like you just said, they’re going back again.  So — right?  We are going to continue our — our work with the — you know, working with our relationship with China.  That does — that’s not going to stop. 

But the President has always been clear.  The National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, has always been clear — the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has always been clear — right? — when it comes to our national security, when it comes to data that’s coming from Americans, we’re always going to make sure that we’re — we’re addressing those threats that we face.  And so, that doesn’t stop that work. 

There — you know, and — you know, there’s going to be things with any country that we’re going to agree with on, and there’s going to be disagreements.  And that’s why we continue to have these diplomatic relationships.  That’s important.

Q    On Haiti.  Karine, let’s start with the 48-hour deadline that CARICOM set up for a transitional government.  What happens if they bust the deadline?  And then, also, some of the criminal groups in Haiti would like a seat on that transitional council.  Where does the White House think they should sit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  On the first question, I know you’re talking about the 48-hour.  Right?  And so, look, we will let the Haitian people speak to their efforts and timelines.  The National Security Advisor, again — Jake Sullivan — said this yesterday that Haitians should be able to choose their leaders and determine their future. 

So, we have been clear.  We remain committed to supporting Haitians — Haitian — and their efforts to create the transitional presidential council to restore security and to pave the way to free and fair elections, which is something that we believe is incredibly important here.

Look, in that — in that council, in that kind of proposal that they put forward, there is — there is language in there — there is a declaration — a CARICOM declaration that lays out who could join that council.  So, I will leave it still — I will leave it there. 

Q    Karine, there’s been reporting that the President has serious concerns about the Nippon-U.S. Steel deal.  Do you know his thoughts about that deal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any — I don’t have anything to share with you on that. 

Q    And then a question on Poland.  Obviously, the President met with President Duda yesterday.  What was his thoughts about his requests for the NATO defense requirement to be raised from 2 percent to 3 percent? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  Obviously, it was an important bilateral meeting that he had with the Poland leaders. 

And so, let me just step back.  At this — at the Vilnius summit last summer, NATO Allies agree that spending more than 2 percent would be required to address shortfalls and respond to changing security dynamics. 

This year, for the first time since the Alliance cre- — creation, 19 NATO Allies are set to — to — to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense spending, which is a sixfold increase since 2014.  We expect that number to increase before the Washington summit. 

And if — if you combine NATO’s European Allies’ collective GDP, they will spend 2 percent of their collective GDP on defense.  This is a major milestone and a clear demonstration that Allies recognize the need to invest more in security following Putin’s reinvasion of — of Ukraine.

We are confident Allies will continue to dial up their defense investment to meet challenge.  We will continue to encourage progress on this front.  And so, I’ll — I’ll just leave it there.

Q    You said that you expect the number of NATO members who are re- — reaching that 2 percent level to increase in time for this summit, which is just two months away.  So, what’s the — you know, what — what’s your target for how many NATO members —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have a target —

Q    — will have that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — for NATO members.  I think what I just laid out is the increase that we have seen, which is important, especially as we’re seeing the reinvasion of Ukraine by Russia, Mr. Putin’s aggression. 

So, I think it’s important that we are seeing — I mean, since 20- — 2014, we’ve seen an increase.  And I think that matters. 

I don’t have a target to lay out for you.  Obviously, we’re — we’re very hopeful that we’ll see more before the summit, as you just stated, which is going to be two months from now. 

Q    Did the President — was the President briefed on the Putin interview and his comments about nuclear power — or, I’m sorry, nuclear weapons and — and being ready to, you know, respond —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, our —

Q    How concerned is he about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the President certainly is aware.  I can say that, look, we understand that Mr. Putin was res- — restating Russia’s nuclear doctrine.  This was a question that he was asked.  Right? 

Nevertheless, Russia’s nuclear rhetoric has been reckless and irresponsible throughout this conflict.  It’s — it is Russia that brutally invaded Ukraine without provocation or justification.  And we’ll continue to support Ukraine as they — they defend their people and their sovereign territory from Russian aggression. 

And so, I’ll — again, I’ll just leave it there.

Q    On Gaza.  What’s the administration’s position on Israel restricting access to Al-Aqsa Mosque during the holy month?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that one more time.  The last part.

Q    What is the administration’s position on the Israeli government possibly restricting access to the Al Aqsa Mosque during this holy month?  And then, does the President plan to meet with members of the Arab community on the ground on this trip?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, are you talking about in — in Wisconsin or in Michigan when you say “on the ground”?

Q    I could go with either.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, Michigan is a — is going to be a political trip, so I would refer you to the campaign to kind of just laid out what the President is going to be doing in Wisconsin.

I’m not seeing those reports that you just stated, so I can’t really speak to that.  So, I’m just going to leave them there.

Q    Is the President concerned at all that — about the prospect of Aaron Rodgers joining the RFK Jr. ticket to carving votes away.  I mean, he was a popular quarterback in Wisconsin —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — for a long time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I’ll say this.  I’ve got to be careful.  We’re talking — you’re asking me a question about a upcoming election, obviously 2024.  So, don’t want to speak to that.

Q    There are campaign events on this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.

Q    — in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know, yeah.  I know, there are campaign events.  You’re absolutely right.  They’re happening in Michigan, and the campaign is — are ru- — is running those events.  And so, that particular question is for the campaign to speak to.

Q    Follow-up on Russia.

Q    What did the President take about from the Robert Hur testimony yesterday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a case closed.  You heard from my colleague yesterday, Ian Sams, the — who is the spokesperson for White House Counsel.  I just don’t have anything else to add.  The case is closed.

Q    On Russia, I will have a follow-up.  So, you said, like, Putin just, like, repeated his nuclear posture. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does that mean there is no need for the United States to adjust its own assessment of threats?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have not seen any re- — reasons to adjust our own nuclear posture, to your question, Aur- — Aurelia, nor any indication that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

Q    And another Russia-related question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    A close ally of Aleksey Navalny was brutally assaulted in Lithuania.  The Lithuanian authorities have accused Russia of being behind this aggression.  Can you comment on this attack?  And do you share this assessment that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — Moscow might be responsible?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would have to — I want to make sure that I have the reporting correct.  So, I would have to just check in with our — our team at the National Security Council.  I just want to be mindful here.

Q    Karine, yesterday, Josep Borrell from the EU said that Israel is using hunger as a weapon of war in Gaza.  I know that you have worked to increase humanitarian aid.  Do you agree that Israel is using hunger as a weapon of war?  And what can be done to accelerate the work?  I know you’re building this bridge.  But, like, you know, are there more airdrops planned?  Are you providing assistance to the José Andrés flotilla that’s going in?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we have said — we have been very clear that it is important to increase the humanitarian aid going into Gaza.  We have seen innocent Palestinian civilians, you know, needing important — important essentials: food, water, and medical assistance.  And that is something that we want to make sure that we can get as many — as much assistance in, because that’s — there is a humanitarian crisis, period, happening in Gaza.

And so, that’s why we’ve done the pier.  That’s why we’re doing the airdrops.  That’s why we’re doing everything that we can to get more trucks.  That’s why we’re working with Israel to make sure that we are getting more humanitarian aid. 

We have said — the President have said that Israel needs to do more.  And so —

Q    Why not condition the aid, then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we are doing everything that we can to get this hostage deal.  Right?  It is important that we get this hostage deal so that, again, it would be accompanied by a temporary ceasefire.  Right?  Wwe have talked about this for six weeks — so that we can get that in humanitarian aid, so that we can make sure that we get those hostages home. 

There are about six American hostages.  You heard the National Security Advisor speak to this yesterday.  We want to get them home.

And so, we’re going to do everything we can to continue getting that — getting that hostage deal.  And that is a priority.  24/7, you see this administration working on this.  The President is focused on this. 

We believe by getting — by getting that done, the i- — the hope is to get to a longer, more perna- — permanent ceasefire.  And so, that is the work at hand, and we are doing everything that we can.  We are up- — upping our efforts.  You’ve seen us announce almost every week, you know, ways that we’re trying to get more humanitarian aid into — into Gaza. 

You also have heard us not too long ago announce more humanitarian aid funding — the $53 million that came out of USAID.  We’re taking every step that we can to do that.  It is important — it is important that we get those essential, essential needs to the — to the people in Gaza, to the Palestinian people.

Q    And on —

Q    You said that —

Q    Can I —

Q    You said that — I’m sorry.  Go ahead.

Q    A Fulton County judge dismissed several charges against Donald Trump in the election interference case in Georgia.  Any reaction to that?  Is the White House concerned?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not commenting on an ongoing case.  I’m just not.

Q    I mean, the White House usually comments on election integrity and protecting the vote —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not.  Donald Trump, as you know, is a — is a current candidate.  I’m just not going to comment.

Q    Can I ask you one more about the trip? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, sure.

Q    There — there’s been a lot of polling and other suggestions since the State of the Union that he hasn’t really gotten a political bump from it.  I think part of the reason why he’s going to these states is to announce and to con- — continuations, basically, of some the priorities he talked about in the speech.  Is there any fear that this isn’t going to break through, especially in these critical states?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things there.  Look, the State of the Union was successful.  More than 30 million Americans watched, which is important — right? — that they got to see the President of the United States talk about his vision and his future, obviously — how he sees the — the future of this country and build — and how he’s going to build on the successes that he’s had the last three years.  I think that’s important. 

We’ve heard that.  We’ve seen people respond incredibly positive to it. 

The President going on a — you know, barnstorming the country, if you will, going — going on trips after a State of the Union is not unusual, right?  That is something that all presidents do.  He wants to take that message that he delivered that’s — from that successful State of the Union and take it directly to the American people.  That’s what he’s doing. 

And he also has said he wants to continue to build on his success.  So, that’s what th- — this announcement — this $3.3 billion to make sure — to make sure that we’re reconnecting communities in 40 states — that’s in 40 states.  That’s huge.  That’s huge when you think about how disproportionately the communities that are af- — affected by these types of infrastructure, you know, projects that were done decades ago — they pr- — predominantly affect Black and brown communities, low-income communities. 

So, this is really important.  This is something that we believe Americans want to see.

As it relates to the polling.  I’m going to answer your question, but I just want to preface it by saying that, you know, I’m going to be careful.  I’m not going to speak to 2024.

Here’s what I will say, and looking backwards here: In 2022, we were told that there was going to be a red wave.  And it was the President’s policies that helped us, you know, be successful.  And there wasn’t a red wave, right?  In 2023, we saw the same. 

Just about a month and a half ago or so, we saw New York — New York Three.  We were — it’s a special election, the congressional election.  We turned that from a red — red — a red district into a blue district.  Why?  Because of the President’s policies and what he believes and what he believes the majority of Americans care about — right? — whether it’s fighting for our democracy; whether it’s women’s healthcare, fighting for reproductive rights; whether it’s making sure that we’re coming — coming — working to get a bipartisan deal on the border, which is part of what the New York Three was all about — right? — getting that — that bipartisan deal coming out of the Senate — and making sure that the President showed leadership and actually met where majority of Americans are. 

So, that’s kind of how we see things, right?  It’s like, people say, “Hey, this is how it’s going turn out.”  And then, look, the President’s policy continued to be popular, and Democrats have done well in the past couple of years.  So, I’ll just leave it there.

Q    And a follow-up on that meeting —

Q    You referred this question about meeting with Muslim and Arab groups —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.

Q    — in Michigan to the campaign.  But what the people in Michigan have said very loudly to the campaign is, “We don’t want to talk to the campaign.  We want to talk to the policy people.”  So, the White House sent in policy people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I’m about to say, we did.  Thank you for saying that.

Q    But, you know, President is the “Policymaker-in-Chief.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is he — does he have any plans to — to meet with the community there while he’s already in the state —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — and engage.  You know, he has said a couple times now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — you know, “let them speak” when pro-Palestinian —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.

Q    — disruptions have occurred at events.  So, is he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I was trying to figure out when the question was going to end.  (Laughs.)  Sorry.  So, a couple of things there. 

The President has had an opportunity, as you know, to meet with leaders in the Muslim Amer- — Muslim American community, Arab — Arab American community, Palestinian American community, obviously, and had a very good back-and-forth engagement with them not too long ago. 

I think it is important when you think about the President sending his White Hou- — White House officials — right? — senior — senior advisors, senior aides to go — you know, to go to — to go to the communities to hear directly from them.  They have h- — they have had multiple conversations, multiple meetings, and we are engaging.  And that is important as well.

I don’t have a — I don’t have a meeting for the — the President is going to have with — with leaders of the community — another meeting, obviously, because he’s already had one with leaders of the community.  But I will say, it is important.  I think it is incredibly important that White House leadership, White House senior aides have been sent out there to meet with — with leaders of those communities to hear them — to hear from them directly, hear — listen to their pain.  We understand that this is an incredibly painful time for people. 

And as you just stated, when there are — when there are, you know, disruptions or — or protests, the President always says, “Let them speak.”  And he also — we also are very clear:  We — we think it’s important for people to peacefully protest and make sure that their voices are heard.  That’s why the President has sent White House officials to listen and hear directly — directly from them.

Q    What a- — What about members of the Black community?  I mean, tomorrow we’re going to Ven- — Serena Williams’s and Stevie Wonder’s hometown.  Is he going to meet with any prominent members of those communities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I will leave that —

Q    — communities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I will leave that to — to the campaign to speak to.

Q    And just one quick follow-up on NATO.  It sounds like y- — you said the — the President supports increased defense spending.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But would he specifically support the 3 percent threshold?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you know —

Q    It was a proposal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we certainly do not have any plans for changes to the Defense Investment Pledge at this time.  What I was trying to say is we have seen an increase of — of countries in — obviously, in NATO, you know, meeting — meeting their obligation of that 2 percent.  And we think that’s a good thing, especially if you look at, you know, the increase since 2014.  So, that’s important.

Q    On the $3.3 billion in investments, can you give us a timeline?  How long will it take for those communities to really see the effect of those policies?  Are we talking months, years?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, honestly, Aurelia, it’s going to be different for each community — right? — how quickly it gets started.  And it’s going to be a process.  But I think what’s important here to note is that this is incredibly important to reconnect communities — right? — communities that have been divided by — by an interstate because of happened — because of projects that were put in place decades ago. 

And it’s important.  And, again, I men- — as I mentioned, it’s disproportionately affected Black communities.  It’s disproportionately affected low-income communities, communities of color.

And let’s not forget what it takes away when you do that.  It takes away healthcare — right? — hospitals.  It takes away jobs.  It takes away, you know, schools.  That’s what happens.  And it — it creates an unfortunate scenario for communities. 

Now, by doing this — by this $3.3 billion in 40 states, it’s going to help reconnect those communities so that they can have — so that their kids can feel safe — right? — so that they — their kids can have access to — to schools and hospitals. 

And so, I think it’s an important project.  Obviously, you’ll hear more from the President later today. 

As far as timeline, it’s going to be different for each community, so I can’t speak to cities and states and how quickly they’re going to move (inaudible).

Q    Just to clarify, you said the President has met recently with the Arab and Muslim groups.  My understanding is that the one meeting that he had took place in November.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, he met —

Q    That is not recently.  Has there been a subsequent meeting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — okay. (Laughs.)

Q    I’m sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s your — everybody sees timelines differently.  What I — the point that I’m trying to make, whether it was in November or in December or in January, the point is the President has ha- — did have a meeting with leaders of the different communities — the Muslim Amer- — Muslim American, Arab American, and Palestinian Americans.  And so, that — he did engage with them. 

It is important to note — I — I really want to reiterate this: It is important to note it that White House officials at the senior — at the highest levels in the White House have had long, extensive engagement with the communities — right? — these communities to hear them out, to listen to them.  And I think that’s important when the President does that.  Right? 

I think, you know, as you all know, we speak for the President of the United States when we — when — as — as me as a White House Press Secretary, and obviously, as someone who are — who are a senior advisor or senior aide for the President. 

So, that representation is important.  And guess what?  The President hears what is being said from these meetings.  So, that’s incredibly important.

Q    Karine, to follow up on that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    That meeting was before voters started registering their opinions in the primary election.  So, doesn’t he — shouldn’t he, like, have another meeting with him?  That’s one. 

Two, he’s met with other groups.  How come this group is not getting a meeting with him, specifically?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He met with this group.  What do you mean this group not getting a meeting with him?  He did.  He has met with the group.

Q    Things have changed. 

Q    More regularly.

Q    I mean, the President’s own words have changed.  He’s using the word “ceasefire” now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s been using that word, “ceasefire,” to be very clear, since November.  Let’s be very clear about that.  So, just — just to — as we talk about language.  

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on a second.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It does not change the fact that his White House official, senior aides, have had multiple engagement with those communities.  That matters. 

And the President has met with leaders of those communities.  So, to say that he hasn’t, he actually has.

Q    As regularly.  When he met with them, 30,000 people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on a second.

Q    — had not been killed.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s — let’s not add that “as regularly.” 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He has done it, and his White House official aide[s] have been doing it on his behest because the President wants to make sure his policy — his policy people — right? — he wants to make sure that the top — folks who are at the top level of the White House hear directly — directly from the community.  That matters.  That matters. 

And I don’t want that to be discounted as we’re going back and forth here.  It’s important.

Q    In this interview this weekend, the President was asked about red lines.  And he said, “Well, another 30,000 people shouldn’t be killed,” which seems to imply that there is some number that would be acceptable short of thir- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I disagree to that.  Look, I’m not going to rehash that.  What I can say is the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, went back and forth with some of your colleagues in the briefing room about that, so I would certainly refer you to that — to — to what Jake Sullivan said yesterday. 

All right, guys. 

Q    One more. 

Q    Thank you.

Q    Has the President had any contact with the UK about Kate Middleton?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll say this. 

Q    Has he been — and has he been briefed on the photograph? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I have not — I’ll say this.  I have not spoken to the President about Kate Middleton. 

I will say this.  We certainly wish her a speedy recovery.  She has asked for privacy.  Her family has asked for privacy.  And we’re certainly going to respect that. 

Thanks, guys.

Q    Thank you. 

3:27 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Milwaukee, WI appeared first on The White House.

1:46 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone. 

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Happy Tuesday.  A couple things at the top before we go to our guest.

So, I wanted to recognize tomorrow is Olivia Dalton’s last day at the White House.

Q    Nooo —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Nooo —

Olivia started working for President Biden nearly 20 years ago, and has served as a trusted advisor, working — working in his Senate office, in the Obama-Biden administration, on the President’s transition team, and at the USUN before joining us at the White House.

Olivia is smart, she’s strategic, and a natural leader. She’s someone you can rely on to get things done.  She’s also a great colleague and a friend.

Olivia, we are so proud of you.  Everyone in this building is going to miss you, especially the press team.

We’re so excited for your next journey, and we can’t wait to see all the amazing things you’ll get to do in your next chapter.

So, thank you.  Thank you for your service.  I know, again, we’re all going to miss you.  (Applause.)

All right.  And come back and say goodbye to Olivia today or tomorrow if you have a — if you have a moment.

As you know, the President will travel to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, tomorrow.  This is part of a busy travel schedule where the President is hitting the road, talking to Americans, and presenting his vision for the future, which he laid out in the State of the Union Address just last week.

In Milwaukee, the President will share how this administration’s investments are rebuilding our communities and creating good-paying jobs.

As the President said in his State of the Union, his policies have attracted $650 billion in private-sector investments in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, which creates tens of thousands of jobs here in America.

Because of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 46,000 new projects are — have been announced in communities throughout the country.

As the President noted, some Republicans voted against these bills but are still cheering when investments are announced in own districts and also states.

Ultimately, these investments are critical for all Americans.  And we are looking forward to highlighting some of those investments tomorrow in Milwaukee.

And finally — finally, a word about the passing of David Mixner.

David was a trailblazer in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights.  His moral clarity never wavered, which is why he became such an invaluable confidant for so many, including presidential hopefuls, elected of- — elected leaders, and the voices of the movement for LGBTQ+ equality.

Perhaps most importantly, he was deeply dedicated to mentoring the next generation of LGQ- — LGBTQ+ leaders fighting to create a better world.  Those of us doing this work today, including myself, owe him a debt of gratitude.

And now, truly finally, I’m going to turn things over to our National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, who is here today to talk about the leaders of Poland — the meeting that the President is going to have — be having in a couple of hours and also the dus- — discuss the situation in Ukraine.

Jake.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, thank you, Karine.  And first, I just want to say that it has been an absolute honor and privilege to work with Olivia, to have her as a teammate, to be in the foxhole with her these past few years.  We’re going to miss you terribly.

So, I didn’t realize actually that you were being announced as your last day today.  Now I’m going to do very badly at the podium because I’m sad about that, but — (laughter).

I beg your indulgence because I have a number of things I want to say at the outset before I open it up for your questions.  But I promise I will get to your questions.

And before I turn to Poland and Ukraine, I want to start with Haiti and the situation there.  I want to underscore that we remain focused on the challenging situation in Haiti and we welcome the outcome of the meeting in Jamaica yesterday, which was led by dozens of Haitian stakeholders and was designed and, in fact, took steps towards creating an inclusive, broad, transitional presidential council.

We’re grateful for the leadership of CARICOM, to other international partners, and we can- — commend Prime Minister Henry for putting his country and Haitians first, agreeing to step down once this council is established.

And as you saw, Secretary Blinken, who was there playing a critical role in that meeting in Jamaica — he announced yesterday additional support for the Multinational Security Support Mission to Haiti as well as additional humanitarian assistance.  And we urge others to do what they can to enable this Kenya-led mission to deploy in support of the Haitian national police.

We know there is a lot of work ahead, but these are positive steps to pave the way for the Haitian people to elect their leaders, stabilize their country, and determine their future.

Now, turning to today’s events.  As you all know, President Biden looks forward to welcoming President Duda and Prime Minister Tusk of Poland for a joint meeting at the White House this afternoon. 

President Biden has twice traveled to Warsaw for historic visits in 2022 and 2023.  And today, he has the opportunity to repay the hospitality of the Polish people and the leaders of Poland.  The leaders will celebrate the 25th anniversary of Poland joining the NATO Alliance, which is more united, determined, dynamic, and larger than ever — now 32 nations strong after Sweden joined the Alliance last week.

This afternoon, the leaders will reaffirm their ironclad commitment to the NATO Alliance and to our collective self-defense under Article 5, and they will coordinate in advance of the upcoming NATO summit, which will be hosted by President Biden here in Washington this summer.

They will also discuss our shared support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s brutal war of aggression.  As you know, Poland has provided significant security assistance to Ukraine.  It’s also played a critical support and logistics role for the U.S. and our allies and partners in a historic and unprecedented effort to supply Ukraine with the tools that it needs to defend Ukraine against this Russian imperial war of conquest.

The Polish people have also generously opened their doors to about 1 million Ukrainian refugees. 

Poland’s leadership has also demonstrated that once again, in a very live and almost technicolor way, that Putin’s illegal invasion has produced the exact opposite effect of what Putin intended.  Today, Poland is spending nearly 4 percent of its GDP on defense — double the NATO commitment — and is serving as an anchor in a vibrant, vital Alliance, just when Putin thought he would divide and weaken the NATO Alliance.

Our bilateral relationship is also growing even stronger.  Today, the President will share with Poland’s leaders that the United States plans to move forward with a new $2 billion Foreign Military Financing direct loan to Poland using previously appropriated congressional funds, and we’ll offer to sell Poland 96 Apache helicopters.

These and other initiatives will equip Poland with cutting-edge capability to defend itself while also strengthening NATO interoperability and contributing to American jobs.

The leaders will also discuss the strong U.S.-Polish energy security partnership, the robust economic relationship between our countries, and the enduring importance of democratic values.

I also want to provide an update about Ukraine.

For two years, with the support from a coalition of more than 50 partners led by the United States, the people of Ukraine have remained unflinching against an adversary bent on their destruction.  They’ve retaken more than half the territory that Russia occupied at the start of the conflict.  They repulsed Russia’s attempts to take large — large swaths of Ukrainian territory now two winters in a row.  They’ve severely degraded Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.  But they need our continued support, and they need it urgently. 

Ukrainian troops have fought bravely, are fighting bravely throughout this war, but they are now forced to ration their ammunition under pressure on multiple fronts.  And we’re already seeing the effects on the battlefield.

When Russian troops advance and its guns fire, Ukraine does not have enough ammunition to fire back.  That’s costing terrain.  It’s costing lives.  And it’s costing us, the United States and the NATO Alliance, strategically.

So, today, on behalf of President Biden, I’m announcing an emergency package of security assistance of 300 million dollars’ worth of weapons and equipment to address some of Ukraine’s pressing needs.  This is possible because of unanticipated cost-savings in contracts that DOD negotiated to replace equipment we’ve already sent to Ukraine through previous drawdowns.

When we sent Ukraine weapons last year, we negotiated contracts to replenish those weapons in U.S. stockpiles.  We budgeted the full amount of appropriated funds for those contracts.  It turns out we negotiated well.  Those contracts came in under budget, so we have a modest amount of funding available.

And to put a fine point on it: We’re able to use these cost-savings to make this modest amount of new security assistance available right now without impacting U.S. military readiness.

And the President has directed his team to use these cost-savings.  This emergency package that we’re announcing contains a large tranche of artillery rounds and GMLRS for the HIMARS.  It is assistance that Ukraine desperately needs to hold the line against Russian attacks and to push back against the continuing Russian onslaught in the east and in other parts of Ukraine.

This ammunition will keep Ukraine’s guns firing for a period but only a short period.  It is nowhere near enough to meet Ukraine’s battlefield needs, and it will not prevent Ukraine from running out of ammunition in the weeks to come.

It goes without saying, this package does not displace and should not delay the critical need to pass the bipartisan national security bill. 

As you all know, we’ve said repeatedly –- here in the briefing room and President Biden said it to the entire nation in the State of the Union last week –- that we cannot provide ongoing assistance to Ukraine without significantly impacting our military readiness absent congressional action.

That remains the case, despite this modest amount of cost-savings that we are putting to use on an urgent basis.  Congress must act.

The House of Representatives must pass the bipartisan national security supplemental as soon as possible.  We all know that if it came up for a vote, it would pass on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, just as it did in the Senate.

And there is no other way around this.  The House has got to pass the supplemental as soon as possible to allow us to continue the flow of vital security to assista- — vital security assistance to Ukraine, to replenish the U.S. military’s munition stocks, to invest in our industrial base, and to support jobs in 40 states across the United States. 

The world is watching.  The clock is ticking.  And we need to see action as rapidly as possible, even as we do everything in our power to get Ukraine what it needs in its hour of need, and that is another step that we took at the President’s direction today.

With that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

Yeah.

Q    First, on Israel.  If Israel moves forward with the Rafah operation without having contingencies in place to ensure what you guys believe is adequate safety for civilians, would the White House set any sort of conditionality on further aid?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I’ve read these reports.  They’re based on uninformed speculation by anonymous officials.  I’m not going to comment on hypotheticals. 

The President has been very clear about our position on Rafah.  And our position is that a military operation in Rafah that does not protect civilians, that cuts off the main arteries of humanitarian assistance, and that places enormous pressure on the Israel-Egypt border is not something that he can support. 

We are talking to the Israelis about that.  We are working through it.  And I’m not going to stand at this podium and entertain hypotheticals on it. 

Yeah.

Q    Jake, just on that question, on that issue.  The President did say over the weekend that if Israel forces were to go into Rafah that that would be a crossing of a red line.  I’m just wondering, what would the Biden administration do if that did come to fruition and Israeli forces did go into

Rafah?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I would just note, having been around a little while, that I know all of you are obsessed with this concept of the red line. 

The President didn’t make any declarations or pronouncements or announcements.  The red line came up in a question.  He was responding to that question.  I think he gave a full answer to it.  I think it’s worth going back and reading his full answer to that question. 

And he answered it completely.  So, I’ve got nothing to add to what he said. 

And again, as I said to the earlier question, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  We’ve made clear our concerns about an operation in Rafah, we’ve made clear our concerns about the fact that an operation would put an enormous number of civilians at risk, and we have not seen a credible plan to protect those civilians. 

That is the position the United States has set forward.  We’ve been clear about it.  We’ve been principled about it.  We’re engaged with the Israeli government about our concerns.  And again, I’m not going to entertain hypotheticals. 

Yeah.

Q    But the question he was asked, Jake, though, was “Do you have a red line?  For instance, would — invasion of Rafah, which you have urged him not to do, would that be a red line?”  And he answered definitively, “It’s a red line.”

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I think you stopped conveniently after a single sentence, and it may not have exactly been that sentence —

Q    “But I’m never going to leave Israel.  The defense of Israel is still critical.”

MR. SULLIVAN:  And keep going.  And if you read the full answer — and I’m just going to leave it at his answer, because I think he put it in his words the way he wants to communicate this issue and the way that he’s talking to the Israelis as well. 

And again, I just want to point out that the whole issue of the red line as you all define it is something that you guys like; it’s almost become a bit of a national security parlor game. 

For the President, he’s really focused on the substance, on the policy, on his concern about the protection of civilians and about Israel being able to sustain a campaign in a way that ultimately leads to an outcome in which the people of Israel are secure, Hamas is crushed, and there is a long-term solution to stability and peace in the region. 

He believes there is a path to do that, and that path does not lie in smashing into Rafah, where there are 1.3 million people, in the absence of a credible plan to deal with the population there. 

And again, as thing- — as things stand today, we have not seen what that plan is. 

Yeah.

Q    Thanks, Jake.  On Poland, you mentioned energy conversation.  Do you expect that the U.S. will make progress or even maybe secure the second nuclear plant contract during these talks? 

And the President, yesterday, said that he didn’t believe that additional Polish troop- — or additional U.S. troops were needed in Poland.  That was a request that the Poles were bringing to this meeting.  Could you talk through why he doesn’t believe that that’s necessary considering the, sort of, geopolitical climate?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, just take a step back and look at the incredible array of assets the United States currently has deployed in Poland, including a permanent combat headquarters, including elements of brigades, including the largest complement of U.S. forces on the ground in Poland at any time.  And that’s in response to exactly that elevated threat that we see on the basis of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its bellicose statements about NATO Allies, including Poland. 

So, we are looking at an enhanced, effective U.S. presence and a broader NATO presence in Poland and in the countries neighboring Poland.  And at any time the President determines that additional capabilities are needed anywhere across the Alliance, he’s determined — or he’s demonstrated the capacity to flow forces rapidly, as we did in the days leading up to the invasion, and that could be land, air, or sea. 

So, the President looks forward to the conversation with President and the Prime Minister today.  He believes that we are postured well, that our deterrence and defense capacity, both in terms of boots on the ground and in terms of the plans that we have in place to defend Poland should it come to that, are strong.  And he has also sent a very clear message, which he is backing up with our force posture, that every inch of NATO territory will be protected. 

Q    On the —

MR. SULLIVAN:  With respect to the — the question of additional nuclear plants, we’ve had very constructive conversations with Polish counterparts.  I don’t have anything to announce from the podium today.  But we do look to an ongoing, deepening, and broadening civil nuclear cooperation with Poland.

Q    And very quickly on TikTok.  The President said yesterday that he would sign the House bill if it passed.  Earlier, you guys had said you were broadly supportive but had some concerns.  Can you outline what those concerns are?  And are you confident that the House bill, which seems like it’s teeing up for a vote, would stand up in court and — and be able to force the sale of — of TikTok to a U.S. (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, I just want to be clear about what this bill is all about because a lot of people are going around throwing around the words “ban TikTok,” “TikTok ban.”  And the ultimate objective of the bill is about a question of ownership.  Do we want TikTok, as a platform, to be owned by an American company or owned by China?  Do we want the data from TikTok — children’s data, adults’ data — to be going — to be staying here in America or going to China?

That is the fundamental question at issue here.  And the President is clear where he stands on that fundamental issue.  Then the — in terms of how that gets implemented precisely, that’s something that we have continued to stay in touch with the Congress on.  And obviously, as you’ve seen, there’s been an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the committee.  Now it will come to the floor, and we’ll see what happens in the House.  And I’m not going to get ahead of that. 

Yeah. 

Q    Thanks, Jake.  So, in response to what the President said about the red line, Prime Minister Netanyahu — he ultimately sounded like he vowed to defy what the President said.  He said he would press ahead with an invasion of Rafah.  So, is the President losing influence with Netanyahu?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, let’s just take a step back.  You’ve got the President, who from the very first day that this crisis began — and let’s remember it began with a horrific, vicious, brutal assault by Hamas on the people of Israel killing 1,200 people, raping and pillaging, and causing the most death since the Holocaust for the Jewish people. 

And the President stood up and said Israel would never be alone.  He went as the first-ever American president in wartime to Israel to say, “I have Israel’s back.”  And he has had Israel’s back.  He has backed up those words with deeds all the way through, and not just in terms of providing for Israel’s security against Hamas and Hezbollah but a broader constellation of steps in terms of military deterrence to keep this war from spinning out in ways that Israel could not handle. 

So, that’s where the President comes into this.  He also is going to speak out when he has concerns about the level of protection for innocent civilians in Gaza, the level and access to humanitarian assistance for innocent civilians in Gaza, and he’s going to make his views known. 

Now, President — excuse me, Prime Minister Netanyahu is the leader of a sovereign country.  He can make determinations about what he’s going to do, and let’s actually see what happens. 

At the end of the day, the President has laid out his views about Rafah, he’s has been clear about them, and that’s not just true publicly but privately we’ve communicated with the Israeli government on this.  We intend to continue to communicate directly with the Israeli government at every lev- — level, including between the President and the Prime Minister.  And we will see where things go from here. 

So, we believe that the President has the capacity to engage his Israeli counterparts in an effective way.  And Rafah is one element of that.  There are other elements as well.  And so far, from our perspective, the real issue is what happens on the ground, not so much what happens in the — in the back-and-forth of words.

Q    Why is it being communicated in the public sphere?  It — the records show that they haven’t spoken on the phone for nearly a month.  Why is that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first of all, we talk to the Israeli government nearly every day.  I had the Israeli ambassador in my office less than two hours ago.  So, there are plenty of channels of communication where we take direction from the President, they take direction from the Prime Minister, and we’re able to communicate.

 Second, whenever the President feels he needs to directly speak to the Prime Minister, he speaks with him.  And, you know, undoubtedly, he will speak with him again. 

 And then, third, if you’d prefer not to have public communication on this issue, I’d be happy not to take any more questions on Israel and Hamas.  (Laughter.)  So, that would be just fine.  The President, I’m sure, would be happy to do that too.

Yeah. 

Q    Two quick ones for you, Jake.  Are there any plans for the President to speak to the family of Itay Chen?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I don’t have any plans to announce right now. 

Q    And, on Haiti —

MR. SULLIVAN:  But I would just like to say, on that front, the President has met with Ruby Chen, Itay’s father.  He’s met with Itay’s brother.  He’s had the opportunity to sit with them here at the White House.  I’ve had the opportunity to meet with Ruby and other members of Itay’s family six times.

This hits hard for us, this news.  It hits hard for the President.  It hits hard for me.  It hits hard for a wide number of people who you guys have never heard of in the U.S.  government who are working tirelessly for Itay’s release. 

And I can’t imagine what the family is going through.  And I know that the President, who — he and the First Lady put out a statement on it today.  That won’t be the end of it for him, because this is something that he is invested personally in, trying to bring all of those who are held hostage in Gaza home and — and elsewhere around the world.

And the fact that we now have news that Itay was killed on October 7th, it’s just a — it hits hard.

Q    And in that realm, given that now another hostage — believed hostage is now confirmed dead, what does that say about the fate of the others?  Does this give any more hope, less hope that others will be found alive?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, we’ve been straight with you from the start that we haven’t been able to tell you the condition of the hostages, whether they are still alive, whether they’re in decent health, whether their injuries are, you know, causing grave concern.

All we can do is work every day to try to generate a deal that gets all of the hostages home and, for us, especially the American hostages home.  We are working at that around the clock.  The President calls me every single day asking me for an update on those efforts.  And they continue as we speak today, and we’re not going to rest until we get everyone home. 

And I will just reiterate what we’ve said all along.  You know, we can’t know until we get confirmation, either by having someone safely out or getting the terrible news that we got about Itay, what exactly the situation is.  And we will be straight with the American people every step of the way.

Q    On Haiti real quick —

Q    Thanks, Jake.  One, can you respond to calls from Senator Sanders as well as some Democrats about stopping providing weapons to Israel to — until some of the restrictions for the — for humanitarian aid to get into Gaza?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, we share the goal of getting more humanitarian aid into Gaza.  The President made that a central theme of his speech — the State of the Union last week.  We are taking steps ourselves, including this temporary pier and the airdrops that are ongoing.  We just had our seventh airdrop today.  We’re also working with the Israelis to increase the throughput of humanitarian assistance by ground, both through Kerem Shalom and through a new crossing where we had the first trucks get in last night.  And we need to see more where that came from. 

Second, we’ve made clear all along that our policy to date has not involved the kinds of steps that you’re talking about.  And we also have said we’re — we’re not going to engage in hypotheticals about what comes down the line, and the reports that kind of describe what the President is thinking on this are uninformed speculation.

Q    One of things that they — they say is that the restrictions are a violation of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.  Do you agree with that assessment that it is a violation of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act?  And have you had a discussion with the Ambassador or any other officials about that — about that potentially being a violation of that act?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, first, we believe that we are complying with U.S. law in every act that we have taken throughout this war.  And we will obviously continue to do so.

Second, the President actually signed a national security memorandum — National Security Memorandum 20 — which speaks to both compliance with international humanitarian law in the conduct of military operations and the need not to unduly or arbitrarily restrict humanitarian assistance from going in. 

So, it’s something that’s very much a priority of his.  We’ll stay focused on that.  And we will make sure that everything we do complies with our law but also complies with the policy that the President has set out and the priority he places on the provision of humanitarian assistance. 

Yeah.

Q    Jake, does the package that you’re announcing today for Ukraine include ATACMS?

And, on Israel, can you give us an ups- — an update on the hostage talks and — and the potential for a temporary ceasefire before Ramadan?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I’ve got no announcements for you on ATACMS today.

When it comes to the issue of the hostage talks, one of the things that I have found somewhat absent from the coverage is that what we are talking about in the first phase is women, elderly, and wounded civilians.  Those who would like to see a ceasefire in Gaza — a ceasefire is on the table today for six weeks to be built on into something more enduring if Hamas would simply release women, wounded, and elderly. 

And the fact that they will not do so says a lot to me about Hamas’s regard for innocent Palestinian civilians — the fact that they are holding on to those folks and refusing to release them and refusing to step up and say that we could get this ceasefire in place, which not only would bring calm to the fighting but also would create an enormous opportunity to flow humanitarian assistance in in much greater quantities.  Because a significant part of the problem on the humanitarian assistance front, as you know, has not just been getting trucks into Gaza but getting trucks around Gaza because it is difficult to move them in light of all of the — in light of all of the fighting.

Now, we’ve also encouraged Israel to stay at the table, stay engaged, because we believe that there still is scope for this deal to get done. 

Notwithstanding the fact that we have entered the Ramadan period, Bill Burns was just out in the region actively pushing on this in Qatar and Egypt.  Secretary Blinken is deeply engaged in this.  I am.  Brett McGurk is.  And the President himself has been making phone calls to regional leader trying to move this along. 

So, we will stay at it.  We are determined to try to generate a ceasefire for at least six weeks with the hostages coming out and then try to build on that into something more enduring.  But I can’t make any predictions about where this will lie. 

I will just say that as we press particularly on our friends in Israel to do their part to help deliver this ceasefire, it is incumbent on voices around the world to press Hamas to step up to do their part to release innocent women, wounded, and elderly hostages as a first step, and then we can move from there. 

Yeah.

Q    Thank you, Jake.  Is it the position of the United States government that Hungary, a NATO Ally, is a dictatorship?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I know why you’re asking the question.  I’m not going to speak on behalf of the Biden campaign.  You should direct those questions to the campaign. 

What I will say, as the Biden administration, is that we have made no bones about our deep concerns about Hungary’s assault on democratic institutions, including the judiciary; Hungary’s corruption; and other erosion of democracy in Hungary from the leadership there.  That is something we have been deeply concerned about, that we have directly engaged them on, and that people at this podium have stood and spoken about and will continue to do so.
    
     Yeah.

Q    But it’s not the position, officially, that Hungary is a dictatorship?  We have heard your concern voiced before.  I know you don’t want to comment on the campaign, but, typically, a foreign policy statement of that magnitude would be made with, you know, some coordination.  It wouldn’t happen at the footnote of a campaign email.  So, without talking about this campaign specifically, is it the position of the U.S. officially that Hungary under Orbán is a dictatorship?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Again, it seems like the question you’re asking is really about the campaign.  So, I think you should —

Q    But why won’t you —

MR. SULLIVAN:  — direct it to the campaign. 

Q    — answer what the official position is?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I just — I literally just stated what our position is. 

Thanks.

Q    Jake —

Q    I don’t think you did.

MR. SULLIVAN:  As I said before, our position is that Hungary has engaged in an assault on democratic institutions, and that remains a source of grave concern to us.  And I take it from your question it may be of grave concern to you as well.

Yeah.

Q    Thank you, Jake.  One on Gaza, and then a quick one on Haiti.  There’s actually a breaking report from the region that says that Hamas reportedly agreed to a modified U.S. initiative for a ceasefire deal and gradual return of internally displaced persons in the Gaza Strip, citing a Hamas official.  Have you heard anything about that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I have not.  So, if there is an offer from Hamas to start releasing prisoners as part of the — a ceasefire deal, that would be welcome news.  It’s not something I have heard yet.  But as I said before, we’ve been encouraging both sides to move on this, and we’ve been encouraging the world to put some pressure on Hamas.  And, obviously, I’ll look into that report.

Q    And then, quick- — quickly on Haiti.  Did the U.S. wait too long in its support of Prime Minister Henry, given that he had been accused of being involved in the plot to assassinate President Moïse?  And how can the U.S. avoid getting dragged further into this conflict?

MR. SULLIVAN:  You know, ultimately, decisions about Haiti should be made by the Haitian people.  That’s why we supported a conference in Jamaica that was led by Haitian stakeholders, not led by the United States, not dictated by us. 

It’s not for us to make the call on who leads Haiti.  It’s for the Haitian people to make that call.  And we’ve been proud to support the effort that was undertaken yesterday.  We hope it will move forward.  And seeing what Prime Minister Henry did — not because of a U.S. diktat, a decision he made — is something we support because we think it does take into account the best interests of Haiti and the Haitian people.

Yeah.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    On Lebanon.  So, we have seen, lately, a new level of escalation on the border between Israel and Lebanon.  And also, there was a missile felled by mistake in a Christian areas by a plane passing by — Israeli plane — and escalation has taken different approach now.  What are you doing to accelerate — not to get — let this conflict get out of hand and we see an expansion in the region, also innocent people maybe will — will suffer from that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  This is something we’ve been focused on since the start of the conflict.  And we would like to see an end to the cross-border attacks between Hezbollah and Israel.  But, of course, let’s recall how this all started.  It started with Hezbollah firing on Israel in solidarity with Hamas.  So, one way to move forward here, of course, would be for Hezbollah to stop firing on Israel. 

Secondly, we need to work on a long-term solution to this, consistent with past agreements and consistent with the principle that the people who have been displaced from their homes can return to them and that there not be a future enduring security threat on that border.  That’s what we’re working towards with both sides. 

We’re trying to do that as effectively as we can, as quietly as we can.  Because we believe that this requires delicate diplomacy in both Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Beirut.  That is the work that is ongoing as we speak.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Can I follow — Jake, can I follow up on the — on the Hungary thing?  I know you want to talk about the — dismiss it to the campaign, but the President of the United States said that Orbán, a NATO Ally, is quote, “looking for dictatorship.” 

The Foreign Minister of Hungary then summoned the U.S. ambassador to answer for it and says that these were lies and an insult.  Does this — are you walking back the President’s statement?  Does the President regret that statement?  Or does he stand by that statement?  And what do you say to a — to the Hungary — Hungarian Foreign Minister who says that the President is lying?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Of course the President stands by his statement, and I’m not walking back his statement.  And all I’m saying is that our position is totally consistent with everything you just said and is documented and is the exact opposite of a lie. 

Yeah.

Q    Yeah, I wanted to pivot back to Haiti.  There are reports that Kenya is, you know, thinking about taking back its stabilizing force or not sending 1,000 police officers.  I wonder what the United States plans to do to address the power vacuum in Haiti, and is there a contingency plan for if Kenya does, in fact, step back?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we’ve had good constructive conversations with the Kenyans.  I’m not going to speak on their behalf.  But we continue to support their effort to plan for and operationalize this mission and add additional partners.  And, in fact, in the last several days, additional partners have stepped forward to say they also are prepared to participate in this. 

So, we’ve remained hopeful that this mission can go forward and can go forward effectively.  But, of course, at the end of the day, the question you’re posing is probably best directed to Nairobi rather than to this podium.  But I will tell you that the level of partnership, engagement, and the depth of it that we’ve had with Kenya so far has been exemplary. 

Yeah.

Q    Thanks, Jake.  On Ukraine.  How long do you think this latest aid shipment is going to last?  Are we talking weeks, months?  Do you have any idea how long —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Absolutely not months.  Weeks.  Maybe even just a couple of weeks.  It’s not going to be for a long time.  And that’s why we so urgently need them to act on the supplemental.

Yeah.

Q    Jake, in regards to today’s meeting that the President is having today with his Polish counterparts.  On Friday, Poland’s Foreign Minister said that NATO military personnel are already present in Ukraine.  Can you clarify that?  Can you quantify that, please?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m sorry, who said that?

Q    Poland’s Foreign Minister.

MR. SULLIVAN:  I didn’t see that remark, so I’m not sure what he’s referring to.  The U.S. will not have boots on the ground in Ukraine.  We don’t intend to do so.  We don’t plan to do so.  And I’m not sure what he’s referring to.

Yeah.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Jake.  With Itay Chen now determined to have died on October 7th, how many Americans or dual citizens are now believed to have been — be held hostage currently in Gaza?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We believe that that number is five.  It was six.  We believe it is now five.

Q    Thanks.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    On — back on the Ukrainian aid.  Can you say when the weapons and equipment will get there?  How quick of a turnaround this will be?  And does the White House anticipate more cost-savings like this that could result in another package in the near future?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, as my friends at DOD like to remind me, we can’t plan on cost-savings.  So, we can’t plan on any future drawdowns being available on the basis of cost-savings.  So, we’re not anticipating that.  It’s not built into what we’re looking for. 

Of course, we didn’t plan this one.  We got it — we got it, in part, for example, because, you know, we had budgeted around for $155 at 130 bucks, and we managed to negotiate a contract at $93, and there are other examples like that. 

So, it is not part of our current planning that there will be another opportunity beyond this one to get this kind of cost-savings. 

And we can move this stuff fast.  We have proven that over time.  We have built a logistical pipeline and backbone to be able to do that. 

I can’t give you a precise estimate for operational reasons, but it’s going to move very quickly.

Yeah.

Q    Jake, you have a long foreign policy experience.  If you look back, do you think that bear hugging Netanyahu and his extremist government — including an openly racist member like Ben-Gvir — supplying them with lethal weapons that killed 70 percent of women and children, excluding the defensive weapons, was it successful? 

And do you believe that American national security now is at risk, as we hear some testimony yesterday at Congress, because of the war — because of the war — how it was conducted?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, what I didn’t hear at all in your question was anything about Hamas, who conducted a grievous attack on October 7th that —

Q    You’re not a spokesperson for —

MR. SULLIVAN — that —

Q    — Hamas, with due respect.

MR. SULLIVAN — killed —

Q    I’m asking you here.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah, but — but —

Q    I would ask the question if I’m there, but I’m asking you here, as the National Security Advisor.

MR. SULLIVAN:  But — but what — what has been the purpose of our policy since October 7th?  A fundamental part of our policy since October 7th has been to help Israel defend itself against a group that authored the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust and had its leaders go out after that and say, “We’re going to do October 7th again and again and again until Israel no longer exists.” 

And, from our perspective, Israel had a right and an obligation to take action against Hamas.  And Hamas created a set of burdens on Israel’s military operations that are nearly unprecedented by hiding among the civilian population.  And that made it more difficult for Israel to conduct its military operations. 

It did not take away Israel’s responsibility to take every possible step to protect innocent people.  And far too many innocent people, including women and children, died.  And the President spoke to this I thought quite powerfully on Thursday night, and we are very mindful of it.  And every one of those deaths is a tragedy.  And we have said Israel has to do more when it comes to the protection of civilians.  And we’ve spoken today at some length about Rafah. 

But I do feel it is important to continue to ensure that this conversation, this story, is complete, that all elements of it are brought into the picture and not just some.  And that does mean paying attention to the suffering of innocent people, not just their vulnerability to the military actions of Israel but also their vulnerability to a lack of food, water, medicine, shelter. 

And these are things that we work on around the clock.  These are things I personally stay awake at night about.  So, I care about this very much.  But I also care about making sure that our partner and ally, Israel, is not facing in the future the kind of threat that it faced on October 7th. 

And — and our country and any country in this circumstance would take action against terrorists doing this kind of thing.  And the President has said from the beginning of this conflict both that we need to support Israel in its efforts to go after Hamas and that Israel needs to do so in a way that protects innocent civilians.  And he has spoken out about his concerns about the protection of innocent civilians with sincerity and authority.  And I think you saw that on full display in the State of the Union. 

Yeah, April.

Q    Hello, Jake.  Back on Haiti, real quick.  Can you quantify and qualify the support and humanitarian aid you were just talking about at the top?  And also, realistically, with all of the movement that’s going on — the Blinken involvement with the Caribbean leaders, et cetera, and African leaders — what realistically do you expect for Haiti by the end of the year?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I hate to make predictions about what’s going to happen in the United States by the end of the year. 

Q    Well, what do you hope for?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, it’s very difficult for me to make predictions about what’s going to happen in Haiti. 

Q    But what is — what is the United States hoping for with Haiti by (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Let — let me start with the easier question, which is the quantifying of — of assistance.  It’s $300 million now, a sum total for the multinational security support mission; $33 million dollars in a new additional announcement on humanitarian assistance. 

And — and then, what we are driving toward is a transitional council that can pave the way to elections and the restoration of calm on the streets of Haiti, and then a new government that can come in alongside this multinational security support mission, enable security, and then build from there.  That is what we are driving towards.

Can I confidently predict that will happen?  I cannot.  Do we have to contingency plan against other scenarios?  We do and we are. 

But that is what we are working towards.  I think what happened in Jamaica yesterday is a good step towards that.  And we just have to keep working on it. 

And I’ll — I’ll let you guys go.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    One more on Poland.

Q    A follow-up on Haiti.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you.

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

Okay, Aamer. 

Q    Thanks.  I just wanted to ask first about the Hur report.  Pre- — the President a few weeks ago now was pretty indignant and saying the Special Counsel inappropriately raised the death of his son in the interview.  The transcript has come out.  It seems a little more space in there for that.  Does the President regret the outward anger that he displayed towards the Special Counsel about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a couple things.  My colleague addressed earlier the transcript, so certainly would refer you to him.  And that’s my colleague at the — at White House Counsel’s Office. 

As it relates to — I know some of you are — want to ask about the hearing that’s currently going on.  It was going on when I walked out here.  My colleague at the White House Counsel’s Office is g- — is planning to take questions.  He’s going to gaggle right after the hearing wraps up today.  So, I know that he is going to continue to be responsive, so he will be able to take your questions. 

But we want to wait until the hearing is completed.  And once that’s wrapped up, he’ll be — he’ll be right at the Sticks doing a gaggle.

Q    Is the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I believe at the Sticks, maybe not.  He might — but he is going to do a gaggle.

Q    Is the President monitoring the hearing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President is obviously meeting — as he does every day, meet with his senior — senior advisors, senior staff — is preparing for tomorrow’s trip.  As you know, he’s going to be going to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

I cannot speak to what the President is keeping track of or watching.  Obviously, he’ll — he’ll get updates on it as — or — or get updates himself as — as the day goes by. 

But he’s focused on the American people and tomorrow’s trip, obviously.

Q    And if I could ask you something —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — unrelated.  Annual inflation ticked up to 3.2 percent in February.  How concerned is the White House, given the President has been saying that Federal Reserve should be cutting rates because of lower inflation? 

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  So, let me just answer your first question first, which is, look, the President in the State of the Union was very clear.  We have more work to do to lower — lower costs for hardworking families.  And so, that is something that we’re going to do — and, obviously, also middle class.  And that — that work continues. 
    
But just a couple of things.  As you know, we’ve talked about this — and I think it’s important to — to note this: Inflation is down two thirds, and we have the lowest annual core inflation since May 2021.  Prices fell over the last year for gas, milk, eggs, chicken, appliances, and also used cars.  Wages are rising faster than prices over the last year since the pandemic.  And forecasts broadly expect progress on inflation to continue over the rest of the year. 

And so, that is important to note.  And like I said, there’s more work to do.  We’re going to continue to — continue to take on Big Pharma, to — to lower prescription drugs and healthcare costs.  We’re going to crack down on price gouging. 

You hear talk about jug- — junk fees.  The President talked about that last week.  And so, also lowering housing costs, which is something that the President, obviously, spoke about very recently. 

Look, I also want to — as you asked me about the second question, the Federal Reserve, I just want to be really clear.  Unlike previous presidents, the President does very much believe on the importance of the Fed being independent.  And as you are asking me a specific thing that the President said last week, he was simply commenting on a widely accepted market view that — he was not saying what the federal policy should be.  But it was regarding the interest rates, obviously a widely market view. 

So, I just want to be super, super mindful, because we do very much respect the independence of the Fed. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  What’s been the President’s reaction so far to the Robert Hur testimony?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share on that.  Like I said, my colleague from the White House Counsel is going to do a gaggle once the — once the hearing wraps up.  I don’t — I don’t — I’m not going to speak to the President’s reaction. 

Q    And the President has said that he would sign into law the bill that could have TikTok banned.  If the President is so concerned about the national security risks around TikTok, why is he posting on the platform?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this.  Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor, just spoke to the — more broadly why this bill is — is important, why we welcome this bill.  Obvi- — it’s going to the process.  And so — and we’re offering tech- — technical support.  So, I’ll just leave that piece there. 

As it relates to the campaign, I would have to — and their strategy as it relates to TikTok, I’m just going to leave it to them. 

Q    So, there are a lot of people in businesses that rely on TikTok for their financial livelihood.  What is the White House’s message to those folks if TikTok were to be banned —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look —

Q    — which is a possibility if that goes through?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Our National Security Advisor laid out in a very, very clear terms why this bill is important about ownership ca- — who — if it’s imp- — about ownership here in this country or elsewhere, in — in particular, China.  Right?  He spoke about that. 

Where do we want that ownership?  Where do we want that data of Americans to be: here or in China?  Like, that is basically what the National Security Advisor laid out.  And so, that is the — the underlying — the importance of that bill.  It’s a bipartisan bill.  It is something that we welcome.  We’re obviously, again, going to s- — offer technical support. 

I’m just not going to add anything more to that.  But it is important bill that we welcome here at the White House. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The President said yesterday that he had no plans to address the Israeli parliament at this moment.  Does that indicate that it’s something that he or the White House is planning for in the future?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He also said that he wasn’t going to speak to conversations about that particular question that he was getting about a meeting.  I don’t have anything else to share. 

Obviously, and Jake said this — Jake Sullivan said this himself, he is — they — he is in constant communication with — with his Israeli counterparts, NSC, the State Department.  They are in constant communication.  So, I just don’t have anything else to share beyond that — beyond what Jake shared.

Go ahead.

Q    Does the White House ever digitally alter photos of the President, Vice President — (laughter) — First Lady, or Second Gentleman before they’re released?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Digitally altered?  Not that I know of.  I would say no.  Why would we digitally alter photos? 

Q    I mean, it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Are you talking about — are you — are you comparing us to the — what’s going on in the UK?

Q    I’m doing due diligence to ensure — (laughter) — that the leader of another —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, wh- —

Q    — country wouldn’t alter photos —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wh- — why does the monarch —
    
Q    — of themselves before released.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — have to do anything with us?  No, that is not something that we do here. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    That’s why I asked.

Why isn’t he taking questions today alongside the two Polish leaders?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know what, and I’ve said this before, if you’re asking about the two-plus-two or, in this case — I don’t know what we’d call it.  A three-plus- —

Q    A one-plus-two.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  One-plus-two.  I don’t know.  But I think it is — I think — (laughs) — (inaudible) — but I think it’s — look, I actually think it’s important that we have the two leaders of Poland here.  I think it shows unity, and I think it — I think that’s important to show. 

And also, obviously, it’s a part of the — part of the meeting is — is celebrating the 25 years of Poland being part of NATO.  And you heard Jake lay out the importance of this meeting, especially as it relates to Ukraine and other — other important agenda items that — that the — that both the U.S. and Poland are engaging on. 

Obviously, you’re — you’ll — you’ll see them shortly.  But look, every — every meeting is different.  Every engagement that we have with foreign leaders are different.  This one does not have a — let’s just call it a two-plus-two; I’m not sure what else to call it ri- — at this time off the top of my head.  But you’ll obviously — you’ll hear from bo- — all the leaders today when they’re — when we have the bilateral.

 Q    So, no desire to, perhaps, celebrate their unity and raise solidarity or concerns about press freedoms in Poland than — (laughter) — having them take questions today —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, we —

Q    — in a country that celebrates press freedom?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As — as you know, as you just stated, in your last part of your question to me, press freedom is something that’s important.  That’s why we exercise in this back-and-forth that we do almost every day.  It is important to have that.  Your — the press is going to have a moment to see the leaders.  And I’ll just leave it there.

Go ahead.

 Q    Thank you, Karine.  The President said yesterday that he was hoping executive action on the border would happen by itself, that Congress would legislate it.  Can you just confirm for us that this indicates that he’s no longer considering executive action on the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the President has been very clear, and I’ve been very clear anytime I’ve [been] asked about executive actions here, we — the bottom line — the bottom line is: In order to have — actually have change — extensive change, real change, comprehensive change — that Senate bill that was — that was negotiated between Republicans and Sen- — obviously, Democrats in the Senate would have been the best way to go. 

It would have been the toughest, fairest piece of — piece of legislation — law, if you will — if it had been — if it had been moved and the President was able to sign it into law.  And that’s what’s important. 

The President is trying to make it very clear: No executive action would a- — would have that effect — the effect that this bipartisan negotiation would have had.  And he’s going to be optimistic.  He wants to see it moved. 

And let’s not forget the reason why it was stopped, the reason that it didn’t go forward, is because Republicans were told in Congress to reject it by the former President.  That’s what happened.  They chose politics instead of a majority of the American people. 

I do want to lay out here a couple of things.  It would have meant more resources to secure the border: Border Patrol agents, immigration judges, asylum officers, and law enforcement personnel to combat fentanyl.  That’s what would have been.  That is what’s in that bipartisan negotiation, and so much more. 

And they rejected it.  Republicans rejected it because of politics. 

But the President stands behind the majority of Americans who want to see change happen at the border, who wants to see our immigration system that’s been broken for decades fixed.

Q    I understand his — his preference to legislate.  But the reason I’m asking is we’ve had conflicting answers over the span of a few weeks on whether —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t think we’ve had conflicting —

Q    From the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, we haven’t

Q    — on whether executive action was something he could do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We haven’t.

Q    He — he first said that he had done everything he could with the stroke of a pen.  Then, he said that there was more he could do but that you would prefer the Congress legislate this.  And, you know, things were under consideration, potentially, for executive orders that would make changes to, you know, the border, who can who come across. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — so —

Q    And then, yesterday, it seemed like he said, “No, nothing is coming.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  So, I — I disagree.  I think there are a couple of parts here.  You’re asking me if there’s executive actions that we can take, and what we’re saying is there are no executive actions that would have done the work or would have actually been able to deal with the issue that’s happening at the border and starting to really fix the immigration system than the bipartisan bill that came out of the Senate that — well, negotiation that came out of the Senate.  And we are saying that that’s the best way to go. 

We are always looking at options.  We have said this.  We’re always looking at ac- — options — executive actions, right? — to see how to move forward. 

But we believe — fundamentally, we believe — and it is proven by what is in that negotiation — that the way to move forward is to actually move forward with what could have been a — the toughest, fairest law that we’ve had in some time. 

So, we’re continuing to call for that.  We always say —

Q    So, executive act- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We always —

Q    — orders aren’t off the table?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — we always say that —

Q    I understand — I understand what you — what you’re saying about the bill.  I do.  But yes or no: Is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re not — I’m — what I’m saying to you is that we always look at all our options.  That’s what I’m saying to you.  But we are saying also — is the only way to move forward to actually deal with this issue, the challenges that we’re seeing, that Republicans rejected because of the last President — because of Donald Trump — is that negotiation bill, that bipartisan negotiation bill.  That is the way to move forward here. 

Are we always looking at options?  Yes.  But we haven’t made a decision on that.  That’s the bottom line.  We have not made a decision on that. 

But we want to see this bipartisan Senate negotiation proposal move forward that Republicans are rejecting because of Donald Trump.  They are putting politics — politics ahead of what works for the American people, what the American people actually want to see.

Q    And very quickly on a different subject.  Why was the President in that interview using the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas — their numbers on the death toll in Gaza?  It — they — there was a 30,000 figure that he cited on MSNBC.  The last time he cited Hamas numbers, officials here dismissed it as a reference to publicly available data.  But I would assume that the U.S. has its own assessment of what the death toll is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve been very clear here.  We — there are public available data that you all have — you all also are taking a look at that we are citing as well.  That’s what we’re talking about.  That’s what the President —

Q    We should use that number, too, then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You could use whatever you want.  I’m just saying that —

Q    I’m asking you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — what we — we have said — we’ve been really clear: There are publicly available data that showed, sadly, how many — how many deaths that we have seen in Gaza. 

And the President has been very clear.  There’s too much.  It’s tragic.  It’s tragic what we’re seeing.  And the President’s going to keep — continue to speak to that.

Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    Hi, Karine.  Quickly on SB4, the law in Texas that would allow local police to arrest migrants.  Today, the Supreme Court extended the order blocking that until at least next week.  Is the administration coming up with any contingency plans if that were to be able to go into effect?  Or what’s the latest on that from the White House’s perspective?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be super careful here and don’t want to go beyond the Department of Justice.  And so, I’m just going to be super, super mindful.

I don’t have anything else beyond that.  I don’t have a contingency plan to announce at this time.  So, just want to be super mindful there. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I wanted to first ask you about a Politico report that described a toxic culture, including verbal harassment, by a former aide at the White House advance team.  The story said that things have gotten so bad that the White House Counsel’s Office had opened an investigation.  Just wondering what you can tell us about that and also whether the President was aware of any of these issues.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things. 

As to your — to your question about investigation.  Going to be really careful here.  I’m not going to comment on a personnel — personnel matters one way or — or the other, on the investigation part.

On the top — on the top of your question, I’ll say this.  So, the President is deeply proud of his advance team, its leadership, and Ryan Montoya — who is a stand-up, dedicated group — a stand-up, dedicated group whose expertise, camaraderie, and professionalism have been critical to his 242 domestic and 31 international trips — flawlessly executing events in unprecedented environments, ranging from multiple active warzones outside of American control to a once-in-a-century pandemic. 

So, he’s grateful to everyone who has served and is serving on it — on an unmatched team that represents the diversity of the country as they have fought every day to help him bring his message to the American people and to the entire world. 

So, you know, I’ll just leave it there from — for now.  I’ll just leave it there.

Q    And can you say whether the President has been made aware of any potential issues?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President is aware.  I mean, I just laid out how — how the President feels about his team and everyone who has worked for him — everybody who has worked for him.

Q    Okay.  And, I guess, a follow-up to Ed’s question.  On a serious note.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I mean, I’m just asking this seriously.  I’m curious.  Does the President have any thoughts on the controversy surrounding Kate Middleton?  Is it something that he’s been following?  Do you know if he is worried about her?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I think when we originally heard about the — her health situation.  Obviously, we offer — offer her a speedy recovery.  I don’t have anything else to add beyond that.  We — you know, we ho- — offer her a speedy recovery. 

And I’m just going to leave it there.  I don’t have anything else to share.  I have not spoken to the President about — about this.  But that’s something that I can for surely say.

MS. DALTON:  Karine, you’ve got to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

MS. DALTON:  — wrap it up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you give a preview of the President’s trip that he’s taking this week to the Midwest — to Michigan and Wisconsin?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I shared a preview at the top.  This is part of the President’s busy travel that he is un- — obviously, he is undertaking as we just laid out his State of the Union.  So, it’s not unusual.  Presidents go out there after giving a successful speech.

And he’s going to talk directly to the American people.  He’s going to share how his administration investments are rebuilding our communities and creating good-paying jobs.  And, as you know, in the State of the Union, his policies have attracted $650 billion in private sector investment in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, which creates tens of thousands of jobs here in America.  Let’s not forget the 46,000 projects that are ongoing that’s coming out of the bipartisan infrastructure legislation. 

So, he’s very — very much looking forward to going — being out in Milwaukee, speaking directly to the — the American people, talking about his investment in America and how he’s delivering on the needs that the Americans have, especially as we talk about an economy — building economy from the mo- — the bottom up, middle out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll take one more.

Q    This is — just one last thing, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, April.

Q    This — this related to — to relate to that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — we just got pulled.  So, go ahead. 

Q    Marcia Fudge —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m being pulled.  Go ahead.

Q    Marcia Fudge is leaving —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — as HUD secretary.  The President really was excited and exuberant that she accepted his nomination to be HUD Secretary.  What does he feel about her leaving in this moment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, we — the — we announced that the Secretary is going to be leaving at the end of the month and is going to spend some more time with her family.  Obviously, the department could speak more to that. 

She has been a tr- — tremendously important.  Her work at — at HUD has been important as we talk about the President’s economy, the President’s housing policy he just announced a couple of days ago on how he’s going to move forward to make sure that — to make sure that we deal with one of the issues that matter to the American people — right? — housing, lowering costs.  What else can the federal government do to — to make that happen?

And so, look, her role has been instrumental.  The President could not have been able to deliver in a way that he has on the economy without her.  And the last three years, the ambitious housing agenda that we’ve been able to deliver, including that you — you’ve heard him talk about in the State of the Union would not have been ha- — would not have been able to happen without her leadership. 

So, we are sad to see her go.  And we are very much appreciative of the work that she’s done as Secretary over the last three years.

Q    Are you anticipating them to still continue to talk about issues of housing and economy?  I mean, she goes beyond that.  She was a former congressperson.  Now that she’s no — well, at the end of the month, she will no longer be HUD Secretary.  Do you believe that she will be a consultant — I guess, as the White House says, for those who are not Cabinet members, a “kitchen cabinet” member now?  Is she now falling into that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, look, I can’t speak to what she’s going to be doing next.  I can’t speak to that.  She would have to speak to — to herself — obviously, for that for herself. 

Obviously, her — you know, her — her advice, her leadership has been incredibly important to the President.  You know, will that continue?  Potentially, possibly.  They have a relationship, obviously. 

And so, I just don’t have anything to share about what it’s going to look like next for her.  But she is leaving to spend more time with her family. 

As you know, those types of decisions are incredibly personal and difficult to make.  I’m sure that was not easy for her to make that decision.  But we have been truly honored to have her part of this team for the last three years.  We’ve had a ambitious, ambitious housing agenda that she has led and has made Americans’ lives just a little bit better. 

And so, obviously, there’s more work to be done, as the President stated in the State of the Union just last week.  And so, we are — very much have complete confidence in the leadership at HUD to continue those efforts. 

Thanks, everybody.  Bye, everybody. 

2:47 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.

Via Teleconference
(March 11, 2024)

10:04 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining us.  This will be an on-the-record press call about the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget. 

We’re joined today by OMB Director Shalanda Young and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein.

They’ll each make some brief comments at the top and then we’ll take some questions. 

As a reminder, this call and the materials we provided prior to the call are embargoed until noon, Eastern Time, today.

And with that, I’ll turn it over to Director Young.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Thanks, Shelby.   I’m not sure they’re brief, but I’ll do my best.  

But thanks to all of you for joining.

This year’s budget comes at a time when it’s clear that the President’s economic strategy of building the economy from the middle out and bottom up is working.  The economy has added about 15 million jobs.  The unemployment rate has remained under 4 percent for over 2 years in a row — a 50-year record –while inflation has fallen by two thirds.

Under his leadership, the administration is working to bring down costs for the American people, including prescription drug costs, health insurance premiums, utility bills, and costs for everyday goods and services — all while taking on hidden junk fees that some banks, airlines, and other big corporations charge.

At the same time, he has also restored U.S. leadership on the world stage while keeping Americans safe and promoting democracy at home and abroad.

The budget details the President’s vision to protect and build on this progress and deliver on the agenda laid out in his State of the Union by lowering costs for families; growing the economy from the middle out and bottom up by investing in all of America to make sure the middle class has a fair shot and we leave no one behind; reducing the deficit by about $3 trillion, including by making our tax code fairer and cutting wasteful subsidies; and protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare.

Let me say a few words about each of these.

First, the budget continues the administration’s work of lowering costs for families.  The President has made lowering costs for hardworking families his top economic priority.  Under his leadership, we have seen significant progress bringing down inflation.

But families need more breathing room, and that’s why the budget includes proposals to bring down the costs of everyday necessities.  It lowers healthcare costs, drug prices, and expands access to prescription drugs.

It cuts taxes for families with children and American workers and lowers childcare costs for hardworking families.

It increases affordable housing supply to reduce housing costs, expands access to homeownership and affordable rent, and reduces down payments for first-time and first-generation homebuyers with the new Mortgage Relief Credit.

And it reduces the cost of college and lifts the burden of student debt.

Second, the budget invests in America and the American people to grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up.  The budget invests in all of America to make sure the middle class has a fair shot and we leave no one behind.

It does this by expanding and protecting access to healthcare; supporting America’s workforce and boosting manufacturing; confronting the climate crisis while spurring clean energy innovation; providing national paid leave; advancing cancer research; making our communities safer; and more.

Third, the budget reduces the deficit by about $3 trillion by making our tax code fairer.

Congressional Republicans want to increase the deficit by $3 trillion, including by attempting to repeal the parts of the Inflation Reduction Act that take on special interests like Big Pharma and wealthy tax cheats, all while supporting giveaways to big corporations and the richest Americans at the expense of America’s seniors.

In contrast, the President’s budget ensures that billionaires pay a minimum 25 percent rate, makes large corporations pay their fair share, cracks down on corporate profit shifting, and cuts taxes for tens of millions of low- and middle-income families.  The budget also cuts wasteful spending on special interests and cracks down on fraud.

President Biden will fight to stop Republican plans to add trillions to the deficit with giveaways to Big Pharma and tax cuts skewed to big corporations and the wealthy, while ensuring people making under $400,000 will not pay a single penny more in taxes.

And fourth, the budget protects and strengthens Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security and Medicare are more than government programs; they’re a promise — a rock-solid guarantee that generations of Americans have counted on that after a life of hard work, you will be able to retire with dignity and security.

The budget honors the President’s ironclad commitment to reject Republican efforts to cut both programs and embraces reforms that would protect and strengthen these programs, including by extending the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund indefinitely.

The President’s vision of progress, opportunity, and fairness is in stark contrast to congressional Republicans who have repeatedly fought to slash critical programs the American people count on and increase the deficit by trillions of dollars with giveaways to Big Pharma, the wealthy, and big corporations.

With that, let me turn it over to Chair Bernstein to talk about the budget’s economic outlook and forecast.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Well, thank you. 

Good morning and thanks for joining us.

As nerdy as it sounds, we always find budget release day to be exciting and gratifying.

For one, it’s the culmination of the work of hundreds of smart, dedicated people — both here in the EOP and across the agencies — all of whom have put in long hours to produce this document.

Second, it is the most comprehensive and detailed statement of our administration’s values — a highly granular exposition of the administration’s view of the roles and responsibilities of government.

Third and closest to our hearts at CEA, the budget must implement the President’s vision within the existing economic context.  And it’s that context I’ll briefly discuss this morning, along with a few points of the administration’s new economic forecast that’s also out today.

In his State of the Union Address, the President took us through some remarkable aspects of the current economic expansion, reminding us how far we’ve come since he took office.

The quick passage of the American Rescue Plan got shots in arms and checks in pockets, prevented massive evictions and business losses, supported state budgets, cut child poverty nearly in half — and, in so doing, ensured that the job market got quickly back to full employment.

Importantly, the U.S. job market did not just get back to full employment; it has stayed there.  And even more importantly, given the President’s emphasis on creating more breathing room for families through his cost-cutting agenda — an agenda that is well represented in this new budget — this maintenance of tight labor markets has occurred amidst significant disinflation.

As you know, many economists told us this couldn’t be done, that to get this much disinflation we’d need to give up many points of unemployment and growth.

President Biden never believed that we could achieve disinflation on the — that we could only achieve disinflation on the backs of working Americans.  And as we speak, inflation is down two thirds off of its peak.

Virtually every forecast we’ve seen expects this trend to continue, and that holds for our forecast as well, about which I’ll now say a few words.

The economic forecast in the budget, in table S9, is the work of the Council of Economic Advisers, Office of Management and Budget, and the Treasury.  Let me take a moment to thank the dozens of folks here who contributed their deep expertise to this endeavor, with spe- — special mention to Steve Braun, CEA’s lead forecaster, who presides over our forecast.

Our team faces a unique challenge in that we must finalize our forecast well before we release it.  In this case, it was finalized in early November ’23 — 2023.  This can sometimes render our near-term predictions stale relative to more up-to-date market forecasts.

However, our new forecast looks pretty good in this regard, as our near-term optimism about transitioning to steady, stable growth was broadly warranted.

On an annual basis, looking Q4 over Q4, we expected real GDP to grow 2.6 percent last year, when the actual was 3.1 percent — meaning the expansion was even stronger than we expected.  This is above-trend growth, which means it is helping to generate the ongoing strength jon- — job creation, along with real wage and income gains.

On inflation, things also turned out a bit better than we expected.  We thought the CPI would be up 3.4 percent last year, but the actual came in at 3.2 percent — down sharply from north

of 7 percent in 2020 Q4. 

On 2023 unemployment and interest rates, we came in very close to the actual results.  For ’24, our estimates line up well with the most recent blue-chip consensus. 

Over the longer term, our forecast is largely unchanged from prior budgets with terminal growth and unemployment rates of 2.2 and 3.8 percent, respectively. 

As we discuss in today’s release, our terminal growth rate is higher than some other forecasters because we include pro-growth effects of our policies, including investments from human and physical capital, along with affordable childcare, which research shows has the potential to significantly increase caregivers labor supply.

 With that, we’ll take your questions.

OPERATOR:  All right.  We’ll go to the first caller in queue.  Caller, your line is unmuted. 

Q    Hey, guys.  It’s Justin Sink from Bloomberg.  Thanks for doing this.  A couple quick ones.  The first was just a gut check that your budget abides by the debt ceiling agreement caps.  It looks like it does, but I just wanted to make sure that was true. 

The second was if you could talk at all about how it foresees, you know, additional emergency spending, you know, in terms of Israel and Ukraine going forward after this year. 

And then, finally, Jared, on the economic assumptions, I know that they’ve turned out a lot better than you predicted, and you were criticized for rosy expectations last year.  But I was wondering, on unemployment specifically, if you could talk through why it seems realistic to have, you know, unemployment never rise higher than 4 percent in the next decade. 

Thanks, everyone.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Hi.  This is Director Young.  Let me start with FRA.  You’re absolutely right, someone who spent a large chunk of their year last year helping negotiate that on behalf of the President after the debt ceiling was held hostage for that deal, we absolutely do comply with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which you — as you know, CBO says would save a trillion dollars in deficit over the 10-year period. 

As far as emergency spending, Ukraine, Israel, and border security, you know, the — the unfortunate pieces is — is we had to reinclude, re-ask for the President’s supplemental again in this budget because Congress has not passed the President’s supplemental. 

It is very frustrating.  We have been asking for support for Ukraine since September, if you can remember; after October 7th, asked for support for Israel; and just like Ukraine, our border security.  We have been asking for — not just in September, but the President has asked over four times for more border security funding to be given (inaudible) during one of his requests and mostly turned down. 

So, this budget repeats the President’s supplemental ask for Congress.  Certainly, our hope had been that Congress would have acted by now.  But since they haven’t, there was a need to ask again, frankly.

 CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  On the terminal unemployment rate, I — I think your question was, why does — why do we have 3.8 percent as a terminal unemployment rate?  The — that begins in ‘28 and persists for the rest of the forecast window.  That’s standard forecast practice, to put your full employn- — full employment unemployment rate in — in the out years of the budget. 

And so, the question really becomes — if I understand you correctly, and feel free to correct me if I don’t — the question really becomes: Why do you have 3.8 percent as your unemployment rate at — at full employment?  This is the unemployment rate that we judge to be consistent with steady and stable growth, stable prices, stable interest rates.  And, in fact, if you look at the budget, you’ll see that is how those relationships play out. 

We can easily defend that as a — as a full employment unemployment rate or sometimes called the “natural rate of unemployment.”  We can easily defend — defend that as the unemployment rate that’s consistent with — with stable growth and — and stable prices. 

If you look at the current — probably the best way to make that point is to look at the current dynamics where you see current — the current economy where you see unemployment that’s been below 4 percent — so in the 3.8 neighborhood — been below 4 percent for 25 months in a row and inflation certainly not rising, in fact, inflation coming down quite sharply. 

So, that looks to us like a reasonable unemployment rate, one that’s very consistent with the President’s values with a tight labor market generating fair real-wage gains for working families.

OPERATOR:  All right.  We’ll go to the next caller in queue.  Caller, your line is unmuted.

Q    Hi, this is Josh Boak with AP.  Shalanda, Jared, thanks for doing this.

Voters are going to hear from congressional Republicans that their budget plan would balance over a decade and that growth would be 3 percent.  What’s the difference in your math compared to theirs?  And do you — why do you think your math is more trustworthy?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I would say that difference is — is reality.  We — we think we have a realistic growth forecast.  We defend it extensively in the budget.  We explain how we got to where we are, and probably a good thing to do would be to talk to outside economists who will generally validate those expectations and that — ask them what they think of — of the Republican ones. 

We — we haven’t had — you know, we haven’t had a period — a sustained period of — of growth is, you know, 3 percent growth in — in this country in a long time.  That’s more the kind of growth rate you’d typically see in developing economies.  We’re obviously a — you know, a highly developed economy, and, you know, capacity growth is widely understood to be around 2 percent. 

So, you know, you can write down whatever you want to get whatever result you want.  But if it doesn’t match good, hard economic reality, it’s — it’s not useful.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  If I could add on — Jared is absolutely correct.  The other thing I’d really like folks to focus on is: Congressional Republicans also don’t tell you what they cut, who they harm. 

This President’s budget lays out in great detail every program that he would fund, how he plans on fulfilling his promise of growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, through childcare, through universal pre-k, through free community college, through apprenticeships.  Everything is detailed in the discretionary budget, mandatory proposals, tax proposals. 

And congressional Republicans give us their top lines, which have rosy economic projections that don’t fit reality.  They also don’t tell you they’re going to cut the National Institutes of Health.  They’re going to cut border security.  They’re going to cut childcare.  They’re going to cut Head Start.  That’s the only way you can do it. 

And we have to acknowledge that the President is transparent, details every way he’s going to — to show he values the American people. 

Congressional Republicans hide behind high-level talking points about balancing.  Well, who are you hurting in the meantime?  What are you cutting?  And we’re — we’re going to tell the American people what those programs are.

OPERATOR:  All right.  We’ll go the next caller in queue.  Caller, your line is unmuted.

Q    Hi, folks.  It’s Jim Tankersley of the New York Times.  A couple of, sort of, technical questions here.  The first is about interest rates.  It looks like you have changed your forecast upwards for long-term rates on — on T-bills and — and have more debt service because of that.  And I — and I’m just curious why.  Is that an expectation that the Fed is going to keep rates higher for longer, or what’s — what’s going on with that?

And secondly, I — I’m just curious if you can give us a gross number on the tax proposals in here.  What — what is the gross tax increase over the 10-year window?  Thanks.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Thanks.  On the interest rate.  Yeah, if you go back to our midsession review — which is our most recent previous forecast for this one — the — the 10-year Treasury note — the terminal forecast — or, I mean, in the forecast rate in the last budget year, which was ‘33 — in the — 2033 — in that — in that mid-session review — 3.4 percent — our terminal rate, which we hit in 2029 in this forecast, is 3.7.  So, that’s a 30-basis-point increase in the 10-year rate. 

And that’s not based on any any- — anything from the Federal Reserve.   That — you know, first of all, as you know, we don’t comment on Federal Reserve monetary policy.  But anything in the higher-for-longer space is — is a much more near-term proposition. 

What we’re looking at is — is higher — forecasts for higher Treasury rates that reflects blue-chip market forecasts forward rates.  Our forecast tends to look at where — in the case of the long-term rate, we tend to look at where the forward rates are, where the markets are, and where the consensus forecasts are.  So, we’re just linked up with them. 

Over — I think over to you for the other question.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Yeah.  So, Jim, on tax policy.  Half of our tax increase would come from rates going up for corporations.  The other half are on the top 1 and 2 percent of this country.  So that — you know, that is similar or the same in many respects to last year’s budget. 

And that is consistent with what the President talks about.  We can do all of our investments by asking those in the top 1 and 2 percent to pay more into the system.

OPERATOR:  All right, we’ll go to the next caller in queue.  Caller, your line is unmuted.

Q    Hi, this is Tami Luhby with CNN.  Thank you for holding this call.  I had two questions. 

One is: Does the budget also contain the President’s proposal to extend the number of drugs to 50 for — under Medicare negotiations? 

And also, can you explain a little bit more about the Medicare solvency proposals and whether they are the same as last year?  Or are there any new proposals?

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Yeah, we are not specific about the — the number of prescription drugs, but we are expanding beyond the 10 in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

On our Medicare proposal, it is the same.  But the reason we are able to say — and Medicare and Medicaid is able to say — that there is a permanent solvency fix is because we look at over 75 years of effects of our policy in the budget versus 25 years.  Also, slightly better economic assumptions underpin that. 

So, I know we speak about it in a different way.  But the policy is the same.  But we were able to look at a longer timeframe of how our policies would impact Medicare, which is why you hear us speak about it in a longer-term fashion.

OPERATOR:  All right, we’ll go to the next caller in queue.  Caller, your line is unmuted.

Q    Hi.  Hans here — thanks — with Axios.  Well, not thanks for being at Axios; although, I am grateful for being at Axios.  But that wasn’t the intent of my question. 

Can we still get a gross number for total tax increases, to kind of follow up on Tankersley, just so we don’t make any sort of mistakes there? 

And then, am I — just another technical question, and apologies to the — the real budget reporters out there.  Is the topline number for 2025 $7.- — $7.266 trillion, and is the topline for deficit in the first year $1.781.  And I’m going off of F4.  Thank you.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Can you repeat the second question?

Q    I just want to know topline numbers for total outlays, if I’m — if I’m — if I should be looking at F4.  So, is the President proposing a $7.- — quotes a $7.3 trillion budget for next year, with deficits that are close to $1- — in the first year, $1.8.  I’m just looking at F4.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Yeah, F4 is the correct table to look at outlays in the budget.  Also the Greenbook, which is going to come out later today from Treasury, will have the most details on our tax scores.

OPERATOR:  All right, we’ll go the next caller in queue.  Caller, your line is unmuted. 

Q    Jonathan Nicholson with HuffPost.  A few, hopefully really — real quick questions.  The lowest depths of — that I see you guys get down to $1.5 trillion.  In the past, $1 trillion has been, sort of, seen as sort of like a tripwire.  Like, we should worry about the deficit.  So, how do you respond to the fact that that seems to be the lowest you guys get?

B, the Republican budget — the House Budget Committee resolution has about a $3 trillion feedback effect to reduce their 10-year deficit.  Can you give us what your equivalent is there that — Jared, you mentioned that there is some feedback effect included in this. 

And then, finally, today, former President Trump talked about the need, again, for tariffs against China and that there is, quote, “a lot of room for cutting,” unquote, in entitlements.  So, I was wondering if you guys had any reactions to that.  Thank you.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  There’s a lot there, and I’m not sure I picked up on all of it. 

I don’t remember saying anything about any “feedback effect.”  So, I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to.  I don’t think I use that word. 

Let me see.  In terms of — I think you said something about cutting entitlements.  I mean, the President — I mean, Shalanda — Director Young can say more about this than — than me, but the President is unequivocally clear in his opposition to any cuts in Social Security and Medicare. 

What else did you want?  Oh, one thing I wanted to mention about — about deficits and — and Director Young can follow up — is that especially when you’re getting to the out years — I mean, when you’re getting a few years out, as you do in the numbers you just cited, it’s important to look at the deficit as a share of the economy.  Because the GDP, of course, is growing significantly over these years.  And so, we have a deficit that goes down considerably as a share of GDP.  And you can see that in — in Table S1. 

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  And as long as we’re talking about share of GDP, another indicator we look at closely with regard to our fiscal path is real net interest as a share of GDP.  We are well below t- — 2 percent, which most economists look at as a goal — goalpost on where sustainable debt lies.  So, Jared is absolutely correct.  The deficit as the share to GDP goes down around 5 percent, and our real net interest is well below 2 percent as a share of GDP.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah, let me just underscore that point.  This also gets back to the — the question that Jim asked. 

We do — we think in the — in the spirit of, again, a realistic take of where we think interest rates are headed — where CBO does and other prominent forecasters, we match them pretty closely with our — with our interest rate forecasts.  And even with the assumption of higher rates, we still hit real net interest as a percent of the economy that is servicing our debt relative to the size of the economy — is well within historical range.  And so, then, we consider that to be a positive indicator of — of fiscal responsibility.

OPERATOR:  All right.  We’ll go to the next caller in queue.  Caller, your line is unmuted.

Q    Hi.  Thank you so much.  This is Carmen Paun from Politico.  It looks like there will be a — the request has a cut in the amount dedicated to global health from $10.9 billion last year to about $10 billion this year.  And I was wondering if you have any more details about what will be cut.

And the second question is relating to the fight on fentanyl.  Do you have a sort of, like, topline number across a different department, like, how much you’re requesting this year to fight fentanyl?  Thank you.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  So, on global health, State Department typically det- — has the details.  Each department will put out their individual congressional justifications.  And I’m not going to get ahead of those details.

What I will say is the President is able to invest in and keep the progress going over the last three years, even while complying with the F- — the Fiscal Responsibility Act, one major reason we — we pay for our investments.  And this budget is both fiscally responsible but also showcases continued investments in places like global health.

And $10 billion, I’m not sure where you’re seeing that number, but that is, I’m sure, an increase over previous years.

What was your second question?  Oh, on fentanyl. 

I talked about this earlier.  The major increase in fentanyl is in the border security package the President has put forth and Congress still has not passed.  I thank the Senate for doing its work, but we — we continue to look for a path on funding border security that the President has asked for.

One of the major pillars of that is putting in this NII equipment, which everyone knows is a way of finding fentanyl in vehicles that cross land ports of entry. 

I’ve done this for a long time.  That used to be bipartisan.  So, I continue to remain perplexed as to why we cannot get Congress to take the President up on passing his request to do more of these machines to keep fentanyl out of this country.

OPERATOR:  All right.  We’ll go to the next caller in queue.  Caller, your line is unmuted.

Q    Hi.  This is Richard Rubin at the Wall Street Journal.  You talked about the budget being a statement of priorities, but there are several areas where you don’t specify.  “Shoring up Social Security” is sort of general language, extending the child tax credit only goes through `25, and then the tax cut that expired that you want extended, you don’t specify how you would pay for them.

Can you explain sort of why you’re not detailing plans in those areas?  Thank you.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  On Social Security, the budget is very clear, like the President was on Thursday, what he stands for and what his principles are with regard to Social Security.  You heard it from him, but it bears repeating, and you will see those — these words in the budget. 

The Pres- — one, no benefit cuts.  This President will not entertain proposals to cut any benefits from hardworking Americans who have paid into their system their entire working lives.  Two, we must extend the solvency by asking high-income Americans to pay their fair share. 

If you make a million dollars in this country, you are done paying your Social Security taxes sometime in February.  Is that fair?  And we don’t think so.

And, three, we must improve the financial security for seniors and people with disabilities.  And, finally, we have to ensure that Americans have access to benefits they’ve earned.

The budget is very clear: We have asked for increases to the Social Security Administration — this will be our fourth time.  We’re asking for a 9 percent increase this year.

One way to undermine Social Security benefits is not to fund the agency and people needed to provide access to those benefits.  And it’s unconscionable that the Social Security Administration is being starved of resources.  And we call on Congress to take up the President’s proposal to increase this agency.

MODERATOR:  I think we have time for one more question.

OPERATOR:  All right.  We’ll go the next caller in queue, then.  Caller, your line is unmuted.

Q    Oh, I think — it’s Richard Rubin at the Wall Street Journal again.  I’m unmuted.  So, can you answer my other questions about the child credit and the extensions at the DJ?  Thanks.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Yeah.  Sorry about that.

The child tax credit is extended to 2025.  That is an acknowledgment that — we talked about the — the 2017 tax changes earlier today.  Those things are connected. 

We’re going to have a robust tax debate at the end of 2025, in fiscal year `26, because individual tax rates lapsed from the 2017 law.  You’ve heard the President will not raise taxes on those families making under $400,000.  But he also will insist that the wealthiest tax cuts not be extended and not be given new.  But we have to have that fulsome debate.

Child Tax Credit, we — will be a part of that debate.  So, seeing Child Tax Credit does not mean we don’t want to see that credit extended in perpetuity.  We absolutely do.  But we also know, in this country, we’re going to have a robust tax debate in 2- — at the end of 2025, and Child Tax Credit will be a part of that.

MODERATOR:  And we can still take one more.

OPERATOR:  All right.  Caller, your line is unmuted.

Q    Hey, good morning.  It’s Ron Brownstein from The Atlantic.  Jared, way back when, in the opening statements, you talked about the impact of administration’s agenda on long-term growth.  I’m wondering if you could give us any sense of what you think the impact of everything you passed and proposed would be on growth and also how it would affect, in your view, near and long-term trends in inflation-adjusted wages.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Sure.  Ron, the way we quantitatively talk about that, of course, is the economic assumptions that you see in Table S9.  So, for example, we have a long-term growth rate for GDP of 2.2 percent.  If you look at other forecasters who don’t include the growth effects of our policy interventions, they come in lower that — than that.  Numbers around the 1.8, 2 percent range.

So, specifically, and I — as I just alluded to briefly in my opening comments, things like affordable childcare.  We’re very confident that if more caregivers could afford to pay for childcare, implementing proposals in this budget to keep that expenditure down, as a share of income, in the 7 percent range, that would increase labor force. 

And higher labor force is a — is very much a — higher labor force is very much a pro-growth development.  It’s also, to get to the other part of your question, helpful in dampening inflationary pressures.  We’ve seen that even in — in today’s disinflation.

Secondly, if you look at our investment agenda, this also — you know, the — the economic way to talk about it is to say it improves the economy’s supply side.  But I think, more practically, in terms of building up that longer-term potential growth rate, when we stand up domestic semiconductor production; when we stand up domestic electric vehicle, electric batteries; when we improve the nation’s infrastructure in ways that, in the previous administration, were a joke, in this administration are happening — all of those are pro-growth, pro-productivity, pro-supply side.

They not only boost the economy’s capacity, as our numbers show, but they also help put downward pressure on inflation.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you all, again, for joining.

Reminder that this call was on the record and embargoed until noon, as are the materials that we provided to you prior to the call.

If you all have any other questions, feel free to follow up with our team.

Thanks.

10:41 A.M. EDT

The post On-the-Record Press Call with OMB Director Shalanda Young and Council of Economic Advisers Chair Jared Bernstein on the President’s Budget appeared first on The White House.

En Route Manchester, New Hampshire
Air Force One

12:22 P.M. EDT

MS. DALTON:  Hey, good afternoon.  You’re going to need to bear with me because we do have a couple of things at the top today. 

Good morning.  I have a few items here.  As the President says, a budget is a statement of values.  And his budget released today makes a few of his values very clear. 

His budget invests in all of America to make sure everyone has a fair shot and we leave no one behind.  It lowers costs for families for housing, prescription drugs, healthcare, childcare, utilities, and college.  It lowers the deficit by $3 trillion dollars on top of the $1 trillion in deficit reduction he has signed into law already by making the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share.  And it protects and strengthens Social Security and Medicare, securing the Medicare Trust Fund indefinitely. 

Congressional Republicans have made their values clear in the meantime.  They have repeatedly fought to slash critical programs that the American people rely on.  Their plans would increase the deficit by $3 trillion with even more tax cuts for the rich and big corporations.  They want to repeal the President’s progress in taking on Big Pharma, wealthy tax cheats, and big corporations. 

While President Biden is fighting for the middle class and working families, congressional Republicans are fighting for the rich and special interests.  Their records reflect that and so do their plans for the future, which is a great segue for the fact that we’re on our way to New Hampshire today, where the President will discuss his administration’s historic work to lower healthcare costs. 

Through the Inflation Reduction Act that every single Republican in Congress voted against, President Biden took on Big Pharma and won, giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices for families.  He capped insulin prices at $35 for people on Medicare.  He capped total out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 for people on Medicare.  And he’s driven Affordable Care Act coverage to record highs with the uninsured rate at a record low and reforms that are saving millions of people an average of $800 per person per year. 

Today, the President will call on Congress to act to lower healthcare costs for even more Americans.  He’ll call on Congress to apply the $2,000 cap on prescription drug costs and $35 insulin to everyone, not just people on Medicare.  He’ll call for allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for at least 50 drugs per year.  And he’ll make permanent improvements to ACA coverage that are set to expire in the fall of 2025. 

That’s a very different vision than what Republican elected officials have laid out.  They have locked arms with Big Pharma to stop Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices.  They continue to talk about repealing the ACA.  They continue to talk about supporting changes to Medicare that would cut benefits and throw people off the program. 

As President Biden made clear in his State of the Union, if any Republican elected official tries to repeal the ACA or cut Social Security or Medicare, he will stop them.  The President won’t stop fighting for results in the face of these attacks from Republican elected officials and as Big Pharma spends hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying to try to stop the administration from lowering costs. 

That’s what you’re going to hear from the President today. 

And finally, I do want to echo the President’s deep gratitude and recognition for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Marcia Fudge, who will be departing the administration later this month. 

As you will read in the President’s statement, no one understands the importance of fair housing market and access to quality and affordable hous- — housing better than Secretary Fudge. 

So, I wanted to briefly highlight a few key accomplishments from her tenure.  Under her leadership, HUD removed barriers to homeownership, resulting in more than 1.5 million new FHA homeowners and the highest rate of first-time homebuyers in 20 years. 

At her direction, the Department worked closely with partners at the federal, state, and local level to increase the housing supply, particularly the supply of affordable homes, while allocating historic resources to address homelessness. 

And with Secretary Fudge at the helm, HUD strictly enforced fair housing laws and took a stance against racial bias and discrimination in the appraisal market. 

We are so grateful for Secretary Fudge for her years of public service as mayor, as a member of Congress, and as a Cabinet Secretary — and, of course, as a trusted advisor to the President.  We wish her nothing but the best in her next chapter. 

And while Secretary Fudge may be leaving the Department, this administration’s work to lower housing costs and create more affordable housing will continue. 

As you heard during the President’s State of the Union Address last week and detailed in his budget proposal to Congress, President Biden laid out his plan to lower housing costs for working families nationwide by building and renovating more than 2 million homes, cracking down on big landlords who use antitrust laws to price fi- — fix and drive up rents, and providing a $10,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers and people who sell their starter homes. 

And, with that, I’ll take some of your questions.

Q    Why is she leaving?  And does she know when her last day is?

MS. DALTON:  I’ll refer you to HUD on any of those particulars.  But as I said, she has led a historic tenure over the last three years and we’re — we wish her nothing but the best.

Q    So, she let the President know what her last day is going to be?

MS. DALTON:  She did.  She informed the President, and he wishes her absolutely nothing but the best.  In fact, this morning, you might have heard him shout her out at the National League — League of Cities speech.  We wish her nothing but the best in the future.

Q    Do you have a plan for replacing her?  I mean, it’s kind of late in a fourth year of a fourth term.  What — or, excuse me, first term.  Will he nominate a replacement?

MS. DALTON:  Certainly, he’ll nominate a replacement.  But I don’t have anything on that front to share with you today.

Q    Does the President intend to watch the hearing tomorrow — the House Judiciary hearing on the Hur report?

MS. DALTON:  I have nothing to preview in terms of the President’s plan tomorrow.

Q    Does the White House intend to have a Ramadan event this year, given the Muslim community’s stance on the war and (inaudible)?

MS. DALTON:  That’s a great question.  Obviously, the President will issue an — a statement and — and — as he usually does, to mark the occasion of Ramadan.  I don’t have anything to preview in the way of events.  But certainly, this is a holy time of year.  The President will extend his typical well wishes to the Muslim community here and around the world.

Q    On Israel, can you say, when is the last time the President talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu?  And are they planning to talk in the next couple of days?

MS. DALTON:  I believe the last time they spoke was mid-February.  So, just a couple of weeks ago.  They’ve spoken more than a dozen times since the October 7th attacks.  And our teams are in touch on a daily basis in addition to that. 

Of course, we don’t typically preview calls between heads of state, and so I won’t do that here.  But, of course, our teams have been in regular touch, and so have they.

Q    Just how —  how does the President characterize his relationship right now with Prime Minister Netanyahu, given the exchange of some, kind of, testy comments that they’ve had in the last few days?

MS. DALTON:  I think we’ve been clear and consistent in saying the President has a — has held a decades-long constructive, productive relationship with President Netanyahu. They’re — that — that length of that relationship, the — the relationship that they’ve had allows them to be direct and honest at time where that’s needed.  But there’s no change here in the strength of the two leaders’ relationship.

Q    He said the other day that going into Rafah would be a — a red line.  And then, I believe the Prime Minister said, “Well, we’re doing that anyway.”  What is his — what are his thoughts about the Prime Minister obviously not caring that much about what the President said?

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, I — you know, the President was clear this weekend in his view that Israel has a right to self-defense, to protect itself in the face of an existential threat that’s posed by Hamas.  He’s also said that he believes Israel needs to do that in a manner consistent with the laws of war and pay greater attention to the level of humanitarian suf- — suffering and the unacceptably high level of civilian casualties that we’re seeing.

The President has also, you know, I think, iterated in that — in that interview that our view is that no military operation should take place in Rafah if there is not a credible and implementable plan to take care of the safety and security needs of the more than a million civilians who are sheltering there.  And we’ve seen no such plan.

So, the President was very clear in his remarks.  I don’t think it is productive for me to add speculation there one way or the other.  You know, I think he’s been very clear about what our overall position is.  And we’re not going to get into, sort of, hypotheticals or back-and-forth.

Q    When do —

Q    Does “red line” mean anything if —

MS. DALTON:  Sorry, I didn’t hear that.

Q    I mean, all — the things about protecting civilian life and — and et cetera.  The President has been saying that since, like, days after October 7th.  So, what is does a “red line” mean differently than what it’s — what he’s been saying?

MS. DALTON:  Again, I don’t think that it’s productive to assign a red line, sort of, terminology to what is a very complex set of policies.  So, I’m just going to leave it there.  I think the President was very clear about what his overall approach and view of the situation is and what needs to happen.

Q    Do you have a sense of how what — of whether the White House can do anything to fundamentally change how Israel is prosecuting this conflict?  There seems to be back-and-forth and continued defiance.  But does the President have push or pull with Bibi or any sense that what the President wants will actually happen or be taken into account?

MS. DALTON:  Look, I’m not going — I just said a moment ago that the President — you know, he’s had a dozen calls with the — with Prime Minister Netanyahu since October 7th.  They last spoke a couple of weeks ago.  Our teams are in daily touch. 

And certainly, we remain deeply and — and urgently engaged in the situation in the region to achieve our goals, which are, as the President laid out this weekend, to achieve a temporary ceasefire that allows the basis for a more durable — a durable peace; to alleviate the humanitarian suffering that we are seeing; to get our hostages home; and to make sure that this doesn’t bleed into a wider conflict.

All the while, we need to make sure that Israel continues to have what it needs to defend itself against a very real existential threat. 

So, th- — there are a lot of issues here.  The President is working on them very urgently.  I don’t think it’s productive for me to — to speak about private conversations in any more detail than he’s — he talked about over the weekend. 

But certainly, you’ve seen the actions that we’ve taken in — in recent weeks with the expansion of humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza through land, water, air corridors.  You’ve seen the President be very vocal and forthright about what we think about the situation on the ground and what needs to happen from here. 

But I’m — beyond that — beyond what the President said this weekend, I’m just not going to expand.

Q    To sort of follow up on that.  Do you — is there any consideration being given or any advocacy for tying U.S. aid to Israel to their response to this — responsiveness to what President Biden is asking?

MS. DALTON:  You know, the President has addressed th- — this himself before.  And I think you’ve heard him say, and I’ll reiterate here, that he thinks that there are other approaches, which we have taken and are taking, that are more effective in obtaining our goals.

Q    How does President Biden — or how does the United States — we’ve asked — we’re going to build this port in Gaza to bring in aid.  President Biden said on Friday that the Israelis would be in charge of protecting that port.  How can we guarantee that that’s not just going to — going to become another front for fighting instead of a place to get that aid into Gaza?

MS. DALTON:  Look, I — you know, again, I think — I would refer you to the DOD on to any of these sort of operational questions around the establishment of this pier.  It’s a process that’s going to take several weeks.  It will be complicated.  But I — I think it’s best left to DOD to discuss the manner in which they’ll construct that and provide for safe shipments of humanitarian aid through the pier.

Q    And then, in his interview with Jonathan Capehart, President Biden apologized for calling Laken Riley’s killer an “illegal.”  Does — does he feel like he needs to apologize to illegal immigrants for calling them what they are — or using the term “illegal”? 

MS. DALTON:  Well, first of all, I want to be really clear about something.  The President absolutely did not apologize.  There was no apology anywhere in that conversation.  He did not apologize. 

He used a different word. 

I think, what’s — what’s — what we should be really clear about is the facts.  So, in addition to the fact that, you know, the President did not apologize, I want to make another thing clear.  The President spoke directly to this in the State of the Union Address not four nights ago, when he spoke passionately about knowing what it means to lose a child and extended his deep grief and condolences to Laken Riley’s family in — in front of the entire country in the — in the House Chamber.

And beyond that, I think it’s unconscionable that there are some people who are playing politics with this young woman’s tragic murder — and particularly at a time when, let’s not forget, House Republicans are standing in the way of a bipartisan border security agreement that is the toughest bill we have ever seen in history.  And they’re doing so because Donald Trump feels that the American people’s safety is less important than his personal politics.  That’s the fact.

Q    Can I —

Q    President Biden said that —

Q    Can I pivot to the budget real quick?  I know that bu- — budgets are a statement of value and all of that stuff.  But is there a sense of what, if anything, in this budget is politically achievable in an election year in which, even as you pointed out, Biden is trying to draw contrast between what he wants and what Republicans want?  Is there anything he can tell the American people about what the priorities are or, you know, if anything actually will come of it?

MS. DALTON:  Well, I think the President believes there’s no reason — there’s no reason to assume we can’t get this done.  This is a statement of his values, a statement of his priorities, and — and a doubling down on an incredibly expansive set of popular proposals that he has pursued to date.

Lowering healthcare costs — we continue to hear from Americans all across the country about how important it is that they have a little bit more breathing room on their healthcare pre- — premiums, how transformational it is to have insulin capped at $35 a month, to have seniors be able to have their insulin — or their prescription drugs capped at $2,000 a year.

Today, we’re in New Hampshire talking about an expansion of what has been already an historically popular set of proposals from this president. 

So, look, we’re going to work across the aisle in good faith to try and get these things done for the American people.  We think that the President’s agenda is incredibly popular, and we encourage Republicans to join us.

Q    On — on the issue of the speech today and — and most of his speeches have been about drug costs, the economy, inflation, things like that.  But on the other hand, he talks about this election being about the last guy tried to basically end democracy, wanted to stay in power despite losing.  Is there kind of a disconnect between such a big issue like that and drug costs and — and gas prices, things like that?

MS. DALTON:  This is a both/and.  You know, the President — he took a — in his State of the Union speech, he focused on three things, right?  He talked about defending democracy here and around the world.  He talked about defending freedom here in the United States, from reproductive healthcare, to making sure that politicians aren’t choosing what books our — our kids can read. 

And then he talked, really, about an expansion of his economic agenda.  Building the — rebuilding the economy from the bottom up and the middle out is how we have achieved 15 million new jobs in the first three years of this administration, not to mention the strongest post-pandemic recovery of any major economy in the world.

And he talked about a series of new proposals, like the one we’re going to talk about in New Hampshire today, to double down on that and take it even further.

But, you know, the President, as you may know, has also given a series of speeches on the threats we face to our democracy.  He’s talked about this not being unique to the United States — certainly the threats to the democ- — democracy in Ukraine and Israel and other places in the world, front and center.

And you’ll continue to hear from him on both (inaudible) the need that we have to continue making economic progress on behalf of the American people.

Q    Can I ask you: On the trip to New Hampshire today, President Biden didn’t — thanks.  Sorry.  He didn’t go — he didn’t primary in New Hampshire, but he still did very well there.  Why is it so important for him to go back and to campaign now?

MS. DALTON:  Well, this isn’t a — an official speech that he’ll give in his official capacity.  The President frequently travels all across the country talking in — coast to coast, red and blue states and purple states — about his agenda and how he’s delivering to the American people.

I think you’ve heard me say before, he thinks communicating with people out in their communities is one of the most important things that he does as Commander-in-Chief. 

And I would add at this moment that we are incredibly proud to have a New Hampshire delegation that has been at the forefront, really leading the charge on some of these healthcare proposals that have saved Americans money and made their prescription drug costs and healthcare more affordable.

Q    Can you give us a sense of what the President wants to do in his meeting tomorrow with the Polish leader?

MS. DALTON:  I don’t have any preview to share with you that — on that today, but I’m sure that my NSC colleagues will be doing some of that a little bit later this afternoon.

Q    And one other reaction question.  President Trump — former President Trump over the weekend talked about a 10 percent tariff and wanting to have his tax cuts extended.  Does the President have a reaction to those policy pronouncements?

MS. DALTON:  I’m not sure I’m familiar with the — those particular comments.  And given that you’re speaking to the 2024 candidate, I probably should punt to the campaign on that one.

Q    And on you.  I understand this is your last gaggle today.  Can you say what your last day is at the White House?

MS. DALTON:  Wednesday is my last day, and it has been a huge honor to work with all of you.  You know, I’ve been in this town a long time — 20 years — and it has not jaded me a bit.  I’m very proud of that. 

And I think, you know, for me — I’m trying not to get emotional — but participating in this tradition of the White House press briefing, the White House gaggles, I still believe this is one of the most powerful expressions of how the world’s greatest democracy views its commitment to the American people and to a free press. 

And it’s been an enormous honor to be part of that — a bit part of that for this administration and this President.  And maybe that’s a great place to leave it.

Q    Congratulations.

Q    Can you share anything on where you’ll go next?

MS. DALTON:  I don’t have anything to share with you now, but I’ll keep you posted.  Thanks.

Q    Congratulations.  (Applause.)

12:40 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton En Route Manchester, NH appeared first on The White House.

En Route Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

3:13 P.M. EST
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everybody.  So, before we get started, I wanted to talk about the — the State of the Union last night. 
 
President Biden hit a grand slam, making a strong case to the American people about the future and his vision for an economy that’s centered on the middle class, for protecting our freedoms instead of taking — taking them away, and for making us more secure by acting on the bipartisan border deal and strengthening our alliances.
 
Not a dark di- — vision based on dragging American — American into — America into the past, on passing extreme abortion bans, on an economy by the rich for the rich, on taking revenge and bowing down to dictators.
 
His vision connected, as we keep seeing in front pages across the country and in the live reactions you all have captured.  Now — now we’re taking it on the road, as you can see. 
 
I want to share some of the reactions that stood out to us.  Presidential historian Michael Basch- — Beschloss — pardon me.  He said, “Biden hit the — hit the ball out of the park tonight.” 
 
Senator and Reverend Raphael Warnock: “That was a sermon tonight.”
 
Politico Playbook: “It’s hard to imagine how the State of the Union could have gone much better for Biden.”
 
Larry Sabato: “Yeah, it’s a homerun.”
 
Ian Bremmer: “A good night for American democracy.”
 
Newsweek: “Republicans Complain Joe Biden Had Too Much Energy at SOTU.” 
 
And coming out of the State of the Union, the President, his Cabinet, and senior administration officials will fan out across the country to speak directly to the American people, underscoring the historic progress we have made thanks to the President’s agenda, as well as the clear contrast between competing visions for the country. 
  
Today, the President and the First Lady are headed to the — to the Philadelphia area.  And tomorrow, we’ll be traveling to Atlanta for political events. 
 
On Monday, the President will travel to Manchester, New Hampshire, and share how his administration is lowering costs for American families, as well as — as participate in a political event.
  
On Tuesday, the President will be at the White House to host both the President and Prime Minister of Poland and discuss how we have strengthened the bilateral relationship between our two countries.
  
On Wednesday, the President will head back out on the road to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and then to Michigan on Thursday.
 
And on Friday, the President will host Taoiseach of Ilan- — of Ireland at the White House, which will be followed by a St. Patrick’s Day Celebration at the White House on March 17. 
 
I also want to note that in addition to the President’s post-State-of-the-Union travel, the Vice President and the Cabinet are also traveling far and wide to highlight how the President is building on — an economy from the middle out and bottom up, investing in all of America to make sure the middle class has a fair shot and we leave no one behind.
 
They will al- — also underscore how the President’s investments are keeping communities safe, protecting and expanding access to healthcare, rebuilding America’s infrastructure, creating good-paying jobs, and delivering a future for the American people.
 
The Vice President is kicking her travel off in Phoenix, Arizona, today and will visit Las Vegas on Saturday.  And on Tuesday, March 12th, she will travel on to Denver, Colorado.
 
There is a lot of traveling happening.  And please hold on, because someone is going to fall.  (Laughter.)  But hold on.
 
All right.  What you got, Josh?
 
Q    From last night’s State of the Union, from the rostrum, the President had an exchange with Marjorie Taylor Greene about Laken Riley, and he used the word “illegal” and then later “legals.”  And I was wondering if you could clarify what he was trying to communicate in that exchange?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think he was — he was obviously asked about this right before getting on — right before getting on Air Force One. 
 
There’s a couple things I do want to lay out, which I think is important when you look at the entirety of what he said yesterday in his remarks. 
 
The President spoke to the nation, obviously, last night very clearly about not demonizing immigrants.  He talked about the story of our country and families seeking safety and opportunity in a place of possibilities. 
 
President Biden believes in treating everyone humanely, which is — which is why he — he stopped his predecessor’s anti-immigration policies, as you know — all know and have covered back — back in the last administration.  That is really an important message that he wanted to make sure was sent during the State of the Union.
 
In response to what was hurled at him from the House floor, the President made clear that the murder of Laken Hope Riley was horrific and expressed sympathy for her family.  And he once again called on congressional Republicans to stop blocking the toughest, fairest bipartisan border security legislation in modern history. 
 
Again, he was responding to what was being hurled at him, as you all covered, and he was responding to that moment and that exchange.
 
Q    Karine, I just asked him about —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — you know, whether he regrets using the word “illegal,” and he said, “Technically, he wasn’t supposed to be here.”  I’m just wondering if you’ve had a chance to sort of speak to him after his speech and whether he really regrets using the word.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I saw him a couple of times after that.  I saw him last night after his speech.  That is not what we focused on, obviously. 
 
Look, what we — I think the bottom line to this is that we should not be politiciz- —
 
(A landing alert sound on Air Force One.)  Are you kidding me?  (Laughter.)
 
It should not be pol- — pol- — making this a political football. 
 
Congressional Re- — Republicans need to move forward and not reject a bipartisan bill that came out of the Senate.  It is important to move forward with this bill.  We can’t politicize this.  That’s what we cannot do. 
 
It is important, as we move forward, to — to dealing with the border challenges, as we move forward in buil- — in fixing a broken immigration system. 
 
The President has sa- — said this.  We need to do this in a humane and dignified way.
 
Q    Any — any second guessing among staff about him using that word?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —
 
Q    I mean, because it upset a lot of Democrats.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I understand.  I — I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but this is a president who also spent quite a bit of time on this topic and talked about the importance of doing it in a hu- — when we’re talking about immigration and dealing with immigration, dealing with migrants who are coming here, doing it in a humane way and a respectful way. 
 
He was responding to the engagement that he was having about a young woman who was murdered.  And that’s what was happening.  That’s what you saw.
 
Q    Karine, can I —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    — follow on something that happened during the briefing the other day and you didn’t have a chance to respond?   Kyrsten Sinema’s announcement about her resignation.  Has the President spoken with her?  Did he speak with her before that announcement?  And what is their relationship?  Can you —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — you know, I don’t have any conver- — a conversation or a call to read out to all of you.  Look, the President said — he congratulated Sinema on a career of service of — to the people of Arizona and the country.  He’s proud of the work that they were able to — to get together — to get done together. 
 
You heard him talk about the bipartisan negotiation that was able to happen that came out of the Senate.  She was one of the negotiators on that.  There’s been other bipartisan bills that the President was able to get through and with her assistance, and that’s now in law — into law.  That’s going to change Americans’ lives. 
 
So, there are ways that they were able to work together.  He appreciates that.  He congr- — congratulates her on her tenure as senator.
 
Q    Karine, has — there were several members of the Democratic Caucus last night, including Rashida Tlaib —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — and several others who didn’t applaud at all during the President’s speech, who didn’t stand at any portion during the President’s speech.  What’s the President’s message to the members of his own party who are — they — they heard his message last night; he spoke about Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there — but who, at the end of the night, are still not satisfied with what the President is doing?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I think you can see what the President has been trying to do over the past several weeks – this past several months on trying to get that hostage deal.  And what does that mean?  By — 
 
AIR FORCE ONE CREW MEMBER:  You cannot remain standing. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
AIR FORCE ONE CREW MEMBER:  I’m so sorry. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Sorry, guys.  I got to — we got to go.  (Laughs.)
 
Q    Has he met with Rashida Tlaib at all?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can’t — I can’t —
 
Q    Has he met with Rashida Tlaib at all? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have —
 
Q    Has he spoken to her?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a meeting to read out. 
 
Sorry, guys.  We go to land. 
 
Q    (Inaudible) Nikki Haley?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I don’t have anything to read out or — or say — to speak to on that.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You saw — you saw his text on that.  Sorry, guys. 
 
Thanks.
 
3:22 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Philadelphia, PA appeared first on The White House.

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

Via Teleconference

11:11 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining today’s call to discuss humanitarian aid for Gaza ahead of the State of the Union. 
 
As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and it is embargoed until noon Eastern today. 
 
For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the call today we have [senior administration official], [senior administration official], and [senior administration official].
 
With that, I’ll turn it over to our speakers for a few words at the top, and then we’ll go ahead to take your questions.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  This is senior official number one.
 
Just very briefly, on — the President obviously will address, I think in a very personal way, the situation in the Middle East, which he’s been dealing with really almost 24/7 here since October 7th.  He’ll talk about the horrific attacks of October 7th and Israel’s right to go after Hamas and those responsible, but also Israel’s added burden, just given that Hamas hides and operates amongst the civilian population — Israel’s fundamental responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Gaza and also to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
 
So one of the announcements tonight in the speech will be — and this builds on a number of things.  You heard us talk last week about flooding the zone into Gaza, about making sure the crossings in the south are actually operational.  David Satterfield talked about this last week, about the distribution network and security challenges in the south.  We’ve been working with the Israelis to open a new crossing directly into north Gaza.  The U.N. confirmed today they’re working, hopefully over the coming days, for a pilot transport through that new crossing.  We began the airdrops; we had another one today, which we can talk about a little bit on this call. 
 
And importantly, tonight in the speech, the President will announce that he’s directing the U.S. military to lead an emergency mission to establish a port in the Mediterranean, on the Gaza coast, that can receive large ships carrying food, water, medicine, and temporary shelters.  And this is an initiative that will get underway here when the President makes the announcement and issues the orders.  And we wanted to preview it on the call and address any questions you might have. 
 
So, with that, I’ll turn it over to senior official number two. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks very much.  Just to go back to a little bit of the history of President Biden’s involvement on the humanitarian access and delivery aspect of the conflict in Gaza: You know, really since the beginning of the conflict, President Biden has been leading efforts to get lifesaving humanitarian aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering of innocent Palestinians who have nothing to do with Hamas.
 
And early on, President Biden pushed relentlessly and made significant progress in terms of humanitarian access in Gaza, engaging personally to get agreement from the leaders of Israel and Egypt to cooperate on the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. 
 
Before the President’s engagement in this area, there was no food, water, or medicine getting into Gaza.  And the President’s visit to Israel and his hands-on diplomacy with the leaders of Israel and Egypt secured the opening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt. 
 
In December, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan traveled to Israel and secured the opening of the Kerem Shalom crossing, which has allowed additional aid to enter Gaza from southern Israel. 
 
And the United States, as I think is known well, is the largest provider of aid to the Gaza response, and thus far we have provided more than $180 million in assistance since October 7th. 
 
Responding to the humanitarian crisis and the needs of the Palestinian people has been a priority since day one, and it remains one today.  But the truth is, we know that the aid flowing into Gaza is nowhere near enough and nowhere near fast enough.  The President will make clear again this evening that we all need to do more and that the United States is doing more, and we are seeking to use every channel possible to get additional assistance into Gaza. 
 
We continue to work to increase the amount of aid flowing through existing border crossings at Rafah and Kerem Shalom.  And over recent days, at our request, the government of Israel has prepared a new land crossing directly into northern Gaza.  This third crossing will allow for aid to flow directly to the population in northern Gaza that is in dire need of assistance. 
 
As the U.N. confirmed today, we expect the first delivery to transit this crossing over the coming week, starting with a pilot and then ramping up. 
 
The government of Israel is also increasing the capacity of the direct land route from Jordan to Kerem Shalom, a route that has thus far seen around 48 trucks per week.  We should soon see 50 or more trucks per day going across. 
 
But we’re not waiting on the Israelis.  This is a moment for American leadership, and we are building a coalition of countries to address this urgent need. 
 
Last week, President Biden announced that we would carry out airdrops of aid into Gaza.  Since then, the Department of Defense has carried out three airdrops that include 192 bundles containing 112,896 meals, which include this morning’s airdrop operations that occurred in northern Gaza.  And we have more airdrops planned for the coming days. 
 
Additionally, we continue to coordinate with international partners, including Jordan, Egypt, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium.  This morning, their airdrops added a cumulative total of 28,000 meals on top of CENTCOM’s airdrops to Gaza.  Importantly, this is part of a sustained effort.  More aid is coming. 
 
And as the President previewed last week, the United States is taking the lead in activating a maritime corridor to allow assistance to flow by sea directly into Gaza as part of our sustained effort to increase aid flows coming into Gaza by land, air, and sea. 
 
So, tonight, the President will announce in his State of the Union Address that he has directed the U.S. military to undertake an emergency mission to establish a port in Gaza, working in partnership with likeminded countries and humanitarian partners. 
 
This port, the main feature of which is a temporary pier, will provide the capacity for hundreds of additional truckloads of assistance each day.  We will coordinate with the Israelis on the security requirements on land, and work with the U.N. and humanitarian NGOs on the distribution of assistance within Gaza.  Initial shipments will come via Cyprus, enabled by the U.S. military and a coalition of partners and allies. 
 
This new significant capability will take a number of weeks to plan and execute.  The forces that will be required to complete this mission are either already in the region or will begin to move there soon. 
 
We look forward to working with our close partners and allies in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond to build a coalition of countries that will contribute capabilities and funding for this initiative. 
 
This effort builds on the Amalthea initiative proposed by Cyprus, which provides a platform at the port of Larnaca for the transloading of assistance and screening by Israeli officials of Gaza-bound goods. 
 
While our military will lead this effort in the first instance, we look forward to the port transitioning to a commercially operated facility over time. 
 
Now, to conclude, I just wanted to say that to really address the urgent needs of the civilian population in Gaza and to enable humanitarian partners to safely distribute lifesaving aid throughout Gaza at the scale that is needed, it is essential that we see a temporary ceasefire in Gaza. 
 
The path to a ceasefire is straightforward.  There could be at least a six-week ceasefire today if Hamas would agree to release a defined category of vulnerable hostages, including women, elderly, sick, and the wounded.  That deal is on the table now and has been for more than the past week. 
 
It would bring immediate relief to the people of Gaza.  It would also create the conditions needed to enable the urgent humanitarian work that must be done.  The onus right now is on Hamas. 
 
And with that, I’ll turn to the next speaker.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think we’re now ready for questions.  If you’d like to ask a question, please use the “Raise Your Hand” feature, and our senior administration officials and senior Defense official will answer your questions. 
 
Let’s get started with Aamer Madhani.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi there.  So will this require American boots on the ground on the Gaza coast?
 
And then secondly, I think speaker number two said weeks for preparation.  If you could provide any more — I guess more precise detail on if you have sort of a benchmark date for this port to be up and open. 
 
And then thirdly, if you guys can also just — you know, there’s been — does the White House see it as a problem, one that it has to fly past its closest ally and now build a port?  I think Robert Ford, the longtime diplomat, called it an “absurdity” that the U.S. military has to deliver aid into a territory controlled by an ally. 
 
Can you guys also just speak to this dynamic that’s established and what it says and how it complicates the administration’s case of continuing robust assistance for Israel?  Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, happy to. 
 
On the last point, I will just say that we have and will continue to press Israel to allow more aid into Gaza by land.  We believe that land routes — we have long believed that land routes can be the most efficient, cost-effective way to get assistance in. 
 
But we have decided that we — and the President has directed that we look at all options, that we not wait for the Israelis, and that we are pursuing every channel possible to get assistance into Gaza.  So we will do it by air, by sea, by land — however we can get the maximum amount in possible.
 
I don’t want to get ahead of the planning in terms of this operation.  You know, and I’m sure we’ll have further details to share with our DOD colleagues soon.  But we are not planning for this to be an operation that would require U.S. boots on the ground.  But issues in terms of the dates, the timelines, et cetera, those are all things that we’re working through because they require contributions from our partners, from the humanitarian community and others, to make sure that this entire pipeline works effectively.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to the line of Karen DeYoung.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 
 
Q    Hi.  In terms of the hostage negotiations, you’ve said a number of times that the ball is in Hamas’s court.  Hamas has put out statements over the past couple of days, saying it still wants a commitment for the initial repositioning of Israeli forces and a commitment for a phase two complete withdrawal of Israeli forces, and that it wants to ensure that all Gazans who want to move north can go back there. 
 
Can you tell us if those are demands that are still being negotiated?  Are they part of what’s been put on the table, or are they just rejected?  Is this the Israeli framework that you said is forward leaning?  Is this a “take it or leave it” offer?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi, Karen.  I can address that. 
 
So, first of all, it is a three-phase deal — that’s the concept of the deal — with the first phase being a six-week ceasefire, which we’ve discussed.  I don’t want to discuss all the elements, but those elements have been under discussion.  And there are arrangements — as we had even during the ceasefire deal in November that led to 105 hostages coming out over seven days, repositioning of Israeli forces during that period, arrangements for movement — all of that stuff has been negotiated. 
 
And even returning people to the north, that is something that has been worked on in some detail.  Now, to get people to the north — it gets to one of the purposes of this call — you have to have reliable humanitarian assistance in the north.  And you kind of have to flood the area, because one thing that’s happening is even as gates are open, the distribution network inside Gaza, given the security situation and given the desperation — which led to the event that was terrible, tragic, awful event we saw last week — you have to just get in more assistance. 
 
So, yes, we’re returning people to the north; that is part of the arrangement.  This has been worked out.  So there’s a lot of people who speak for Hamas, purport to speak for Hamas.  But the fundamental element on their side is releasing, again, the sick, the wounded, the elderly, and the women.  That is, right now, really the holdup. 
 
But I will say there have been talks all week in Cairo.  We are directly engaged in this.  We just had a full briefing on it and assessment of where we are, just about half hour ago.  And we are continuing to work this assiduously.  And that is not going to stop, because we see this as the path to get the hostages home. 
 
I’ll say, of course, tonight the President will speak to the plight of the hostages, the fact that we had a deal that got a number of hostages out.  There will be a number of hostage families, we know, in the gallery. 
 
Jake and I met with the hostage families here at the White House yesterday.  This is something we are working on constantly, not just to save the lives of the hostages and get them out, but also because this is a path to a ceasefire, a ceasefire that will last at least six weeks.  It can be extended into a second phase; that has been worked out.  And a ceasefire would enable the distribution of the aid inside Gaza, which is so essential.  And so, it would really facilitate and enable the humanitarian surge that we’re working on. 
 
So that is why the ceasefire is first and foremost on our mind, on the President’s mind.  He’ll obviously speak to that tonight. 
 
But everything we’re doing here, including with this new U.S.-led military mission, is important for setting the conditions throughout Gaza for people to ultimately return to their places of residence.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to the line of Michael Shear.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey there.  Thanks, guys.  I was just wondering, a couple of questions.  One, Kirby said yesterday that one of the problems with a, kind of, marine option or a water option is that you still have to truck the materials in after you drop them off at the port.  Is it clear that once the aid gets dropped off at the port, that there’s a path in, either to the north or the south in Gaza?
 
And secondly, just to follow up on the U.S. boots on the ground, I think there was some talk about this a while back, and the Army Corps of Engineers had said that it was going to take 2,000 troops to deploy something like this.  Has that been changed?  Is that no longer believed?  Or is perhaps the troops not going to be U.S. troops, but there will have to be troops from somewhere else?
 
And is Israel part of — has Israel agreed to all of this? In other words, I know this — you’re saying you’re acting without, you know, waiting for Israel, but has Israel given the go-ahead?  Do they have to give the go-ahead for you guys to do this?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, just on your last question — [senior administration official], did you want to say something?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, [senior administration official], go ahead.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just on your last question first, you know, I think important to state that we worked very closely with the Israelis in developing this initiative, and they have worked very closely with the Cypriots now for months to establish the mechanism in Larnaca port that will be essential.  And we will work closely and sort out the details with them in terms of some of the security questions you raised. 
 
But we won’t get ahead of DOD in terms of any planning assumptions in terms of number of personnel that will ultimately be involved.  But like I mentioned, this is foreseen to be an operation that won’t require U.S. boots on the ground. 
 
To your other question about distribution within Gaza, I mean, yes, the assistance will need to land and then be distributed further within Gaza to reach those in need.  And, you know, there, we’re going to be, again, working with the U.N., working with other humanitarian partners to devise a mechanism for distributing the assistance. 
 
I think one of the reasons why this development is so key is that we’re building a redundant system so that we aren’t relying on one or two crossings as single points of failure in terms of being able to get assistance in. 
 
So it certainly will be complex to work out, but I think the more avenues we have to get assistance in, the more we will be able to reliably move it around within Gaza as well.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our last question will go to the line of Asma Khalid.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  I just want to ask for, kind of, an update on the hostage negotiations.  I realize [senior administration official] can’t share probably too much on that front, but I wanted to get an assessment from you of how optimistic you are about reaching an agreement before Ramadan.
 
And relatedly, can you help expound on why there is this urgency to reach the deadline before Monday?  I know the President alluded the other day to possible danger in Jerusalem.  I wanted to get clarity on that.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I’m not going to make predictions.  This is a difficult negotiation.  Any negotiation in its latter stages can become extremely hard. 
 
But, look, Haniyeh, leader of Hamas, has called for violence over Ramadan, so we recognize that this is something that they might very well try to do.  And it’s always a volatile period. 
 
But, you know, there is no hard and fast, like, deadline on this negotiation.  This negotiation is the path to getting hostages home and getting a ceasefire in place in Gaza and bringing relief immediately to the people of Gaza.  That is a fundamental objective of ours, and we are working to get it done as soon as possible.  We’d like that that been done yesterday.  We think the path is there.  We’re working on it. 
 
We are discussing with the Egyptians here just later this morning on some of the state of the talks, and we’re going to do everything we can.  But I’m not going to make a prediction on it.  But obviously, we recognize that extremists could try to use Ramadan to spark something.  That would be deeply unfortunate in that holy month.  And we want to make sure that we have a peaceful period so people can worship.  And obviously, we’re working that through with the Israelis, with the Palestinian Authority, with Jordanians and others. 
 
But, you know, we fully recognize, and I think Hamas has said, what their intentions might be. 
 
At the same time, we have worked out a deal that would bring massive relief to the people of Gaza and a ceasefire.  And the terms of it are pretty clear. 
 
So we’re going to continue to be at this, and we will try to get it done as soon as we can.  But I’m not going to make a prediction.  These are probably the most difficult types of negotiations imaginable.  And nothing is ever done until it’s actually done.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our last question will go to the line of Alex Ward.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 
 
Q    Yeah, hi.  Thanks for doing this.  Just, if you could help me; I’m a little confused.  How is this — you know, the President ordering this military mission if we’re not going to have boots on the ground to build this pier?  Is it just that — I mean, who’s building the pier?  And then, is it just that our military assets will be delivering aid from Cyprus to Gaza? Like, just explain what the actual order is here for our troops.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can say one thing, and then [senior administration official] and maybe our DOD colleague.
 
So, look, one thing.  The U.S. military has unique capabilities.  So as we have been looking at this situation, and working with partners and allies and working on commercial options, the U.S. military has unique capabilities, and they can do things from just offshore that is extraordinary.  And so that is the concept of operations that the President has been briefed on, that he is going to authorize.  And then we will work here over the coming days to get this underway. 
 
But I don’t know if [senior administration official] or our DOD colleague might want to add.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m happy to leave it there.
 
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Yeah, I can just chime in and say that the concept that’s been planned involves the presence of U.S. military personnel on military vessels offshore but does not require U.S. military personnel to go ashore to install the pier or causeway facility that will allow the transportation of humanitarian assistance ashore.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  As a reminder, this call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials and a senior Defense official, and it is embargoed until noon Eastern today.
 
Thanks so much.
 
11:34 A.M. EST     
 

The post Background Press Call on Humanitarian Aid for Gaza Ahead of the State of the Union appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference
(March 6, 2024)

6:08 P.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thank you for joining us this evening ahead of the President’s State of the Union tomorrow. 

Today, we will be holding a press call to preview the President’s State of the Union and his economic agenda, which is lowering costs and creating a fairer tax system.

We will begin with on-the-record opening remarks from National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard and then take questions on background.

The content of the call and the materials that you received are embargoed until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m.

Lael, with that, I’ll turn it over to you.

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

Tomorrow night, President Biden will discuss the historic achievements he has delivered for the American people and lay out his vision for the future.  The President will describe how far we’ve come since he took office three years ago and the work that lies ahead to build our economy from the middle out and bottom up, not the top down.

It’s remarkable how far we have come.  When President Biden and Vice President Harris came to office, they faced an immediate economic crisis.  We were in the midst of a raging pandemic, tens of millions of Americans were unemployed, hundreds of thousands of small businesses were at risk of closing, and supply chains were badly broken. 

Since that time, President Biden’s economic plan has led to the strongest recovery in more than 50 years.  Since the President took office, the economy has added nearly 15 million jobs, the unemployment rate has been below 4 percent for two full years at a time when inflation has come down by two thirds, wages have risen by more than prices and are higher than before the pandemic, and we are seeing a small-business boom.

President Biden’s economic agenda is investing in America — in all of America, helping communities that had been left behind make a comeback.  We’ve seen 47,000 infrastructure projects in 4,500 communities all across the country, and businesses have made $650 billion investments in clean energy and manufacturing — $650 billion in investments.

The President will also lay out his plans to lower costs and create a fairer tax system.  President Biden will highlight that lowering costs for working families is his top economic priority. 

President Biden has taken on Big Pharma to lower prescription drug costs.  He’s lowering energy prices for American families by investing in clean, affordable energy.  He’s taking on junk fees and shrinkflation.  By cutting overdraft fees, credit card late fees, and other hidden fees, the President will save Americans more than $20 billion a year. 

Tomorrow, in his State of the Union, you’ll hear President Biden talk about his efforts to lower costs and crack down on junk fees.  And he’ll also talk about important new actions to lower housing costs for working families around the country.

The President will also lay out his vision to make our tax code fairer and to lower the deficit by making big corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.  President Biden is fighting to make our tax code reward work, not wealth, so billionaires do not pay less than school teachers or firefighters and to ensure the wealthy cannot get away with cheating on their taxes.

For example, in addition to reversing the corporate rate cut in the 2017 tax law, he’s proposing to raise the rate for the corporate minimum tax he signed into law to 21 percent.  He’s also calling for a new proposal that would deny corporate tax breaks for executive compensation above $1 million.  And he is fighting to cut taxes for working families and the middle class by restoring his full Child Tax Credit to cut taxes for tens of millions of families.

None of his policies will raise taxes by a single penny on anyone making under $400,000 a year.  While the President wants to cut taxes for working families, congressional Republicans want to cut taxes even more for the wealthy and big corporations, all while adding more than $3 trillion to the debt.

President Biden has made clear whose side he is on.  Every day, we see him fighting for working people and middle-class families like the ones he grew up with in Scranton.  The President will continue to put the middle class first as he lays out his plan for the American economy.

Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thanks so much, Lael.  We’ll now take some questions on background.  

For your awareness on this call but not for reporting, taking questions will be [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].

If you have a question, please raise your hand. 

I’ll start with Josh Boak.

Q    Hi.  [Senior administration official], [senior administration official], thanks so much for doing this.  Quick question: Apples to apples, you say that the Republican plans would increase the debt by $3 trillion over 10 years.  What would the President — what would his plans — what would the impact be on the debt for him?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official].  The President will put out a budget next week that will reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years.

MODERATOR:  Great.  I’ll now turn it over to Akayla Gardner.

Q    Hey, guys.  I wanted to ask about the corporate tax minimum.  I know Brainard just said 21 percent, but I had thought that the President wanted or was proposing it to go to 28 percent.  And also, could you just say whether he’ll talk about the 25 percent tax on billionaires in his speech tomorrow.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official] again.  So, yes, the fir- — yes and yes are the answers to your questions.

So, the President’s proposal is to raise the corporate rate to 28 percent.  That’s reversing, in large part, the cut in the corporate rate from the 2017 tax law.  He has also signed into law a 15 percent minimum tax on large corporate — lar- — large profitable corporations to ensure that companies are, in fact, paying tax. 

He will, in this budget that he proposes next week, propose to raise that 15 percent rate to 21 percent for the corporate minimum tax.

And then, on your question of — of the billionaire minimum tax, I mean, I don’t have anything specific to preview about the speech.  But I will say that — you know, that the President is of the firm view that we cannot have a tax system where middle-class folks are paying a lower [higher] tax rate in some cases than billionaires.  And so, he has put forward a billionaire minimum tax proposal, and you can expect him to talk about that going forward.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  We’ll now turn it over to David Lawder.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this call.  Another — another question on the corporate minimum tax rate.  You know, there is the proposal — you know, the plan out there for a global corporate minimum tax of 15 percent, which would sort of match up with, you know, the U.S. corporate minimum. 

Is there any concern that this would put — you know, if he raised that to 21 percent, that this would sort of put the U.S. at a disadvantage to other — other countries when there was a lot of effort put in to trying to sort of get everybody on that — on that same — that same tax rate?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thanks for the question.  No, our — our proposal also on the international tax front — our global minimum tax proposal — would put in place a 21 percent rate there.  So, we’d have both the 21 percent global minimum tax.  We’d have 21 percent corporate minimum tax for the domestic corporate minimum tax as well.

Q    So, would you — I mean, would you be pushing other countries to raise theirs to 21 percent as well, or the U.S. is okay being above other countries in that rate?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think, you know, we’re going to — we’re going to be in a place where we’ll put forward the 21 percent proposal.  We’ll call on other countries as well to continue to put forward measures like that.  And, you know, I think that that is kind of consistent with where our international negotiations have been.

MODERATOR:  We’ll now turn it over to Eric Levitz.

Q    Hey.  Yeah, just two fairly straightforward questions.  One, I was wondering what specific housing policies the administration is planning to highlight tomorrow and if tho- — any of those require congressional cooperation.  And then, also, I was just wondering if any of the unfulfilled aspects of “Build Back Better,” in terms of its social programs — not the tax side of it, but childcare, et cetera — the — is the President planning to spotlight.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, so — I’m sorry, what was the — the first part of your question was the — housing.  Sorry.

So, on housing, I don’t have anything specific to preview for you.  What I will say is that the President, you know, will be putting forward a series of proposals that both go to expanding the supply of housing, helping renters, helping homeowners also with — with assistance to lower costs for them.  We’ll have more on that tomorrow.

Some of them will require congressional action.  You know, similar to the second part of your question, you know, we really see lowering housing costs and boosting the supply of housing as a key unfinished component of the President’s economic agenda.

And then, he also, I think, you know, going forward, will continue to highlight administrative actions we’re taking to lower housing costs.

And then, on the second part of your — of your question, you know, we will continue — in the budget, in other contexts — to highlight a range of measures that would lower costs for American families: cos- — lower housing costs, lower childcare costs, to — proposals to lower education costs. 

And it really is a stark contrast with, you know, congressional Republicans who, instead of putting forward proposals that are fundamentally about lowering costs for working families, have instead prioritized tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, for large corporations.  And so, you can anticipate that the President will make that contrast very clear.

MODERATOR:  We have time for a couple more questions.  I’ll turn it over to Andrew Restuccia.

Q    Thanks.  On the — the denying companies tax breaks if they pay employees over a million dollars.  Can you lay out, like, which tax breaks would be denied?  And then, also, do you have an estimate of how many companies this would affect?  Presumably, there’s a lot of companies that pay people over a million dollars.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, so — so, you know, we think this proposal would — would raise more than $250 billion.  And we can follow up with you with an exact.  And, you know, the structure of this proposal is that C corporations would not be able to deduct compensation above $1 million for any given employees. 

That’s an expansion in the current tax — in current law where deductions are not allowed for the CEO, the CFO, and a number of other officers.  But this would expand that to include anybody who is being paid over a million dollars.  And as I noted, you know, I think it would raise substantial revenue.

And, you know, I’d just lastly kind of point out: It’s not that, you know, the President has any problem at all with folks getting high salaries from — from their companies above a million dollars; it’s that, you know, we don’t think that — that companies should be able to take deductions for that compensation.

MODERATOR:  And for our final question, I’ll turn it over to Alexander Rifaat.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  I have two questions.  First, a big part of the President’s economic agenda has centered around tax credits to — to entice clean energy production, development; also encourage consumers to purchase electric vehicles.  But the subsidies do come with certain domestic content requirements that has sort of put it at odds with allies in Europe. 

And I know that the White House created a task force on the — on the Inflation Reduction Act after it was passed.  Also, created, I believe, a task force, as well, with the UK in order to sort of come up with some sort of agreement on the subsidies.

I just wanted to know if there was sort of any — if the White House had any sort of update on that — on negotiations there, if there was a timeframe for those negotiations. 

And then, secondly, another aspect of the — of the President’s tax policy is sort of centered around this idea of sort of making it more equitable.  The Treasury Department created an Advisory Committee on Racial Equity.  But one of the members there, Dorothy Brown, sort of — they made recommendations to — to Secretary Yellen.  And, essentially, they have not heard back from the Secretary, and she sort of called on the White House as — to sort of get involved.

I just wanted to see if the — if there was, sort of, any reaction on that; if there was any sort of timeline for, sort of, the — the, sort of — the — implementing any of the recommendations that this committee is making to the Treasury Department as it pertains to, you know, sort of, the tax system.  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that.  On the second one, I’d refer you to Treasury.  I don’t have an update there.

And then, on the first, I mean, you know, broadly speaking, we are very focused on making sure we’re implementing the clean energy credits in a manner that’s deploying rapidly clean energy technologies, lowering clean energy costs for folks, while also making sure that the domestic content requirements that are — that are put in place are implemented effectively.  So, we’re very focused on that.

We’re also focused on working with international partners who are themselves adopting incentives for clean energy deployment and production throughout the world.  On the kind of specifics of those tasks forces, I’d — task force, I’d refer you to NSC. 

But just, you know, broadly, this is a key area of focus for us.

MODERATOR:  And with that, we will conclude our call.  It is embargoed until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow. 

As mentioned at the top, the questions and answers were on background and are attributable to “senior administration officials.”

Thank you.  And tune in at 7:00 p.m. tomorrow — no, 9:00 p.m. 

Thank you.

6:24 P.M. EST

The post Press Call by National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard and Senior Administration Officials Previewing President Biden’s State of the Union Address and Economic Agenda appeared first on The White House.

2:13 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have, I think, one thing for you at the top, and then we’ll get started.

So, before we get started, I wanted to preview what to expect tomorrow night with — when President Biden delivers his third State of the Union.

You will hear the President lay out the historic achievements he has delivered on — on for the American people and his vision for the future.

Looking at what President Biden faced when he came into office and where we are now, it is clear he has gotten more done in the first three years than most presidents have accomplished in two terms. 

He will talk about the success in implementing his agenda, from infrastructure to CHIPS to lowering drug prices and getting rid of junk fees, as you heard him speak to yesterday with his Competition Council.

He will talk about whose side he is on and his plan to improve the lives of all Americans.  That includes lowering costs for Americans and giving people more breathing room, lowering healthcare premiums and taking on Big Pharma to lower the cost of prescription drugs, making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share in taxes, saving our democracy and protecting our democratic institutions, protecting women’s reproductive health in the face of relentless attacks from Republican elected officials, making progress on his Unity Agenda, ending cancer as we know it, delivering on the sacred obligation to veterans, tackling the mental health crisis, and beating the opioid and overdose pandemic. 

We will have more to share tomorrow but, fundamentally, the President will outline an agenda that is about continuing to build on the progress that we’ve made over the last three years.

 The President has always been an optimistic person, as you all know.  And even in the face of challenges that we have in front of us, he will share why he is hopeful about this country’s future and why it is a mistake — it is a mistake to bet against the American people.   

With that, Seung Min.

Q    Sure.  I have a couple on Haiti, if I may.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    So, earlier today, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the U.S. has asked the Prime Minister to, quote, “move forward on a political process that will lead to the establishment of a presidential transitional council that will lead to elections.”

So, I just want to clarify: Does that mean a resignation?  Did the U.S. government ask him to resign directly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  We are not — we are definitely not pushing Prime — the Prime Minister to resign.  That is not what we’re doing.

But we have underscored that now is the time to finalize a political accord to help set Haiti on a path to a better future, and that is something that we’ve been working on for some time.  We’ve been working that — on that with the CARICOM — so that is nothing new; we’ve had those conversations — and also the Haitian partners on the path to restoring democratic order in Haiti through free and fair elections, inclusive governance, and power-sharing.

This will give the people the opp- — an opportunity to democratically elect their prime minister.

Again, this has been a conversation that we’ve had with Haitian partners, CARICOM with some — for some time now.  So, that is not new, and we certainly are not pushing him to resign.

Q    Even — even though you’re not directly calling on him to resign, can you just discuss the timing of why you’re encouraging of this transitional government now?    And also — because, obviously, the White House has long resisted specifically pushing for his resignation, even if you aren’t doing it now.

So, can you just talk about the timing of this encouragement or what — why you’re doing everything the way you are right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, again, we’re not pushing, as you just stated in your question, for the Prime Minister to resign.  This has been a long-time conversation that we have had with our Haitian partners, with CARICOM on making sure that there was a path to restoring democratic order.

So, that has been consistent with what we’ve been trying to do for some time now.  And we believe, you know, it is the Haitian people — they need to have an opp- — opportunity to democratically elect their prime minister. 

And so, there needs to be a plan in place, obviously, to do that.  And so, that’s what we’re encouraging.  But we’ve been having these conversations for some time.

Q    And one domestic matter.  Back in February of 2021, President Biden said Donald Trump should not be given the traditional intelligence briefings that were given to former presidents because, quote, “What value is giving him an intelligence briefing?  What impact does he have at all, other than the fact that he might slip and say something?”

Does the President still feel that way now — now that Donald Trump is on the way to becoming the party’s — the Republican Party’s nominee and would be entitled to the briefings that a president — a party candidate would get?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think the President’s words stand today as he stated them however long ago.  I don’t think his mind has changed on that.  I just don’t have anything to add.

Q    Would he do anything to block him from getting these briefings later this year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to add.  But the President was very clear about how he felt about that, and I would say those — those comments certainly do stand today.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you confirm that the White House invited the Ukraine’s First Lady to the State of the Union but that she declined to attend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the White House did invite Mrs. Zelenska to the State of the Union.  She was unable to attend.  I would refer you to Ukraine as to her reasoning why, but she did indeed — she did indeed receive an invitation from us.

Q    And there was also an invite that went out to Navalny’s wife.  Can you talk a bit about how the President may address foreign policy issues?  Of course, he’s going to be speaking to Republicans, many of them who, you know, he wants to convince to back more funding to Ukraine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to be really mindful and not get ahead of the President on his State of the Union remarks.  So, not going to lay that out and how he’s going to address Republicans, as you mentioned, who will be in front of him.

But, you know, the President — as it relates to, certainly, Ukraine, the President is going to continue to make his case that House Republicans need to move forward, the Speaker needs to put the national security supplemental on the — on the floor.  We know that it would get overwhelming support.

And also, it’s also about our national security — our own national security.  And so, we can’t let politics get in the way of our national security.  So, the President is going to make that clear, and I’ll just leave it to the President.

As he would say, stay tuned.  Stay tuned for tomorrow.

Q    Just to be clear, he’d make that — those points clear at the State of the Union?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s going to continue to make that case clear.  You asked me how he’s going to do that or lay that out tomorrow in the State of the Union.  I just don’t want to get into — get ahead of the President. 

But our message continues — right? — as it relates to national security supplemental.  Obviously, the Ukraine aid is included in that supplemental.

Q    And just —

Q    And was Mrs. Navalnaya also invited and couldn’t attend?  Can you clarify? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, I talked about this yesterday.  Mrs. — Mrs. Navalny [Navalnaya] was indeed invited personally by the President.  She was not able to attend.  I would refer you, obviously, to her to — to explain why.  But yes, she was invited.

Yes.

Q    And just lastly, on the Russian missile strike.  It hit — it was only about 200 feet away from President Zelenskyy.  That’s according to one of our sources.  And a source close to Zelenskyy tells us that they believe Zelenskyy was the intended target.  Is the U.S. looking into that strike?  Do they believe that Zelenskyy was, in fact, the intended target?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can’t speak to what they were targeting.  That’s not something that I can speak to. 

But it appears that it landed near, as you just said, the convoy.  And I think Russia’s actions speak for themselves here, but I just can’t — I can’t speak for their — their exact target. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, do you have any reaction to the sailors that were reportedly killed in a Houthi attack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me say a couple of things about that.  That happened earlier today.  So, today, the Houthis have killed innocent civilians by continuing their reckless attacks against international commercial shipping, which impacts countries throughout the world. 

The ship they attacked was a Barbados-flagged, Liberian-owned bulk carrier.  It was not a U.S. ship, contrary to what the Houthis claimed.  These reckless attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis have not only disrupted global trade and commerce but also taken the lives of international sea- — seafarers simply doing their jobs. 

We offer our condolences, obviously, to the families of those who lost their lives and, again, condemn the Houthis for these attacks.  And we will call on governments around the world to do the same and join us in bringing to a halt these appalling attacks. 

Q    Thanks.  And — and then, one more on Haiti.  We understand that the Prime Minister Henry is located in the United States right now in Puerto Rico.  Could you talk a little bit about what his status is there and what the United States is — is doing as far as his travel logistics right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I cannot speak to the — the Prime Minister’s travel.  He would have to speak to it himself.  I just cannot speak to that. 

Q    Okay.  And then, should we expect any policy — like, detailed policy rollout associated with the State of the Union tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share at this time.  The President — I’m not going to get ahead of the President, certainly.  As he would say: Stay tuned.  Stay tuned. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Did the President have any reaction to Dean Phillips suspending his presidential campaign?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any reaction.  I would have to refer you to the campaign on that specifically. 

Q    Can you tell us generally whether you know if the President thinks there’s, you know, legitimacy behind some of the main reasons that Phillips decided to run for president: concerns about the President’s age, concerns that he is a vulnerable general election candidate?  Is that something you’ve ever spoke- — spoken to him about? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful when talking about an upcoming election and — obviously, in — in November.  So, I’m going to be really mindful.

Look, this is why I think the State of the Union is going to be really important.  The President is going to lay out what he has done the last three years — the successes that he’s had — historic successes that he’s had.  He’s going to speak to how he sees the future — the future for — for this country on behalf of the American people, and I think that’s going to be important. 

And I would say this, as it relates to part of your question: The President has been very clear.  He’s been very honest about his age.  He knows that.  He makes jokes about it.  Right?  He makes jokes about his friend, Jim- — Jimmy Madison.  Right?  He gets that. 

But this is also a president that has gotten done more in the last three years than most presidents have in their two terms of presidency.  And that is what we’ve seen from the data.  And a lot of that is because of his experience.  His experience matter.  His experience as — 36 years as a senator, 8 years as vice president, and now into his — into his first term as president — it has shown that he can get things done.

We see that with the economy.  We see that — what he’s trying to do with lowering costs.  We see what he’s trying to do with lowering healthcare costs.  And a lot of historic pieces of legislation, that was done — that are now law, obviously — that was done in a bipartisan way.  And that’s because of the President’s experience.  And I think that matters. 

And I’m just going to let the President speak more to his future, his vision, what he sees for this country tomorrow night. 

Q    And just a quick question on State of the Union.  You know, there was obviously a universe where a ceasefire and hostages deal was reached before the State of the Union.  It seems increasingly clear that that’s not going to happen in the next 36 hours. 

So, given that, can you give us a little bit of insight into how the President has been working to draft a speech that addresses and speaks to just the anger and frustration that a lot of people are feeling about the fact that he is not willing, so far, to call for a permanent ceasefire? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as you’ve heard the President call for a cease- — a ceasefire, a period of time — a pause where there’s a period of time where obviously the fighting stops.  Right?  And with that is a hostage deal where we can get these hostages back home to their family and their loved ones. 

Let’s not forget: The hostages include about six Americans.  And so, that’s incredibly important. 

At the same time, let’s not forget getting that all-important humanitarian aid into Gaza to the Palestinian people.  And so, that is important.  That is a first step that we need to get to.  The President is going to continue to — continue to work on this, as he has been for the past several weeks, for the past several months, along with his team. 

So, we are steadfast, focused on that.  That is not going to change just because there’s a State of the Union tomorrow.  And so, the President is going to be optimistic.  He is.

As it relates to his speech, look, these speeches, all of them — you know, they — they take massive undertaking.  Right?  They take a lot of work and — to actually meet the moment of where we are as a country and also lay out the future for this country. 

So, not going to get into specifics as to how he’s working through that.  You’ll hear it from him directly.  But the President certainly is going to meet the moment where we are as a country, lay out his — the progress that we’ve seen in the last three years, and not just that — how do we build on the — on that progress?

Q    Do you happen to know what about the speechwriting process this time around the President has found most challenging?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, this is his third State of the Union Address, as you know.  This is going to be, as — as you can imagine, a very important — important, as he sees it, conversation that he’ll have with the American people.  Millions of people are going to be watching. 

And so, it’s not just about the people who are — the elected officials who are in front of him.  And so, you know, I would say this: I would say this is certainly a continuation of those conversations that he has with Ameri- — with the American people when he goes out — when he goes out and travels on the road, right?  He hears directly from them.  He hears what they are dealing with.  He heals — he deals with what their family is dealing with. 

And so, it’s built on that.  It’s built on those conversations, tho- — that experience that he has and knowing and having his finger on the pulse of — certainly, about what the American people have been going through these past three years. 

Going to be — again, going to be really mindful.  I’m not going to dive into his thought process.  I think, when he delivers his speech tomorrow night, you’ll get a good sense of where the President is and how he sees where we are — this country, the state of the Union, obviously — hence the opportunity that he has tomorrow.

And so, I would just leave it at that.

Go ahead, Joe-Joe.

Q    Yeah, thanks.  After Nikki Haley withdrew this morning from the Republican presidential primary, President Biden issued a statement and a direct appeal to her voters.  Does President Biden plan to reach out to Nikki Haley at some point?  And has he yet or hasn’t he? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s for the campaign to speak to.  I don’t have anything on that for you. 

Yeah.  Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Yesterday, I believe, Jake Sullivan announced that the administration backs a bipartisan bill that would lead to the banning of TikTok.  Does — does that — does — does Jake’s views represent the views of the rest of the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a couple of things.  And I — I’ll get to your comment about the banning.  But I do want to say a couple things at the top. 

The administration has worked with members of Congress from both parties to pursue a durable legislative solution that would address the threat posed by certain technology services operating in the United States that put at risk Americans’ personal information and broader national security. 

And so, what we see is this bill is important.  We welcome the step on ongoing efforts to deal with that, to address that.  And we appreciate the bipartisan work.  I think that’s important that this was done in a bipartisan way.  And so, we look forward to working with Congress. 

Obviously, we provided technical assistance, as we normally do, when pieces of legislations are — like this are being put together. 

But I would have to say, you know, we don’t see this as banning these apps — that’s not what this is — but by ensuring that their ownership isn’t in the hands of those who may do us ar- — harm.  This is about our national security, obviously, and this is what we’re focused on here.

Q    Great.  And the President would sign the bill, though?  I mean, the bill explicitly gives the administration the authority to ban the apps if those ownership questions aren’t resolved.  And the President would sign it, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we welcome the bill.  We obviously are working with them.  And we think —

Q    Jake’s — Jake’s words were to quickly act — urging Congress to quick — “act quickly” —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — “to send it to the President’s desk.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And that’s — and that’s what I was going to say.  We welcome it.  Obviously, we’ve been working with them on it.  And we would want to see this bill get done so it can get to the President’s desk.

Q    Okay.  And then just final question.  Is the President planning on talking to TikTok influencers on Friday after the State of the Union about his speech?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — that’s a good question.  I don’t have anything for you on that — on his schedule for tomorrow.  Once we do, we certainly will share that.

Q    It would be the schedule for Friday, you mean?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  For Friday.  Pardon me.  For Friday.

As you know, he’s going to be on the road on Friday.

Q    And if —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any —

Q    And if he does, you wouldn’t see any contradiction between the fact that the President would be using a technology that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I —

Q    — he’s urging Congress to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, here’s the thing — and I’ve been asked this question multiple times about TikTok and our — our use of TikTok. 

As it relates to the campaign, I know camp- — the campaign has created a TikTok account.  I would let them speak to that.  That is their strategy.  I would let them speak to that.

And we’ve said this before: We are going to try to meet the American people where they are.  We are.  I mean, we are trying to reach everyone.  The President is Amer- — is a — is a President for all Americans.  And so, that’s what we’re trying to do there.

Doesn’t —

Q    Even if — even if it’s a dangerous platform?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But doesn’t — it doesn’t mean that we’re not going to try to figure out how to protect our national security.  Right?  That’s what we’re doing here.  That’s what you see in this bipartisan legislation that’s being moved forward that you heard from Jake about, that you heard — that you’re hearing from me about.

Doesn’t mean that we don’t do the work to make sure that we protect Americans.  And that’s what we’re going to do here.

Go ahead, Tyler.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  My colleague reported that U.S. officials told members of Congress in a recent classified briefing that the U.S. has quietly approved and delivered more than a hundred separate foreign military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began on October 7th.  I’m wondering if the administration has — has any comment on just the — the scale of the amount of — or the White House has any comment on the scale of the amount that’s been transferred —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to comment on that.

Q    — and whether the — the White House thinks that there should be more transparency here.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m just not — I’m not going to comment on a reporting and what you heard.  I’m just not going to comment on that.

Go ahead, Jordan.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just one more point of clarification on the TikTok stance.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Are you saying that President Biden would sign the bill in its current form?  Because the NSC statement said that you want to work with members of Congress to put it on stronger legal footing.  So, it sounds like he would not sign it in its current form.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We would need it to be worked on.  Right?  We — as we have stated, we welcome the — we welcome the steps that they’ve taken.  Obviously, it still needs some work.  Obviously, we’re providing technical support. 

And once it gets to a place where we think, to your point, it’s on legal standing and it’s in a place where it can get out of Congress, then the President would sign it.  But it needs — we need to continue to work on it, obviously.

Q    And then one more on the Houthi attack.  Can you say if the U.S. is readjusting its military strategy against the Houthis in response to this deadly incident?  Is the U.S. going to step up attacks on Houthi positions in Yemen in response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the U.S. obviously is going to continue to take action.  And we believe that — and I’m not going to get into national security here.  We believe that we have seen — we have been able to degrade their capabilities in the actions that we’ve taken over the past several weeks, several months.  And so, that’s — that’s been very clear in our assessment. 

But this is not just our problem.  Obviously, this is an international one.  So, we are working in a multi- — multinational coalition to deal with what we’re seeing currently by the Houthis. 

And so, look, this is something that we’re going to continue to do.  We’re going to continue to take action.  And that’s what you have seen this administration do over the past several weeks.

Go ahead.

Q    Continuing on the Houthis.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Why is the U.S. Navy having so little effect on stopping these kinds of attacks from happening?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as I was answering the question to Jordan a second ago, I’m not going to get into specific intelligence here.  But broadly speaking — broadly, we know that the strikes have indeed impacted on degrading their capabilities.  And that’s important.

We have taken out significant amount of Houthi weapons, and our military is regularly destroying Houthi missiles and — and — when they’re being loaded and prepared to launch but before they can actually be fired at commercial ships.  So, that’s what we’ve been able to do.

So, we will continue to act as needed to degrade the Houthis’ capabilities.  And this is a process.  This is a process here.

Q    Does the U.S. still hold Iran responsible for these attacks? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It hasn’t changed.  Our — our stance on that has not changed.

Q    And what would happen if the Houthis hit a U.S. naval ship?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’ve seen us — you’ve seen us respond.  When you saw three military members were killed not too long ago, you saw our response. 

So, we are — the President is also the Commander-in-Chief, as you know, and he — he understands that responsibility.

Q    And just to button up one thing on Haiti —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — about the Prime Minister being in Puerto Rico.  Just to clarify —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — he is there on his own volition, or is the United States providing aid and comfort?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, le- — we are — we are not providing any assistance to help the Prime Minister, certainly, return to Haiti.  We’re not going to speak to his travel.  That is something for him to speak to.

Q    So, as far as you know, he’s just enjoying the sights?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — (laughter) — that’s for him — (laughs) — that’s one way to put it.  That’s for him to speak to.

Q    Got it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right. 

Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    Karine, is the President preparing for hecklers during the State of the Union?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, you saw the President last year when — when some Republican members behaved in a way that was, I would say, disrespectful, and he handled that.  And that — he did that on his own.  And he held them to account as it related to important programs that matter to the American people — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.  He called them out on it as they were, obviously, heckling at him.

And so, the President is ready for anything.  He’s ready for anything, as you saw him, literally, do that last — last year and, you know, it was — it was something to watch. 

Q    But during —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You all reported on that.

Q    — during speech preparations, is he, you know, prepping for that, drilling any different (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the Presi- — I mean, the President knows how to — how to handle this stuff.  I mean, again, he did it, literally, last February of 2023, and nobody was expecting that.  Nobody was expecting that.  And he took them on and laid out and fought for the American people on programs that matter to them.  And so —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — he — you know, he got this. 

Q    Given that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President has got this.

Q    Given that House Speaker Mike Johnson has invited and is hosting the parents of Evan Gershkovich, what is the White House’s reaction that given his role in stalling the national security bill?  Do you think — what does the White House think about his invitation to Gershkovich’s parents?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As it relates to the national security supplemental and the —

Q    Give — given —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — Speaker refusing to put it on the floor so that it can get overwhelming support —

Q    Given that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — as we know it’s going to get, and it was — it will work towards our national security, right?  It’ll protect the American people national security; that’s how we feel. 

The Speaker should actually put the bill on the floor that we know Republicans are going vote for it.  Obviously, Democrats are going to vote for it.  Overwhelming support. 

If he cares about our national security and put politics aside, he should do that.

Q    I — I ask because the White House has said before that the Speaker — by stalling the national security bill, he’s giving aid to Russia.  And now he’s invited —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s — that still stands.  I mean, you know, I was just asked by one of your colleagues about the convoy — right? — where — where President Zelenskyy was and the attack that happened near his convoy.  We know what Russia is up to.  We’ve seen what has been happening on the battle- — on the battlefield over the past several weeks because of Congress’s inaction.

And so, we’ve been really clear.  When the four — the Big Four were here just last week, the CIA Director was in the room, and he laid out the dire consequences for Ukraine.

Look, we have to stand up for de- — just like Ukrai- — the brave Ukrainians are standing up for democracy, we have to do the same.  It also speaks to our own national security.  So, the Speaker needs to put that national security supplemental on the floor and let it get that overwhelming support — bipartisan support that we know that it’s going to get.

Q    And finally, just to button this up — to sum things up on Haiti.  Yesterday, Admiral Kirby said that it was a simplistic explanation that — there was, you know, money being held up when it comes to this multinational security force, that Republicans were holding up some of this money.  He said that there were other reasons for it. 

But I’ll ask the question more bluntly: Do you blame Republicans for holding up critical money for Haiti?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s not forget, what we’re providing to Haiti is emergency — really important emergency needs, right?  When we think about food, healthcare, clean water, and other forms of critical assistance through U.N. and NGO partners to help people in need across Haiti. 

And so, what we are seeing and what everyone is actually realizing is that the deteriorating situation in Haiti has required organizations to adjust their posture and, at times, prevented aid from reaching people in need.  And that is just because of what we’re seeing, obviously, on the ground. 

And so, we’re going to — humanitarian partners are going to continue to provide the assistance amidst the current security breakdown, obviously, the best way that they can.

But, as we know, there’s a dire situation on the ground.  It has made it very difficult to get that aid.  And — and we have said this before: The U.S. government has le- — has been leading in providing aid to the Haitian people.

Go ahead.

 Q    Thanks.  On the State of the Union tomorrow.  How much of it can we expect to be forward-looking — potentially presenting a vision for the — a second term — versus going over, kind of, the accomplishments of the first term?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have a formula to read out to you right now.  What I can say is he is going to take a look back, as I st- — I said at the top, look at the achievements and the successes that we have had the last three years, and also speak to how we’re going to continue to build on those successes and fight for the CHIPS Act, fight for the Infructure [sic] — In- — sorry, Inflation Reduction Act, which is — as we know, at least as it relates to the Inflation Reduction Act, Republicans have tried to claw back.  And these are important pieces of legislation that we need to continue to implement and protect.  So, you’re going to hear him talk about that. 

I’ve talked about other — other things that the President wants to focus on: lowering costs, fighting for our democracy, fighting for reproductive rights.  So, he’s going to talk about that, talk about the future, talk about his vision for the American people.

He’s an optimistic guy, as we know.  But I don’t have a formulation on percentages or how — how that’s going to be divvied up.  But that’s what you can expect to hear from the President.

Q    And is the administration still debating taking executive action on — on immigration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we’ve been clear about this.  The — the bottom line is the best way to have — move forward on dealing with immigration, dealing with the border challenges that we’re seeing was for Republicans to have gotten out of the way, not let the former President tell them what to do, and actually move forward with a bipartisan proposal that came out of the Senate.  That would have been the toughest, the fairest way to have — move forward with dealing with our immigration.

As it relates to — as it relates to an executive action, that — we believe that’s the best way to do that.  No executive action would have been able to have the impact that a bipartisan proposal would have had.  We’re always going to look at and evaluate everything, but we just have not made a decision on that.

Q    Is there a timeline for when that decision would be made?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline for you.  Again, the best way to move forward to deal with this broken immigration system that has been broken for decades, the best way to move forward with the challenges at the border is to get this bipartisan — bipartisan proposal moved forward.

Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Since you don’t have a comment on the Washington Post story, I hope you have an answer for my question.  A group of House Democrats sent a letter to the President saying, basically, that an Israeli invasion of Rafah would be in violation of U.S. law and international law when it comes to weapons sales to Israel.  So, do you think that Israel has been abiding by the U.S. law despite the fact that 70 percent of the people being killed are women and children?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ve — I’ve heard about the reporting of the letter.  So, I don’t want to — I haven’t seen the letter, so I can’t speak — speak specifically to it. 

Q    I’m happy to forward it to you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no.  Let me — but I’ll — I’ll give you an answer that I think will address your question. 

So, look, as you all know, our support — we have supported Israel as they defend themselves against Hamas, a terrorist organization.  As you know, that has been the policy here.

We also continue to urge Israel to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.  And even as Hamas has embedded — let’s not forget — they’ve embedded — and I know you know this — itself among civilian population.  That is something that they have done.

As we have said, there have been far too many civilians who have been killed in this conflict.  Far too many.  And the President understands that, the Vice President understands that, this entire administration understands that.

And — and there’s not enough humanitarian aid getting in.  We need to increase humanitarian aid.  And you’ve heard that, again, from the President.  You’ve heard that from the Vice President. 

And so, that’s why we’re working so hard to get that hostage deal.  As we know, that would lead to a ceasefire, where the fighting would stop; we can get those hostages home to their families; we can get that all-needed humanitarian aid to the — the people of — the people in Gaza, which need it — obviously need that critical aid. 

 And we’re continuing to do what we can — right? — the air — the air drops that were successful.  We announced that yesterday.  There’s more coming from the Department of Defense.  You’ve — the USAID is in the — in the region providing humanitarian aid.  We’re working with our regional partners to get more humanitarian aid in. 

And so, we have to up cre- — up that, obviously — the humanitarian aid.  But this deal is so important.  We have to get this deal so we can — we can get more aid in — but not just that, put a — put a pause, put a ce- — have a ceasefire in place so that we can actually move forward here.

Q    And I have a question for a colleague.  Would the President meet with the Prime Minister of Sweden tomorrow?  He’s on his way here.  Will he be a guest at the State of the Union?  And will the President — I know you don’t want to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — speak ahead of the speech, but will he talk about Ukraine and the success of the administration bringing Finland and Sweden into NATO?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, going to be really mindful.  You know, not going to speak to the President’s speech here in detail.  And so, going to be really mindful.

I don’t have anything to read out on a meeting there with the President.  I believe this — the Secretary of State is having a meeting with the Sweden Prime Minister.  So, obviously, you can — you can reach out to them.  Just don’t have anything else to share beyond that. 

Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On Haiti, given the dire situation there, is there any consideration of sending U.S. forces in any way to stabilize things there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  No.  As you know, there is the — the — Kenya has agreed to send about 2,000 forces there.  So, that was recently signed, and that’s going to move forward.  But there is no — no plan to bring U.S. forces into Haiti. 

Go ahead.

Q    Also on Haiti.  Earlier you said that the administration is not pushing Henry to resign.  Are you denying that yesterday the administration asked Henry to stand aside for traditional — a transitional government and an interim prime minister? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is we’re not pushing the Prime Minister to resign.  We’re just not.  Now, have we been working with CARICOM, have we been working with our Haitian partners to put forth a — you know, a plan to — to figure out how do we move forward in restoring — restoring democratic order in Haiti through free and fair elections?  That is a conversation that we have had.  But we are not pushing the Prime Minister out to resign.

Q    But has the administration asked him to stand aside? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We are not pushing — I think I just answered that question.  We are not pushing him to resign. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  (Laughter.)  New topic. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I wonder what it is.  (Laughter.)

Q    Has President Biden called to congratulate Jason Palmer?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We congratulate Jason Palmer on his win last night. 

Q    Okay.  Now that the field is down to two, is President Biden going to commit to a debate with Donald Trump? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something for the campaign to speak to. 

Q    Well, we know when the debates are going to be.  We know where —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Or do —

Q    — they’re going to be.  Is he going to go?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You should speak to the campaign.

Q    In 2020, once it got down to one on one, Joe Biden said, “I can hardly wait to debate him.”  How about now?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to sound like a broken record.  You should reach out to the campaign. 

Q    Why is this a campaign thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because it’s an election.  It’s a debate for the 2024 presidential election. 

Q    I’m not asking what argument he is going to make —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — at a debate.  I’m just as- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s not a —

Q    Okay.  Do you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s not an arg- — we’re not talking —

Q    Do you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — about arguments here.  We’re talking about his attendance.

Q    You get a lot of —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You need to talk to the campaign.

Q    — questions in here about these polls concerning the President’s age and his acuity.  Do you think that it is going to quiet concerns about the President’s age and acuity if he decides not to debate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say about that is: I’m not talking about the debate.  That’s something for the campaign to speak to.  I’m not going to speak about that. 

To your — to your question about age, I think I sort of answered that.  I mean, you know, you’re going to see the State of the Union tomorrow.  You’re going to hear the President lay out his plans.  You’re going to hear the President — a president who has had a successful three years of progress — still a lot more work to be done but a progress nonetheless — and how he’s going to build on that. 

(A reporter sneezes.)  Bless you.  Did you cu- — did you say something while he —

Q    No.  (Laughter.)  That was a sneeze.  That was a sneeze.

Q    Is it that loud on (inaudible).

Q    It’s called multitasking. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m like — (laughter).

Q    Continue, please.  Sorry.

Q    Super spreader.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Some fun here on Wednesday afternoon.

But he — he wouldn’t have been able to get — all seriousness, you know, you saw the — you saw the graphics behind me.  You saw what the President has been able to do.  14.8 million jobs, unemployment under 4 percent, continuing to find ways to lower costs.  We saw that when he made the announcement on junk fees. 

You saw what he’s been able to do for the American people internationally as well: protecting our national security, being a leader as we’re trying to fight a dictator — as Ukraine is fighting a dictator — that is, Mr. Putin.  And this is because of the President’s leadership.  It really is. 

I mean, 36 years in the Senate, 8 years as Vice President, that counts for something.  That counts for experience.  That counts for having these relationships.  That counts for knowing how to get things done.  And the President wants to build on that.  He does. 

And not only that, when people were saying he couldn’t get things done in a bipartisan way, he was able to do that.  Infrastructure — it was a punchline in the last administration.  It was a joke.  Now we actually have In- — Infrastructure Decade.

You think about what we have been able to do for our veterans in the PACT Act — really help our veterans.  You think about the CHIPS and Science Act, which is bringing home manufacturers — 800,000 jobs have been created. 

This is what the President has been able to do.  And guess what?  That’s because of his experience.

Q    And so, just for clarity, it’s possible that there will be no Joe Biden-Donald Trump debates this fall?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Is that what you — is that — is that what you’re excited about?  Is that what you want to see?

Q    I would love to see Joe Biden —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because you keep asking me.  You’ve asked me about three —

Q    — and Donald Trump debate.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — four or five different times in different ways.  And I have an- —

Q    How would he do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I have said —

Q    How would President Biden do in a debate?  I’m not asking a question about a specific debate. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can I —

Q    I’m just asking, how would he do in a debate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Can I just say something?

Q    I know it’s been four years since he’s done one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You literally saw just last year, back in January [February] 2023, at the last State of the Union, take on Republicans during giving a major speech.  He took them on as they were heckling him.  He took them on and said he was going to fight for programs — essentially said he was fighting for programs that the American people needed — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.  He stood there and fought for the American people.

I mean, that was pretty impressive.  Some of you all reported on that. 

Okay.  I’m going to keep going.  Go ahead, Phil, in the back.

Q    Thank you.  Victoria Nuland, the third-high- — third-highest-ranking U.S. diplomat, who’s had a hand in the future of Ukraine for some time, announced that she plans to step down.  How did the President react to news of that resignation?  And does he believe, you know, that she was successful during her tenure there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have not spoken to the President about this, so I can’t give you an answer directly from the President.  And so, I’m just going to leave that there. 

Obviously, it’s an important position.  We — we appreciate her service.  It is not easy to serve, as you know, and we appreciate her service.  I just don’t want to get into any specifics on that.  I don’t have anything to share.

Q    Different question, then.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    What’s the President’s reaction to France codifying abortion rights into their constitution?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we appreciate countries taking a step forward to protect the right for wome- — a woman — women to make a very difficult decisions on their healthcare.  We appreciate that.  And I think that’s a good thing to see.

And as it relates to here in this country, the President is going to talk about reproductive rights and fighting for that and what we’re seeing across the country — more than 300 bills that were introduced recently on finding ways to prevent women from making these really important decisions on their bodies. 

And that should not be.  And that’s because Roe v. Wade was overturned, which is a law — a law that was constitution for — that was part of the Constitution for almost 50 years — almost 50 years.  And that was taken away.

We see Republicans putting forth three national — national bans against abortion.  That’s — you know, that’s not — that’s not what the President is fighting for.  He’s fighting for the right for a woman to make a decision on their — on her — on her own body.

Q    And does he think that the French prohibition on abortion after 14 weeks is reasonable?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to get into the specifics of that particular bill.  What I could say: It’s — it’s always important to see other — other countries actually take steps to protecting — protecting rights — fundamental rights that women should have.  But I’m not going to get into the specifics of the bill.

Q    Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you give us an insight into the President’s State of the Union prep sessions at Camp David?  Who was he working with on the speech, and what does he do?  I mean, is he writing lines, or is he editing what’s given to him?  What’s that process like for him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, as it relates to Camp David, obviously, the Camp — the President was at Camp David over the weekend.  He worked on his speech — on the State of Union speech with his senior staff, which included Bruce Reed, Anita Dunn, Steve Ricchetti, and Vinay — Vinay Reddy. 

This is fairly standard.  He was there last year for the February State of the Union.  And I think, you know, even throughout today and tomorrow, he’s going to continue to fine-tune the speech.  This is something that he is personally involved in.  This is something that comes straight from having conversations with the American people, as he’s had over the past year leading to this — certainly leading to the process.

And so, look, these are — these — they are massive undertakings — right? — massive undertakings in — in having a — having a State of the Union that speaks to where we are as a country and how we’re moving forward.  And so, that’s what I’ll say.

Q    And does he have any State of the Union traditions? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    Like, is there something he does tomorrow to prepare for a speech like that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — I don’t have anything to share.  He’s going to be — I can say that he’s going to be working — working on the speech throughout the day, fine-tuning the speech.  He’ll be doing that with his senior staff. 

And just — you know, it’s a major address.  It’s an important speech.  He’s going to be delivering it to millions of Americans who are going to be tuning in — and we appreciate that — in front of, obviously, Congress and guests of — of Congress, guests of the President. 

And it’s going to be an incredibly important moment.  And the President takes that very, very seriously.

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A federal judge in Texas ruled that the — the Minority Business Development Agency’s presumption that Black and brown communities are disadvantaged is unconstitutional and enjoined the agency from distributing its services based on race.  Is the White House concerned that this ruling could undo some of the efforts that — that you’ve been — you’ve been making to bolster Black businesses?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to refer you to the DOJ for specific questions about this particular ruling.  But what I can say, that the President is very proud of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that made the M- — MBDA a permanent part of the federal government.  He’s very proud of that.  It’s important. 

Small businesses, as you know, are the backbone of our economy.  And — and so, it’s — it’s vital.  It’s vital for our entrepreneurs to have the opportunity to start a business.  We’ve seen a — 16 million applications that were started under this administration over the past three years, which is important. 

There was a — certainly a boost in what we saw with — with minority businesses starting their small businesses, obviously, filing those application.  And we think that’s really important.

As it relates to specifics and the way forward or anything like that, as it relates to the ruling, I would have def- — refer you to Department of Justice.

Q    Just one more question on State of the Union.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.  Sure.

Q    In 2020, when the President won, in his victory speech, he thanked Black voters for their outsized role in his historic win.  He said that he would have their backs. 

Obviously, polling and anecdotal reporting shows that a significant number of Black voters still feel that the President hasn’t completely had their backs or have not felt the impacts of this administration’s policies.

How much of this speech does the President see as an opportunity to lay out what he believes he has done to have the backs of Black Americans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we understand that it’s — it’s complicated — right? — in the sense of what the American people have gone through the last three years.  We came in, there was a pandemic and there was an economy that was in a tailspin.  So, we get it.  We get that Americans — some Americans are trying to still figure out where we are and what’s going on and what this administration has done. 

This is why the State of the Union is going to be so critical, so important, because the President gets to lay that out.  It gives the President an opportunity to speak to that.  And so, that’s important. 

But to your — to the beginning of your question about 2020 and the promise that the President has made, he did make a promise.  And he has done everything that he can to keep that promise. 

If you think about voting rights, the first couple of days of this administration, he put forward an executive action to do everything that he could on the federal level to deal with — to deal with that issue.  So, he did that. 

He took executive action when Congress could not move on the George Floyd Justice in Pol- — in Policing Act.  You know that.  You covered that.  He took actions from — where he could from here, from the federal government. 

And so, look, there are other ways that he has taken action, obviously, to make sure that communities that have felt that they’ve been — that felt left behind are not left behind.  And you see that in every — for example, every economic policy that he’s moved forward with, whether it’s the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, whether it’s the Inflation Reduction Act that really deals with making sure that we’re — that Medicare has the ability to — to fight Big Pharma — right? — so that many people in the community who’ve been paying hundreds of dollars for insulin — for example, now seniors are capped by 35 bucks.

These things matter.  These things add up.  These things are important.  And so, he takes that very seriously.

When he walked into the administration, unemployment for the Black community, for example, was over 9 percent.  Now it’s at 5 percent.  That’s because of the work that this administration has taken. 

Think about the American Resc- — Rescue Plan — the — the Child Tax Credit really cut child poverty in the community by half.  That’s because, obviously, the work that this President has done.

That piece of legislation, only Democrats voted for it.  So, the President has taken action.  We understand that it’s complicated.  It’s — it’s going to take some time for everyone to see what we — what this President has been able to do.  The State of the Union is a perfect opportunity — perfect opportunity to lay that out. 

Go ahead, Janne.  Go ahead.

Q    (Inaudible.)

Q    Thank you.  Thank you very much.  I have a question about China.  The President Biden signed an order of action which prohibits enemies from stealing American personal or government information, and that there is a list of six countries, including China and North Korea. 

My question is: How is it the investigation into the Confucius Institute, which is acting as China’s intelligence agency, processing in the United States?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Got to — so, say that one — so, the President signed — say that one more time.

Q    The President signed an order of action for the enemy — steal the enemies — U.S. informations, but that there’s a list of six countries, including China and North Korea, Iran — there’s six countries. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    So, how is the investigation into the Confucius Institute, which is acting as China’s intelligence agency, processing in the United States and all of the world?  And Korea, also, too.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, that’s something — as it relates to any investigation, that’s something that Department of Justice could go into.  I’m not going to go into it from here.

Okay.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  No problem. 

Go ahead.  Go ahead, Andrew.

Q    Thank you.  When the President speaks tomorrow night, you said he’s going to talk about his efforts to — to bolster democracy.  Is he going to have a message for viewer- — people viewing this in other countries and — and U.S. allies? 

Because I’m looking at some polling data from the UK.  It says that 48 percent of British adults see the West response to Putin and Russia getting worse if the President loses reelection.  Over half, 52 percent, say that if the President loses reelection, the West approach to climate change would worsen.

Is he going to try and reassure people around the world that democracy is strong and project strength that he can win the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, going to be careful because you’re asking me this question as it relates to the election and upcoming elections. 

Going to be super — no, wait.  Every time I say that, everyone gets a little — a little upset that I say that.  But I’m going to try and answer your question.  But I just have to be super mindful here.  I mean, that’s just how it works here.  I’m a federal employee.  There’s something called the Hatch Act.  Got to be mindful.  (Laughter.)

And so, look, I talked about how the President is going to mention the national security supplemental and how important it is as — certainly because we’ve seen what’s going on in Ukraine.  Right? 

And one of the things that we know and we believe — and this is something that I had mentioned that the CI- — CIA Director shared with the Big Four — is that we see that Ukraine is losing ground on the ba- — in the battlefield right now.  And we believe it’s because of Congress’s inaction, right? 

And so it does matter.  It does matter if we take action or not.  It does matter that — if we get this national security supplemental done or not.  It does.  Other countries look at what we’re doing. 

The President has led the way in bringing NATO together, led the way in bringing other countries — 50 m- — 50 countries plus together on making sure that the brave people of Ukraine have what they need, the security assistance that they need to fight against Russia’s aggression. 

So, yeah, it does matter.  It does matter how — how we move forward.  I’m not going to get specifics into the President’s — President’s speech.  I think that’s important.  I got to let the President speak to that. 

You heard me at the top talk about the importance of democracy, talk about unifying the American people.  The President thinks that’s really important.  Protecting our fundamental freedoms and our democracy itself is incredibly important. 

So, look — and let’s not forget here what many Americans have been going through — right? — the attacks that they have seen, the threats that they have seen.  So, there is an important — important message that the President wants to send to the American people about that as well. 

And so — but to your broader point of your question: Does our actions and how we, for example, deal with Ukraine and make sure they have the assistance that they have, the inaction of Congress — does that matter?  Yes, it matters. 

I mean, Putin continues to move forward.  Right?  And we have seen what the battle — the battlefield has looked like for Ukraine.  They have lost ground because Congress has had inaction. 

So, it does matter.  It does matter.  I’m not going to get into specifics as to what the President is going to say.

Q    One — one more on — on Haiti. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The Haitian Prime Minister is in Puerto Rico, obviously.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Yesterday, the Vice President’s Office said that she will be in Puerto Rico later this — later this month.  Any chance that she could be asked to meet with the Prime Minister and perhaps pass a message?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, you would have to, certainly, speak to her office about her travel and where she’s going to be. 

We’ve been very clear — we’ve been very clear dealing with our — what our message has been, essentially — right? — dealing with — for — for some time now with CARICOM, our Haitian partners, how we see the path forward — and that is restoring democratic order in Haiti through free and fair elections.  That’s been our message: inclusive governance and power-sharing.  That’s what we want to see. 

And we want to give the people in Haiti — we want to make sure that they have an opportunity to democratically elect their prime minister.  That’s what we want to see. 

And I will leave it there.  Thanks, everybody. 

3:05 P.M. EST

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

1:54 P.M. EST
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everybody.  So, I want to begin by sharing some news on how President Biden is fighting for working families and lowering costs by taking on corporate rip-offs.
 
Ahead of his State of the Union Address, the President is convening his Competition Council this afternoon to announce new actions to crack down on hidden junk fees and promote competition.  President Biden is establishing a new strike force, co-chaired by the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission, to crack down on illegal pricing.
 
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is slashing credit card late fees from an average of $32 down to $8. This will save consumers $10 billion a year, an average savings of $220 for the 45 million people who are charged late fees each year.
 
The Department of Agriculture is finalizing a rule to protect small farmers and ranchers.  The Federal Communications Commission is circulating a proposed rule that would ban “bulk billing,” helping lower Internet costs and increase choices.
 
Our administration’s actions to ban hidden junk fees will save Americans more than $20 billion a year.  The President will make clear in his State of the Union that he will continue fighting to lower costs for families.
 
I have some news we’d like to share with you all.  On March 15th, President Joe Biden will host Taoiseach Leo Varadkar of Ireland for a bilateral meeting, followed by St. — by a St. Patrick’s Day celebration at the White House on March 17th, continuing a longstanding St. Patrick’s Day tradition.
 
The leaders will reaffirm the close and enduring partnership between the United States and Ireland and the extraordinary bonds between our people.  They will discuss our countries’ shared commitment to continue supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s brutal aggression, as well as our cooperation on a range of other global issues.
 
They will reaffirm their steadfast support for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement as we welcome the recent restoration of Northern Ireland’s Executive and Assembly.
 
Vice President Kamala Harris and Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff will also host the Taoiseach and Mr. Matthew Barrett for a breakfast at the Naval Observatory on March 15th.
 
And as you can see when I walked out, three of our amazing wranglers came out with me.  And so, before we get started with the briefing, I have a couple things that I want to say.
 
So, you know, they’re moving up in the world.  They’re going to stay in the family but still moving up — and it’s so well deserved of all three — into new roles, obviously.
 
Allyson Bayless has been by my side since day one and a rockstar wrangler — I’m going to get emotional — for the last two years, is — is moving over to the campaign.  There is no one who worked harder or more hours than — on our team than Allyson, as you can — as you can all attest by the hours of the day that she responds to your emails.  She accomplishes everything with diligence and composure.  And she always has a bright, bright sunshine spirit, even when we — even I’m in — when in my dark spaces, as we tend to joke around.  And she has a — an incredible sense of humor and a wit that is unmatched.
 
Silas Woods has — has the biggest heart of everyone that I know.  And sometimes I worry about him because he has such a big heart.  And every single day, I see him go above and beyond to coordinate movements, get you all what you need and make accommodations for everyone as he — as he can.  And some of you don’t know he’s often the reason you’re able to get that shot, right?  Silas is really good at getting that shot — shot, get in the room, or hear what the President has to say, obviously.
 
There isn’t a single person here who doesn’t have a kind word to say about Silas, and there’s no better teammate, which is why the Second Gentleman is stealing him from us.  He came from OVP, so now he’s going back, essentially, to that world.  The Press team won’t be the same without Silas, but we’re glad we’ll still get to work with him every day.  I’m going to miss you very much, Silas.  Literally, the biggest heart of anyone that I know.
 
And finally, Davis.  Davis Conger came to us from the State Department, having traveled the world with Secretary Blinken.  He’s brought skill and professionalism to our team, and he’s — and he is someone you always know you can rely on.  Every day, he has brought competence, kindness, and coolness under pressure to his job.  He’s always so even cool — even-keeled and cool, which is why Annie Tomasini has hired him as an advisor in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff.
 
Three — three incredible new roles for three incredible young people.  We are extraordinarily proud of all of you — the work you’ve done and the work you will now continue to do at a higher level, obviously, on behalf of this President.  And so, I’m super, super proud of you.  You guys are like — like my kids who are flying out — flying off.  So, I’m glad you will still be part of the broader team, obviously.  And I’m really, really sad to see all of you go, but I am so personally, personally proud of all of you.
 
And now, they’re going to get up and they’re going to walk out — (laughter) — because there’s so much work to do, as you know, as wranglers.  But thank you, guys.  Love you all. 
 
MS. BAYLESS:  Thank you, Karine. 
 
MR. WOODS:  Thank you, Karine. 
 
MR. CONGER:  Thank you, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  (Applause.)
 
All right.  With that, Admiral John Kirby is here to give an update on the Middle East.  And, Admiral, the floor is yours.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine. 
 
Good afternoon, everyone.
 
Q    Good afternoon.
 
MR. KIRBY:  This morning, I think you all are tracking, the Department of Defense conducted another airdrop of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.  Three U.S. C-130s dropped 60 bundles with a total of over 36,000 Meals, Ready-to-Eat.  We were joined in this endeavor by several Jordanian aircraft as well.
 
As President Biden has said, this will be a part of a sustained effort while our — with our international partners to scale up the amount of lifesaving aid that we’re getting into Gaza. 
 
And as I said last week, we’re exploring other channels to get aid into Gaza, including a maritime route.  To that end, we are looking at both military and commercial options to move assistance by sea.  There’s still an awful lot of work that’s being done on this to flesh it out.
 
Of course, we’re also going to continue to urge Israel to facilitate more trucks and more routes, opening up more crossings so that more aid can get in to people in need and increase that flow.
 
And, with that, I’ll take some questions.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke.
 
Q    Thanks, John.  That number on the — the 36,000 meals.  Was that just the U.S. contri- — contribution to that?  Or was that also the Jordanian contribution to that airdrop?
 
MR. KIRBY:  That was just the U.S.  The Jordanians flew — I believe it was four aircraft.  And I can get you the exact number of how much they dropped.  But it was — it was food that they dropped too.
 
Q    And then in terms of the scale of that, I mean, that’s a drop in the bucket of what the need is in Gaz- —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Oh, certainly.
 
Q    — in Gaza right now.  And you talked about the maritime corridor planning as well.  I mean, this war has been going on for, you know — for, you know, five months now. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.
 
Q    Why isn’t the U.S. and its allies further along in the planning stages for a maritime corridor or other operations like an air drop with more equip- — with more equipment, more resources, more personnel on standby?  Should — you know, from the moment the President gave the go-ahead, shouldn’t there have been more contingency planning to get more aid in much faster?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’ve been working on the humanitarian assistance from — since the beginning, as you said, many months ago.  And quite frankly, the best and most efficient way to get aid in to people in a confined space like that in a very urban environment is on the ground.
 
I mean, yes, you can move more volume in — in ships, whether they’re military or commercial ships, but eventually that stuff has to get ashore, then it has to get loaded onto vehicles and then trucked in.  Right?
 
So, the trucks are the best way to do that.  And that’s why we’ve been working so hard to — to try to increase the flow.  And during the week-long pause that we had before, we were able to get it up to 200 trucks a day.
 
It was through President Biden’s urging that we got the Rafah Cros- — Crossing open to aid.  It was at his urging that we got Kerem Shalom open.  But it just hasn’t — the flow just hasn’t been enough to meet the need.  And as the war has progressed, the need has gotten obviously much more dire.
 
So, it’s not like we — even though we’re just now talking about airdrops, it’s not like the idea of airdrops just — just happened, just dropped out of the sky.  It’s been something we’ve been talking about for quite some time.  And the maritime route as well.
 
The maritime route, yes, it can move more volume at sea, but it also is going to require a heavier logistics lift and some infrastructure ashore and very much going to need the support of allies and partners.  And so, those discussions are ongoing.
 
Q    And then does the President have any plans to meet with Benny Gantz before he leaves Washington this evening?
 
MR. KIRBY:  No.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed.
 
Q    Thank you for answering that one. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, we can go and move on from Ed now.
 
Q    Nope.  A few others here.  (Laughter.)
 
The President this morning signaled that he’s concerned about violence in Jerusalem and in the region in the coming days.  Is there something specific he’s been told to anticipate?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I — I won’t speak to specific intelligence one way or the other, Ed.  I mean, obviously, this is something we’re — we’re always mindful of, particularly given what’s going on between Israel and Hamas.  But I don’t think I’m going to elaborate on that.
 
Q    There — just to backtrack on something from last week.  I don’t think you’ve been asked about this, at least on camera.  But when he was in New York and suggested he had reason to believe there would be a ceasefire by Monday, and that hasn’t happened, why did he think that at the time?
 
MR. KIRBY:  He was referring to updates and briefings that he’d been getting from the national security team about the progress of negotiations.  Obviously, we all wish that that had happened.  We wish that it would happen today.  But we’re still — we’re still negotiating.  We’re still trying to get there.
 
Q    And on Haiti.  Is the U.S. continuing to monitor that situation?  And does it have any sense of the whereabouts of the Prime Minister?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yes.  As far as I understand, no.  I will let the Prime Minister speak to his travel.  But I’m not aware that we have any keen sense of what his whereabouts are. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Mike.
 
Q    Thanks.  Just following up on Haiti.  You’ve called on Americans to evacuate.  How should they do that when the airport is under attack?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We — again, I’d refer you to the State Department to — they’re the ones that issued that — that advisory.  Not a safe time for Americans to be in Haiti right now.  There are other ways to leave.  Again, I’ll let the State Department do that. 
 
They’re — they’re in touch with — or are making themselves available to Americans who are there and want to — want to get that information.
 
Q    You said yesterday that you’re working to expedite this multinational force led by Kenya to deploy to Haiti as soon as possible.  They’ve said that they’re ready to deploy within 72 hours.  The holdup is funding — in part, U.S. funding — that was pledged by the administration that’s being held up, as we understand it, by Republicans in Congress. 
 
How urgent are those conversations?  And how are you going to expedite it if you’ve got this — this key holdup?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not sure that that simplistic explanation is exactly accurate, that the — that that is the only thing holding this up.  But let’s put that — but let’s put that aside.
 
You’re right, we’re going to need some — we’re going to need some support.  And we are working actively with members of Congress.  I mean, we — I think — I think we can all recognize that this is in our interest as well as the region’s interest and certainly the interests of the Haitian people to get a more stable, calm, secure environment there.
 
Q    So, just one last follow-up.  If — if that’s a simplistic explanation, then what — what is the holdup?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, we — there’s — they’ve al- — Kenya has already agreed to do this.  That’s a big first step.  And we’re working with Kenya, we’re working with other partners to see if we can get this multinational security mission up and running as soon as possible.
 
I just don’t have any more updates for you other than that.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.
 
Q    Thanks, Admiral. Thanks, Karine.  You had said yesterday that part of the reason why it’s so hard to get aid into Gaza is, in some cases, because of the Israeli War Cabinet.  Is that acceptable? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  There’s nothing acceptable about the dire situation on the ground in — in Gaza in terms of the lack of food; lack of water; lack of medicine; in some cases, a lack of fuel.  That shouldn’t be acceptable to anybody.  So, short answer to your question is: No, it’s not acceptable.  And that’s why we continue to work with our Israeli counterparts. 
 
As I said in my opening statement, and you’ve heard the President say as well and the Vice President, that it’s time for Israel to open up more crossings and allow more aid in.
 
Q    And on the Vice President.  There were reports that the National Security Council had asked her to, quote, “tone down” her speech on Sunday.  What can you say about that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I would point you to what the Vice President’s spokesperson already said about that story, in — in calling it inaccurate.
 
Q    Does the administration still believe it’s more effective to withhold public criticism of Netanyahu in order to have more sway in private?  And is that private sway waning?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I’m just — I don’t think I’m going to accept the premise of that question.  I mean, we have been nothing but candid and forthright in private with our Israeli counterparts and, certainly, in public in the comments that we have made. 
 
And you’ve heard, again, from the President and the Vice President in just recent days expressing very clearly what our concerns are with the humanitarian situation in there and how it is unacceptable and how we need the Israelis to step up and do more.
 
Q    And just lastly, Hamas said today they won’t accept a deal that does not include a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.  Is that realistic?  And if not, where do negotiations go from here?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I ain’t going to negotiate in public.  We — we’ve been working this real hard.  As — you heard from President Biden just today that we’re still hopeful we can get there.  But nothing is done until everything is done, and not everything is done in terms of this negotiation. 

So, what we’re looking for and what we want: a temporary ceasefire for about six weeks that will allow us to get more aid in and, more importantly, get all those hostages back with their families where they belong and reduce the violence.  That’s the deal on the table. 
 
And as the President also said today, it’s a rational deal, and the Israelis have been cooperating.  They have been negotiating in good faith on this.  It’s time for Hamas to step up to the plate, take a swing, and let’s get this thing done.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.
 
Q    The — Hamas is saying that they have now extended a deal that Israel has not responded to.  Israel is saying that Hamas has to accept the deal that you’ve been referencing with regard to hostages.  What’s — can you sort out what’s true in both of those things?  And can you also comment on — has it been more difficult to have these talks in Cairo without an Israeli representative at the table?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I, kind of, sort of, already did it, Jeff, but I’ll — I’ll — maybe I’ll take it a different way.  There has been, throughout the process of these many weeks, back and forth between the sides — proposals, counterproposals, and — and haggling over the details and all the modalities of how this is going to work in terms of the phasing of the hostages and how many and the release of Palestinian prisoners and how many and how that’s all going to take place. 
 
There is now a framework.  There is a deal, as the President said today, that has been the result of all this back and forth.  So, the back and forth has happened.  There’s a deal now, and the onus is on Hamas to accept it. 
 
And you had a second question. 
 
Q    Israel hasn’t been at the table —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Oh, in Cairo.
 
Q    — since — since Sunday.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I won’t speak to Israel and the presence or — of their negotiators one w- — they get to speak to that. 
 
But as I said earlier, the Israelis have negotiated in good faith.  They have agreed to this framework.  Th- — they have taken it right up to the end, and now it’s up to Hamas.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kevin.
 
Q    Given that Hamas has now responded to the — to the deal, and that they have not agreed to it as written, is it still practically possible to come up with an agreement by the start of Ramadan?
 
MR. KIRBY:  That — look, the negotiators are working hard on this, Kevin.  That’s what we — we hope will happen, but we’ll have to see. 
 
Q    So, you — there’s — there is still a belief that that is a possibility?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say a belief.  I said we hope that we can get this done as soon as possible. 
 
We would have liked to have this done two, three weeks ago, if not before then.  We are where we are.  And we’re working on this really, really hard. 
 
Q    And given what the President said about the potential dangerous situation should an agreement not be reached, what conversations is the White House having with Israel about, for example, the situation around the Al-Aqsa Mosque?  What — what are, sort of, the conversations in advance to try and curb some of the violence that the President is —
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think the Israelis need —
 
Q    — worried about?
 
MR. KIRBY:  — need to be reminded by the United States that they live in a tough neighborhood.  And I don’t think they need to be reminded about the prospect of violence, particularly in a sensitive time like Ramadan.  They don’t need us to remind them of that.  They’re — they’re well aware of it. 
 
Again, we’re — we’re going to continue to work with them, as we have, to help sure — make sure that they can defend themselves against Hamas, make sure that the Israelis — the Israeli citizens are safe and secure as much as possible, and that we can try to get this hostage deal in place. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    Yeah, thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  Go ahead, Joe-Joe.
 
Q    Hey, thanks, Karine.  John, why isn’t President Biden meeting with Benny Ga- — Gantz whi- — while he’s in Washington? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Mr. Gantz asked to come to Washington and asked for a series of meetings with administration officials, and he’s getting those.  He met with Jake Sullivan yesterday.  He met with the Vice President yesterday.  Today, he’s met with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State.  All of these conversations have been constructive and productive. 
 
And we hope that Mr. Gantz goes home informed by the conversations that we had and the concerns that we expressed.
 
Q    I mean, was it a scheduling issue with the President being in Camp David or was it —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Mr. Gantz had a chance to meet with senior levels all the way up to the Vice President of the United States.  And — and, you know, again, we think these — these conversations were constructive and productive and — and hope that he goes home informed by them.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrew.
 
Q    Thanks.  John, the President and the Vice President — and you, for that matter — have both said that the situation with getting aid into Gaza is too difficult.  The Vice President said that Israel needs to allow more aid in.  “No excuses.”
 
What is preventing the President from communicating to the Israeli government that if they don’t allow aid, we will not continue supplying weapons?  Why is that not a fair trade — no aid, no bombs?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Because the President still believes that it’s important for Israel to have what it needs to defend itself against a still viable Hamas threat.  And maybe some people have forgotten what happened on the 7th of October, but President Biden has not. 
 
Q    John, how does keeping aid out of Gaza contribute to Israel’s right to defend itself?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Keeping aid out of Gaza is not the right thing for any purpose.  It’s not about — it’s just — it’s just not acceptable on the face of it, as I told Selina, and that’s why we’re working — more than any other country, by the way — to increase the flow.  I mean, it is U.S. aircraft that are dropping these — this food out of the sky in the last couple of days. 
 
Q    Yes, but you — you keep saying — and you said yesterday — the holdup — that the problem is the lack of capacity being delivered on the ground.  And that’s — that’s the Israelis and, to some extent, the Egyptians, but mostly the Israelis.  How is that — and you said it’s not acceptable earlier —
 
MR. KIRBY:  You guys — you’re looking at this as a zero-sum game.
 
Q    No, I’m not.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yes, you are, sir.  It’s, “Well, if they’re not doing what you want, then cut off the aid so they can’t defend themselves.”  That’s not the way we’re going to do this.  It’s not the way we have done this.  They have a right to defend themselves.  They need the capa- — wait, wait, let me finish.
 
Q    Okay.
 
MR. KIRBY:  They need the capabilities to do that.  There’s — there’s aid that’s desperately in need.  And you know what?  We can do that too.  We can do both.  Both are important.  And both are going —

Q    Not if the Israelis —

MR. KIRBY:  — to be pursued by this administration. 
 
Q    — don’t let it in, sir.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I know — I know you don’t approve of necessarily the policy choices that we’ve made, but —
 
Q    I don’t — I have no opinion on the —
 
MR. KIRBY:  But —
 
Q    — policies.  I’m just asking questions, sir.
 
MR. KIRBY:  But we — and I’m answering them.
 
We can do both.  We can influence our Israeli counterparts to do more, to be more careful, to let more aid in, and we can continue to work to get that aid in ourselves. 
 
Q    And one more follow-up, then.  Israel — according to Israeli media, the Israeli Defense Forces and industrial base are ramping up or preparing to ramp up domestic production of weapons that are currently U.S. supplied — including dumb bombs, firearms, that sort of thing — to be — to be commenced next year, 2025. 
 
Is the President concerned that this would lower U.S. leverage?  And is th- — is there a window that’s closing during which the U.S. has the leverage and influence to get the Israeli government to do certain things with respect to human rights, for instance, allowing more aid into Gaza?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The President’s concerned, as I’ve said, about Israel being able to defend itself against a still-viable threat.  We’ll let the Israelis speak to their defense industrial base plans and intentions. 
 
They’re a sovereign country.  They get to make those decisions, and we respect that.  They’re also a key ally and a partner, and we respect that alliance and that partnership as well.
 
The other thing that’s keeping the President up at night is the humanitarian assistance and the humanitarian situation on the ground in Gaza.  And that’s why he has ordered these air drops.  That’s why we continue to urge — very, very stridently — the Israelis to open up more crossings on the ground to supplement the — to supplement the aid that’s already getting in and to try to improve what’s not getting in. 
 
And that’s why, as I said in my opening statement, the President also has the team looking at maritime options.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aurelia. 
 
Q    Thank you so much.  I want to ask you about some remarks the French President, Emmanuel Macron, made today.  So, he urged Ukraine’s allies not to be cowards, and he also added that he —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Not — not to be what?
 
Q    Not to be cowards.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Cowards.
 
Q    Cowards.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Cowards.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Oh, cowards.
 
Q    Cowards.  Cowards.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Sorry.
 
Q    Sorry, my accent.  And he added that he fully stood behind those controversial remarks he made last week about sending troops to Ukraine.  So, what do you make of this rhetoric?  Do you think the time has come for stronger language on Ukraine?  Or is this not helpful?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to parse President Macron’s words.  I mean, he certainly has every right and ability to — to speak for himself and his views.  All I can do is speak for President Biden, the Commander-in-Chief.  And the President has been clear: We have been extraordinarily strong in leading international efforts to support Ukraine for the last few years.
 
We need Congress to help right now — pass that supplemental — so we can continue that strong leadership and support more — a coalition of more than 50 nations that the United States put together to support Ukraine.
 
He’s also been very clear since the very beginning of this war: There’s not going to be U.S. troops on the ground fighting inside Ukraine.  And you know what?  President Zelenskyy isn’t asking for that.  He’s just asking for the tools and capabilities.  He’s never asked for foreign troops to fight for his country.  He — he and his troops want to do that.  But they need the tools, and that’s what we need to help with.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We’re bumping up against the President’s schedule.  Go ahead.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Sorry.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  I have questions on the Indonesian election, but just to finish up on Gaza.  Is the Gantz meeting with the VP and also with Jake a signal that the administration is looking forward to a future Israeli government without Netanyahu?
 
MR. KIRBY:  No.
 
Q    And maybe this one is for Karine.  Will the President use any part of his State of the Union Address to acknowledge the anger of American Arabs and Muslims and progressive Democrats and explain to them why he’s not imposing conditionalities on Israel?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to go around, and I’ll get to that question.  Let me just get to a couple more people before we lose the Admiral.
 
Q    Okay.  Great. 
 
And so, just on the Indo- — on the Indonesian election.  China, the United Kingdom, Australia, and several other countries have congratulated Indonesia’s President-elect, Prabowo Subianto, on his apparent victory.  Is there a reason why the administration is waiting?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We congratulate the Indonesian people on a successful election.  The President looks forward to early engagement with the new administration and to strengthening our cooperation under what is already a strategic partnership.
 
We’re obviously closely following the ongoing vote count, and we understand that Minister Subianto has a significant lead.  We’ve had excellent cooperation with him since the time he was Defense Minister.  And, you know, if he is, in fact, finally elected, then we look forward to continuing that relationship.
 
Q    And just to clarify.  The President-elect does have a long track record of allegations of human rights violations.  He was at one point the son-in-law of former President Suharto, who ruled Indonesia for 32 years, and his Vice President-elect is the son of the outgoing President, Joko Widodo.  Is the administration concerned at all about democratic backsliding in Indonesia? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re never ba- — we never back away from our concerns about the need for human rights, civil rights, and all the values of democratic institutions.  And the President absolutely will not shy away about expressing our concerns.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, Gabe.
 
Q    Admiral, to ask that question more directly, or one of the other questions that was just asked: In Israel, the Vice President’s meeting with Gantz was seen as a snuff to the Netanyahu government.  Was it?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The meeting with Minister Gantz, again, was at his request.  He is a member of the War Cabinet.  There is a war going on.  And we believed it would — it was a good opportunity to have a discussion with the War Cabinet about the way in which we’re supporting Israel and the things that we want to see Israel do.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
Q    The President was asked this morning how his relationship was with Netanyahu these days, and he responded, “Like it’s always been,” and then he smiled.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yep.  (Laughter.) 
 
Q    What was — what do you — what do you make of that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know if I can improve upon that.
 
Q    What would you add to that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I wouldn’t.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  (Laughter.)  All right.  Let’s —
 
Q    One question — one question on Haiti.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I still like my job.  (Laughter.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We got — we’ve got to —
 
Q    One question on Haiti.  The administration has provided more than $126 million in humanitarian aid to Haiti in 2023.  Where has that money gone?  And is it — has it been affective?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I can get you a — Gabe, I’ll get you — we can get you a rundown of exactly how that — those funds were allocated.  But we are — we’re proud of the humanitarian assistance that we have and will continue to provide Haiti.
 
But the — right now — man, right now, the focus has got to be on getting that multinational security element in there to help create the conditions where the people of Haiti can live free and in security so that humanitarian assistance can get there more freely and get to the people that need it.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Last question to the foreign pooler.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  Following up on Aurelia’s question.  There’s been some pushback on Macron’s comments from the Germans and also from the Swedes as well.  Is the U.S. worried that Ukraine’s allies are starting to splinter?
 
MR. KIRBY:  No.  There has been tremendous international support and unity for Ukraine.  The Pres- — as you know, we met with the Prime Minister of Italy just last week.  They’ve been strong.  There’s — there’s incredible unity.  Everybody shares the same concerns that we do about just letting Putin take Ukraine and what that means for their safety and security and for the security of — of the NATO Alliance.
 
No.  No, we’re not concerned about that.
 
Q    And are you worried about the stalling of this U.S. aid — that it’s putting more pressure on European Allies and causing fractures on — at all, in that sense?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re worried that the delay on the national security supplemental and the assistance coming from the United States is going to have a detriment- — actually, already is having a detrimental effect for Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield.  That’s the main concern.  And the time is way past now to get them the tools that they need to defend themselves. 
 
Their defensive lines are starting to shift now, going in the wrong direction, because the Russians continue to push west out of the Donbas. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks.  Thanks, Admiral. 
 
All right.  As you know, the President’s event is going to start shortly.  Zeke, you have anything?

Q    Yeah.  Do you have a, sort of, broad rundown of how the President spent the last few days at Camp David preparing for the State of the Union?  Who was with him?  Does he have the final speech text at this point?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, so, as you know, the President has been working on, as you just stated in your — in your question to me, the State of the Union Address for the past several days.  I’m not going to get into any specifics as to who was with him. 

It’s — you know, it’s — it’s some- — it’s going to be a moment that’s incredibly important to him.  Obviously, he’s going to be not just addressing Congress but also millions of Americans who will — going to be tuning in.  And he’s looking forward to that, to talking about the accomplish- –accomplishments that he’s made the last three years and also the vision — the vision that he has for this country, obviously, for the American people. 

I’m just not going to get into any specifics or details.  We’ll have, certainly, more to share with you all tomorrow as we get closer.

You know, the State of the Union Address is incredibly important.  He’s going to be working on it, I believe, until the very last minute so he gets it just right.  Because it’s going to be an important moment.  But don’t have anything beyond that. 
 
You heard me talk about the Competition Council, how that is part of the President talking about wanting to focusing on lowering costs for the American people. 
 
Obviously, he’s going to talk about our democracy; our freedoms — right? — fighting — continuing to fight for that; reproductive freedom, how that’s an issue that the American people truly care about.  You’re going to hear him talk about that. 

And so, there’s a lot of issues in front — obviously, in front of the American people that they care and they want to hear directly from the President about.  And so, that’s what he’s going to focus on. 
 
We’ll certainly have more to share as we get closer to Thursday.

Q    And then, on a different topic.  A bit of a kerfuffle this morning across Lafayette Park at the Department of Veterans Affairs, running an effort to ban the display of that i- — that iconic Time Square kiss photo on — on V-J Day at the end of World War Two. 

Was anyone at the White House consulted in that — in the drafting of the initial memorandum?  And then, did anyone at the White House call up the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and say, “Rescind that memo”? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just — I want to be really, really clear.  The VA is not going to be banning this photo from VA facilities.  So, I just want to be super, super clear about that.  I know, as you just said — you described it as a “kerfuffle.”  There was, obviously, some reporting on that.

I can say that — I can definitely say that the memo was not sanctioned.  And so, it’s not something that we were even aware of until you all started reporting on it.  But we are not banning that photo.  And I’m just going to be super clear about that. 

Any specifics about the memo and the process over there, certainly, I would prefer to the VA.

Q    But once you were made aware of it and after that — after the memo, sort of, spread on social media, did the White House direct the Veterans Affairs Secretary to rescind it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I believe the VA Secretary made a statement on this, so I’d refer you to the statement —

Q    But did he say it under his  own — of his own volition?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, he did that on his own volition.  But he — I would refer you to his statement.  And just re- — I’m really reiterating what the VA said.  The VA Secretary said that it will not be — that particular photo will not be banned from any facility — VA facility.  So, I want to be very, very clear about that. 

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  President Biden has said a possible endorsement by Taylor Swift —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — is “classified.”  How disappointed is he that she is telling people to vote but not for him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Going to very careful.  We’re talking about 2024.  And so, I can’t comment on what Taylor Swift is saying or not saying.  I have no idea.  I’m not seen those statements. 

And I’ll just — I’ll just leave it there —

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — and be mindful.

Q    Different topic.  How is President Biden going to fix the border if he can go years without talking to the head of Border Patrol?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was literally just with the head — the Chief of the Border Patrol just this past Thursday in Brownsville, Texas.  You all reported it.  You all saw it.  He was with — he was with the Chief — Chief Owens, I believe.

Q    The Chief who was in charge for two years before that said, “I’ve never had one conversation with the President or the Vice President.”  How is that possible?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, one thing I will say about Chief — you’re talking about Chief Ortiz?

Q    This is Chief Ortiz.  Yeah. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, he was invited, I believe, to participate in the President’s first trip — visit to El Paso, which was back in January of 2023, and he did not attend.  He was invited.  He was invited.  He is — he did not attend. 

What I can say is that you saw — you saw the President with the present chief, which I think is important, because we are dealing with challenges at the border, because the President has take- — made that a priority, worked with the Senate in a bipartisan way to come up with a way to move forward on the border, on immigration.  Republicans rejected it because of what the former President, Donald Trump, told them to do.  He told them to reject that proposal. 

So, the President is going to continue to be steadfast, focus on an issue that a majority of the American people care about, which is the border. 

Let’s not forget, if that policy had went into law, it would have been the toughest and the fairest bipartisan border security agreement in decades — in decades. 

Q    And last one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Will President Biden publicly address Laken Riley’s murder, allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant who was released by law enforcement multiple times, on Thursday night?  I know he’s put out a statement.  But what about at the State of the Union?
    
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You — look, let me — I do want — this is such a tragic story and, obviously, situation.  This is someone’s life that was lost, so I do want to always acknowledge and extend our deepest condolences to — to her family and to her friends and the people who — who loved her.  And so, want to always be sure to say that and — because it’s so tragic.

Look, I don’t have anything to share about the President’s speech as it relates to that particular question that you have.  But we — you know, we want to always — always be sure that we li- — lift up the families who have lost their loved ones in that way. 

And I would reiterate — you just asked me about the Border Patrol chief.  The President was just there with the current chief, Owens.  The President went to the border — obviously, Brownsville, Texas — to lift up the importance of doing something — of doing something at the border. 

And I would be remiss if I did not continue to say that Republicans rejected a bipartisan proposal that came out of the Senate.  And so, if they truly, truly cared about what was going on at the border; if they truly cared about this immigration policies and trying to fix that, trying to move forward in a step, in a way where we have a tough and fair law, they would work with us on it.  They wouldn’t listen to the former President, who is clearly telling them to reject — telling Republicans to reject it for their — for his own political gain.  And that’s shameful.  That’s truly shameful.
 
Go ahead, Selina. 
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Will the President be watching the election results come in tonight?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, the President is going to be talking about the Competition Council today.  He is continuing to work, obviously, on his State of the Union Address, because it’s important to him, and he knows how important it is for the American people to hear directly from him.  I don’t have a — I don’t have anything to share.  I’ve not spoken to him about his plans tonight. 
 
Obviously, he will be kept updated.  And he’ll — he’ll be aware of what’s going on tonight as — as we see elections happening across the country.  I just don’t have anything specific on that. 
 
Q    And the Consumer Bankers Association has been very critical of the Biden administration’s rule to cut the credit card late fees.  They called it “anything but” a win for consumers and “knowingly putting consumers’ financial health at risk.”  What’s the administration’s response to that criticism?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I totally disa- — we totally disagree, obviously.  The President has always been very, very clear: He’s going to do everything that he can to make sure that we lower costs for the American people.  And what we are seeing is that — we’re seeing, you know, corporations, obviously, not passing along their gains to Americans — to American consumers.  And we’ve always been very clear about that.  And so, we want to make sure that we protect — we protect Americans.  We want to make sure that we, obviously, protect American consumers. 
 
So, we disagree with that sentiment.  We disagree with that statement.  And the President is always going to put the American people first.
 
Go ahead, Jeff.
 
Q    Karine, does the White House have a position or comment on latest bill in Congress to crack down on Tik Tok — just introduced today, I believe?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have not seen the text or had an opportunity to speak to our Office of Leg Affairs or any — anyone else in — in the — in the White House Office, so I don’t want to get ahead of myself and speak to that.
 
Obviously, we’ll take a look, as we normally do on any legislation, that believe will — will be beneficial to the American people.  I just can’t speak to that at this time. 
 
Go ahead, Kevin.
 
Q    Robert Hur is supposed to testify a week from today.  Has the White House made a decision on releasing the transcripts of the President’s interview with him?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the — my colleagues at the White House Counsel’s Office.
 
Q    Okay.  And the Dartmouth basketball team has become the first college sports team to vote to form a union.  Does the White House think that that’s a good idea?  Is that a smart move for college athletes?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to, obviously, let — let teams make their decisions for themselves.  We’re not going to weigh in on that.  As you know, the President is a union guy.  We say that all the time, but I’m not going to comment on any particular team or actions that they’re taking.  That’s for them to decide.
 
Q    To the back?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    Karine, Senator Sinema just announced that she’s not running for reelection.  She’s going to retire at the end of this term.  I’m wondering if the White House has any comment.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have not seen that.  Obviously, that is news — news to me.  Look, we have had opportunities to work closely with the senator on some really key, important bills.  She was leading — one of the leading negotiators on the border security bill that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way.  We appreciated her efforts on that.  And there are some other, obviously, ways that we’ve worked closely with her.
 
Outside of that, I don’t want to get too far ahead.  I — this is the first time I’m hearing the news.  But she’s been a partner with us on many critical issues that matter to the American people.  And I think that’s important.
 
Q    Is there any — anything you can tell us about the President’s travel after the State of the Union this weekend and — (a reporter sneezes) — and into next week?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think the — the —
 
Q    Excuse me.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Bless you.
 
I believe the campaign has made some announcements on some travel that the President will be doing after the State of the Union, so I would refer you to them.  It is common that after a State of the Union, the President goes around and — goes around the country to speak directly to the American people.  You’re going to see the President do the same.  But I would refer you to the campaign on specific stops that he has coming up.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Karine, I just wanted to ask about the Meta — the breakdown this morning — hundreds of thousands of users.  Do you have any more information on that and whether it’s connected to a cyberattack?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, we all are aware of what happened from — for the last couple of hours — the incident.  And so — so, don’t have anything at this time.  We are — we are not aware of any specific malicious cyber activity — so, I can say that — or any specific nexus as it relates to today’s election.  But we would have to refer you to the individual social — social platforms, obviously, for any more information on that. 
 
Q    Okay.  Thank you.  A quick separate one on the minibus spending agreement in Congress right now.  It would divert about $45 million in fees from the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.  So, I’m just wondering, given the administration’s take on antitrust, is this a concern that that money would be going away?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as it relates more broadly, you know — well, I’ll say this: You know, the President obviously strongly supports funding for antitrust enforcement, which is critical to promoting competition and lowering cost for consumers.  It’s a — this is a bit more complicated, so I just want to break this down a little bit. 
 
The antitrust funding proposed in the funding bill is — is a 4 percent increase over the last year and a 26 percent increase since 2021.  Because of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, every agency is subject to budget caps, so preventing us from fully funding programs the way we want to. 
 
These full-year bills represent a compromise.  Obviously, this is what has come together with these — with these six different bills.  So, no — no one got everything they wanted, obviously.  That’s what a compromise is.  But they fund the government, prevent a damaging shutdown, and protect our progress.  And that’s what happens when you come with a — when you come forward with a compromise — a bipartisan compromise.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Karine, is the President aware or have any concern about the number of Super Tuesday states that have campaigns for uncommitted votes, ceasefire write-ins — essentially, a vote against the President — because of his stance on the war in Gaza?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to be super, super mindful.  These are — obviously, people are — are voting right now, and I cannot speak to any upcoming election or — as voting — as voting is happening.  So, I’m going to be super, super careful about that. 
 
But what I will say is what I said last time when I was asked about Michigan specifically: The President thinks it’s important for people — for Americans to voice their opinions, to have their voices heard.  He thinks that’s incredibly important.  We understand how painful this moment is for many Americans, for many communities — obviously, the Arab and — the Arab community, the Muslim community, more specifically.  And so, we get that. 
 
But I just want to be super careful and not speak to upcoming — upcoming election — upcoming voting that — voting that’s happening right now, to be more specific. 
 
Q    Karine, can I just follow up?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know you had a — I know you had a similar question.
 
Q    Is that — is that also the message that the President will be saying during the State of the Union?  And then I think you mentioned to my colleague that he will be taking this message around the country after the address.  Is Michigan one of those destinations?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, not going to get into the states.  I know that the campaign announced a couple of states already that he’s going to be going to right after Thursday.  So, you can expect the President to be visiting multiple states across the country the next, obviously, couple of months. 
 
I’m not going to get into that.  I would refer you to the campaign specifically on the most upcoming states, the announcements that they’ve made. 
 
And I just kind of laid out, you know, what the President has been very clear about, the understanding of how people should have the right to voice their opinion, to voice their concern, to voice their pain.  And that’s what the President is going to consistently do.  He’s a president for all Americans, obviously.
 
As it relates to the State of the Union, I’m not — I’m just not going to get ahead of any specifics on what he’s going to say as it relates to that question.
 
Go ahead, Ed.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, Cookie Monster posted on X that shrinkflation is making his cookie smaller.  The White House official Twit- — Twitter, or X, responded that — blaming shrinkflation, basically, on companies.  So, does the President, again, believe that shrinkflation and inflation are solely a company problem?  Or do his policies play any role in that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, also, from my tweet, I believe we said, “C is for consumers getting ripped off.”  Right?  And — and the President — the President has called on — on companies to stop — to stop, you know, taking advantage of Americans.  He’s been very clear about that. 
 
He’s repeatedly called on large corporations, more specifically, to pass along their savings on to their customers.  We’ve said that.  We’ve been very consistent about that.  And that includes rip-offs such as shrinkflation.  We see that.  And — where the size of a product, for those who don’t know, gets smaller, even as the price stays the same or increases.  That’s what we’ve been seeing.
 
And so, it’s giving families less bang for their buck.  And the President has said — and I’ll quote him — “Tired of being” — the President said, “Americans are tired of being played for suckers.” 
 
And so, the President is going to have the Amer- — the American people’s back.  That’s what he’s going to continue to do.  He’s going to talk about this — not just shrinkflation but other ways that he sees corporations are ripping off Americans.  You’re going to hear from him shortly about the — about the — what he’s doing next to — to deal with junk fees.  And I think that’s really important.
 
That’s what Americans want to see.  They want to see their president fighting on their behalf.
 
Q    And out of that Competition Council, the President is announcing that strike force.  Why did it take the Cookie Monster to speak up or an election year for this strike force to go?  Why not do it year- — a couple years ago when inflation was 9 percent?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I disagree with the premise of your question there.  It did not take the Cookie Monster.  If anything, it feels like the Cookie Monster is responding to us and what we’ve been saying about shrinkflation.  (Laughs.)
 
I can’t believe I’m having a conversation about the Cookie Monster at the podium.  (Laughter.)  But that is where —
 
Q    Does the President have full confidence —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But that is — but that is —
 
Q    — in the Cookie Monster?  (Laughter.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s a good one.  I’m glad you’re awake.  I’m glad you woke up for me.  I know you were nodding off in the back earlier.  But —
 
Q    But why did it take — why did it take so long to announce a strike force —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look —
 
Q    — when inflation was 9 percent?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — here’s — we’ll — here’s the thing.  The President’s Competition Council has been going — going on for some time now.  Right?  He has taken this very seriously in finding ways to lower costs for the American people as we are obviously dealing with inflation — right? — obviously dealing with that because of what we are coming out of with the — with the pandemic.
 
So, the President has taken action.  He’s going to continue to do that.  I would say the strike force is just another way — along of many other announcement that this President has made — in dealing with large corporations ripping off Americans — right? — and dealing with how do we get rid of junk fees.
 
And so, that’s what you’re going to hear from the Amer- — from the President.  So, to say that, you know, now, all of the sudden, he cares about this is not true.  It is a false premise.  It’s a false question, because the President has been dealing with this for some time now. 
 
And now he’s making a new announcement on — on the strike force, and I think it’s important.  And so, you’ll hear more from him momentarily.
 
Q    Yeah.  And one more, if I may.  The President, I noticed, had — had notecards la- — at the border when he was doing his briefing there.  He also had notecards last Friday with the Italian Prime Minister.  Why does the President rely so heavily on notecards?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re upset because the President has notecards?  You’re —
 
Q    I’m not upset.  I’m asking you why. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re asking me a question about the President having notecards?
 
Q    I’m asking why does he rely so heavily?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President, who has had a — probably one of the most successful first three years of an adm- –administration than any modern-day president — he’s done more in the first three years than most presidents who had two terms.  You’re asking me about notecards?  I don’t think that’s —
 
Q    Can you answer —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t think —
 
Q    — his question?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  I’m —
 
Q    I’m asking you why he — why he relies so heavily.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not speaking to you right now, James.  I’m talking to — I’m talking to your friend over here, Ed.  So, thank you so much — but thank you so much for interjecting.
 
Go ahead, Ed.
 
Q    I was just asking why he relies so heavily on notecards.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think what’s important here and what the American people care about is how this President is delivering for — for them.  And that’s what he’s doing.  And that’s what’s the most important thing here.
 
All right.  I’m going to take —
 
Q    In the back.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to take — go ahead.  Did I call on you already?
 
Q    You did.  So, if you want to go to the back and then —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Wait.  No, no, no.  I can’t do that.
 
     Go ahead, Karen.
 
Q    — come up here —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.  Go ahead, Karen.  Go ahead, Karen.  Go ahead, Karen.
 
Q    Aleksey Navalny’s widow, Yulia, was invited to the State of the Union by the White House, but she’s unable to make it.  Did the President extend that invite personally when he met with her last month?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, yes, I can — I can confirm that she was indeed invited to the State of the Union.  She is no longer able to attend.  I would have to refer you to her and her people as to specifically why.  But I can confirm that, yes, she was invited.
 
Q    Did the President extend that invitation —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, the President did.
 
Q    — when they met?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, the President did.
 
Q    Karine, first it was Elmo —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  All right.  Go ahead.
 
Q    — now it’s Cookie Monster.  Are there — are there — 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jon.  Go ahead, Jon. 
 
Q    — any other “Sesame Street” characters the President would consult?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jon.  Jon, go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  The President recently said that he’d be open to meeting with the House Speaker in regards to that Ukraine funding bill.  Is there anything to report?  Is the President reaching out to the House Speaker in terms of a one-on-one conversation?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, they just met — the Big Four just met last week.  They talked about the importance of, obviously, the national security supplemental, which includes the Ukraine funding.  They talked about, obviously, avoiding a shutdown, which we are glad to see that Congress is doing that. 
 
And, as you know, they had a pull-aside, they had a brief meeting afterwards.  Not going to get into what was discussed.  It was a private meeting.  But the President has spent some time with the Speaker over — I mean, just — just last week — literally, they were together just last week.
 
I don’t have anything else to share. 
 
All right, guys.  We’re going to wrap it up.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is the White House concerned about another —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)  (Laughs.)
 
Q    Oh, I’m so sorry.
 
Q    No, no.  No — 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no.  I’m more so teasing.  I’m giving Ed a hard time.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Is the White House concerned about another bank failure after New York Community Bank showed signs of trouble?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, obviously I want to be super careful, right?  This is something that is monitored by — by regulators.  And this is something that we take very — that they take very seriously and are always monitoring. 
 
I don’t want to get ahead of that.  And we’re always going to keep an eye on — on that — or they will, more — more specifically, regula- — regulator- — regulators.  I just don’t have anything else to share beyond that. 
 
All right. 
 
Q    In the vein of that question about the Speaker —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.  Yes.  Yes, yes.
 
Q    — one of mine was: He did, last week, extend a bipartisan olive branch to the former President to work with him on border security.  Beyond saying that rhetorically, has there been any other attempt to reach him to talk about possibly working together?  Have you heard from the Trump camp about it?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, it — as it relates to the Trump camp or campaign, that’s something that I would refer you to the campaign on. 
 
Look, the President has been very clear, and I think you’ve seen it in his action.  The fact that we worked with Republicans to try and get to a border security proposal — we did that because we believe it needed to be dealt with in a bipartisan way. 
 
And I would add that when — when we are able to work in a bipartisan way, in a bi- — in a — on behalf of the American people, we get things done.  Right? 
 
We see that with the CHIPS and Science Act.  We saw that with the prevent — gun violence legislation — right? — anti-gun violence legislation.  You saw that with the infrastructure legislation. 

Remember las- — last time around, during the last four years, of the — of the last administration, it was a punchline.  Infrastructure, you know, Week was a punchline.
 
Q    But beyond saying it last week, there’s been no active attempt to get the former President —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have —
 
Q    — on board?
 
 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I am saying to you I don’t have anything to read out. 
 
But I do want to say, when we work in a bipartisan way, we are able to get things done on — for the American people.  We just are.  And we see that.  We see that with historic pieces of legislation that will change the lives of Americans for generations, which are incredibly important — issues that a majority of Americans care about.  And I think that’s important. 
 
I don’t have anything to read out on any outreach. 
 
I would certainly refer you to the campaign on anything specific as it relates to the Donald Trump campaign.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, guys.  I’ll see you tomorrow.  Thanks, everybody.
 
2:42 P.M. EST

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

1:56 P.M. EST
 
MR. KIRBY:  Good afternoon, everybody.
 
As you know, over the weekend the U.S. Department of Defense and the Jordanian Royal Air Force collaborated over the weekend to airdrop 38,000 ready-to-eat meals into Gaza.  This operation saw 66 bundles of aid offloaded across three C-130 aircraft delivered to people in dire need of it.
 
We remain the largest provider of aid to Gaza, having provided now more than $180 million in humanitarian assistance since the 7th of October.  And we’ll keep at that job. 
 
Responding to the humanitarian crisis and the needs of the Palestinian people has been a priority since day one, and as I said, it remains one today. 
 
But, look, the truth is — and you heard the President talk about this — that the aid flowing into Gaza is nowhere near enough, and it’s not getting there fast enough.  We all need to do more, and the United States will do more.  There will be additional airdrops of humanitarian assistance from U.S. aircraft.  I’m sure you all want to know exactly when that’s going to be, where that’s going to be, and what’s going to be on those airplanes, and I am not in a position today to give you those sorts of operational details.  But there will be more airdrops.
 
We continue to work to increase the amount of aid that’s flowing through existing border crossings as well, at Rafah and Kerem Shalom, and to press the government of Israel to open additional crossings and routes into Gaza.
 
As the President said, we are also looking to develop a direct maritime route to facilitate the delivery of assistance, and we’re confident that we’ll have a number of international partners who will help us in that effort. 
 
We’ll also continue to insist that Israel facilitate more trucks and more routes and more aid to get to more people.
 
I think as you all know, Benny Gantz, from the Israeli war cabinet, will be meeting today with the Vice President and with Jake Sullivan and then tomorrow with Secretary Blinken.  And I can assure you that the issue of humanitarian assistance will be top on that agenda.
 
Of course, to really address the urgent needs of the civilian population in Gaza and to enable our humanitarian partners to more and to better distribute lifesaving aid, it’s essential to see a temporary ceasefire as part of this hostage deal. 
 
We call on Hamas to accept the terms that are on the table right now, whereby the release of vulnerable hostages — the sick, the wounded, the elderly, women — would help result in an immediate six-week ceasefire and enable a surge of humanitarian assistance.
 
Israel has agreed to this framework, and now the onus is on Hamas to do the same. 
 
And if I could switch to Haiti, if you don’t mind.
 
We are monitoring Haiti’s rapidly deteriorating security situation with grave concern.  Through the weekend, senior U.S. government officials remained in close contact with senior Haitian government officials and members of the international community to help stabilize the situation and to move quickly toward an enduring political solution.
 
We’re working with international partners to provide immediate support to the Haitian National Police and expedite the deployment of the Multinational Security Support Mission that will help restore security urgently.
 
Violence serves only to delay a democratic transition while destroying and upending the lives of thousands.
 
Ultimately, the path forward lies with democratic governance and free and fair elections, which continue to be a priority in our engagements with our Haitian partners.
 
We remain committed to a peaceful transition of power from the current prime minister to a prime minister that the people select via those free and fair elections.  Prime Minister Henry has said the same, and we’re going to hold them to that.
 
We urge all actors: Put the people of Haiti first to stop the violence and to make necessary concessions to allow for inclusive governance, free and fair elections, and the restoration of democracy.
 
Thank you.
 
MODERATOR:  Awesome.  And we think we had a sound issue at the beginning, so Kirby is going to read the first two or so paragraphs that we think we missed.  We’ll have a transcript at the end, in a few hours, out online.  So, everyone should be able to reference that in case we missed anything else.  Sorry for the inconvenience.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Gives me a chance to be more eloquent the second time around.
 
As you all know, over the weekend the U.S. Department of Defense and the Jordanian Royal Air Force collaborated to airdrop some 38,000 ready-to-eat meals into Gaza.  And this included 66 bundles of aid altogether, packed into three C-130 aircraft. 
 
We remain the largest provider of aid to the Gaza response, having provided more than $180 million in humanitarian assistance since the 7th of October.
 
Responding to the humanitarian crisis and needs of the Palestinian people has been a priority since day one, and it remains one today.  But the truth is that the aid flowing into Gaza is nowhere near enough and nowhere fast enough.  And you heard that clearly from President Biden.  We all need to do more, and the United States will do more. 
 
And I know there’s a lot of interest in additional airdrops.  I can assure you that there will be additional airdrops from U.S. aircraft, but I am not in a position today to tell you exactly when that’s going to be, how many aircraft that’s going to include, and what’s going to be on those aircraft.  But I can assure you that the airdrop over the weekend was only the first, and we will continue to do that in coming days to supplement the flow of humanitarian assistance that’s coming in on the ground.
 
And speaking of that, we’re also going to continue to work with our Israeli counterparts to increase the amount of aid that’s flowing through those existing border crossings at Rafah and Kerem Shalom and to press the government of Israel to actually open up additional crossings and routes into Gaza.
 
I think that takes me right to where I left off.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thank you all for your patience again for that. 
 
Our first question will go to Steve with Reuters.
 
Q    Thank you, John.  For a while there, you were doing 200 truck deliveries a day into Gaza.  What happened to that?  I mean, why isn’t Israel allowing more truck deliveries in there?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Steve, the numbers of trucks getting in, I think you know, has fluctuated almost day to day.  And at the high-water mark, we were up over 200 trucks for some matter of days.  But it’s not been a level we’ve been able to sustain in a reliable fashion since the beginning of the war.  There’s lots of reasons for that.  I mean, it is a war zone.  And the actual combat operations can combine to make it hard to get trucks in.  There’s an inspection regime that can at times slow that process down at both crossings. 
 
And as you — I think you know, we saw in recent weeks some protest activity at Kerem Shalom, which actually shut down Kerem Shalom for a few days.  We engaged our Israeli counterparts to do what they could to allow for peaceful protest but also locate the protesters in such a way that they were not a hindrance to the flow of aid. 
 
So there has been some obstacles to getting the aid in that are organic to the fact that we’re talking about a war zone, but also, there have been some inorganic obstacles thrown up, in some cases by some members of the Israeli cabinet, that have made it hard to get that aid in.  And that’s why I think you heard the President so very clearly make certain on Friday, when he was meeting with Prime Minister Meloni, that this is not a time for excuses. 
 
We’ve got to get more aid in the ground routes.  Although there are obstacles and it can be cumbersome, it’s still the best way to get the most aid in in a quick fashion — or the quickest fashion.  And we’ve got to do everything we can to make sure that happens. 
 
Q    And the Vice President yesterday called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.  Is there any daylight between what she’s saying and what the President’s position is on this?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Not at all, Steve.  Not at all.  She made it clear that she was talking about a six-week ceasefire, a temporary ceasefire, which is exactly what the President has called for. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Aamer with the AP.
 
Q    Hey there.  Can you hear me?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yes, sir.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Hey, sorry about that.  On the Gantz bit — meeting, how did this meeting come together?  Was this a Gantz request, or did the White House invite him?
 
And Israeli officials have made clear that Gantz doesn’t represent the Israeli government during this visit, so why host him for such a high-level meeting when — or meetings — when it’s obviously aggravating to the current government?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Aamer.  This was a request by Mr.  Gantz — Minister Gantz — to come to the United States and have meetings.  And he’s a member of the war cabinet.  There is a war going on between Israel and Hamas.  We have been dealing with all members of the war cabinet, including Minister Gantz, since the beginning of the war, certainly when he joined the war cabinet, which was shortly after the 7th of October.  And we see this as a natural outgrowth of those discussions. 
 
If a member of the war cabinet from Israel wants to come to the United States, wants to talk to us about the progress of that war, giving us an opportunity to talk about the importance of getting humanitarian assistance increased and an opportunity to talk about the importance of this hostage deal, we’re not going to turn away that sort of opportunity.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to MJ Lee with CNN.
 
Q    Hey, John.  Thank you for doing this.  I just wanted to clarify one thing, if you can, on the hostage talks.  On the call with reporters yesterday, the senior administration official had said that Israel has basically accepted a six-week ceasefire proposal but that Hamas needs to clarify who exactly would be released in that first part of the vulnerable hostages category.
 
CNN had reported yesterday that, you know, according to a Hamas source, that one of their sticking points was Israel agreeing to a permanent ceasefire or at least a path to a permanent ceasefire, and that without one of those, Hamas would not release the remaining Israeli hostages.  Is that a Hamas sticking point, as far as the U.S. is concerned?  I was just hoping you could help clarify that.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I think, obviously, I’m going to be a little careful here in speaking about the specific details of the negotiation process.
 
I would just say that Israel has put forward a forward-leaning offer, and that deal is on the table.  And as I said in my opening statement, we urge Hamas to accept that deal so that we can move forward. 
 
But, obviously, there’s still modalities here that need to be worked out, and that’s why we’re still engaged in these active conversations.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrea Mitchell with NBC.
 
Q    Hi, John.  Thanks for doing this.  Just to clarify, I know you can’t talk about details, but was the offer that you call forward leaning from Israel, did that include the specificity of the list of hostages who are still alive?  Or is that a new element that has been added to the mix?
 
Does the White House still think it’s possible to get a deal before Ramadan on or about March 10th? 
 
And has Hamas come forward with a deal that you also think is forward leaning?  Or is Hamas the major sticking point, from your concern?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, Andrea, I’ll try to take them in turn. 
 
As before — when we did this before, the week-long pause where we got the first tranche of hostages out, obviously a big part of that is the list — right? — the list of hostages and a list of Palestinian prisoners that are going to be exchanged.  That was part of the last deal, and you can certainly imagine that that’s a part of this deal too. 
 
Now, in this case, we’re talking about more — more of both — over a longer period of time.  And they would be sequenced; you would see several tranches of exchanges over the course of what we hope will be six weeks.  But the list of names is part of that. 
 
We obviously want all the hostages returned to their families, and we recognize that it’s likely that not all of them are still alive, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t still important to their loved ones.  And so, we’re working our way through all that with Hamas.
 
Again, what I would draw you to is what I said at the opening, and that’s that we certainly want an initial focus on the elderly, the sick, and the wounded, and women.  That’s what our immediate focus is on.  But that’s the goal, and that’s the approach that we’re taking to it. 
 
And you asked, you know, can we get this done before Ramadan.  I can tell you we’re certainly trying.  I mean, we would have liked to have this done yesterday, last week, the week before.  There’s no shortage of effort that’s being applied here to try to get this done as soon as possible. 
 
Q    But let me just ask you whether — is it — can you confirm reports that Israel has not returned, has not sent their teams to Cairo in — for whatever reasons, particularly because of objection to not knowing the accounting of the dead?  But in any case, is it true that the technical teams, or the teams from Israel, are not in Cairo with the other teams right now?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think I’ll let the Israelis speak for their negotiating team and where they are. 
 
I would just remind two things.  One, talks do continue, negotiations are ongoing, and that, as I said earlier, Israel has put a forward-leaning deal on the table.  They have made an offer here, and the onus is on Hamas to accept it. 
 
But where their negotiators are, I’ll let them speak to it. 
 
And again, back to your question on Ramadan: We certainly are hopeful.  And that’s the goal here — is to get this done as soon as possible.  And certainly, we’d like to see it done before Ramadan begins. 
 
Q    Thank you, John. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think you had — I think I answered your third question about Hamas being the sticking point.
 
Q    Well, maybe you didn’t.  I’m sorry. 
 
Have they put forward, quote, a “forward-leaning” proposal as well?
 
MR. KIRBY:  They have not.
 
Q    And is it because of the numbers?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the details.  I’m not going to negotiate in public, Andrea.  I would just tell you that there is a framework deal on the table, a deal that Israel has put forward.  We believe it’s forward leaning.  We believe that Hamas should take up that deal.  And I think I really am going to have to leave it at that.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to JJ with Bloomberg.
 
Q    Hey there.  On the apparent intelligence leak from Germany that Russia is shopping around, kind of claiming that there’s direct Western involvement in the war in Ukraine, do you think that Berlin needs to do more to clarify that situation?  And is there any reason to think that wiretaps are ongoing?  Any evidence that they might be wiretapping other NATO members?
 
And then, on a different topic: On Apple and the antitrust fine, is there anything you can share as far as comment on the Europeans lodging that fine against Apple?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  On Berlin, I think the Germans have already talked to this.  They’re investigating how that audio got leaked.  I think I’d refer you to the German officials on that.  And I won’t speak to the content that was leaked into the public domain.  That just plays right into the Russian hands.
 
I’ll just tell you that this is a bald attempt and a transparent attempt by the Russians to try to sow discord and to try to sow division and try to make it look like the West isn’t unified and, hell, that even the German government is not unified on what they’re doing.  And we’re just not going to — we’re not going to just bow down to that bald attempt.  We’re not going to accept the premise of it.  That’s what the Russians want. 
 
We’re all working together to try to support Ukraine.  And the Germans have been right there in it, absolutely.  Every nation has to decide for itself what it’s going to do.  And the Germans have stepped up; they’ve stepped up in meaningful ways.  And we look forward to continuing to work with Chancellor Scholz and his government as they continue to find ways to support Ukraine and as we, here at home, do everything we can to try to get that supplemental funding passed so we can continue to support Ukraine. 
 
You asked if there is evidence that they’re wiretapping others in the Alliance or in Europe.  I wouldn’t have the answer to that for you.  I can just tell you that we are certainly not unmindful of Russian efforts to conduct these kinds of activities.  And we take seriously our responsibility to safeguard our own communications. 
 
On the Apple fine question, JJ, I’m afraid I’m just going to have to refer you to the EU on that.  That’s about the extent of the comment that we’re going to be able to have today.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Vivian Salama with the Wall Street Journal.
 
Q    Thanks, Sam.  Hey, John.  I wanted to actually follow on Aamer’s questions from earlier. 
 
With regard to the Gantz visit, you know, the Israeli press is reporting that Netanyahu is, quote, “enraged” over this.  And so, I’m curious if the White House had attempted at the time, you know, before Gantz arrived, to reach out to Bibi, sort of a “Hey, I know you’re enraged, but I just wanted you to hear it from us” kind of thing. 
 
Like, did you try to reach out to him ahead of the meeting just to let him know it was happening?  And/or is POTUS or anyone else, Jake or someone, planning on calling Netanyahu after Gantz leaves just to kind of keep him apprised of the discussions, or are you just leaving that to Gantz himself to do?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to today on this.  Again, Minister Gantz is a member of the war cabinet — a member of the war cabinet in the middle of a war, a war in which we are trying to help Israel and will continue to help Israel — and wanted to meet with U.S. officials.  And it was an opportunity not only to hear from him but also to relay our continued concerns about humanitarian assistance, about the importance of getting this hostage deal over the finish line.  And so, we’re going to take advantage of that opportunity. 
 
Q    Still rather unusual, though, for the Prime Minister to not approve of a meeting and for it to go ahead anyway.  So can you just kind of speak to the decision to go ahead with it, regardless of whether, you know, Bibi’s office kind of gave its blessings?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, I think I — I mean, obviously, we certainly recognize Prime Minister Netanyahu as the elected prime minister of the government of Israel, and we will continue to deal with him and with his entire war cabinet.  Mr. Gantz is a part of that war cabinet.  I think I’ve kind of already answered that question.  He asked for a set of meetings while he was here in Washington.  A member of the war cabinet of a country at war, an ally and a partner.  We weren’t going to just overlook that opportunity to have that discussion.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Alex Ward of Politico.
 
Q    Yep.  Thanks, John.  One quick clarification on Vice President Harris’s ceasefire comment.  I want to make sure that her main target for that comment was Hamas when she was talking about the need to agree to a six-week ceasefire. 
 
And then, secondly, USAID Administrator Power said today, after talking to aid workers, that, quote, “There’s a need for Israel to do much more to get aid to those who desperately need it.”  I know the administration has talked openly — you know, said consistently that more aid needs to get in, but she’s saying that this is mainly — or this is on Israel.  Is that the administration’s assessment?  Is she speaking for the administration on that?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, Alex, can you repeat the second question?  You were going really fast there.  I was just trying to keep up with you.
 
Q    No, fair enough.  The countdown clock had me a little worried there. 
 
So she said today, after speaking with aid workers, quote, “There’s a need for Israel to do much more to get aid to those who desperately need it.”  So just making sure — I know you guys have said more aid needs to get in; you said it today.  But she’s fingering Israel as the problem here.  Just making sure that that is, you know, reflective of the administration’s view that Israel needs to do more to get aid in.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Alex.  So, on your first question, I mean, the short answer to it is yes.  I mean, she was very clear that there’s a deal on the table and Hamas needs to take that deal.  So, yes, she was definitely communicating to Hamas the importance of accepting this deal, a deal which I have described as forward leaning that the Israelis have put forward.  So, yes, clearly, that was a strong message to Hamas to accept this deal and let’s move forward. 
 
And I want to remind everybody again that the six-week ceasefire she was talking about, the temporary ceasefire she was talking about was in the context of this hostage deal.  It’s all a package.  You get six weeks of peace with no fighting.  That allows you to safely and effectively get all the hostages out.  Again, we’re talking about multiple tranches.  And there’s physical movement of people that has to be accomplished, and you can’t do that if it’s a combat zone. 
 
So it’s all part of a package deal that would — again, six weeks of no fighting: That will certainly help reduce civilian casualties and the damage to civilian infrastructure, give you the chance to do a multitiered approach of getting hostages out and not unimportantly — and this kind of gets to your second question — an increase of humanitarian assistance in. 
 
And, yes, you heard from the President, when he met with Prime Minister Meloni on Friday, that we believe Israel can and should do more to allow humanitarian assistance to get in unimpeded.  This, kind of, gets back to Steve Holland’s first question right at the beginning of the gaggle about whether Israel is holding things up and whether they’re responsible for some delays or obstacles.  And the answer is that there has been such — there have been such incidents where they have not been either able or willing, or maybe both, to keep the trucks going at an increased level. 
 
I mean, clearly, there’s a desperate need for this stuff.  And that’s why we have now taken on the role of dropping from the air, and we’ll continue to do that too to supplement. 
 
But honestly, the way to do this in scale, true scale and scope, is on the ground, through trunk convoys.  You just can’t replicate the volume and the speed with which you can do this as you can on the ground.  And that requires a lot of coordination between Israel, obviously other partners, but including and most especially aid organizations on the ground.  And just more needs to be done.  And we’ve been, yes, clear that Israel bears a responsibility here to do more.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Karen DeYoung with the Washington Post.  Karen, you should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    You said that Israel has agreed to the framework, and the ball is in Hamas’s court.  When the initial framework came out after the Paris meetings, both sides responded with additional — with changes and additional response.  Is what’s on the table now incorporating those changes in response from both sides, or is it Israel’s side and you’ve given it to Hamas as a last offer — in other words, take it or leave it?
 
Just as one example, the Hamas response demanded more crossings be open, which is something that the United States has also demanded.  Is that something that Israel has now agreed to?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, again, I’m going to be careful here, Karen, not to get into the specific details of the deal.  Nothing is negotiated until everything is negotiated.  And we’re still, obviously, in that process right now. 
 
But the short answer to your question is: Yes, there was back-and-forth, as you know — proposals and counterproposals — between the two sides over recent weeks.  And we believe that the deal that’s on the table now reflects the give-and-take through those negotiations — the back-and-forth, the proposals and counterproposals.
 
We believe it’s reflective of the concerns that both sides have voiced and hashed out.  But again, there’s still the details in front of us.  We believe that the deal on the table does reflect all that negotiation, and Hamas should take it up.
 
Q    If I could just — does that include opening more crossings for aid?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into the specifics of the deal, as I said, Karen, but I also said in my opening statements that we continue to call on Israel to open up additional ground crossings beyond just Kerem Shalom and Rafah — or Kerem Shalom, because Rafah is obviously not in Israel.
 
But, yes, we are calling on Israel to open up additional ground crossings.  But that’s not — I don’t want to get into the details of the deal itself.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Asma Khalid with NPR. 
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks, John, for doing this.  I have two quick questions.  One is around the meeting that Jake is having today with Benny Gantz.  What is the message that Jake is trying to deliver to him?  And relatedly, are you all concerned at all about agitating the current Israeli government?
 
And then, secondly, what is your understanding of why Hamas has not agreed to the six-week temporary ceasefire deal?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Hang on.  I’m just writing it all down here. 
 
So, on the meeting between Jake and Benny Gantz, again, we’ll have a readout for you after that meeting is over.  And as you know, he will also be meeting with the Vice President. 
 
I think it’s safe to say, before we’ve done readouts in meetings, that both Jake and the Vice President will talk to Minister Gantz about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the need to increase aid.  I think it’s safe to say that they’ll talk about progress of operations on the ground.  Certainly they’ll want to get a better sense from the Minister and the war cabinet where their thinking is with respect to operations in and around Rafah. 
 
And I think you can expect that they will also talk about the hostage deal itself.  Separate and aside from humanitarian assistance writ large, he’ll also want to talk to the Minister about getting this hostage deal implemented, getting it executed, getting it in place so that we can get that six weeks of no fighting, get all the hostages out, as well as, of course, getting opportunities to increase the aid. 
 
But those will be the main topics of discussion.  And, again, we’ll have a readout for you. 
 
I’ve already dealt with the issue of the Prime Minister stating concerns about Minister Gantz’s travel.  So I really don’t have anything more to add on that question. 
 
And I simply won’t negotiate here in public.  You asked me why has Hamas not signed on to it.  I think that’s a terrific question for Mr. Sinwar.  It is a forward-leaning proposal.  We believe it’s a solid proposal.  And we believe that it is in everyone’s best interest, including Hamas, for them to sign on on this and to move forward with it.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think we have time for one more question, so we’ll go to Fraser Jackson with France 24.
 
Q    Hi, Sam.  Thank you, Admiral.  I was late to the call, so sorry if this has already been asked.  But I wanted to ask about the tape — the conversation that Russia leaked between top German military officials.  Russia says that it’s proof that Germany is seeking war with Russia.  Germany has vehemently denied that.  Is there any U.S. assessment of this leak and how it was obtained?
 
MR. KIRBY:  It’s proof that the Russians want to sow division and discord and try to demonstrate that the West is divided.  And that’s what it’s proof of.  And obviously, none of that’s true. 
 
I’m not going to speak to the content in this leak.   The Germans are investigating it, and I think I’d refer you to them.  But as I said earlier, they have been a key friend, ally, and partner in this effort.  They have really stepped up to support Ukraine.  We’re grateful for that.  We’re grateful for Chancellor Scholz’s leadership.
 
And the last thing I’ll say is: Any validity that anybody gives to this only makes it easier for Putin to sell this ridiculous narrative that this is some sort of war between the West and Russia, the U.S. and Russia, NATO and Russia, or any other way he wants to couch this.  That’s exactly what he wants people to think, instead of what really happened here, which is: In February, two years ago, he decided to attack and invade a neighboring nation that posed no threat to him or anybody else, for that matter.  So nobody should buy into the rhetoric here.  That’s it. 
 
Q    Is there any U.S. assessment that Putin is using the hesitancy of the U.S. to send more Ukraine aid?  Is he trying to weaponize that to take advantage of it in the war?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, I mean, you don’t have to look any further than the air attacks that he continues to conduct, whether it’s cruise and/or ballistic missiles and/or drones.  He’s going after military targets in Ukraine, of course, and he’s going after the defense industrial base.  But he’s also throwing a hell of a lot of metal into the air so that he can get the Ukrainians to fire back at it and defend themselves, because he knows they’re working their way through inventory right now. 
 
So part of this is trying to get them to pare down their inventory because he knows that the United States is now not able to send a significant amount of support and aid to Ukraine. So he’s certainly taking advantage of what he’s seeing happen on Capitol Hill.  And the dysfunction in our own system up there on Capitol Hill is definitely giving him an opportunity to place his own military positions at greater advantage. 
 
And I’ll tell you, look — I mean, again, I talked about this last week but still true today: He’s not stopping, not on the ground either.  He’s got Avdiivka.  And over the last few days, he’s taken a couple other towns and villages to the west of Avdiivka.  He’s moving forward against Ukrainian defensive lines, defensive lines that they are having a harder time defending and holding because they’re not getting the support from the United States that they have been counting on. 
 
So it’s way past time for us to get that national security supplemental passed, way past time for us to start restocking Ukrainian shelves so that they can better defend themselves. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thank you, everyone, again for joining.  Sorry again for the audio issue at the top.  Again, we’ll have a transcript out in a few hours. 
 
And if we weren’t able to get to you, feel free to reach out to the NSC press distro and we’ll try to get back as soon as we can.  Thanks.
 
2:31 P.M. EST
 

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

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

Via Teleconference

11:42 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Everyone, good morning.  Thanks so much for joining today’s call on the humanitarian assistance airdrop into Gaza today.
 
As a reminder, the contents of today’s call are on background, attributable to senior administration officials.  This call is embargoed until the conclusion of the call.
 
On the line today, for your awareness, not for your reporting, we have [senior administration official], [senior administration official], and [senior administration official].
 
We’ll have a few words at the top, and then we’ll turn it over to Q&A.  With that, I’ll turn it over to our speakers to kick us off.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, Eduardo.  And, you know, we really want to start here, at the top, by expressing our condolences from everyone at the White House to the families of those who were killed and those who were injured in the tragic incident that took place in northern Gaza this week.
 
And this tragic incident underscores the importance of expanding and sustaining the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza in response to the dire humanitarian situation.  But this is something that we have been working on collectively, at the highest levels of the U.S. government, since well before this incident occurred.
 
Really, since the beginning of the conflict, the United States has been leading efforts to get lifesaving humanitarian aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering of innocent Palestinians who have nothing to do with Hamas.
 
For example, President Biden pushed relentlessly and made significant progress in terms of humanitarian access in Gaza, engaging personally to get an agreement from the leaders of Israel and Egypt to cooperate on the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians into Gaza.  Really, before the President engaged in this area, there was no food, no water, and no medicine getting into Gaza. 
 
And it was the President’s visit to Israel, just after the tragic attack of October 7th, that secured the opening of the Rafah crossing into Egypt. 
 
In December, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan traveled to Israel and secured the opening of the Kerem Shalom crossing, which has allowed additional aid to enter Gaza from southern Israel.
 
Soon after the incident of October 7th, the President appointed Ambassador David Satterfield our Special Envoy for Middle East Humanitarian Issues, who has been on the ground sorting through the various procedures and requirements to get additional assistance through these border crossings and, really, to expand those to the greatest extent possible.
 
We, as the United States, have been the largest provider of aid to the Gaza response.  And thus far, we’ve provided $180 million since October 7th.  And this has been responding to the humanitarian crisis and the needs of the Palestinian people, which has really been priority for us since day one, since the conflict began.   
 
But the truth is — and you heard the President talk about this yesterday — that the aid flowing into Gaza is nowhere near enough and nowhere near fast enough.  And we continue to work to increase the amount of aid flowing through existing border crossings at Rafah and Kerem Shalom and to press the government of Israel to open additional crossings and routes into Gaza.
 
Yesterday, President Biden announced that we would carry out airdrops of aid into Gaza, and I’ll talk a little bit more about that in a moment.
 
We have also been working on additional pathways to get assistance into Gaza.  We have been in touch with officials in Israel, in Cyprus, working with the U.N., working with potential commercial entities, to see if we can set up a maritime route as well that would deliver assistance directly into Gaza by sea.
 
But back to the airdrops: Today, as the Central Command just put out, the Department of Defense and the Royal Jordanian Air Force conducted a combined humanitarian assistance airdrop into Gaza between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m.  And this, of course, is to provide the essential relief to civilians affected by the ongoing conflict.
 
Our C-130s dropped 38,000 meals along the coastline of Gaza, allowing for civilian access to the critical assistance.  And those locations were chosen specifically as areas where we thought people would be able to best access the aid.
 
There were 66 total bundles, 22 on each aircraft, which were dropped into Gaza to help alleviate the intense hunger and desperate situation there. 
 
This will be part of a sustained effort, in conjunction with our international partners, to scale up the amount of life-saving aid we’re getting into Gaza.
 
And really want to make clear this is, kind of, an overall campaign.  We’re looking at the land routes, we’re looking at the sea route, we’re looking at the air route to really ensure that we’re exploring every opportunity to get assistance in. 
 
And I think with that, let me turn it over to [senior administration official] to give a bit more of his perspective from the ground.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure, thank you.  Just to give you a little bit of background to all of this, the mechanisms that [senior administration official] referred to — opening up Kerem Shalom and making (inaudible) function as an inspection point; more efficiently coordination with Egypt, not just on humanitarian assistance, but commercial goods coming in from Egypt; opening up a channel from Jordan for international assistance headed up to Kerem Shalom — all of these mechanisms have been working. 
 
The challenge has not been getting 250, 300 trucks-load of assistance physically into Gaza.  The problem has been distribution, and distribution is what matters.  If you cannot move assistance from storage facilities, from warehouses — Kerem Shalom, Rafah — out to the communities at need throughout center and south Gaza; if you cannot get aid into the north — and that has been a major challenge since October — you’re not meeting the critical needs to provide that minimal feeding that prevents famine. 
 
Why is there a problem?  The problem has multiple routes.  But essentially what has gone on is: With the removal of police from the protective duties, U.N. and other convoys, Emirati, Jordanian, Palestine Red Crescent, lawlessness, which was always a problem in the background, has now moved to a very different level.  This is a product of, if you will, commercialization of the assistance; criminal gangs are taking it, looting it, reselling it.  They’ve monetized humanitarian assistance. 
 
There’s a way that you resolve this problem, and the way is you flood the market.  You bring in assistance from every point you can — air, sea, land — you bring it in, and you know that some of this assistance is going to be looted, is going to be self-distributed by desperate people, but you keep coming.  And what you do through that — and there’s international experience with this — you demonetize these commodities.  And with that, you de-incentivize the criminal groups, the gangs involved in attacking trucks, and you reduce the pressure on desperate people, not criminals, who just want food — because the food is there; it’s coming in. 
 
Now, the President’s intent is to see that flooding of the zone, which is why, to go to [senior administration official]’s comments, it is imperative that as many points of entry — the south; points of entry in the north, which we have been pressing for vigorously and about which we are hopeful; a maritime corridor; airdrops — all of them complement the other. 
 
And just a final note here: None of these — maritime corridor, airdrops — are an alternative to the fundamental need to move assistance through as many land crossings as possible.  That’s the most efficient way to get aid in at scale.  It’s the most efficient way to flood the zone. 
 
Thank you.
 
MODERATOR:  Okay.  I want to turn it next to [senior administration official] to give us an update on the hostage deal that is being negotiated and also how that relates to the humanitarian situation.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thanks.  I’ll be very brief.  But just to follow on the points of my colleagues: To really address the urgent needs of the civilian population in Gaza and to enable the humanitarian partners to safely distribute and get that distribution moving — the lifesaving aid — throughout Gaza, from north to center to south, at the scale that is needed, it’s essential that we see a ceasefire in Gaza. 
 
And the path to a ceasefire right now, literally at this hour, is straightforward.  And there’s a deal on the table.  There’s a framework deal.  The Israelis have more or less accepted it.  And there will be a six-week ceasefire in Gaza starting today if Hamas agrees to release the defined category of vulnerable hostages — this has been under negotiation now for some time — the sick, the wounded, elderly, and women. 
 
And again, that deal is on the table.  It would bring immediate relief to the people of Gaza, create the conditions needed to enable the urgent humanitarian work that must be done, that my colleagues just referred to.  And the onus right now is on Hamas. 
 
So there are talks still underway.  They’re ongoing today in Doha.  And we have been working to get this in place by Ramadan for some time.  There has been significant progress over the last few weeks.  But like all things, until a deal is actually done, it’s not done. 
 
But that’s where we are.  The President, as you know, spoke with the emir of Qatar and the president of Egypt this week, both on the hostage deal, really on the details and the remaining gaps. 
 
But we’re working around the clock to see if we can get this in place here over the coming week.  It is just essential for all the reasons that my colleagues just laid out, but also to save the lives of these vulnerable hostages. 
 
And I think, again, we have it; the framework is there.  The Israelis have basically signed on to the elements of the arrangement.  And right now, the ball is in the court of Hamas. 
 
And we are continuing to push this as hard as we possibly can, obviously for all the reasons that I just laid out and that my colleagues just briefed.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  We have time for three or four questions.  Our first question will go to the line of Seung Min Kim.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks so much for holding this call.  I know the second senior administration official talked about how some of the aid is inevitably going to be taken by other bad actors.  But in terms of the airdrop today, did the aid mostly get to where it needed to go?  And who are you partnering with on the ground with to ensure that it’s being distributed correctly?  And also, did the shipments also include water?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can take that one.
 
We’ve been monitoring the location where the assistance was dropped since earlier, when the operation occurred, and we have seen civilians approaching the aid to distribute it amongst themselves.  And the sites were specifically chosen as ones where we thought there was the greatest likelihood of safety.  But this is being dropped in areas where we know — that are nearby, where people are sheltering and in need. 
 
Oh, and no, there was not water included.  It was food items — Meals Ready to Eat.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to the line of Vivian Salama.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey, guys.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I just wanted to get a status update on if the President has looked at possible maritime aid as well.  And so, can you talk a little bit about the imminence, or not, of that and any complications that you’re facing with regard to any potential maritime deliveries?  Thanks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can take this one.  The President has instructed us to explore all possible options.  As [senior administration official] noted, they include commercial options, they include USG options.  This is a complex puzzle that has to be put together.  (Inaudible.)  (Audio drop) — set as rapidly as we can.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Jeff Mason.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks very much.  Just a couple of follow-up questions.  Can you say broadly whether you feel that Israel is cooperating enough on getting aid into Gaza?  Do you feel that having done this, having had to do this airdrop today, is a statement at all on their cooperation?
 
And then, a logistical question.  Can you give us a sense of where the U.S. planes took off from?  And did you coordinate with Hamas for the safety of the aircraft?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take this. 
 
Look, the airdrops were an indication of the critical need on the part of the population of Gaza, particularly the population in the north.  The assistance and its movement into and within Gaza is an ongoing challenge.  The challenge is from various sources.  But it is not a reflection on Israel or Israeli practices.  It’s a reflection on need.  The need is there.  The need in the north is absolutely critical.  The need in the south and the center is growing.  So I want to clarify on that. 
 
[Senior administration official], over to you on the details of the drop logistics.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you.  Yes, the airdrops were conducted jointly with the Jordanian Air Force.  You saw U.S. C-130s, Jordanian C-130s operating out of Jordan. 
 
And the site was, of course, worked through in terms of finding a location where we thought it would be most likely to land safely but also near a population that was in need.  But it was not deconflicted — or was not, I should say, coordinated with any specific group on the ground.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Missy Ryan.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Great.  Thank you so much.  I just wanted to ask if you could speak about what we should expect going forward about the frequency of these kind of drops, as you all look into the maritime options as well.  Is this something that you expect to be happening on a daily basis?  And if there’s anything you could say about the extent to which this will go to address the needs that are facing Gazans.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think I would just say that the fact that today’s airdrop was successful is an important test case to show that we can do this again in the coming days and weeks successfully. 
 
And we — our colleagues at DOD are planning additional drops.  But nothing further to share there in terms of timing.
 
I think, really, just to go back to what I said at the beginning, the fact that we are exploring every avenue, every channel, to get assistance into Gaza really just, I think, goes to speak to how dire and desperate the situation is there. 
 
So we will continue to pursue air options, maritime options, as well as pushing for additional land routes into Gaza.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Josh Wingrove.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey there.  Thank you.  I’m just wondering if you can share any more about the status of talks.  You describe the Israelis as being more or less on board.  Has that been the case for some time?  Is that the case as of today or recently?  And how can you help us level-set the possibility for an agreement?  Is it potentially a day or two, or in the coming week?  Is it just too hard to say?  Thank you. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think these negotiations have kind of a pattern to them.  So if you go back over the last month, I think — about a month ago, it was really at a deadlock.  A framework began to develop.  And then the week before this one, we worked very hard with the Israelis to get a framework that is pretty much in the zone of a compromise amongst all the positions that had been on the table, and is a good one. 
 
And we had a number of meetings in Israel last week — again, not the week that’s just finishing, but last week.  And then the meeting in Paris kind of put that all together.  And, yeah, the Israelis have basically accepted what is — I think it’s been described — I don’t want to negotiate here or go into too much detail — but it is a six-week ceasefire.  You would see, for all the reasons that [senior administration official] has briefed, that calm would allow and enable a significant surge of the humanitarian work that has to be done.  That is all kind of laid out. 
 
And the deal is phased, as the President has said.  You know, we’ve worked to build something even more enduring. 
 
But again, it’s a hostage — the hostages have to be released.  And this vulnerable category of hostages, which is in the first phase, I mean, that is the deal.  And it’s now at the point of how will that happen and is Hamas committed to doing that.  That’s really the main issue now. 
 
And so, I just want to kind of emphasize — I mean, we would have a ceasefire if Hamas addresses that final issue.  I mean, that’s basically where it is. 
 
So it’s a lot of hard work from the Egyptians, the Qataris, from diplomats, from the President.  Repeated calls with the Israeli leadership and with the leadership of Qatar and Egypt.  And, you know, the deal is basically there. 
 
But I don’t want to create expectations one way or the other.  I’ll just say we’re doing everything we possibly can to get this in place, just given the importance, and to save the lives of these hostages and bring them out of Gaza, including American citizens.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ve got time for two more questions.  Our next question will go to the line of Felicia Schwartz.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks so much for taking my question.  One for [senior administration official] and one for [senior administration official].
 
I’m wondering how long you think that this proposal, as it exists now, can kind of stay on the table.  If Ramadan starts and this doesn’t move over the finish line, is that kind of the end for this version?
 
And then, just for [senior administration official] or maybe [senior administration official]: In terms of what was dropped today, were there also trucks that were able to get in today?  Can you just give us a sense of how you’re seeing this aid complement — you know, how it fits into this broader picture?  I think it’s something like 30 or 35 trucks that have been able to get in the past few days, but that number might be wrong.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think — just want to say on the first one: I just — I don’t want to really characterize one way or the other.  A lot of work has been done here to get this in place.  We’re doing all we can to get it finalized as soon as possible.  And I think I’ll leave it there.  And that’s going to continue. 
 
We’ve always wanted this in place for Ramadan — to have a Ramadan period in which you have calm and you’re able to do the essential humanitarian work that is the focus of this call.  You know, this deal would enable that.  And so we’re going to continue doing all we possibly can. 
 
And again, I think right now, because where — the ball is literally in the court of Hamas.  And so, the Qataris have work to do.  The Egyptians have work to do.  That was the focus of the President’s calls this week.  But I would just say it is a complicated deal.  It is more complex than the first deal in November that was a five-day deal, extended day by day.  This is a six-week deal, and it has the potential to extend from there. 
 
But the first category is this category of vulnerable hostages — again, sick, elderly, and women.  And we want to get them out of Gaza, and we think we have the deal in place.  And we’re going to just keep pushing at it.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  With respect to trucks moving north, it’s our understanding that trucks have indeed moved, both last night and again today.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our last question will go to the line of Hiba Nasr.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks.  My question is to you: One, you say about the hostage deal.  I want to understand: When you say there’s a framework of a deal on the table and everything is agreed on with the Israelis, is Hamas objecting a specific detail in the deal?  This is my first question. 
 
And my second question: How do you respond to the critics that what’s happening, and the airdrops now in Gaza, is humiliating for the United States because you weren’t able to get the aid any other way, and this is also another sign that you don’t have leverage over the Israeli government?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, on the first one, I think I’ve spoken to it in terms of where things stand, and I think I’ll leave it there. 
 
The deal is: This category of vulnerable hostages comes out, and you have an immediate ceasefire for about — again, it’s the first phase — six weeks.  And then there’s the second phase that we have to work out over those six weeks to build something more enduring, as the President has said. 
 
So that’s where we are.  The formula is there after a lot of hard work.  And we’re going to keep doing all we can to get this in place. 
 
But that is the immediate path to calm, to relief — the release of this vulnerable category of hostages.  That is on the table now.  And, you know, we’re going to work to try to get that done.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  With the second question: Look, we’ve made clear that the U.S. President’s intent is to get as much assistance distributed within Gaza as is possible. 
 
The situation on the ground in Gaza is enormously complex.  There is a campaign going on.  And just to note before the webinar ends, the campaign is going on for a reason.  It’s because a terrorist group holding hostages, including Americans, is continuing to fight and attack.  They could stop this — Hamas could — tonight, instantly, and allow the free movement of assistance, medicine, care to go to the civilians of Gaza with whom, under whom, in whose homes they have embedded themselves for these past 17 years. 
 
Now, in this complex world, we’ve got to find every possible way to move assistance to those in need.  The airdrops are part of that process. 
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  Let us know if you have any follow-up questions.  We’re happy to take those. 
 
As a reminder, this call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials.  And the embargo is now lifted.  Have a good rest of your day.
 
2:07 P.M. EST
 

The post Background Press Call on the Humanitarian Assistance Airdrop into Gaza appeared first on The White House.

(March 1, 2024)

2:39 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Happy Friday.

Sorry, just give me a second.  All right.  Well —

So, I want to start by saying happy Women’s History Month and reaffirm this administration’s commitment to advancing rights and opportunities for women and girls in the United States and around the world.

This President has proudly championed historic legislation to advance gender equity, including legislation to support women in the workplace, such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the Speak Out Act, and the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, and to ensure all people can live free from violence through the strengthening and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

The President is also proud of having the most diverse group of women at the highest levels of government in U.S. history, including the first woman Vice President and the first gender-equal Cabinet.

But, of course, we’re celebrating this month at a perilous time for women.  Our most fundamental freedoms are under relentless attack.

Since the unprecedented and unconscionable dismantling of the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade — in Roe v. Wade, we have seen an onslaught of abortion bans and other attacks on women’s reproductive freedom.

Look at what happened just this week.  After the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling put IVF at risk and raised issues about whether it would be available in other states, congressional Republicans rushed to proclaim their support for IVF. 

On Wednesday, though, Senator Duckworth introduced a bill that would protect access to IVF in every state, and Senate Republicans blocked it.  It’s completely outrageous. 

President Biden and Vice President Harris believe every woman in this country should have the freedom to make the decision to have a child.  That includes the one in five women struggling with infertility and who may need to rely on IVF.  This is just another basic issue of reproductive freedom now under attack.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it paved the road for Republican elected officials to pursue their extreme agenda for families in Alabama and across the country.  And no attempts to publicly rebrand can change the fact that Republican elected officials have spent decades trying to eliminate the constitutional right to choose and undermine reproductive freedom. 

President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state. 

And more broadly, not just during this woman’s month history [Women’s History Month] but every day.  We remain committed to continuing this important work and service of advancing the full participation of women, a fund- — a foundational tenet to our democracy. 

And next, as you heard from President Biden earlier, today is an important milestone in ensuring access to mifepristone, a drug that has been approved by the FDA as — as a safe and effective — as safe and effective for more than 20 years, with major retail pharmacy chains newly certified to dispense this medicine.  Many woman — women will soon make the option to pick up their prescription at a local, certified pharmacy, just as they would for any other medication.  The administration continues to encourage all pharmacies that want to pursue this option to seek certification. 

In the face of relentless attacks on reproductive freedom by Republican elected officials, the President and the Vice President will continue to fight to ensure that women can get the healthcare they need, including mifepristone.  And we will continue to — to defend the FDA’s independent and evidence-based approval of this medicine and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law. 

And today, we are also praying for the two lives lost in Texas as a result of the historic wildfires impacting the region.  We’re also thinking of the thousands of residents who have had to evacuate, many losing everything — everything they own as a result of these ongoing fires.

We remain grateful to the first responders on the ground who continue to put themselves into harm’s way to protect people and save lives.  With over 1 million acres burned, this is the largest wildfire in the history of Texas.  And unfortunately, this fight is not over. 

But as the President said when he was in Texas yesterday, the Biden-Harris administration is doing everything possible to help the people and communities devastated by these fires.  Hundreds of federal fire- — firefighters have been deployed to help fight the blaze, along with critical fire suppression equipment.  And FEMA has provided financial assistance to ensure Texas and Oklahoma have the resources they need to fight these fires and keep people safe. 

We continue to encourage those in the affected areas to remain vigilant and heed the warnings of local officials, especially if you are ordered to evacuate.  As always, we stand ready to provide further support as needed. 

And finally, yesterday, as you all know, the President traveled to Brownsville, Texas, and heard directly from the Border Patrol, asylum officers, and immigration enforcement officials about operational realities on the ground.  These officials emphasized the need for additional resources to secure the border and to make our asylum system fairer and faster. 

That is why, months ago, President Biden ordered his team to negotiate in good faith with a bipartisan group of senators to deliver significant policy changes and additional resources to the border.  And after months of negotiations, the President and the bipartisan group of senators reached the toughest and fairest border security and immigration agreement in decades. 

But once again, you heard the President yesterday highlight how critical that agreement is to securing our border.  You heard President Biden focused on solutions that would deliver for the frontline personnel and deliver for the American people. 

But elsewhere, the American people heard a much different story when congressional Republicans rejected the bipartisan border security agreement because, by their own admission, former President Trump thought it would hurt him politically. 

They showed the American people that, to them, partisan politics is more important than our border security.  When Governor Abbott chooses to use migrants as political pawns and leave them by the side of the road in the dead of winter, he shows Republicans are more interested in politics than solutions. 

Republicans called for policy changes at the border.  We have a bipartisan border security agreement that is supported by the Border Patrol union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal, and the bipartisan South Texas Alliance of Cities.  It is time for Republicans to stop — to stop blocking that agreement, put politics aside, and provide border officials with the tools and resources they need to secure the border.

With that, I — Admiral John Kirby is here to give us an update on what’s going on in the Middle East. 

Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.  Appreciate that.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  I want to just start by talking about the tragic and alarming event in Northern Gaza yesterday in which many Palestinian civilians lost their lives while seeking humanitarian aid and assistance in the — a dire situation on the ground there.  We express our deepest condolences to the families of those who were killed and, of course, all those who are hurt as well. 

As you know, we’ve asked the government of Israel to investigate.  And it’s our assessment that they’re taking this seriously, and they are looking into what occurred so as to avoid tragedies like this from happening again. 

This event underscores the importance, we believe, of expanding and sustaining the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza since so much of it is in need.  And by no means should what happened yesterday preclude or prevent additional humanitarian assistance from getting in. 

I think, as you all know, the United States remains the largest provider of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.  And you heard directly from the President today that we’re going to — that we need to do more, and the United States will do more. 

As a matter of fact, as the President just announced, the United States will carry out airdrops of aid into Gaza in coordination with our international partners, particularly Jordan, in the coming days. 

We’re also going to redouble our efforts to open up a humanitarian maritime corridor to deliver amounts of humanitarian assistance by sea — hopefully large amounts by sea. 

This is, of course, in addition to expanding deliveries by land, which we have been keenly focused on now for — for many months.  We’ll continue to push Isra- — Israel to facilitate more trucks going in and more routes being open so that more aid can get to more people.  We’re going to continue to pull out every stop to get more aid to people who desperately need it. 

Now, as you all know, a deal that would trigger a six-week ceasefire is currently on the table.  In addition to the additional flow of aid that would come with that deal, we’re continuing to work to make sure that we can get the hostages out as well, and to see a reduction in the violence.

With the fighting stopped, aid will be able to flow more freely and, we hope, at an increased level and, of course, the hostages — starting with women, the elderly, and the wounded — can be released in stages and returned to their families.  And, again, we’re going to keep our shoulder to the wheel on that and work that very, very hard in coming days. 

Now, of course, as you all know, President Biden is glad to welcome Prime Minister Meloni of Italy to the White House today for a bilateral meeting to reaffirm the strong bilateral relationship that we have with Italy.  In fact, the meeting just started. 

Italy is the president of the G7 this year.  President Biden has been looking forward to the opportunity to coordinate with Prime Minister Meloni on their shared priorities for the G7 and the NATO Leaders Summits that are happening this summer. 

As you heard from the President just a little bit ago, the two leaders will, of course, discuss shared challenges on a range of global challenges that include humanitarian assistance for Palestinians, as well as the need to prevent regional escalation in the Middle East and to protect international shipping in the Red Sea. 

The leaders will also underscore their commitment to continue to support Ukraine as it confronts Russian aggression.  The President will, of course, raise the efforts that we’ve been pursuing to see our supplemental funding approved by Congress. 

The President appreciates Prime Minister Meloni’s leadership on all those issues.  And he looks forward to a very good discussion with her.

With that —

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

MR. KIRBY:  — I’ll take some questions.

Q    Just to triple check, when — when the President said we were airdropping to Ukraine twice, he meant Gaza, correct?  He just misspoke?

MR. KIRBY:  He was referring to Gaza.

Q    Just want to make sure. 

And can you talk about how the U.S. ensures that the airdropped aid gets to the people who needs it and doesn’t end up in the hands of Hamas?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m really glad you asked that question, actually.  Having seen these kinds of operations myself over many years, there’s few military operations that are more complicated than humanitarian assistance airdrops.  This is — this is a tough military mission to do because so many parameters have to be exactly right. 

We’re going to pursue this the way we would pursue any such operation: carefully.  We know we have to move with a sense of alacrity.  We’re alive to the need.  But — but we’re going to do this in concert with our Jordanian partners.  And, again, the planning will be robust on this. 

That said, I think — I don’t “think” — I know that we will learn from the first airdrops and this will be a part of a sustained effort.  This isn’t going to be one and done.  There will be additional airdrops planned and executed.  And with each one, I think we’ll learn more, and we’ll get — we’ll get better at them. 

It’s very difficult.  It is extremely difficult to do an airdrop in such a crowded environment, as is Gaza.  Very, very densely populated.  A lot of people confined to small spaces.  So, you want to do it in a way that you can get it to — close — as close as you can to the people in need but not in a way that puts them in any danger. 

And so, the Pentagon will be doing a raft of planning on this.  They’ll work their way through that.  But I do want to stress that we fully expect that the — the third and fourth and fifth one won’t look like the first and second one.  We’ll learn and we’ll — and we’ll try to improve. 

Q    And are you able to be more precise than “coming days” as to when the airdrops will start?

MR. KIRBY:  I can just tell you “in coming days,” as the President said.  I don’t have an exact delivery schedule for you.  But we’re not waiting around.  And the Pentagon is working on this very, very hard. 

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, Admiral.  What are the risks associated with an airdrop like this?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, my goodness, first of all, the biggest risk is making sure that nobody gets hurt on the ground.  And so, you got to locate out areas to drop that you know will be safe for people so that they don’t — they don’t become victims of the drop itself.  I mean, when you’re dropping out of an airplane — again, it depends on what you’re dropping — in this case, the first deliveries will be food, most likely the MREs, the — the portable food that the military uses. 

And so, you want to be able to get it, again, in a place that’s safe from — nobody is getting hurt on the ground.  And then you want to make sure that it’s in a location that is also accessible to aid organizations to help distribute that food so that you want — you want to see, as best you can — and it may not be possible in Gaza — but, as best you can, a presence on the ground to help with the distribution so that — so that it — the drop itself doesn’t become a scene or a site of insecurity and instability, people rushing it and getting hurt in trying to get to it. 

And then, lastly, the big challenge is making sure that it’s physically in a — in a geographic location that is close to people that are — that are most in need. 

So, there’s an awful lot that goes into that.  And, of course, then, you know, there’s the whole air component of that — you know, the weather and the winds and the — you know, the — the need for the pilots and the aircraft to be safe as well. 

I mean, this is not — you know, this isn’t like an area of a humanitarian disaster such as an earthquake or — or a hurricane site.  This is a warzone.  So, there’s an added element of potential danger to the pilots and the aircraft.  And we have to factor that all in, too.

Q    Can you talk about the timing of the airdrops and why the U.S. hasn’t considered or hasn’t done one before now, given that this need for aid is not new?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ve been working on the idea for airdrops here for — for a little while — the idea of thinking about — through whether we need to do this. 

So — but, again, it’s not the kind of thing you want to just do in a heartbeat.  You want to think this — you want to think it through carefully.  And we’ve been doing that. 

But, certainly, the — the need is much more acute here in recent weeks.  And, again, we want to be — we want to answer that.

We had tried — and we still are trying — to get the ground movement increased.  And that’s another reason why we’re working so hard on this hostage deal, because it will give us some breathing space to increase that level of — of stuff on the ground.  But, obviously, it just hasn’t — we haven’t been able to — to meet the need. 

For all the work we’ve done to open up Kerem Shalom and work with the Israelis to increase the level, it just — it’s not meeting the need, and we recognize that.

Q    Thank you.

Q    How sustainable of an option does the President see these airdrops as — as being? 

And also, was there any communication between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu before this announcement today?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any conversations with the Prime Minister to — to speak to.  We obviously have been talking to our Israeli counterparts about this.  This is not going to come as a surprise to them that — that we’re considering doing this. 

In fact, they did one themselves a week or so ago.  And — and, certainly, we were — we were mindful of that.  They — they kept us informed.  So, no surprise to the Israelis that we’re doing this.

As for sustainability, we’ll have to see.  We’ll have to see how it goes. 

What I can tell you is that — in terms of how long, I can tell you that this first one coming in — in a few days will not be the last one.  It will be part of a larger, longer sustained effort to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance. 

I want to make another point, and that’s — it’s not just — you will see additional airdrops, but we’re also, as the President said, working on whether there can be a maritime component to this.  Is there a way to use shipping — maritime shipping and — you know, to try to get aid in from the coast as well as continuing our work to increase the flow on the ground?

I mean, the — the trucks are really — although it’s a — it’s a dangerous way to get aid in — and, tragically, we saw that yesterday — it’s also a very effective way of getting it in in scale.  Now, you can do that through — through the maritime effort, too, which is why we’re going to do that.

Q    Real quickly, did the maritime option start being considered after the Gaza attack?  Or has that been part of the discussion?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s been on the table before yesterday’s attack, yeah.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Can you just talk about the risks and how it actually works once — when it gets airdropped on the ground?  As you say, it’s very dense.  So, who takes the lead to actually distribute it, make sure it’s the right person?  Just, how does it work on the ground?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re working through all that, the — the modalities of that right now.  I mean, you want to make sure that, to the maximum degree possible, you’ve got aid organizations and partners on the ground that can help with the distribution — the collection of that and the distribution of that aid and — and to help us get it to the right people.  They’re the ones on the ground.  Whether it’s the U.N., whether it’s the World Food Program and others, they know where the needs are. 

Q    And can you talk about the size and scale of the impact here?  Is it equivalent to how many trucks — one airdrop, for instance?

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, look, on a — you know, one airdrop, which would be multiple pallets of — of material — you’re not just talking about, you know, one pallet, but you’ll have multiple pallets, depending on the size of the aircraft that we end up using and how much we drop — it can — can be, certainly, significant in terms of the size and scale and scope.  And the one advantage that it has over trucking is that it’s pretty quick.  I mean, it can — it c- — it can get to need, it can get to location pretty quickly. 

And as I said, we’ll try to do this in a sustainable way over time.  It will be a supplement to, not a replacement for, moving things in by ground.

Q    In terms of the maritime corridor, when do you think that could start?  And what are the key risks as you assess how to implement that?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we’re at the early stages right now of working our way through this.  There — there’s going to be a security component to that.  You want to make sure if you do it that — same thing, that you’re getting the aid to people that need it and that the folks that are getting it ashore can be safe.  It is a warzone. 

And, you know, again, you’re talking about doing things in the maritime environment.  You know, weather and other external conditions — things you can’t control, obviously — play a — play a role. 

So, we’re still at the beginning stages of working through what that’s going to look like. 

We — we are in a much — we’re much further along in terms of the being able to execute airdrops than we are a maritime corridor.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  You mentioned earlier that the — you’ve been working on the idea of airdrops for — for some time.  Were the tragic events in Gaza yesterday — did they help — did they, you know, encourage the President to accelerate that decision?  Did that sort of push him to — to push that decision forward?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we were working on this idea now, again, for some time here, knowing that we weren’t meeting the need totally through convoys. 

I think what yesterday’s event underscores, and certainly underscored for the President, is the need to continue to find alternative routes and alternative means of getting humanitarian assistance in to — to Gazans.  It certainly underscores the importance of that. 

But again, I want to be clear: This isn’t about replacing trucks.  It’s not about replacing ground routes in.  It’s about supplementing those ground routes. 

And the last thing I’d say is it — it also underscored for the President how vitally it is — important it is for us to get this deal in place, this six-week ceasefire so that we can increase the aid. 

Q    But when did he make the decision?  He made the decision yesterday after — the final decision, did he make that yesterday after these events in Gaza? 

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have an exact tick-tock of when he actually, you know, hit “Go.”  But in recent days, he certainly made it clear that he wanted to move forward in that direction.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nandita.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  You spoke about U.S. asking Israel to investigate the events yesterday.  Just want to understand why the U.S. believes Israel can do a good job investigating itself.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, as I said in my opening statement, we do think that the indications are that they’re taking this seriously.  You saw them, I think, put out a — a statement from their IDF spokesman last night walking through their initial assessments of what happened.  So, as far as we understand it, they’re still looking at this. 

And there have been examples in the past where they have investigated incidents and have been very honest and upfront about mistakes they’ve made for — at the IDF level in the past, and not — not distant past, either. 

So, let’s see what they — what they come up with.  Let’s see what they learn.  And then — and then we’ll go from there.

Q    Is there a separate investigation that you have commissioned?  Or are you waiting for Israel to come up with it?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ve asked Israel to investigate. 

Q    And is there a timeframe that you’re hoping they will finish this investigation by?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not — we’re not giving them a deadline.  I mean, obviously, we — we want to see as many answers as soon as possible because of the situation on the ground, because it’s so dire, because people are so desperate.  You know, we obviously want to make sure that appropriate steps are taken as soon as possible so that something like yesterday can’t happen again. 

Q    And the President said yesterday that, you know, he expects the — the events to disrupt the talks in Qatar.  Do you have any updates on how this could potentially impact those talks?  Are there any updates?

MR. KIRBY:  I think it’s too soon to know right now.  The — the talks are ongoing.  Negotiations are ongoing.  We still believe that — that they’re moving in the right direction.  But I think it’s too soon to know whether what happened yesterday is — is going to have a practical effect on it. 

I can tell you that we’re working very, very hard on this, as evidenced by the President’s phone call yesterday with the Emir of Qatar and the President of Egypt.  I mean, that should indicate to you just how hard we’re working on this.  And we’re still hopeful that we’ll be able to get there, hopefully, soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    I think you’ve gotten at this a little, but can you just articulate why the U.S. cannot simply just send this aid in over ground into Gaza?  What — what are the holdups on the Israeli side by sending the trucks in?  Why — why does it have to be by air?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, Kevin, it doesn’t have to just be by air.  In fact, as I said earlier, we’re — the idea of airdrops is to supplement the delivery on the ground.  And even though you can pack an awful lot into a military aircraft, you can’t replicate the size and scale and scope of a convoy of 20 or 30 trucks.  I mean, it’s still the best way to get the maximum amount of assistance in over the shortest period of time. 

So, the airdrops would be a supplement to that.  And as we have said many times, the process that has been set up that the Israelis have been willing to work through is having an inspection regime of these trucks before they go into Gaza and recognize routes for how they’re going to get to people in need and routes that are informed by our aid partners on the ground.

Q    What leverage does the President have in convincing the Israelis to allow more trucks in?  And what levers is he willing to pull on that front?

MR. KIRBY:  This isn’t about pulling levers and — and trying to hold something over Prime Minister Netanyahu or the War Cabinet.  They have been willing to work with us on getting aid and assistance into — to Gaza. 

I want to be, as I said earlier, clear that it’s not been enough, not been — not been enough to the need, certainly not been enough for the speed that’s required.  We recognize that.  And that’s part of the conversations that we’ve been having with our Israeli counterparts. 

But we urged them, for instance, to open up Kerem Shalom as a second route.  They’ve done that. 

Now, has it been perfect?  No.  There’s been some protest activity in recent weeks that shut it down temporarily.  We worked our way through that.  There’s — there’s still a lot of hard work to do. 

The Israelis have tried airdrops themselves, and they’re supportive of our efforts to do the same.

Q    What about all the other crossings, though, in — in Israel, into Gaza?  Why aren’t they allowing aid through those places?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s other potential crossings — you’re right — into Gaza.  And, again, we continue to talk to the Israelis about the practicality of that.

Q    Thank you, John.  Was part of the consideration into moving into this airdrop plan and — and the maritime plan — I mean, there had been delays for ground shipments of flour just a couple of weeks ago, and Israel had been holding that up.  So, is part of this because Israel hasn’t been a reliable partner as much as the U.S. would like to see in terms of getting aid in?

 MR. KIRBY:  Part of this is very much because not enough aid is getting in and not enough people are getting the food, the water, the medicine, and the fuel that they need.  That’s what’s driving this. 

We are rec- — we recognize the situation is dire.  We recognize the need is great.  And it hasn’t been filled simply by the — the use of ground convoys.

Q    And is this a way to, kind of, get around the need for Israel to sort of go through these checkpoints when it’s on-the-ground convoys —

MR. KIRBY:  This is —

Q    — coming in?

MR. KIRBY:  This is a way to get more aid to more people quickly.

Q    And I know he said you don’t have an exact timeline.  But is there a plan for this aid to be dropped over the course of weeks?  Is it months?  What does that —

MR. KIRBY:  I would say, certainly, coming weeks.  I don’t want to — I can’t get too predictive right now.  We haven’t even done the first one.  I can assure you there won’t be just one.  This won’t be a one-and-done kind of thing.  There will be additional airdrops.  We will learn.  We will get better at them over time.  But I’d say, certainly, coming weeks.

Q    Thank you.  Will U.S. continue to supply weapons to Israel after what happened yesterday in Gaza?

MR. KIRBY:  We are still helping Israel with their needs to defend themselves.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Patsy.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, just a little bit of clarity on the maritime corridor that the President mentioned.  Is this the same kind of idea that was floated in Israel in December of having it come through Cyprus?

And, if I may ask the same questions that my colleagues have been trying to get to, did what happen in Gaza City yesterday reaffirm the President’s suspicion or frustration about the fact that Israelis cannot guarantee the delivery of aid to Palestinians and hastened his decision to airdrop?

MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, certainly, I think — well, the — the discussion that we’ve been having about a potential maritime option is — is informed by recent conversations about the potential use of Cyprus, for instance, as a potential way to maybe stage some of that. 

Again, I don’t want to get into too many specifics now.  The — this idea is still in its infancy.  And there’s a lot of work that has to be done.  So, I’m not guaranteeing you that, for instance, Cyprus would be used in any way. 

I’m just saying that the discussion we’re at now certainly was informed by previous discussions with partners in the region about what that could look like.  But, again, we’ve got a long way to go here, a lot of work on the maritime front to get this done. 

And as for your second question, again, the idea of airdrops is not a new one.  It’s something that we have floated in the interagency before yesterday. 

  Yesterday’s event, I think, underscores the need to find more creative ways of getting assistance in faster and at greater scale.  And we’re going to continue to do that. 

Again, I want to stress this — I know you’re getting tired of me saying this, but airdrops would supplement not replace ground movements.

Q    And can I — can I just add — continue on Gaza?  But on a separate note, I’ve been noting that administration officials have been repeating the line that Israel is a sovereign country and the U.S. does not dictate to them.  Matt Miller says this.  Olivia, I think, said this yesterday at the gaggle. 

So, help me understand here, because for the past couple of weeks, you’ve been telling us that you have been successful in affecting change in Israeli behavior.  You just mentioned it again in terms of opening of Kerem Salom [Shalom]. 

But I’m seeing a shift — and I don’t know if this is correct or not and if you can explain what’s behind the shift.  Is the administration trying to distance itself from what Israel is doing in terms of its conduct?  Or is it reflective of the pessimism of your inability to close the gap between what President Biden wants Prime Minister Netanyahu to do and what’s actually happening on the ground?  Can you explain if there is a shift?

MR. KIRBY:  I think maybe you’re reading a little bit more into what we’ve been saying.  Reiterating that Israel is a sovereign country is not — it’s not a shift at all.  It’s — it’s the truth.  When we — we don’t dictate terms to other sovereign countries. 

Israel is also a great friend and an ally.  And we — we can have conversations with them that, in some ways, you can’t have with other countries because you are friend and an ally, and you can be tough and you can be candid and you can be forthright with Israeli leaders.  And we — and we’re not afraid to do that.  

And, I mean — but, no, there’s no — there’s no shift here.  I mean, make no mistake, as I’ve said many times just today, not enough aid is getting in to people that need it.  It’s not happening fast enough.  It’s not having — happening in the quantity that — that we need.  And we’re — we’re trying to act to the need.  We’re trying to behave and change and be more creative to meet the desperate need of the people of Gaza.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just a couple more.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, John.  You’ve laid out now, a couple of times, the practical challenges that will be part of this airdrop or these airdrops?  And I’m kind of curious about that, because those are risks that the United States now has to take on for itself, conducting those airdrops. 

The reason that those risks might fall to the United States is because Israel is starving those people.  So, why are we still so supportive of Israel when it is the one that is creating the problem that the United States now has to try to ameliorate?

MR. KIRBY:  Israel itself has tried to — to help with the delivery of humanitarian assistance.  As I said, they tried airdrops themselves just a week or so ago, on their own accord.  And we —

Q    So, why are so many people still starving?

MR. KIRBY:  We — there — it’s a — it’s a warzone.  And they — and there’s — there’s nowhere else for them to go.  It’s not like in some other con- — conflicts where they can — they can easily flee. 

And — and let’s not forget how this started.  Okay?  There’d be no need for airdrops if Hamas hadn’t chosen to break what was a ceasefire in place on the 6th of October.  So, let’s not forget how this — how this started. 

There is a need.  Many people are in desperate need of food, water, medicine, and fuel.  And the United States was and remains and will continue to be the leading provider of humanitarian assistance to them.  And we’ll — we take that responsibility seriously.

Q    But also remain — continue to be the main supporter of the people who are causing that assistance to be necessary.

MR. KIRBY:  We also know and recognize that Israel has a right to defend itself against a still-viable threat.  Again, please, if you haven’t done it, I encourage you to go online and read the 2017 manifesto of Hamas.  I know you’re smiling, but you should do it.  Because if you don’t have any —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  Wait, let me finish.  Let me finish. 

This is an organization that has military capabilities and has every intent of wiping Israel and the Israeli people off the map.  That has to be unacceptable to everybody.  Mr. Sinwar chose to start this war.  There was a ceasefire in place; he broke it. 

Q    Do you think that the Israelis were defending themselves legitimately when they killed a hundred —

MR. KIRBY:  There have been —

Q    — people yesterday?

MR. KIRBY:  There have been too many people killed over the course of this conflict.  The President has said that himself.  Secretary Austin said it in testimony again yesterday.  Each civilian life — Palestinians certainly included in that — each one is a tragedy and should be avoided. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Sorry.  Thank you.  Last night, the IDF said they only fired warning shots into the crowd and the deaths — the majority of deaths was by trampling.  As of now, does the administration believe that assessment to be accurate?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t have enough information to — to verify those comments.  That’s why I said we want to see an investigation.  We want to see more work done to figure out what happened.

Q    Admiral, the U.S. was one of several countries after the October 7th attack that cut funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, given reports in Israel suggesting that there were people there with ties to Hamas.  That obviously is the agency, really, that would be in a different situation responsible for bringing a lot of the humanitarian aid.

Is the administration rethinking cutting off funding for that organization at this point, given your assessment that not enough aid is — is getting in? 

MR. KIRBY:  No.  No.  The suspension of assistance to — to UNRWA, what was left unallocated, is still suspended.  There’s been no change in our policy on that.  And we’re working with other aid organizations, like the World Food Program, who are on the ground to assist with distribution as well. 

Look, you know, 13-some-odd thousand UNRWA employees on the ground in Gaza — the vast majority of them do great work, do it with good intent.  And as I said many times, you know, you don’t want to impugn the entire agency because of the potential actions of a few.

Now, they are investigating this.  We expect a full, thorough, credible, transparent investigation as to the — those employees that might have been involved in supporting Hamas and that those who were need to be held properly accountable. 

Q    It seems like not having them funded though and having to rely on other organizations, not having to resort to airdrops, that has complicated the situation. 

MR. KIRBY:  I would — I would —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  — remind, as I said earlier, that the unallocated funds for UNRWA that we suspended were actually not intended for Gaza.  They had been earmarked for work in Jordan. 

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

Q    Thank you.  I’ve got two questions.  First, the House Foreign Affairs Committee is threatening to hold Secretary Blinken in contempt if the State Department does not hand over material concerning the Afghanistan act- — After Action reports, specifically some internal notes.  What is the White House’s response to that contempt threat?

And then, how — did the White House ever direct the State Department to hold off on releasing those documents?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m going to refer you to the State Department on that.

Q    So, the — the committee says that in their interactions with the State Department, the State Department referred them to a White House lawyer.  So, can you tell us —

MR. KIRBY:  Again, you need to talk to the State Department about that.

Q    All right.  And a follow-up about Gaza.  You mentioned a second ago that the ceasefire was broken when Hamas attacked Israel.  Are you suggesting that Hamas bears ultimate responsibility for the current and ongoing humanitarian crisis there?

     MR. KIRBY:  The — the war that they’re in right now was started by Mr. Sinwar.  He’s the one who chose to break a ceasefire that was in place on the 6th of October. 

Now, obviously, in the — (a cellphone rings) — you got — you going to get that? 

Q    That’s not me.

MR. KIRBY:  Okay.  Obviously, in the conduct of this war — and we’ve been very honest about this too — that there have been too many innocent people killed through Israeli Defense Force operations in Gaza.  We’ve been very honest about that.  We want to see zero. 

So, certainly, we recognize that the prosecution of efforts against Hamas have caused civilian damage, civilian casualties.  And we don’t want to see anybody else hurt.  And that’s why we continue to work with our Israeli counterparts to be as careful and discriminate as possible. 

Q    Thank you, sir. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Oh, thank you.  So, I have a question regarding (inaudible) on ECOWAS.  Do you (inaudible) with the ECOWAS — he recently lifted sanction (inaudible).  And I wanted to find out whether you agree with that.  (Inaudible) talk to the president — President Bazoum of Niger.

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am, you’re going have to let me take that question, if you don’t mind.  I’m not prepared to answer that one.  And I owe you an answer, and I’ll get you one. 

Q    Okay.  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  We got to wrap it up.  Go ahead.

Q    Admiral, there was a pretty scathing report out this morning from the State Department IG’s office about a U.S. Ambassador to Singapore, Jonathan Kaplan.  It alleged, among other things, that he had poor relationships with local officials that were undercutting U.S. strategy there, he had poor relationships with staff, and that he ran afoul of some finance and other rules.  I’m wondering if you can state whether the President still has confidence in the Ambassador and if he shares any concerns about how his performance has hobbled U.S. efforts in the region.

MR. KIRBY:  The President understands that the State Department is taking this IG report seriously.  As far as we understand it, they’ve already started to implement many of the recommendations that the — that the IG has put forward.

Obviously, the President always wants his representatives overseas or at home to — to act and to lead and to manage people with — with dignity and respect.  That’s — that’s his expectation for — for all of us.  But — but he’s — he’s comfortable that the State Department is taking this seriously. 

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

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.  Appreciate it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Have a great weekend.

Q    John, can we get quick comment on the Russian
nuclear threat?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks.  All right, go ahead.

Q    Just one quick one.  Could I have the White House’s reaction to the CDC deciding to drop the five-day isolation guidance on COVID?  Just your reaction to that and also how that may or may not affect protocol here at the White House.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as far as protocol here, I don’t have any update for you at this time.  We’ll certainly have more to come soon. 

What I do want to say is that this announcement actually reflects the progress that we’ve made under this administration over the past three years to protect communities against COVID.  And it’s not by accident.  It is because of the policy that this President has put forth. 

Because when the President walked into this adminis- — into this administration, understanding COVID was obviously one of the crises that we had to deal with, he took action and put forth a comprehensive strategy to move forward; passed the American Rescue Plan that only Democrats voted for — not one Republican voted for — and it got to get the economy back on track, open up schools; and also make sure that we had a comprehensive strategy in making sure Americans got shots in arms, making sure they wore masks when we needed them, giving — giving the — the Americans the opportunity to actually deal with this pandemic. 

So, now we’re coming out of this pandemic.  Things have changed.  We are in a different place, which is good, right?  We are in a different place than we were when — obviously, when we walked — walked into this — into this adminis- — administration.  COVID no longer controls our lives, right? 

But we still have to use proven tools that protect people against rep- — respiratory viruses.  And that’s what the CDC guidance actually tells us.

As it relates to here and the White House and this campus, we’ll have more soon.  I just don’t have anything for you today. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  In his speech yesterday, the President actually extended an olive branch, inviting Trump to work with him to try and get that border deal through Congress.  Why did the President decide to do that?  Does he believe that Trump could be a trusted partner in this situation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, you know this President.  If you watch this President very closely the last three years — shoot, if you’ve watched him his entire career, he believes in going across the aisle and working in a bipartisan way. 

And when Republicans decide to do that, when they come and work with us, we actually have gotten some really big things done on behalf of the American people.  Think about the CHIPS Act, right?  Think about the PACT Act that helps veterans and their family.  You think about the bipartisan infrastructure legislation. 

There have been things during this administration that have been historic and will change Americans’ lives that we have been able to do in a bipartisan way.

Let’s think about the gun violence: the first piece of gun violence legislation that was done in a bipartisan way.  We hadn’t seen that in 30 years.

So, look, the President — it’s not about politics for him.  I think when he put out the olive branch yesterday, as you just stated, at the end of his speech, it was to show this wasn’t about politics.  This is about the American people. 

And what we continue to see is Republicans not doing that.  They keep letting politics get in the way. 

So, the President, as he does many times, when he wants to work on behalf of the American people, he wants to see it d- — see it done in a bipartisan way.  And not just him — we’ve learned and we’ve seen that that’s what the American public wants to see as well.

Q    Is there anything you can share about what he learned from his visit in Texas yesterday and how it might inform potential executive action he’d take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, as far as executive action, I’ve been very clear about that from here, from this podium, when you all have asked me.  We always, obviously, look at every — every scenario, every option.  We evaluate all of those things. 

But we do believe — which is why the President went to the border, to Brownsville, Texas, yesterday — that the way to move forward — the bottom line is we need to take action and — and move forward with the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.  That is the way that we believe we can actually deal with what — the challenges at the border, we can deal with the broken immigration system. 

There is no executive action that will — that would do — would be able to do what this — what this negotiation came out in a bipartisan way. 

Look, what he was able to see — first of all, he was a- — eager to hear from — from the folks on the ground who deal with this every day.  As you know, the mayor of Brownsvil- — Brownsville is Republican himself and has to deal with this as well in his community.  And — and he wanted to — to see, you know, how — ho- — what’s going — what happens on the ground.  He also wants to see — continue to see that while we’re moving forward, it d- — it’s done in a fairly, humane way — right? — in a fair and humane way.  And that’s one of the reasons that he went down there. 

And he wanted to — he wanted to see what — what are the officials on the ground had to — had to say.  And it was clear to him that they desperately need resources.  They need more to do their jobs, to be able to do it in a fair and humane way.  They need more to be able to do their jobs and not see Republicans get in the way and continue to vote against what we’re asking for — more resources — and not actually do the job and actually protect Americans and deal with a broken immigration system. 

So, he saw that for himself.  He saw that they need more resources.  And he’s going to continue to be really steadfast and ver- — speak very clearly to the American people about what’s happening and why we are not able to get this bipartisan deal that came out of the Senate done because Republicans continue to reject it. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Oh, thanks, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, Z- — oh, go ahead.

Q    Oh, sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ll — I’ll get you.  I’ll get you, Zolan.

Go ahead.

Q    Just a quick question on mifepristone.  CVS and Walgreen ha- — Walgreens have started — are expected to start selling the pill in several states this month.  And we understand the President, of course, has encouraged all — a lot of other pharmacies to follow suit.  Are there any other retail pharmacies that have expressed interest since the White House, you know, released that?  Do you have any update on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I will let pharmacies decide on their own.  Obviously, they can apply for certification.  We encourage them to afl- — apply for certification.  So, I don’t have any additional list to — to share with you.   

But obviously, this administration has a strong record on partnering with pharmacies on a range of issues.  And we’re going to continue to support pharmacies. 

And if they are interested in certainly — in that certification — and that’s what we want to see.  We want to make sure — the reason why this happened is because this administration has been committed and making sure that women have the ability and the right to make a decision — right? — the ability and the right to get what they need as they’re trying to figure out what is necessary for them.

I mean, it is their decision, right?  These are personal decisions that women have to make, and they should be able to have access to this.  And so, that —

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — has been our priority since the — since Dobbs decision almost two years ago. 

Q    And these pills are not available by mail yet.  Is that sort of the logical next step here?  Is that what the White House or the administration, you know, try to facilitate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t — look, I don’t want to get ahead of what could be potentially next.  I think this is a big deal, right? This is a big deal when you have these two major pharmacies that are — are now able to move forward. 

We’re going to let other pharmacies decide if they want to move with the forward certification.  We’re going to work very closely with these pharmacies and partner with them.  But I just don’t have anything else on — as to the next steps.

Q    And I have one follow-up on the President’s trip to the border yesterday.  We understand that a lot of migrants fly to Mexico and then cross the border.  And we don’t know if that was on, you know, that particular — discussing that particular topic was on the President’s agenda.  I mean, you know, was anything discussed on whether Mexico should be vetting more of these migrants or, you know, any discussions yesterday dur- — on this topic during the President’s visit?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as you know, we’ve had continued diplomatic conversations with Mexico and other — other countries in the region.  Right?  This is not just about — this is not just about the United States.  This is about — this is a regional situation, an issue that we have dealt with for the past three years, actually, under this administration, trying to do it in a diplomatic way. 

I don’t have anything else new to share.  We are — we talk to the government of Mexico pretty regularly.  We — you’ve seen our — some of our officials here, whether from NSC or just from the White House, who have gone down to Mexico and — and met with the Mexican president on trying to figure out how do we deal with the migration issue. 

And I think the most important thing to take out from the President’s trip is that he wanted to make it very clear to the American people: There is actually a piece of paper — right? — a negotiation, a proposal out there that was done in a bipartisan way, supported by the Border Patrol union, supported by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others that you don’t normally see. 

And we have a bipartisan deal that came out of the Senate.  Republicans listened to the former President, and they have rejected it.  They put politics in front of actually getting a solution for the American people. 

That’s kind of where we are.  He’s going to continue to make that really clear and push — and push to make sure that the American people know this. 

Q    Can you give us an update on the President’s State of the Union prep?  I know he’s up at Camp David for a while this weekend.  Is he bringing a team with him up there?  Do you know if he’s enlisted any outside writers to help him on it?  What’s — where does that sort of stand?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, certainly, we’ll — we’ll have more to share, more color to — to provide on the President’s preparation for the State of the Union. 

What I can say is what the President is — wants to do and what you will hear during the State of the Union is that he’ll lay out his historic achievements over the past three years and what he’s been able to do on behalf of the American people.  You’re hearing him talk about how he is on the side of the American people.  That’s important. 

The President has done more in three years in this administration than most president has done in two terms.  I mean, that is what we’ve seen: historic legislation after historic legislation, whether it’s done in a bipartisan way, or whether only Democrats voted for it.  That’s what this President has been able to do. 

And now, you know, he’s going to also talk about how we want to protect and implement those pieces of legislation, whether it’s the infra- — Inflation Reduction Act or the CHIPS and Science Act, we have to implement that so the American people can see the work that’s been done out of Washington, D.C. — again, whether it’s a bipartisan fashion or just Democrats voting for it. 

And so, you know, he’s going to talk about lowering costs, lowering healthcare costs in particular; making sure that we’re saving our democracy; protecting women’s rights, as I’ve been talking about; uniting the country.  Those are the things that the President is going to put at the forefront, certainly, of his — of his message to the American people next week.

And so, we’re — I would say stay tuned.  Stay tuned for more.

Q    And last year’s speech had sort of an unusual amount of audience interaction.  (Laughter.)  How much of that is going into the planning this year? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, that was — I mean, I think what you should take out of what happened last year is as — we were not expecting that.  The President was not expecting audience interaction, as you just stated.  (Laughter.) 

And you saw the President was pretty sharp in — in responding back to those Republicans in front of him and — and — and making them promise something that they didn’t think they would promise on protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

And I think it was a moment that the American people really, truly appreciated. 

I can’t — I can’t speak to — I can’t speak to what Republicans are going to do this year.  I can tell you that the President is ready.  He’s ready to take that moment, to talk about the state of the Union, to lay out his future vision of how he sees this next year and beyond, and what is it that he wants to get done and continue to build on historic accomplishments.  And I think that’s going to be really important to see. 

Go ahead, Zolan.

Q    Thank you.  So, yesterday at the border, the President once again called for legislative action at the border.  A month ago, he — he repeated that, but he also said that he was willing to take action himself.  Is the administration — could we expect to see him take action by himself, whether that be executive actions or an executive order?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I kind of just answered this a moment ago.  Look, we’re — we always evaluate options.  We are.  We’re going to evaluate options.  That is something that we — we’re going to do here.  As we’ve done with any big issue that has come in front of the President, we evaluate all options.

We have not made any decisions yet.  That is kind of where we are — and — and about any additional actions, to your point, executive actions. 

But ultimately, what we believe the bottom line is: No — no executive action, no matter how aggressive it is, is going to do what came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way that the President worked with those members for — you know, for a couple of months. 

Q    What are the factors that the White House is weighing here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I’ve — I understand if there’s a preference for legislative action.  The Homeland Security Secretary was saying that’s less likely to run into legal — legal trouble.  But, I guess, what does — if that — if it’s the preference for legislative action, what tells the White House that there’s any chance that this bipartisan bill actually has a chance of passing at this point?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we’ve been here before, right?  We’ve been here — and what I mean by that is there — there have been some bipartisan bills that have come out of this adminis- — come out of this — under this presidency — right? — in the past three years, where people thought it was dead and it wasn’t going anywhere, and it move forward.  Right? 

And so, the President has to be optimistic.  He has to lay down what’s at stake.  He has to call out Republicans and say to them, “Hey, you want to fix this?  This is a bipartisan bill that actually lays out ways to fix the challenges at the border and this immigration system.”  And he’s going to continue to do that. 

But the reality is — and you said — you said it yourself: The Secretary said that, you know, this is the way — legislation is the best way to go so that we don’t have to deal with the courts — right? — making this into law a piece of legislation that would be tough, that would be fair, that would do this in a way that moves it forward in dealing with the challenges at the border. 

And so, look, we’re always going to evaluate the options. We are.  But the reality is the way to actually deal with the challenges at the border, to actually move forward with what we’re seeing with this immigration — this broken immigration system that’s been — that we’ve been seeing for the past couple of decades, is to move forward with this bipartisan legislation.

Q    But you don’t think we get an announcement of anything before State of the Union?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — what I’m saying to you is no decision has been made.  We are continuing to be very loud and clear.  The President, I thought, was very — very clear about that, very strong about that.  He — he went to Brownsville not — with other elected officials who were on the other side of the aisle, if you will.  And he saw for himself what was going on on the ground.  And he saw that more resources needed to be provided, and he spoke to the American people about this. 

So, you know, I think that this is something that Republicans really need to understand.  There is a deal.  There is a bipartisan deal.  They can’t listen — and they omitted [admitted] this — right?  They — they’re listening to the former President.  They’re listening to Donald Trump, who is trying to do things for himself.  It’s politics for himself, not about the American people. 

And what you saw from this President yesterday is how he’s putting the American people first.  And that’s what you’re going to see at the State of the Union as well next Thursday.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  You talked about IVF at the top of the briefing.  But announcing the VP’s trip to Selma this weekend, the White House said she would encourage Americans to continue to fight for fundamental freedoms under attack throughout the country.  Will she specifically talk about the IVF ruling in Alabama and talk about reproductive rights during her remarks there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t have anything to share at this time on what the Vice President is going to speak to.  But what I can say, and you all have seen this — that she’s going to continue — continue to speak out against these continued attacks on reproductive freedom, as she has done for the past several — this past two, three years throughout this administration — obviously since the Dobbs decision. 

And he’s — she’s been on tour, right?  She’s been on tour talking about reproductive rights and how important it is to protect — to protect that.  She’s been to Wisconsin, Georgia, California, Michigan.  And so, she’s going to continue to do that. 

I’m not going to get ahead of what — her remarks and what she’s going to say in Alabama this weekend.

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Given the uncertainty around when and if the House will take up the national security supplemental, can you talk about the President’s level-setting today with Prime Minister Meloni?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we — Prime Minister Meloni has been, certainly, a partner in — as it relates to the war in Ukraine — obviously, that was started by the — by Mr. Putin.  And she has been a great partner.  So, that — obviously, that’s part of the agenda and having that conversation. 

I mean, what you’re asking me is a really good question, right?  I think our role in this and how we move forward — everyone is watching.  Everyone is watching how the U.S. is going to move forward as it relates to the national security supplemental.  Are we going to continue to provide the assistance that we have for Ukraine as they are bravely fighting for the democracy?  The world is watching. 

And that’s what House Republicans need to understand.  We were able to do it 70 to 29, getting that national security supplemental out of the Senate.  Now, all Speaker Johnson has to do is put it on the floor. 

We know that there is overwhelming bipartisan support for it.  We’ve heard from Republicans in the House say that. 

And it is — I mean, it is true that the world is watching what we’re doing.  And we’ve got to continue to be a leader on this.  The President has been a leader as it relates to what’s happening in Ukraine and making sure that they have the assistance and the security assistance to — to fight — fight for their freedom. 

And so, that is something that we do have to deal with when we meet with these leaders.  Like, you know, we have to be — they — they’re seeing what happened.  And so, Congress needs to take action.  Lives are at stake here.

Q    I’m just asking if the President is being blunt and saying, like, “Hey, it’s not looking good.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’m not going to get into specifics of — of their private conversation.  But I don’t even think that the President needs to say that, right?  I mean, the Prime Minister sees for herself, I’m sure, what is happening.  And they’re going to have an honest conversation. 

The President is good about having honest conversation with his counterparts across — obviously, in other countries.  So, they’ll have an honest conversation.  They’ll discuss that.  Not going to get into private specifics about that. 

But this is for — House Republicans need to understand: The world is watching how we’re — what we’re doing here, how we’re moving.  What are we going to do to — to really assist Ukraine?

And it’s not just about Ukraine and Israel and Indo-Pacific and, obviously, the all-important humanitarian aid that has to get into Gaza.  All of that is also connected to our own national security.  And we have to put the — Americans’ national security first. 

And right now, they’re not doing that.  They’re picking politics.  And so, that is something that they need to understand.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    So, yesterday, the administration nominated Marty Walsh to the Board of Governors for the Postal Service.  Democratic and Republican members of Congress have been complaining about issues of the Postal O- — Postal Service now for a couple of years. 

Does the White House think there needs to be a change in leadership?  Are you satisfied with the job that Postmaster General DeJoy is doing?  Do you think there need to be changes in — in how the Postal Service is operating?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I don’t have anything specific to share about that. 

But I can say, look, Marty Walsh is someone who served in this administration as Secretary of Labor.  The President was — you know, the President was proud of — of the work that Marty was able to get done.  And he is — he is certainly thrilled to — to nominate him in this new role. 

And, look, the President always wants to make sure that every agency, every department in this — in this — in this administration — obviously, in the federal government operates at its — at its best capacity — right? — at full capacity. 

And so, that’s what we want to see.  And it’s not about us.  It’s about the American people. 

Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Is the administration coming around to the idea that physical border barriers work? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can you say more?  Where is this — what do you mean?  Where’s this coming from?

Q    Well, it’s been six weeks since you guys won the Supreme Court case that would have allowed you to remove razor wire at the Texas border that you guys argued was — there’s an emergency, immediate need to take down.  But it’s still up.  So, DHS hasn’t touched it.  Why is it still up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you have to — to speak to the Department of — of DHS, obviously.  I just don’t have anything for you on that. 

We were very clear about what we thought about those wires.  Obviously, DOJ took action.  I just don’t have anything on timeline on those coming down.  I’m sure they’ll have more for you on that. 

Q    And the President said at the border yesterday that it’s long past time to act.  Heard all of your previous answers on, you know, executive orders.  But the President took 94 or so executive actions in his first 100 days that largely loosened immigration policy.  One of those was narrowing who ICE could remove.  And the administration, as of yesterday, I believe, is now calling on sanctuary cities to cooperate with ICE. 

So, why doesn’t the President act like he said it’s time to do and start undoing some of those policies that he put in place right when he got into office?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think a couple of things.  On — since day one, the President took action.  He did.  He put forth a comprehensive immigration policy.  And he read — he did that because he understood what was happening — right? — he understood that the immigration system was broken.  He understood that we needed to take action.  And he did — three years. 

And during those three years, Republicans got in the way.  Anything — any resources — any additional resources that we asked for, they voted down.  They didn’t want to move forward with it. 

And so, the President tried to do the best that he can with what he was able to get.  And, you know, we get to a point at the end of the year where we start negotiating with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, we come up with a piece of — piece of legislation, a proposal that is supported by the Department of — pardon me — the Border Patrol — right? — union, that’s supported by U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

I mean, we took action.  We have taken action over and over and over again, and Republicans reject it.

Q    It’s a comprehensive immigration —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They get in the way —

Q    — overhaul versus narrow action that he could take to secure the border, improve the situation that we’re seeing ravaging communities.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But we — we took action at the end of this — at the end of last year, worked with Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in the Senate, came up with a bipartisan agreement that would actually make a difference.  I mean, it’s Congress’s job to legislate.  It is their job to legislate.

Q    But you were never afraid of legal challenges with things like student loans. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But here’s the thing —

Q    I mean —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s the thing.  We take —

Q    — you’ve used executive orders —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We — we have —

Q    — when you wanted to.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — taken action over the last three years on the border.  We’ve taken policy action.  We have taken action.  The President has.

Now we need to get it into a place where we can actually make a real difference on the border challenges that we’re seeing.  And we did. 

I mean, we — this is — this is Republicans getting in the way because of what they were told by the former President.  That’s shameful.  It is.  You know, it’s — we’re talking about the American people — getting things done for the American people.  Majority of Americans care about this issue.  They care. 

So, the President worked across the aisle to get a — get a piece of — a proposal done that was negotiated in a bipartisan way that’s getting support from organizations that you would never dream would support —

Q    But in the meantime, while he’s shaming people for not acting, he is also not acting. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I am so sorry.  That is so false.  He has taken action.  He has taken action.  Republicans rejected it because of the last president.  That is not is — what is going on here.  It isn’t. 

I mean, they told on themselves.  Republicans told on themselves and said that the former President told them to not move forward with the bipartisan Border Patrol deal. 

Q    So, are you saying that there isn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They told on themselves.

Q    — executive action he can take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re saying that the best act — the best way to move forward is legislation.  That’s with any issue.  The best way to move forward is legislation.  Put that into law.  And we have a bipartisan agreement that would do that. 

By the way, the bipartisan agreement, that border — border — border deal has provisions in there that these House Republicans want — these congressional Republicans have been asking for for years.  So, what’s the problem?  What’s the problem?  Is it politics or is it the American people?  That’s for them to answer.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, I just wanted to check in if the White House was tracking the troubles at New York Community Bancorp and if there were any concerns.  Given that it’s a big commercial real estate lender, is there any concerns about the broader commercial real estate market or community banking?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be careful.  And we — we are very mindful here.  We don’t comment on — on — in every individual situation or institution, obviously.  But Treasury and regulators monitor the banking sector.  But broadly speaking, the banking system remains sound and resilient with substantial liquidity, including among regional banks. 

So, just going to be super mindful.  It’s being monitored, obviously, by — by Treasury and regulators. 

All right, I know I have to start wrapping it up. 

Q    In the back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jared.  I know I meant to call on you before. 

Q    I know that the President signed a CR today to prevent —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, he did.

Q    — the shutdown this weekend.  What’s his level of confidence after the meeting he had with the Big Four earlier this week that this might be the last CR he has to sign for some time?  Does he think that there really is a bipartisan agreement here to lock in these appropriations bills? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the bipartisan agreement obviously prevents a shutdown.  But it is a — it is a — as you call it, a short-term fix, not a — not a long-term solution.  It is not a long-term solution. 

And so, Congress needs to do its job.  We’re going to continue to say that.  It is the basic duty that they have is to keep the government open.  They have to do this. 

And let’s not forget: They have to move in a — in — on the bipartisan nat- — national security supplemental.  Obviously, it was passed in a bipartisan way out of the Senate.  Just needs to go to the floor, and it’ll get bipartisan support — overwhelming bipartisan support.  And we got to do that. 

And — and, as you know, as I just stated, it is vitally important to Ukraine.  So, we’ve got to get that done. 

And so, look, we’re going to continue to say that the House has to do its job.  They have to move forward in keeping the government open.  It’s their basic duty.  It’s not difficult.  It is not difficult. 

I’m glad — obviously, we’re glad — you said the President signed the CR — and we’re glad to see that — to prevent a shutdown.  But it is a short-term fix.  And we need a long-term solution. The — the American people deserve this.

Q    But that meeting this week was really focused on finding that long-term solution, right?  It was on — on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, it was also —

Q    — sort of the — the full-year appropriations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I told — yes, that’s what we want to see. 

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But they also — it was also about preventing a shutdown, which we were able to see, which is good, right?  It is good that the government is not shutting down t- — today.  It is good, right?  That is important for the American people. 

But we need to find a long-term solution.  That’s what we need to find. 

All right, in the back.  Way in the back.  Go ahead, Haisten.

Q    Thanks.  One immigration question.  Immigration has definitely risen since Biden took office, even without legislation being passed.  It’s much higher now than it was five years ago.  So, why is that if it’s not because of Biden executive actions that he took when he got into office?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s why it’s so important to get this bipartisan deal that came out of the Senate done.  We understand that there’s challenges at the border.  We understand that the immigration system is broken.  It’s been broken for decades.  It was broken under the last administration.  We want to get this done. 

But I will say, since May of last year, DHS has removed or returned more than 565,000 individuals, and the vast majority of whom crossed the southern border.  So, you know, 565,000 removals and return is more than every full fiscal year since 2013.  So, that has been happening.  DHS has been doing everything that it’s ca- — it can to get that done. 

But we need to do more, which is why the President worked with the Senate in a bipartisan way.  We’ve got to see — we’ve got to see that bipartisan border — border deal move forward.

Q    Thanks.  And one more on a different topic.  ABC is reporting that the President’s aides are working to minimize disruptions from pro-Palestinian protests: making events smaller and withholding their locations until he arrives.  Do you have any reaction to that report?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    And how do you — how do you guys vet —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I have not seen that report.  I would just refer you to Secret Service on that one. 

Go ahead, go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  A federal judge ruled against AstraZeneca in its lawsuit challenging the drug-pricing program.  Do you have a response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a response to that.

Q    And drugmakers are expected to answer by today on if they agree or disagree with Medicare’s initial offer on your drug-pricing program.  Have you received any responses from companies yet or have any update on how that’s going?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s what I’ll say.  One of the important provisions that came out of the Inflation Reduction Act was the fact that Medicare was able to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, getting to a place where we can actually lower costs for the American people dr- — obviously, on drugs — pharmaceutical drugs.  And that’s incredibly important.  And so, that’s what we’re going to see. 

We — the President wants to continue to — to make sure that we lower costs on these drugs — on these important pharmaceutical drugs for the American people.  That’s why he moved forward to do this.  Many, many elected officials for decades tried to do it and couldn’t do it.  And the President beat Big Pharma. 

I’m not going to get into any pharmaceutical companies. 

But I’ll get in — what I wanted to say, obviously, was how important it was for — to get that Inflation Reduction Act done, how important it is now for Medicare to be able to negotiate and help out millions of Americans across the country who pay just too much — too much for drugs — the pharmaceutical drugs here that are much cheaper in another country.  That shouldn’t be.  That shouldn’t be who we are as a country.  And so, the President obviously wants to see us continue — Medicare continue to lower some of these costs. 

Q    And someone asked about mifepristone and CVS and Walgreens, and you had implied — or not implied — suggested that you worked with pharmacies on — or were encouraging —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Their certification?

Q    — pharm- — pharmacies to apply for the certification, excuse me.  Can you talk about what that looked like with CVS and Walgreens and what the collaboration (inaudible) there was between the administration and those two companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things back in. 

Back in — a year ago, January 2023, FDA took independent and evidence-based action to establish conditions under which pharmacies could choose to become certified to dispense mifepristone.  So, that’s how it all started. 

Several pharmacies had already been certified to dispense mifepristone, but today’s news confirms that some major national pharmacy chains have com- — have completed that process with drug sponsors and can — can begin dispensing mifepristone for the first time.  So, we expect certification effort to continue through the drug sponsors. 

And so, that’s how it works.  You’ve got to get the certification.  We work in partnership with pharmacies.  We want to encourage them to get that certification.  And that’s kind of how the process started over a year ago.

All right, guys.  Have a great, great weekend.  See you all next week. 

Q    Thank you.

3:49 P.M. EST

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.

En Route Brownsville, Texas

1:36 P.M. EST
 
MS. DALTON:  Good afternoon.  We’re on our way to Brownsville, Texas, where President Biden will meet with Border Patrol agents, law enforcement officials, frontline personnel, and elected leaders, including Representative Gonzalez, who is headed down to Brownsville with us today.    
 
Secretary Mayorkas is joining us to talk a little bit more about the latest on the ground.
 
But before I turn it over to him, I want to highlight just a few points.  Earlier this month, congressional Republicans rejected the bipartisan border security agreement simply because the former President told them to.  You heard President Biden say he would take this deal to the American people and make sure they know who is about political rhetoric and who is about solutions.
 
Today, there’s new polling out showing Americans overwhelmingly support the bipartisan border security agreement, including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.  You will hear from the President as he continues to make the case that this bipartisan border security agreement would make our country safer, our border more secure, while ensuring we are treating people fairly and humanely, consistent with our nation’s values.
 
And then I’ll turn it over to you, Secretary.
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Thank you, Olivia.  So, before I talk about today’s operational briefing on the border, let me just say a few words about the fires in Texas and Oklahoma.  The latest report is that —
 
Q    I’m sorry.  We can’t hear you.
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Oh, I’m sorry.  The latest report is that over a million acres have burned, one life has been lost.  We, in the Department of Homeland Security, especially FEMA, are intensely focused on these fires and providing the resources, equipment, and personnel that the impacted communities need. 
 
We have Fire Management Assistance funds available to Texas and Oklahoma, and we also already have deployed firefighters, first responders, trucks, and other equipment to help fight the blazes. 
 
Let me turn, then, to the — to the visit to Brownsville, Texas.  This is a very important operational briefing for the President as the Commander-in-Chief. 
 
The President is going to hear from Border Patrol, Office of Field Operations, both within U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  He’s going to hear from Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations personnel in Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  He is going to hear from asylum processing experts in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
 
He’s going to hear about what they’re able to do with the too-few resources that they have.  He’s going to hear about what they need and what impact, operationally, those additional needed resources would deliver.  And he’s going to hear about the incredible value and importance that the legislation would deliver if Congress passes it: more people, faster processing times, more technology, more equipment, more facilities. 
 
Q    A —
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  If I can, Brownsville, Texas, provides a very good glimpse of how dynamic and challenging the migration phenomenon is.  Last year, in April and May of 2023, approximately 30 percent of all encounters across the southern border were realized in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, of which Brownsville is a part. 
 
Now, those numbers have been reduced significantly, primarily because of the enhanced law enforcement efforts south of our border. 
 
The key is to address the regional challenge that is migration.  We need regional participation not just on the part of the United States, of course, but on the part of our partners and allies to the south. 
 
In this, Brownsville demonstrates the impact of that partnership when everyone’s working together to address a shared challenge. 
 
And now I’ll turn it over.
 
Q    Can I follow up on that point?  The head of the Border Patrol union said that Brownsville is actually not a place where the President will be able to evaluate what’s going on because there are relatively fewer crossings comparative to other sectors. 
 
So, is the President going to be able to get a fulsome evaluation of what is actually needed right now when it comes to the border by going to Brownsville?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Yes.  Yes, he will.  I mean, Texas is seeing a reduction in encounters across — across the board over what we experienced in December and immediately before then.  The primary reason is the enhanced enforcement efforts on the part of the Mexican government. 
 
The President had a conversation with the President of Mexico in December.  Secretary Blinken and I, with our Homeland Security Advisor, visited Mexico.  We spoke of the importance of really renewing their enforcement efforts.  They did.  We’ve seen a tremendous drop in the number of encounters across the southern border. 
 
The most difficult part south of our border to patrol is Sonora, on the Mexican side, which is why Arizona — the area of Arizona in Tucson continues to see an increase in — in the number of encounters.
 
But the President will see firsthand what the Border Patrol needs and what the legislation would deliver if Congress would pass it.
 
Q    Is he — Mr. Secretary, is he going to contrast his approach with that of Donald Trump, who’s calling for mass deportations?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  This is focused — this visit is focused on the work that we do, not the rhetoric of others.  This is focused on operational needs, operational challenges, and the significant impact that legislation would have in enhancing our border security. 
 
Q    Are there no executive actions that the President can take to reduce the number — the large number of migrants that are coming to the U.S.-Mexico border that we saw in 2023 and continue this year?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  The fact of the matter is that the only enduring solution is legislation.  Congress needs to act.  We have a bipartisan piece of legislation that three senators worked on intensely for a number of months.  I was very privileged to be at the table to provide technical and operational expertise.  The administration was represented at the table.  We need Congress to act.
 
Q    In lieu of the bill passing Congress, though, we’ve reported that the administration is considering using its 121-F [212-F] authority.  Can you comment on that?  Is that something the administration is considering?  And will there be any executive action announced today at the border?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  There will not be any — 212-F — there will not be any executive actions announced today.  As I continue to say, the legislation is what we need.  It is the enduring solution.  Actions taken outside of legislation are often met with litigation challenges in court. 
 
Q    Do you think that would be the case with 212-F?   Is this a power —
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I don’t want to speculate right now.
 
Q    Can you — can you then speak to the relationship with Governor Abbott?  Obviously, that’s been multidimensional, to say the least.
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  One — one of the — one of the benefits — one of the benefits of being in Brownsville is to see what can be accomplished productively in the service of border security when local officials work with federal officials to address a shared challenge.  We have a very good relationship with the leaders in Brownsville.  And the Border Patrol will speak to that to our president. 
 
Q    And w- —
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  And — and we will have local officials present in Brownsville. 
 
So, when we work together, we have a better result in achieving what the American people expect and need.
 
When a state leader purposefully and deliberately refuses to cooperate, coordinate, collaborate, communicate, we see actually a detriment to our enforcement efforts. 
 
Q    Can I ask what you think about his effort of busing migrants directly to other cities?  What — what has that done for the feds, for you guys —
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  It is a —
 
Q    — (inaudible) as well?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  It is a tragic thing when a public official uses human beings and their lives as political pawns. 
 
Q    Can I just ask, with Congress back in session, what are you doing to prepare for the possible impeachment trial?  And have you spoken to any lawmakers in Congress?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I have been incredibly busy with the work of the Department of Homeland Security.  That’s my exclusive focus.
 
Q    Mr. Secretary, why are you — why is the President and you — why are you taking this visit now?  What is the significance of this time of year?  Is it just something that, you know, was able to be put on the President’s schedule right now?  Essentially, what I’m asking is: What’s so special about this day at this time?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  We have a bipartisan piece of legislation that needs to pass to enhance our border security.  The President continues to advocate to Congress that they must pass this bipartisan piece of legislation. 
 
He is going to hear firsthand from the people who work tirelessly and bravely to secure the border the impact that this legislation would have on advancing their mission.
 
Q    And you also talked about — you’re talking about the resources that your agencies need.  And in addition to the border legislation being dormant last night, so was the extra money that DHS was going to get. 
 
Can DHS get the money that they need through the regular approps process that would end March 22nd at this point?  Is that possible with all the help that you need right now?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  We desperately need the funds that the bipartisan legislation provides.  We’re talking about approximately $20 billion in funds.  We’re — we are — that provides for more than a thousand more U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel. 
 
It calls for more than 4,000 asylum officers to meet the challenge of increased migration that is not only impacting the southern border of the United States, that is not only impacting the Western Hemisphere, but we are seeing this globally: the greatest number of displaced people around the world since World War Two.
 
So, those are — it would provide for more than $400 million to — to purchase and implement nonintrusive inspection technology, this state-of-the-art equipment that enables us to better detect and interdict fentanyl, contraband, and individuals who are being smuggled across the border through our ports of entry.
 
Q    (Inaudible) one more here.  The makeup of people crossing has changed a lot.  Why do you think that is?  I mean, it’s different source countries, different claimants, different grounds. 
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  It is.  So —
 
Q    Why is that happening?  Why is it changing?
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  The demographics have changed significantly over the years.  Traditionally —
 
Q    Even in the last, like, 12 months even.  (Inaudible.)
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  It’s mul- — it’s a number of years.  Traditionally, the vast majority of individuals encountered were from Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
 
We have seen country conditions throughout Latin America — particularly Ecuador and Venezuela, for example — diminish in quality, as well as country conditions around the world, whether it’s in countries in Africa or elsewhere — authoritarian regimes elsewhere.  And by reason of that, we’re seeing a level of migration around the world that is really historic.
 
And that has resulted in increased encounters at our southern border.  And very interestingly, in my conversations — bilateral and multilateral conversations with my counterparts from around the world over the last few weeks, when I discussed this with the Home Secretary in the United Kingdom, the first issue that arose was migration — the migration challenge that the United Kingdom is facing and what they are seeking to do legislatively.
 
I spoke with the Home Secretary in Australia, and the number one Homeland Security issue that she raised was immigration.  So, this is a global phenomenon that, of course, we are — are experiencing ourselves.
 
MS. DALTON:  Thank you so much, Secretary.
 
Q    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
 
SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Thank you all.
 
MS. DALTON:  Do you have anything left?
 
Q    There’s a lot.
 
Q    Can we get a — I think right before we took off, the President talked to reporters on the South Lawn about reports of the hun- — over a hundred dead in Gaza after — can you tell us a little bit about it?  Has the President been briefed on the situation?  What’s the latest?
 
MS. DALTON:  Yes, he’s been briefed on the situation.  And I’d just like to make a few points about this.  Obviously, the events in Northern Gaza are tremendously alarming and of deep concern to us — deeply tragic, the loss of human life.  Too many civilian lives have been lost as a consequence of military operations in Gaza.
 
We think that this latest event needs to be thoroughly investigated.  We’ve been in touch with the government of Israel this morning about — to gather information and to request that they investigate and provide more information about the circumstances that led to this tragedy.
 
We also think that this event underscores the need for expanded humanitarian aid to make its way into Gaza.  You may be aware, our USAID Administrator, Samantha Power, is in the region right now doing just that: working on delivering additional resources, she announced yesterday, for humanitarian aid; also meeting with a variety of stakeholders in the region about trying to open up additional humanitarian corridors in addition to the two that are currently serving as corridors for humanitarian aid into the region.
 
But beyond that, you know, we have consistently and vocally communicated to our Israeli counterparts the need for there to be viable plans to maintain basic security in areas of Gaza where their military campaigns against — and military operations against Hamas have concluded. 
 
We have consistently also communicated a desire to see that those plans move forward.  And we have yet to see those be implemented, and we’re deeply concerned about that. 
 
Once again, today we’re making — making clear to our Israeli counterparts that we’d like to see those plans implemented very soon and — and provide for the basic security of the Palestinian people because the continued loss of life is deeply alarming and very — very, very tragic. 
 
Q    You kind of already said that the estimates for Monday for a ceasefire was optimistic.  How does this affect that?  And what — I mean, does this give — does this mean more pressure on Netanyahu to — to back a ceasefire?
 
MS. DALTON:  Well, what I would say to that is you heard from the President on the South Lawn just a few moments ago — a couple hours ago, actually, now — that certainly this will make things more complicated.  But he is continuing to work aggressively toward a hostage deal that would involve at least a six-week ceasefire and help us expand the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.  And, of course, we hope that would be the basis for something longer. 
 
Since we’ve been in the air, we’ve released a couple of readouts of calls that the President made to the heads of state of Egypt and Qatar, where the tragedy that we all woke up to this morning was discussed; the need for a hostage deal and expanded humanitarian aid, temporary ceasefire was discussed. 
 
The President is going to stay on every available opportunity to make headway in brokering a hostage deal and reaching a temporary ceasefire that could be the basis for something longer.  He’s going to keep at it. 
 
Q    Does he plan to raise this directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu — what happened on the food line?
 
MS. DALTON:  I don’t — I don’t have any calls to preview.  But like I said, this was discussed in calls with — that were on the books with the heads of state of Qatar and Egypt this morning.  They had also discussed the — the plans for — work towards a hostage deal. 
 
Q    But how seriously are you looking at the idea of an airdrop of humanitarian supplies into Gaza? 
 
MS. DALTON:  I don’t have anything on that front to preview.  But certainly, we’re on the ground working — right now working to expand the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
 
Just yesterday, Administrator Power announced $53 million in additional assistance for humanitarian aid to go into Gaza.  She’s working on expanding the channels, the corridors through which that aid can flow.  We’re going to keep at this. 
 
The events of this morning just underscored how deep and dire the humanitarian needs amongst civilian population in Gaza are right now. 
 
Q    Olivia, there have been a number of administrative actions taken just over the course of the past few days targeting China.  Why — is it just a coincidence that these actions are targeting China over the span of a few days?  What’s the — what’s behind these actions?
 
MS. DALTON:  Well, I think you’re referring to the actions that the President announced this morning with respect to connected vehicles?  Is this what you’re talking about?
 
So, yes, the — as you heard from the President this morning, the President is committed to ensuring that, you know, American automakers, American autoworkers are best positioned to outcompete the rest of the world in the years ahead.  And he’s also concerned about — about countries like China.  China is, right now —
 
(Air Force One experiences turbulence.)  Sorry, guys, this turbulence might be a little much.
 
China is right now looking to flood the market here in the United States and around the world with vehicles equipped with advanced technology from countries of concern.  And so, that is a security risk.  That’s a national security issue that we take very seriously.  And it’s the basis — basis from which the President decided to direct the Commerce Department to review those national security risks and take any regulatory action they deem necessary to protect our people and our national security. 
 
Q    What explanation — going back to the — the people killed while waiting for aid.  What explanation have the Israelis given the U.S. as to what happened?
 
MS. DALTON:  I — I don’t have any details to share on that.  As you heard from the President, we’re still working to get to ground truth, so I just don’t want to get ahead of the preliminary reports. 
 
Q    And a quick thing on that trip today.  Will he meet with migrants?
 
MS. DALTON:  I don’t have anything on — of that nature to preview for you.  As you heard from the Secretary, this is really about hearing operational, on-the-ground updates from the law enforcement and border personnel who are on the frontlines of dealing with these challenges and who have been under-resourced and caught flat-footed as we’ve seen migration surge.
 
We currently, today, have the same number of Border Patrol agents as we had four years ago, despite the fact that migration has surged 250 percent.  That is just simply unacceptable.  It’s a national security issue.  And the President is really here to hear firsthand from the frontline personnel about what they’re facing and what they need to do their jobs more effectively and keep us all — keep our — our border secure.
 
Q    And one more, if I may.  Can —
 
 AIDE:  Can we just have you move forward because there’s a bunch of people who wanted to use the restroom right here. 
 
MS. DALTON:  Oh, I’m so sorry.  Can we just move — 
 
(Cross-talk.)
 
Q    Can you give any preview of Prime Minister Meloni’s visit to the White House tomorrow?  And also, what — you know — you know, when the President has these meetings and conversations with people like Prime Minister Meloni and Chancellor Scholz, what kind of — what can you say about the U.S. credibility beyond the fact that Republicans are holding up aid on Capitol Hill, when you do see Russian advances into Ukraine and Ukraine is badly outgunned and really need all these equipment?  I mean, what — beyond blaming Capitol Hill, like, what is — what can you do to shore up U.S. credibility?
 
MS. DALTON:  Well, look, the President has continued to aggressively make the case for Congress to patch — to pass the national security supplemental.  That is — that is literally the only avenue through which we can provide Ukraine with the resources, the ammunition, the weaponry that they need to defend themselves against Russia’s aggression. 
 
There’s no substitute for it.  There’s just no substitute for it.  There’s no mistaking that.  It’s — it’s a clear message the President has continued to send.  It’s a bipartisan message shared by many members across Capitol Hill. 
 
And so, you know, we’re going to continue to press Congress to act.  Every day that we do not pass the supplemental is a good day for Russia and a bad day for Ukraine.  And we can’t let that stand. 
 
Q    Can seized assets fill this gap at all? 
 
MS. DALTON:  Like I said —
 
Q    Seized Russian assets, obviously.
 
MS. DALTON:  — there’s — there’s no substitute for — for our ability to provide immediate resources through the national security supplemental to provide Ukraine with the weapons and ammunition that they need, like, right now.  So, this is an urgent matter.  It becomes more urgent by the day for the people of Ukraine. 
 
 And we’re already seeing the impact of — of this lapse.  And we need to see Congress move immediately to put the national security supplemental on the President’s desk, and he’ll sign it. 
 
Q    Do you have a sense of, like, the lag time between any bill being passed and actual munitions reaching Ukraine?  You’ve got to make this stuff —
 
MS. DALTON:  I don’t have a —
 
Q    — before you send it.
 
MS. DALTON:  Yeah.  I don’t have a — sort of a precise timeline for you.  All I can say is that we’ll move Heaven and Earth to get that assistance quickly out the door as soon as Congress sends a bill to the President’s desk. 
 
Q    Olivia, you blamed President Trump for the blockage or the derailing of the border compromise.  Do you think that given that there is broad bipartisan support for Ukraine funding, does the President believe that the former President is a big part of why the Speaker has refused to bring the supplemental package to the floor?
 
 MS. DALTON:  I — I can’t provide a portal into those conversations.  But look, there was a clean — there was a — there was clean support for Ukraine and Israel on the table and the House didn’t act.  So, you’ll have to ask them why they didn’t move on that. 
 
But our message has been unmistakable and clear.  We have sought the resources to — to secure the border.  We’ve sought the resources to equip Ukraine to defend itself, sought the resources for Israel to — to defend itself against an exis- — an existential terrorist threat from Hamas.  And we are meeting inexplicably with continued resistance from the House Republicans. 
 
 And, you know, throughout this process, we’ve bent over backwards to try to extend in good faith a hand across the aisle.  It’s — it’s hard to explain. 
 
Senate Republicans are working with us. 
 
So, look, I can’t — I can’t, again, provide a portal into the thinking of House Republicans right now.  But it’s obviously having a demonstrable impact on not just our national security but the security of partners and allies around the world.
 
Q    Does the administration support a discharge petition to get this supplemental on the floor of the House for an up-or-down vote?
 
MS. DALTON:  Look, we always leave the mechanics of these congressional processes up to leadership in the House and the Senate, so, I won’t weigh in on particular procedures. 
 
What we think is important is that this legislation get to the President’s desk immediately, and then he’ll sign it. 
 
Q    Does the President expect to learn anything new today when he hears from border personnel?  Anything that might move the bill along or —
 
MS. DALTON:  I think he’ll — I think he’s likely to hear in vivid detail what it’s meant that Border Patrol has re- — you know, staffing has remained flat; that, you know, asylum judges are — are just, you know, facing incredible backlogs; that ICE detention centers are well over capacity. 
 
 I think he’ll hear directly on the ground from people who are on the front lines trying to secure our border without the resources they need to do their jobs.  And having those stories and hearing those stories and taking them back to Washington will be an important part of his ability to tell the Ameri- — American people who is responsible for holding up this critical assistance.
 
Q    Just on Israel and Gaza.  The President told Seth Meyers on Monday that he’s concerned that Israel is starting to lose support on the international stage.  Does the event overnight sort of increase those fears among the administration?  And will he convey that to the Prime Minister?
 
MS. DALTON:  Well, I can’t speak for other countries, but I can say that the President and the administration — certainly, we’ve expressed our concerns about civilian casualties in Gaza, the mounting humanitarian crisis there, the need to surge resources into Gaza to address the extreme civilian harms that are occurring there.  He’s been unequivocal about that.  The administration — everybody in administration has been unequivocal about that and as — you know, we’ve continued to communicate our concerns directly to Israel as recently as this morning in the wake of this tragic event.
 
Q    But if communicating those concerns hasn’t moved the needle, is there any talk of withholding aid or changing the aid to Israel?
 
MS. DALTON:  Look, Israel is also a sovereign nation that makes their sovereign decisions.  We are vocal about our concerns.  And I think, you know, it’s also important to bear in mind that they’re a — a close ally.  They’ll remain a close ally.  They are in the throes of an existential — battling an existential crisis — an existential threat to their existence from Hamas.  And we’re going to continue to support them in that process, even as we continue to make very, very, very clear our concerns about how this milit- — how these military operations are prosecuted and our concerns that civilian life be protected at — at every turn.
 
Q    Olivia, the administration often takes positions on Supreme Court cases.  They file amicus briefs.  There is a Supreme Court case involving President Biden’s predecessor involving presidential immunity that will be heard by the Supreme Court the week of April the 22nd.  Will the administration file an amicus brief on either side concerning that case?
 
MS. DALTON:  We’re not going to comment on the legal process here. 
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. DALTON:  All right.  See you all on the ground.
 
Q    Thank you, Olivia.
 
2:03 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas En Route Brownsville, TX appeared first on The White House.

2:47 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

Q    Hello.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughter.)  Hi.  Hello.  Thanks, Weijia. 

All right.  A couple of things at the top before we get going.

The President has been receiving updates on the wildfires that have already scorched over 500,000 acres across the Texas Panhandle.  We are grateful for the brave firefighters and first responders who are working to protect people and save lives.  And we urge everyone in the affected area to remain vigilant and heed the warnings of local officials, especially those who have been ordered to evacuate.

White House and federal officials are in close contact with state and local officials on the frontlines of these fires, and FEMA and the U.S. Forest Service are providing assistance to — to the state.  Specifically, FEMA has issued two fire management assistant grants to support Texas and one grant for Oklahoma. 

The National Interagency Fire Center and the U.S. Forest Service are also providing firefighting assistance, including tanker planes.  As always, we stand ready to provide further support as needed.

And tomorrow, following Secretary Becerra’s trip to Alabama, the White House Gender Policy Council and Office of Public Engagement will host a listening session on the importance of access to IVF following a devastating Alabama Supreme Court decision. 

The Biden-Harris administration will continue to speak out against this ruling; fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare, including IVF; and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in fed- — in federal law for all women in every state. 

And we will have more, obviously, to share on this event later today. 

Also today, President Biden will sign an executive order to protect Americans’ sensitive personal data from exploitation by countries of concern.  This is the most significant executive action any president has ever taken to protect Americans’ data security.  It will authorize the Attorney General to prevent the large-scale transfer of Americans’ personal data to countries of concern and provides safeguards around other activities that can give those countries access to sensitive data.

Buying data through data brokers is currently legal in the United States, and that reflects a gap in our national security.  Today, we are taking narrowly crafted steps to close that gap.

Aver- — as a result of the EO, the Department of Justice will begin a process to put regulations in place to prohibit the scale of data or — the sale of data, pardon me, or put in place a cybersecurity safeguards on the transfer of data.

Of course, throughout this process, we engage heavily with industry and other stakeholders to minimize any unintended economic impacts that will continue as this process moves forward.  The administration is committed to protecting American safety and privacy, and we will continue to take appropriate action to ensure their protection.

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

Q    Yes.  On Leader McConnell’s announcement today.  Did he call or let the President know — he was here yesterday — ahead of the announcement —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that he would be making it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have any — any details to read out to you outside of, obviously, the readout that we — that we had or beyond the rea- — readout that we had from yesterday.  You heard directly from the President just moments ago.  I believe you were in the room, Aamer. 

And I’ll quote the President: “He and I have trust. We have a great relationship.  We fight like hell, but he has never, never, never misrepresented anything.  I’m sorry he’s stepping down.” 

I just don’t have anything outside of that.

Q    So, to that end, what does this mean, if anything, for current negotiations on big items like the — this foreign aid supplemental or even the CR?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t — I don’t presume it means anything, right?  He said he’s going to step down, essentially, at the — by the end of the year.  I don’t think that affects his leadership.  Leader McConnell has been a leader, as you know, for some time of the Senate. 

And he’s been very clear, as well as the other four — the other three of the Big Four yesterday.  They said it was important.  They all agree the importance of making sure Ukraine gets the funding that they need.  They all four agreed with the President and the Vice President on making sure that we keep the government open. 

And I think that’s important — important to note.  And so, I don’t think it affects Mitch McConnell’s leadership in this current time as we’re moving forward. 

Look, we have bipartisan support in the Senate.  And we know that we have bipartisan support on — on the House side as it relates, obviously, to the national security supplemental.  And we want to see the House bring that forward and put that to the floor so we can see that moving so we can make sure that the brave people of Ukraine gets — continues to get the assistance that they need from the United States.

Q    And the Leader also noted in his floor speech that, “Father Time remains undefeated,” and “It is time for the next generation of leadership.”  How does that sentiment resonate, if at all, with the President?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this.  Look, we — a decision like that that the — that the — Mitch McConnell, the Senator, made is a very personal decision.  And that is for an individual to make and decide on.  And he spoke to it.  So, I’ll certainly let the senator continue to speak to that, if he chooses.  And we know his words.  We heard it on the floor of the Senate today. 

The President has been very clear.  The President has said he wants to continue to deliver for the American people, as he has done in the last three years in a historic fashion. 

This is — this is a historic presidency when you think about how we’ve turned the economy around; when you think about how we’ve been able to — the President has been able to beat — beat Big Pharma and let Medicare negotiate for — for the American people, making sure that we’re getting these prices to be lower; a climate change aden- — agenda; passing an Inf- — the Inflation Reduction Act, a incredibly important piece of legislation, obviously, that is now law that’s going to do — that’s going to move the climate situation in a direction that is in the positive way — right? — and to make sure that we’re dealing with the climate — the climate change issue.

So, there’s a lot of things that the President has done.  He wants to continue that.  And that’s what he’s looking forward to do.  And obviously, you’ll hear a lot more from him next week as he addresses — addresses Congress.

Q    And could you just indulge me on just one non-McConnell question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Sure.

Q    He’s going to the border tomorrow.  What should we expect him to see and do, and what’s his objective?  What does he hope to accomplish tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know — as you all know, we’ve — we’ve announced and you all have reported he’s going to go to Brownsville, Texas, tomorrow.  He’s going to meet with Border Patrol agents, law enforcement officials, frontline personnel, and local leaders. 

While he is there, the President will be briefed by officials from the Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  And the President will also deliver remarks to highlight the need for Congress to pass the bipartisan border security agreement that was negotiated out of the Senate, as you know, not too long ago and took four months — four months of us, the White House, working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to get that done.  And obviously, Republicans have rejected that because of politics. 

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The President said he’s sorry to hear that McConnell is stepping down.  But what impact broadly does he believe this will have on the Republican Party, on the future of the party, and the future of Congress?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to get into — you know, into evaluating or looking into how this is going to affect the Republican Party.  That’s for them to speak to.

What we’re going to continue to do is work on behalf of the American people.  We know where the — where — where the Big Four stand as it relates to making sure that we get that national security supplemental done in a bipartisan way.  It was done in the Senate in a bipartisan way.  We want to see that get to the floor. 

We know where the Big Four stood yesterday on making sure that there is not a shutdown, that that is avoided, that Congress do its job and keep the — keep the government open to make sure that Americans get the programs that they need from — from the federal government — important programs, important — import- — important resources that is critical to the American people. 

That’s where we stand.  That’s what we understand.  As it relates to the Republican Party, that’s for the Republican Party to speak to.

Q    And did the President take a mental fitness or cognitive test during his physical this morning? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say I did see Dr.  O’Connor in — he stopped by my office earlier today, after the President completed his physical this morning, as you all know.  He was happy with how everything went.  And as soon as he finishes completing the memo — it will be a robust, comprehensive memo — we will certainly share that with all of you, as we have done in the last two years. 

And look, you saw the President return to work.  He took some of your questions not too long ago, and you saw he’s going to continue to — to fight for the American people.  And in this particular instance, he was talking about fighting — fighting crime.  So, the President is going to continue that — that process.

As it relates to — you were asking me about a cognitive test — as it relates to that, look, you know, the President doesn’t need a cognitive test.  That is not my assessment.  That is not my assessment.  That is the assessment of the President’s doctor.  That is also the assessment of the neurologist who has also made that assessment as well. 

And, you know — and you’ve heard us say this, and I’ll reiterate this: The President’s doctor has said, if you look at what this President — the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief — he passes a cognitive test every day — every day, as he moves from one topic to another topic, trying — understanding the granular level of these topics. 

 You saw him talk about a fighting crime today.  Tomorrow, he’s going to go to the border.  Next week, he’s going to give a State of the Union Address. 

And so, we have to keep that in mind.  This is a very rigorous job.  And the President has been able to do — do this job every day for the past three years. 

And let’s not forget, he is also leading a historic presidency, which is also important to note in everything that we’ve been able to do — he’s been able to get done over the past three years. 

Q    But given that there’s been so much scrutiny, and you say there’s no problem, he would pass the test every day, why not just have his doctor administer the test and then case closed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because the doctor doesn’t believe that he be- — he needs one, because his — including the neurologist doesn’t believe he needs one.

Look, I think — I think folks need to understand that the President passes, again, a cognitive test every day.  If you look at what a clinical cognitive test is actually, what it actually does, it is a 15-minute appointment that is — that is administered by someone that, most of the time, people don’t actually know. 

And — and — and the President has a team of doctors that is with him 24/7.  And he is able to do the work every day that is rigorous — that is more rigorous than it would be for any 15-minute clinical — clinical appointment. 

And you think about the job growth, you think about the record small-business action, you think about the bloom in that — in that particular space of 16 million more small businesses have been cre- — created.  You think about delivering historic investment — that has been done by a president who has to deal with these issues every day, again, on a granular level. 

And — and so, his doctor, including the neurologist, do not believe that he needs one.  That is their assessment. 

Go ahead, Jeff.

 Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is the President’s expectation still that a ceasefire will take place in Gaza starting on Monday? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President, obviously, and his team has been working 24/7 for some time now, as you all know, to get to a — to get to a cea- — a ceasefire.  Obviously, that would also include humanitarian aid get — going into Gaza.  That would also include making sure that we get hostages home, including American hostages back home to their friends and families, obviously, which is incredibly important. 

We are working around the clock to get that done.  The President — you heard the President a couple of days ago say that he is certainly — he is optimistic and hopeful in that getting done.  And so, that is incredibly important to this President, to his entire team to secure — to secure that deal — that hostage deal.  So, we’re going to continue focusing on that. 

I wish I had something to share of any news on where we were.  I do not.  But this is a priority for this President. 

Q    I’m just curious if he still thinks that timeline is realistic.  (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think he’s optimistic and he believes that it is — it is important to get done. 

Q    And separately, did the President monitor his son’s testimony today in Congress?  And does he have a comment or does the White House have a broader comment about it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can’t speak to — I can’t speak to the President monitoring that.  Obviously, he was busy this morning.  You saw him go to Walter Reed.  And obviously, he gave remarks and met with — did remarks on crime and met with some law enforcement.

 What I would say is — just going to be, you know, as — anything that’s related to — to Hunter, obviously, Hunter and his representatives can speak to that on any specifics regarding his testimony. 

I’ll say this broadly, and we’ve been very clear here that we think it’s a stunt that has dragged on for months and months and months.  It’s uncovered zero evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.  In fact, House Republicans’ own wit- — own witnesses have refuted their allegations over and over again and — and the core premise of their inquiry continues to fall apart. 

You all have reported this.  We have seen this for the past several months. 

So, House Republicans would be better off in helping American families.  There’s a national security supplemental that, if it went to the floor, it would pass.  That would help our own national security, that would help Ukraine, that would help other — making sure that we get that humanitarian aid into Gaza, making sure that we’re continuing to assist Israel.  And also, let’s not forget the Indo-Pacific. 

There is a potential shutdown.  The clock is ticking.  They need to do their jobs and get that done.

And so, look, you know, that’s kind of where we are with this.  It’s dragged on.  There’s zero evidence.  We think it’s baseless. 

Anything else, I would refer you to our Hou- — White House Counsel. 

Go ahead.

Q    Just on the news about Senator McConnell.  Does — do you know if the President feels like he increasingly has fewer Republican governing partners that he can work with on Capitol Hill?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we’re talking about Mitch McConnell, the Leader.  Obviously, he’s been — he’s been in that — in that role as Senator for some time, has worked very closely with this President.  You heard from the President how he views their relationship — a very important relationship. 

But, look, we were able to get a bipartisan negotiation coming out of the Senate on border security, on — on dealing with a broken immigration system, which is something that people didn’t think we were able to do. 

Se- — you know, that is really important.  We were able to get a bi- — bipartisan support on the national security supplemental — 70 to 29 — you know?  And I think that is also important that we were able to do that in the political climate that we’re in. 

Are we sorry to see Mitch McConnell go?  Because, obviously — in November, when he steps down, he still — sounds like he’s still going to be in the Senate.  He’s just stepping down as leadership.  So, I want to make that clear as well.  And the President said he’s sorry to — to see that happen. 

But we believe that there are still ways and still Republicans, certainly, in the Senate that we can work in a bipartisan way.  And we have done that.  We have done that over the last three years.

Q    A little follow-up to Jeff’s question but more narrowly tailored, I guess.  Is the President supportive of his son, Hunter, you know, sitting down for this closed-door deposition today?  Does he think it’s a good idea?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into private conversations that the President has with his family.  Just not going to do it from here.  I’m just going to leave it there. 

I shared our thoughts on this.  We’ve been very clear how we think it’s a political stunt.  We would love to work with the House R- — with House Republicans on issues that matter to the American people.  The President has said: It’s — why don’t they focus on the American people instead of his family?  And everything that they have moved forward with as it relates to this, certainly, has been baseless. 

I’m just not going to get into a private conversation with the President.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Was President Biden surprised that more than 100,000 voters in Michigan in yesterday’s primary chose to vote that they were “uncommitted”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’ll say this.  The President is — appreciates the people of Michigan coming out last night to make sure that their voices were heard yesterday.  I think that’s really important.  And he is proud to have received more than 80 percent of the Democratic Party voters’ vote.  And I think that’s really important.

As it relates to the uncommitted, look, I said this yesterday: There has been senior officials that have gone to Michigan, as recently as earlier this month, to hear directly from the Muslim and Arab American community.  And we understand how — how personal this is, how this moment is incredibly painful.  And we’re going to continue to have those conversations.  And we’re going to make sure that we continue to listen and continue to engage. 

And as I mentioned earlier before, this is why it’s important to get this hostage deal.  It will be accompanied with a temporary ceasefire.  And so, we want to see that done.  We want to see that moving forward.  The President is going to continue to work on that 24/7. 

And — and let’s not forget: We’re going to continue to work on making sure there is a two-state solution as well. 

And so, he is — he appreciates folks getting out there, making their voices heard.  But he also got more than 80 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary, and that’s important, too, to note.

Go ahead, Jordan.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  It sounds like negotiators on the Hill are making progress toward avoiding a government shutdown.  But it seems like they might need a stopgap spending bill to make sure there’s no temporary shutdown.  Do you see that as a scenario?  And would the President sign one if necessary?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re going to let the negotiators do their job, do their work.  We’ve been very clear: There is no need for a shutdown here.  And, you know, the President and the four — the Big Four made that clear yesterday in their meeting.

And House Republicans need to do their job.  They need to do their job.  It is not rocket sci- — rocket science — right? — what needs to happen.  They need to figure it out, keep the government open, make sure those all-important programs that the American people need continue. 

And so, I’m going to let the congressional leaders
have their conversations, do their negotiations on the exact path forward, and leave that to them. 

Q    The — the House is expected to consider a bill that would transfer the RFK Stadium site in Washington, D.C., to local leadership that would allow it to be redeveloped for, perhaps, another stadium or housing.  Does the White House support that bill?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything for you on that.  I would have to — I haven’t checked with the team.  I know — I saw that reporting.  I just don’t have anything to share with you on that.

Q    Then, lastly, Venezuela has proposed some changes to its election that run aground of the agreement it had with the U.S. — moving up the election date, sort of limiting the involvement of opposition.  Is the White House aware of that?  And, if so, would that trigger snapback sanctions if that were the case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would have to get back to the team on that — on that particular election question that you just asked me, and just would have to get back to you on that piece — particular piece.

Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The World Food Program has warn- –warned that famine is imminent in Northern Gaza.  Does the White House share that assessment of the situation there, that a famine is imminent?  And has the — has the White House urged Israel specifically to let aid into that — to that particular area?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this is why we’re trying to get that deal, right?  This is why we’re trying to get the hostage deal, which would be accompanied, obviously, by a temporary ceasefire.  It is important.  It is important to get that aid into Gaza, to make sure that we get the food and the necessary medical needs into Gaza.  And so, that is going to — that is certainly why we’re continuing to push, obviously, to make sure that the hostages get home to their families. 

And so, this is what the President wants to see.  We know that innocent Palestinians are indeed suffering in Gaza.  We understand that.  The President understands that, which is why he’s been working, again, around the clock, 24/7, to get that all-important humanitarian aid. 

You heard from my colleague yesterday, as — as the administrator from USAID was — is in the region and announced $53 million of additional humanitarian aid that will go into — into Gaza to make sure that food is getting in, make sure that sup- — other supplies are getting in — critical supplies.  And so, that announcement happened yesterday. 

So, we are aware of what’s happening on the ground there.  And we are going to continue to work 24/7 to get that hostage deal done, to make sure that there is a temporary — a temporary ceasefire, getting that aid in, and getting those hostages home — hostages home.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Does the President support an extension of the current continuing resolutions to later in March to give negotiators time to come to an agreement and avoid a government shutdown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I just got a version of that question.  And, look, I think we were very clear that all four — the Big Four that were here meeting with the President and the Vice President were very clear yesterday — the importance of continu- — continuing to making sure or keeping the government open and not shutting down.  The clock is ticking.  And they all agreed that we have to keep the government open.  They have to do that.  Right? 

And so, as it relates to the process and how they’re going to do that, I’m going to let the negotiators and congressional members deal with that.  They can figure that out. 

But it is important — it is important that we keep the government open.

Q    And I hear what you’re saying about Mitch McConnell staying until the end of the year.  But with respect to Ukraine aid, based on his comments today, are you concerned that there just isn’t support for Ukraine aid among many Republicans in Congress —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — and that there — and that there won’t be — that they won’t be able to get the votes for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I — I disagree.  There is actually support for Ukraine.  There is bipartisan support in the House.  I mean, they got it, certainly, from the Senate, right?  They passed, 70 to 29, a national security supplemental that include — that included aid to Ukraine.  They just did that. 

Now we want to see that go to the floor of the House.  And we have heard from Republicans who have said that if it came to the floor, they would vote for it.  So, that’s what we want to see. 

So, we actually believe there’s support in — in — with House Republicans, obviously with Democrats, to move that really all-important national security supplemental that is needed for — not just for Ukraine and, obviously, Israel and — and Indo-Pacific and what we need to do there in getting that humanitarian aid, obviously, to folks — innocent Palestinians who need it in Gaza, but also for our own national security, it is important that we get done. 

I talked about this yesterday: During the Big Four meeting, we had the CIA Director that was in that meeting that laid out the dire consequences and what we have seen in Ukraine as they have lost — you know, they have lost ground on the battlefield.  And it is because of congressional inaction.  They laid that out for them. 

And so — and so, look, the CIA Director was clear in that meeting.  We have been clear.  And they all agreed.  They all agreed.  All four agreed that we needed to move forward on this.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  Can you talk a little bit about the President’s prep for the State of the Union next week?  How involved has he been so far in the drafting of the speech and
where that process stands a week out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we still have a little bit mo- — time left.  The President — obviously, this is a — the President sees this as an incredibly important opportunity not just to address Congress but also to — to address the American people.  Millions of people — millions of Americans are going to be watching and listening to the President talk about the state of the Union, obviously, and how he’s going to move forward with — with his plans for — on behalf of the American people.

As it relates to the draft, it’s always in progress, obviously — almost alwa- — always — almost always to the end, to the final, final minute.  And so, the President is going to be heavily involved, as he has been for the last two. 

He’s looking forward to this moment.  We still will — we’ll still — about a week away.  And so, there’s still time.  There’s still time. 

Q    And he’s going to Camp David this weekend.  Is that meant to be practice sessions?  Is he bringing people up there with him to do speaking (inaudible) —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, he’s going to work — he’s going to work on the State of the Union Address.  He’s going to continue to work on behalf of the American people as he’s there.  And so, look, there’s going to be, obviously, focus on — on the speech.  Just don’t have anything else to share. 

We’ll sh- — we’ll have more color for you as we get closer — closer to next Thursday.

Q    And, of course, wh- — should we expect travel after the State of the Union?  Would he be doing that traditional “take message on the road”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the President likes to be on the road and talk directly to the American people.  So, certainly, you’ll — you should expect the President to get on the road, as he normally does. 

Go ahead, Andrew.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On — on the matter of the President’s physical.  I know, in years past, Dr. O’Connor has put out a memo to you that gets released —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to us.  The President is the oldest person to ever serve as President.  And I know that — you’ve said he takes a cognitive test every day through doing the job and Dr. O’Connor has said that he remains healthy enough to exercise his various responsibilities. 

Having said that, why is — is the President or your office not willing to make Dr. O’Connor available to us to just answer questions here?  Previous presidents —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — have put their doctors up at that lectern.  Why — why not this one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, a couple things, Andrew.  And the President said that they thought he was “too young,” so, you know, you heard from the President.  He talked about this when he was asked. 

And so, look, as it relates to Dr. O’Connor — look, this is someone who has served under Republican and Democratic presidents in the White House as a military physician, extensively in the field as well.  And — and so, he is well respected.  And let’s not rememb- — let’s not forget, there was a — he did this with a team — a team of 20 — 20 doctors who participated in completing the President’s physical at Walter Reed.  So, it wasn’t just him.  There were specialists that were part of this as well. 

Q    Yes, and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And — and I think that’s important to note. 

And I said, at the beginning, when I —

Q    But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Let me finish.  I said, at the beginning, when I was asked this question: It’s not just Dr. O’Connell — O’Connor who said this; also, his neurologist does — do not believe that he needed — that was their assessment — that they did not believe he needed a cognitive test.

As it relates to your question, there is not a precedent for bringing the doctor to — to the podium.  And it — or to the brof- — to the briefing room.

Like, I understand it has happened a few times over the last 35 years, a couple of times, but it is actually not the precedent.  And so, what Dr. O’Connor has done is he has put forward, over the last two years, a comprehensive, robust — robust memo — as you just stated, that is sent to me and then, obviously, we disseminate it to all of you — that lays out — lays out in parts of the President’s physical.  And I think that’s important.  It is — it is robust, and it is comprehensive.

Q    That — that being said, I know it hasn’t been, you know, a yearly thing for every president.  But given the President’s age; given that his age is a concern for Americans, accor- — according to polling, it is an issue; and he — that he is the oldest person to ever serve as president, why would it not help, in your estimation, to put Dr. O’Connor or any of the other medical unit physicians that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that saw the President up there to answer questions, not necessarily from, you know, all of us but some of our colleagues who are medical correspondents, people who really know — know the medical field.  Can he be made available to some of them, even if you don’t want to put him up here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not a doctor.  The doctor — the —

Q    Me neither.  (Inaudible.) 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right.  And I am — and that’s why I’m telling you and you will see from the doctor himself in a couple of hours.  We will certainly make this robust, comprehensive memo, as we have done the last two years, available to all of you.

And the reason I said I’m not a doctor is because his own doctor — his personal doctor, as well as the neurologist — has said that we don’t need to have a cognitive test.  As it relates to the Pres- — the doctor coming to — coming to the briefing room, it is not a norm.  We’re trying to get back to the norm that it was — it used to be where doctors don’t come to the briefing room. 

It is not — it is not the norm.  It is not.  It has happened a couple times over the 35 years, but it’s not the norm. 

And so, look, the — the doctor has also said that, look, he is — he is a professional here.  He doesn’t want to make this about politics.  He wants to make this about the work.  He wants to make this about making sure that we put forward to — to you — he puts forward to all of you a robust, comprehensive memo.  And that is what we — we’re going to do.  We did it the last two years, and we’re going to do it again.

Q    Okay.  One more on — on Gaza and the Michigan results last night.  There are many, many voters in Michigan — Arab American voters — who have said that they — they cannot vote for the President again because of what has transpired in Gaza.  There are many who voted “uncommitted” to register their disapproval but remain open to voting for the President in November. 

What is he going to do between now and November to assuage the concerns of people who, in many cases, have lost family members, have — have seen horrible things happen to people they love over there, and they’ve seen him literally go over and hug the man that they believe is responsible?  How is he going to clean that up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — and I have answered this already, and I’ll say it — maybe I’ll say it in this way.  Look, the President understands.  He understands how painful this moment is to many people.  He gets that, which is why he has had conversations with the Arab and Muslim — Muslim community, listened directly to them and heard their concerns. 

You — you’ve heard me say just moments ago how senior officials went to Michigan and listened and engaged.  And we’re going to continue to do that. 

And this is why he is continuing to work on securing a hostage deal.  This is why he is continuing to work to do just that.  And if we do that, which is going to be accompanied by a temporary ceasefire, that is going to be important.  It is going to be important to do.

And his team has made that a priority.  We’re going to continue to get that done.  And let’s not forget, we got to continue to make sure we get to a two-state solution.  And so, those are the — those are the commitments that the President has made. 

And as it relates to the pain that that community is going through, obviously, we’re going to continue to listen, we’re going to continue to engage, and we understand how painful this is for so many — for so many in this country.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Do you know: Will the report from Dr. O’Connor include the rationale for not doing a cognitive test?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I believe that, as I said, the report will be robust and comprehensive.  It will certainly speak to that as well.

Q    And do you know: Does the President have any plans to go to Michigan in the coming weeks or months?  And might that include meeting with Arab American leaders?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t want to get ahead of — of the President’s schedule.  Obviously, the President is going to do a lot of travel over the next several weeks and months.  Just don’t have anything to share specifically on Michigan.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Why go to Brownsville, Texas, specifically?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think the President — and I said this at the top, and I’ve said this many times — he wanted to show that it was important for him to go down there to hear from Border Patrol agents, to hear from first responders on what’s going on on the ground.  He’s been — he’s been to the border before — recently in this administration.

And he also wants to lay out the work that he has been able to do with sen- — with senators in a — in a bipartisan way.  We were able to come — come forward to the American people — push forward a bipartisan bill that dealt with the border — the challenges at the border that also dealt with a broken immigration system.  We were able to do that.

And, you know, as I said — as I’ve said many times, it was support- — it’s supported by the Border Patrol union, U.S. — U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and that is not something that you see every day.  But what we ended up — what ended up happening is that Republicans rejected it.  They rejected it because of the last president and the politics around the last president.

And so, look, the President is going to — he said — we actually even said that once that bill was killed by Republicans that — that the American people are going to hear directly from the American — from — from the President.

Q    Well, the reason I ask is because Brownsville is one of the slower sectors.  In the month of February, they averaged, I think, 17 illegal crossings a day for a little more than 450 in the month.  The number one sector has — had more than 14,000 in the same time period.  This administration has often criticized Republicans when they go to the border and hold similar press conferences as saying that they’re doing publicity stunts and photo ops.  So, how is this any different?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, it’s very different.  What House Republicans have done is nothing — absolutely nothing.  If anything, they consistently get in the way — they consistently get in the way of what the President is trying to do to get more resources. 

They are turning this into a political stunt by listening to Donald Trump and saying that they need to kill it — this is what they’ve been doing — and making it political, where the President got his team now — directed his team to work with senators, both Republicans and Democrats, to get a bill done.

Q    But the President is not going to actually see the parts of the border where it’s actually really bad.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — I think you’re missing the point.  The point is the President actually did the work to get a bipartisan bill done that act- — that deals with an issue that the majority of Americans care about.  He did.  It dealt with border security challenges.  It dealt with immigration iss- — policy.  He actually did that.

Republicans got in the way.  They rejected it.  Well, Republicans in the House got in the way, and then it was rejected because of what they were told by the last — by the last president, by Donald Trump, to kill it. 

They literally — literally, Jacqui — put politics ahead of the American people.  That’s what they did.

Q    What do you say to people, though, who think that this is just an election-year stunt — finally hearing about the border —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We worked —

Q    — after it’s been a problem for the last three years?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, here’s the thing.  Here’s what I would say.  On the first day of this President administration, he put out a comprehensive immigration policy to deal with this issue.  He did that on the first day.  That was his first piece of legislation. 

I would hope the American people would see how serious this President was — or is about — about fixing this issue.  Not only that: spent four months — four months having a bipartisan conversation, doing negotiations to come up with a — with a — with a bill, with a pol- — proposal that was, again, approved by the Border Patrol union — right? — that was — that’s supported by U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

We don’t see that.  And that’s because of the President’s direction of what he was able to do because he got involved and worked with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.  And then when we got this bill done — by the way, it included a lot of things that House Republicans wanted — when we got that done, it was rejected because of politics. 

I mean, that’s where we are.  That is where we are.  So, the President is going to make that very clear and take it directly to the American people. 

Q    Thank you.

Q    Karine, has the President spoken to the family of Laken Hope Riley, the young Georgia student who was murdered, allegedly, at the hands of an undocumented immigrant? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first of all, I do want to extend our deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Laken Hope Riley.  Given this is an active case, I’m going to be really careful about speaking to that case more specifically.  Would have to refer any — anything specific to that — to that case to law enforcement and, obviously, ICE.

And I — the President — I don’t have anything regarding to the President speaking to the family.  But it is heartbreaking.  I — I can’t even imagine what the family is going through. 

And so — but anything else specifically, I would have to refer you to ICE and law enforcement.

Q    Just for clarity, when you say you don’t have anything else in regards them speaking: So, we can assume that they haven’t spoken to this point, at least?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything to read out to you. 

Q    Okay.  If they have spoken, will you correct us and let us — let us know that there is something you can tell us?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would — we would — we would let you know.  I just don’t have anything for you. 

Q    Okay.  Perfect.  You got a lot of questions about Michigan.  I just want to ask this a little bit differently.  I know the President understood — understands the way that people of the “uncommitted” community felt in registering their votes.  What message does the President think was being sent by those 100,000 Michiganders?  What do they — what does he believe they want to see him do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I can’t speak for them.  Right?  I — no, seriously, I can’t.  What I can —

Q    But — yeah, but the White House has spoken to them.  So, I guess, presumably the White House would know what — what they want to see him do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, what we’re doing, what I can tell you that we’re going to continue to do, is listen.  And we understand how painful it is for the community. 

That is why — and let’s not forget — that is why — and I think that’s what you’re alluding to in your — in your question to me — he’s had his senior advisors — senior officials go to Michigan to have those conversations with that community — Ar- — Arab and Muslim leaders — and we’re going to continue that conversation. 

And he believes it’s important for people to feel like their voice is being heard.  That’s our — our message. 

But let’s not forget: We’re — there’s also work to be done, which is what the President has have been doing for the last — you know, last several months, 24/7 with his team, getting that hostage deal so that it can lead to a temporary ceasefire. 

We want to make sure that happens.  And the President is going to work very hard to secure that — 

Q    And having —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — and getting to a two-state solution. 

Q    Having spoken to the leader of the House — the House Democratic Leader in the statehouse there in Michigan just yesterday, one of the messages that was communicated in that conversation was his desire, A, to communicate this message directly to the President.  So, is that under consideration, A? 

And, B, that the President not just continue to make efforts to get the hostages out but that the U.S. policy change vis-à-vis Israel and what it’s doing is Gaza.  Is the President open to changing course in that regard, which includes the provision of weapons to Israel? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the U.S. policy is not going to change on this.  But what we can do is get to a temporary ceasefire so we can get that humanitarian aid into — into Gaza to the — the innocent people of — of — the Palestinian people who need that aid. 

And you heard me — you heard us announce yesterday about the $53 million that was announced by Administrator Powers [Power].  And we believe that’s also important to do to continue to do that — get that — get the food that’s needed to get in there and, also, incredi- — incredibly important medical supply as well. 

And so, we’re going to continue to work with Israel on getting that done, as well making sure we get the humanitarian aid. 

We believe getting to a temporary ceasefire is important.  Of course, the President wants to see this war end.  Of course.  And that’s what he’s working towards: getting a temporary ceasefire, making sure — there are hostages that are been held in Gaza —

Q    Six Americans.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — their families and their friends — and six Americans, exactly — their family and friends want them to come home.  We got to make sure that we get them home as well. 

So, that’s where we’re focused on.  That’s what the President — he spoke about it just a couple days ago, obviously, when he was in New York.  He’s hopeful.  We’re going to continue to work towards that end. 

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  In two weeks from now, there will be third anniversary of the first Quad Summit that the President held here three weeks — three years ago.  In these three years, what has been achieved the Quad for that the challenges remain the same? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would say — I would say this.  The President is incredibly proud of the progress the Quad has made over the past three years.  To your point, the anniversary is coming up, and we’re — we are hoping to continue that momentum in 2024 under India’s host year, as you just stated.

And we’re talking about not just the United States — obviously India, Japan, and Australia.  And we all have a shared — a shared vision here of a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific.  The Quad is helping all of our nations deliver concrete benefits to the Indo-Pacific across a number of critical, important sectors. 

So, we look forward to continuing that progress for the Quad in 2024 — and not just in 2024 but, also, beyond.

Q    As Quad has made significant progress, as you said, President formed another group of four countries called I2U2 — Israel, U.S., UAE, and India.  In the context of the war that goes — going on in Middle East, has this grouping taken a back burner, is no longer active? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all.  It’s still a priority.  I2U2 remains critically important.  And the President is — is deeply committed to making sure that we continue with I2U2, obviously, with our partnership among our four countries and beyond through innovative, inclusive, and science-based solutions to an- — advanced — let’s not forget — enhance food and energy security; space operation; other ventures advancing projects on water conservation, waste management, and other areas. 

So, there’s a strong future for I2U2.  And so, we’re looking forward to continuing that partnership.  It has not taken a back burner.  It is certainly a pri- — continues to be a priority. 

Q    One more question, if I may.  As the President heads to the border tomorrow, on illegal immigration.  There are many groups, m- — mostly Indian Americans, who feel that the President is not much as serious as he is on illegal immigration — not much serious on legal immigration systems.  He hasn’t held any meetings with those groups, what the — what the problems are, what the issues are.  Can you give us a sense what the steps the President has taken to address them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, one of the steps — if we look at H1-B visa process, we have taken action to improve that: end the process and backlogs for lawful permanent residents who are eligible to become U.S. citizens. 

Just last month, for example, as a part of our efforts to strengthen the integrity of our immigration system and reduce potential for fraud, DHS published a final rule relating to H1-B visas.  So, the changes promote fairer and more equitable outcomes. 

And so, we will continue our work to improve the system within our authorities.  And that has certainly been a priority. 

Obviously, I would refer you to U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services for any specifics on the actions that we have taken.  But we take that very seriously.  And we’re continuing to do everything that we can to improve the visas process.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Janne.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  The U.S. want South Korea to provide more 155mm artillery shells to Ukraine.  South Korea has already provided more artillery shells to Ukraine than Europe.  Why does the U.S. demand more support from South Korea?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to let South Korea speak to their own — their own military decisions and their bilateral relations.  We are grateful — we are grateful for their support to — to Ukraine, obviously, as they continue to defend against the — Russia’s aggression.  So, we are grateful for that.  But I’m not going to speak to their own military decisions.  That is something for them to speak to.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Yeah, thanks, Karine.  I appreciate it.  So, the — on the executive order the President signed today, if I could.  What’s the level of concern of the President that, kind of, apps like TikTok and Temu are sending data now — the private data now to the Chinese Communist Party?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we — we do have concerns, which is why we put out this EO, which we’ve never seen any other administration do before, right?  And it is to protect Americans’ sensitive personal data from exploitation by countries of concern — and the most significant executive action that we have seen from any president — any president has ever taken. 

And so, look, it is important.  I think — I think it — it — as I stated at the top, when you think about the buying data through data brokers is currently legal.  It’s legal in the United States.  And that reflects a gap in our national security. 

So, this is about national security.  This is about people’s privacy — Americans’ privacy. 

And so, what we’re going to do — what this EO is going to do — it’s going to narrow that by — by carefully crafting steps to move forward here where we’re protecting the privacy of Americans. 

Q    Then how come the President’s campaign, then, is on TikTok if there’s such a concern?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to let — I’m going to let the campaign speak for itself.  I know this question has come in a couple of times.  I’m going to let them speak for itself.

As it relates to TikTok or the impact of TikTok or any other companies, look, this program does not target any one company or — or cover expressive content.  But if a company is collecting Americans’ data on a large scale that falls under one of the covered categories, such as precise geolocation data, that data won’t be able to be sold to — or transferred to the country of concern once the rulemaking process is complete. 

So, as you know, when the President signs an executive action, there’s a rulemaking process.  But we believe that this is going to make a difference in — for our national security and also for the American people in perfect — protecting their privacy.  So, it’s important.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you very much, Karine.  So, tomorrow marks the fourth anniversary of the Doha Agreement between Washington and Taliban.  Following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington has repeatedly said that the Taliban needs to fulfill their commitments in the agreement.  What specific parts of the commitments does the administration want the Taliban to be — to fulfill under this agreement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things here, and I know my colleague at the State Department was asked this question and spoke to this earlier today. 

So, it has been four years since the previous administration signed, as you know, the 2020 agreement with the Taliban.  This agreement empowered the Taliban, weakened our partners in — in Af- — in the Afghan government, and committed to withdraw our troops a few months after President Biden’s inauguration, as you know, with no clean — clear path, plan for — for what could come next.  That’s what we saw. 

The Taliban have not fulfilled their commitments in the Doha Agreement.  The Taliban has also not fulfilled their Doha commitment to engage in a meaningful dialogue with fellow Afghans leading to a negotiated settlement and inclusive political system. 

So, we continue to hold the Taliban to their commitments.  And we are working tirelessly every day to ensure that this set of commitments is fulfilled.  And that has been how we’re moving forward on that. 

Q    And if I may, is there any plan for VP to do her physical checkup?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You would have to speak to the VP’s office.

Go ahead.  Go ahead.  Go ahead.  Go ahead, Jared.

Q    Thank you.  Back on the EO.  So, you talked about how it narrows this — this gap that exist in federal law.  You would need legislation to fully close that loophole?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, we always need Congress to take action here.  But we’re going to take the step to narrow it.  There’s going to be, as you know, a process here.  And so, we’re going to let that process take place.  But this is a step. 

This is — this is — let’s not forget, this is a step that no other president has taken.  And we want to make sure that we’re protecting our national security.  We want to make sure that we’re doing everything that we can also to protect Americans’ privacy.

Q    Is there a sort of engagement now with Congress on what that legislation would look like, what it is that needs to happen?  I guess, what’s that next step after this step, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, we’re going to do — there’s going to be a rulemaking process.  We — as the President signed this — right? — DOJ is going to move forward on this.  And so, it’s important.  They’ll have additional details as the executive — as how it moves with the executive action. 

And we’re always talking to Congress on a — on a — on a myriad of — of important agendas, items, obviously, that matter to the American people.  That will continue.

Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Two questions.  The White House considers Israeli settlements as an obstacle to peace.  In fact, it clashes with the President’s vision of a two-state solution.  So, Israel is intending to build 3,000 new unit — one of the biggest settlement in the West Bank, which is Ma’ale Adumim. 

So, do you see this as Prime Minister Netanyahu defiance against the President and making his vision of a two-state solution redundant?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that last part again.

Q    Does Netanyahu — by building the settlements that clashes with the White House vision of a two-state solution, is he defying the President and making his vision redundant?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Is her def- — def- —

Q    Defying President Biden.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look —

Q    Netanyahu.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — we have certainly seen these reports, and we’ve been really clear about how disappointed we are by — by the announcement, right? 

And — and, look, it has been longstanding U.S. policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations that new settlements are, indeed, counterproductive, as you just stated in your question, to — as we try to head to peace.  Right?  They are also inconsistent with international law. 

So, we — we’re going to continue to be firm in opposition to settlement expansion.  I don’t have anything else to share.  Obviously, we continue to have diplomatic conversations with the Israeli government.  But we are going to be very clear about our disappointment in this. 

It is — it is not — that has not been our — our longstanding U.S. policy has been very clear under both Republican and Democratic administrations on this specifically.

Q    And also, in reference to  $53 million in humanitarian aid.  The problem that many people see, especially U.N. organizations and agencies on the ground, is the method: how can you get this — this money or this aid to people who are starving.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Some countries have been doing air dropping of food, like Jordan and other countries.  So, why can’t the U.S. do the same?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to share with you about the air dropping — if we’re considering that, is that something that we’re going to do.  Just don’t have anything to share about that. 

But, look, this is, again, why it’s so important to get to this hostage deal, why it’s so important to get to this temporary ceasefire.  We need to get all-important humanitarian aid into Gaza, to the innocent people of Palest- — of the Pales- — of Pales- — Palestinian people, to make sure that they have what they need.  Whether it’s food, whether it is medical assistance, we understand that. 

And, as you just mentioned, $53 million was just announced by USAID to — to help in that process.  But we have to get to this hostage deal.  We have to. 

It is important to get the hostages home and that aid in and get that temporary ceasefire.  So, the President is going to work on this, continues to work on this 24/7.  He is committed to this.  He wants to make sure that we secure that deal.

MS. DALTON:  We just have time for one more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead, way in the back.  Go ahead.

Q    Yeah, thanks.  The former President and his people are saying that the only reason President Biden is going this week is because former President Trump was going to go, and he wanted to not lose this issue.  So, can you give us a sense of what the planning process was to go this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s — I mean, look, you guys have covered this President and other presidents for some time.  We just can’t all of a sudden put something on the President’s schedule.  Right?  It takes time to do that.  The President has been very clear that he was going to take this issue directly to the American people.  He has said that. 

When Republicans rejected that Senate — Senate bipartisan bill on border security, on the immigration policy — right? — to fix a broken system that has been broken for decades, he said he was going to take it directly to the American people and, also, at the same time, hear from law enforcement and frontline personnel who deal with this issue every day.  And, obviously, he’s going to make — he’s going to give remarks. 

But he’s been very clear about this, that he was going to take it directly to the American people.  He is going because it’s important for the American people to hear directly from him.  He is going as — because it’s important to highlight that Republicans are getting in the way here.  They are getting in the way.  They had rejected a deal that — parts of that — that deal, they wanted, and they rejected it. 

So, this is not about politics for this President.  This is about how we’re going to fix an issue that a majority of Americans care about: a broken immigration system, the challenges at the border.  That’s why the President thought it was important to go at this time.

Q    And on that point, does he feel that Republicans’ rejection of the bill — of the compromise bill, of the — the product that the Senate put together, does that allow him to flip the script, to go on the offense on this issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I believe we are on the offense.  We believe we are in the offense.  Four months — let’s not forget, it took four months to get this done and work in a good faith. 

And let — and we have said: If this bill was able to get in — to become law, it would have been, yes, the toughest but also the fairest that we have seen in some time.

And, look, we believe we’re on the offense because we did the work with the Senate in a bipartisan way for four months.  And Republicans rejected it.  They allowed politics to get in the way.    When you work in a bipartisan way — right? — in good faith, you’re putting politics aside, and you’re trying to get something done on behalf of the American people.  That’s what the President did.

All right, everybody.  See you on Friday.  Thank you.

 3:42 P.M. EST

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

2:21 P.M. EST
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon.  Hello.  Okay, I have a couple things at the top, and then we’ll get going.
 
A short time ago, President Biden and Vice President Harris concluded a meeting with congressional leaders on the need to keep the government open and pass the national security supplemental.
 
In the meeting, the President made clear that Congress must take swift action to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. A shutdown would cause needless damage to hardworking families, our economy, and our national security.  The only path forward is through bipartisan bills that are free of extreme policies.
 
The President also emphasized the urgent need to Congress — for Congress to stand with Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s brutal invasion.
 
Ukraine has lost ground on the battlefield in recent weeks and is being forced to ration ammunition and supplies due to congressional inaction.
 
The bipartisan national security supplemental passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support — 70 to 29 — and would pass in the House if it was brought to a vote.
 
It would arm Ukraine, invest in America’s defense industrial base, help Israel defend itself against Hamas, and provide humanitarian aid for people impacted by conflicts around the world, including Palestinian civilians.
 
The President called on the House to support our national security and pass the supplemental, and made clear the dire consequences if they failed to act.
 
Now, today, in the wake of the Alabama Supreme Court decision threatening access to IVF treatment, HHS Becerra — Secretary Becerra is in Alabama today to hear from families and healthcare professionals.
 
Today’s visit is a critical part of the Biden-Harris administration’s ongoing work to hear directly from families impacted by the Republican elected officials’ extreme agenda.
 
The Biden-Harris administration will continue to fight back against attacks on reproductive freedoms, whether that’s attacks on abortion care, birth control access, and now IVF access.  It is absolutely unacceptable to this administration when women are denied the care that they need.
 
President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to work to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every — in every state.
 
And some news for you today.  This Sunday, March 3rd, Vice President Kamala Harris will return to Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday by joining the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
 
While there, she will deliver remarks on honoring the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement and the Biden-Harris administration’s continued work to achieve justice for all and encourage Americans to continue the fight for fundamental freedoms.
 
Ala- — Alabama will be the 12th state the Vice President has traveled to in 2024 after visiting 24 states in 2023.
 
With that, my colleague, Admiral John Kirby from NSC, is here to give any updates in the Middle East.
 
Admiral.
    
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.
 
I think — good afternoon.
 
Q    Good afternoon.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think as you may know, USAID Administrator Samantha Power is in Israel this week for a series of meetings, including ongoing efforts by the United States to increase the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance to civilians that live in Gaza.
 
Today, the Administrator announced that the United States will provide an additional $53 million in urgently needed humanitarian assistance, which will include assistance to the World Food Program and other international NGOs providing resources for food, shelter, water, medicine, sanitation, hygiene all to the people of Gaza and the West Bank. 
 
This brings the total amount of funding announced by the United States government since the 7th of October to more than $180 million.
 
Now, there is no question that much more aid is needed to address the critical and urgent needs on the ground.  That’s why President Biden and the entire team will continue to work every day to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza while also prioritizing the safety of civilians and aid workers.
 
That’s also why we are working so hard on a temporary ceasefire to not only get the hostages out and the fighting paused, but all — to get that critical humanitarian assistance in and to increase the flow.  There’s just not enough getting in right now.
 
There was significant progress towards those ends last week following U.S. engagements in the region.  We are building on that progress this week, and the President and his team remain engaged around the clock with multiple partners in the region.
 
But, as the President said just in the last 24 hours or so, there is no deal as of yet and there is a lot more work to do.  
 
Speaking of more work to do, the United States took additional action to counter terrorist financing and to disrupt Houthi attacks on international shipping. 
 
In coordination with the United Kingdom, we sanctioned the Deputy Commander of Iran’s IRGC, Mohammad Reza Falahzadeh, for his role as a Houthi-affiliated operative and for owning and operating a vessel used to ship Iranian commodities in support of both the Houthis and the IRGC.
 
We also designated two additional companies that own and operate a vessel involved in shipping more than 100 million dollars’ worth in Iranian commodities on behalf of Iran’s Ministry of Defense.
 
The Biden administration has now administered over 55 separate Iran sanctions rollouts targeting more than 550 individuals and entities.
 
All told, we’ve targeted — taken targets with Iran’s involvement in human rights abuses; hostage-taking; missile, drone, and non-prolifer- — -proliferation programs.
 
We have no plans to lift, waive, or provide any new sanctions relief for Iran, and we will continue to look ways — for ways to take action and to hold them accountable.
 
And with that, I’d take some questions.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Josh.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, two subjects.  First, with regard to Israel and the possible ceasefire, a senior official from Egypt told AP that there is a six-week ceasefire that could go into effect, with Hamas agreeing to free up to 40 hostages and Israel would release at least 300 Palestinian prisoners.  Would those terms provide sufficient incentives to both sides to find a way to work together?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re still negotiating, and I am not going to negotiate from the podium.  I’m not going to comment about those particulars.
 
We’re still working out the modalities of this — of this arrangement, and we’re hopeful that we can get there.
 
Q    And then, secondly, Secretary Yellen said today that she was looking toward unlocking the value of some $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine.  Does she want to spend that money?  Or is the U.S. looking to use it as collateral for, like, a debt issuance?
 
MR. KIRBY:  What we’re talking about here is the potential for using frozen assets.  Back in 2022, we froze some 300 billion dollars’ worth of Russian assets at the beginning of the war.
 
What we’re talking about is the potential of using some of those frozen assets to assist Ukraine in their ability to defend themselves but also to potentially assist with reconstruction in Ukraine.
 
Now, that — that — also, we still believe Russia needs to be responsible for the damage they’ve caused in Ukraine.  So, it’s not going to let them off the hook for that, but it could be used for that purpose as well.
 
Q    But — but are you going to spend it, or are you going to use it in an alternative way and keep it intact?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, the idea would be exploring the option of being able to use those frozen assets to help Ukraine as they defend themselves and as they try to recover from two years of war.
 
 But I want to make a couple of things clear.  Number one, we still need more legislative authorities from Congress for the President to be able to act on that, to, quote, unquote, “spend it” the way you’re talking about.
 
Number two — and this is not an unimportant thing, and the Secretary said this as well — we’ve got to have coalition — our coalition partners, who also were involved in the freezing of these assets, to come along with us.
 
And so, the conversations we’re hape- — hap- — havening — I’m sorry.  The conversations we’re having now are with our allies and partners about — about making sure that they’re on board with the usage of these frozen assets.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, thank you.  “Next Monday” is a very specific date that the President offered up for when this ceasefire could begin, especially, as you mentioned, if negotiations are still ongoing.  So, can you provide any insight about why he offered up the date of next Monday and what has to happen between now and then?
 
MR. KIRBY:  He told you himself that he was getting advised by his national security team, particularly our National Security Advisor, about the progress that we were making and the — the direction in which the talks were going.  We’re — we’re hopeful and cautiously optimistic that we’ll be able to get this pause in place very, very soon.
 
Q    And then, secondly, has the President been briefed or seen Israel’s plan to evacuate Rafah?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We have not been presented with such a plan.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
Q    Admiral, the President referred to his hopes for a ceasefire.  You have used the word “pause.”  Previously, he has talked about “temporary ceasefire.”  Is he shifting his sense of what kind of a cessation in violence would be?  How long it would be?  Anything on that that is new, in his view?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I wouldn’t say that there’s anything new, Kelly.  I mean, a humanitarian pause, temporary ceasefire, they’re rough- — they’re roughly the same things.  We’re not talking about anything different.
 
Q    There’s a political —

MR. KIRBY:  What we’re hoping to d- —
 
Q    — difference, though.  When the President says “ceasefire,” it carries a different sort of weight.
 
MR. KIRBY:  What we’re hoping to do is to get an extended pause in the fighting — I’ve just called it a “temporary ceasefire” myself — that would allow for several weeks — hopefully, up to six — where there will be no fighting so that we can get all the hostages out, increase the flow of humanitarian assistance but, just as critically, get the fighting stopped so that there’s no more civilian casualties and there’s no more damage to civilian infrastructure.
 
Now, the last pause was a week.  What we’re hoping for is much more aggressive than that.  And as we’ve said before, we also hope that if we can get that in place — and both sides can abide by it for the course of several weeks, maybe up to six — that maybe that could lead to something more in terms of
a — a better approach to end the conflict writ large.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.
 
Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Just to follow on Weija’s previous question, though.  We’ve learned, according to an Israeli source, that Netanyahu was quite surprised by the President’s comments about his expectations that there would be a ceasefire by Monday.  So, that doesn’t bode a lot of optimism that one of the key parties was surprised by that timeline the President had  set.  So, why did he say Monday?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I can’t speak for the surprise that foreign leaders have or don’t have with regard to things that we’re saying. 
 
The President talked to you all after staying completely up to speed — and he has been kept up to speed — on how these negotiations are going.  And he shared with you some context.  And he certainly shared with you his optimism that we can get there in — in, hopefully, a short order.
 
But he also said, you know, it’s not all done yet.  And you don’t — and you don’t have a deal until you have a deal.  We don’t have one right now.
 
So, the team is still working at this very, very hard, as I said in my opening statement, around the clock.  But we believe that we are getting closer.  And — and while we don’t want to sound too sanguine or Pollyannish about it, we do think that there has been some serious negotiations.
 
Q    And after Speaker Johnson’s meeting with the President, it doesn’t really sound like he’s changed his mind on Ukraine.  He again reiterated that the border needs to be addressed before Ukraine.  So, given this current trajectory, what does that mean for Ukraine and its battlefield needs?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’d also point to what he said about, you know, taking up the issue of Ukraine funding in a timely fashion, and he said that right out there outside the West Wing.  And we know that he does support funding for Ukraine.  He said so himself.  We know that significant House leadership — and certainly on both sides of the aisle in the House — support funding for Ukraine.
 
Now, the question is: When you say a “timely fashion,” what do you mean by that?  I can tell you, to the Ukrainian soldier on the battlefront, timeliness is now.  It’s right now.
 
As — as you and I just came back from the weekend, the Russians started taking some other towns and villages.  Now, they didn’t — nothing to the significance of Avdiivka, in terms of the logistics hub that they want to create there.  But they’re on the move.  This is not some frozen conflict.
 
And so, we urge the Speaker, when he says a “timely fashion,” that he — that — that he actually lives up to that.  Because, again, to the Ukrainian soldier, the time is right now.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Steve.
 
Q    What’s the significance of trying to get a hostage deal in place before Ramadan starts on March 10th?
 
MR. KIRBY:  What we’re focused on, Steve, is getting this deal in place as soon as we can.  And you heard from the President — I mean, we’re — we’re hopeful that this can — this can happen in — in coming days.
 
And if that does — if we are able to get the pause in place and the hostages out in a relatively short order, then, clearly, an extended pause — as I was talking to Kelly about — would certainly take you into Ramadan.
 
But right now, it’s — it’s not about trying to beat the clock to Ramadan.  It’s about trying to get these two sides to come to closure on a deal that, again, would get all those hostages out and get the — and to get the fighting stopped.
 
Q    And separately, we took note of the remarks by the French President today on the possibility of sending French troops to Ukraine.  How would the United States regard any NATO Allies sending troops to Ukraine?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, that’s a sovereign decision that every NATO Ally would have to — would have to make for themselves.
 
You heard Secretary General Stoltenberg say himself he had no plans or intentions of — of — certainly under NATO auspices, of putting troops on the ground.  And President Biden has been crystal clear since the beginning of this conflict: There will be no U.S. troops on the ground in a combat role there in Ukraine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.
 
Q    Thank you, John.  Senator Schumer just said that Ukraine couldn’t afford to wait a month or two more for additional funding because it would, “in all likelihood lose the war.”  Is that the administration’s assessment as well?
 
MR. KIRBY:  It — the situation is dire, M.J.  As I said, the Russians not only took Avdiivka; they’ve taken a couple of other towns and villages in just the last 48, 72 hours. 
 
These guys on the — these Ukrainian soldiers on the — on the front, I mean, they’re — they’re making some real tough decisions about what they’re going to shoot at and what they’re going to shoot at it with.  And they’re running out of bullets, and it’s — it’s not — as Jake said the other day, it’s not running out of courage; they’re running out of bullets.
 
So, the situation is very dire.  I’m not in a position to put a time stamp on it and say, you know, by such and such date they’ll lose the war.  But they are certainly beginning to lose territory — territory that they had clawed back from the Russians and now they have to give it back to the Russians because they can’t — they can’t fight them off.
 
Q    I’m not asking you to give a prediction, but do you generally agree that in a month’s time, in two months’ time, it is very possible that Ukraine could lose the war without additional funding —
 
MR. KIRBY:  What I would —
 
Q    — as Senator Schumer said?
 
MR. KIRBY:  What I would tell that — as I said to Steve, the time is now — right now.  The dire — the situation is dire now.  I can’t predict what it’ll look like in a month or two because I can’t predict what the Russians are going to do. 
 
But certainly, if — just for argument’s sake, if they continue to get no support from the United States, in a month or two, it is very likely that the Russians will achieve more territorial gains and have more success against Ukrainian frontlines in terms of just territory gain, mostly in the East but potentially even in the South. 
 
Q    And just a quick follow-up on Israel.  Prime Minister Netanyahu said over the weekend that regardless of what happens with the ongoing hostage talks, that they plan to go into Rafah.  You just told Weijia that it’s not like the U.S. has seen some evacuation plan from the Israelis.  So —
 
MR. KIRBY:  It’s not — it’s not “like” we haven’t seen it.  We haven’t seen it.
 
Q    You have not.  That is what I meant.
 
Given that, do you believe that there is a — a plan by the Israelis to secure the safety of the civilians in Rafah before they enter Rafah, which, again, the Prime Minister says they are planning to do no matter what?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, the Prime Minister has also said that he has ordered the Israeli Defense Forces to — in producing a plan for operations in Rafah, to include in that a plan for securing the safety of the more than a million refugees that are there.
 
Again, we — we’ve not been presented one.  I can’t speak for the Israelis and to what degree their planning has progressed and what that looks like.  But the Prime Minister himself has said — he publicly said that he has tasked his generals to come up with one.
 
Q    But — but it’s fair to say the U.S. wouldn’t support Israeli forces going into Rafah until you all have seen a plan that makes you feel confident that there is a plan to secure the safety of the civilians?
 
MR. KIRBY:  That’s correct.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  Hi, Admiral.  The U.N. Special Rapporteur said today that Israel is purposefully starving Palestinians in Gaza by destroying greenhouses, small-scale fishing boats, and their farms.  So, why the U.S. has not done a review of how this war is conducted while you are very quick to do it Ukraine against the Russians?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I —
 
Q    And then a question for Karine.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Okay.  I’m not aware of the report coming out of the U.N. on the greenhouses, so I’m going to take that, and we’ll go back and look at that. 

As I’ve said, there — there is a process of supporting foreign militaries.  We are following that process.  And the State Department has acknowledged that — that when they are alerted to incidents of concern, they do look into them.  It’s not a formal review; it’s not some investigation, but it’s part of the normal process of security assistance to a foreign military.
 
Now, whether they’re looking at this one, I don’t know. 
 
And you had a question for Karine.
 
Q    I have a question about the Arab — sorry — about the Arab American community leaders today. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    They said that their vote of noncommittal is an appeal to the White House, to the President, to stop the killing of their relatives in Gaza. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    So, how will the White House change their strategy to address this issue that Arab Americans are concerned about and calling for?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really mindful because we’re talking about an election, so I’m not going to comment on — on an upcoming election.  But there’s a couple things I do want to say, which I think is incredibly important. 
 
First of all, you know that senior officials have gone to Michigan as of late — earlier this month to meet with Muslim and Arab Americans and we understand — right? — during a very deeply painful and personal moment, right?  We understand what they’re going through.  We understand what this means to this community.  And the President understand that too.
 
So, we care very much about what — about that and what the community, again, is going through.  And we wanted to convey that very strongly, obviously, which is why you had senior officials go direct- — go to Detroit, go to Michigan, to have those conversation.
 
And, look, we know it’s been a difficult time.  The Pr- — the President cares about that.  They care — he cares about what that community is feeling very deeply.  And we believe it’s important that they feel that they are able to — to express themselves and voice — voice their feelings and their concerns.
 
And so, look, you heard the Admiral talk about the hostage deal, the temporary ceasefire.  That is why it is so critical and important to get that done.  That is why you’ve seen this President and his administration work 24/7 to get that done, so we can get a temporary ceasefire, so we can get that humanitarian aid into Gaza, so that we can get those hostages — and we have American hostages that are — that are part of that number as well.  We want to get those hostages home to their families, to their loved ones.
 
And the President is not going to stop.  You heard him yesterday in New York.  He’s not going to stop until we get that done.  So, I’ll leave it there.
 
Let me let the Admiral finish.
 
MR. KIRBY:  (Laughs.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  I’m just going back to President Macron’s comments about not ruling out Western troops on the ground in Ukraine.  Has President Macron discussed that suggestion with President Biden at all?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I — I won’t go beyond the — the readout of the conversation.  I don’t have anything more to add on that.
 
Q    And very briefly, you said as well that President Biden has said before that he would not send U.S. troops to Ukraine in a combat role.  The French Foreign Minister suggested Western troops could be sent for demining or arms production or cyber.  Is there a possibility that — is that something that would be considered by the U.S?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  The only U.S. military personnel that — that are in Ukraine are associated with the embassy as part of the defense attaché office, and they’re doing important work in terms of helping us with the accountability of weapons and systems that are provided to Ukraine.
    
The President has been clear: There’s not going to be U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Raquel. 
    
Q    Thank you so much, Karine.  Hi, John.  One about Gaza and another one about Ukraine.

On Gaza.  What makes the President confident the ceasefire can be reached in a week?  Any breakthroughs that — that made him confident about that?
    
And any comment about the number of civilians dead in Gaza reaching 30,000?  How many more will have to die until the U.S. agree with a permanent ceasefire?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t want to see one more die, which is why this pause we’re working on is so important.  The President was reflecting updates that he’d been getting from the national security team about the progress of those talks.

We’re hopeful and, as I said early, cautiously optimistic that we can get there — and hopefully in short order.  But it’s been — it’s been a lot of — lot of diplomatic work, a lot of negotiations to try to get us to this point. 

And we’re not there yet.  I think that’s important to say.  The President made that clear too.  It’s not — you don’t have a deal until you have a deal.  We don’t have a deal right now.

But as for how many more should die, again, I’ve said many times before, the right number of civilian causalities is zero.  We don’t want to see one more person, in- — innocent person killed in this conflict, which is, again, why this six-week-or-so pause could be so effective in terms of reducing the number of civilian casualties and giving us some breathing space to get more humanitarian assistance in and potentially talk about an end to the conflict.

Q    Another one on Ukraine, very quickly, because Senator Schumer described the meeting on Ukraine as the “most intense” he ever had in the Oval Office.  How does the President feel about it after the meeting?  Does he believe a deal can be reached?  He’s more or less optimistic about it?

MR. KIRBY:  The President believes that it’s important to continue to have these conversations.  He’s — he believes it’s important to make sure that — certainly, in the Speaker’s case, that he makes the case for why it’s important for this supplemental funding.

Obviously, the big purpose of the meeting today, as Karine already let you guys know, was really about preventing a government shutdown.  But, clearly, they had the opportunity to talk about the national security supplemental, and the President made his case.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, April.

Q    A couple of topics.  One, with the grassroots communities meeting with the President and — and administration officials.  Going back to the Dearborn, Michigan, issue, you’ve got a large contingent of Arabs, you’ve got a large contingent of Muslims, as well as Jewish people.
    
Karine, you just said you’re listening.  For both of you, as you’re listening, are you taking anything in as to what they are saying in these conversations?  Are you acting on any of what they’re saying?

MR. KIRBY:  Absolutely.  We take these conversations very seriously.  And — and without getting into specific details or disclosing some of the things that we’ve been hearing, we — we are taking them on board.  And we are — we are willing to adjust the — the way we’re approaching the conflict and the way we’re talking about the conflict to — to reflect those concerns.  But we’re taking them very seriously.

Q    So, as you’re taking them in and taking them seriously, it sounds like you’re acting on some of what they’re saying.  Is it more on the political front, the humanitarian front, or national security front that you’re acting on with — with these grassroots conversations?

MR. KIRBY:  I can only speak about the national security implications here.  And I can tell you very much that — because we’ve — the National Security Council has been a part and parcel of these conversations, and we’re coming back from them, we feel, informed, more educated, and certainly more understanding of some of the concerns that are out there in the Arab community and — Arab American community.  And, again, we’re — we’re taking that on board, and we’re doing — and we’re acting on it.

Q    And I know, as this meeting happened, it was about preventing a government shutdown.  But, again, there is an intertwining of foreign affairs, national security involved in the budget.  But is there a concern that it continues to be kicked down the road?  Because we’ve been kicking the — the can down the road since last year, and it just keeps going and going —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — and going.  We keep coming to this point.  Is there a concern about that?

MR. KIRBY:  Absolutely.  I mean, when you don’t — when — you know, one of the things that’s — that’s been unfortunate throughout this appropriations process now, for two — you know, for the entire time we’ve been in office, is the use of continuing resolutions to try to keep the government going.

And just — not to — not to get into too lon- — too long an answer here, but when you’re ba- — basing everything on a CR, that means there’s certain things, like, for — in the defense world, where you can’t — you can’t enact new contracts for weapons systems or ships or airplanes because a CR only allows you to fund to last year’s numbers.  So, you’re limited.  You can’t start some new programs, and you can’t even pay for some programs using new funds because you’re — you’re stuck with the last year’s funding.

 So, it absolutely has an effect on national security.

Q    So, the CRs are crippling the military — the U.S. military capabilities?

MR. KIRBY:  It is definitely making it harder for the Defense Department to continue to support our global requirements when you are talking about continuing resolution funding.  It definitely hampers your flexibility.  No question about it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We need to start wrapping up. 
 
Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thank you so much, John.  I’ll start with Israel then move on to Ukraine.  You just said it’s not about trying to beat the clock to Ramadan, in terms of a ceasefire.  But how concerned is the administration about the possibility of escalation during Ramadan, during this holy month, and how, you know, it’s going to be seen for U.S.-backed troops to be attacking Muslim —

MR. KIRBY:  We’re mindful of the sensity — sensitivities, of course, around the month of Ramadan and the import- — the spiritual importance of that to — to the — to the Muslim world.  Of course, we understand that.

What — what we don’t want us — we — we want to see this temporary ceasefire in place as soon as possible.  And, again, if we can get the agreement for several weeks, it would take you through Ramadan anyway. 

The clock that we’re worried about is the — the hostages.  We can only assume that they are being held in abhorrent conditions and that their health is at risk, their lives are at risk.  We want to get them ba- — out as soon as possible.

Q    And then, just quickly, on Ukraine.  After this difficult conversation — or this intense conversation, sorry, in the Oval Office, are you looking at other funding possibilities — Lend-Lease or loans to Ukraine or weapon sales to Ukraine? 

And then, just to push you on Steve’s question and Danny’s question about the French President, are you — you know, has — does President Biden think it would be a good idea if France were to go into Ukraine (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  As for other funding, I’ve said before: There’s no magic pot of money here that we can dip into.  We need the supplemental funding.  We asked for it in October.  And, again, it was done in good faith and in consultation with our Ukrainian partners.  We need that funding.
 
Look, we’ll let President Macron speak — he — for his military and what he is or is not willing to do with — with his troops.
 
The President has been clear: He does not support U.S. troops involved in this conflict in Ukraine.  And I’ll leave it at that.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  (Inaudible.)  Go ahead, Annie.
 
Q    Thanks so much.  Admiral, I just was hoping you can help me a square, sort of, two strains of conversation in this room.  One has been about the, sort of, conditions that the United States wants to see before Israel goes into Rafah.  The President himself referenced this last night, saying that he’d want to know about plans for evacuation before they go in and take out the remainder of Hamas.  Separately, we’ve been talking a lot about a ceasefire that could start as early as, you know, this weekend. 
 
So, can you help me understand: Is the idea here that there would be a invasion of Rafah before the ceasefire, or it’s going to come after the ceasefire?  I just —
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, the —
 
Q    I’m trying to understand wh- — how these two things are connected.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I understand the confusion.  But you actually do have to kind of consider them a bit separately.  And, again, I don’t want to speak for the Israelis.  The — they should speak to the operations they are or are not planning.
 
All I can tell you is that we’re — we haven’t been presented any kind of a plan to provide for the safety and security of the refugees there.  And we’ve said very clearly: We would not support Rafah operations unless or until there is a credible, achievable plan to provide for their safety and security.
 
So, I can’t tell you what timeline the Israeli Defense Forces are on, in terms of Rafah operations.
 
At the same time, we are in active negotiations, and we are hopeful that we’re getting to the conclusion or near the conclusion of those discussions and negotiations over a temporary ceasefire, which would, if enacted, last perhaps as long as six weeks from the time it was signed on to by both parties. 
 
In that six weeks, based on the — the idea of a temporary ceasefire, of course, there would be no fighting, which means civilian casualties will come down; damage to civi- — civilian infrastructure will be stopped; you’ll have breathing space to get more humanitarian assistance in; and, of course, not unimportantly, we’d have the ability to get all those hostages out.  The idea is to get them all out — all the hostages that are — that are remaining. 
 
Q    Is that in the plan —
 
MR. KIRBY:  But it would have to happen over stages.
 
Q    Is that when this —
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, if — wait.  So, if we were able to get this in place — I can’t give you a date certain on the calendar, but if we did, you can expect, should both sides abide by their commitments, several weeks of no fighting.
 
Q    So, would that mean that a Rafah invasion wouldn’t happen, or it would just be delayed until after the ceasefire?
 
MR. KIRBY:  There would be no fighting for the — for the entirety of the agreed-to timeframe.  No fighting anywhere.
 
Q    Thanks.  John, just on the Oval Office discussions today.  Speaker Johnson came out and — and — as he said before, that, you know, the southern border has to be addressed before — before Ukraine aid and funding.  They are saying that this shouldn’t be done legislatively; more so, that it should be done by rolling back executive orders or changing it from an executive perspective.  Is that part of these discussions?  And is the White House ruling out undoing some of the executive orders from earlier on in the administration?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’d say a couple of things. 
 
First, the President has taken executive action at the border.  And he — and he certainly will continue to do so as appropriate and within the bounds of the law. 
 
He’s also said y- — that in order to make the changes, the fixes to border security, you got to have new legislation.  A lot of this has to do with capabilities, funding — I’m sorry, capabilities, personnel, and — and resourcing, infrastructure.  You can’t just make that happen through executive action, all of that.  You’ve got to have funding behind it, which is why the supplemental request was so important.  And the one submitted in October included border security. 
 
And the President said months ago he was willing to have a discussion with members of Congress about border security.  Border security was in the supplemental request.  And we worked with the Senate to get a bipartisan deal arranged that — that the Speaker said he absolutely insisted on.  And then, when it was delivered to him, he said, no, he didn’t want it. 
 
Q    So, there would have to be a legislative component to this if, let’s say, the Republicans are saying you can un- —
 
MR. KIRBY:  In order to —
 
Q    — unlock Ukraine funding if you were to do something executive-wise on — on the border?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We were willing to have a discussion — and did, with the Senate — about border security and Ukraine funding, as well as Israel and the Indo-Pacific.  That’s — we’re still willing to have those discussions. 
 
The — the Speaker has to decide exactly what he wants to do here and then move out.  He says he wants to act in a timely fashion on Ukraine.  Well, let’s go.  Let’s get them what they need.
 
And the President is more than willing to have discussions about the border.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  We’ve got to wrap it up.  Go ahead, Tam.  Last question.
 
Q    At what point do you declare the supplemental dead or too late to help Ukraine?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We need it now.  I wouldn’t even begin to speculate about what would be too late.  We’re already, in some ways, too — too late.  They lost the town of Avdiivka because of — literally because of ammunition.  So, in some ways, it’s already having a dramatic effect on the battlefield.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks.  Thanks, Admiral.  Appreciate it.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yep.  You bet.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Give me one second.  Hi. 
 
Q    Hi.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  Go ahead.
 
Q    So — so, in the p- —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I had something to say, and I changed my mind.  Go ahead.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    I mean, all right.  So — so, in the past, you’ve described Speaker Johnson’s proposals as “not serious” regarding government funding, the border —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — Ukraine.  In the Oval Office today, was Speaker Johnson serious?  Did he meet the threshold that the White House has set in the past?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  I know some — I know that Senator Schumer said it was intense.  Yes, the meeting was intense, but it was also very productive.  And I think that’s important to take that into account.
 
A couple of things that I would say is that all four congressional leaders agreed with the President and the Vice President that a shutdown is unacceptable.  But, as you all know, the clock is ticking.  It is ticking.  It has been ticking for some time now. 
 
And it continues to do so — right? — as it relates, obviously, to — to a potential shutdown but also — but also what we’re seeing — right? — with the national security supplemental.  This is something that we put forth back in October. 
 
And as it relates to that, all four leaders also understood the gravity — the gravity of the situation in Ukraine.  And they heard — and here’s the thing, they heard a sobering account from the CIA Director, who was in the room, about — about how Ukraine has lost ground on the battlefield — you heard me say that at the top — in recent weeks, because of congressional inaction. 
 
And so, this is the reality.  This is the reality that Ukraine is in.  This is the reality that we’re in when we talk about our national security.  And this is the reality that Congress is in.  They have not taken action.  And so, we are seeing what’s happening currently in the battlefield in Ukraine.
 
So, as the President said, there are consequences, and the consequences are incredibly dire.  Congress must take action.  We have to support our national security.  And that is what the President — that was the message that went into — during that — during that meeting.  And that’s how we saw the meeting play out.
 
All four congressional leaders were in agreement on those — on those two pieces that I just laid out here.  It is incredibly important to move forward.  The clock is ticking here.  The clock is ticking.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  House Speaker Johnson and the President had their first —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — face-to-face, one-on-one meeting.  What can you share about how that went? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, yes.  And I think, obviously, the Speaker spoke to this himself when he was at the Sticks.  The President and the — and Speaker Johnson had a moment after — after the meeting — after the group meeting. 
 
I’m going to be mindful here.  It was a private discussion, so I don’t have a readout for all of you.  But it was — you heard — again, you heard from — from the Speaker on how — on his — his side of things.  I just don’t have anything else to share on — on the private meeting that they had.
 
Q    Okay.  Well, earlier, you just said that this was a very productive meeting. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    On the Ukraine funding front, what was productive about it?  It seems like nothing has changed.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I mean, there’s work to do, obviously.  Right?  There is work to do.  And we have said, if the Speaker puts this on the floor, it would get bipartisan support.  We believe that.  We’re talking about the national security supplemental, obviously.  It would have su- — bipartisan support.
 
I just laid out how all four leaders heard directly from the CIA Director about how dire it is and what we have seen the last couple of months in Ukraine because of the congressional inaction.  I mean, that is dire — right? — that they heard dire reports from the CIA Director on what is currently happening.
 
And, you know — and it’s not that — just that; it’s what you all have reported from what’s coming out of Ukraine and what we have seen as — as recently as last week when — when Russia took over one of the — one of the critical cities in Ukraine.
 
And so, look, the evidence is there.  They heard from the CIA Director.  The reporting — all of — you all have been reporting.  We’ve heard from President Zelenskyy directly about this.  It is — there are consequences here.  There are consequences. 
 
And — and, you know, Congress needs to act.  The House needs to act.  Senate acted.  Seventy to twenty-nine, they passed a bipartisan — in a bipartisan way this national security supplemental.  Now we need it to go to the floor.  We know — we know, hearing from Republicans in the House, that there would be bipartisan support. 
 
So, yes, it was productive in the sense that everybody was in agreement on what needs to happen next.  Now, we need to see that action in Congress.
 
Go ahead, Akayla.
 
Q    Yesterday, a U.S. airmen died after he set himself on fire —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — outside an Israeli — or outside the Israel Embassy.  Was the President aware of his death?  Did he have any sort of response to it?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, the President is aware.  And we can — I can say that it is — obviously, is a — it’s a horrible tragedy, and our thoughts are with the family of the servicemember at — during this — I could — we can’t even imagine this hor- — horrible, difficult time.
 
The Department of Defense and the Metropolitan Police are looking into this.  So, we’re not going to get ahead of that.  So, I would certainly refer you to them.  But it is — it is a horrific tragedy, what — what occurred the other day.
 
Q    Is there anything new that you can share about the President’s visit to the border on Thursday?  Does he have any plans to announce any executive actions?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to — I’m not going to get ahead of the President.  Don’t have anything to — to announce at this time.  We’ve — we’ve spoken to executive actions.  I’ve spoken to that many times. 
 
We think the bottom line is: The way to have dealt with this border — the challenge that we see the border, what we see with this immigration — broken immigration system that has been broken for decades, is if we — if Republicans had moved forward with — with the bipartisan deal that came out of the Senate.
 
But instead of doing that, Donald Trump — they listened to Donald Trump, the former President, and they made it about politics.  They did not make it about an issue that majority of Americans care about.  They made it about politics and Donald Trump.  And that is unfortunate.
 
What I will say is just — and I said this yesterday in the gaggle; I’ll say it again.  As you all know, he’s going to travel to Brownsville, Texas.  He’s going to meet with U.S. Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, and local leaders, and he’s going to discuss the urgent need to pass the bipartisan — bipartisan proposal that came out of the Senate.
 
And we believe that if this proposal — this legislation were to become law, it would be, yes, the toughest but also the fairest.  And let’s not forget, it was — it was supported by the Border Patrol union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  And, you know, you don’t see that type of support for a bipartisan piece of legislation nowadays. 
 
And so, he’s going to reiterate to congressional Republicans to stop playing politics, to focus on the American people, to get this done.  If they are serious — if they are serious about giving the U.S. Border Patrol agents what they need, if they are serious about fixing the immigration system, they would get politics — push politics to the side and do — do the work on behalf of the American people.
 
Go ahead, Kelly O.
 
Q    Speaker Johnson referred to a separate second meeting with him and the President.  You referred to it as “a moment.”  Was it a separate sit-down?  Was it planned that the President would make that time available?  Or did that just kind of come out organically —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I th- —
 
Q    — after their meeting?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think the — I think the President, you know, wanted to have a one-on-one conversation with Speaker Johnson.  They did.  It was — it was — it happened after the group meeting.  It was a brief — they spoke briefly.  It was a private discussion.
 
And so, that’s how we would call it.  It happened after the briefing.  He pulled him to the side while the other — other three left.  And they had a moment; they had a conversation.  I wouldn’t get too — too into the semantics here.  I would just say they had a moment, and I think it’s important that the — the President believed it was important to have a moment and to have a brief conversation with the —
 
Q    So, that sounds more like something that just came up today, not on the planned schedule —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean —
 
Q    — as you set the day.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — it wasn’t — it wasn’t a planned — on — on the planned schedule.  I think the President wanted to have a one-on-one conversation with the Speaker.  He did that.  And it was an — he believed it was important to do. 
 
Don’t have a readout of it, obviously.  It was a private discussion, a private conversation.
 
Q    And if there were any agreement — if the Speaker had accepted a premise from the President or if they had made any kind of a more formal decision in that moment, would that be something you could share?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I think we’ve been very clear what we want to see, and it doesn’t change.  Right?  What we want to see is the national supplemental, as it was passed out of the Senate in a bipartisan way — 70 to 29 — to deal with our national security, to deal with what’s going on in Ukraine, to deal what’s going — what’s going on in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific — let’s not forget — we want to see that passed.  We want to see — because that hasn’t changed, right? 
 
So, there’s no separate deal here.  What we want to see is this national security supplemental be put to the floor.  And we know — we know, because we’ve heard from congressional House Republicans, that it would pass in a bipartisan way.  That’s what the President wants to see.
 
And they heard — these — the Big Four heard directly from the CIA Director about how dire — the consequences are dire.  And we’ve seen that.  We’ve seen Ukraine has lost ground in the battlefield. 
 
And so, we need to see that action.  We see — we need them to — to move forward on — on the supplemental.  That’s what the President wants to see. 
 
And obviously, there’s the other issue of a potential shutdown.  The clock is ticking on that as well.  They got to move.  They got to move and stop focusing on extreme positions here.  We got to move.  And this is about the American people.  That’s what this should be about. 
 
Go ahead, Selina.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  You said the Big Four all understand the gravity of the situation in Ukraine.  But does the President actually trust Speaker Johnson?  Did this move the ball forward at all in terms of convincing him to put Ukraine aid on the floor for a vote? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, he needs to do — this is Speaker Johnson — needs to do what’s best for the American people.  He needs to do what’s best for our national security.  He needs to do what’s best for our countr- — our country.  He needs to put our national security supplemental on the floor.  That’s what we know.
 
The last time there was a vote on Ukraine, it got more than 300 votes — more than 300 votes, including many, many House Republicans.  That’s the reality. 
 
And so — and also keeping the government open — there are critical programs that the American people need.  If the government shut down — shuts down, Americans don’t get those critical programs that they need. 
 
And so, look, I can’t speak for, you know, the — the Speaker and what he’s going to do.  What I can speak for and what we can continue to reiterate from here and what the President can continue to reiterate is how important it is to move forward.  There are national security consequences here, as I’ve laid out moments ago.  And there’s also critical programs — important programs that the American people — as it relates to keeping the government open.
 
It is literally a basic duty that Congress has, and Republicans in — in the House are getting in the way of that, and they should not. 
 
Q    And the President sounded confident or optimistic that a government shutdown could be avoided.  But we’re only days away.  No bill text has been released.  There are still many, many policy disputes. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    So, where is that optimism coming from?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, the President is an optimistic person.  You guys know that.  He talks about that often, in many speeches that he gives — he — he gives to the American people about optimism and possibilities.  That is a president who believes in that. 
 
And so, look, he’s going to continue to be optimistic.  He brought the Big Four here to have these critical, important conversations about how to move forward here. 
 
And it’s about the American people.  This is not about the President here.  We’re talking about the national security supplemental.  We’re talking about keeping — keeping the government open, even our border challenges.  This is about the American people. 
 
So, we have to be optimistic.  But he’s — we’re going to continue to do the work.  When the Big Four — when the congressional members left, what was agreed upon is that their teams would continue to have conversations, obviously — with our teams — OMB, Office of Leg Affairs — to continue to have those conversation on how to — how to certainly deal with what’s going on with the potential shutdown, as the clock is ticking. 
 
And we’re going to continue to push — to continue to push to make — to — to, you know, reiterate the importance of putting that national security bill on the floor.  It already came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way.  It needs to go to the floor and the House.
 
Q    Is it more and more likely we’ll just get another CR?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I can’t speak to — I’m not going to speak to, you know, how — you know, the — how — how Congress is going to move with a procedure.  I’ll leave that up to them and how they want to move with the CR, if there is a CR.
 
What we are going to continue to re- — reiterate and say from here is how important — important to get that national security supplemental through, how important it is to continue to keep the government open. 
 
And we’re not going to stop talking about the border.  You’ll see the President in — on Thursday in Texas talking about how important it was to — you know, to get that bipartisan Senate agreement. 
 
And because of — again, because of the former President, Republicans decided to reject a bipartisan agreement that was supported by the Border Patrol union, that was supported by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which you don’t see very often in this current political climate.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    The CIA Director’s participation, was that planned well in advance?  Was that the President’s idea?  Did he show maps?  How — how did all that go?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to go into specifics and details on — on the meeting.  What I can say is that the CIA Director was there.  He laid out the — the consequences, how dire they were.  He talked about what was going on in the battle- — in a battlefield, obviously, and how Ukraine was losing ground, which is important. 
 
I think we believe — the President believed it was important to hear directly from the CIA Director.  Let’s not forget the meeting that the President held not too long ago, just last month, had the National Security Council folks in there, other folks from the intelligence community. 
 
So, this is — this is — this is a normal, obviously, situation that we’ve had before in making sure that the Big Four hears directly from the intelligence community, and that’s what you — that’s what happened today. 
 
I’m not going to go into specifics, but he was very clear. He laid it out for them — how dire the consequences are right now.  And Ukraine needs our help.  The brave people of Ukraine who have been fighting for their democracy, you know, they need continued — continued assistant from us.  And it’s not about just their democracy.  It’s about our national security as well.
 
Go ahead, M.J.
 
Q    Speaker Johnson again called on President Biden to take executive action on the border.  Does the White House, at this point, believe that it has many more executive actions that it can take, or does it believe that it’s come close to exhausting those options?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what I will say, M.J.: We believe in order to deal with what’s happening at the border, you need a legislative solution.  You do.  It doesn’t matter — we don’t think — we don’t believe — the bottom line is: We don’t believe that an executive action would — would amount to what this legislation — this bipartisan legislation would have — would have been able to do if it was enacted into law — if it was passed, obviously, and enacted into law.
 
And what it would have done is been the toughest but also the fairest deal, with providing resources, obviously, that’s needed for law enforcement, and make some key changes as it relates to the immigration — immigration system.  That’s what we believe. 
 
I don’t have anything to share about any additional executive action.  As I’ve said before, don’t have a decision here to — to share with all of you. 
 
But we fundamentally believe that if that bipartisan agreement that came out from the Senate was — was moved or was even voted out of the Senate and then, obviously, moved to the House and enacted into law, it would have been the first step, that beginning step, to deal with a real issue that majority of Americans care about.
 
Anything else, I just don’t have an- — anything to share.
 
Q    I have a question on a different topic.  Former President Trump suggested recently that his mugshot and his legal troubles are being embraced by Black people because they understand what it’s like to be targeted and discriminated against. 
 
I just wonder: You know, you are a White House that prides itself on, you know, your relationship with the Black community, its, you know, outreach to the Black community.  The President himself talks frequently about how he believes he won in 2020 thanks to Black voters.  What was his response to that comment from the former President?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, and I do have a couple of things to say about that.  I want to be really careful because it was said — he said it as a candidate.  Obviously, don’t want to comment on 2024.  But speaking separately — right? — speaking apart from that and just being very candid here, it’s repugnant and it’s defice — divisive to — to traffic in racist stereotypes.  That’s what we have seen.  And that affect all Americans, right?  You’re tearing up all Americans by doing this. 
 
It is, again, divisive and repugnant.  And it’s coming from, obviously, a former president of the United States.  And in any context, it is profane to compare the long, painful history — the long, painful history of abuse and discrimination suffered by Black Americans and — to something that is totally different than self-serving purposes. 
 
That’s what we saw from the former President.  A former president — let’s not forget, this is c- — where this is coming from. 
 
And that is not — as you stated in — in your question to me, M.J., this is not what Joe Biden wants to see.  He has been always very clear that hate has no safe harbor here.  He’s all about making sure we move forward with shared values, making sure that everyone — everyone in this country has the dignity and the respect that they deserve — every community.
 
And so, that is what we need to hear right now, not a div- — divisive, repugnant statement from a former — former president that really tears apart a painful history that a community — that a community has gone through — the Black community.  And it is — it is repugnant.  It is absolutely repugnant.
 
Q    Just to clarify, is that description reflective of how the President himself —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I speak for —
 
Q    — is —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — the President of the United States as the White House Press Secretary.  Absolutely.
 
Q    He’s aware of the comments, though, from the former President?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Ab- — he’s aware of the comments.  I’ve spoken to him directly about these comments.  He’s aware.
 
Go ahead, Karen.
 
Q    Thanks.  Back on the Ukraine aid.  You’ve said several times during this briefing that the House should put on the floor the bipartisan bill that the Senate has already passed.  House Speaker Mike Johnson said after the meeting that he was very clear with the President that the House is “actively pursuing and investigating all the various options” on that.  That doesn’t sound like he is ready to just take that Senate bill and put it on the floor. 
 
Can you tell us what he said to the President about the “various options” that the House would consider?  Are they going to break up what the Hou- — what the Senate has already passed?  Would they put something into it?  What did he tell the President?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — what we are supporting right now is the national security supplemental that came out of the Senate.  That’s what we want to see.  That’s what we want to see put on the floor.  That’s what we’re going to continue to make sure we push forward.
 
There is bipartisan support.  You’re talking about one — obviously, one member — one member in Congress.  But we have seen other members, other Republicans who have said they would support this, who have said they — they want to have bi- — they want to vote on this national security supplemental.  It would get — we know it would get bipartisan support.
 
And so, that’s what we want to see.  We’re going to be consistent on that.  That’s how we want to see the House move forward.
 
Q    But did the Speaker tell the President he would not put that Senate bill on the floor as it is right now?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would let the Speaker speak for himself.  I think you were speaking about a con- — another congressional member.
 
Q    No, I’m saying —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I’m so sorry.
 
Q    — Speaker Johnson said that.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Well —
 
Q    Af- — after the meeting, Johnson said that he told the President that the House is pursuing and investigating various options on the security — supplemental security bill.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have been very clear: We want to see the national security supplemental that was passed out of the Senate go to the floor of the House.  We know it would get bipartisan support.  That’s what we want to see.
 
And what I said — and you — you are correct, all fours — all four congressional leaders understood the gravity as it relates to the national security supplemental, as it relates to Ukraine — the gravity of the situation in Ukraine.  They heard directly from the CIA Director: We want to see the national security supplemental that — that came out — 70-29 out of the Senate.  It should be put to the floor.  We know it would get bipartisan support.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Hi, Karine.  Thanks.  You’ve referenced several times that the bipartisan Senate border bill has been endorsed by the union that represents Border Patrol agents.  Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council — the main union for the Border Patrol agents — will actually be joining Donald Trump on Thursday for his border visit.  And he said he actually did not receive an invite from the White House.  And we were wondering what your response to that is and if there was any reason why.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I — we’ll have more to share on what Thursday is going to look like.  We’ll have more to share on who is going to be joining the President.  I don’t have anything beyond — beyond what I just laid out.
 
But it is a fact that the — the Border — the Border Patrol union did indeed support the bipartisan proposal that came out of — of the Senate.  And I think that’s important to state.
 
I can’t speak to him being with the former President in Texas.  That’s for him, obviously, to speak to.
 
And we’ll — certainly will have more as we get closer to Thursday.
 
AIDE:  One or two more. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, April.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Karine, this week, the Vice President has been talking to groups about voting rights.  She — as you said at the top today, she’s going to Selma on Sunday to commemorate Bloody Sunday.  But the actual date of Bloody Sunday’s anniversary is March 7th, the day of the State of the Union Address.
 
Now, with that said, is the President going to deal with the issue of voting rights within the State of the Union Address that happens to fall on the historic date of Bloody Sunday?  And what can he say and what will he say as we are now voting without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act?  It’s been completely gutted, so —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 
 
Q    — what’s he going to talk about?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re right.  It’s been completely gutted.  And it’s shameful that it’s been completely gutted. 
 
I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s State of the Union Address.  I want to be really mindful.  The President is working on it.  And obviously —
 
Q    How many drafts?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I’m not going to get into that. 
 
But what I can say is obviously the President understands, and you’ve seen him do this a couple times before — right? — address Congress, and not just address Congress — speak directly to the American pe- — to American people in primetime about the state of the Union —
 
Q    Right.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — about what he sees is important to the American people, how to move forward.  And you’ll see him address that.  Just not going to get ahead of that.
 
As it relates to voting rights, look, you’re right.  You know, the access to — to voting has been compromised in many ways.  It’s been gutted, obviously, as you just laid out.  And let’s not forget the action that the President took very early on in his administration.  He signed an executive action to deal with vo- — voting rights access on the federal level.
 
And so, he took that very, very seriously, and he continues to call for Congress to take action here on voting rights. 
 
And so, I’m not going to speak to the President’s State of the Union and if that’s going to be included.  You’re right, it’s going to be on a — on a very important anniversary of Selma.  I just don’t want to get ahead of the President at this time.
 
Q    Okay.  So, let’s stick with State of the Union and then something different.  So, State of the Union is typically optimistic about what’s going on in the country.  Is the state of the Union strong at this point?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to let the President speak to that.  But, look, I think I was asked this question earlier about the optimism of this President.  He is optimistic.  And you hear him say — he tends to end many of his speeches — and I kind of said this a little bit — about possibilities and how important it is. 
 
And, you know, as President, as authentically Joe Biden, he believes in possibilities.  He believes in all communities, as we’re talking about voting rights, to have the possibilities — to not be left behind. 
 
And you see that in every policy that he’s moved forward with, especially his economic policies.  You see that in all of the legislation, to make sure that we have equity at the center of all of these important pieces of legislation and policies that we move forward with.
 
And he wants to make sure that we build a — for example, an economy from the bottom up, middle out.  And we have seen — we have seen some successes in these communities.  We have seen success in the economy, turning it around.  It was at a tailspin when the President walked in after what we saw the last administration do to the economy.
 
And so, look, he’s going to continue to do the work.  Again, I don’t want to get ahead of this President.  You’ll hear from him directly, obviously, on that day on the state of the Union.  But he is always optimistic.  And I think it is important — I think, for him, it is important, as you speak to the American people, you have to show that optimism, even if there are still a lot of — as there’s still a lot of work to be done.
 
All right.  Go ahead, (inaudible).  I’m going to start wrapping it up.  Go ahead.  
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  Speaker Johnson left here saying that — “Border first.”  Do we know what he wants at the border?  There’s many actions that the President could take.  Does he have anything that — that he’s demanding, and is there anything the President could give to compromise so he would move up Ukraine?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, here’s the thing, Cristina — and I appreciate the question.  I don’t even think he knows what he wants.  No, ser- — and I say that very seriously. 
 
They first asked for — when we put forward the national security supplemental, it had border security in it, and we were told by the Speaker and others we need to deal with the border security challenges first.  You had a bipartisan group of senators coming — coming out of the Senate, working for four months with — with the White House to put forward a bipartisan piece of legislation that dealt with a important, important — important challenge that we see at the border in immigration.
 
And then, so we did that.  We moved that forward.  We presented it.  And it — we were told, “No, no, no, no, no, we want — we don’t want the border security; we want just the national security supplemental without border security.” 
 
Then, the Senate goes back, and they pass the national security supplemental without the border security — 70-29.  We did that — or they did that, and the Speaker refuses to put that to the floor.
 
So, what is it that he really wants here?  If you look at the border security deal, that proposal, it has — components of that has what the Speaker has been talking about for years.
 
So, the question is really for him.  Like, you know — and — and let’s not forget why that happened.  That happened because Donald Trump told them — told Republicans that if they move forward with the border security negotiated deal that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way, that it would help this current president — it would help President Joe Biden. 
 
And they put politics — they put politics first, instead of the American people.  That’s what we’ve seen.  That is what has been developing.  You all have written about it.  That’s what we have seen.
 
Now, we’re going to continue to talk about the dire needs that we’re — the consequences that we’re seeing in Ukraine, as you just heard me say over and over again during this briefing, and the importance of getting that national security supplemental done.  They heard directly from the CIA Director — right? — today. 
 
We’re going to continue — the President is going to go to Texas — Brownsville, Texas, to be more specific — to talk about the importance of moving forward with the border security challenges, that particular negotiation that came forth in a bipartisan way. 
 
And let’s not forget: The clock is ticking on the government shutdown.  This is not how our government should be done — moved here — run here.  You know, House Republicans need to do their jobs.  They need to do their jobs.  They need to do what is best — what is best for our national security, what is best for the American people.
 
I know you guys are probably tired of hearing me speak.  We’ll see you guys tomorrow.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Bye.
 
3:24 P.M. EST

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

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Queens, New York

1:17 P.M. EST

MS.  JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Hey, guys.  All right.  Let’s do this. 

Okay, good afternoon.  A couple of things before we get started.  So, I want to take a moment to quickly address the fallout of the Alabama Supreme Court decision. 

When the Supreme Court took the outrageous step of overturning Roe v. Wade, it paved the road for Republican elected officials to pursue their extreme agenda.  Since then, they have put in place extreme abortion bans in 21 states, proposed three national abortion bans in Congress, and have introduced more than 380 state bills attacking access to reproductive healthcare.  But it doesn’t stop there.

With the latest decision out of Alabama, IVF is under — is now under attack.  Since the decision came down, Americans have read the devastating reports of families seeking fertility care who don’t know what to do or where to turn.  Doctors are afraid of prosecution, fertility clinics are halting operations, and families in other states are worried they might be targeted next.

Apparently, during their two-week recess, House Republicans read those reports too.  Now they have shamefu- — shamelessly — they are shamelessly attempting to erase their own records on IVF. 

The problem is they can’t, because just — just last year, over 120 Republicans, including Speaker Johnson, co-sponsored the Life at Concep- — Conception Act, a dangerous bill that would eliminate reproductive freedom for all women in every state and nationalize the same policies that resulted from the Ala- — Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

Republican officials now think they can me- — message their way out of their support for these extreme policies, but no attempt to rebrand can change the fact that they have spent decades trying to eliminate the unconstitutional right to choose and undermine reproductive freedom everywhere. 

Their agenda is clear.  They’re just worried it’s not popular, and they are absolutely right about that. 

On Thursday, as you all know, Pres- — President Biden will travel to Brownsville, Texas, to meet with U.S. Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, and local leaders.  He will discuss the urgent need to pass the Senate bipartisan border security agreement, the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border in decades. 

He will reiterate his calls for congressional Republicans to stop playing politics and to provide the funding needed for additional U.S. Border Patrol agents, more asylum officers, fentanyl detection technology, and more. 

And finally, we welcomed the Hungarian Parliament’s overwhelming vote to- — today to approve Sweden’s application to join NATO.  And we urge the Hungarian government to quickly com- — complete the process so we can quickly welcome Sweden into our Alliance. 

 Sweden is a strong and capable defense partner with a highly capable military.  Having Sweden as a NATO Ally will make the United States even safer. 

As you all know, welcoming Sweden into the NATO Alliance has been an important priority for President Biden.  The President had encouraged Sweden and Finland to apply to NATO, and he hosted their leaders at the White House to celebrate their applications for NATO membership. 

He also worked with Congress to ratify Finland’s and NATO’s — and Sweden’s NATO accession protocols to — in record time.  And we would like to welcome Sweden, alongside Finland, into the NATO Alliance very, very soon. 

And, with that, Zeke, what you got? 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We can start off with the Middle East hostage talks, ceasefire.  Has the President been briefed on the — on the updated state of negotiations?  And what is the White House’s level of optimism right now that a deal can be reached?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I don’t have anything to share, any news to share at this time.  Obviously, the President is regularly briefed on what’s going on with those negotiations.  The — it is our priority to — to move forward with a temporary ceasefire. 

As you’ve heard the President say himself, we want to make sure we get these hostages home, including the American hostages home.  We want to make sure we get that all-important humanitarian aid into — into Gaza. 

And again, I’ll just reiterate what we’ve said over and over again, which is the national security supplemental needs to get passed.  Obviously, it has — in that supplemental, it has — it has aid for Ukraine to make sure they have what they need to continue to fight against the aggression that Putin started — right? — two years ago and has that humanitarian aid that Gaza so desperately need, has that — has that assistant for Israel and Indo-Pacific as well. 

So, it’s important that that gets done.  If that — if that national security supplemental were to go on the floor of the House, it would get bipartisan support.  We know this.  We’ve heard from Republicans who have said this.  And we’re going to continue to push forward.  And that is part of what the President is going to discuss with the Big Four tomorrow.

Q    Speaking of that meeting, just real quick, what is the President’s idea of success coming out of that meeting?  I mean, he’s had these lawmakers over to the White House previously and has not moved the ball on the supplemental.  You know, what is he hoping to get out of it tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we — we’ve done these types of meetings before, and it has moved the ball, right?  As you know, with the deal as it relates to the budget when we were dealing with the debt ceiling, it moved that — we were — he was able to move that ball forward. 

Look, he was able to move the ball forward in the Senate to get a bipartisan negotiation on the border security deal that was rejected, obviously, by Republicans because of the last President and — President Trump, to be exact — and what he was able to do, obviously, putting politics over the American people. 

And — but also, what we were able to do on the Senate side is get mov- — removing the border security, was able to get a national security supplemental that passed out of the Senate — Senate 70 to 29.  It passed out of the Senate.  Now it needs to go to — to the House. 

So, we have seen some movement.  We have seen the President’s leadership on this. 

Look, what the President wants to see is we want to make sure that the na- — the national security interests of the American people gets put first.  Right?  It is not used as a political football.  Right?  We want to make sure that gets done. 

And we also want to see that — you know, that — that the government does not get shut down.  It is a basic, basic priority or duty of — of Congress is to keep the government open.  So, that’s what the President wants to see.  He’ll have those conversations.  Obviously, not going to get ahead of the agenda for — that the President is going to — you know, of — of the President and what he’s going to discuss.  But these things are incredibly important.

Q    Karine —

Q    A couple of things on Russia, if I may. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, sure. 

Q    The first is: Can you confirm that the U.S. and Germany were in talks with Russia for a prisoner swap involving Aleksey Navalny before his death?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have — I don’t have anything to share on that.  I’m not going to get into a private discussion. 

Obviously — obviously, when it comes to American hostages, we do everything that we can to make sure that we get them home safely to their — to their family.  You’ve seen the President be successful in doing that in the last three years.  I’m not going to get into — into discussions. 

Q    And secondly, on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  President Zelenskyy said at the weekend that 31,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed.  There have been reports that the U.S. has an estimate that’s about double that.  What’s — I mean, what’s — what’s (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, let me — let me first say that we certainly mourn the loss of so many Ukrainians who have bravely fought to — to defend their freedom and independence as part of this brutal war that Russia launched unprovoked more — obviously, two years ago.

I’m not going to speak to Ukrainian numbers.  That’s for them to speak to.  I just don’t have anything else to add to what Zelenskyy said.

Q    There’s no independent U.S. assessment of that? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have an independent assessment to speak to.  I would — I would refer you to the Ukrainian government. 

Q    Karine, you referenced the President’s trip to Texas on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Thursday.  Can you give us a sense of whether he plans to unveil anything new in terms of an announcement or an executive order?  He’s been under pressure to do so from Republicans.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things there.  As it relates to an executive action, we’ve been very clear.  There is no executive action that would have done what the bipartisan Senate negotiation proposal could have done.  Right?  That would have been a step forward in dealing with the challenges at the border, in dealing with policy changes, obviously, and in dealing with what is actually happening with the immigration system. 

And so, no — no executive action could — could do that.  And — and we’ve been very clear: We think — we think that — that — that Republicans should get out of the way, not politicize this.  This is an issue that the American people — majority of American people care about. 

And so, what the President is going to do — he’s going to go — he’s going to — he’s going to go to the border, as I just mentioned, go to Texas — more specifically, Brownsville — and he’s going to hear directly from the Border Patrol agents.  He’s going to see for himself to see what they’ve been doing on the ground. 

Remember, these — these Border Patrol agents have been doing everything that they can to secure the border to — with the resources that they have.  They need more.  They need more. 

And so, I’m — you know, you’ll hear more from us on what that trip is going to look like.  But, again, no executive action would have done — would have been able to do what — what this bipartisan Senate negotiation that — that the President worked with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for four months.  And, again, politics got in the way, and Republicans rejected it.

Q    But no new policy, then, on Thursday? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just — I don’t have anything to share at this time.  We’ll have more to share as we get — as we get closer to Thursday.

But I just wanted to make sure that — what would help is that bipartisan — bipartisan proposal that went — that — that was agreed upon.  It was — it was the toughest and the fairest agreement that we have seen.  And if it had been put into law, it would have made a difference. 

Q    Karine, just to follow up on that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I know the last time President Biden went to the border, there was some criticism that he didn’t meet directly with migrants.  Is that on the schedule, something you guys are prepping for this trip? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’ll have more to share as we get closer to Thursday.  Don’t have anything for you at this time.  Obviously, he’s going to meet with frontline folks who — who work on the ground, including Border Patrol agents; hear directly from them; see, also, for himself what is it that they do every day to protect Americans, to secure the border.

Again, they need more resources.  Let’s not forget, that bipartisan — bipartisan proposal that came out of the Senate to deal with the border challenges, to deal with immigration was — was approved by the Border Patrol union, by — there was a Wall Street Journal editorial about it.  There was — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported that — that proposal. 

And when do we — when do we see that, right?  When do we ever see something like that in a bipartisan way? 

And so, I’ll just leave it there.  We’ll have more to share, obviously, as we get closer to Thursday.

Q    And then, on a different note, we’re about 10 days out from the State of the Union Address.  Where is the state of that speech, and how is the President preparing? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you — as you can imagine, the President takes that opportunity to speak to millions of Americans, in- — obviously including — including on the Capitol, in front of congressional members, very seriously. 

I don’t have anything to share on his — on his remarks.  He will be working on it over the next — next week or so, how much time — however time we have until — until March 8th.  But I just don’t have anything to share. 

It’s going to be an important moment to speak directly to the American people, as he has done, you know, many times before as President.  And so, we — he looks forward to that opportunity.

Q    Can you tal- — can you talk about why now for — for the border trip, sort of what lead up to it?  Why does the President want to see and interact with these agents now?  And also, any reaction to the former President being at the Texas U.S. border, as well, on Thursday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have a reaction to the former President.  I’m not going to speak to his schedule.  What I can speak to is this President and what he’s trying to do.  He wants to — he wants to make sure that he has — he puts his message out there to the American people.

He — we have said that we were going to take it directly to the American people so that they know — they know what’s going on, right?  They know what’s going on in Congress.  They know that what we tried to do with the Senate in a bipartisan way to get a border — a border security deal and, obviously, a deal that deals with the immigration system.  And we tried to get that done. 

The President has been working on this since day one of his administration, putting forward a comprehensive immigration policy, and Republicans keep getting in the way. 

So, the — so, the American people are going to hear directly from him.  He’s going to see what’s going on on the ground.  He wants to — he said he was going to take action; he’s going to that.  We’re going to see him on Thursday on the ground doing that. 

And so, look, there was a de- — there was a — there was a deal coming out of the Senate in a bipartisan way that took four months.  Republicans got in the way because of what Donald Trump told them to do or told them to — how — told them how to move forward on it.

Q    Can you say anything about today’s trip to New York?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say what?  What’s that?

Q    Can you say anything about today’s trip to New York?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything — I don’t have anything more to say about — or anything to say about New York.  It’s a campaign — obviously, there’s a campaign component to it.  The campaign can speak more specifically about — about his trip today.

Q    Karine, you just said that the President will — will take action on Thursday at the border.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I meant — I meant him going.  I probably should clear that up.  You’re right, I did — when I said it, I was like, “Oh, gosh.”  (Laughter.)

Him going is showing that he is taking — he’s taking this very seriously.

Q    So, he’s not going to do anything when he’s there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  (Laughs.)  No, what I’m saying —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m saying — what I meant by that is, like, him going is an action, right?  He’s — he’s taking this very seriously.  He’s going to go directly to — you know, to Brownsville, Texas; see exactly what’s going on; hear directly from the Border Patrol agents who — who are doing the work, you know, in the best way that they can with the resources that they have, but they need more.  They need more.

Q    Karine, there was some reporting that the President was going to tape Seth Meyers’s show today.  Is that — is that a campaign event?  Is that really not something you can confirm?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have — I don’t have anything on that.  If we have more to share, certainly, we will — I don’t have —

Q    Is that just because of protests that you don’t want to share details about the President’s schedule, because you’re afraid of protests?

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

Q    Karine, is there a White House response to the former President’s comments on Friday that his indictments appeal to Black voters because he’s been discriminated against, as Black Americans have been?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, I’m going to be really careful.  He’s a candidate as well, and he was speaking at a political event, and it’s an election — 2024 — so I need to be really mindful.  And then, I think we have to sit down. 

So, speaking separately, it is — it is a repugnant and dis- — and divisive — it is repugnant and dis- — divisive to traffic in racist stereotypes that have the re- — that have the effect of — of tearing — tearing all Americans down.  And in any context, it is profa- — profane to compare the long, painful history of — of abuse and discrimination suffered by Black Americans to something totally different for self-serving purposes. 

President Joe Biden has been always very clear on this, that we must give hate no safe harbor.  Instead, we need to bring Americans together around our shared values about the rights and — and dignity of everyone. 

That’s what the country needs to hear right now: a unity for the sake of all Americans — to unify in the sake of all Americans, not division for the sake of one person.

I think that’s all I got.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, guys.  Thank you.  Thanks, everybody.  See you on the ground.

1:32 P.M. EST

    

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Queens, NY appeared first on The White House.

James S.  Brady Press Briefing Room

1:40 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s Frid- — it’s Friday, right?

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  (Laughs.)  Good point.  Good point.

Okay.  A couple things at the top before we get into questions.  (A cellphone rings.)  Somebody wants to take that?  (Laughter.)  Don’t want to interrupt your call.

Okay.  So, I want to address some devastating news out of Oklahoma.  As a parent, I was absolutely heartbroken to learn about Nex Benedict’s death.

Every young person deserves to feel safe and supported at school.

Our hearts are with Nec- — Nex Benedict’s family, friends, entire school community in the wake of this horrific and gut-wrenching tragedy.

I know that for many LGBTQ+ students across the country, this may feel personal and deeply, deeply painful.

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 LGBTQ+ young people that can be reached by dialing 988 and pressing “3.”

Through devastating tragedies like these, we must support each other and lift one another up.

Now, in another news that we learned — that came out this week is how the people of Alabama woke up to shocking news.

The State Supreme Court has put access to fertility treatments at risk for families who are desperately trying to get pregnant.

It’s unimaginable for people who want to become parents, and it’s a devastating example of the kind of chaos and confusion that has resulted from the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

There are reports that families seeking fertility care don’t know what to do or where to turn.  Doctors are afraid to pr- — of prosecution.  And families in other states are worried they might be next.

But this is not the first time reproductive care has been disrupted in Alabama, a state where women are already living under a total abortion ban.  The state has no exceptions for rape or incest.

This is the same state whose Attorney General threatened to prosecute people who help women travel out of state to seek the care that they need.

And it’s not just Alabama.  We’re seeing this chaos play out across the country.

The day Roe fell is the day that the floodgates opened for Republican elected officials to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.

Now, as a result:

Twenty-one states have abortion bans in effect.  In nearly all [these] states, doctors can be charged with a felony for simply doing their jobs.

Twenty-seven million women of reproductive age now live in states with abortion bans.

Over 380 state bills restricting access to abortion care were introduced just last year.

And congressional Republicans have proposed three national abortion bans.

It doesn’t stop there.  Believe it or not, it doesn’t stop there.

Birth control access is under attack.  Women are being denied care for ectopic pregnancy.  And now, with this decision out of Alabama — Alabama, IVF is under attack.

So, we want to be really clear here: It is absolutely unacceptable to this administration when women are denied the care that they need.  It is unacceptable.

President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state.

Now, as you saw this mo- — morning, we are excited to announce that on March 1st, President Biden will welcome Prime Minister Meloni of Italy to the White House to reaffirm the strong relationship between the United States and Italy.

The leaders will discuss shared approaches to address global challenges, including their commitment to continue supporting Ukraine as it confronts Russia’s aggressions, preventing regional escalation in the Middle East and delivering humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, developments in North Africa, and close trans- — transatlantic coordination regarding the People’s Republic of China.

They will also discuss Italy’s G7 presidency and coordinate in advance of the N- — of the NATO Summit in Washington.

And finally, earlier today, you heard directly from the President when he delivered remarks and issued a statement to mark the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine tomorrow. 

We mourn — we mourn the many Ukrainian lives who have been lost as a result of Russia’s unprovoked and unlawful war, and we are committed — committed to com- — continuing to support the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia’s vicious and brutal war in Ukraine.

As part of that commitment, we sanctioned over 500 targets today to impose additional costs on Russia for its repression, human rights abuses, and aggression against Ukraine.

The Department of Commerce is adding more than 90 companies to the Entity List for their activities in support of Russia’s defense-industrial base and war effort.

And the Department of State is designating three Russian individuals who were connected to Navalny’s imprisonment and the Russian government’s harsh treatment of him.

The U.S. government has designated over 4,000 entities and individuals in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine over the past two years, the strongest set of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy.

And we will continue — we will continue to take actions to ensure Mr. Putin pays an — an — a steeper price for his aggression abroad, the repression at home.

At the same time, we need House Republicans to join us — to join us in standing up to Putin and to take action by passing the national security supplemental bill to ensure we can continue to support Ukraine.

Time is of the essence and Ukraine cannot afford for House Republicans to continue to delay.

Before I continue, we will have the week ahead later to all of you.  I don’t have that in front of me at this time.  But, obviously, we’ll share that with all of you.

Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We’ve heard some sharp words from the President, from yourself, criticism of the Speaker for not bringing up the Ukraine aid to the floor.  Has the President reached out directly to the Speaker at all since their last conversation a month ago?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have- — I don’t have a — a call to read out to you about a call between the President or — and the Speaker. 

You — look, want to be very clear here.  We’ve been — we’ve been — and it’s been clear to all of you, and you’ve all have reported this as well.  We know for a fact that if this bill — this national security supplemental were to go to the floor, it would get bipartisan support.  This is in the House — in the House, obviously.  We know that House Republicans would support this.  We know that House Democrats would support this.

All — all he needs to do — all the Speaker needs to do is bring this to the floor — it will get support — instead of playing political — political games here, instead of playing political stunts. 

And you all have reported — I believe Politico reported — how there is no direction for this — for this — for this Republican co- — caucus in the House.  They don’t have a plan. 
And it’s easy to do. 

This is something — and I’m going to be really blunt here.  Lives are at stake.  If you think about what’s happening in Ukraine, if you think about what’s happening in the Middle East, lives are at stake here.  This is about saving lives, and they can get this done. 

This is also about the national security of the American people.  So, if he truly stands with the American people, he would get this done.  Put it on the floor.  It will get bipartisan support.  Put it on the floor.  Stop playing political games.

Q    In your topper, you mentioned the Alabama decision.  Is there any actions the federal government can take or is looking at taking to try to help women who are trying to get in vitro fertilization services?  (Inaudible) hospital network that — that stopped the practice now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and, look, I don’t have anything to share at this time.  I know you’re asking me are there any policy actions — right? — that we can take from here.  Look, what we will say here is that the fix here is — is not — is — is Roe v. Wade.  That’s the fix.  That’s how we get to a place where we fix what’s going on and stop the chaos that we’re seeing in these states. 

That’s the fix.  It is a legislative fix that needs to come from Congress.  That’s what we need to get — to get to a place to.

I don’t have anything to announce here.  But it is unimaginable of what families are now having to deal with and how this could spread to other states.  And this is the chaos — the chaos that comes from the Dobbs decision, that comes from what Republicans have been doing since the Dobbs decision. 

And so, we have to get this right.  We have to get this fixed by making sure Congress acts and gets Roe — become — makes Roe the law of the land.  The courts got it wrong.  The courts got it wrong in this.

Q    And then, last from me.  Last month, the President said that he did not have any additional executive authority to act on with regard to the border.  He met with governors this morning, where he apparently told them that he was looking and talked to his lawyers and seemed frustrated with his lawyers as he’s trying to devise some executive actions.  We did some reporting on that in the last couple of days as well.

So, is the President currently contemplating any additional executive actions on the border?  What are they, and when will we see that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we don’t have any actions to — to announce today — no decisions.  And this is something that I’ve actually spoken to the President about.  No decisions have been made on this. 

Here’s what we know, and here’s the bottom line.  There is no executive action — no executive action that the President can take — no matter how aggressive it could be, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional — additional resources that Congress could have provided that Republicans rejected.  Right? 

There’s nothing — no actions that he could take that would have been — that would be as — as — as tough, as fair as this bipartisan — bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate, obviously, that we worked on for — for months. 

And that’s what would have actually dealt with this, what was happening at the border, dealt with the immigration situation.  And this is what Republicans rejected.

And so, look, I don’t have any decisions to — to make at this time.  What we believe is that that piece of legislation that came out — bipartisan piece of legislation that came out of the Senate, that would have been the way to move forward here. 

And, again, Republicans in the House decided to block that.  They decided to go a political direction.  They decided on issues, on policies that were included in there that they believed in — that they, at one point, believed that’s how to move forward to deal with the border — they — they rejected it.

And so, again, don’t have anything to announce at this time or any decisions — to be even more clear, any decisions that have been made right now.  But we had something at — on the table that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way, and they decided — and they rejected it, meaning the Republicans in the House.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the Alabama IVF ruling.  How concerned should American families be that this could spread to other conservative states?  And does this president need to do more than simply calling for the codification of Roe v. Wade?  Does he need to go further here, since this does deal with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    — a separate issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I hear your — your — your question here.  Yeah, they should be concerned.  They should be concerned.  On your first part of your question, they should be concerned that this should — could spread in other states.

This is the chaos that has come out of the Dobbs decision.  This is the chaos that has come out of — of getting ri- — rid of Roe, which was the law of the land for almost 50 years. 

And so, look, what needs to happen — I mean, the way that we fix this or the way that we get to a place where women feel protected, where women can make decisions on their own body, where families can make a decision on how to move forward in –in growing their family or starting a family is to — is to get Roe and Wade to — Roe v. Wade needs to be the law of the land.  That’s the fix.  That’s what needs to happen.

And there is — that is the — the best way to move forward here.

Q    And on the border deal.  The President had earlier said that he was out of options when it comes to executive actions.  Does the fact that he’s considering other actions mean that there was more he could have done earlier? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    So, what changed here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be very clear.  The bottom line, the only way to — we could have had move forward — we could move forward in a effective, more comprehensive way was to move forward with the bipartisan — bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate.  That was the way that we believe would have been a fair — it was a — one of the toughest, one of the fairest bipartisan border security bills that we have seen in decades. 

It would have dealt with giving resources that’s needed at the border.  It would have dealt with dealing with policy issues as it relates to immigration.  And that’s what — the way we should have moved forward.

A couple of things it would have done: establish a fair — a more efficient process for asylum claims with consequences for those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States; provide more resources to secure the border and process claims — Border Patrol agents, law enforcement personnel, and detection technology to combat fentanyl trafficking, asylum officers and immigration judges; make our country safer, our border more secure, while treating people fairly and humanely, consistent with our values as a nation.

Republicans rejected this bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.  That’s something that the President worked with in a bipartisan way, obviously, with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for months.  They rejected that.

And we believe that is the direction — that is the bottom line for us.  That’s what — that’s the way we should have moved forward.  We just — I don’t have anything to announce or any decision that’s been made.

Q    Just real quickly, though.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Roe v. Wade versus trying to protect women’s rights to IVF treatment: They are two separate things.  So, is the administration looking at protections for the latter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I don’t have anything to share on any policy changes or any policy updates for all of you.  We have to understand how this started.  This started because of what happened with Roe — the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe, something that was a — a — you know, a Roe was — was — was, you know, constitutional for almost 50 years — almost 50 years.  And that got overturned. 

And the moment that got overturned, that day, Republicans started to work and take action.  I just mentioned 380 pieces of legislation to go against what women’s — difficult decisions that women’s need — women need to make about their bodies, about their family, about how they’re going to move forward, about the care that they need — 380 pieces of legislation across the country.  That’s what is happening.  That’s what’s happening right now. 

And so, the chaos has been started — was started the day that happened — the day Roe was overturned.  And the only way to fix this — the best way to fix this is to restore Roe.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  The President made an appeal this morning to the governors at the White House, asking them to kind of go back to their states and talk to their congressional lawmakers about passing the Ukraine aid bill.  I’m wondering if that is sort of the next course of action where you’re thinking about targeting the Speaker and top House Republicans in their districts. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the President had an opportunity to — to engage with governors of both — obviously of both parties, which is something that he does yearly.  And they have important — important items to speak on — to speak to on the agenda.  And obviously, this is a — this is an issue that governors care about. 

We know that even with the bipartisan deal for the border security, obviously, that came out of the Senate, we got support from governors.  We got letters from governors.  We got letters from that included c- — mayors from — from the cities that were being affected.  So, we know that we got support from them. 

And so, one way, obviously, to get the Speaker to do his job and put it — put it on the floor and actually take it up is for governors to speak up as well. 

And I believe that they have.  Obviously, the letter was a key part of that. 

And so, look, there are — there are many, many items on the agenda to discuss.  This is something that’s important when you think about immigration, when you think about what’s happening at the border and how it’s affecting these — these states, these governors. 

So, yeah, I think it’s important for — one way the President to show leadership is to also say — and — and governors to show leadership is to — to be very clear what this means to them, to their constituents back at home. 

Q    Are you planning to follow up with them in, you know, the next week if they have had those conversations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we’ve been in regular touch with governors.  Obviously, we — there was a billion dollars that we were able to secure to help governors deal with the — the migrant situation, the migrant issue over the past several months. 

So, we’ve been in constant communication with governors, with mayors.  And so, those conversations continue.

What you were able to see is the President leaning in and showing how important it is to move with the — with the bipartisan deal, as it relates to the border — obviously, border security and — and also, obviously, the national security supplemental, since we are — we are speaking about the — the two-year anniversary tomorrow of Ukraine being — being attacked by Russia. 

So, all of these things are important.  We’re talking about our national security — our national security — the importance of our national security for the American people.  And we’re also talking about our border and what we need to do to make sure that we deal with the border challenges. 

Q    I have a quick one on the meeting that he had in California with Navalny’s family.  We did see the readout that you put out.  You know, the President has spoken a little bit on it.  But what specific assurances did he offer Yulia?  Because the sanctions package was already in the works — right? — to mark the anniversary of the two-year war.

What did he tell the Navalny family that he can do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — to protect them?  I mean, did he advise her not to go back to Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really careful and not speak to a private conversation that the President had.  That is something that we don’t do here.  I’m not going to go beyond the readout. 

But, yes, was the — was the sanction package in motion before Navalny’s death?  Yes.  As you — as you know, tomorrow will be a two-year anniversary. 

But we added to — we added to the package — obviously added additional sanctions once we learned about Navalny’s death. 

So, both are true.  In this case, both can be true and are true.  And so, I just am not going to go beyond a conversation — a private conversation. 

Q    Did he ask her not to go back to Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m just not going to do that.  Obviously, it is her decision to make.  I’m just not going to get into — into private conversations.

Go ahead.

Q    Border deal aside, the White House is actively discussing taking executive action on the border, as the governors mentioned earlier today, and as we’ve reported.  So, why now?  Is the border deal just a jumping off point to new executive actions that the President can take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to comment on any individual policy option that’s being speculated in the media.  I’m just not going to do that. 

What we have been very clear — the bottom line is the way to have moved forward was with this border deal.  That’s the way —

Q    But there is executive actions that are now being considered that weren’t considered before.  So, why?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m not going to get into any policy discussions that are possibly happening or — or how- — however it’s being reported.  I’m just not going to get into that. 

What I can say is the bottom line here: We believe no executive action, no matter how aggressive it could be or — or could look would have been as — as significant as the border deal that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way.  No action. 

And let’s not forget: Republicans rejected that.  And so, don’t have anything to go — to go on beyond that. 

Q    On Alabama.  What’s your message to the clinics in Alabama that have proactively paused IVF treatments?  Are they making the right call?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I can’t speak to the decisions that the clinics are making.  That is for them.  They are, you know — you know, there are safety concerns.  There’s legal concerns that they have to weigh and decide on.

What we can speak to is the chaos that has been created because of the overturning of Roe, and we see this.  And it is devastating.  It is devastating.  It is dangerous to women. 

And so, what we’re going to do is continue to speak out against that and make it very clear that — that the court decision that was made was wrong.  And — and, yeah, you know what?  This could — this could get spread.  This could go beyond Alabama.  And that is a scary thought for many families across the country, certainly many women across the country. 

Q    Last question.  You mentioned there’s no readout with the President and the House Speaker.  The — one of the — one of the messages in the G7 call, according to John Kirby, will be that the President will do everything he can to get Congress to pass that funding.  Has there been any reach-out from the White House to try to get a call or a meeting in the books since he is the person between that funding and the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I get the question.  But let’s not forget, for the past several months, NSC and other parts of, obviously, the President’s administration have had regular conversation.  You’ve heard Jake Sullivan speak to going over to House and the Senate to talk to Republicans and Democrats about the aid, about the importance of the Ukraine aid. 

You’ve heard that conversation.  You’ve heard him say this from this podium.  And we also know that there is bipartisan support.  We saw it coming out of the Senate.  And there’s bipartisan support in the House.

What the Speaker — the pressure here needs to be on the Speaker.  The Speaker needs to do his job and actually take this up, put it to the — if he were to put it to the floor, it would have bipartisan support. 

But we’ve been doing our job.  We’ve been having those conversations with congressional members.  And, you know, it’s — it’s unfortunate that the Speaker chooses to turn this into a political — a political football here. 

This is not what this is about.  This is about our national security.  This is about the American people.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    On the sanctions —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that were unveiled today.  What makes these sanctions any more effective than the hundreds announced before?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, a couple of things, as I just mentioned.  So, first of all, these sanctions are cumulative, so we have to look at it in that way.  These are 500 new targeted sanctions that are now being sanctioned — the targets are being sanctioned for the first time, so that’s important to note. 

These targets are within Russia’s defense industrial base, its financial system, and it will continue to impose costs on Russia to make it harder to carry out its brutal war and vicious war in Ukraine. 

We will continue to make sure that we hold Putin’s aggression accountable and raise the cost on his — on — not — not just him but also his enablers.  But we also, as I’ve said — as I’ve stated, we need Congress to act.  They need to do their job.  They need to provide the assistance that Ukrainians need to continue to fight Putin’s brutal war. 

That’s what they need to do.  They need to be able to make sure that we provide Ukraine’s — Ukrainians with the assistance to defend themselves.  And so, we are continuing to urge the Speaker.  Again, if the Speaker were to put this on the floor, we would see bipartisan support for the national security bill.

Q    I guess, asked another way, you’ve — there have been 4,000 sanctions now in the last two years.  It hasn’t stopped the war.  So, to what extent — or how should the success of these sanctions even be measured —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look —

Q    — if that hasn’t happened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I totally get the question.  Look, we believe they’ve been effective.  Right?  That’s what we believe.  The goal of sanction export control is to increase — again, increase the cost of — of Mr. Putin and his enablers.  And it’s clear that our sanctions and imports controls are having an impact. 

And so — and it’s not just them.  It’s — obviously, Russia had been forced — because of we’re — we’re raising the stakes on Russia and their — and his enablers, we see Russia being forced — right? — to turn to countries like Iran and North Korea to get the arms and ammunition it needs to carry out this war. 

And I want to read — I want to just lay out an example from Bloomberg.  Bloomberg reported last month that Russia’s government has tapped almost half of the national wealth funds available — available reserves as it pours money into the — its defense budget at the expense of Russia’s other needs. 

When you think about Putin’s own oil c- — own oil czar, they have li- — he’s linked the fact that Russia has been forced to sell its oil at heavily discounted prices to our coalition’s increased enforcement of oil — oil price cap in recent months.

So, we have seen the impact, we believe.  Again, this is cumulative, what we were able to sanction — again, 500 additional targets.  And we believe that it has had an impact.

Q    On the Alabama IVF ruling, you have spoken out just here forcefully about it.  The Vice President did yesterday and continues to on her national tour.  The President tweeted about it and issued a written statement. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    When might we see him more publicly speak out about this issue?  We keep hearing — at least we keep hearing from voters and Democrats who say, “Where is he on this?  Why isn’t he talking about –”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’ve —

Q    “– an issue of such urgent concern?”  Presidential focus, time, statement in public instead of on paper is very different than sending you out here or tweeting about it or sending the Vice President on the road.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, Ed, I think the President has spoken about what the attack on reproductive rights on — what the attack on women being able to make choices on behalf of — of their own healthcare and getting the healthcare that they need, the actions that he has taken, whether it’s executive actions and what, obviously, his agencies have been able to do — DOJ, HHS — I mean, those have been done because of this President, and he has spoken to this many times. 

The day that Roe was overturned, you heard from the President.  The President was the only person that spoke to this on — on that day.  And I would argue that a statement from the President is incredibly powerful, is important.  He spoke to this through — through his statement.  And the President has been very clear where he stands.

He believes that we need to continue to protect women’s right to make a decision, reproductive rights decision — reproductive health decision, pardon me.  And that’s where we’re going to continue to be.  That’s where he’s going to continue to be.  And we’ve been very clear about that. 

Q    We’ve asked about this before.  The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is once again concerned they are not being brought into conversations about potential executive orders and other actions taken by the White House, saying that what they’re reading about, at least, is unacceptable to them and they haven’t had much dialogue with the White House about it.  Are there any plans to — to remedy that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first, we —

Q    To meet with them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No decisions have been made.  I want to be very, very clear about that, again.  And I would say that we are in regular communication, regular contact with members of — of the Hispanic Caucus, members of the Progressive Caucus, just members of —

Q    Well, they claim they’re not.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  From my understanding, and I’ve asked about this, we’ve been in regular communications with them.  And so, obviously, we respect — we respect congressional members.  We work — we work very closely with them on many, many issues. 

We’ve been in regular communication and regular contact.  We just don’t have any decisions to make on any executive actions.  We just don’t have any decisions that have been made.  And that may be why they haven’t been talked to about that particular issue. 

But I would say, as it relates to immigration, as it relates to what we’ve been trying to do, certainly as it related to the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate, we were in regular discussion.  No decision has been made.  No decision has been made here. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  We know what the governors told us that the President told them about the border and what he’s considering with regards to executive actions.  Just for the sake of clarity, can you tell us what the President told them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to go into private conversations.  I’m just not.  The governors can speak for themselves.  I’m just not going to go into it.

Q    Okay.  And Tammy Duckworth, the senator from Illinois, is talking about legislation that could protect IVF at the federal level.  If Congress were to pass legislation to protect IVF, would President Biden sign it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not seen the legislation.  I have not talked to our Office of Leg Affairs about it.  So, I want to be super careful here.  Obviously, Tammy Duckworth, the senator, is a — is a close colleague, someone we’ve worked very closely with.  So, I just would need to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs.

We believe the best way, honestly, to get this done, as it relates to the chaos that has been created, is to get Roe to — to become law of the land, and that’s something Congress can do.  I just — I want to be careful.  I just don’t want to speak to that particular legislation.

Q    And are you actively trying to get additional funding for the Border Patrol or some of the other funds to help deal with the border situation added to the CR or whatever vehicle might have to move to avoid a government shutdown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re always having active conversations on what else we can do to make — to deal with the challenges at the border, obviously.  Don’t have anything specific to lay out on any additional funding.  Obviously, there was additional funding that we requested in that border security supplemental. 

Obviously, there would have been additional funding if the House — House Republicans would have moved forward with that bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate and Republicans didn’t reject it outright.  Obviously, that would have been helpful to what’s happening, the challenges at the border.  I just don’t have anything to share on the specifics.

Go ahead, (inaudible).

Q    Several on the border, Karine.  But the northern one, it’s not as dramatic as in the south, but there are different and more and more reports on migrants crossing the border to come to the U.S.  Is the administration worried?  Is it in contact with the Canadian government to try to stop the flow? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts, obviously, on a range of issues that — including migrants attempting to cross the border.  Don’t have any new announcements to make.  But we are constantly having those conversations with our counterparts in Canada.  I just don’t have anything for you at this time.

Q    How worried is the administration that it’s happening more and more (inaudible)? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’m not going to — to put a gauge on this on how worried we are.  But we do have constant communication with our counterparts on a range of issues, including the one that you just laid out to me.

Q    And on the sanctions.  The Canadian government today, in parallel, announced its own package of sanctions against Russians and Russian entities.  How — how was the coordination happening, the — the planning of all of this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, obviously, I just laid out that we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts on a range of issues.  Obviously, Canada has been a — a strong partner with us, along with 50 other — 50 — or 49 other countries — obviously, NAT- — including NATO — NATO Alliance, as well, and what the President has been able to do to bring a strong front as it relates to helping Ukraine beat back with Russia’s aggression.

I don’t have any specific conversations to lay out on how that coordination — potential coordination worked.  But we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the consideration of these new executive orders for the border.  What changed between the time President Biden said, “We are a nation who says, ‘If you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” and now? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t understand.  What — what do you mean?  The — your question, I don’t get —

Q    As a candidate —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — how it’s connected to the —

Q    — President Biden was telling people to come to the border.  So, what has changed since then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have a context of this quote that you’re giving me.  But what I will say is this.  The President took this issue very seriously of what is happening at the border and what — and the immigration system as a whole.  Right? 

And we have said over and over again, this is a system that has been broken for decades, under the last administration, as you know, which was a Republican administration, and other administrations before that.  And he took this so seriously that the first piece of legislation that he put forth on day one was on immigration reform.  That is what counts, and that is what matters.

And for the past several months, we worked with Republican senators and also Democrats in the Senate to try to come up with a fair and tough piece of legislation that would deal with border security.  That was — let’s not forget — endorsed by the border union patrol.

And that’s how seriously the President has taken it.  We’ve done this for months, and House Republicans have gotten in the way.  The Speaker has gotten in the way. 

And so, we want to deal with this issue.  This is an issue that majority of Americans care about.  House Republicans, the Speaker got in the way.

The question really is for the Speaker: What changed?  Speaker Johnson, what’s changed?

Q    Something else President Biden has promised is a more humane border policy than Trump.  So, why would he even be considering now a border policy that is more similar to Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What border policy are you talking about?

Q    Well, Axios is reporting that the legal authority Biden is considering using powered Trump’s Muslim ban and similar sweeping restrictions at the border.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into — get into or comment on individual policy option that’s being speculated right now.  As I said before, no decisions have been made.  We want to make sure — the President has been very clear: He wants to make sure that our country is safer, and we need more Border Security, abv- — obviously, to secure our border.  We’ve been very clear about that.  And we want to do it while treating people fairly and humanely, and that is consistent with our values.

But, look, Republicans continue to get in the way.  Speaker Johnson has gotten in the way of this.  And so, a lot of these questions are for him.

We did our job.  The Senate did their job in a bipartisan way on — there are provisions in that — polic- — policies that are in that legislation that Republicans agreed with at some point, not very long ago — just last year — that they agreed with.  And now they’re rejecting it.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, with regards to the sanctions on Russia, you mentioned that previous sanctions, you said, had been effective, in part, because Russia was forced to go to other countries like Iran and North Korea to get resources. 

Still, though, the war is not over.  How can you make the argument that those sanctions have been effective if they’re still getting those resources from those other countries, wherever they get them from?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we believe — and I just laid this out moments ago — that we have seen an impact.  I talked about Bloomberg.  I talked about what their — Putin’s own oil czar has had to do.  I mean, this is the — I mean, what we have been able to impose on — on Russia has been pretty significant.  It has been pretty significant, when you think about the — another major economy — the most that we’ve ever been able to do on any major economy.  And as — as I’ve stated, this is cumulative.  Right?  This is a — this is a continuation.  And we believe, as has been reported, that we have seen — that we have seen some impact here. 

We’re going to continue to use every tool — every tools in our — in our tool belt, obviously.  We’re going to develop — developing new tools to make it harder and costlier for Russia to fuel its war machine.  That’s what we’re going to do.  And at the same time, we need Congress to do their jobs, we need House Republicans, we need the Speaker to put on the floor a national security supplemental plan that we believe and we know will get bipartisan support. 

We’ve heard from Republicans in the House; we’ve heard from, obviously, Democrats in the House.  That’s what we need the — the House to do. 

Q    And on the border.  I know you’ve said you couldn’t or wouldn’t get into specific executive actions being considered or not considered.  But bottom line: As a — as a policy, does the administration believe that asylum laws need to be strengthened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be —

Q    And — but the reas- — the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I know. 

Q    I know.  But the reason I asked that is that the bipartisan bill — and you said the President would sign it — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, he would.

Q    — would strengthen asylum laws.  So, I just want to be sure: The administration does believe that asylum laws need to be strengthened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Obviously, because it was in — as you just stated — in the bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate that the President’s team worked very closely on.  I just want to be very, very clear and very careful.  Decisions haven’t been made.  I’m not going to get into any internal — internal policy — individual policy, pardon me, option that’s being speculated in the press.  I’m just not going to do that from here.  But no decision has been made. 

Q    And finally, on a separate topic.  I know the U.S. has had a complicated relationship with Mexico before.  I wanted to get the White House’s reaction to President López Obrador doxing a New York Times reporter in a press conference.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, well, I — well, I’ve not seen that.  Obviously, that’s not something we support.  We believe in the freedom of the press, obviously, which is why we do this on — on — almost on a daily basis. 

And we — we — it is important for the press to be able to report on issues that matter to the American people freely in an — in a way that, obviously, you all feel secure and safe and in a way that you’re not being doxied [doxed] or attacked.  That is — you know, that is something that we will, obviously, reject. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  One follow-up on Nex Benedict and then another one on a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — separate subject.  Given that Nex’s family said they had been bullied in the months prior to their death, specifically about their gender identity, and the family also says that Nex was physically assaulted the day prior to their death, does the White House think that this case should be the subject of a federal hate crime investigation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really careful.  That is something for the Department of Justice to decide on.  I cannot speak to that.  Obviously, our hearts go out to — to Nex Benedict’s family.  It is a tragedy that is awful. 

And I said this at the beginning, and I’ll say it again: Every kid should feel safe and should feel protected when they go to school.  And this should not be the case. 

But that is something — as far as any legal action, that’s something for the Department of Justice to decide. 

Q    And then the Florida Surgeon General defied CDC guidelines this week suggesting it’s fine to send unvaccinated kids to school amid a measles outbreak there.  This comes as the CDC says that routine childhood vaccinations hit a 10-year low in 2023, putting about a quarter of a million kindergarteners at risk for measles. 

Does the administration support tightening the kinds of philosophical and religious exemptions that are increasingly being used to defy school childhood vaccine mandates?  And what else is the administration doing to promote the importance of childhood vaccines, especially against the backdrop of this nationwide uptick in measles outbreaks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a — a couple of things.  As it relates to the outbreak, the CDC is actively monitoring these cases.  And as you know, we have — the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response remains in close and regular contact as we continue to — to work and monitor what’s going on on the ground. 

And we want to make sure that communities feel safe, obviously.  So, any questions on — specifically on that, I would refer you to the CDC. 

Look, you know, responding to measles outbreaks, which are now, obviously, occurring in every region of the world is a priority for this administration.  Meas- — measles, as you know, is highly contagious, infect- — infectious — contagious infection.  But it is easily prevented with routine child- — childhood vaccines. 

We are providing technical support to the — for example, to the World Health Organization and UNICEF, and we are donating, as well — make sure that there is a vaccine alliance, which has provided millions of measles and other vaccine doses to low- and low-middle-income countries. 

So, we are monitoring this.  It is important that, obviously, we do everything we can to mitigate the situation.  But CDC is actively aware, obv- — obviously, actively monitoring these cases that we’re seeing across the country. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, in addition to the sanctions, is the President supportive of, you know, confiscating frozen Russian assets and using it for Ukraine’s reconstruction? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things, because this is a little bit complicated.  And I want to take a step back for the folks who — who are, clearly, watching the briefing.  I understand that you all understand this.

But in 2- — 2022, we worked together with our allies and partners to quickly immobilize almost $300 billion of Russia’s sovereign assets that they had held internationally when they launched their brutal invasion of Ukraine.  That joint action to cut off Russia’s access to a significant amount of funds has made it much riskier for Russia to fund its war against the Ukrainian people and boost their defense spending while also mana- — managing their economy. 

So, now we’re going to continue to be in active conversation with our allies and partners, including the G7, as well as members of Congress, on additional steps to seize Russia’s aggres- — to seize Russians’ — Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and to ensure Russia pays for the damage it has caused.

I don’t have any new announcement to make.  But it is a bit complicated because, as I said, we’re talking about international — kind of an int- — it’s been held internationally.  So, it is a little bit more complicated.

Q    Are there other countries who are planning to, you know, take that action? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to other countries.  I can’t speak for other countries here.  But I just wanted to make sure we laid out it is complicated.  It is not as simple as it — as it may seem.  But, certainly, don’t have any new announcements to make at this time. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  What’s the view from the White House right now about how conversations are going about government funding and spending bills next week — or ahead of next week’s significant deadlines —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean —

Q    — for a shutdown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, and we’re — you know, we’ve been here before and we’ve always been very clear: House Republicans have a job to do.  Their basic duty is to keep the government open.  They need to not play politics here.  They need to not play politics here.  They need to get this done.  We’ve been very clear about that.  And — and it is their job.

If you think about it, and I’ve talked about this before, House Republicans — two thirds of the House Republicans voted for the deal last year.  And just early this year, they reaffirmed that deal.  So, what’s the problem?  What’s the problem here?  They need to get this done.  They need to get this done. 

There are important programs that the American people need.  And so, they need to move forward and make sure we keep the government open.

Q    I feel like I’ve asked you this before deadlines.  But are you anticipating another short-term funding bill, another CR?  And is the President okay with that this time around too?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to get into legislative negotiations from here.  But, look, it is — we got to be really clear.  Like, these are programs that are critical, that are important to the American people.  And it needs to get done.  It needs to get done. 

So, I’m not going to get into negotiations from here.  House Republicans need to do their jobs here.  They need to get to work.  And they need to make sure that we — they avoid, they prevent a needless shutdown.

Q    And are White House officials involved in any conversations, like Leg Affairs, with congressional leaders this weekend about getting closer to something?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can say that OMB — OMB and our Leg Affairs team are in touch with lawmakers from both parties every day on the need to keep the government open. 

But, again, this is — this — this problem is a problem of the House Republicans’ making.  It’s not something that we can fix for them.  This is something that they can deal with.  This is something that they need to actually work on.  And they need to get to work here.  They need to get to work.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I want to try a little bit different on the executive actions, possibly, on the border.  The bills are stalled.  So, why wait three years, now, in to take alternatives or take possible executive actions on the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What are you talking about?

Q    Well, you mentioned the — the bill, the when — the first week in office, the President issued his bill that — for immigration reform and then the negotiated Senate bill.  Those are both stalled.  The House is not taking them up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think you’re seeing it very differently than we are.  We’re saying that the President took it very seriously.  He took it very seriously by taking action on day one, putting forward a comprehensive immigration policy legislation that he wanted Congress to act on.  They did not act on it. 

We — we taken actions on our own.  And we’ve been able to secure some funding to deal with what we’ve seen at the border.  But we need more.  We need more.  And we’ve said this.  We have said this for the past three years.  And House Republicans have continued to get in the way. 

In the last couple of months, we worked with Senate Republicans and Democrats for — for several months to come up with a border security that is tough, that is fair, that’s supported — that was endorsed by the Border Patrol union.  The Border Patrol union endorsed this — this legislation.  Repu- — Republicans rejected it. 

So, this is — this is something for Republicans in the House to speak to.  We’ve worked with the Senate in a bipartisan way to get this done, to actually deal with an issue that matters to the American people, in a bipartisan way.  And House Republicans have allowed politics to get in the way. 

And Speaker Johnson left early after — if you think about the national security supplemental that had to — we had to take out — they had to take out the border security from it because that’s what the Speaker wanted.  That was done out of the Senate.  It was passed.  And then, the Speaker went home early and is gone.  He went on — they — he went on vacation early. 

And so, this is — this is truly a question for the Speaker.

Q    Well — but my question is — is: Now we’re hearing about executive actions that could be taken.  Why wait this long —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have been very —

Q    — to look at executive actions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ve been very clear: We have made no decisions on that.  I’m not going to get into policy discussions or hypotheticals that we’re hearing right now.  Be very clear. 

But the focus here should be what happened in the Senate in a bipartisan way that Republicans have rejected.  That is — that is the reality that we’re in here, Ed.  That’s the reality.

Q    And then one more, if I may.  In fiscal year 2023, at the border, there were 24,000 Chinese nationals that had illegally crossed and 288 were deported.  And the National Border Patrol Council President says that the vast majority of them coming across now are military-aged men.  What’s the level of concern for the White House about these military-aged men?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this is a — this is — continues to be a concern for this for — for this administration.  So, we’ll — we’ll just start there.  But speaking specifically to individuals just in general who pose a — a risk to public safety and national security regardless of nationality, they are detained as they undergo immigration proceedings and are removed if they do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.

Global migration is at the highest since World War Two.  And that means we work with our international par- — partners to bolster their enforcement capabilities while expanding economic opportunities and lawful pathways. 

That’s what we’ve been able to do for migrants deserving of protection, specifically under the President’s Los Angeles Declaration for Migration and Protection and Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. 

And again, I go back to that bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.  And that would have been a — a step forward here.  It would have been a piece of legislation that — that, as I’ve said, would have been tough, it would have been fair, and it was endorsed by the Border Patrol union, and Republicans in — in the House rejected it.

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A group of progressive lawmakers led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and 200 organizations sent a letter to the President this week urging him to take executive action, including executive orders, to advance a range of bills that have been introduced by Democrats that have been stalled in Congress, including H.R. 40, which the President said he supports, to create a reparations commission, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, as well as resolutions to protect Black history and create a banned books weeks in — in light of these bans we’ve been seeing in states like Florida. 

Has the White House received this letter?  And does the President believe that his racial justice agenda has been effective?  And does he think that he — he can do more through executive action?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say that a lot of — and, yes, we have received the letter, and a lot of the items in the letter that has been — the issues that have been outlined is some of the — is some of the causes that the President has championed over the past three years. 

The President has taken, as you know, historic actions as it relates to voting rights here, strengthening voting rights on the federal level.  He’s taken action to raise wages.  Let’s not forget the actions that he’s taken — because he’s taken the actions on building an economy from the bottom up, middle out, we have seen, as it relates to unemployment for the Black community.  When he walked in, it was at 9 percent.  Now it’s at 5 percent.  Always more work to be done.  But that matters. 

Black wealth has jumped up to 60 percent since the pre-pandemic days. 

He supports a study of reparations and continues the — as — and the continuing impacts of slavery and signed an executive order to — to deal with racial equality on his very first day in office, as it relates to the federal government and what agencies can do better.  And also, you know, he’s spoken about banning of books as it relates to Black history.

So, the President is going to — is committed to making sure that we address racial inequalities here, and he’s going to take — continue — and he’s going to continue to take action to make sure no communities are left behind.  And as I just stated, he’s taken historic executive action on this issue.

This is a priority for this President.  When he walked into this administration, he talked about the different — the different crises that our country was dealing with: climate change, it was COVID at the time, the economy at the time.  Racial inequality was part of that as well.

And so, he’s committed.  He’s committed.

(Speaking to an aide.)  I know.  You’re trying to get me.  (Laughs.)

Go ahead, sir.

Q    Thank you.  During last year, in December, the administration sold weapons to Israel, bypassing Congress.  Why can’t the U.S. do the same for Ukraine right here and right now, given their desperate need of weaponry?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we need — we actually need funding.  We need this — we need this funding in order to get Ukraine what they need.  It’s gone.  You’ve heard — you’ve heard — you’ve heard the Admiral speak to this.  You’ve heard the National Security Advisor speak to this from this podium.  It’s gone.  There is no more.

We need Congress to do its job and to pass much-needed assistance — security assistance that the Ukraines need — Ukrainians need.

Q    But we’re talking about a sale of weaponry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  If there’s — I mean, there’s a lot more to this, right?  There is actual — their actual funding that we need to make sure that we get so that DOD and so that the –obviously, the Pentagon can do what it needs to do in order to give the — to give the security assistance that is needed, to give — to give the — to give the weapons that they need to pro- — to fight against Ukrainians’ [Russia’s] aggression.

You’ve heard the Admiral speak to this today on his — in his gaggle, and you’ve heard him talk about this multiple times. 

There are — there is an assistance that we have to provide to them.  That is — it’s not a — we just don’t have it now.  We’re done.

Q    If there — if there is no success on the Hill, would you consider selling weapons to Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the way to deal with this is to pass this national security supplemental.  The way to actually help the people of Ukraine to fight for their sovereignty, to fight for their democracy, to fight against — against Mr. Putin’s aggression is to actually pass this national security supplemental. 

That would get bipartisan support in the House.  It will.  That’s how we’re — we move forward here.  There’s no other way to actually do this in a bipartisan scenario.  It’s there.  And Speaker — Speaker — the Speaker needs to do his job.  Speaker Johnson needs to take this up. 

We know that the bipartisan support exists.  We’ve heard from Republicans speak to this directly and very recently.  So, why doesn’t he just do his job and stop putting politics in front of this? 

This is why I don’t want to get into hypotheticals, because there’s an option that exists.  There’s an actual oct- — option that exists.  And the Speaker is putting politics in this.  And that’s not how we should move forward.

All right, everybody.  Thank you so much.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  See you tomorrow — not tomorrow.  Tomorrow is Saturday.  (Laughter.)

See you next week.

2:32 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, February 23, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

11:57 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Hello, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining today’s on-the-record news of day gaggle with White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby.  This call is on the record, and there’s no embargo. 
 
I’ll turn it over to Kirby now to kick us off, and then we’ll take your questions.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Eduardo.  Thanks, everybody. 
 
As you all know, tomorrow is the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  And as you all heard, the President marked that anniversary in a statement, and in remarks just now, as we mourn the many Ukrainian lives who have been lost in this terrible conflict and to express our resolve to continue to support the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against this vicious and brutal war Russia started in Ukraine. 
 
As the President said, Vladimir Putin launched the invasion.  He thought he could easily bend the will and break the resolve of a free people and that he could just roll right into a sovereign nation and the world would roll right on over.
 
But two years later, it’s clear that Mr. Putin was absolutely wrong.  The Ukrainian people, with support from the United States and more than 50 other countries around the world as part of a global coalition that we actually built, have resisted Putin’s invasion.  They won the battles for Kyiv, for Kharkiv, for Kherson.  They retook more than 50 percent of the sovereign territory that Russia seized from them in 2022.  And they are continuing to fight bravely right on the battlefield there, from east to the south.
 
But they are being forced to ration ammunition and equipment because Congress has failed to act and provide them with resources that they need to continue this fight.
 
The President has talked about what’s at stake.  The American people and people around the world understand also what’s at stake.  We need the House of Representatives to act.  The President’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and holding Russia accountable is absolutely clear.
 
And at his direction, also today, the United States announced a significant set of new actions to hold Russia accountable for the death of Aleksey Navalny and to mark the two-year anniversary tomorrow of Russia’s unprovoked and unlawful invasion of Ukraine. 
 
We sanctioned over 500 targets to impose additional costs for Russia’s repression, for their human rights abuses, and, of course, for their aggression inside Ukraine.  These include a major cog in Russia’s financial infrastructure; more than two dozen third-country sanctions evaders in Europe, East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East; and hundreds of entities in Russia’s military industrial base and other key sectors to cut off funding for Putin’s war machine. 
 
The Department of State, I think as you all know, is also designating three Russian individuals who are connected to Navalny’s imprisonment and the Russian government’s harsh treatment of him.
 
You can expect more from the administration with respect to holding the Kremlin accountable for Mr. Navalny’s death.  Today was just the start. 
 
The Department of Commerce is, of course, also adding more than 90 companies to the entity list for their activities in support of Russia’s defense industrial base and war effort. 
 
So, all told, the Department of Treasury and the Department of State have designated now more than 4,000 entities and individuals pursuant to Russia’s related sanctions authorities over the last two years, the strongest set of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy.  With today’s actions, Commerce has now placed more than 900 parties on our entity list for their role in Putin’s war.  Our actions to ensure Mr. Putin pays an even steeper price for his aggression abroad and repression at home are actually having an impact.  And we will continue to act.
 
We urge, of course, the House Republicans to do the same.  They must come back from this recess, vote — because we know if they put it on the floor to vote, it will pass — vote on the supplemental funding so that we can get the artillery shells, we can get the small arms ammunition, we can get the air defense capabilities into the hands of Ukrainian battlefield commanders and soldiers on the front so that they can continue to defend their country.
 
And with that, I’ll take questions. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our first question will go to the line of Aamer Madhani.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi there, John and Eduardo.  Question on Israel.  Is the administration comfortable with the vision that Netanyahu has set out for post-war Gaza?  Does it meet the administration’s basic standards for setting the grounds for a viable long-term peace?
 
And then secondly, also on Israel, does the administration have any reaction to Israel’s plans to move forward with more than 3,000 settlement homes in the West Bank?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Aamer.  On the first question about the post-conflict plan for Gaza, we’ve seen the reports.  I’m going to defer to Israel to speak to the specificity of these plans. 
 
What I can speak to is our views, and we’ve been clear about what our views are.  We have had constructive discussions with the Israelis on all these issues over recent weeks, where we have, of course, continued to make clear positions, including where those views and our positions diverge from them.  Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to be secure with equal measures of freedom and dignity. 
 
And again, let me just reiterate some of the top points here. 
 
We believe that whatever post-conflict Gaza looks like, the Palestinian people should have a voice and a vote in what that looks like, through a revitalized Palestinian Authority.  We don’t believe in any reduction of the size of Gaza.  We don’t believe and will continue to be very vocal about the fact that we don’t want to see any forcible displacement of Palestinians outside Gaza. 
 
And, of course, we don’t want to see Gaza dominated or rolled or governed over by Hamas. 
 
Those are very consistent positions.  We still hold to them.  And as I said earlier, we’ve made that consistently clear with our Israeli counterparts. 
 
On your question about settlements — again, seen those reports and, frankly, disappointed in the announcement.  It’s been longstanding U.S. policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations that new settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace.  Frankly, they’re also inconsistent with international law.  And this administration maintains this firm opposition — our firm opposition to settlement expansion.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Barak Ravid.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Thanks, John.  I want to follow up on the previous question, your previous answer that you just said, as Secretary Blinken also said a few minutes ago, that the administration sees settlements as inconsistent with international law. 
 
The previous administration, and especially previous Secretary of State Pompeo, said that the U.S. position is that settlements are not illegal, per se, and a shift at U.S. policy from 1978.  Does your statement right now mean that the Biden administration has overturned this Pompeo doctrine and that it’s not valid and not U.S. policy anymore?
 
The second question: If you have any updates for us about the Paris summit and the hostage negotiations.  Thank you. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Barak.  Look, this isn’t about the previous administration.  We are simply reaffirming the fundamental conclusion that these settlements are inconsistent with international law. 
 
And as I said in my previous answer, I mean, that is a position that’s been consistent over a range of Republican and Democratic administrations.  If there’s an administration that is being inconsistent, it was the previous one. 
 
And then on your question, I don’t really have an update on the hostage deal negotiations and the talks that are happening in Paris, except to say we continue to work at this very, very hard.  We believe that the discussions and negotiations to date have been constructive.  Obviously, they have not been — they have not been conclusive because we don’t have a deal in place. 
 
But the fact that these negotiations are still ongoing and that people are, in fact, sitting together to try to hash it out is a good thing.  And we’re obviously very hopeful that we can come to closure on a deal that would allow for an extended pause; get all the hostages out over time, in stages; and then, of course, be able to increase humanitarian assistance. 
 
So I really don’t have much more to add to that.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Nandita Bose.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Appreciate it.  Couple of questions from me, just on the sanctions.  It does not look as if you used the December executive order to target foreign financial firms that helped Russia circumvent sanctions.  Can you explain the decision not to target these foreign financial firms in this action?  I mean, is this something that we should expect to see soon?
 
And then my second question is: Has the President been briefed by Brett McGurk yet?  Could you tell us a little bit more about what’s going on on his trip?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, I think it’s critical that we remember to put it in some perspective.  We would need additional legal authorities to be able to do that.  We continue to be supportive of having those domestic legislative authorities that would give us the flexibility as we continue to discuss with partners and allies how best to cease Russia’s aggression and to assure that Russia pays for the damage that it’s caused to Ukraine. 
 
It is something, as I think you heard from the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury today, that it’s something that we continue to be in touch with on the Hill and with our allies and partners.  There’s several key — several pieces of legislation that have been working their way through Congress; we’re watching that closely. 
 
And because the vast majority of the immobilized sovereign assets aren’t in the U.S., again, I want to stress it’s absolutely key that we take action in concert with our international partners.  And that’s our focus right now. 
 
And then, on a readout from Brett’s trip, as I’m sitting here talking to you, I’m not aware that Brett has provided a full readout of his meetings.  I know they’ve wrapped up.  As I said yesterday, he met with leaders in Egypt, particularly on the intel side, and, of course, with the war cabinet, with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with Defense Minister Gallant, with Benny Gantz, and, of course, had a chance to meet with the families of American hostages in Israel yesterday.  But I’m not aware that we’ve received a full readout.
 
Obviously, we always appreciate the opportunity to have those in-person discussions with our counterparts in the region on a range of issues.  And first and foremost, Brett was over there really trying to make more progress on this hostage deal, but he also had a chance to talk to them about their plans and their thinking for operations down in the south near Rafah.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question, we’ll go to the line of Patsy.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  And thanks, Kirby.  I have two questions on Gaza.  I know that you said that Brett has not given a readout yet, but I wonder if the issue of the post-war plans from Netanyahu was discussed in their meetings.  And what do you make of the fact that it was released just as Brett was in the region?
 
And then, another one.  How does the administration feel about Netanyahu using Ramadan as a deadline for the Rafah offensive?  As you — sorry, I’m just running out of breath.  As you would understand, it is received by the Muslim world as inflammatory. 
 
And then, once you’re done with that, I have a question on China.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Okay, well, there’s an awful lot there. 
 
I mean, again, I don’t have more to say about Brett’s trip than what I’ve already told you.  I mean, I think we should wait to talk to Brett when he gets back and to get a fuller sense of his discussions.  There hasn’t been too many conversations we’ve had with the Israelis where we haven’t talked about post-conflict Gaza and what that looks like.  But again, I can’t go into more detail without having a chance to talk to Brett myself on that. 
 
I’ll let the Israelis speak to their plans and intentions to conduct military operations in Rafah.  Again, there’s been no plan presented to us that I’m tracking.  And as of yesterday, I think that that was still accurate based on the preliminary discussions we were able to have with Brett in the region. 
 
So no plan presented for us to look at that I’m aware of in terms of Rafah operations.  And so, therefore, I think, again, I would refer you to the Israelis to speak to whatever deadlines they’re setting here. 
 
I think it’s important to reiterate what I’ve said so many times and including yesterday: We still would not support operations in Rafah no matter what the timescale is.  We wouldn’t support those kinds of operations unless or until the Israelis had properly accounted for the safety and security of the more than 1 million people that are seeking refuge down there. 
 
And again, I’m certainly not aware of any plan that we’ve had a chance to look at and to peruse.  So, again, I put you back to the Israelis to speak to that. 
 
Q    Thank you.  And on China, there’s this Five Eyes report that shows that Chinese hackers are potentially already inside critical U.S. infrastructure.  I think we discussed this about the telecommunication outage yesterday — we discussed in your gaggle yesterday.  At this point, are you 100 percent confident that that outage was not part of a Chinese hacking operation or any other adversarial powers?  And does the administration have a plan should another incident like that — similar incident conducted by a foreign adversary?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  The best we know right now, Patsy, is what we’re hearing from the network industry, particularly AT&T, and that they do not believe — they’ve said they don’t believe that this was the result of some sort of cybersecurity incident. 
 
That said, it’s still being investigated, so we need to let the investigators do their work.  We’ve obviously pledged support to that investigation as appropriate.  But right now, the initial indications coming from industry itself is that this was not a cybersecurity incident.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Jake Epstein.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey, thanks for doing this.  I just want to ask a question about the Houthis.  The U.S. Navy preemptive strikes have really become a daily thing.  We’ve also seen a few interceptions of Iranian weaponry bound for Yemen.  Are you able to speak at all about how much of the Houthi capabilities remain and how often they’re being resupplied?  Is there any intelligence or indication of, you know, how long this might go on for?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Not a whole lot of information on the intelligence that I’m able to offer you here on that one.  And I certainly would, at the outset, point you to DOD to speak to what we call battle damage assessment.  And they give you a sense of what their assessment is of how much the capability has been degraded. 
 
That said, broadly speaking, we do know that the strikes that they have conducted inside Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen have had an impact on degrading capabilities. 
 
While it is certainly true that Houthi attacks continue, what you’re not seeing lately have been those major swarm attacks where, you know, multiple waves of drones and missiles are being shot at multiple ships.  Typically, what you’re seeing now are more one-off attacks, and they have continued to be largely ineffective in terms of stopping ships on their way to prior destinations. 
 
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t still dangerous.  It doesn’t mean that they haven’t scored a hit here now and then.  Of course, they did just the other day; they hit a ship that was ironically bound for Aden to bring grain to the people of Yemen.  And even that attack, which did score a hit on the ship, didn’t stop that ship from still pulling into Yemen and dropping off food for the Yemeni people. 
 
So they’re still dangerous, absolutely.  And we’re taking it seriously.  But we do believe that we have had an impact on not just the degradation of their capabilities, but the way in which they’re using the capabilities they have available to them.  They are not, again, conducting the major sort of drone swarm attacks that they were able to do in the past.
 
As for the flow, we still believe that they continue to be supported by the regime in Tehran, that materials, weapons systems are still being supplied. 
 
As you also know, we have been and continue to conduct interdiction operations at sea, and those continue.
 
So we’ll obviously do everything we can to try to limit and stem that flow, but the flow is ongoing — which is all the more reason why, again, that we need Congress to act and pass the supplemental funding. 
 
In that supplemental funding there’s about two and a half billion dollars for CENTCOM, deliberately set aside for U.S. Central Command, to restock its own inventory of weapons ammunition and to provide the kinds of funding that they need to support their many activities at sea and on the ground — frankly, in the air — in the regions.  And part of that would go a long way to helping us continue to stem these Houthi attacks.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of DJ Judd.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi, this is Priscilla on DJ’s phone.  So, two quick questions.  One on Ukraine.  The President said today in his remarks before governors that top U.S. ally — that he would have a call with top U.S. allies on Ukraine.  What assurances, if any, can he give them in trying — as he himself is trying to get that additional funding from Congress?
 
And then separately, on Israel, the Prime Minister sort of unveiled a plan for the day after in Gaza.  It didn’t appear to include the two-state solution.  So is it a nonstarter already for the White House?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead of the President.  You heard him talk about this conversation he’s going to have with G7 leaders later today.  And we’ll certainly be able to share more of that with you when it occurs. 
 
He will absolutely make it clear that he’s going to continue to do everything he can to support Ukraine, and that that includes doing everything he can and our team can do to work with members of Congress to get that supplemental funding on the floor, get it voted, get it to his desk.  Because if it reaches his desk as it currently stands, as he said, he’ll sign it. 
 
He cannot control what the Speaker does or doesn’t do.  But we can certainly continue to do everything we can to make clear how important this is, as we’ve been doing just today, and continue to do everything we can to work with members of Congress to move it along.  And that will be his message to his G7 partners — how seriously we take the challenge, how much we know American leadership matters, and how far he’s working to get that supplemental bill passed and on his desk. 
 
On your second question, again, I would refer to the Israeli government to speak to those post-conflict Gaza plans.  All I can do is reiterate what I said before: We’ve been very clear, we’ve been very consistent with our Israeli counterparts about what we believe post-conflict Gaza needs to look like.  And those views haven’t changed.  I described them for you a little bit earlier in the gaggle; I won’t repeat that.  But those are all still valid, in our view. 
 
And we are not going to be bashful about holding to those views, and certainly not going to be bashful about expressing them continually with our Israeli counterparts on the things we agree on, which is Hamas cannot govern Gaza, and the things where we diverge. 
 
And the last thing I’ll say is: On the two-state solution — you’re right, they didn’t say anything — there wasn’t anything in the public rendering of that plan about the two-state solution.  But the President remains fully committed to the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution and how that can benefit the entire region, certainly with Israeli security guaranteed.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Next up, we’ll go to Jacqui Heinrich.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, guys.  On these sanctions, why not just go forward and designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything to add in terms of what we haven’t done, Jacqui.  I’d ask you to take a look at what we have done — you know, over 4,000 entities sanctioned, more than 500 just today, and there’s more coming.  We’ll continue to hold Russia accountable. 
 
What we do is we make decisions based on what we think will actually have the right impact and an impact on their ability to continue to fund their war machine and work it.  And we know that it’s had an effect.  I mean, my goodness, Mr. Putin is reaching out to Iran now for potentially close-range ballistic missiles, and he’s been reaching out to North Korea for artillery shells and for ballistic missiles as well.  So we know that these sanctions have had an impact on his ability to conduct military operations. 
 
And what we’re focused on are tools and techniques that we believe actually will have an impact on his economy and on his ability to conduct a war, as well as making sure that whatever we do doesn’t unnecessarily make it hard for humanitarian purposes for the Russian people themselves.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Halley Toosi.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi, John, everyone.  Thanks for doing this.  Listen, I’m just going to ask you to be very frank and maybe set aside your talking points for a minute on this Israel stuff. 
 
Why should the Israelis care about what the United States keeps saying?  They don’t really seem to be feeling the pressure from your rhetoric.  And I realize that you’re putting these sanctions and making some moves related to the West Bank, including this — you know, saying now that the settlements are illegal — but isn’t that, like, three years late under this administration?  I mean, extremist violence by settlers in the West Bank has been going on for a long time; settlements have been around for a long time. 
 
Why didn’t you guys do this three years ago?  And couldn’t that — if you had acted sooner, couldn’t that have maybe affected the dynamics between the administration and the Israeli government right now, maybe even affected the dynamics of Israeli politics right now to where you wouldn’t have far-right figures in the government to deal with who clearly have so much influence over the government?
 
So, I guess I’m just trying to figure out, like, if I’m Benjamin Netanyahu right now, why should I care what John Kirby or Secretary Blinken or President Biden keep saying to me?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think — I guess I’m going to challenge the premise of the question just a little bit.  I think the Israeli people absolutely do care about the support of the United States.  I think they absolutely do care about the leadership President Biden has shown and a strong way that we —
 
Q    I’m talking about the Israeli government, not the Israeli people.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Listen, you asked a really long question, so you’re going to have to give me a little latitude to give you a really long answer.  You said you didn’t want to listen to my talking points, so I’m going to try to do the best I can here, but you got to let me finish. 
 
Q    Okay.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think they do care.  I think they do care about what the United States thinks and does.  And I said it — I think they do care, and they value and they appreciate the leadership that President Biden and this administration have shown when it comes to supporting them in what is truly a right and a responsibility to rid themselves of the threat of Hamas. 
 
I think they also are smart enough to appreciate — and it goes to the government too — smart enough to appreciate that we’re not going to agree with them on every single thing.  We’ve been talking quite a bit here today about things we don’t agree with them on.  We don’t agree about the issue of settlements.  We clearly have differences on what the future of post-conflict Gaza needs to look like.  And, yes, there have been differences over the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution. 
 
But that doesn’t mean that you just clam up and stop talking about it.  It doesn’t mean you just put yourself in a shell and don’t engage with them in meaningful conversations. 
 
And this idea — and I’ve heard it time and time and time again since October 7th — that we’re being ignored or Israel is just walking all over us, or they’re not paying attention to anything that we’re having to say — and I’m telling you, that’s just not the truth.  It just ain’t so. 
 
Now, that doesn’t mean that every single bit of advice and every single perspective we share with them they act on in the way that we would want them to.  There are obvious ways where — we want to see, for instance, a much stronger, devoted effort to reduce civilian casualties.  There have been too many innocent people killed in this conflict.  And too many — obviously, the great majority of those innocents killed have been Palestinians.  And we have been very, very consistent about that. 
 
It doesn’t mean that we’re going to agree with the results.  But I can assure you that we do have the ability to share with them our perspectives and that they have in the past acted in ways consistent with how we have asked them to act — again, not in every way, not in every sense, and maybe not to the degree that we want, but they have.  And I think they appreciate the good faith in which, and the good intentions with which, our perspectives and our support is being shared with them. 
 
So I just push back on the premise that we’re talking to a brick wall.  We’re talking to a friend — a friend, as any friend, you can be honest with, who’s not going to agree with everything that we say.  But the President’s — we believe the President’s approach has had an impact, and we’re going to continue to do that in that way. 
 
Now, look, as to why now after three years, we thought that at this moment it was particularly important to reaffirm our commitment to a two-state solution.  And at this moment, we felt it was particularly important to reaffirm, again, our view of the inconsistency with international law that these settlements present. 
 
And again, we also think that, at this moment, it’s particularly important to work together to build a political horizon for both Israelis and for Palestinians.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’re coming up at time, so we’ve got time for one more.  We’ll go to the line of Tommy Christopher.  You should be able to unmute yourself
 
Q    Hey, thanks for doing this, Kirby.  The thing I wanted to ask about is this — I don’t know if you guys have seen it; I’m sure you have — seen this sort of stunning filing for detention for Alexander Smirnov.  And there’s a lot of really, like, crazy allegations in there that he had contact with the leader of an assassination squad.  Have you guys seen the filing?  And are you perusing it for — are you concerned about any of this stuff, any of the security risks?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I have not seen the filing.  I don’t know — I can’t speak for the rest of my NSC colleagues, Tommy.  How about if I take that question and we’ll have somebody from the team get back to you.  But I’m not in a position where I can speak intelligently to it.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks all.  That’s all the time we have today.  We’ll do this again soon.  Enjoy the rest of your day.
 
12:28 P.M. EST

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

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

1:39 P.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us for today’s on-the-record news of the day gaggle.  I will turn it over to Kirby for a few opening words, and then we’ll go to questions.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Sean.  And thanks, everybody. 

I’d like to top today by speaking briefly about Iran’s deepening military partnership with Russia, which is, of course, not only harmful to Ukraine but also to Iran’s neighbors in the region and to the international community. 

Iran has been providing Russia with significant numbers of drones, guided aerial bombs, and artillery ammunition, which Russia has been using to some effect to attack Ukraine. 

In addition, and as I warned last month from the White House podium, Russia negotiations — Russian negotiations to acquire close-range ballistic missiles from Iran have been actively advancing. 

Now, just yesterday, Reuters published a story indicating that Iran has provided Russia with hundreds of ballistic missiles.  This article appears to be based on comments from Iranian government officials who are bragging about providing Russia with missiles that can be used to kill Ukrainian civilians. 

While we have been monitoring this closely, we have not seen any confirmation that missiles have actually moved from Iran to Russia.  But in this press reporting, the Iranians are clearly indicating that they will ship ballistic missiles to Russia, and we have no reason to believe that they will not follow through.

If Iran proceeds with this provision of ballistic missiles, I can assure you that the response from the international community will be swift and it will be severe.  For our part, we will take this matter to the U.N. Security Council.  We will implement additional sanctions against Iran.  And we will coordinate further response options with our allies and partners in Europe and elsewhere. 

We have demonstrated our ability to take action in response to the military partnership between Russia and Iran in the past.  We will do so in the future. 

In response to Iran’s ongoing support for Russia’s brutal war, we will be imposing additional sanctions on Iran in the coming days.  And we are prepared to go further if Iran sells ballistic missiles to Russia.

I do think it’s important to keep this issue in some sense of perspective.  It comes at a time, without new security assistance deliveries from the United States, when Ukrainian forces are rationing out their bullets and artillery shells and when they are having to make difficult decisions on the battlefield just about holding on to key terrain. 

Consider what Ukraine is up against.  Russia is receiving arms and ammunition from Iran and North Korea.  We also remain concerned about the support that PRC companies are providing to the Russian defense industrial base.  Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives is leaving Ukraine to fend for themselves. 

Do not think for a moment that Vladimir Putin isn’t capitalizing on all of this.  Yep, he’s been deepening his relationship with Iran now for many months, but the potential pursuit of ballistic missiles with a range and destructive power that they could bring is further evidence that he believes Congress will not act.  He clearly believes now is his best chance to bring Ukraine to its knees, that now is the time to strike deeper behind their lines, destroying military bases and military units and their defense industry.  He’s counting on the West giving up and on Ukraine being left to fend for itself.  And the regime in Tehran is only too happy to oblige. 

So the question for Congress is: What are we willing to oblige?  Are House Republicans willing to see Ukraine fall to Russia?  Are House Republicans willing to stand aside while Iran deepens its partnership with Russia and actively participates in the killing of Ukrainians and the further destruction of that country?  Are House Republicans willing to hand Putin and the Supreme Leader such a victory?  Because that’s what this comes down to.  You can’t say that you believe in American leadership and American strength and American national defense and then embolden two leaders who are actively working to undermine those things. 

We need the supplemental bill passed now.  With each passing day, the Ukrainian frontlines are growing thinner and our own national security is increasingly being threatened.  Iran stands with Russia.  We need to stand with Ukraine. 

And let’s be clear: Iran is not helping Russia for free.  In return for Iran’s support, Russia has been offering Tehran unprecedented defense cooperation.  So, in total, Iran is seeking billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment from Russia.  This will increase the threat posed by Iran not only to the United States, but to our partners throughout the Middle East region. 

And with that, I’m happy to take some questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll go to Zeke Miller from the Associated Press.

Q    Thanks, John.  I was hoping you could provide us an update on Brett McGurk’s travels in Cairo and Israel today, potentially to Paris tomorrow.  Any deliverables or outcomes of that meeting?

Separately, do you have any details — has the NSC been briefed or in contact regarding these reported cell outages or any reason to believe that they may be the result of any sort of foreign malign activity?

And then lastly, I was hoping you might be able to address reports that Estonia has disrupted a plot of some — they claim to be Russian operatives who’ve tried to destabilize the situation there.  And is there any planned response on Russia as a result of that?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Zeke.  There’s a lot there.

So, on Brett: Brett had a good couple of hours with counterparts in Cairo yesterday.  Today in Israel, he met

independently with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  He also met with Defense Minister Gallant, as well as other members of the war cabinet, including their leaders from Israel’s intelligence agency.

He is, as we speak, meeting with family members of the American hostages.  We have not gotten a full readout of his discussions yet.  He’s, obviously, actively engaged right now.  So he’s, again, doing a very important meeting with the hostage families. 

But the initial indications we’re getting from Brett are these discussions are going well.  They are constructive.  He is, obviously, keenly focused on trying to see if we can’t cement a hostage deal for an extended pause to get all of those hostages home where they belong and get a reduction in the violence so that we can get more humanitarian assistance. 

And obviously, nothing is done until everything is done, and not everything is done in that regard.  But Brett is working really hard on that.  And he’s also talking to the war cabinet, too, about their thinking on Rafah.

So, pretty substantive set of meetings for him, and they’re ongoing.  And that’s about the best I can give you for where we are right now. 

On the AT&T issue, or the cellular network issue: As I understand it, Zeke, the FCC has been in touch with AT&T, and those conversations are ongoing, and they’re trying to kind of figure out what exactly happened here.

I don’t think all networks have been restored, but as my understanding is that everybody but AT&T is back up and running completely right now.

I also can tell you that DHS and the FBI are looking into this as well, working with the tech industry, these network providers, to see what we can do from a federal perspective to lend hand to their investigative efforts to figure out what happened here. 

But the bottom line is, Zeke, we don’t have all the answers to that.  I mean, this just happened earlier today.  And so, we’re working very hard to see if we can get to ground truth of exactly what happened, not to mention I know folks in the industry are working hard to get restoration of services to those that are still without those services. 

You know, as you mentioned — Poland and Estonia.  They just recently announced the arrest of individuals that had been planning sabotage activities on what is believed to be on behalf of Russia’s security services.  And we’re certainly concerned by these activities.  But we obviously commend our Polish and Estonian law enforcement colleagues for taking these actions and for doing it swiftly and effectively. 

We believe that these arrests send a very clear message that individuals who participate in Russian sabotage activities inside Europe are going to be held to account.  And again, we applaud the work being done by law enforcement in both Poland and Estonia to get to that.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Gabe Gutierrez.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hey there.  Thanks so much for doing this.  John, I have a few. 

First of all, I want to get your reaction to the Kremlin saying that President Biden was trying to appear as a “Hollywood cowboy” following his remarks last night calling Vladimir Putin a “crazy SOB.” 

And then, I also want to ask about Aleksey Navalny.  His mother now saying that Russian authorities are trying to blackmail her to avoid a large memorial service.  She says she saw her son’s body.  I want to get your reaction to that. 

And then, finally, on that dual national that is being detained in Russia, her boyfriend now says she went over there in early January.  Her employer says she donated $51 to a Ukrainian charity.  What is the NSC tracking regarding that case?  And is it acceptable that she’s being detained for treason?

MR. KIRBY:  Obviously, I’m limited, Gabe, as to what I can talk about when it comes to campaign comments.  But what I’ll say is — and you’ve heard this from — you’ve heard from the President throughout his trip — we have serious national security concerns, particularly where it comes — when it comes to Russia on a range of issues, from what they’re doing in Ukraine to, of course, this potential development of an anti-satellite capability, to this burgeoning relationship with Iran, which I just spent quite a bit of time in the opening statement talking about, and other efforts that they are effecting to try to undermine the international order that we and our allies built after World War Two. 

And the President is focused keenly on those national security interests.  And when he speaks about the threats and the challenges coming from Vladimir Putin and from Russia, he speaks not only from a visceral sense of the seriousness of the danger, but also from the perspective of a man who has been involved in foreign policy for the vast majority of his public service.  And he knows what he’s talking about.  He knows these leaders; he knows these challenges.  And he speaks about them plainly and directly, because that is exactly how we need to look at the threat posed by Russia: plainly, directly, transparently.  And that’s what he’s doing. 

And while he’s out there talking about the threats and challenges from Russia, the House Republicans are on recess.  While he’s out there talking about what we need to counter — what Russia is doing with Iran, what Russia is doing in Ukraine, what Russia is doing elsewhere, in cyberspace and in space — the House Republicans are doing nothing.  And that’s what we’re focused on. 

Now, I can’t confirm the reports of blackmail, that you mentioned, to the mother of Aleksey Navalny.  I mean, I’ve seen the reporting on that, but we’re not in a position to confirm that it’s true.  Nevertheless, this is the man’s mother.  It’s not enough that she gets to see the body of her son; she should be able to collect the body of her son so that she can properly memorialize her son and her son’s bravery and courage and service, and do all the things that any mother would want to do for a son lost in such a tragic way. 

The Russians need to give her back her son, and they need to answer for what befell — specifically what befell Mr. Navalny, and ato- — and acknowledge that they, in fact, are responsible for his demise.

I don’t have anything additional on the dual national that was arrested in Russia.  Again, we’re somewhat limited as to what we can talk about here, out of privacy concerns.  But I can tell you that we’re watching this very, very closely.  Our embassy in Moscow is working very hard to see what they can do in terms of getting more information here.  We are deeply concerned about this.  But again, because of privacy concerns, I’m limited to how much more I can offer.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Next up, we’ll go to Aurelia End.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi, thanks.  Thanks for taking my question.  John, can you confirm — first question — that the President is endorsing Mark Rutte as next boss of NATO?

And second question: If you could give us not a preview but tell us something about the major sanctions package that we’re awaiting tomorrow.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  What I can tell you on Mr. Rutte is that the United States has made it clear to our Allies, our NATO Allies, that we believe Mr. Rutte would be an excellent Secretary General for NATO.

And I’m afraid I’m not going to be able to go into more detail about the sanctions package that you can expect us to announce tomorrow.  As you know, we never get ahead — it’s just policy that we never, for obvious reasons, get ahead of specific entities that are going to be sanctioned and/or individuals that will be included in that regime.

I would point you to the Treasury Department.  And I understand that they’ll have more to say about this.  But we’re not going to get ahead of that.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Michael Gordon.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    John, my question is: Since, as you pointed out, North Korea is providing ballistic missiles to Russia for use in Ukraine, and Iran may be moving to do so, why has the Biden administration not decided to provide longer-range 300-kilometer unitary round ATACMs to Ukraine as a counter to the systems that you’re concerned about?  The Pentagon still has some drawdown authority, and it has over a thousand of these systems.  What’s the thinking behind that? 

And you talk about responding to such actions with sanctions, but why not respond with — why wouldn’t providing such ATACM systems be a useful counter?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, the first thing I’d say, Michael, is we have responded with a whole hell of a lot more than sanctions over the last two years.  The United States continues to lead the world in security assistance to Ukraine, although we are now not able to provide that security assistance without the supplemental funding.  But prior to Congress failing to do its job, we were leading the world in contributions across a range of systems — from short, medium, to long range — and of course, artillery ammunition, ground vehicles, armored vehicles, you name it. 

So I simply refuse to accept the premise that we’ve only relied on sanctions to increase the pressure on Russia in terms of their fighting on the ground in Ukraine. 

The second thing I’d say is: We have provided a version of ATACMs.  As you know, the APAMs have been provided to Ukraine, and they have used them to good effect. 

And the third thing I’d say is: We never took ATACMs off the table.  They are still part and parcel of the discussions that we’ve been having with Ukraine.  Ukraine does have the ability and has been provided similarly long-range capabilities by other countries, and we are still having conversations with the Ukrainians about the longer form — longer-range version of ATACMs.  Nobody has taken that off the table. 

And you mentioned the drawdown authority.  Yes, there’s existing drawdown authority.  But as I mentioned a couple of days ago, there’s no replenishment authority that goes with it.  And that’s critical for our own needs, for our own national security requirements.  That replenishment authority is not something to just be blown off.  It very much and should factor prominently in the drawdown packages that we have and hopefully will be able to provide Ukraine in the future, because it affects our own national security by the ability to replenish our own stocks. 

So I guess that’s where I’ll leave it.

Q    Okay.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Next up, we’ll go to the line of James Rosen.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thank you.  Sean and Admiral Kirby, thank you both.  I have two questions.  One on Russia/Ukraine, the other on Israel/ Hamas. 

And to the delight of my listeners and my many critics, the second question will be much shorter than the first.

On Russia/Ukraine, this situation with the supplemental spending package brings to mind for me the words of the late Henry Kissinger, who once said of Chile, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.” 

For nearly six months now, President Biden and his top aides, you included, have warned that the security of the United States and its allies, indeed the stability of the global geopolitical order, will be severely compromised, perhaps irreparably damaged, if U.S. funding for Ukraine is not swiftly renewed. 

So if the consequences of such inaction pose such an existential threat to the safety and security of the United States and the Western alliance, why is President Biden, by his own account, standing by and allowing the irresponsibility of a small faction of the U.S. Congress to place the entire world order in such jeopardy?  Shouldn’t he be finding some other way, overt or covert, to get Ukraine what it needs?

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks.  I mean, I kind of addressed this before.  And this kind of gets a little bit to Michael Gordon’s question a little bit ago.  There’s no magic pot of money here.  You know, supporting Ukraine requires resources, resources that we do not have right now.  And we have helped support Ukraine to a fare-thee-well over the last two years.  We absolutely have to make sure that, in so doing, we don’t sacrifice our own national security and that we still have sufficient stocks and inventory of weapons and systems to defend global interests around the world. 

Now, that’s a tough balance to strike, and we’ve been striking it quite well over the last two years with the support of Congress.  We need Congress to act.  We cannot just wish this money into existence.  We cannot just find it under a couch cushion.  We absolutely need Congress to put forward legislative funding in order for us to continue to support Ukraine. 

And the idea — the notion that we’re just sitting back on our hands doing nothing is — simply flies in the face of the facts.  We have been working diligently with members of Congress, both sides of the aisle, both chambers, to try to get this funding through.  The President submitted that supplemental funding back in August, for crying out loud.  And here we are in February, and the House Republicans decided to go on vacation. 

So we’re working really, really hard.  We’re doing everything we can to get this over the finish line.  But ultimately, you know, it requires a co-equal branch of government, the legislature, Congress, to legislate this money so that we can spend it not only for Ukraine and for Ukrainian soldiers, but for our own national security. 

Q    So just as a follow-up on this quickly, before I advance to the Israel/Hamas question: I guess what you’re saying is we need for the American people to understand and we need our allies to understand that the President is willing to allow the legalities here to override the security exigencies.

MR. KIRBY:  The counter to what you’re suggesting is that we should somehow send a message to the American people and to our allies that we don’t believe in the rule of law, that we don’t believe in the importance of having appropriated funding to support our national security needs. 

I mean, my goodness, the Constitution is built on that whole foundation.  And the President believes in the power of the Constitution; he believes in the power of a co-equal branch of government, in the Congress.  And in working with the Congress, he’s got a lot of experience doing that. 

It matters how you do things, not just what you do.  And the President is going to continue to obey the law and to work with Congress on establishing law, legislation — funding, in this case — that meets our national security needs.

Q    On the Mideast: So that the context and the stakes should be sufficiently clear for all to see, is the war between Israel and Hamas properly viewed as one between the forces of good and the forces of evil?

MR. KIRBY:  I think there’s no question that Hamas is evil.  I don’t even think that that’s up for debate.  I mean, look at what they did on the 7th of October.  Read — please, go read.  I say this all the time, but I encourage — go read their 2017 manifesto and the one that they put out about 10 years before that.  You can’t read that manifesto and not think that this is a terrorist organization with truly genocidal inclinations against Israel and the Israeli people.  And what they did on the 7th of October, you cannot look at anything from that day and not come away believing that this group is evil.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Laura Kelly.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

We don’t seem to have Laura.  We’ll go to the line of Trudy Rubin.

Q    Hi.  Thanks, John.  I just want to follow up on Michael Gordon’s question.  We not only have stocks of long-range ATACMs, but also Lockheed Martin has an active production line and exported 500 last year, including to places like Morocco. 

The Ukrainians feel that these weapons are essential right now, especially in the area where they’re having success in the Black Sea and Crimea. 

So, again, I want to ask, why are we still only keeping this issue on the table?  For the last year, there have been repeated stories that ATACMs were going to be sent, and then all that was sent was the shorter-range APAMs with cluster munitions warheads.

So what is the problem with sending Ukraine the weapon that it is even now consistently saying it desperately needs?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, first of all, Trudy, it’s great to hear your voice.  It’s been a long time since we spoke.  And I’m glad you jumped on the gaggle today.  It’s good to hear from you. 

And again, a fair question.  It was a fair question when Michael asked it. 

And what I can tell you is, again, we have had and will continue to have conversations with the Ukrainians about what they need.  Clearly, they need — right now, they need to focus on air defense systems, as Russia is trying to take advantage of this lull in Western support to overcome — to force the Ukrainians to use their air defense systems and also to target their defense industrial base. 

But we recognize that medium- and long-range capabilities are important to Ukraine.  As I said, they are getting some from other countries as well.  They did get a shorter version, APAMs, from us, as you rightly pointed out. 

And again, we’re actively talking to them about their needs going forward.  We have not taken ATACMs off the table, but I just don’t have a decision to speak to today or — and I certainly wouldn’t get into the decision-making process about that. 

Regardless, right now, we’re hamstrung.  We can’t even send Ukraine artillery shells.  So while we still talk to them about their needs — and as I said, ATACMs is not off the table from a philosophical perspective — we’re hamstrung about what we can send them writ large, anything, because we don’t have additional supplemental funding from Congress.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Jennifer Jacobs.

Q    Hey, John.  Back on that cellphone outages again, can you say have any government communications been disrupted because of the outages? 

And then also, FirstNet was impacted.  So can you say if they can still do what it’s supposed to do at this point, which is sustain communications for first responders?

And then one other question on Navalny.  Is the President meeting with his family members today, can you say?  Thank you very much.

MR. KIRBY:  As I understand it, JJ, there was some impact to commerce, but I don’t know the extent of that.  I don’t think it was crippling, but there was some impact to commerce.  I don’t know about the Earthnet.

I’m sorry, and you had another question on this as well.

Q    On FirstNet, can it still do its mission, which is to sustain communications for first responders?

And then, on Navalny, did you say — is the President meeting with his wife and daughter today?

MR. KIRBY:  Okay.  Yeah, no, you said — I thought you said Earthnet.  But FirstNet.  So, FirstNet, which does come under Congress, was the only government equity that was impacted.  That’s what I was referring to.  I’m sorry.  I thought you said Earthnet.

And it’s our understanding that it has now been fully restored, FirstNet, as a nationwide public safety network.  So,

yes, it’s been — it was impacted, and it’s my understanding that — our understanding that it’s been fully restored. 

And as for the President, his schedule today, I don’t have anything to offer or confirm today.  Obviously, we continue to

urge Russia to do what’s right by the family, release his body, come clean on the specific manner of death, and hold themselves responsible.  We certainly hold them responsible. 

But I don’t have anything on the President’s schedule to speak to right now.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Next up, we’ll go to Humeyra.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hello, hi.  Thank you, Admiral, for doing this.  You talked about Brett’s meetings.  And I’m wondering if the Israelis have presented their humanitarian and military strategy to you about — to him — about Rafah.  

And based on his meetings, can you confirm that — this Paris meeting tomorrow with Bill Burns, (inaudible) chiefs of Israel, Egypt, and Qatari prime minister on hostage talks?  Is that happening?

And again, based on Brett’s conversations, yesterday Benny Gantz talked about early promising signs in the hostage talks.  Do you share those promising signs?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Okay, lots there.

I know that Brett had a chance to meet with the war cabinet.  And as I said earlier, he absolutely was going to ask them about their plans for Rafah, where they were.  I am still, as I sit here with you today, not aware of any plan that’s been

shared with us, any specific plan that’s been shared with us.  But I know that Brett was absolutely going to talk to them about sort of where they were in the thinking on that. 

And nothing has changed about our view that any operation in Rafah, without due consideration and a credible, executable plan for the safety and security of the more than a million Palestinians that are seeking refuge in Rafah, would be a disaster.  We would not support that. 

But again, I don’t want to get ahead of where Brett’s conversations are.  As I said, he’s meeting with the families of American hostages right now.  And we just haven’t had a chance to check in with him and get, sort of, a full readout of

what he discussed in his meetings with the war cabinet. 

On the reports about a Paris meeting, I cannot confirm those reports other than to tell you that we remain fully committed to doing everything we can to get a hostage deal in place and an extended pause, a reduction in the violence, an increase in humanitarian assistance.  And that’s being worked, of course, by Brett, who is, again, in Israel today.  It has continually been a focus of our CIA Director, Bill Burns, and his efforts.  And he continues to have conversations with

interlocutors about that.  And obviously, it’s top of mind of President Biden and the entire National Security Council team. 

So I can’t confirm the specific reports about Paris, but I can absolutely reassure you that discussions are ongoing, they are active, and as I said earlier, we believe they’ve been constructive. 

And I think I missed another question in there.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for that.  No, it was — I was asking whether you share Benny Gantz’s comment that there were early promising signs about the hostage deal.  I’m asking this specifically because there is little time left for Ramadan, which is March the 10th.  So just wondering if the U.S. shares that optimism. 

MR. KIRBY:  I would just leave it the way I just did.  You know, talks have been ongoing, they’ve been active, and we believe they’ve been constructive.

MODERATOR:  We have time for a couple more.  Next up, we’ll go to Zolan Kanno-Youngs.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hey, thanks for the opportunity to ask a question.  Thanks, John. 

I wanted to ask about this report that my colleagues just put out on this inquiry, that was eventually dropped, into potential ties between allies of President Andres Manuel López Obrador and cartel affiliates.  Did the White House know about this inquiry?  Has the administration reached out to Mexico to discuss this inquiry, either before the report today or after?

And then, just more broadly, these allegations about potential ties to the cartel, how will this impact the relationship between the Biden administration and the AMLO administration?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  As I think the Department of Justice has already made clear, there is no investigation into President López Obrador.  And they at DOJ would have the responsibility to review any allegations.  So I’d have to point you to DOJ on that.

And then, separate and distinct from that discussion, obviously, we continue to work with Mr. López Obrador’s administration to do what we can to deal with this unprecedented migration in the hemisphere and the situation at the border, which continues to be a key focus for President Biden and for this administration.  Another reason why we were hopeful about that Senate deal to pass the supplemental funding, which included additional funds for security at the border. 

But again, I’d have to point you back to DOJ for anything specific.  And as they’ve already said on the record, there is no investigation into President López Obrador.

MODERATOR:  Next up for our last question, we’ll go to the line of Edward Lawrence.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Sean.  Thanks, John, for doing this.  I just wanted to press you a little bit on the AT&T outage.  Was there any chatter going into this — or going after a cellphone or a cell service by state actors or non-state actors?  And any heightened awareness, and that’s the reason the FBI and DHS are looking into this?

MR. KIRBY:  And I truly don’t know the answer to that question.  I mean, I’m not aware of any chatter prior to the outage.  But again, that’s why DHS and the FBI want to look at this and see what exactly happened.  Again, it’s good that the vast majority of customers have had their service restored.  It’s good that FirstNet is back up and running.

But obviously, we got to do spadework to figure out what happened here.  But I just don’t have any intelligence to share today about any indications we had before it happened from actors external to the United States or to the government. 

We’re going to look at this really hard.  We’re going to work with industry to see what we can find out. 

But right now, we’re being told that AT&T has no reason to think that this was a cybersecurity incident.  But again, I want to be careful — we won’t know until an investigation has been completed.  And obviously, we’re going to work from the federal level to assist the network providers in doing that to the best that we can.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  We’ll do this again soon.  Hope you have a good rest of your day.  Thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.

2:15 P.M. EST

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