Press Briefings

Via Teleconference
(February 20, 2024)

5:38 P.M. EST

MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everyone. And thank you for joining our background call to preview a series of actions that the Biden-Harris administration will announce tomorrow, Wednesday, February 21st.

For awareness, today’s call will now be held fully on the record. That means both the opening statements and Q&A all on record. And it will be attributable to Anne Neuberger, Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technologies; Iranga Kahangama, Assistant Secretary for Cyber, Infrastructure, Risk, and Resilience at the Department of Homeland Security; and Rear Admiral John Vann, who is the Commander of Coast Guard Cyber Command.

One flag that today’s call will be embargoed until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 21st, at 5:00 a.m. Eastern.

I will now turn it over to Anne for opening remarks.

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you so much, Sam. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us this evening.

Right now, America’s ports employ 31 million Americans, contribute $5.4 trillion to our economy, and are the main domestic point of entry for cargo entering the United States.

The continuity of their operations has a clear and direct impact on the success of our country, our economy, and our national security. And that’s why the Biden-Harris administration is taking a series of actions to strengthen the cybersecurity of our nation’s ports to not just shore up our cyber defenses, but fortify our supply chains and deliver for the American people.

Tomorrow, we’ll be announcing a set of four actions.

First, President Biden will sign an executive order that will bolster the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to address maritime cyber threats. You see, most critical infrastructure owners and operators have a list of safety regulations they have to comply with, and we want to ensure that there are similar requirements for cyber, when a cyberattack can cause just as much, if not more, damage than a storm or another physical threat.

So this executive order will give the Coast Guard the authority to respond to malicious cyber activity by requiring maritime transportation vessels and facilities to shore up their cybersecurity and institute mandatory reporting of cyber incidents.

The Coast Guard will also issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish minimum cybersecurity requirements that meet international and industry-recognized standards to best manage cyber threats.

The administration is also excited to announce that we will invest over $20 billion into U.S. port infrastructure over the next five years through the President’s Investing in America agenda. As part of that, PACECO Corporation, a U.S.-based subsidiary of Mitsui E&S, is planning to onshore domestic manufacturing capacity for American and Korean production for the first time in 30 years, pending final site and partner selection.

Finally, the Coast Guard will announce a maritime security director, which Admiral Vann will outline in greater detail, regarding the security of ports related to these cranes.

Tomorrow’s actions are clear examples of the President’s work to invest in America to secure the country’s supply chain and strengthen cybersecurity of our nation’s critical infrastructure — priorities this administration is focused on relentlessly since taking office.

And before I turn it over, I’d like to begin just by recognizing individuals on the NSC, Caitlin Clarke and Jon Murphy, at DHS and at the Coast Guard, who have put in a great deal of work into this effort over the last number of months.

So now I’d like to turn it over to my colleague, Iranga Kahangama, to detail more the actions of DHS, and then over to the Coast Guard. Thank you.

MR. KAHANGAMA: Thank you, Anne. And thanks, everyone, for being here this evening.

Really to foot-stomp what Anne had mentioned, the department is really excited about the actions that we’re taking as a comprehensive whole-of-DHS approach to mitigating cyber threats to our critical infrastructure, particularly in the maritime sector and port infrastructure, which have downstream implications to our supply chains.

Specifically regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking on DHS regulations and minimum cybersecurity standards, we are excited to put this out for public comment. We believe it is an exemplar of our commitment to partnership in developing these regs and building off of lessons learned as part of the administration’s approach to instituting mandatory cybersecurity minimum standards.

The department worked closely with entities such as TSA, who have done some of this work through some of its emergency directives, and in close partnership and consultation with industry partners to ensure that the cybersecurity requirements are in line with expectations.

And so, we enthusiastically welcome public comment on these as we develop cybersecurity standards in line with the Biden-Harris administration’s approach to identifying and using mandatory regulations to improve critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, where we deem it most necessary.

Also in line with the department’s approach to harmonization, we are attempting to make sure that those rules and regulations align with other efforts that we’re taking underway, and are doing our best to align those with existing frameworks instituted by CISA and partners at NIST as well.

I just wanted to emphasize that the department also sees that the threat posed to critical infrastructure, particularly maritime and port infrastructure, is a whole-of-department approach, not only leveraging the Coast Guard’s authorities and announcements tomorrow, but as mentioned, the department’s newly announced Supply Chain Resilience Center last November as part of a White House rollout, but that this component is going to seek to bolster U.S. supply chain security, harness and maximize the department’s capabilities related to lawful trade and travel, and manage critical infrastructure security, leveraging its unique resources around the department.

In its inaugural effort, we have done things like convene with members of industry and government organizations to share information and guidance to advance supply chain resilience and hosting department-wide tabletop exercises to better understand what causes supply chain disruptions and provide recommendations and develop policy to leadership to mitigate impacts to our domestic supply chain.

The Supply Chain Resilience Center was also created as a recommendation from our Homeland Security Advisory Committee. And just as we are excited about the actions of the Coast Guard, we’re also looking forward to leveraging the Supply Chain Resilience Center to push forward port security and maritime security throughout the industry.

So, with that, I want to turn it over to Admiral Jay Vann to deep-dive on some of the specific Coast Guard actions.

Thank you.

ADMIRAL VANN: Thank you, Iranga. And thanks to everyone for joining us this evening. I’m going to jump right in.

My name is Rear Admiral Jay Vann, and I’m the Commander of the United States Coast Guard Cyber Command. Coast Guard Cyber is responsible for conducting cyberspace operations in support of the administration, DHS, DOD, and Coast Guard priorities.

I want to reemphasize the criticality of the Marine Transportation System that we seek to protect. I’ll refer to it as the MTS. This interconnected system within our transportation critical infrastructure is vital to national security and economic prosperity.

As was mentioned, America’s system of ports and waterways accounts for over $5.4 trillion of our nation’s annual economic activity, and our ports serve as a gateway for over 90 percent of all overseas trade.

The MTS enables critical national security sealift capabilities that enable the U.S. Armed Forces to project and maintain power around the globe. Any disruption to the MTS, whether man-made or natural, physical or in cyberspace, has the potential to cause cascading impacts to our domestic or global supply chains.

The executive order to be signed tomorrow ensures Coast Guard authorities are aligned with emerging cybersecurity threats and reflects the commitment of the administration, DHS, and the Coast Guard to safeguard maritime critical infrastructure.

The EO directly amends federal regulations and provides a Coast Guard captain of the port with clear authority to take action in the face of cyber threats. This includes controlling the movement of vessels that present a known or suspected cyber threat, requiring facilities to correct unsatisfactory cyber conditions that may endanger port safety and security, or inspection and search of vessels and waterfront facilities to include their cyber systems and networks.

The update also empowers the Commandant of the Coast Guard to prescribe measures to prevent, detect, assess, and remediate an actual or threatened cyber incident.

As we undertake measures to prevent cyber incidents, let me address a specific, acute MTS cyber vulnerability that was mentioned earlier.

The People’s Republic of China-manufactured ship-to-shore cranes make up the largest share of the global market and account for nearly 80 percent of cranes at U.S. ports. By design, these cranes may be controlled, serviced, and programmed from remote locations. These features potentially leave PRC-manufactured cranes vulnerable to exploitation.

On the heels of this executive order, the Coast Guard is issuing a Maritime Security, or MARSEC, Directive based on the prevalence of PRC-manufactured cranes in the U.S. and threat intelligence related to PRC’s interests in disrupting U.S. critical infrastructure.

The MARSEC Directive will impose a number of cybersecurity requirements on the owners and operators of PRC-manufactured cranes. The specific requirements are deemed sensitive security information and cannot be shared publicly. Our captains of the port around the country will be working directly with crane owners and operators to deliver the directive and verify compliance.

Finally, also as was mentioned, we’re announcing a notice of proposed rulemaking that will establish baseline cybersecurity requirements to protect the entire MTS from cyber threats. Those draft requirements are primarily based on the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s cross-sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals, which the maritime industry should already be familiar with.

The proposed regulations would require a number of cybersecurity measures to be implemented by all regulated entities. The Coast Guard highly encourages MTS stakeholders to provide feedback and input during the period of public comment, which begins tomorrow. A federal register notice will outline the process for submitting comments through the federal decision-making portal, and the public comment period will be open until April 22nd of this year.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, everyone, for those remarks there at the top. If you have a question, please use the hand-raising feature. If you are on your cell, please use *6 and you should be able to raise your hand.

Our first question will go to Justin with Bloomberg.

Q Hey, guys. Thanks for doing this call. I was wondering if you could talk about the extent to which this is or isn’t a response to the notice that you guys — or the advisory you published earlier this month about Volt Typhoon and concerns that you have there.

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you so much, Justin.

So, since the — really, since the beginning of administration, we’ve put a focus on securing critical infrastructure. Certainly critical infrastructure that also has ties to national security in terms of our ports from which our military deploys, from which our materiel deploys, as well as through which our economy operates are at the top of the list. So we’ve been working on this notice of proposed rulemaking and executive order for the last 18 months.

So while it certainly ties to particular concerns about Chinese cyber activity, we also have concerns regarding criminal activity.

One of Japan’s largest ports, the port of Nagoya, was disrupted by a criminal ransomware attack for several days. So, Chinese threats are one key threat that this executive order and notice of proposed rulemaking will help protect ports against, and certainly the focus on cranes and the risks, as Admiral John Vann talked about, of remote access to cranes and to their operations.

There’s a reason that we not only are issuing cybersecurity minimum requirements for ports, but also putting in place a maritime directive focused on cyber risk management for ship-to-shore cranes manufactured by China.

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

Q Hi there. I wanted to ask about enforcement — enforcement of requirements for reporting a cyberattack and then also, potentially, you know, enforcement of the cybersecurity requirements that will be put into place.

Can you just talk a little bit about how it would work, how people would be — or, I guess, companies and governments would be encouraged to do, in particular cyberattack reporting, particularly because there’s such an unwillingness to come publicly when people are hit with a cyberattack?

MS. NEUBERGER: Colleen, that’s a great question. The core aspect we have here is ensuring that the regulatory agencies — in this case, the Coast Guard for ports — have the authority to directly require minimum cybersecurity requirements and require that reporting. And as a regulator, that can be enforced.

I’ll turn it over to Admiral Vann, if you’d like to elaborate on that.

ADMIRAL VANN: Yes. Thanks for the question, Colleen.

So, the notice of proposed rulemaking will not only include those requirements but enhanced definition of reporting requirements to include specific regulated facilities and vessels reporting to Coast Guard — Coast Guard sharing reports with CISA and other government agencies.

So, as far as enforcing reporting, is that really your question?

Q Yeah. I’m just wondering how you — you know, if you’re asking people to report when they have a cyberattack, how do you enforce that reporting.

MS. NEUBERGER: It’s a requirement rather than a request. The Coast Guard is the regulator for ports, and the executive order takes their existing physical authorities to set security rules for ports and extends that to the cybersecurity domain.

So, ports will be required to report that to the Coast Guard. As Admiral Vann noted, the Coast Guard can then share that with other entities, including CISA and the FBI.

So it’s a shift from requesting to requiring.

Q Got it. Thank you.

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you, Colleen.

MODERATOR: Thank you both. Our next question will go to Sean with CNN.

Q Hey, thanks all. Just to follow up quickly on Colleen’s question: What’s the punishment for failure to report?

And then a second question for the Admiral about the cranes trying to track, other mentions of that concern in open source. I’m not seeing a ton. How many — roughly, how many cranes are out there that U.S. officials are concerned about? And
is there any effort to sort of rip and replace, if you will, these machines? Or is it all a case of just trying to manage what’s already out there?

ADMIRAL VANN: Okay, thanks for the question, Sean. I’ll take the second part first.

There are over — by our count, over 200 PRC-manufactured cranes across U.S. ports and regulated facilities. Our Coast Guard cyber protection teams have assessed cybersecurity or hunted for threats, as of today, on 92 of those cranes.

And so, those assessments determine the cybersecurity posture, and the hunt missions actually look for malicious cyber activity on the cranes. And so, we’ve almost canvassed about 50 percent of the existing cranes.

I don’t have an answer for your rip and replace. I might refer that question to Deputy National Security Advisor Neuberger regarding other manufacturers and where we’re heading, as far as that goes.

As for punishments for failure to report, again, what will go out after the EO is signed tomorrow is a notice of proposed rulemaking. And so, after we receive public comment and input on the regulations, regulations will be finalized to include enforcement actions being defined.

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you very much, Admiral Vann.

Sean, I’ll come in on the rip and replace question. At this point, we’re not exploring rip and replace for ports. What we are focused on is ensuring that all the investment in port infrastructure that I mentioned at the outset, that’s part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, can go to buying trusted cranes and to bringing back manufacturing to the United States, given how important cranes are to port operations.

So our goal is focused that new investment is secure, and then the steps are being outlined here — minimum cybersecurity requirements, the Maritime Security Directive — being used to secure the existing infrastructure.

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

Q Hi, thank you very much for taking my question. Very briefly, I heard the Admiral outline the specific forms of maritime critical infrastructure that the new executive order will apply to, but I did want to clarify that any new cybersecurity provisions and protocols pursuant to the executive action will not cover landing stations that govern undersea cables. Is that correct?

MS. NEUBERGER: Admiral Vann, do you want to speak to that?

ADMIRAL VANN: Alex, thanks for the question.

So what is in the executive order is an enhancement — an addendum, if you will — to the Magnuson Act, which surrounds the captain of the port’s authority to prevent and respond to cyber incidents. The specifics of what is covered by regulations are really what will be covered by the rulemaking process. And so that process, while it will be initiated immediately, will need to play out to its end to determine what is covered and what is not.

Q Okay, thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Christian with CyberScoop.

Q (Inaudible) the infrastructure bill, will there be new markers or, you know, you have to have (inaudible) or some kind of added security benefits in order to receive the funds or something along those lines? Thank you.

MS. NEUBERGER: Hi, Christian. Thank you. That’s exactly what will be in the notice of proposed rulemaking in terms of what the minimum cybersecurity requirements are for products — for technology products that are being used at ports.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We have time for one more question. We’ll go to David with Inside Cybersecurity.

David Jones, you should be able to unmute yourself. Hey, we see you’re unmuted, but we can’t hear you.

Okay, if you want to shoot me your e-mail — I mean, your question over e-mail — we’ll get back to you as soon as we can. And that goes for the rest of the folks. If you start writing your pieces and have any other questions, feel free to reach out and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.

As a reminder — actually, sorry, I think Anne had one thing that she wanted to mention before we close the call.

Over to you, Anne.

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you so much, Sam. I’d given a shout-out to some of the folks here at the White House who have worked on this initiative over the last 18 to 24 months, but I didn’t have a complete list. I want to make sure that I say that here, because as you can tell by the actions we’re rolling out tonight, it’s been a lot of work, both on the executive order, on the notice of proposed rulemaking, on the Maritime Security Directive, and working with trusted vendors around the world to see which would be interested in onshoring some crane capacity to ensure that new cranes that were purchased and deployed across our critical port infrastructure could be trusted.

So in addition to the names I mentioned, I want to thank Celina Ladyga, Robert Obayda, and William Hennigan here at the White House, and Rob Le Monde at DHS, and Captain Andy Meyers at the U.S. Coast Guard, for the partnership and hard work over the last number of months.

Thank you all for joining us this evening. We’re excited to roll this out, and appreciate your time.

MODERATOR: Okay. And thank you to all of our speakers. As a reminder, today’s call is embargoed until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 21st, at 5:00 a.m. Eastern. And everything here tonight was on record. Thanks.

6:02 P.M. EST

The post On-the-Record Press Call on the Biden-Harris Administration Initiative to Bolster the Cybersecurity of U.S. Ports appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Los Angeles, California

3:48 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, it’s cold back here. 

Q    It’s very cold.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, guys.  All right.  I have a couple of things at the top. 

See?  Aamer has his hat on.  It’s — it is cold. 

Q    I’m sorry.  I’ll take it off.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no, I’m not — no judgment.  I’m just saying it’s cold. 

All right.  If House Republicans are serious about border security, serious about standing up to Putin, and serious about protecting our national security, they must act immediately to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental bill. 

Instead, right now, they are on vacation as the stakes for our security and the security of our closest partners and allies continue to mount.  The events of the last few days have only underscored this fact. 

Let’s be clear, President Biden has led the way on the urgent need to secure our border, working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on the toughest, fairest border legislation in decades.  And he has put forward the resources we urgently need to enable Ukraine to stop Russia in their tracks and from posing a great threat to our NATO Allies. 

Now, this Saturday, the President will participate in a video conference call with other G7 leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss our continued support for Ukraine and steps we can take together to continue holding Russia accountable. 

This is the third year that G7 leaders have convened in February to condemn Russia’s unjustified attack on Ukraine and express solidarity with the people of Ukraine. 

As you recall, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, President Biden quickly pulled together a G7 leaders call to coordinate our response, and he continues to work together closely with our allies and partners.

Ahead of Saturday’s meeting — and you heard this from the President before he boarded on Marine One this afternoon on the South Lawn — we will be announcing a significant new package of sanctions on Russia on Friday to mark the second anniversary of the invasion and to respond to the death of Aleskey — Alekskey  [Aleksey] Navalny, who courageously stood up to the corruption and the violence of the Putin government and ultimately gave his life in pursuit of Russia where the rule of law exists and is applied equally to everyone. 

As the President said on Friday, this urgently reminds us — this tragedy, pardon me, reminds us of the stakes of this moment and of the need to stand up to Putin and pass the national security supplemental bill and the Ukraine aid it contains, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis. 

Time is of the essence.  House Republicans must take urgent action to support national security legislation that would easily pass the House. 

And while the President is in California — just want to lay out a couple of things — the Vice President and the First Lady will be hitting a few states to make some important announcements.

Today, the Vice President — the Vice President traveled alongside EPA Administrator Michael Regan to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as part of the administration’s Investing in America tour, where they announced $5.8 billion in funding for clean water infrastructure. 

This is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to ensuring a future where every child and family has access to clean, safe water, and it brings the total amount of clean water funding announced by EPA from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to $22 billion. 

Then, on Thursday, the Vice President will travel to Grand Rapids, Michigan, to continue her nationwide Fight for Reproductive Freedoms tour.  During the fourth stop of her tour, the Vice President will highlight how organized — organizers, advocates, and elected leaders in states like Michigan have worked to protect reproductive rights since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. 

And finally, the First Lady will travel to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to highlight the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, which President Biden launched in November to fundamentally change how we approach and fund women’s health research.

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

Q    Yeah.  On the sanctions.  The U.S. has already thrown quite a bit of sanctions at Russia.  How should we see what’s going to be announced Friday?  Will this be substantive and have actual teeth in what it does to Russia and to Putin?  Or is this more symbolic as we reach the two-year anniversary and also in reaction to Navalny’s death?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you’ve heard from the President earli- — earlier — early right before he got on Air Force One when he was on the South Lawn.  He said the — those sanctions would be major. 

I’m going to be really careful.  We don’t preview, as you know, the details of sanctions ahead of the time for a variety of reasons, including to avoid capital flight risk.  So, we have to be super careful. 

But, again, as the President stated, it’s clear that Russia is responsible for — for Navalny’s death and what has happened to Navalny is yet more proof that Putin’s brutality — no one — not in — not in Russia, not here at home, and not anywhere around the world should be fooled here.  He does not only target the citizens of other countries, as we are — we have been seeing happen, obviously, in Ukraine for the past two years.  He also inflicts terrible crimes on his own people. 

So, I’m going to be super careful.  You will hear from — from this administration on Friday, when the time — when the time is right.

Q    Are the punishments for Navalny going to be different from the sanctions that were already planned for the anniversary?  Is there something in addition to what was already arranged for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful.  Obviously, there’s a connection, obviously, to Naval- — Navalny’s death here.  And so — and, obviously, it’s going to be the two-years anniversary coming up.  But I’m just going to be careful and not —

You’ll hear directly from us, from the administration, as to the sanctions, why the sanctions are happening.  And I just don’t want to get ahead of that.

Q    Why — why should we expect these sanctions to be any different?  We’ve been imposing sanctions since 2022, and none of them have had their desired goal. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things here.  We and our partners have imposed the most severe sanctions on Russia that any economy this size has ever faced.  That — so, that is a fact. 

We’ve kicked them out of the international organization and worked to isolate them on the world stage.  We’ve been able to do that — along with, obviously, our NATO Allies, right? 

We’ve provided Ukraine with the capacity to impose massive costs on the Russian military, and the Russian military has been severely degraded as a result of the brutal and unprovoked war they launched against the people of Ukraine. 

It’s critical now, obviously — what we’ve been saying for the past couple of weeks, couple of months — that Congress needs to act.  We saw a bipartisan — bipartisan agreement come out of the Senate in order to fund the really important national security supplemental.  We need to see the House do the same. 

We have heard from Republicans — House Republicans say that if that bill were to get to the floor that it would get bipartisan support.  We need Congress to act.  

Q    Right at the beginning, you talked about Congress going on recess.  The President has the authority to call Congress back.  Why doesn’t he simply do that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, here’s the thing.  The Senate did their job, moved forward a bipartisan piece of legislation to deal with the national security ri- — risk that we currently are facing.  And it was critical, it was important, and it was done in li- — in a bipartisan — 70 to — 70 to 29 — in a bipartisan way.

And we need to see House act.  They went home early.  They went home early. 

Q    But he could call them back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, this is for Speaker Johnson to deal with, right?  He has already said these bills are dead.  And it shouldn’t be that way.  He shouldn’t be putting — playing politics.  He shouldn’t be playing with our national security.  And this is on Speaker Johnson. 

It is — this is a question for Speaker Johnson.  Why does he continue to say these bills are dead when we know — we know for a fact that if he were to put this particular bill that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way and put it on the floor, the national security supplemental, it would pass in a bipartisan way? 

We’re talking about funding for Ukraine.  We’re talking about funding for Israel.  We’ve talked about the Indo-Pacific, right? 

And — and what did we have to do?  They had to — the Senate had to strip out a border security from it — another — another piece where negotiation was had for months, and we got a bipartisan negotiation.

Speaker — the Speaker continues to get in the way and play politics here. 

Q    Karine, you’ve mentioned the — you’ve mentioned —

Q    (Inaudible) on the —

Q    Sorry.  You’ve mentioned the — the supplemental several times, but we also don’t have funding for the whole government, right?  So, what is the President going to do on that when Congress comes back?  And, two, does this mean that you’re optimistic about a CR?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President has been really clear.  We have to prevent a needless shutdown, right?  We’ve said this.  Every time we come to this space, we say we have to prevent a needless shutdown.  House Republicans must finally do their jobs and work across the aisle to pass funding bills that deliver for the American people. 

So, we support bipartisan negotiations happening on the Hill, obviously.  And so, House Republicans should not waste their — waste our time, waste their time, waste the American people’s time.  They should move forward.

We — this is their basic duty.  Their basic duty is to keep the government open, and we’re going to be —

Q    And what will the President do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it is their job.  It is their job to keep the government open.  What we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to call that out and say, “Hey, you know what?  This is about” — these are — we’re talking about programs that the American people need — they need.

And so, this is for Congress to work out.  They got to get this done.

Q    So, the President sa- —

Q    Does that mean that — 

Q    The President — the President said yesterday he’s willing to meet with the House Speaker.  Is there any update on that?  Any progress made?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, obviously the President, if it — it is — if it is indeed a serious discussion, he — to be had, he’s open to that, obviously.  Right?  He’s alw- — if it’s a serious discussion. 

But I have to remind everybody — right? — what Putin — Putin is a deep threat to our national security.  You guys know this.  I don’t even have to remind you of that. 

Our borders needs — needs to be secured.  Right?  You’ve heard us say this.  The President has — has led on both when it comes to getting a bipartisan agreement on the border security, when it — when you saw what the — what the Senate was able to do on getting that national security supplemental in a bipartisan way. 

But so far, it’s the Speaker.  As I just stated moments ago, it’s the Speaker that is the only one who is actively hurting America’s national security by killing those priorities that I just laid out, then going on an early — early vacation, as I mentioned already.

So, this is a question to the Speaker: Is he going to choose Trump — is this what he’s going to do? — and his own internal politics over the doing — doing what’s right for the Ukraine, doing what’s right for our national security, doing what’s right for our border, doing what’s right for Israel and the Palestinian civilians?  Or — and let’s not forget the Indo-Pacific. 

If so, let’s have that real discussion.  Let’s have a serious, good-faith discussion.  But we all know where the Speaker stands already.  And he’s playing politics on this.

Q    Karine, what does a “serious” discussion entail? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s up to —

Q    How is that different than —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look —

Q    — the last conversation they had?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s — look, here’s the thing: We know that the Senate already has put forth a bipartisan — a bipartisan agreement — passed 70 to 29 on the floor of the Senate — to deal with the national security.  Right?  They’ve also came together to deal with border security. 

And what we keep hearing from the Speaker — this is why it’s — it’s kind of — it’s kind of bizarre, right?  Because they — they keep swinging, right?  They keep saying, “We must have bipartisan border legislation now” to “Where on Earth did this bipartisan border legislation come from?  Get it away from me.  We’d like to talk about reversals.”  Right?  It’s just bizarre. 

I mean, this is the Speaker.  This is the Speaker of the House who goes from one side to another and doesn’t actually know what he wants. 

So, it’s up to him: What is — is he really serious about having a conversation?  But there are — it’s in front of him, right?  The agreement that came out — that came out of the Senate to deal with the national security, it’s in front of him.  There’s a — there — there was an agreement on the border.  It’s in front of him.  He keeps saying these things are dead.  He keeps saying these things are dead. 

And so, the President is like, “Okay, well, if it’s a serious conversation, let’s have it.”  But he’s not serious.  He isn’t.  Where — where is the seriousness coming from the Speaker right now?

Q    So, on — on Rob’s question, you said no, there is no update on a meeting with Speaker Johnson and — and the President? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have an update.  What I’m saying is we are open to having a serious conversation, is the — if there is one to be had.  But I’m also laying out where the Speaker has been for the past couple of weeks on this.  He’s not serious about this.  Right?

I mean, he — you guys have written about how he swung from — from back and forth on this issue.

Q    What’s the sign — what’s the sign?  What could the Speaker do to demonstrate he’s acting in good faith?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean — I mean, if he’s acting in good faith, then take it up.  Take it up.  Take up the national security supplemental.  Say — say you’re going to bring it to the floor or say that you’re going to have a discussion about it. 

He’s saying it’s dead.  He’s saying it’s dead before he even brings it — brings it to — brings it to his own caucus.  Right?  His own caucus has said if it puts — if it goes to the floor, it would pass in a bipartisan way, the border — the border security negotiations.  He just said it’s dead.  Didn’t even do — go through a process of trying to go through it to see, “Hey, well, how — how much — can we move this further in the House?”  No.

So, where is the seriousness here?

Q    Karine, on — on Senator Joe Manchin.  What was the President’s reaction to the fact that a fellow Democrat didn’t want to endorse him right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — and you’ve heard us say this.  We — the President has had a very good working relationship with Senator Manchin the last three years.  They — the two of them, along with other — other congressional members and — have been able to get some historic legislation passed and — on behalf of the American people.  Whether it’s the CHIPS and Science Act, whether it is the American Rescue Plan, there has been a lot of effort and good work with — with the — with the senator.

I can’t speak to his decision.  That is something for him to speak to.  We appreciate, obviously, our working relations- — relationship with the senator.  And I’m not going to talk politics, you know, as I can’t.

Q    Was the President disappointed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to — I’m not going to go beyond a private conversation with the President.  I’m just going to say that we respect Senator Manchin.  We’ve had a very good relationship.  The President has had a very good relationship with the denator over the past three years. 

Q    (Inaudible.)

Q    Karine, on Gaza.  Could — did you want to follow up on that?

Q    No, go — it’s okay. 

Q    On — on Gaza.  Could you talk a little bit about the President’s thinking in terms of endorsing this terminology around ceasefire?  You have this U.N. resolution.  It’s the first time the U.S. has backed that word.  It’s crept into the President’s own language.  What is his thought process in introducing that word?  And is it too little too late?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, a couple of things here.  There’s no change in our policy — U.S. policy, obviously.  We — we are steadfast on that.  You heard President Biden talk about this last week.  It expresses our position if — the U.N. resolution that you’re talking about that we have put forth — in support of a hostage deal that would pause the fighting for an extended period of time.

So, that policy stays the same.  That potential deal represents the best opportunity to reunite all hostage — hostages with their families and enable a prolonged pause in fighting and it would bring about the conditions for more lifesaving food, water, fuel, medicine, and other essentials to get into the hands of Palestinian civilians who so desperately need it.

The resolution also includes other priorities that we have been vocal on, such as supporting the protection of civilians in Rafah and the ongoing U.N. UNWRA investigation into whether — whether some of its employees were part of the horrific terror attacks on October 7th, to name a couple. 

We’re proposing this resolution because it is vital that any Security Council efforts help — help ongoing diplomatic efforts on the ground, not hinder them.  Regrettably, other proposals in the Council, such as the one being — that was deliberated today, as you all know, serve to hurt these diplomatic efforts. 

And just as you — as you are asking me about the word, and so — look, it’s not the first time we’ve called for a temporary ceasefire in order to free the hostages held by Hamas and other — and allow more assistance to get into Gaza, as I just stated.  President Biden has used the term “a temporary ceasefire” twice earlier this month.  And he — he was talking about a temporary ceasefire for hostages as far back as November.

And so, this — the U.S. policy does not change what we’re trying to do and what the President and his team has been working on around the clock in a diplomatic fashion to make sure that we get that — that we get — we get those hostages home, including American hostages home to their families and to their loved ones and get that all-important humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

This is something that we have been doing, right?  This is something that we were able to do, that — that we were able to have that short period of time of humanitarian pause, obviously, and got more than 100 — 100 hostages home.

And so, this is what we’ve been talking about.  This is the temporary ceasefire that the President wants to see.

Q    And another one on language.  Do you — do you agree with — with Prime Minister Netanyahu that it was inappropriate for Lula of Brazil to compare the plight of the Palestinians with the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not — I’m going to let Lula speak for himself.  We’ve been very clear where we stand.  We stand, obviously, with Israel being able to defend itself against Hamas and this terrorist organization.  That’s why we continue to push for — obviously, one of the reasons we continue to push for the national security supplemental.

What we saw on October 7th was 1,200 — 1,200 people — more than 1,200 people who were killed and more than — obviously, more than 150 people who were — who were taken hostage.  And it was a — it was a devastating, tragic day.  And we want to continue to make sure that Israel is able to defend itself.

Obviously, we want to also make sure that the all-important humanitarian aid get to — get to Palestinian civilians, who are — who are victims of — who are victims themselves of what Hamas is doing.  Let’s not forgot — forget: Hamas is embedding themselves into hospital, into civilian infrastructure, and they’re causing harm to their own people. 

And so, we want to make sure we get that — that temporary ceasefire and get that done so we can get that aid in and also make sure that we get those hostages home to their families.

Q    And if I could just follow on just what Trevor asked.  Is it — just to put a fine point on it, is it appropriate, as terrible as the suffering is in Gaza, to equate it with the — with the Holocaust?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I — I’m not going to — this is a very sensitive situation right now — obviously, a very sensitive issue.  We understand that as it relates to what folks are seeing in Gaza, it’s incredibly personal. 

And what I can say is that we support — obviously, our policy in Israel is — is steadfast.  And — and I’m just going to be super mindful. 

Obviously, those are two different scenarios — right? — two different situation: what we saw in the Holocaust.  And it is — it is two different things that should not be compared. 

But obviously, what we’re seeing in — what we’re seeing — the devastation that we’re seeing in — in — with the Palestinian civilians, what Hamas is causing is devastating.  It is devastating. 

Q    Just quickly on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But they’re two different times in history, and we have to be very clear about that.

Q    Any reaction to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on the frozen em- — on frozen embryos? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, I’m going to be careful on — on commenting on specific case.  But this is exactly the type of chaos that we expected when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and paved the way for politicians to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make. 

All across the country, women are being forced to grapple with the devastating consequences of action by Republican elected officials, from undermining access to repro- — reproductive — reproductive care and emergency care to threatening access to contraception. 

And, as a reminder, this is the same state whose Attorney General threatened to prosecute people who helped women travel out of state to seek the care they need. 

The President — this President and this Vice President 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.

Q    The President —

Q    Karine, can you give us an idea of what the President is doing tomorrow?  What are his remarks about? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, we —

Q    Where is he going?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We certainly will have more to share later today on what Pr- — the President’s day is going to look like tomorrow.

Q    The President has talked a lot about stimulating competition in the financial services sector.  How concerned is this administration about the Discover-Capital One merger?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that last part.

Q    The Discover-Capital One merger.  How — how concerned are you guys?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, again, with this as well: I’m not going to speak to any particular case.  But let me lay this out. 

Bank mergers are reviewed by bank regula- — regulators on a case-by-case basis. 

As we have said, we need a diverse banking sector with a healthy mix of — of large, regional, and community banks.  And as the President says, capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism, it’s exploitation. 

His comp- — his compet- — his competition executive order urges the Department of Justice and bank regulators to review bank merger policies.  This administration will continue to fight to protect consumers and enforce our antitrust laws.

Anything further, obviously, I’m going to refer you to Department of Justice.

Q    Karine, the — the publisher of the New York Times has talked about getting flak from the White House for its coverage of the President’s age.  Can you talk to us a little bit about what you think is, sort of, fair game when covering the nation’s oldest president and what might be off limits? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I mean, a couple of things there that I would say on that — on that particular — particular item.

Look, you know — and, you know, you — you all ask me pretty regularly about the President’s age and we lay out what our perspective is.  We lay out what we see — we’ve seen this president do in the last three years, which is deliver on historic — historic piece of legislation that’s going to change the lives of Americans for generations to come. 

That — so wh- — now, to your question, more specifically, about — about the New York Times coverage, is that — that display — what we believe a journalistic objectivity about coverage of the President’s age speaks to why we agree with former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, and she says, “Maybe the Times and other major media outlets ought to look in the mirror.”  “Self-scrutiny and — and course correction are not among their core strengths.”  And I’ll leave it there.

Q    Yeah.  Has — has the President reached out to Congresswoman Tlaib following her com- — her social media posts over the weekend to vote uncommitted?  And do progressives — does he believe that progressives have a right to be outraged over the administration’s handling of Israel and Gaza?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I’m about to say, I think, answers both questions.

So, I’m — on the first one, I’m being really careful because there’s an upcoming election — obviously, an upcoming primary.  So, I’m going to be really careful. 

But, as you know, the — we had se- — White House senior officials, they traveled to Michigan earlier this month to hear from Muslim and Arab Americans, leaders during what has deeply pain — pain — what has been deeply painful and personal moment.  We care very much about that and what the community is going through and wanted to convey that in a strong way. 

Obviously, we know that this has been a difficult time, and the President cares very deeply.  And importantly, it’s why he is working day and night to stop the suffering and loss of life — of life among innocent Palestinians and Israelis who have been caught in the middle of this conflict between Israel and Hamas. 

And so, that is our commitment.  But we understand how deeply — how deeply people feel about this.  And — and we value what they have to say. 

Going to be really careful on commenting specifically on — on the congresswoman.  Obviously, there’s an upcoming primary.

Q    Was the President — was the President offended by Charlamagne’s comments on main — was it “main character energy” that he said is lacking? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful.  Again, this is related to 2024.  So, I can’t — I’m not going to speak to Charlamagne’s — 

Q    No, that was related to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I refer you — I refer you to —

Q    I don’t think that was related to the campaign.  I think that was related to how he’s — he’s handled his administration. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have not heard — I’m going to be very honest.  I have not heard Charlamagne’s comments.  I know he’s had specific thoughts about 2024.  So, as it relates to that, I’m going to refer you to the campaign.

Q    Any plans for the President to speak with Yulia, Aleksey Navalny’s widow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to — to read out at this time.  But as you all know, the Vice President met with — met with Navalny’s wife recently.  But I don’t have a meeting — I don’t have a meeting with the President to — to read out at this time. 

Q    Can you share anything on what priorities the President is tackling on this long trip to California?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Priorities?

Q    Phone calls?  What’s he doing up there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President, as always, is always working on behalf of the American people.  We’ll have more on what his day looks like tomorrow.  I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q    As a follow-up, last month was the worst month we’ve had in layoffs in the tech sector.  Any chance that the President will address that fear it’s going to spread into the larger economy? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s the largest month of what?

Q    The largest — largest lump monthly — largest — excuse me, largest layoffs in a single month in the tech sector since, I think, May of — May of 2023. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, we closely monitor, obviously, all reports of Americans losing their jobs.  President Biden knows what losing a job can mean for a family and entire community.  You’ve heard him talk about his own personal experience growing up. 

But broadly speaking, thanks to the strong economy under President Biden, layoffs are near record lows.  In fact, they’re lower than the average during the prior administration, even before COVID.

As you know, unemployment is at under 4 percent.  And — and, also, 3 million jobs were created just last year, more than any year under the previous administration.  And companies continue to grow. 

We’ve seen small business application boom at 16 million applications in the last three years.  And so, that tells you a lot about the economy. 

But obviously, anytime we hear about Americans losing jobs, that’s something that we monitor.

All right.

Q    Does the President plan to meet with his son, Hunter, while he is in California?  He was with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m not going to speak to — to the President’s family.

Q    And then, is he — is he aware — is he aware or in touch with his brother James heading into his interviews with House Republicans —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not —

Q    — tomorrow? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to — I’m not going to speak to the President’s private conversation with his family.  I never do, and I’m not going to do that now.

All right.  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

Q    Thank you very much, Karine.

4:14 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Los Angeles, CA appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

11:07 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining.  As a reminder for these calls, these are on the record, and we’ve got no embargo here.
 
We’ll kick it off to Kirby at the top for a few words, and then we’ll take your questions. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.  I just want to take a couple of minutes here at the beginning to draw your attention again to events in Ukraine over the weekend, in particular how Ukrainian troops were forced to withdraw from the city of Avdiivka in the eastern part of Ukraine — and that happened on Saturday; I think you all know that — because they practically ran out of supplies, including artillery ammunition.
 
For many months, we’ve talked about how Russia was trying to take Avdiivka as part of its offensive in the east.  I talked it from the podium just a few days ago last week, and we talked about how Russia had suffered thousands and thousands of casualties in the process.  For months, Ukraine had been able to keep the Russian attacks at bay, until they started to run out of ammunition, particularly with respect to artillery — the kind of ammunition that they needed to prevent those Russian forces from reaching Ukrainian defensive lines and overrunning those positions.
 
Let’s be clear about this: Ukraine’s decision to withdraw from Avdiivka wasn’t because they weren’t brave enough.  It wasn’t because they weren’t well-led enough.  It wasn’t because they weren’t trained.  It wasn’t because they didn’t have the tactical acumen to defend themselves and to defend that town.  It was because of congressional inaction.  And we’ve been warning Congress that if they didn’t act, Ukraine would suffer losses on the battlefield.  And here you go — that’s what happened this weekend.  And that’s what’s at stake here in Ukraine if we can’t get the supplemental funding and get the kinds of arms and ammunition into the hands of Ukrainian soldiers as soon as possible.
 
On Friday, now, we also got the horrific news that Aleksey Navalny died in a Russian prison.  As you heard the President say, Mr. Navalny had courageously stood up to the corruption, the violence, and all the malicious activity that the Putin government had been doing. 
 
Whatever story the Russian government decides to tell the world, it’s clear that President Putin and his government are responsible for Mr. Navalny’s death. 
 
In response, at President Biden’s direction, we will be announcing a major sanctions package on Friday of this week to hold Russia accountable for what happened to Mr. Navalny and, quite frankly, for all its actions over the course of this vicious and brutal war that has now raged on for two years.
 
One of the most powerful things that we can do right now to stand up to Vladimir Putin, of course, is to, again, pass the bipartisan National Security Supplemental bill and support Ukraine as they continue to fight bravely in defense of their country.
 
And with that, I’ll take some questions.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Zeke Miller with the AP.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, John.  First off, on that sanctions package, can you give us any indication of what might come with that and how it will be different in any way from the barrage of sanctions that the U.S. and allies have put in place on Russia since the invasion of Ukraine?
 
And then, secondly, on Ukraine, has the loss of Avdiivka sort of changed the trajectory of the conflict?  You know, can Ukraine make up the ground that has been lost by the delays in supplying?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Zeke.  On the sanctions package, as you know, we don’t get ahead of sanctions announcements in terms of any great detail.  But I think what you’ll see in this package that we’re going to be announcing Friday is a set of sanctions, a regime that not only is designed to hold Mr. Putin accountable for now two years of war in Ukraine, but also specifically supplemented with additional sanctions regarding Mr. Navalny’s death. 
 
That’s, unfortunately, about the most — the amount of detail I can get into right now.  We’re always careful before we announce sanctions.  But, again, I would say, stay tuned, look to Friday, and we’ll have more to say about that. 
 
On Avdiivka, I think, taking a step back, I mean, why have the Russians been trying to get Avdiivka?  Largely because they want basically a hub — a logistics and operational maneuver hub in the Donbas area, specifically in Donetsk.  And that’s why they’ve been trying to get Avdiivka.  They believe that it will give them a stepping-off point, if you will, to conduct further operations in the Donetsk and even in the Luhansk areas. 
 
Now, whether they’re capable of actually doing that, we’ll see.  I mean, they have struggled with logistics and sustainment command and control since the very beginning of this conflict.  It’s not likely that they’ve sort of reached some breakthrough capability here in terms of sustaining their troops on the battlefield.  But that’s ostensibly what they were trying to achieve by getting Avdiivka. 
 
It will not change in the aggregate the kinds of defensive works and the defensive operations that the Ukrainians are going to be capable of conducting.  In fact, it was a wise decision by President Zelenskyy to withdraw so his troops did not get encircled so that he could preserve them and the precious resources that they have.  And it is precious, by the way. 
 
But it remains to be seen whether or not the Russians are going to be able to achieve the sort of overarching strategic goal of taking Avdiivka. 
 
What we can say for sure is that if the Ukrainians aren’t better supplied, if they don’t get a relief from the shortage of ammunition that they are suffering right now, this could — this move on Avdiivka could actually have a larger effect on the fighting in the east and the amount of territory that the Russians might be able to get over time.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Missy Ryan.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey, John.  Thanks for doing this.  I wanted to check in on the artillery issue that you mentioned that is driving some of the problems for the Ukrainian forces.  You know, I know you guys have said many times that the Congress needs to approve the supplemental request, but I’m wondering, if that does not happen, is the administration considering providing additional artillery from U.S. stockpiles without the replenishment funds?  As you know, there is PDA authority remaining.  Would the administration be willing to take that hit at some point if the Ukrainians really need it and there isn’t movement from Congress?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Missy.  We need the supplemental funding.  We absolutely have to have the supplemental funding to be able to continue to support Ukraine.  The replenishment authority is important.  Because we have provided so much, we’ve got to be mindful of our own stocks for our own national security purposes. 
 
Now, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about what we might or might not do, because we’re focused on actually getting the supplemental bill passed.  That is the answer to being able to provide Ukraine with the resources that it needs for this very kinetic fight.  And it is not like these guys are dug in over the winter.  I mean, you’ve just seen over the weekend, it’s a very kinetic fight.  They need these — they need those resources, and we need Congress to do its job and pass that supplemental bill. 
 
And, you know, to your other question about the existing PDA and the importance of it — yes, there’s existing authority left, but without the replenishment authority, as I said, it’s not cost-free in terms of our own national security needs.  And we have obligations around the world that we need to be mindful of as well.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Steve Holland.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey there, John.  Just a bit more on Navalny.  How hard is it going to be to determine how he died?  Is the U.S. making an independent effort to try to determine how he died?  Have you asked Russia for details?  Anything on this at all?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Our embassy has been engaged, Steve, as you would expect them to.  But, you know, it’s difficult to get to a point where you can be confident in what the Russians would say about his death. 
 
We all want — would love to know exactly what happened here, not setting aside the fact that regardless of the actual scientific answer, Mr. Putin is responsible for it.  But absent some credible investigation into his death, I mean, you know, it’s hard to get to a point where, you know, we can just take the Russians’ word for it. 
 
So, clearly, we’re calling for complete transparency by the Russian government for how he died.  And we’ll continue to do that.
 
Q    And secondly, John, one of the suggestions that came out of the weekend TV shows was declaring Russia a state sponsor of terrorism to be able to increase the amount of pressure on the Russian government.  Is that being considered at all at the White House?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’ve put an awful lot of pressure on Russia, Steve, over the course of the last couple of years specifically.  And as I think you’ll see on Friday, we’re going to ramp up that pressure on Russia.  But I don’t have anything to announce or to speak to with regard to the state sponsor of terrorism designation. 
 
Q    Thank you. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Next up, we’ll go to Vivian Salama.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  Hi, John.  I wanted to ask you about the U.N. Security Council vote that just happened.  The U.S. was the sole veto to the Algerian plan calling for an immediate ceasefire.  You know, increasingly, it seems the U.S. is isolated in its position that now is not the time, where most other countries felt like it should happen right away. 
 
And so, I’m curious, you know, does the White House — you know, what is the White House’s position with regard to sort of this isolation in the world and its persistent support of Israel and the Hamas — and the hostage negotiations?  You know, at some point, do you feel like you’re going to have to embrace the calls for an immediate ceasefire if you’re not able to make headway on the other issues, including the hostages?  Thanks. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, we just weren’t able to support a resolution today that was going to put sensitive negotiations in peril.  And that’s what we believe this resolution would do.  We are in the midst — in fact, Brett McGurk is traveling to the region as we speak to have meetings in Cairo tomorrow, and then follow-on in Israel the next day, specifically to see if we can get this hostage deal in place, which calls for a temporary ceasefire, calls for a humanitarian pause of an extended nature to get all those hostages out.  And to vote for this resolution today could very well put those negotiations at risk. 
 
You know, you talk about isolation.  I think the American people, and I think most of the people around the world, would love to see those hostages home with their families.  And if we just voted and went along with this resolution, the chances of doing that would be greatly reduced. 
 
So we’re comfortable with the approach that we’re taking.  We all want to see this conflict end, but it’s got to end in a way that keeps the Israeli people safe from any future attacks by Hamas, that doesn’t leave Hamas in control, and doesn’t take the pressure off Hamas to release all those hostages, let alone the humanitarian assistance, which needs to continue to get in and increase volume.  And that could happen if we can get this deal in place. 
 
We are at a very delicate time right now, Vivian, with these discussions going on, and we’re still hopeful that we can get this over the finish line.  This resolution — this was not the time for that kind of resolution.  As our U.N. Ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said: “A vote today was wishful but it was irresponsible.”
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Next up, we’ll go to Patsy.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  And thanks, John.  So, just to follow up on Vivian’s question, I think the U.S. is also proposing a draft U.N. resolution to oppose a ground offensive in Rafah.  This was perhaps going to be seen in a difficult way by Israel. 
 
As you know, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that bending to international pressure to delay offensive in Rafah is the same as telling Israel to lose the war against Hamas. 
 
So this is another instance where the Prime Minister is pushing against what President Biden wants.  Can you help us understand this?  Is the President losing patience with the Prime Minister?  Yeah, just help us figure this out. 
 
And then I have a follow-up on Russia.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, as you know, he talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu not long ago, and we’re going to keep those discussions going. 
 
Again, Brett will be in Israel the day after tomorrow.  I have no doubt that he’ll also have an opportunity to talk about what’s going on in Rafah and reiterate our concerns about the current circumstances and what a major ground offensive in Rafah could look like under the current circumstances without due appreciation for and planning for, in a credible way, the safety and security of the more than million people that are down there.  And that has not changed.  President Biden hasn’t changed on our view of that.  Brett will certainly convey that when he’s in Israel. 
 
This is — we — absolutely nothing has changed about our desire to see the threat from Hamas eliminated in terms of the Israeli people.  We don’t believe that Hamas leadership should be able to get off scot-free here after what happened on the 7th of October.  And we certainly understand the right and responsibility of the IDF to eliminate that threat to their own people. 
 
We’re still solidly in support of that.  This isn’t about wanting Israel to do anything but to succeed against the threat against Hamas.  But it also comes with the desire to have that success.  For any major military, there comes an obligation — an added obligation to make sure that you’re looking after the safety and security of innocent people that are in harm’s way.  And again, we’ve been very, very consistent about that.
 
Q    And on Russia, Yulia Navalnaya is calling on Western countries, including the U.S., not to recognize the result of the presidential elections in Russia next month.  Is this something that the administration would consider?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything for you on that.
 
Q    Thank you. 
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Justin Gomez.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 
 
Q    Hey, John.  Good morning.  Yesterday, the President said he’d be happy to meet with Speaker Johnson to discuss Ukraine aid.  Can you just explain what changed, now that the President said he’s open to sitting down with him?  Last week, the White House was questioning, kind of, what the point of a meeting between the Speaker and President Biden would be.  And some of his previous requests were denied when he asked the White House for this meeting.  So, can you just kind of give some insight into why the President is now open to that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Look, I think, as we’ve said, we have sat down and discussed this with Speaker Johnson and other congressional leaders, including at the White House several weeks ago, the importance of this supplemental funding.  And that was, of course, before the Speaker got exactly what he wanted and then decided that he didn’t want it, which was a bill that included billions of dollars additional for border security. 
 
It is — we are at a critical time, as I said in my topper.  The Ukrainian troops on the battlefront are literally running out of ammunition and having to give up defensive positions to the Russians — defensive positions, by the way, that they’ve been holding and holding well — because they’re having to make the impossible decisions on the battlefield of whether they’re going to fire this or fire that and who they’re going to shoot at and how many bullets are going to — or artillery shells they’re going to use. 
 
We’re at a critical time.  And I believe that the President’s comments and willingness to have another conversation with the Speaker reflect the sense of urgency that we all believe we’re in and, frankly, we believe Congress should believe we’re in, instead of being on vacation.
 
MODERATOR:  Next question, we’ll go to Hiba Nasr.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  Good morning, John.  I go back to that Security Council resolution, the draft you introduced.  You said in the draft that this draft underscores its support for a “temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as practicable.”  I know you went through what you want to see before seeing a temporary ceasefire, but I’m asking here about the time factor — I mean, to what extent this is important to you.  And my second question — and if you can elaborate a little bit about what do you mean by “practicable.”
 
The second thing: I will ask about the Lebanese front.  Yesterday, the Israelis hit inside south Lebanon.  It is 50 kilometers far from the border.  This time we’ve seen the rules of engagement changing.  Is the risk higher on the Lebanese front?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m going to ask you to repeat your second question in a minute, as I didn’t quite get all of it. 
 
But, look, when we talk about “as soon as practicable,” we mean in the context of what we’re trying to get done with this hostage deal.  We are, again, in very sensitive negotiations that we hope will bear fruit soon to be able to get these hostages out and get an extended pause in place. 
 
And we just don’t believe — we still don’t believe that a general ceasefire, meaning a permanent ceasefire, that this is the right time for that — a ceasefire that leaves Hamas in control and alleviates any responsibility for them to release the hostages. 
 
Again, where we’re at right now in time and space, we believe the approach that we’re taking is the best option to getting those hostages home, to getting aid increased, and frankly, getting the violence down for an extended period of time — more than one week; it could potentially be up to six weeks if we’re successful.  That’s what we mean by “as soon as practicable.” 
 
And I’m sorry, can you repeat your second question?  There was a garble, and I think I missed the gist of it. 
 
Q    Yes.  My second question: Yesterday, the Israelis hit Hezbollah infrastructure in a location 50 kilometers far from the southern borders, which indicate a change — a big change in the rules of engagement.  Is the risk higher on the Lebanese front?  And what are you trying to avoid further escalation, especially that there’s a difference between your approach and the French approach toward Lebanon?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I can’t speak for anybody’s approach but ours.  And I wasn’t tracking that particular event. 
 
But just in general, our approach remains the same.  And this has been really an approach shepherded by Amos Hochstein, who has, as you know, done quite a bit of diplomacy on this particular issue.  But we don’t want to see a second front open up.  We don’t want to see the conflict widen and deepen.  We don’t want to see the fighting that has occurred between Hezbollah and Israeli Defense Forces up in the north continue; we certainly don’t want to see it become more aggressive. 
 
I can’t speak for the IDF and what they will or won’t do as a result of this most recent event that you talked about.  But I can just tell you that we’re going to continue our conversations with our Israeli counterparts, continue our conversations with Lebanese counterparts as well, about not letting the tensions up there boil over to the point where it truly does deepen and widen the conflict in a way that could alleviate any kind of pressure on Hamas.  And I think I’ll just need to leave it at that.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Good morning, John.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but the U.S. position regarding Rafah — that you do not mind an Israeli operation unless or except that if the Israelis give you a feasible or practical solution to evacuate civilians, which we’re talking about one and a half million — is this the case, or actually you are adamantly against any military operation?  And whether the Israelis have given you any plan that you consider actually workable.
 
And second, I don’t know if you’ve seen this report, but there is a report that was published today that a pro-Israeli group that is linked to the White House are basically targeting journalists at the Washington Post who are writing or perceived as writing stories that are pro-Palestinians or pro-civilians or exposing the Palestinian suffering in Gaza. 
 
So how can the White House ensure that journalists have the right to do the duties — fulfill the duties without any harassment from any groups, whether it is a lobbyist or especially somebody who’s linked to the White House?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  On your second question, let me take the question, Nadia.  I’m not aware of —
 
Q    I can send you the article.  Sure. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, please do.  We’ll take a look at that. 
 
Obviously, we would take seriously any effort designed to stifle, intimidate, or pressure reporters to do their jobs a certain way.  We believe in freedom of the press, and would not counsel or approve of any effort by anybody to interfere with freedom of the press and journalistic endeavor. 
 
So, please do send it to me, and we’ll take a look at that.  But that’s the first I’ve heard of it. 
 
On your first question: Nothing has changed.  We don’t believe that — well, let me put it a different way.  We believe that any major operation in Rafah, under the current circumstances, without a credible and operable plan to look after, to ensure the safety and security of the more than million people — and you’re right, I’ve seen estimates of up to a million and a half innocent Palestinians that took refuge in in Rafah because of the fighting up north — would be a disaster.  We have conveyed that privately to our Israeli counterparts.  Again, Brett is on his way to Israel here later this week.  I’m sure he will carry forth that same message.
 
We would not support such an operation unless there was a credible plan for the safety and security of all those innocent people that, again, moved as requested to the south because of fighting in Khan Younis and, earlier still, in Gaza City.  And they need to be looked after.  Their safety and security need to be fully and carefully considered before major military operations should be conducted in Rafah.
 
Now, we understand that there are Hamas leadership — in fact, full Hamas units — that are now operating in Rafah, mixing among the civilians, trying to find refuge there.  That’s classic Hamas conduct, and that’s inexcusable.  And Israel has a right to go after them, of course, but they also have an obligation, as I said earlier, to minimize any harm to civilians.  And that’s what we want to see.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Emily Goodin.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Thank you, John.  I wanted to ask about reports of this U.S.-Russian ballerina, Ksenia Karelina, who has been held in Russia and charged with treason.  Just wondered what you guys were hearing and tracking there.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a whole lot I can offer here.  I can tell you that we at the White House and, of course, the State Department, we’ve been aware of the reports of the arrest of a dual U.S.-Russia citizen.  And we are trying to get more information and to secure some consular access to that individual. 
 
Out of respect for privacy, we’re not really able to comment a whole lot more than that.  I hope you can understand that. 
 
The last thing I’d say is I want to reiterate our very strong warnings about the danger posed to U.S. citizens inside Russia.  So if you’re a U.S. citizen, including a dual national, residing in or traveling in Russia, you ought to leave right now if you can.  Just depart immediately.  And that’s clearly stated in our travel advisory for Russia.  And obviously, it goes without saying, if you’re a U.S. citizen or you have a U.S.  passport, and you haven’t traveled to Russia but you’re considering going, we obviously urge you not to do that.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ve got time for a couple more questions.  Next up, we’ll go to Asma.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey, thanks, John.  And thanks, Eduardo.  I had a quick question.  And I know this has been asked in a few different ways, but if I can try again, John, because I still don’t have a clear sense of what the U.S. position is on Rafah at this moment. 
 
Is there the sense that the Israeli military has offered you all any credible alternative or credible, you know, civilian pathway out?  I think that’s the question a few of us have asked in different ways, which is: Is it the position that you do not want to or that you see an alternative vision where it is plausible to go into Rafah?  And have you at all seen any plans that suggest that is possible?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Okay, thanks.  I’m sorry if I’ve been less than clear, so I’ll try it again.  And if it still doesn’t scratch the edge, let me know. 
 
We’ve been consistent that we understand Israel has a right and responsibility to go after Hamas.  We understand that there are Hamas units and Hamas leaders who have migrated down to Rafah as a result of the fighting in Khan Younis.  We understand that those Hamas leaders and those units are in many ways embedding themselves in and around the civilian population, hiding behind human shields as they have done in the past.  Classic Hamas behavior.  That makes it difficult, as it has made it difficult for the Israelis, to fight against Hamas since the attacks of October 7th. 
 
It is an even more difficult challenge for Israel given the sheer number of Palestinians that are trying to find refuge in Rafah and have been forced down to Rafah as a result of the fighting farther north — somewhere between a million and a million and a half people.  That is a lot when you’re talking about a strip of land that’s only 12 miles wide. 
 
So we do not support major operations in Rafah that do not properly account for a credible plan — and include a credible plan to care for the safety and security of those million-plus people finding refuge in Rafah.  We would not support operations that put those people at greater — at deliberate and greater risk. 
 
Now, hopefully that’s clear.  We certainly support going after Hamas.  We certainly support decapitating their network and eliminating the threat.  But with that, particularly in an environment like Gaza, comes an added burden by the Israeli Defense Forces to reduce civilian harm. 
 
I am not aware of the existence of a credible plan to do that at this time or that has been presented to us.  I’m sure that when Brett is in the region, he will have an opportunity to talk to the Israelis more about what their plans. 
 
I did see comments by Prime Minister Netanyahu that he ordered his military leaders to come up with such a plan.  Again, I am not aware that any plan has been completed and/or presented to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I’m certainly not aware of any presentation to us on what that would look like. 
 
But we do not support operations in Rafah, under the current circumstances, without a credible plan to deal with the safety and security of the people there. 
 
Did that make it clearer?
 
Q    Yes, thank you.  That was helpful.  Thank you. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our last question will go to Jacob Magid.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi, thanks for doing this.  So, on that: President Biden, on — I think it was Friday — talked about the reasoning that he doesn’t want Israel to go into Rafah being about while the negotiations are ongoing.  And you haven’t mentioned that as the main reason.  I just wanted to clarify: Is that because he kind of spoke off the talking point that it’s not — that it’s really just about the plan issue?  Or is that also part of the calculus, that we don’t want the Rafah operation to take place until we’ve reached some sort of deal or if the negotiations fall apart? 
 
I also just wanted to clarify — because, I mean, I have spoken to Israeli officials that have said there has been a plan that was presented and that we’re talking about moving those in Rafah to just north of Khan Younis, south of Wadi Gaza, that there is space there, that they have plans. 
 
I mean, Netanyahu ordered this plan publicly over a week ago.  It’s kind of hard to imagine that no plan has been presented.  Is it possible that there has been; it’s just that you don’t want to talk about it publicly?
 
MR. KIRBY:  As I said, I’m not aware of a plan that we’ve had a chance to look at and examine.  But I can’t speak for the Israeli Defense Forces and what planning they’ve actually done and if they’ve planned — if they’ve presented it to the Prime Minister.  I said I wasn’t aware, which is an honest answer.  I’m not aware.  That doesn’t mean that they haven’t done that (inaudible).
 
And again, our principal concern here is that, under the current circumstances, without properly accounting for the safety and security of those refugees, we continue to believe that an operation in Rafah would be a disaster.  And obviously, we’re working very hard on trying to get a hostage deal in place.
 
As I said, Brett is heading to the region — he’ll be in Egypt tomorrow and then Israel the next day — with that being a principal focus of his efforts to try to get that hostage deal in place. 
 
And as I said earlier, many times in this gaggle, we are in a sensitive moment here and believe the President was referring to the sensitivity of the moment that we’re in and how hard we’re trying to get this over the finish line.
 
Q    So it’s not a condition that, like, the negotiations have to be over for the Rafah operation to take place?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think I’m just going to leave it the way I did. 
 
Q    Okay.  Thank you. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have today.  We’ll do this again soon.

11:41 A.M. EST

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

Via Teleconference

1:06 P.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Good morning, or good afternoon — wherever in the country you are.  Thank you for joining today’s White House regional press call on the urgent need for Congress to pass the National Security Supplemental.

Today you will be hearing from Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor to President Biden.

Following remarks, we will take questions from reporters.  As a reminder, the content of this call is on the record but embargoed until its conclusion.  By participating, you are agreeing to these ground rules.
I will now turn it over to Mr. Jake Sullivan.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Dhara.  And thanks, everybody, for joining this call.  Really appreciate it.

I’m joining you from the White House, where we are asking Congress to urgently pass the National Security Supplemental bill and provide vital support to Ukraine so that it can continue to defend itself from Putin’s vicious onslaught.

This week, unfortunately, the House is on recess, having left town without taking action on this critical piece of legislation, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate last week with strong bipartisan support from senators of both parties.

Over the weekend, as you all have seen, Ukrainian troops were forced to withdraw from Avdiivka, a town in eastern Ukraine where they’d been battling Russia for many months, handing Putin his first notable battlefield victory in a year.  This happened in large part because Ukraine is running out of weapons due to congressional inaction.  And Ukrainian troops didn’t have the supplies and ammunition they needed to stop the Russian advance.

Just one day earlier, Aleksey Navalny, Russia’s most prominent political dissident, was killed in a prison.  Aleksey Navalny had courageously stood up to the corruption and violence of the Putin government, and ultimately, he gave his life in pursuit of a Russia where the rule of law exists and is applied equally to everyone.

These two events are a reminder of just how high the stakes are and why we need Congress to stand up to Putin and take urgent action on this National Security Supplemental bill.

The bill advances America’s core national security interests in several ways.

First, it will allow the United States to continue to support the people of Ukraine, alongside our allies and partners, and to send them the weapons they desperately need as they fight every single day to defend their freedom and independence.  These weapons that we’ve been sending to Ukraine are being made in America, by American workers, in 40 states across our country.  American workers are producing Javelins in Alabama and Arizona; tanks in Ohio; armored and tactical vehicles in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; HIMARS rockets in Arkansas; artillery ammunition in Pennsylvania and Texas; and rockets in West Virginia — just to name a few.

This bill continues these important investments in the U.S. defense industrial base, expanding production in these factories, revitalizing our submarine industrial base, and supporting jobs across our country, all while improving our own military readiness thanks to an enhanced defense industrial base.

It’s also in our strategic interest, our cold-blooded national security interest, to help Ukraine stand up to Putin’s vicious and brutal invasion.  We know from history that when dictators aren’t stopped, they keep going.  The cost for America rises, and the consequences get more and more severe for our NATO Allies and elsewhere in the world.

We know that Putin doesn’t just dream of conquering Ukraine.  He has threatened our NATO Allies, who we are treaty bound to defend.

In addition to standing up to Putin, this bill will help our ally, Israel, protect itself against Hamas terrorists and replenish Israel’s air defenses so they are prepared against threats they face from Hamas rockets as well as from Iran and Iranian-backed militias like Hezbollah.

This legislation will also provide resources for our troops in the Middle East who have faced their own attacks from Iranian-backed militias as they continue the important mission of defeating ISIS, as well as our naval forces who are protecting international commerce in the Red Sea from persistent attacks by the Houthis.

The bill will provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance for vulnerable people who have been impacted by conflicts around the world.  That includes millions of Ukrainians who have been displaced by Russia’s war of conquest, as well as conflicts in Sudan and Nagorno-Karabakh.

It will also support the urgent needs of the more than 2 million Palestinian civilians in Gaza, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with Hamas and are suffering acutely as a result of this conflict.

We are engaged every single day, directly and at the highest levels, on getting more aid into Gaza.  And we’re working around the clock to find a way forward that brings peace, security, and dignity for both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, with the security of the State of Israel guaranteed.

This bill also increases our support to our allies and partners in Asia amid our strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China and threats from an increasingly aggressive North Korea.

President Biden is urging the Speaker of the House to quickly bring this bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.  We know that it will pass on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, just as it did in the Senate.

And as the President has said, we cannot afford to wait any longer.  Every day Congress delays comes at a cost to the national security interests of the United States.

To close where I started, we are increasingly getting reports of Ukrainian troops rationing ammunition on the frontlines as Russian forces continue to attack both on the ground and from the air, trying to wear down the Ukrainian defenses that we’ve worked so extensively to build up over the past two years. 

American factories are producing more weapons and ammunition than they had in years thanks to our investments.  But in order to keep that up, we need Congress to act.

As National Security Advisor, I will tell you that our allies and our adversaries alike are watching what Congress does very closely.  There are those here and abroad who say U.S. leadership and our alliances and partnerships with countries around the world don’t matter.  I’m here to tell you they do.  Our alliances make us stronger; they make us safer.  And passing this bill will send an important message of unity and strength, as well as American resolve, to the rest of the world.

President Biden is determined to get this done.  And we’re asking Congress to do their part.

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

MODERATOR:  Thank you, Jake.  We will now take questions from reporters.  A reminder to please use the “Raise Hand” feature, and please state your name and news outlet when called on.
We will begin with Kellan Howell with Scripps News.

Q    Hi, thanks so much for doing this call and for taking my question.  I’m wondering, Jake, if you can talk about the impact you expect this new sanctions package to have that John Kirby earlier today said was being rolled out.  I understand you can’t talk about the details of the sanctions, but if you could speak to the impact those sanctions might have. And then, separate, could you also address consideration for a loan to Ukraine absent congressional action?  Is that something that the White House is talking about?  Thanks.

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, on the first question, as you heard from John Kirby earlier today, we are planning to roll out a package of sanctions at the end of this week, which will come, obviously, in the wake of the tragic death of Aleksey Navalny.  And you heard President Biden say that Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death.

That sanctions package will also come on the eve of the two-year anniversary of the Ukraine war.  And it will be a substantial package covering a range of different elements of the Russian defense industrial base and sources of revenue for the Russian economy that power Russia’s war machine, that power Russia’s aggression, and that power Russia’s repression.  So we believe it will have an impact.

I would point out that this is on top of a significant framework of sanctions that we have worked with our allies and partners to build over the course of the past two years. 

But this is another turn of the crank, another turn of the wheel.  And it is a range of targets — a significant range of targets that we have worked persistently and diligently to identify, to continue to impose costs for what Russia has done — for what it’s done to Navalny, for what it’s done to Ukraine, and for the threat that it represents to international peace and security.

With respect to a loan to Ukraine, as I’ve said before, what we have requested and what the Senate passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis last week is both military assistance and economic assistance.  That economic assistance is in the form of grants, because asking Ukraine to take on and shoulder a substantial amount of debt right now, as it’s fighting for its life, we don’t regard that as the best way forward.  We think that the package we put together and that Democratic and Republican senators voted for last week is the right package.

So, as far as I’m concerned, what we need to see from the House is that they move forward and pass this legislation, rather than have the United States negotiate against itself.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, Jake.  Thank you, Kellan.
For our next question, we’ll head over to Orion Donovan-Smith.

Q    Thanks, Dhara.  Orion Donovan-Smith with the Spokesman-Review in Spokane.

Jake, I actually just got a call a couple days ago from Governor Inslee calling on members of Congress to do exactly what you’re saying — pass the supplemental.  And he’s really tried to put pressure on individual members of Congress, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dan Newhouse, in Washington State.

As you say, you expect the supplemental would pass with bipartisan support, but obviously, that’s up to Speaker Johnson whether it comes to the floor. 

What responsibility do individual House members have at this point, you know, when it’s unclear that this will even get a chance — will get a vote?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, first, I think that individual House members have a responsibility to speak out — especially those who have long been on the record supporting Ukraine — speak out and call for a vote, call for their Speaker, their elected leader, to put this bill on the floor for an up or down vote.  Because if it gets an up or down vote, it will pass overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis.

And so, particularly for Republican members, the important thing is to strip away the ability of anyone to hide behind process and to make this a simple question of substance: Do people want to vote yay or nay to a supplemental package that is overwhelmingly in the interest of America’s national security; that supports our friends and allies, Ukraine and Israel and Asia; and that delivers lifesaving humanitarian assistance.

And I think any member of Congress who is doing right by their constituents needs to use this moment, this week, this day, to be vocal on this issue.  And that is what we are asking everyone to do, whether they’re a Democrat or a Republican, to speak out, to raise their voices, and to let it be known that they are looking for what the American people deserve, which is a straight up or down vote on this issue, because if there is a straight up or down vote, it will pass.

Q    And just briefly, is the White House open to any further negotiations on border security measures along the lines of the Fitzpatrick/Golden proposal?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We obviously want border action.  Unfortunately, congressional Republicans walked away from a painstakingly negotiated border deal.  President Biden asked Congress for the funding to hire 1,200 more Border Patrol agents, hundreds more immigration judges, asylum officers, and the resources to better detect fentanyl at our border crossings.

President Biden supported the bipartisan agreement that was reached in the Senate.  It was the toughest but fairest bipartisan border security deal in a generation.  And it is difficult for us to see now how congressional Republicans, having worked this through, can turn around and suggest that they’re standing up for border security when they’ve abandoned or walked away from a package that could garner a substantial number of votes and that reflects the input of both Democrats and Republicans.
So we think that’s the right package for the Congress to support, and we would ask them to take it up in both the Senate and the House.

And, you know, we have not walked away from our commitment on this issue.  It’s really been the congressional Republicans who have walked away from theirs.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, Orion.  Thank you, Jake.

For our next question, we’ll head over to Elex Michaelson with Fox 11 in California.

Q    Thank you very much.  And thank you for taking our questions.

What happens if the House doesn’t pass this?  Paint a picture of what that looks like.  And is there a plan B of another way that you can get this money if Speaker Johnson just says no?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, in many ways, I don’t even have to paint a picture because we’re seeing the pictures live, in living color, from Ukraine — the Ukrainian forces having to move back from the town of Avdiivka, as I mentioned before, because they’re not getting the level and tempo of supplies that they need and deserve.  And they’re not getting them because we have now gone weeks and months without the necessary funding.  And that’s been a result of congressional inaction.

So those challenges are only going to compound over time.  Shortages in ammunition and air defense systems will simply lead to a further depleted Ukrainian defense and to a greater advantage for Russia as it continues this imperial war of conquest against its neighbor.

As I’ve said before from the podium, and will reinforce here, there is no magic solution to this absent Congress appropriating funding.  It’s not like we have a piggy bank where we just keep cash lying around that we can provide to Ukraine.  We need the Congress to discharge its constitutional obligation to appropriate and obligate funds that the President can then put to use to send American-made weapons, made by American workers and American states, to Ukraine to help defend the freedom and independence of that country.

And that’s why our voice has gotten so intense and so urgent in recent days, because there’s not another path for us to go down to get the kind of resources that we are asking Congress for here. 

There’s not another avenue to it that — and because of that, I think the Congress, and especially the Speaker, need to stare their responsibility square in the face and then meet that responsibility, meet that obligation to their voters and to the American people and to the American national security interest.

Q    So what does the Speaker say to you?  We all saw that picture of him with former President Trump recently.  I mean, how does he respond when you make this argument to him?

MR. SULLIVAN:  He says that he would like to find a way to provide support to Ukraine and to Israel and to Asia, and on the border.  And then, dot-dot-dot, it doesn’t happen.  And one has to ask, “Well, why not?”  And the answer is because he won’t put it on the floor for a vote.  And I don’t think he has a good answer as to why he won’t do that.

So, at this point, we’ve got to match the basic words of support for our allies and partners with the action of putting this up for a vote.  That’s the Speaker’s obligation.  That’s what he has to do.  And he can’t shirk from that or hide from that.  He’s got to step up and do it.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, Elex.  Thank you, Jake.
For our next question, we’ll head over to Haley Bull.

Q    Hey, thanks, Dhara.  Thanks, Jake, for doing this.

One of the arguments we have heard the Ukrainians make as they push for this aid package to be passed, as well, is the support Russia is getting from Iran and North Korea.  And I’m curious at this point if the administration has seen that advance further since the last time that was discussed and if there have been any changes in China’s support for Russia as well.  Thanks.

MR. SULLIVAN:  We have been on the forefront of warning about and describing the forms of support from Iran and North Korea to Russia, going back to the beginning of this war.  We first elaborated Iran’s support by way of providing these one-way attack drones.  We first elaborated North Korea’s support by way of providing ammunition as well as short-range ballistic missiles.  And we have seen the support from North Korea steadily advance over the course of the past few months to include these ballistic missiles that Russia is using on the battlefield in Ukraine.  And we have seen a continuation of sustainment of Iranian support as well.

With respect to China, we have warned from the beginning about the need for China to refrain from providing weapons to Russia.  We have not seen China provide weapons to Russia, but we have seen companies in the PRC providing inputs to Russia’s defense industrial base, and that’s something that has been of concern to us.  And we have raised those concerns directly with our Chinese counterparts.  Most recently, Secretary Blinken saw the Chinese foreign minister in Munich just a few days ago and raised these concerns.  And we will continue to keep a close eye on that and watch as Beijing makes its decisions about whether and to what extent it’s going to support Russia going forward.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, Haley.  Thank you, Jake.  For our final question, we’ll head over to Nick Schifrin with PBS.

Q    Thanks, Jake, for doing this.  Do you believe that Ukraine will lose without this supplemental?  And do you believe that Ukraine can win with it? 

And I know we’re focused on Ukraine, but if you don’t mind my asking about the Taiwan Strait.  Taiwan drove away a Chinese coast guard boat that entered near the frontline islands of Taiwan today, as you know, after a Chinese boat boarded a Taiwanese tourist boat.

What do you think is the cause of the tension there?  And do you believe the Chinese coast guard is acting appropriately?  Thanks.

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, in February of 2022, most observers didn’t think Ukraine would last a month.  So I’m going to have a lot of humility about ever predicting that Ukraine will fail at anything, given the bravery and skill and courage of its fighters and its forces.

I do believe that Ukraine can prevail in this conflict, that it can win.  But it needs the resources and the support that it has, frankly, earned from its partners, including the United States.  And that’s why we’re driving so hard at getting this vote.

With respect to Taiwan, I’m not going to comment specifically on these incidents, only to say that we have been very clear where we stand, the United States stands, and that is for the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  And we are against any kind of action, by any party, that undermines that peace and stability.  That will be a message that we continue to send loud and clear.

MODERATOR:  Thank you again, Jake.  Thank you again to all of the reporters for joining today’s call.  For outstanding questions, please follow up with the White House.

1:27 P.M. EST

The post On-the-Record Regional Press Call by APNSA Jake Sullivan on the National Security Supplemental appeared first on The White House.

5:02 P.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  (In progress.) …efforts to cancel student debt.
 
As a reminder, the contents of this call and the materials you all received over email are embargoed until 5:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow.  We will share embargoed materials again at the end of this call with those who RSVP’d.
 
We will begin with on-the-record remarks from Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Natalie Quillian.  After their remarks, we will begin a question-and-answer period, which will be on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.”
 
With that, Secretary Cardona, I will turn it over to you.
 
SECRETARY CARDONA:  Thank you, Angelo.  And thank all of you for being with us.
 
From day one of President Biden’s administration, we’ve been fighting to fix a broken student loan system.  That’s why we launched the most affordable income-driven repayment plan in history: the SAVE Plan.
 
This plan reflects our unapologetic commitment to deliver as much relief as possible to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible.  And the progress we’re announcing today demonstrates not only that we’re making good on that commitment, but we’re doing so ahead of schedule.  
 
In January, we announced that we’d be implementing a special benefit of the SAVE Plan nearly six months early to automatically forgive the loans of borrowers who took out smaller loans for college after as few as 10 years of paying back those loans.  Now, I’m excited to announced that we’ll start automatically forgiving $1.2 billion for over 150,000 borrowers who are eligible.
 
That brings the total student debt relief approved by this administration to nearly $138 billion for nearly 3.9 million borrowers.  These are historic efforts that reflect the President’s commitment, again, to deliver as much relief as possible to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible. 
 
We also now have 7.5 million Americans enrolled in SAVE.  4.3 million of them now have monthly payments of zero dollars.  This is truly a lifeline for borrowers. 
 
The people getting the debt relief announced today have sacrificed and saved for a decade or more to make their student loan payments, have lower loan balances, and are more likely to have qualified for Pell Grants to attend college.  Many SAVE forgiveness recipients come from lower- and middle-income backgrounds.  Many took out loans to attend community colleges.  Some were at high risk for delinquency and default.  That’s why the actions we’re announcing today do matter. 
 
The bottom line is this: We’re providing real, immediate breathing room from an unacceptable reality where student loan payments compete with basic needs, like putting food on the table and accessing healthcare. 
 
For borrowers who are not yet at full debt forgiveness, SAVE is still providing them with real help today.  It already protects more income from loan payments, and it ensures borrowers won’t have to worry about runaway interest and exploding loan balances, giving them additional peace of mind.
 
It bears repeating: SAVE is already our most affordable income-driven repayment plan in history. 
 
Student borrowers can sign up today at StudentAid.gov/SAVE.  The Department will continue to identify borrowers who qualify for debt forgiveness and discharge loans regularly.  And we’re going to be emailing borrowers who are eligible for forgiveness if they switch onto the SAVE Plan.
 
Look, I’m proud of what we’re doing to fix a broken student loan system.  And we’re just getting started.
 
We won’t accept a broken system where too many people are locked out of opportunity, where too many default on their student loans each year, where cost makes starting and finishing higher education feel impossible.  We won’t stop fighting to deliver more relief and open doors of opportunity to more Americans more quickly.
 
And with that, I’ll turn it over to a colleague at the White House who is also a staunch supporter of fixing a broken loan sys- — system and opening up access to higher education, the President’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Natalie Quillian.
 
Natalie.
 
MS. QUILLIAN:  Thank you, Secretary.  And thank you for all of your leadership. 
 
Thanks, everyone, for being with us this afternoon.
 
As the Secretary said, this announcement is a reflection of the President’s commitment to cancel student debt for as many Americans as possible as quickly as possible.  This announcement will provide essential breathing room for 153,000 borrowers and their families, totaling $1.2 billion in student loan debt canceled starting this week.
 
When President Biden came into office, he vowed to fix a broken student loan system and make sure higher education was a pathway to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity.  And over the last three years, President Biden has canceled more student debt than any president in history.
 
And through more than two dozen executive actions, this administration has approved nearly $138 billion in student debt cancelation for nearly 3.9 million Americans.  Those actions include fixing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program so nearly 800,000 nurses, firefighters, teachers, and more have gotten their debt canceled through the program.  Before President Biden took office, only 7,000 individuals had ever seen forgiveness through PSLF. 
 
It also inclu- — includes holding colleges accountable for defrauding their students and providing relief to over 9- — 930,000 borrowers who have been in repayment for over 20 years but never got the relief they earned through income-driven repayment plans.
 
These actions have allowed nearly 4 million people to afford other expenses in their lives: buy homes, start businesses, pursue dreams that they had to put on hold because of their student loans.  Now, because of the President and the Biden-Harris administration, millions of borrowers and their families are no longer weighed down by the burden of student debt.
 
Last year, as you know, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision striking down the administration’s original student debt relief plan, President Biden promised he wouldn’t stop fighting to cancel student debt for as many borrowers as possible who need help.  That included pursuing an alternative path for student debt relief through negotiated rulemaking.  That’s a process which is currently underway.
 
And it also included implementing the SAVE Plan, the most affordable repayment plan in history.  And he tasked his team with implementing this as quickly as possible so as many borrowers as possible could benefit from the lower monthly payments or from early forgiveness benefits.
 
And as Secretary Cardona mentioned, we’re proud that our administration was able to implement forgiveness for low-balance borrowers enrolled in the SAVE Plan nearly six months ahead of schedule.  And for these 150,000 borrowers, that’s six months few- — six fewer months they have to make a monthly student loan payment.  And for many, it may mean six fewer months they need to make hard decisions between a monthly student loan payment and other expan- — expenses their families depend on.
 
Starting tomorrow, these 150,000 borrowers eli- — eligible for early relief will receive an email from President Biden notifying them that, in the coming days, their remaining student debt will be canceled because of his SAVE Plan.  And over the coming months, we will regularly notify and discharge student debt for borrowers who meet the criteria for early forgiveness who are enrolled in SAVE.
 
And tomorrow, President Bilen — Biden will be in Los Angeles, where he will announce the debt cancelation for these 150,000 borrowers.  Some of the people in the room include individuals who will benefit from this forgiveness, as well as borrowers who have had their debt canceled through other actions this administration has taken, such as fixes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.
 
President Biden will never stop fighting to deliver relief to as many borrowers as possible.  And our team will continue to work tirelessly to make sure Americans across the country are feeling and benefiting from the President’s actions and policies as quickly as possible.
 
Thank you, again.  And I’ll turn it back to you, Angelo.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you, Natalie.  And thank you, Secretary. 
 
With that, we will move to the question-and-answer portion of the call.  As a reminder, this will be on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.” 
 
Please use the “raise hand” function on Zoom to queue up for questions.  I will give you all a minute to do that, and then we will take your questions.
 
All right.  We will start with Haley Bull.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Hey.  Thanks for doing this.  I’m just curious, with President Biden’s remarks tomorrow, if you can give any further preview of the message he is hoping to convey while out in California, how fine of a point he will hit on this.  Thanks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official].  I can take that.  The President will be underscoring, again, his firm commitment to delivering student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible.  He’ll be describing how this is — I mean, this additional relief that — that he is announcing tomorrow is just one in a series of efforts — at this point, more than 25 — or at this point, 25 actions — to address student debt and to deliver loan forgiveness.
 
So, this is just one more step in a long, ongoing effort to fix a broken system and deliver student debt relief for millions of Americans.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We will go to Eliza Haverstock next.  You should be unmuted now. 
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks for taking this call.  I just had two quick clarification questions.  First, does this wave of SAVE relief incorporate past periods of repayment accounted for by the IDR account adjustment?  And then, the second: Is there, like, a state — like, an enrollment cutoff date for borrowers to be enrolled in SL- — in SAVE to be included in this wave of forgiveness?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, these include months that are credited due to the IDR account adjustment.  And the borrowers who are receiving notifications tomorrow were enrolled earlier this year. 
 
As the Secretary mentioned, we’re going to continue to reach out to borrowers to encourage them to enroll in the SAVE Plan.  This benefit is just one more reason that the SAVE Plan is the most affordable way to repay your loans.  And we’ll be continuing to update these discharges periodically.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We will go to Jeff Mason next.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Great.  Thanks very much.  Just a question about where the money comes from.  Is this — is there a pot of money that was set aside first for student loan relief or debt forgiveness, or, otherwise, where is — where does the money come to pay for this?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, Jeff.  At the Department of Education, we have the authority to administer the student loan programs, including delivering to students all of the benefits for which they are eligible.  So, we don’t need an additional appropriation or act of Congress like — like some of our programs do.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll go to Michael Stratford next.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Hey.  It’s Michael Stratford at Politico.  I have a question about these congratulatory emails from the President.  I know you’ve announced that you’re — you’ve sent those out in relation to past buckets of student debt relief.  But I’m wondering, can you clarify: Have all 3.9 million borrowers who have received relief under this administration received those emails from the President at this point?  And is it fair to say that, going forward, you intend to — to send out those emails directly from the President to anyone else who — who receives relief?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi, Michael.  No, they haven’t gone to everyone in that 3.9 million.  We do see them as an important way to communicate with borrowers, to make sure emails get opened, and to raise the profile of the benefits that we’re offering and encourage more borrowers to take advantage of them.
 
And I don’t have a commitment or a policy going forward as to what we’ll do.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We will go to Ebony McMorris next.  You should be unmuted now. 
 
Q    Wonderful.  Thank you so much for doing this.  (Inaudible) question.  One is about the IDR adjustment.  When will the IR — IDR adjustment — when will that (inaudible) —
 
MODERATOR:  Ebony, I think we are losing your line.  Do you want to try one more time?
 
Q    Can you hear me?  Okay.
 
MODERATOR:  No, unfortunately, it does not —
 
Q    — when IDR adjustable — you can hear me?
 
MODERATOR:  Go ahead. 
 
Q    I think I’m going in and out.  Sorry.
 
MODERATOR:  Okay.  We — we’ll follow up with you on that question.  Next, we will go to Cary Barbor.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Thank you.  Do you have any sort of data, any breakdown on, state by state, how many borrowers are being relieved in various states?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not at that time.  Happy to take a look, if that’s something we can produce in the — in the coming days.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We will go to Cheyenne Haslett next.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Hi, everybody.  Thank you for doing this call.  So, of the 3.9 million people who have been approved for debt relief, can you tell us how many have received that debt relief and when you expect it to hit at 3.9?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Those are individuals who have all been identified as eligible for loan relief.  And we’re in the process of delivering that relief.  In some cases, it takes a little bit longer.  For example, an individual that is entitled to a refund of past payments takes a little more time to process to make sure those — those funds reach them.
 
I don’t have an update on — on the number of loans that have been formally discharged at this point.
 
MODERATOR:  Okay.  We will go to Amanda Fitzpatrick next.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Hi.  Thank you again for taking the call.  When you send the email, can you kind of walk us through what the email will entail.  I know that there have been instances with some of the previous emails — not even just from — from the White House — where it’s spam or people are trying to take information.  I’ve interviewed people that have also fallen victim to scams through student loan forgiveness.  Is there something you could kind of share with our viewers and listeners about what they should look out for?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I appreciate the question.  We have worked really hard to make sure that students know the most reliable information is on StudentAid.gov and, if they see information that they suspect is fraudulent, to refer that to the FTC.
 
You know, obviously, this email is coming from the President.  I’m trying to nail down what address it will be sent from or other identifying details.  And we can follow up with you on those — on that information.
 
MODERATOR:  Yes.  And the — the embargoed copy of the email that will come from the President should also be in your inbox.  And if it’s not, I’m definitely happy to follow up with you on that.
 
Okay.  Our last question will come from Natalia Wilson.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Thank you so much for having this today.  I just wanted to ask: As Black college graduates, on average, have higher student debt than their white counterparts, how will this SAVE Plan relief benefit Black graduates — and, even more specifically, HBCU graduates — who, again, typically have higher student debt?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s — you know, it’s true that Black borrowers are more likely to borrow, they borrow larger amounts, and they typically struggle to repay.  And making student loan programs more fair is an important step toward addressing inequities in opportunities by race in our country.
 
The SAVE Plan is, for most borrowers, the most affordable way to repay student loans.  And it’s particularly helpful to people who have larger debt amounts.  And so, we anticipate it’s going to be a valuable tool for many Black borrowers and for many alumni of historically Black colleges and universities to help them afford to repay their student loans or — or earn loan forgiveness.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  With that, that was all the time we have today.  As a reminder, the contents of this call are embargoed until 5:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow.
 
Thank you again for joining us.

5:23 P.M. EST

The post Press Call by Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Natalie Quillian, and Senior Administration Officials on Student Debt Cancelation appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

12:06 P.M. EST
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Hello.  I have a guest with me. 
 
Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Okay, just bear with me for a second.  Got a little bit of a laydown of the trip. 
 
So, good afternoon.  As you all know, we are on our way to East Palestine, Ohio, where the President will hear directly from residents affected by the Norfolk Southern train de- — derailment. 
 
The President is making today’s visit as — at the invitation of the mayor to see the progress delivered through our whole-of-government response and to reaffirm his commitment to supporting the community as it moves forward. 
 
While on the ground, the President will also receive a briefing from officials on continuing response and recovery efforts, which began within hours of the derailment and will continue for as long as it takes to make this community whole again. 
 
A couple of things that I wanted to just highlight for all of you: The Department of Transporta- — Transportation arrived on scene within hours to support the National Transportation Safety Board in their independent investigation of the derailment. 
 
EPA also arrived within hours and continues to work around the clock to clean up the mess Norfolk Southern made, removing more than 176,000 tons of hazardous waste and removing or treating more than 49 million gallons of water, all paid for by Norfolk Southern under EPA’s historic enforcement authority. 
 
FEMA provided immediate technical and operational assistance to the Ohio Emergency Management Agency and other agencies, including by leading community outreach efforts to help keep residents informed. 
 
 And HHS continues to monitor the public health consequences of the derailment, including any long-term health issues in the affected communities. 
 
The President also wants to ensure that what happened in East Palestine doesn’t happen again here or in any other community.  That’s why he has deployed historic investments to modernize and upgrade rail infrastructure and make passenger and freight rail safer and continues to call on Congress to do its part by passing the bipartisan Railway Safety Act.
 
Today, the President is bringing a message to the people of East Palestine: We will continue to be here every step of the way, as long as it takes, and use every tool available to ensure this community is able to move forward. 
 
And with that, I have the EPA Administrator, Michael Regan, to take any of your questions or to make any statements that you may have.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Can you just speak up a little bit?  Sorry.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  Yes.  You know, I just want to add that, first and foremost, President Biden has been laser-focused on East Palestine from day one — laser-focused since day one.  As Karine said, we were there just hours after the derailment.  We have been there since.
 
This is a historic response.  Because the President has leaned in, EPA has been able to accomplish work in 12 months that would have normally taken close to five years.  We have moved over 176,000 tons of contaminated soil, over 43 million gallons of contaminated water, and all the while, have had a EPA welcome center open downtown to take questions and provide educational materials to all that have been affected. 
 
Q    Do the people of East Palestine need long-term healthcare provided to them by the federal government? 
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  You know, long-term monitoring and long-term healthcare are things that have been requested and are being considered.  There are multiple ways that we are evaluating how to arrive to those potential solutions. 
 
But we are listening to the people of East Palestine.  And what I have pledged and what the President has pledged is that we will be there, shoulder to shoulder with the people of East Palestine, until the job is done. 
 
Q    What is the status — what is the status of the drinking water now?
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  You know, there are weekly tests done at the municipal level by the state of Ohio, as well as continual samples for private wells, all of which are getting a clean bill of health from the state. 
 
We check the state’s homework, and we firmly believe that when the state checks a municipal well source or a private well and they say that they have a green light, we trust that methodology and believe that the water is safe to drink.
 
Q    What is the administration’s message, though, to the residents who are concerned about the air in their homes and the water still, even though they’re getting these positive messages from the — from local officials there? 
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  You know, what I — what I have to say is we have over, you know, 45,000 air quality monitoring tests strategically done around the area, over 115 million different data points that suggests that there was never any concerns for air pollution levels above safe levels. 
 
And — and shortly after the derailment — I’ll remind folks — we went inside over 600 homes to do indoor air assessments and determine, even shortly after the controlled burn, that there were no elevated levels.  And so, we believe that the science and the technology prove that the indoor air quality is safe. 
 
And we are determining this through multiple measures.  We have high-tech aircraft that we’ve had in the vicinity.  We have mobile sources and trucks and others with sophisticating measurement tools.  And then we have stationary air monitors placed all around this community.
 
We believe and know, based on the science and the data, that the air is safe. 
 
Q    Just wanted to follow up on that.  If — if that’s the case, where do the contaminants go?
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  Well, you know, most of these contaminants, during the controlled burn — dissipated immediately during the controlled burn.  And we — the — the state ordered an evacuation.  And we set up this very well-designed system for testing the air quality.  So, since people have been back in their home, we’ve been having lots of testing and data points that determine that most of these chemicals dissipated immediately. 
 
But we’ve set up this safety net to determine that there are no elevated levels in the area, externally or in these homes, based upon the derailment and the controlled burn.
 
Q    Can you help us understand why it took so long for the President to make this trip?  Was there a specific reason?  Was his own health considered in making this decision?
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  You know, what I would say is, the President has been laser-focused since day one, deployed a whole-of-government approach, and decided to strategically visit and engage when he thought the time was right. 
 
I will note that a lot of work has gone on this past year, and it has been, as of late, that the mayor extended an invitation to the President to join.  And the President is responding to that local invite, which I think is very appropriate.
 
Q    To Josh’s — a follow-up to Josh’s question.  Senator J.D. Vance has proposed a $15 million long-term study for the health effects after the crash.  Is that something that the administration is considering?
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  You know, I — I would say that this administration understands that we need to be there until the job is done.  We also understand that the community is requesting long-term monitoring of the environment and personal health.  And all of those things we believe are under consideration and deserve a really robust conversation. 
 
Q    Have you received any information, any feedback from the residents who may still have some concerns about their air and water?  Have they brought it directly to the EPA, or have you just been hearing it sort of through a trickle-down method?
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  Absolutely, we’ve heard it directly from the community.  We’ve been embedded in this community, you know, hours after this derailment.  We have an EPA welcome center, which we’ve seen over 1,200 East Palestinian residents darken that door.  You know, in the East Palestinian community and surrounding areas, we send out newsletters to about 9,000 homes and residents.  So, we have a really robust two-way communication. 
 
We are hearing and listening to those concerns.  For those who have health concerns, we have advocated from day one: Please engage your medical providers, please provide them the appropriate information.  That way we can have a better understanding from a health perspective where there may be some correla- — correlations. 
 
But I want to be clear that the monitoring that we’ve done of the municipal water, the private wells and the monitoring that we’ve done around the air quality demonstrates that there were no elevated levels of pollution exposure due to this derailment. 
 
Q    Given this robust response that you’ve described here, what — why do you think the people of East Palestine are so frustrated and angry at the President?  I mean, we’re not expecting a particularly warm welcome for the President today when he arrives.  Do you have a sense for what — what that is?
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  You know, this is my fifth trip, and I’ve spent time with a lot of different people — families that have been impacted, high school students.  When I converse with the mayor or with Congressman Bill Johnson and with many community members, what I’m hearing is 90 to 95 percent of the people of East Palestine are looking forward — are ready to move forward and believe that their community is safe.  And they want to see this dark cloud removed from over their community. 
 
There is a percentage of people — a smaller percentage of people who do not quite have the faith in the quality of their water and the quality of their air.  And what I would say is we continue to work with these individuals, provide the data, provide the analytics, and try to help them get to a place where they are more comfortable with what they’re experiencing.  Some of these people were not quite confident in their water quality before this derailment, and they’re definitely not going to be satisfied after the derailment. 
 
So, we have to continue to work with the community and meet people where they are. 
 
Q    What’s your response to requests for a disaster declaration?  There has been one from the governor, from Senator Sherrod Brown.  Why wasn’t that made?
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  You know, I think the President’s executive order — or presidential order made it clear that this option is on the table, and the state has a few boxes it needs to check to provide the federal government with the level of detail needed to pursue that.  And so, the ball is in the state’s court.  And, you know, we will let the states lead on that and be prepared to respond at the appropriate time.
 
Q    Is the Ohio governor or are other federal Republican Ohio lawmakers invited to take part in the briefing or in any of the events today?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that mor- — I didn’t hear the question.
 
Q    Was — was the Ohio governor or other, sort of, Ohio Republican lawmakers invited today?  And did they decline to come or —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would certainly refer you to their offices.  Obviously, when these — the President makes these types of trips, he sends out an invite to — it doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican, obviously — he sends out the invite.  But I would refer you to their respective office on — on their schedule.
 
Q    All right.
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  And I’d like to say, on that point, from day one — and I think the facts bear this out — we have engaged both Republicans and Democrats in both states.  In all fi- — four of my trips, I’ve worked shoulder to shoulder with Mayor Conaway, Congressman Bill Johnson, Senator Sherrod Brown, and Governor Shapiro. 
 
Listen, I — I think we have been laser-focused on this community.  Politics do not belong in the response of something of this — this magnitude.  So, we’ve — we’ve definitely seen cooperation across the aisles —
 
Q    With 20- —
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  — from — from both —
 
Q    With 20/20 hindsight, I mean, would you have come a little sooner?  Or do you think the President should have come a little sooner? 
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  You know, my answer is: I — I think we have with — even with 20/20 hindsight, governed ourselves accordingly.  There’s a balancing act here.  EPA, the Department of Transportation, all of the people needed to protect the public safety have been on the ground within hours. 
 
There is a little bit of a circus when we all come, and I think respecting the mayor’s wish and locally elected officials’ wishes not to have federal visits disrupt the response that is needed to make people feel safe — we have listened to the people locally.  And that’s why you’ve seen us respond the way we have.  We — 
 
Q    But are you saying that the mayor didn’t want the President to come earlier?  Because there was certainly a lot of desire from the community for him to come earlier.  That — that came up from them and from his constituents. 
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  Yeah, I — I — listen, I think the mayor won reelection and people have faith in him.  And the first invitation that he sent to the President was the letter, and the President responded. 
 
I don’t want to speak for the mayor, but, you know, I’ve spent a lot of time with the mayor, and I think I know where he stands.
 
Q    Can we ask Karine —
 
Q    There’s been so many other disasters —
 
(Cross-talk.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.  Let him finish, and then (inaudible) —
 
Q    There have been many other disasters where the President has come sooner.  So, that’s why it’s odd that this one has such a lengthy timeline. 
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  Well, I can tell you, he has been engaged from the very beginning.  And I have briefed him and his senior leader — leadership team a number of times.  And he — he is very focused on the details.  Let me tell you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, guys.  Thank you, guys, because we’re about — they’re going to tell us to sit in a second. 
 
Let me just tell you really quickly — thank you so much, Administrator. 
 
ADMINISTRATOR REGAN:  Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, in Pennsylvania, the President is going to be joined by Representative Chris Deluzio and then with — to meet with first responders and obviously the Mayor of East Palestine, Trent Conaway, and the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator, Jim McPherson. 
 
And I think I have time for a couple questions. 

Q    Just to follow up on the President’s remarks regarding Navalny’s death —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.
 
Q    — where does the White House stand on additional sanctions?  And does it believe that sanctions can be effective in changing Putin’s behavior?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I think the President actually answered this really, really well, which is, like, just look at what we have done in the last three years — right? — where we and our partners have imposed the most severe sanctions on Russia and that — that any economy its size has ever — ever faced. 
 
We’ve kicked them up out of the — we kicked them out of the international organization and worked to isolate them on the world stage. 
 
And we’ve proved — we’ve provided Ukraine with the capacity to impose massive costs on the — on the Russian military.
 
And one of the things that the President said is that, look, if — if we really want to make sure that we keep — we — we really react to what Put- — Putin is doing, we got to get that supplemental.  It’s so critical to get that supplemental. 
 
And the President obviously said we’re not going to lay out what we’re going to do next, if — if it — it is indeed — if we move forward with sanctions.  But the supplemental is so key and critical, and that’s what we’re going to continue to call on Congress —
 
Q    Is the — is the —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to that done.
 
Q    — White House taking any moves to find out specifically how he was killed? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, obviously, we want to get to the bottom of this and — and —
 
Q    (Inaudible.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — get a sense of what happened.  But I don’t want to get ahead of that.  And we do believe there should be an investigation. 
 
So, we probably should sit down, guys.  Hold on.  I — 
 
Q    Do you think there should be an investigation by whom?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we believe that it should be investigated, that it should be looked into.  But I don’t want to comment, obviously, on intelligence matters.  I want to be really mindful here. 
 
But we know what we know, which is what the President said — and you heard this from the Vice President as well — that this is — that this — that Putin clearly is — is — you know, he — he’s responsible for this, and everybody should be clear about that.  He is responsible for this.
 
Q    Does the White House welcome Special Counsel Hur testifying before Congress next month? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to — I’m going to be really careful about that.  I’m not going to comment on — on that.  That is something for Congress to — to decide. 
 
Q    Do we expect the transcripts to come out before or after that testimony?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’m not going to give a timeline on the transcript, obviously.  Obviously, we’ve looked — we’re looking into it.  I just don’t have anything else to say about that. 
 
Q    Thanks. 
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, no problem.  That was a little dicey. 

2:22 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan En Route Pittsburgh, PA appeared first on The White House.

James S.  Brady Press Briefing Room

2:00 P.M. EST

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

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, once again, I’m starting the briefing on a pretty sad note. Yesterday, multiple gunmen opened fire during the Chiefs Super Bowl Parade in Kansas City, killing 2 innocent people and wounding more than 20, including several children.

We pray for the families who lost loves ones, and we wish a speedy recovery to those who suffered injuries.

Since this horrific shooting yesterday, the President has received regular updates from his team, and senior White House staff have been in touch with state and local leaders.

We also thank both federal and local law enforcement and other first responders for springing into action to prevent the further loss of life.

As the President’s statement said yesterday, the Super Bowl is the most unifying event in America. Nothing brings more of us together. For this celebration to be turned to tragedy yesterday in Kansas City cuts deep in the American soul.

But the Kansas City shooting was not the only deadly shooting in America yesterday. Three police officers were shot in the line of duty in Washington, D.C., and another school shooting took place at Benjamin Mays High School in Atlanta.

Yesterday also marked six years since Parkland, and Tuesday marked one year since the shooting at Michigan State University.

We’ve now had more mass shootings in 2024 than have — than there have been days in the year. Think about that one.

Through executive action and implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Community — Communities Act, the President has taken action to keep guns out of dangerous hands by expanding red flag laws, enhance- — enhancing background checks, and cracking down on gun trafficking, while also making historic investments in violence prevention.

But, as we all know, it is not enough. Congress must act. Congress needs to act. And it is shameful that we have not seen more action on this.

We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require safe storage of guns, pass a national red flag law, enact universal background checks, and invest in proven solutions that reduce violence.

We know these actions can save lives and our communities literally can’t afford to wait.

Now, on another note. You saw our announcement today. We are ax- — excited to announce that President Biden will welcome President Duda, Prime Minister Tusk of Poland to the White House on March 12th for a joint meeting.

The meeting coincides with the 24th — 25th anniversary of Poland’s accession to NATO and underscores the United States’ and Poland’s ironclad commitment to the NATO Alliance, which makes us all safer.

They will discuss our support for Ukraine, as well as the strong U.S.-Polish strategic energy security partnership, its robu- — its robust economic relationship, and the United States’ and Poland’s shared commitment to democratic values.

And, with that, I will turn it over to the Admiral, who is here to share some newly available informor- — information that has captured Washington’s attention, as you all know.

Admiral.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Q Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY: I know that Chairman Turner’s letter to House members and his subsequent post on social media about a national security threat has prompted a lot of questions.

Now, while I am limited by how much I can share about the specific nature of the threat, I can confirm that it is related to an anti-satellite capability that Russia is developing.

I want to be clear about a couple of things right off the bat. First, this is not an active capability that’s been deployed. And though Russia’s pursuit of this particular capability is troubling, there is no immediate threat to anyone’s safety. We are not talking about a weapon that can be used to attack human beings or cause physical destruction here on Earth. That said, we’ve been closely monitoring this Russian activity and we will continue to take it very seriously.

President Biden has been kept fully informed and regularly informed by his national security team, including today. He has directed a series of initial actions, including additional briefings to congressional leaders, direct diplomatic engagement with Russia, with our allies and our partners as well, and with other countries around the world who have interests at stake.

The intelligence community has serious concerns about a — about a broad declassification of this intelligence. They also assess that starting with private engagement rather than immediately publicizing the intelligence could be a much more effective approach.

We agree with that, which is consistent, of course, with the manner in which we have conducted downgrades of information in the past. This administration has put a lot of focus on doing that in a strategic way, a deliberate way — and in particular, when it comes to Russia.

And there’s two things that we always do first when we consider about downgrades. One, we work with the intelligence community to conduct a thorough scrub of that intelligence to make sure that we are protecting sources and methods. And, two, we sequence our private diplomacy with our public disclosure to ensure the maximum effect.

In keeping with that approach, our National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is meeting this afternoon with House leadership and committee chairs and rankers this afternoon to brief them on the latest intelligence and our analysis of it. And we will brief the Senate when they are back in session on the 25th of February.

I’m not going to get ahead of those discussions. As I said, we make decisions about how and when to publicly disclose intelligence in a careful, deliberate, and strategic way, in a way that we choose. We’re not going to be knocked off that process regardless of what, in this particular case, has found its way into the public domain.

I can assure you that we will continue to keep members of Congress as well as our international partners and all of you and the American people as fully informed as possible.

Nothing is more important to President Biden than the safety and security of the American people. That’s his top priority, and it’s going to remain front and center as we conti- — continue to determine the best next steps.

Now, if I could just briefly, I want to share a few words about the battlefield situ- — situation in Ukraine, where the fighting is incredibly intense in the east, particularly in a city called Avdiivka. It’s a city that we’ve talked about several times before.

Unfortunately, we’re getting reports from the Ukrainians that the situation is critical, with the Russians continuing to press Ukrainian positions every single day.

Avdiivka is at risk of falling into Russian control. In very large part, this is happening because the Ukrainian forces on the ground are running out of artillery ammunition.

Russia is sending wave after wave of conscript forces to attack Ukrainian positions. And because Congress has yet to pass the supplemental bill, we have not been able to provide Ukraine with the artillery shells that they desperately need to disrupt these Russian assaults.

Now Russian forces are now reaching Ukrainian ten- — trenches actually in Avdiivka, and they’re beginning to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses.

The cost of inaction by the Congress is stark. And it’s being born on the shoulders of Ukrainian soldiers. We need Congress to pass the national security supplemental bill without further delay. If House Republicans do not act soon, what is happening in Avdiivka right now could very well hel- — happen elsewhere along that front.

So, again, we need Congress to act right away.

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

Q Thank you. Addressing the matter that you addressed in your topper, can you address whether the United States has the capability to defend against the Russian anti-satellite system that they’re developing?

MR. KIRBY: I would tell you that this is still a development — I’m sorry, it’s still a capability they’re developing. We are still analyzing the information that’s available to that.

I would not speak definitively about our strategic deterrent capabilities one way or the other. We just don’t — we don’t talk about that publicly.

But we’re taking this potential threat very, very seriously. And we are examining what the — the best next steps are and what our options might be.

I want to re- — reiterate: It is not an active capability and it has not yet been deployed.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Ed.

Q Thank you, Admiral. When was the President first informed of this threat? What has been his level of interest or concern?

MR. KIRBY: I — I don’t have a specific date on a calendar. He has been kept informed throughout. And our general knowledge of Russian pursuit of this kind of capability goes back many, many months, if not a few years. But only in recent weeks now has the intelligence community been able to assess with a higher sense of confidence exactly how Russia continues to pursue it.

And the — so, the President has been briefed on this developing capability really from the outset and has been kept informed throughout. And they say — as I said, today — including today from his national security team.

Q There’s a term that’s been tossed around in the last 24 hours or so. So, I want to seek some clarity from you. Is it a nuclear weapon, a nuclear-powered weapon, or a nuclear-capable weapon?

MR. KIRBY: I — I’m not going to be able to go into any more detail than I did in my opening statement. It is an anti-satellite capability that they’re developing. And beyond that, I will not go.

Q You’ve spent some time, though, around nuclear material or weapons in your previous military career. What the heck is “nuclear-capable”?

MR. KIRBY: What is nuclear-capable? Well, I mean, I guess it depends on the — the purpose of the — of the device we’re talking about. I mean, we — we talk about making sure that Australia has nuclear-powered capable submarines. And, of course, there’s — so nuclear energy can be used for propulsion in an engineering sense. It can also be used as a weapon.

Q So, nuclear-capable could be either of those?

MR. KIRBY: I — I am not going to get into any more detail about this particular capability than I have already. It’s just not — not prudent to do that.

As I said, we work on downgrades of intelligence in a strategic, deliberate way. We’re not going to get knocked off that approach, regardless of what’s out there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.)

Q Thanks, Karine. Thank you, John. Your statement just now seemed to push back on Turner’s call for the administration to declassify this information and the fact that he made that desire public. But the intelligence community put out a notice about an hour ago that the language was preapproved by the Biden administration. So, are you saying that the language that he put out in his statement on social media was outside of what ODNI approved?

MR. KIRBY: What I’m going to tell you, Jacqui, is that — and you’ve seen us do this, certainly since early Feb- — early 20- — 2021 when — I’m sorry, ’22 — when Putin invaded Ukraine. We have been very careful and deliberate about what we decide to declassify, downgrade, and share with the public.

And there’s a process, Jacqui, and it starts with analysis of whether information can be downgraded safely without violating sources and methods, without putting in jeopardy our ability to continue to collect information and intelligence.

Then, usually, there is an engagement strategy that goes along with that, where you talk to allies and partners, maybe the country in question, certainly members of Congress. You do that through intense internal diplomacy. And then and only then, when that’s complete, you work with the intelligence community on specific language to downgrade.

What I would tell you in this case — and Jake mentioned this yesterday — we had already begun that process — the process of analyzing it, of making sure we weren’t violating sources and methods, informing members of Congress. The President directed the team to — to start to inform allies and partners, including — not — not that Russia is an ally and partner, but to include diplomatic engagement with Russia on this. And then, we would eventually get to a point where we would downgrade and declassify.

So, we were already on the — sort of the arc of that — that — that process when, yesterday, this information regrettably found its way into the public domain in advance of our ability to do this according to process.

Q How was it “regrettably,” though, if the administration had been working with — with the committee to approve language that would make all of this known to all members of Congress?

MR. KIRBY: If there’s an — if there’s a presumption here that somehow the administration gave a green light for this information to get public yesterday, that is false. That is not true. That did not happen.

We were eventually going to get to a point where we were going to be able to share it with the American people. And we still will, as appropriate. As I said in my opening statement, we’ll keep you as informed as we can. Now is not that time for us to go into any more detail about this.

Q And yesterday, officials pushed back on the characterization that allies and partners had not been informed and said that they had been informed. When did that happen?

MR. KIRBY: We are in the process — again, which is why we’re not going to be downgrading everything here today. We are in the process of consulting with allies and partners. We are in the process with engaging with Russia about this. And we think — I know it’s a crazy thought here, but we kind of think it’s important to follow that process and do it the right way, rather than just rush to put something out in the public domain.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, go ahead, Peter.

Q John, when we talk about the potential to cripple satellites — satellites can be used to drive everything from weather forecasting to wars. You say this is something that would not impact those of us on Earth.

Why should Americans be concerned about a Russian capability that would target satellites?

MR. KIRBY: Any anti-satellite capability should be of general concern because, you’re right, there are private and public satellites circling the Earth every day. They do a number of things. You talked about — you talked about some of them there: communications, command and control —

Q What’s the U.S.’s concern?

MR. KIRBY: — transportation–

Q What’s the U.S.’s concern?

MR. KIRBY: — meteorological concerns, financial, commercial concerns. There are a lot of things that satellites do for — for the whole population of — of Earth.

And so, any capability that could disrupt that and that could therefore have some impact on services here on Earth and across the world should be of concern to anybody, I think. And including the fact that we have astronauts in — oftentimes in — in low orbit that — that could be at risk from an anti-satellite capability. So, you’re talking about potential human lives here too.

Q We heard from leading lawmakers, including those on the House Intelligence Committee saying, among other things, that this is not a immediate-term threat, this is not an imminent threat. It is a medium- to long-term threat. When we talk about medium to long-term threats, so Americans could feel comfortable with the state of this information, what does that mean? What timeframe are we talking about in terms of the concern?

MR. KIRBY: I hold you’ll understand I’m not going to get into too much more detail than I already have. I mean, as I said, I’ll — I’ll stick — I’ll stick with what I said. It is not an active capability that is yet deployed.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Mary. We’re going to get around.

Q Thanks, Karine. I appreciate it. We’ve heard some members of Congress described Turner’s actions as “reckless.” Given how you started this briefing, is that how you would characterize what he did yesterday?

MR. KIRBY: I would just tell you that we have followed a very rigorous process about how to determine whether information can be and should be downgraded and shared publicly. We were — we are — were and are in the process of that with this particular capability.

And as I said in my opening statement, we’re not going to get knocked off that process. We’re not going to be — we’re not going to have our hand forced to get out there faster and further than we think is appropriate.

Q Are you concerned that all members of Congress now have had access to this classified intelligence?

MR. KIRBY: That — that’s really for Chairman Turner to speak to since he made that decision to make it available to all members of Congress. This is based on —

Q That doesn’t concern the administration?

MR. KIRBY: — this — look — well, again, we’ll let Chairman Turner speak to his decision about how to share the information.

It is based on information that we, again, are still in the process of analyzing and sharing with allies and partners. And — and we’re just not at a point right now and we don’t believe we should be at a point right now to be too forthcoming in all the details of it as we work through this process.

But as I said, as we do with every other downgrade, we’ll get to a point, certainly, where we can — we’ll share with you as much as we can.

Q But just to clarify and follow up on Jacqui’s point: Since the chairman is now saying that some language was cleared with the administration, can you tell us what exactly he worked on with the administration and how — why that clearance was?

MR. KIRBY: No, I’m not going to — I’m not going to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Danny.

MR. KIRBY: — get into that. And I’m not going to speak for — for — for how he came to make this decision. We have a process. We’re going to stay on that process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Danny.

Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Admiral. The Kremlin spokesman said today that the — bringing up this issue of the Russian anti-satellite capabilities is a ploy by the White House to pressure Republicans in Congress to — to pass the supplemental and get aid to Ukraine. What’s — what’s your reaction to that claim?

MR. KIRBY: Bollocks.

Q And just one more thing, if I may — and thank you for that answer. (Laughter.)

Last — last night, the leaders of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand issued a statement warning Israel against any offensive in — in Rafah, saying it would be “devastating” and “catastrophic.” These are some of the closest U.S. allies and part of the — part of the Five Eyes group, obviously.

Can you tell us why the United States thinks differently to them and still feels that it’s possible that Israel can offer
— you know, may be able to offer a credible plan for an offensive that can protect civilians?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t — I don’t see a whole heck of a lot of gap between what they’ve — what they’ve been saying and what we’ve been saying.

I mean, I can’t speak for them. I can just tell you that we continue to believe that under the current circumstances, without a credible plan, as the President said, to account for the more than million Palestinians that are down in Rafah — make sure that they’re — have a place where they can be safe and secure and out of harm’s way — without that credible plan, a major operation in Rafah would be a disaster. We — we agree with that. And we’re continuing to talk to our Israeli counterparts about what that plan might look like.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, April.

Q John, thank you. Listing — going back to what you were saying to Peter about satellites, life as we know it revolves around satellites. And it sounds like something would be greatly impacted —

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

Q — or even gravely if these satellites were attacked. When and how and why would the national security threat right now go up higher if something begins to move in a different direction? Can you tell us when that and why would it go up higher?

MR. KIRBY: It’s difficult to answer that question at this point when we’re talking about a capability that we don’t believe is active and not deployed. We will engage directly. We plan to engage directly with the Russians about this and — as well as allies and partners. And as I said, we’ll continue to work through what our next steps and our approaches might be.

I don’t want to minimize the potential here for disruptions should there be an anti-satellite capability of any significance. It could affect services here on Earth. There’s no question about that. That’s why we are taking this so seriously.

Q So and lastly, as we’re dealing with this and looking at the complicated relationship that the United States has had with Russia, and you say you’re going to go into conversations, do you really trust Russia when it comes to this satellite?

MR. KIRBY: There’s — there’s no issue of — it’s not about trusting. And I think — I think our record on dealing with — with Russia appropriately, I think, is pretty well-established. We don’t — it’s not about blind trust with Russia. In fact, it’s quite the — quite the opposite.

Q Is it “trust but verify”?

MR. KIRBY: Look, it’s — we certainly — we’re not — we’re not in a position where we’re trusting what’s coming out of Russia and what they say. We watch what they do. And we analyze what they do and then we make our own decisions — our own policy decisions about what we’re going to do based on — on their actions or their inactions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Patsy.

Q Thank you, Karine. John, staying on Russia, before I move on to the Indonesian election, but on a slightly different track. Vladimir Putin said that a Biden administration would be more stable and better than a Trump administration. Your reaction?

MR. KIRBY: I think Mr. Biden know — I’m sorry. I think Mr. Putin knows very well what this administration has been doing to — to counter Russia’s mali- — Russia’s malign influence around the world and certainly what they’ve been doing inside Ukraine.

We’ve demonstrated over and over and over again how willing we are to push back on what Russia is doing, again, particularly in Ukraine. And Mr. Putin should just stay out of our elections.

Q And on the Indonesian election. The candidate, Prabowo Subianto, has claimed victory. A couple of questions. Number one, when does the administration plan to congratulate him? Are you planning to wait for official counts to come out, which could be days or weeks?

And number two, this was an individual who was banned from entering the United States for many years due to allegations of human rights violations, including the abduction and torture of pro-democracy activists during the 1998 ouster of his then father-in-law, President Suharto. So, is the administration comfortable working with a person with such a track record?

MR. KIRBY: We’ll — we’ll make our congratulations known at the appropriate time. I don’t have — I couldn’t give you a date certain or time certain for that. As I understand, the results are still coming in. And the — we will respect the vote and the voice of — of the Indonesian people.

Q So, but just — just to clarify, though, the Trump administration did grant Prabowo Subianto, who was then Indonesia’s defense minister in 2020, and invited them — invited him to the U.S. because of concerns that Jakarta may be veering too close to Beijing.

I wanted to know what the Biden administration’s view is of balancing between American human rights values and geopolitical expediency.

MR. KIRBY: I think the only way I can answer that question is to reiterate that human rights, civil rights have been at the forefront — found- — the very foundation of President Biden’s foreign policy. There’s not a conversation he has anywhere in the world with foreign leaders where he’s not raising issues and concerns about human rights and civil rights. That’s not going to change.

Q And if you can take one more question. On the House Foreign Affairs Committee today — hearing today on the Afghanistan withdrawal accusing the Biden administration of reinventing the Doha Agreement and creating conditions that are ripe for a Taliban takeover. Could you give a reaction?

MR. KIRBY: We have talked and briefed at great length about the situation we found ourselves in when we came into office and a Doha Agreement that was — that was agreed to by the previous administration.

I would point you to every public comment and testimony that we have done before. I — I don’t want to — I don’t think we need to relitigate that. The President was faced with a stark choice, given the decisions that President Trump made about exiting Afghanistan.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Andrea.

Q So, Martin Griffiths, the U.N. aid agency chief, today said in an interview with Sky News that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. He later clarified that it is not on the list of groups that the United Nations c- — has of terrorist organizations. What’s the word from Washington and from the White House about those comments by Martin Griffiths?

MR. KIRBY: Hamas is a terrorist organization. We’ve said so. It is. It just is. And you don’t have to look any further than what they did on the 7th of October to see it in stark terms. And, my goodness, take a look at their manifesto, even the one that’s so-called watered down in 2017. There’s no doubt they just want to wipe Israel off the face of the map. This is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. Period.

Q Is it helpful — I mean, do you find it — you know, have you reached out to Griffiths to complain about those comments or —

MR. KIRBY: I’m not aware that we’ve done any reaching out, nor do I think we need to. We have made very clear our views of what Hamas is.

Q Okay. And then I just wanted to follow up. Israel’s finance minister has ordered these flour shipments not to go into Gaza because they’re going through UNRWA.

Over the weekend, a senior administration official said that there was hope that those flour shipments, including a very large U.S. shipment, could actually be delivered. It would feed something like 1.4 million Gazans over six months.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Yes, it would.

Q What is the status of that? And what can you do to ensure that those shipments get in?

MR. KIRBY: I wish I could tell you that that flour was moving in, but I can’t do that right now. And all I can tell you is that it’s absolutely critical as a staple for the Palestinian people, and we’re going to keep working with our Israeli counterparts to see if we can get that port open to that flour. It’s — it’s absolutely vital. They committed to allowing it in. We want to make sure that happens.

Q Did Netanyahu assure the President over the weekend that that was going to happen?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t have anything specific from the call that they had about that particular issue. But, believe me, we’re mindful of the comments made by members of the Cabinet about flour and the Ashdod Port. And we are working it very, very hard. It’s critical that that flour get to people in need.

Q And then just one more on the anti-satellite weapon capability. So, in 2007, the Chinese destroyed a satellite on orbit, smothered into many — you know, distributing a lot of debris.

You know, at that point, there was a demonstration of a U.S. anti-satellite capability that was ground-based, basically — using a weapon on the ground to destroy a satellite that was going to be — going — falling to Earth that posed some danger.

Can you say whether the weapon — the new capability that the Russians have developed is, in fact, space-based and/or does it involve some test of a weapon that is based on the ground or —

MR. KIRBY: It would be — it would be space-based. And it would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty to which more than 130 countries have signed up to, including Russia.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Arlette.

Q If I could circle back to the direct diplomatic engagement. Have — has that contact actually been made now with Russia? On what level are these conversations?

MR. KIRBY: We are in the process of that.

Q And can you — on what level is it? With State, with Defense, with —

MR. KIRBY: We’ve reached out to — we reached out to the Russian side, but we have not secured actual conversations at this point.

Q And then, you talk a lot about when you’re thinking about declassification, that you need to be concerned about not revealing sources and methods. The way that this was rolled out yesterday, is there any concern that sources and methods have already been compromised?

MR. KIRBY: We’re asking ourselves that very question right now because we want to be able to make sure we’re not — or that in any way, shape, or form anyone could potentially compromise sources and methods. So, we’re working our way through that analysis right now with the intelligence community.

Q And if I could, really quickly, on Israel. It’s our understanding that the CIA Director, Bill Burns, traveled to Israel to meet with Netanyahu today. What was his message to him?

MR. KIRBY: I make it a golden rule not to speak to the CIA Director’s travel. I’d have to refer you to his staff on that.

But I will tell you that, just in general speaking — I’m not going to talk about his travel — but he has been very deeply involved in helping us with the hostage deal negotiations, and that work will continue. And we are very much shoulder-to-the-wheel to see if we can get something done.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Michael.

Q John, you said that the administration is in the process of reaching out to Russia about this issue. I’m just wondering if — if the — if Chairman Turner’s actions in any way complicates those discussions for you —

MR. KIRBY: We’ll —

Q — makes it more difficult.

MR. KIRBY: We’ll have to see.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: In the back — way in the back. Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Thank you, Karine. I have two questions for you, John, on Polish leaders’ visit to the White House next month. On March 12th, 1999, three countries were admitted to NATO: Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Why President Biden invited only leaders from Poland?

And the second question: Why he invited both leaders, the Prime Minister and the President? This is quite unusual — two leaders from one country, especially that the — President Biden has — had not invited the former Prime Minister of Poland to the White House; he only met with Vice President Harris.

MR. KIRBY: This is a great opportunity to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Poland coming into the Alliance. It’s also a terrific opportunity to show our gratitude for everything that Poland has done, not just as a great NATO Ally — and they are — but everything they’ve done to help support Ukraine, including security assistance and hosting more than a million — I think it’s a million and a half Ukrainian citizens on their soil.

They’ve been generous. They’ve been spirited. They’ve been strident in the support of the alliance and in Ukraine, and the President is looking very much forward to seeing both leaders here in Washington, D.C.

Q But why both at the same time? That’s quite unusual, right?

MR. KIRBY: The — this was — this was all — all done in consultation with our — our Polish counterparts in terms of how we were going to structure this meeting. And again, the President is very excited, very much looking forward to it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to start wrapping it up. Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Now that the Pakistani elections are over, several U.S. congressmen have raised concerns about the way it has been handled. They said is not free and fair. Does the White House believe that the Pakistani elections were not free and fair and the people’s mandate has not respected there?

MR. KIRBY: We’re concerned. And we share our concerns about the — some of the reports that we’ve heard coming out of Pakistan in terms of intimidation, voter suppression, that kind of thing.

And so, we are — we’re watching this very, very closely.
And as I understand it, votes are still being tallied. So, international monitors are still taking a look at — at those tallies. I’m not — I’m not going to get ahead of that process.

Q And secondly, in the last several weeks, several Indian students and Indian-American students have been attacked throughout the country. There’s concern among (inaudible) India sends one of the largest number of students to the U.S. There is some concern in India and the parents that the U.S. is no longer safe — could not be longer safe for their students and are reluctant to send the kids here. What’s the message to them?

MR. KIRBY: That there’s no excuse for violence, certainly based on — on race or — or gender or religion or any other factor. That’s just unacceptable here in the United States. And the President and this administration has been working very, very hard to make sure we’re doing everything we can to work with state and local authorities to try to thwart and disrupt those kinds of attacks and make it clear to anybody who might consider them that they’ll be held properly accountable.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Andrew.

Q John, you mentioned the Outer Space Treaty several questions ago. And that is, as you said, enforced. But Russia has pulled out of several arms control treaties in the last few years. Is the administration confident that this treaty is not going to go the same way — that there’s faith in the Russian government to not unilaterally violate the treaty?

And if they do, will the U.S. pull out of the treaty to keep pace?

MR. KIRBY: Whether Ru- — what Russia does with its treaty requirements is up to Mr. Putin to decide. I can’t answer that question. And I’m not going to get into a hypothetical about what we would do and what we wouldn’t do.

We are engaging — we’re going to engage with Russia. We’re going to engage with our allies and partners. We are a signatory to that treaty. We take our obligations under that treaty very seriously. And we have no intention of violating it.

Q There’s been some speculation that the spur for developing this — this weapon is — has been the use of satellite — U.S.-launched satellites from SpaceX for — by Ukraine — Starlink satellites. Is there any truth to that? Is there anything that you can say on whether this — this weapon is —

MR. KIRBY: Whether that’s the motive here?

Q Yes.

MR. KIRBY: No, I’m not going to get into any of the intelligence analysis. As I said, we’re still working our way through this. We still have to brief members of Congress, allies, and partners. I’m not going to get into that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Last question. Go ahead.

Q You had mentioned, regarding this Russian situation, that the information that was disclosed made its way into the public domain. Well, that was Chairman Turner. Have you ever had a situation before where a chairman of an intelligence committee has disclosed publicly information of this nature or any other intel information that normally stays within committee?

MR. KIRBY: I — I don’t know of a — of a similar instance here. But as I look back at the news coverage yesterday, just to be clear, much of the reporting about the supposed alleged details of this capability came from anonymous officials.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Appreciate it.

Q Thank you, John.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, Darlene.

Q Thank you. Do you have anything to share on a lockdown at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, that’s the first I’m hearing about that, so I would have to look into that and get back to you on that.

Q Secondly, in Venezuela, the government today ordered the local U.N. Office of Human Rights to close up and gave its staff 72 hours to leave. Is there any reaction from the U.S. to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any reaction at this time. Obviously, that’s something that we are concerned about, and — and obviously going to continue to monitor. I just don’t have an immediate reaction to that at this time.

Q Final question. Of ch- — the CEO of Ford, Jim Farley, was at an auto conference in New York today. He said the company will have to rethink where it builds future vehicles after the long UAW strike. Could this be a downside of union negotiating such a big contract? And is there anything the White House or the U.S. can do to keep jobs from going sou- — moving south? He’s talking about moving auto manufacturing out of the U.S. after —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well —

Q — the UAW strike.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me just say that the President has — takes that very seriously. That’s one of the reasons — if you think about the CHIPS and Science Act and other legislation that — historic pieces of legislation that the President has been able to get passed and obviously he signed into law, bringing manufacturing back to the U.S., creating more than 800,000 manufacturing jobs under this administration. Obviously, it’s something that he takes really seriously.

He believes in “Made in America.” He believes in investing in America. So, always, we’re — we’re going to do everything that we can to make sure that continues.

As it relates to the beginning of your question, the President is a union guy. He believes that collective bargaining is the — is the right of union workers. He believes that it is — it is important, just like the UAW was able to — they were able to negotiate for their historic contract, that they should be able to that. They should be able to ask for better benefits and better wages, you know?

And so, that is something that the President is always going to speak for and is going to stand up for. And he’s — you hear him say this all the time: Unions build the middle class. And he believes that.

And as it relates to manufacturing, he has proven — he has proven through CHIPS and Science Act and other, as I messtin- — as I mentioned, other policies out there that bringing back manufacturing here into the U.S. is important. It’s critical. Creating good-paying jobs here in — in the U.S. is important. It’s criti- — it’s critical. We have to build an economy from the bottom up, middle out.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, appreciate it. We’ve seen estimates from some experts that the new policy announced by the Department of Ed opening up the possibility of debt relief for borrowers could reach, actually, tens of millions of borrowers. But it could still be a while off — still in the rulemaking phase, potentially more lawsuits.

So, what’s your message to borrowers right now who are looking at this news? You know, how should they be looking at this process? Can they get their hopes up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m not going to get — I’m not going to get ahead of commenting on what CO- — CBO is going to say. I’m not going to pr- — do any projection from here.

The President has been very clear. It’s kind of in line of what I said to Darlene about the importance — the importance for fighting for Americans, importance of making sure that we give them a little breathing room. That’s what the President believes.

And when it comes to his student debt relief, that is that. We see there are families across the country that’s crushed by student debt. And that shouldn’t be. And it prevents them — it prevents them from moving — from moving forward with buying a home, you know, starting a family.

And so, it is important that we — the President believes it’s important that we do everything that we can to do that. He has launched the most affordable income-driven repayment plan ever. That’s important. And he’ll continue to fight to deliver to reli- — to give relief to borrowers across the country.

So, that’s not going to stop him. I hope that. That’s what Americans continue to hear: that he’s going to do everything that he can to make sure that we give Americans a little bit more breathing room.

Q How confident is the White House that this new rulemaking approach will hold up in court?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we — we believe that this will stand up in court. We believe that that’s one of the reasons why, obviously, the Department of Education published this new proposed regulatory tax. And so, we’re very confident. We’re very confident that — that that will occur.

But it doesn’t — it’s not going to stop the President trying to figure out more ways — more ways to continue to make sure we give relief to borrowers across the country.

Q And last, can you just tell us any more about what we should expect to see tomorrow when the President visits East Palestine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s a good question. Obviously, we’ll have more to share later today as we put out the daily guidance.

As you know, and I’ve stated this before, the President, as you all know, is going to go to East Palestine, obviously. But he is going at the — at the invite of the mayor. The President is going to hear directly from the people of East Palestine.

This is a trip that he has been wanting to make but wanted to make sure that it was the right time to do. Obviously, when the derailment happened, the federal — federal agencies were on the ground within hours and — and many of them have continued to be there, whether it’s the EPA or FEMA.

And so, that’s what you’re going to see. We’ll have more details to share later today. But you will see a president that is — that goes out there — whether it’s a red state, blue state, urban America, rural America — to hear and make sure that he is a president for all, especially when they’re dealing with this — you know, this awful, awful event that happened specifically in this community.

And look, one of the things that we’ve heard from this community: They do not want to be just known for one event, right? But at the same time, we have to be there for them. We have to hold Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] accountable, which is what we’re going to do. The Department of Transportation obviously continues to do that. And he will be on the ground and he will hear directly — directly from the community.

Go ahead, Andrea.

Q Thank you, Karine. So, I just wanted to follow up on — on the — on the Kansas City Chiefs shooting. Does the President — he’s often gone to the site of shootings. Is he planning to go to Kansas City to, sort of, grieve with the people there in person and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, what I can say is obviously — let me just say — and I’ve already offered up our — obviously, our prayers for the families who lost their loved ones and to the victims, obviously, as well. Many of them are children.

And it is — one thing I can say for sure is the President is devastated by this and also frustrated. It is frustrating to continue to talk about and put out — for him to put out a statement — or for me, even — and, I’m sure, for all of you to cover another shooting.

And this gun violence epidemic is — is, you know, really destroying our communities. It is having an effect on our communities. And he is going to do everything that he can to continue to move forward with protecting our communities.

But Congress needs to act. Congress needs to act.

This is a president that has taken two dozen executive actions on this particular issue, obviously. We passed a historic piece of legislation in a bipartisan way just about two years ago.

It is time for Congress to do more. We need them to do more.

As it relates to travel to Kansas City, I don’t have anything to — to read out to you at this time or anything to announce. But, yes, it’s important to go to the communities when it’s needed — obviously, when they’ve had such tragedy.

But what is also important is Congress needs to act. This cannot continue. We cannot continue to see this epidemic.

As I mentioned, several children were part of this shooting. When you hear that gun violence is the number-one killer of our kids here in this — in the U.S., that’s not okay.

Q Is the President —

Q Karine, on that issue.

Q Sorry.

Q On Kansas City, though —

Q Is the President planning to speak to the victims and/or the families of the survivors? And then I have another quick one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. No, totally understand. Look, don’t have anything to read out on that. The President is keep — is keeping regularly updated by his team. Obviously, they’re going to continue their investigation on the ground, and we’re offering all — all support needed to — to law enforcement and also, obviously, the community.

But, again, this is something — it is incredibly frustrating. It is incredibly frustrating. We need to see more here. We need to see more from Congress.

Go ahead.

Q I’m sorry. Can you also confirm Daleep Singh is returning to the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: To who?

Q Daleep Singh, the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. I can’t confirm that. I don’t have anything for you on that. Yeah.

Q Just a quick —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You might know more than I do, actually.

Q A quick Kansas City clarification.

Q We couldn’t hear what she said. What did she ask?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Daleep Singh — she asked if Daleep Singh has come back to the — to the White House. I just don’t have —

Q Or is coming back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — anything else. Is coming back. I just don’t have any —

Q To replace Mike Pyle, yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Mike Pyle, yeah. I don’t have anything for you at this time.

Q A quick clarification on what you said about Kansas City at the beginning.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Because I’ve heard from a few people who were watching live as you said it. And according to the transcript, you said two people have died. The reports are one. Did you know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well —

Q Do you have different information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I did not know I have different information. From what I’ve been told from the team, we — the number that we have is two. And I can go back to make sure, but that is what I’ve been told from the team.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q So, that’s a different —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Totally understand that.

Q — death count than we’ve heard from elsewhere.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Totally understand. And I’m happy to — to make sure — to clarify that for all of you. But that is what I was told but from my team.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. No problem.

Go ahead.

Q Tomorrow marks one year since the President’s last physical. So, can you give us any type of sense of timing for when the next physical will be?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It will happen. I don’t have a timeline for you. It will happen. Hope- —

Q By end of month?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I don’t have a timeline. It will happen. And like we have done in the last two years, it will be transparent. We will have in — the — a memo for all of you. I just don’t have anything for you at this time. It will happen.

Q And last year, you gave us about a two weeks’ notice. On February 1st —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — you told us it would be February 16th. So, should we anticipate that you’re going to give us that amount of lead time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me — I will doublecheck with the team on this. I don’t have a timeline for you at this time. So, just don’t want to get ahead — ahead of what’s going on, obviously, with the team. So, I just don’t have anything more to share at this time.

But he will have one. He will have it. He will have a — obviously, a physical. We will be transparent, just like we have been in the last two years. And we, obviously, will — will provide his health records and all of the information as we’ve done the last two years.

Tamara, go ahead.

Q Yeah. On Tuesday, President Biden came out, and he said, “I’m not going to answer your questions today. I will answer them tomorrow and the day after.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q What was he talking about?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, he was outside yesterday, and he took questions from some of you.

Q And what about today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Today, I don’t have anything to share on his — beyond what you all know, don’t have anything to add on his public schedule.

Q Okay. And at the risk of tripping over the Hatch Act —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. Is that what I do — trip over the Hatch Act? (Laughter.)

Q No, I’m about to fall over it for you. Nikki Haley recently made a pronouncement about President Biden’s near-term plans, and I’m hoping to get your response. I will quote what she said over the weekend at an event. Quote, “My bet is 30 days from now, I don’t think Joe Biden is going to be the nominee. You’re going to have a female president of the United States. It’s either going to be me or it’s going to be Kamala Harris.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be very careful here. As you just stated, there’s a Hatch Act. I am a federal employee. I cannot speak to Nikki Haley’s, I don’t know, magic ball that she may have or whatever it is that she’s trying to predict.

I’m just going to be super, super careful here. And the President is obviously — you know his intentions for 2024. I’m just going to be — be very mindful.

Q And he doesn’t have any plans in the next 30 days —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The President —

Q — to exit stage left?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not sure what crystal ball she’s looking at, but it’s not the one we have. I’m going to keep going.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Q So, Kansas City Police Department has said that the shooting yesterday was a result of a dispute between — that involved two juveniles. I’m just wondering: Given the fact that Congress doesn’t appear likely to act anytime soon, are there any tangible steps the administration can take to help keep guns out of the hands of teenagers, particularly given that these happened in kind of neighbor- — neighborhoods all over the country?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s a good question. That’s why we say we need to do more. That is exactly why we say we need to do more. We need Congress to do more.

And I know your question about Congress. We have to put the pressure. We were able to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation that the President signed into law, obviously, two years ago. So, they took the first step. They need to take another step.

And there — there is executive action. There is obviously the office of anti-gun violence that we started here. It’s a historic office. It’s going to do everything that we can to help communities as they’re dealing with these types of tragedies to make sure we’re moving faster. And with the — the bipartisan law on — the Safer Communities Act, make sure things are moving at a rapid pace.

And so, that is kind of the goal of — of the office. But we actually need Congress to do more. We have to. We have to. And we have to put the pressure on them to do that.

Q If I’m not mistaken, it’s already illegal in most places for people under 18 to have guns. Is this an enforcement issue? Is — is it that law enforcement needs to step up to get guns out of kids’ hands?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, there are many issues — right? — obviously law enforcement issues. There are many issues that need to be addressed. And that’s why federal — federal legislation is important to this as well.

But look, we’re going to — I’m not going to get ahead of what the investigation is on the ground, what they’re looking into.

But it’s a problem. It is devastating. It is devastating for, once again, to talk about a shooting.

And it’s not the only shooting that happened this week or yesterday, even. And so, we have to get Congress to act. We have to get Congress to make sure that they’re continuing to do the work that they started, right?

If you think about high-capacity magazines, that needs to — that — assault weapons, we need to ban those.

Safe storage of guns — that needs to be something that we continue to require.

Pass a national red flag law. We see those in certain states, but we need that on a national level.

We need to enact universal background checks.

All of those things that I just laid out, as you’re asking me this question, is going to have an effect. And so, we need to see those — those items dealt with by Congress. We need to see legislation. That is one of the — that — one of the solutions to reduce violence.

Q Missouri also has very lax gun laws statewide. Is this also an issue at the state legislative level that — that the state legislatures —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look —

Q — aren’t imposing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — we believe —

Q — strict enough laws?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, obviously, it’s an issue at state legislative levels. But we’ve also lifted up some of these states that have done the extra — extra actions — right? — to make sure that their state is protected.

But we also need Congress to act so we can see a national red flag law, so we can see a ban of assault weapons — right? — so we can see high-capacity magazines also banned. These are all important. These are the things — that I just listed out — is going to save lives.

Go ahead, April.

Q Karine, on that subject, as you’re passionate from the podium about this and this is an election year, do you expect the President to lean in to push Congress to act on gun legislation, gun reform, et cetera, leaning in on a consistent basis this year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I think we’ve been pretty consistent on leaning in on what we’re seeing in communities — gun violence that we’re seeing in communities. We’ve been pretty consistent on calling out Congress.

I mean, this is the second time this week that I’ve talked about a shooting — I think maybe even the third time this week that I’ve talked about a shooting that’s occurred, whether it’s an anniversary or an active shooting that just happened that day.

And every time — every time I’m at the podium, every time I talk about this — these devastating events, I talk about what the President has done, I talk about what Congress — what he’s been able to do with Congress, and I’ve talked about what are the next steps.

And so, look, we have seen from Americans across the country, gun violence is an issue that is important to them. That’s why the President took — took historic actions. That’s why we have that Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that’s now law. Those things are important.

But we need to do more. We need to do more, and that is for Congress to do more.

Can you imagine — the first two years of — of the President’s administration, he did two dozen — more than two dozen actions? That’s unheard of, but that also shows you how committed he is to trying to stop this epidemic. To stop — if that doesn’t show commitment from this President, I don’t know what else.

And then having bipartisan conversation to pass the first — the first anti-gun-violence law in 30 years — in 30 years. I think the President has shown his commitment to this issue. What we need is Congress to take another step with us.

Q Is this a third rail issue during the presidential election season, you think, for the President?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: A third rail issue in what way?

Q Is it an issue — meaning it’s polarizing. The gun issue is very — it’s — it’s a very sensitive issue. You have Republicans and the gun lobby —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah?

Q — who will go (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I see what you mean.

Q — yeah — against him.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But, look, we’ve — we were able to do bipartisan legislation — right? — almost two years ago. We were able to do that. So, obviously, we have their attention. Obviously, there’s some care about what’s happening in our communities.

But we need to take them — take — let — get them to take a step further, right? The gun lobbies cannot own this. Right? Right? They — we cannot allow them to — to take away our rights or our ab- — you know, our ability to save lives. We got to save lives here.

Children — children were part of what we saw yesterday. It’s not okay.

Q And lastly, East Palestine, Ohio.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q The President is traveling there. I can’t help but think about when Obama went to Flint, Michigan, and he drank the water there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q I can’t help about Jackson, Mississippi, and some of the officials drinking water there. It’s two totally different situations with the water, but are you expecting the optics of the President drinking water tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can say this, that the President has no concerns with drinking — drinking the water in East Palestine. The EPA is confident that the drinking water is safe. I’m sure some of you might remember when the EPA Administrator Regan was — was there — one of the many times that he’s visited, he drank the water there last year. So, we have no concerns.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The Senate is on recess. They’re not back until the 26th. The House will go on recess until the 28th. And there’s a government funding deadline coming up on March 1st. Does the White House want to see Congress cut recess short and come back and deal with spending bills ahead of that deadline?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, you — you just said something that’s very true. Like, the House decided to leave early, and they went on recess. That’s what they decided to do while there are important issues in front of them that they’re just not dealing with. That’s the House leadership. They made that decision.

And, you know — and it’s kind of a — it’s kind of unfortunate. We need them to do the people’s business. They have a really important national security supplemental in front of them that they should take up — that if put on the floor, it would get bipartisan support. There was a border deal that — a bipartisan border deal that was — that came out of the Senate. They — the House leadership — the Speaker, more specifically — did not want to deal with it. He — he killed that bill.

I mean, there are issues upon issues that they can deal with, and they refuse to. Instead, they went and impeached Secretary Mayorkas on a baseless — baseless, shameful — shameful way.

And so, look, they left early. That’s for the — that’s for — for them to speak to. But that’s not what we’re — we want to see here. We want them to take action and actually move forward on the — and on behalf of the pe- — of the American people.

Q But the Senate is out, too. Are you concerned that they’re cutting this too close to get the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, we shouldn’t —

Q — the government funding done? And how worried are you about a shutdown in early March?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We — we believe — we’re always concerned about a shutdown. And — but we believe that Congress more — both House and the Senate — obviously, it’s their job to keep the government open. And we want them to do that. We want them to continue to keep the government open. It is their basic, basic duty to do that. And so, that’s what we want to see. That’s what we want to see. And they should act sooner, not later.

Go ahead, Jon.

Q Thanks a lot, Karine. The other day you were talking about the crime rate across the country. And you are absolutely correct in saying how the crime rate has gone down in several large cities, New York and Chicago.

But here in the District, it is not, and there were 274 homicides here in the District of Columbia in 2023. That’s the highest murder rate in more than two decades, since 1997. This is the President’s home, at least a few days a week. What can he do, personally, about reducing the level of crime that we’re seeing here in the nation’s capital?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just be very clear: All violent crime, not just here — all violent crime anywhere is completely unacceptable. We want to — I just want to make that very clear here.

You know, every community in this country should feel safe, wants to be — want to be safe. And so, that’s important.

But I will say this, you know, congressional Republicans, they don’t seem to feel that way. And I say this because the President has taken action. From the first piece of legislation that he signed into law, American Rescue Plan — only Democrats voted for that; Republicans didn’t vote for that — there was billions of dollars in that plan to deal with crime, to make sure there were law — more law enforcement in communities, to make sure that communities are able to — to keep — to keep families and Americans safe. They didn’t vote for that. And we’re talking about — we’re talking about billions of dollars to federal, state, and local governments, and they didn’t vote for it.

And so, look, I just talked about the bipartisan gun safety legislation, where he was able to secure that. He took that very seriously, worked with and went — in that particular instance, worked with both sides of the aisle to get that done, something we hadn’t seen, again, in 30 years.

Just last month, the Department of Justice committed more federal prosecutions — proc- — prosecutors, agents, and analysts to fighting gun crime in D.C. That matters. That’s an action that the Department of Justice took.

So, look, we need to do more, but the President has taken this very seriously from the first couple of months of his administration. Signing that American Rescue Plan and getting billions of dollars into communities was indeed incredibly important. Again, Republicans did not sign that. They did not. They did not vote for that.

Q So, it’s just a — a Republican issue — the large number of homicides that we’re seeing here in the District? There’s nothing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s not the question you asked me. You asked me — wait, wait —

Q Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, you asked me, “What else can the President do?” I laid out with the President did. I also called out Republicans for not doing enough, for not being — working with the President on trying to actually deal with an issue. That’s what you asked me. That’s what I answered.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q Can he fed- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Ed.

Q Can he federalize anything —

Q Thanks, Karine. Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Ed.

Q Thanks, Karine. Yeah, two very different questions. One on China and the southern border. More than 20,000 Chinese migrants have illegally crossed the southern border in 2024, and the vast majority, according to the National Border Patrol Council President, have been single men of military age. What kind of national security issue is this, given China’s hacking of U.S. infrastructure, the spying that they do, and the other aggressions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we take that very seriously — what’s happening at the border. Everybody — we try to make sure that, you know, as it — as it relates to unlawful — unlawful crossings, we certainly do everything that we can to make sure that — that we deal with that in a real way.

Look, the DHS has fully mobilized their agency to deal with what’s happening. We saw in January — we saw a 50 percent drop from the month before of — of illegal entries. That matters.

And so, this is why — to your question, this is why it was really important to get the border security negotiation done.

We understand there’s a challenge at the border. We understand we need to do more. We understand that there’s an immigration system that has been broken for decades. We had a bipartisan agreement. We wanted Congress, in the House, to pass that to move that forward, and they didn’t. And they didn’t.

And so, DHS is fully mobilized, is doing — since May of last year, they have been able to — they have been able to remove more than — more than 500,000 illegal crossings. And so, that is something that they’re going to continue to work really hard.

The President has added more C- — CBP, more — more patrol officers on the border. But, you know, we need more. We understand we need more.

Q And on the student loans — things you did. The CBO director testified on Capitol Hill yesterday saying that the fiscal policy currently is unsustainable. Then he went on to say that the changes to the SAVE program for forgiving more student loan debt would cost taxpayers more than $100 billion. Why is it worth all taxpayers to burden this cost?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the CB- — I’m not going to get ahead of a CBO proj- — project- — projection. I’m just going to be really careful here.

What the President has said over and over again — and I just went back and forth with one of you colleagues on this — he wants to make sure that we give Americans a little bit more breathing room. That is im- — important to this President.

We understand what student loans do for families. It crushes families. It crushes Americans.

So, he wants to continue to do everything that we can to make sure that they have that breathing room. And so, it’s not going to stop him. And we believe that actions that we take — I think that’s one of questions that I got from your colleagues — it — we believe that I has — it has legal — legal standing so that it can — we can move forward with them.

But, look, it is an important issue. It is an issue that Americans care about, and we’re just not going to stop moving forward on that.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, all right. All right. Bye, everybody.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll see you on the road, whoever is going to Ohio with us.

3:00 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.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:11 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, everybody.  Wow, this is a full house.

Q    They heard there was going to be candy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, Happy Valentine’s Day, everybody.  Let me just pass this around.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Keep our tradition here.

MR. SULLIVAN:  That’s from me.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s for — from Jake.  Jake insisted.

I just have one thing at the top, and then I’ll hand it over to our National Security Advisor.  But Happy Valentine’s Day.

As you all saw, last night the President and First Lady called Representative-elect Suozzi to condra- — congratulate him on his big win.

Just over a week ago, congressional Republicans killed the toughest, fairest bipartisan border security deal in a generation.

In other words — or in their own words, they cited Donald Trump’s concern that the deal would be effective and undermine his pol- — politics as their reason for opposing it.

Faced with the choice of joining President Biden and the Border Patrol union to secure our border, congressional Republicans instead sided with Donald Trump, fentanyl traffickers, and smugglers.  All because of politics.

You all saw the President’s reaction when the Speaker blocked border security.  He said, “I want to be absolutely clear about something: The American people are going to know why it failed.  I’ll be taking this issue to the country.”

Tom Suozzi bu- — put congressional Republicans’ killing of border security at the forefront of his campaign.

Here’s the Wall Street Journal this morning: Suozzi “called for securing the border and attacked — attacked Pilip for criti- — for critiquing Biden’s border approach without providing an alternative.” “Suozzi endorsed a bipartisan deal that would have established a new asylum process at the border.”

And what happened?  The people of New York’s 3rd District issued a strong repudiation of Republicans who put politics ahead of national security.

But shockingly, House Republicans are still at it right now, siding with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Tehran against our defense industrial base, against NATO, against Ukraine, against our interests in the Indo-Pacific.

They have a chance to learn a valuable lesson here: Stop what you’re doing. Put our national security first.

And now, as you all can see to my right, the National Security Advisor is here — Jake Sullivan — to speak to House — House representatives and how the urgent — what the urgent — the urgent need for them to take action to pass the national security supplemental.

Jake, the floor is yours.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Karine.  And Happy Valentine’s Day to everybody.  I’ll make a statement, and then I’d be happy to take your questions.

Yesterday, the Senate took important action to advance America’s core national security interests by overwhelmingly passing the national security supplemental agreement.

This bipartisan legislation will allow the United States to continue to support the people of Ukraine, alongside our allies and partners, as they fight every single day to defend their freedom and independence. 

It will provide Israel what it needs to defend itself against Hamas terrorists and other terror threats, and help replenish Israel’s air defenses so they’re prepared against threats they face from Iran and Iranian-backed militia groups like Hezbollah.  

It will provide resources for our troops in the Middle East who have faced attacks from Iran-backed militias as they continue the important mission of defeating ISIS, as well as our forces who are protecting international commerce in the Red Sea from persistent attacks by the Houthis. 

The bill will provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance for vulnerable people who have been impacted by conflicts around the world.  That includes millions of Ukrainians who have been displaced by Russia’s brutal invasion.  It includes conflicts in Sudan and Nagorno-Karabakh.  And this support also includes dealing with the urgent needs of the more than 2 million innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with Hamas.

We are engaged every day, and directly and at the highest levels, in getting more aid into Gaza and, once in Gaza, getting it to the people who need it.

In his calls and conversations with regional leaders, the President has worked through these challenges of humanitarian assistance at a concrete and granular level in order to help overcome obstacles and facilitate a sustained, increased flow of humanitarian assistance.

Innocent civilians in Gaza have suffered extraordinary pain and loss these last four months, and we’re working around the clock to find a way forward that brings peace, security, and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis alike, with the security of the state of Israel guaranteed.

The national security supplemental agreement also continues our important investments in the U.S. defense industrial base, supporting jobs across the country.  We have already ramped up production lines in 40 states over the past two years, expanding factories and hiring American workers to make the weapons Ukrainians are using on the frontline in their fight for freedom, thanks to previous funding that Congress that has provided. 

The investments this bill puts forward will allow us to strengthen our own domestic manufacturing capacity, revitalize our submarine industrial base, and improve our military readiness.

It also increases support to allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific and sends a powerful message that, even as we’re dealing with immediate crises and challenges in Europe and the Middle East, we’re keeping our eye on the ball and the long-term strategic position of the United States of America in the critical Asia-Pacific region.

You heard the President yesterday thank the broad bipartisan coalition of senators who came together to advance this agreement, and he urged Speaker Johnson to quickly bring this bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.  Because we know if that vote comes to the floor of the House of Representatives, it will pass on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, just as it did in the Senate.

As the President said, we cannot afford to wait any longer.  Every day comes at a cost to the people of Ukraine and to the national security interests of the United States of America.

The stakes are getting higher, the costs of inaction are also getting higher every day, especially in Ukraine.  We’ve been increasingly getting reports of Ukrainian troops rationing or even running out of ammunition on the frontlines as Russian forces continue to attack both on the ground and from the air, trying to wear down the Ukrainian air defenses that we’ve worked so extensively to build up over the past two years.

So, our allies are watching this closely.  Our adversaries are watching this closely.  There are those who say U.S. leadership and our alliances and partnerships with countries around the world don’t matter or should be torn up or walked away from.

We know from history that when we don’t stand up to dictators, they keep going.  And the consequences of that would be severe for U.S. national security, for our NATO Allies, for others around the world. 

And so, President Biden is determined to get this done on a bipartisan basis, through the House of Representatives, to get this aid out the door so that we are helping our friends and partners and we are helping ourselves.

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

Yeah.

Q    Thanks, Jake.  Shortly before you came out, Congressman Mike Turner issued a statement saying that President Biden should declassify intelligence related to a, quote, “serious national security threat.”  What can you say about the threat and what the administration plans to do?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, first, I reached out earlier this week to the Gang of Eight to offer myself for a — up for a personal briefing to the Gang of Eight.  And, in fact, we scheduled a briefing for the four House members of the Gang of Eight tomorrow.  That’s been on the books. 

So, I am a bit surprised that Congressman Turner came out publicly today in advance of a meeting on the books for me to go sit with him alongside our intelligence and defense professionals tomorrow.  That’s his choice to do that. 

All I can tell you is that I’m focused on going to see him, sit with him, as well as the other House members of the Gang of Eight tomorrow. 

And I’m not in a position to say anything further from this podium at this time, other than to make the broad point that this administration has gone further and, in more creative, more strategic ways, dealt with the declass- — declassification of intelligence in the national interest of the United States than any administration in history. 

So, you definitely are not going to find an unwillingness to do that when it’s in our national security interest to do so.  At the same time, we, of course, have to continue to prioritize and focus very much on the issue of sources and methods.  We’ll do that.  Ultimately, these are decisions for the President to make. 

But in the meantime, the most important thing is we have the opportunity to sit in a classified setting and have the kind of conversation with the House Intelligence leadership that I, in fact, had scheduled before Congressman Turner went out today.

Q    And then —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    But — but just to be clear, Turner calls this an “urgent matter with regard to a destabilizing foreign military capability.”  Are you aware that there is an emerging serious threat here that he’s referring to?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Again, I’ll just say that I personally reached out to the Gang of Eight.  It is highly unusual, in fact, for the National Security Advisor to do that.  I did that to set up a meeting.  The Senate is not here.  The four House members have agreed to that meeting.  This was well before Congressman Turner came out today.  We’ll have that conversation tomorrow.  I’m not going to say anything further today.

Q    But do you believe that was — that this is about the same thing?  When you set up that meeting to reach out to them, were you intending to discuss this matter?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I — again, I’ll — I’ll leave it to you to draw whatever connections you want.  All I can say is I’ve reached out to see Turner.  Turner has gone out publicly.  I’m going to go see Turner tomorrow.  That’s where I want to leave things for today. 

Q    Hey, Jake —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    — without this funding, how long can Ukraine hold off the Russians?  And then, do you have other ways to get them weaponry, such as through NATO Allies?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, first, our NATO Allies have stepped up in a significant way when it comes to burden-sharing in the provision of military assistance to Ukraine.  Take a country like Germany, which has offered up $8 billion over the course of this year for Ukraine.  And many of our other allies have brought forward a significant number of capabilities, from the UK all the way over to the Baltics.  They will continue to do that. 

But the United States has provided a significant share of that, and that hole cannot be fully filled by other allies and partners.  And we need to stare that truth square in the face. 

In addition to that, when it comes to some of the capabilities that the United States has that other countries don’t have, we need the drawdown authority and resources to go with it so that we can replenish our stocks so that we can give things that we have that others don’t have.  So, when you put it all together, there just is no substitute for the United States coming forward with this funding. 

As far as how long Ukraine can hold on, I mean, you’re talking about a brave, resilient, courageous, determined people who are defending their homeland.  They’re going to keep fighting.  But they’re going to fight from a less strong position if they do not get the replenishment of ammunition, air defense interceptors, and other capabilities that they need to be able both to withstand Russian advances and to take territory back that the Russians are currently occupying.  So, I can’t put a timetable on it. 

All I can say is that each passing day, each passing week, the cost of inaction from the United States that’s being borne on the frontlines by brave Ukrainians is rising.  And that’s why we so urgently need to pass this bill. 

Yeah.

Q    I have a question on the Middle East.  But just a quick follow-up on what Congressman Turner said.  Is there anything you can say to characterize what this threat is or what country it involves?  I mean, should the public be alarmed at this point, since he has said this publicly?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m not in a position to say anything further today.  Like I said, I look forward to the discussion with him.  And obviously, from there, we will determine how to proceed.  But standing here at the podium today, I can’t share anything further. 

Q    And my question on the situation in the Middle East.  As you are pushing for this weeks-long humanitarian pause and hostages release, does the U.S. expect that Israel would pick up its military operation once that temporary pause in fighting is over?  Or is the expectation or maybe even the hope that that temporary pause would turn into a permanent pause and effectively an end in the war?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, what the President said earlier this week, when he was standing with King Abdullah after their meeting, is that we’re looking for a temporary pause as part of a hostage deal and then to build on that into something more enduring.  What that looks like exactly, on what parameters, where Hamas fits into that, all of the other pieces, that’s things that we’re going to have to work through with our partners in Israel and with others.  But the goal would be to start with a temporary pause and see what we can build from there.

Q    But not have the fighting resume after that temporary pause.  Is that right —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well —

Q    — that that is the goal?

MR. SULLIVAN:  — the — the idea is that you have multiple phases as part of a hostage deal, and you try to move from one phase to the next so that an initial period of pause can be extended as more hostages come out, more commitments are made, and so forth.  Where that goes exactly, I can’t predict today. 

What we would like to see — what the President also said in his remarks — is that Hamas is ultimately defeated, that peace and security come to Gaza and to Israel, and that we then work towards the longer-term issues related to a two-state solution with Israel’s security guaranteed. 

But it all begins by trying to get that pause in hostilities for a certain period of time, and then that opens the potential options for where things can go from there without prejudging anything because this is a dynamic situation.  And we’ll have to stay in very close consultation with the Israelis to ensure that their interests, their security is continuing to be protected in all of this. 

Yeah.

Q    Thanks, Jake.  On FISA, there are a couple of amendments that are being considered.  One of them would require a warrant for every query of lawfully collected data.  If that were to pass and get into the bill, would the President veto that bill?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I’m not in a position to stand here today and make veto threats on behalf of the President.  Those are –- are, you know, decisions for him to make. 

What I will tell you is that we do not believe that that serves the national security interests of the United States.  And, in fact, today, I will be making that case to a number of members — that the warrant requirement as conceived is not the best way actually to ensure the protection of the personal privacy of Americans.  There are a number of other elements of the bill that we have supported that would reform and update FISA to protect the civil liberties of Americans, but a warrant requirement from our perspective would go too far in undermining the very purpose of FISA, and, frankly, it would put victims at risk. 

Yeah.

Q    Also, on TikTok, sir.  Just as the Nat- — National Security Advisor, is it at all problematic for the President’s campaign to be using a platform that is deemed a national security threat?  Is that — is there a risk that mixed messaging here could be a problem?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I — I’m not going to deal with campaign questions here.  All I will say is that the United States has supported legislation in the Congress to give us a broad set of tools and authorities to deal with the larger issues of social media platforms.  We continue to hold that position.  Nothing in that has changed. 

Yeah. 

Q    Thanks, Jake.  Is there any update that you can give on the 301 tariffs review on China?  Do you know when we can expect a decision on that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I can tell that I’m fulfilling everyone’s deepest desires here — and I’ll answer your question too — by saying I have nothing to offer you on that, other than that review is ongoing, and when we have something to share, we’ll share it. 

Yeah.

Q    Thank you very —

Q    And one more just on Secretary Austin.  I know that he’s recovering from the hospital.  But is there conversations about contingency if he’s not able to continue to serve, just given that this is the second time he has been hospitalized?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I spoke with Secretary Austin at some length yesterday afternoon — secure — on a range of issues.  He is very much in the saddle doing his job, doing it as — with the same level of effectiveness and capacity that he always has.

And of course, there is protocol, but that protocol has existed for a long time.  It’s the delegation of authority to the Deputy Secretary who takes on the duties of an Acting Secretary.  That happened a few weeks ago.  It happened again yesterday.  And that’s all built into longstanding department protocols that ensure the sanctity of the chain of command.  That’s how we intend to continue to proceed. 

Q    Jake, I want to ask you about Israel in a second.  But just a quick follow-up just to put this to rest.  Obviously, the House Intelligence Chair is speaking out about an imminent or — he doesn’t say “imminent” — serious national security threat.  The lack of your ability to say anything has the potential to raise distress for some Americans. 

In the simplest of terms, can you tell Americans that there’s nothing they have to worry about right now in terms of what he describes as a national security threat?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I think in a way that question is impossible to answer with a straight “yes” — right? — because Americans understand that there are a range of threats and challenges in the world that we’re dealing with every single day.  And those threats and challenges range from terrorism to state actors.  And we have to contend with them.  And we have to contend with them in a way where we ensure the ultimate security of the American people. 

I am confident that President Biden, in the decisions that he is taking, is going to ensure the security of the American people going forward, and I will stand here at this podium and assert that, look you in the eye with confidence that we believe that we can and will and are protecting the national security of the United States and the American people. 

Q    Perfect.  Thank you for your answer. 

I just want to ask you then about Israel, which is my — which is my primary question here, which is that the White House has said it would like to have from Israel a credible plan in terms of what it’s going to do in Rafah to avoid civilian casualties there.  What does the White House believe that plan needs to look like?  And what is the consequence for Israel if it doesn’t meet that desire of the United States?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I’m not going to lay out all of the details standing here at the podium, because those are intensive conversations we’re having with the Israeli government right now in detail.  But broadly speaking, it means being able to deal with three realities. 

One reality, you’ve got more than a million people in a very small area, and those people have to have a place to go that is safe. 

A second reality is that the aid that Palestinian civilians rely upon comes in through Rafah, and so if military operations either disrupt the crossings — Kerem Shalom and Rafah Crossing — coming in or disrupt the distribution points, that will make it more difficult to move aid around.  So, we need answers to the question not only where do people go, but how do they get a sustained level of aid — food, medicine, water, shelter. 

And then the third reality is that this is pressed right up against the Egyptian border.  And you’ve heard directly from the Egyptians their concern about what that could potentially mean on that border.  And there needs to be a clear answer to that question as well. 

Those are the kinds of things we are talking about with the Israeli government.  And the President has been clear, as we — as he said in his remarks on Monday, we need to see that credible and implementable plan.

Q    And the consequence if they don’t meet that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I’m not going to speculate here today on the if/then hypothetical.  I will just say that our position on the question of Rafah is clear, and we are pressing very hard on this basic issue that you’ve got exposed, vulnerable civilians in Rafah.  They need to be protected. 

Q    Thank you, Jake. 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah. 

Q    Yeah, thanks, Jake.  What is your response to this idea pushed by Donald Trump that foreign aid should be — to other countries should be treated as a loan?  It’s an idea, a concept that appears to have picked up steam with some Republicans, Linds- — Senator Lindsey Graham citing that as the reason he voted against the supplemental funding package.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, there can be a place for loans in foreign assistance.  There have been for a long time.  But there’s a number of categories of foreign assistance where that makes no sense.  You know, try telling a Palestinian mother in Gaza that, you know, to get a piece of medicine, they have to take out a loan. 

Humanitarian assistance in the best traditions — bipartisan traditions of the United States has never been a loan.  It’s been something we provide to people in desperate need in conflict situations.  So, that’s one category where I think the loan concept just has never applied and makes no sense to apply.

The second is when you’re dealing with a country that is fighting for its life, like Ukraine, that needs an economy to remain basically afloat, basically intact, to not collapse and have the entire weight of the country collapse with it.  Talking about loans as opposed to providing the necessary infusion of cash is only going to make the economic problems of that country worse at a time we are trying to make them better, because a stronger, more stable, more secure Ukraine is in the fundamental national security interest of the United States.  So, there’s another place where it wouldn’t make sense.

And then, of course, you have the funding for Israel in the supplemental, including money designed to ensure Israel’s security. 

I would ask the question: Is Donald Trump and is Lindsey Graham saying that we should only be providing that money on a loan basis?  Or that the memorandum of understanding that has been supported on a bipartisan basis over the course of a decade should be converted into a loan?  I think you would probably find them taking a different approach on that question.

So, from our perspective, we look at every element of U.S. foreign assistance through the lens of: Does it help solve a problem?  And does it help advance the security and values of the United States?

And we believe that we can answer that question, yes, for what we’re putting forward in the supplemental.  And we believe we can put it forward for what’s in our base budget as well.

Q    And then on another topic.  Are you able to confirm a Wall Street Journal report today that the U.S. is investigating the potential use of white phosphorus by Israel on a recent attack in Lebanon?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I mean, we look at reports that happen in all conflict situations all around the world.  That’s part of what we do to ensure our own compliance with international obligations.  But I can’t confirm any particular formal review of the kind that you’re referring to.

Yeah.

(Cross-talk.)

MR. SULLIVAN:  Go ahead. 

Q    Thanks, Jake.  I wanted to ask — there was an Axios report on a shipment of flour being blocked by Israel getting into Gaza.  Can you confirm that this aid hasn’t been able to come through?  And if there’s already issues right now getting aid like flour in to Palestinian people, then, when an operation, you know, does happen in Rafah, how can you guarantee that that aid will still be able to come through?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, that’s why we’re asking the question on the aid coming through.  And you’re right, that aid — that flour has not moved the way that we had expected it would move.  And we expect that Israel will follow through on its commitment to get that flour into Gaza. 

But we are asking the question: How do you do something like Rafah and make sure all those innocent people not only are protected physically, but can have access to aid?  That is precisely the point that we are pressing on quite actively as we speak.

Q    And can I just ask about the Munich Security Conference really quick?  The VP, obviously, headed there today.  The President said, when he went three years ago, that “America is back,” “the Transatlantic Alliance is back.”  But there are some concerns from European allies about that.  So, what message can the VP send when she heads there today?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well look, one thing she can say is that the NATO Alliance is bigger, stronger, and more vital than it has been in 75 years — having just added Finland and about to add Sweden.  That since President Biden took office, we’ve gone from nine NATO Allies who were hitting their 2 percent threshold to 18.  We have doubled that number in three years. 

You’ve got NATO countries stepping up now with implementable plans for the defense and deterrence of the east and the south in a way that you never did before.  And you have unity among the NATO Alliance in a way that has really been pretty unprecedented in modern memory. 

So, she’s going to go with a story to tell not just about that, but about how the U.S. and Europe are aligned on some of the challenges we see — from the People’s Republic of China, how we’re aligned on thinking about a clean energy transition, how we’re aligned on sanctions against Russia and standing up for Ukraine. 

So, her — but she’s also going to say, you know, we’re at an important moment here and it is a time for choosing.  And — and President Biden is making clear where he stands on these issues, and he thinks the American people are with him in standing strong for NATO and for transatlantic unity.

Yeah.

Q    Thank you, Jake.  There has been rocket fire exchange between Hezbollah and — and Israel today.  Do you think that can slip into some kind of escalation? 

And on Gaza, President Abbas has asked Hamas to compromise and conclude the hostage deal.  Will the United States put more pressure on Netanyahu to compromise as well? 

And, you know, there’s only one functioning hospital in Gaza for one and a half million people.  Many paramedics and doctors have been killed, as you know very well.  What can you do?  Is this acceptable for the U.S.?  What can you do, apart from the humanitarian aid, that actually there is functioning hospitals for so many people who’ve been injured?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we do remain concerned about the possibility of escalation along Israel’s northern border between Israel and Hezbollah.  Hezbollah has been firing deeper and deeper into Israel, including in recent days.  This is a matter of concern for us.  It’s something that we are in very close contact with the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence services, and the political leadership about. 

And we will continue to work to try to generate an outcome in which Israel’s security is guaranteed, their people can return to their homes, and the terror threat from Hezbollah is not the kind of acute threat that it has grown into as — as Hezbollah has moved closer and closer to the border in recent years.  So, we will keep working on that. 

With respect to the hostage deal, President Biden spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend.  He made a strong — he strongly advocated for moving forward to get this deal done and to capitalize on the progress that we have seen.  He will continue to do that, and we will continue to stand up for the need to get a hostage deal to get those innocent people home and also to get a sustained pause that can help us move a lot more humanitarian assistance in and, frankly, in that context, also deal with some of the urgent medical needs that your last question raised. 

A hostage deal, a sustained pause opens the door to being able to alleviate a significant amount of the suffering, including the medical suffering of the people — the Palestinian people. 

It’s interesting what Abbas said.  I’d just make one more point about Rafah.  You know, we have been unequivocal, as I have from this podium today, about the need for a credible and implementable plan to protect civilians. 

I would also point out that Hamas has to account for itself as well.  Hamas is hiding amongst civilians, embedding itself amongst civilians in ways that also put those civilians at risk. 

And so, some of the international community’s questions and pressure should be on Hamas as you —

And Abbas coming forward to do that today is kind of unusual, because there hasn’t been enough of that from enough voices in the international community.

Q    Jake, can I follow up on Gaza — on deal.?  Because the Israeli Prime Minister has decided not to send a delegation to Cairo for the talks.  So, what does this say about the prospect of this hostage dea- — deal?  Do you believe it can be reached? 

And I have another question on Venezuela, but
can I ask —

MR. SULLIVAN:  We believe that there can be a deal, there should be a deal, and everyone should keep working hard to get that deal. 

I can’t speak to the specific tactics of a meeting on any given day, but the direction of travel has got to be everybody doing everything they can, including the government of Israel, to try to reach a deal that is good for Israel, that is good for regional security, and that the United States is going to keep pushing hard on privately with the Israeli government and publicly from this podium. 

Yeah.

Q    Can I ask one on Venezuela very quickly?  Because the administration — do you believe the administration misread Maduro’s intention?  Do you think — now do you think the elections in Venezuela can be fair?

And another question very quickly about Brazil, because recently President Biden and President Lula exchanged letters related — defending democracy.  Last week, the Brazilian Federal Police seiz- — seized the passport of former President Bolsonaro as part of an investigation of attempted coup in Brazil after the election.  And do you think the U.S. can learn something related to these from Brazil and work together?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, on your first question, the structure of the understanding between the United States, the Maduro regime, and the opposition was not built on some kind of, you know, enduring faith in the implementation of the agreement.  It was built on verification. 

So, what did we do?  We did a six-month license for certain sanctions alleviation.  That six months is up in April. 

We will see, at that point, where we are with respect to the Maduro regime following through on its commitments, and then we’ll make our determinations about how we proceed from there. 

So, embedded in the structure of the deal was the very kind of verification to see whether or not they were prepared to do the things they said they were going to do.  We weren’t going to prejudge whether they were they weren’t.  We were going to design an outcome where if they did, okay, we can move forward.  And if they didn’t, all right, we would take a different course.  And that’s exactly how we intend to proceed. 

So, we laid out up front what we were going to do, and that’s how things will transpire from here. 

And I — I’m afraid I don’t have any comment on the particulars of the case in Brazil.  You know, that’s become a matter for the Brazilian courts to decide, and it probably wouldn’t be appropriate for me to opine on from this podium.

Yeah.

Q    Thank you.

Q    (Inaudible) Brazil — sorry.

Q    Thank you, Jake.  Two questions on the Middle East.  In — in Gaza in recent weeks, there have been two 17-year-old U.S. citizens killed by Israeli Defense Forces.  And there are at least three more U.S. citizens who have been detained in the West Bank by Israeli forces. 

What’s — what Biden administration to — doing to protect American citizens in Gaza and the West Bank right now?  And then I — I have a follow-up.

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, first on that.  In these cases, when we see reports like this or we get outreach from families, we engage with the Israeli government on it.  There are investigations pending in — in the cases that you described, and we’ll continue to work that aggressively. 

And we have made clear from the start that the United States is focused on the welfare and wellbeing of American citizens wherever they are, whether it’s in the West Bank or Gaza or Israel or any other country in the region or indeed in the world.  That remains the commitment of the President, and that’s what he will continue to do. 

Q    And on a broader political question on this — this conflict and these relations with the Israeli government: Prime Minister Netanyahu has had, in the past, no qualms about meddling in American politics, usually to the detriment of Democratic presidents.  I’m sure you’re familiar with this history. 

Why — why does the President believe that Netanyahu is operating in good faith?  And is there any concern, either among the President or his advisors, that the Prime Minister is deliberately inflaming the situation, in part, at least, because he believes doing so will inflame voters here in some constituencies, reduce support for President Biden, and possibly get him a more sympathetic president in January 2025 who would give him a free hand to do whatever he wanted?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m not going to characterize the motives of another political leader from another country from this podium.  I see no — no upside in that. 

President Biden has had a long relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  It is a direct and candid relationship. 

The touchstone of everything the President does when it comes to dealing with any Israeli prime minister is: It’s not about the leader; it is about the security of the State of Israel, the U.S.-Israel relationship, and the — and most fundamentally the American national security interest. 

That’s what’s going to motivate his decisions.  And — and I’ll leave it at that.

Q    Having said —

Q    Jake —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    Having said that —

Q    Thank you —

Q    Thank you, Jake.  I’ve got a question about Chinese lab safety, and then China-Ukraine question for you.  On Chinese lab safety.  There was a scientific study preprint last month that went viral that’s reignited concerns about Chinese as — scientific research after the coronavirus, of course, killed more than a million Americans after potentially leaking from the Wuhan lab. 

In this study, humanized mice were injected with the coronavirus variants, and the variant killed nearly 100 percent of them, which scares people, of course, because I mean, that’s all of them. 

There are a lot of unknowns about this, but there are prominent scientists who are saying this research is reckless.  So, I was wondering if you could say if the U.S. government is following this study and if there there’s anything broader you could say about the concerns about Chinese lab safety?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we’ve documented in the past, over many years, concerns about biosafety, biosecurity practices of a number of countries, China being one of them.  That’s something we continue to be vigilant about because biosafety and biosecurity, particularly of hazardous bio substances anywhere in the world, can ultimately come back and harm Americans.  So, it remains a significant focus of multiple agencies of the U.S. government.  And we’ll keep working on that.

Q    And on —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    Yes —

Q    — China, Ukraine, there — there are a couple of significant developments recently in investigations into the President’s role in his family’s foreign business dealings that bear on current political debates, and I was hoping that you could help Americans digest these bits of information.

On China, there was a recent rel- — revelation from impeachment inquiry testimony that the President in 2017 met with the chairman of CEFC China Energy at the Four Seasons Hotel not far from here.  Ye Jianming has since gone missing in China amid corruption allegations.  How does — how do — how should people think about that amid U.S.-China tensions and the President’s potential exposure here?

And in Ukraine, according to laptop records and a former business partner, the mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, was involved with the Burisma subsidiary that was chaired by the First Son.  How should Americans think about that amid the Ukraine foreign aid debate?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’ve got nothing for you on that.  Yeah.

Q    Thank you.  Thank you, Jake.  On the — I’m sorry, on the NCG agreed upon by the President Biden and South Korean President Yoon last year.  And what is the reason for the transition of the U.S. and ROK nuclear conservative groups from the National Security Council to being read by the Ministry of Defense?  What is the reason for the transition for that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, first of all, the NSC remains fundamentally engaged in the NCG.  And this is an interagency process.  It involves our Department of Defense, it involves our Department of State, the NSC, our intelligence community — and the same on the other side. 

This was directed by our two presidents out of the summit here in Washington — the Washington Declaration.  It remains a high priority for all of us. 

And the work of the NCG, frankly, speaks for itself.  And we will continue to be proud of that work because we believe it’s enhancing the security and extended deterrence in the U.S.-ROK alliance. 

I’ll take one more question.  Yeah.

Q    Thanks, Jake.  The — do you have any more information on Ukraine’s claims to have blown up a Russian warship in the Black Sea?  And could I also ask you what that says about Ukraine’s ability to carry on operations despite the current blockage of U.S. aid? 

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I don’t have anything beyond what the Ukrainians themselves have come out publicly to say. 

And, you know, as I was saying earlier, it’s not like Ukraine is going to lay down.  They’re defending their country.  They’re going to fight with everything they’ve got.  And they have capabilities they’re getting from other countries, capabilities that they are developing indigenously with their own defense industrial base.  That will continue. 

The point that I was making is the gap between that and where they can and should be with American assistance backing them is a significant gap — a gap that needs to be filled for Ukraine to achieve its long-term aims in this war.

Q    Jake —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thanks, everybody.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    A question on the President, specifically, Jake.

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

Hey, Josh.

Q    Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good to see you. 

Q    Good to see you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I will say this, it’s been a while, I feel like.  (Laughter.)

Q    Yeah, that’s true.  It’s true.  Happy Valentine’s Day.  Thanks for the gummy bears.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Happy Valentine’s Day.

Q    So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Chocolate — was it chocolate?  No, it was —

Q    Gummies.

Q    It was bears.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Bears, yeah. 

Q    I was bears.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  I bought it. 

Q    I think — I think German-made, though, maybe?  Haribo?  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, gosh.  Well, there you go.  Heart — heart — heart candy, right?

Q    So, two questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    First, is the White House confident that the Democratic-led Senate can and will move quickly to dismiss the impeachment case against Secretary Mayorkas?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, here’s what I can say.  And you saw the President’s statement yesterday, last night, on — on what occurred in the House.  And we’ve been very clear about how we feel about what’s occurring on the House. 

I do want to just — I know we — we’ve gotten these questions a couple of times.  I do want to say that the President did connect with Secretary Mayorkas earlier today, and they — and you saw the President’s statement last night, which said that, you know, history will not — will not look kindly on House Republicans for this blatant act of what we believe to be unconstitutional — unconstitutional bipartisanship [partisanship].

And so, we believe that what occurred last night is b- — is — is baseless.  It’s shameful.  We have to remember this is a — this is a Secretary who worked really hard with the Senate to try to get that bipartisan agreement with — obviously, with Republicans and Democrats when it — as it — as it relates to the border security. 

And we believe if that had been put into place, if we hadn’t — if it had been moved forward, it would have been the tough — yes, the toughest, but also the fairest piece — piece of legislation, obviously, would have been into law that would have dealt with a broken immigration system, beginning to deal with that, and, obviously, the challenges that we see at the border.  And it’s unfortunate that — that House Republicans prioritize politics instead of actually getting that done. 

I’m certainly not going to speak to the process of the Senate.  The Senate is going to move forward in whatever — in whatever way that they will.  But we’ve been really, really, really clear that what we saw — that the vote coming out of House Republicans — they would rather play politics instead of doing their jobs. 

And we saw bipartisan support against the impeachment just last week.  And so, it is unfortunate that this occurred.  It is truly unfortunate. 

And so, I’m just going to leave it there for now. 

Q    And then, secondly, Speaker Johnson has suggested that he needs a one-on-one meeting with President Biden.  Given that Johnson has said he doesn’t feel rushed on foreign aid, would that one-on-one meeting help?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and I appreciate the question, Josh, but the President met with — met with, obviously, congressional leadership less than a month ago — just less than a month ago.  And he made really clear how important it was to get that bipartisan-negotiated legislation coming out of the Senate, how important it was to get that — to move that forward. 

And let’s not forget, it’s almost as — it’s almost as if this — the Speaker is actually negotiating with himself — truly — because he first said he needed to see the border security in the deal, in the national security supplemental deal, right?  Meaning, like, border security needed to be dealt with first, because it obviously — it was in the national security supplemental that the President put forward in October. 

He wanted to see that done first.  We did that.  The Senate delivered that.  The Senate, the President, in a bipartisan way, delivered that. 

Then, he doesn’t want it.  Then, he doesn’t want it in there, right? 

And so, then, of course, the Senate goes back, takes it out, and presented a national security supplemental without the border.  Then, he’s like, “Well, I don’t want that, either.” 

So, what is it?  He decide — instead, he decides to choose Donald Trump. 

And let’s not forget, there’s fentanyl traffickers, right?  That’s what he — he sided with over the Border Patrol, over — over this President and what — and doing what majority of Americans wants us to do.  He’s the one killing this.  He is. 

And what we believe is there is indeed bipartisan support in Congress for it.  There is, and we’ve heard that.  We’ve heard that there’s bipartisan support.

House Republicans, like Andy Biggs, have been explicit that it would pass the House if allowed a vote.  And that should happen.  Even in House Republican leadership is — is aligning, right?  They’re aligning. 

If you think about — you just heard — you just heard Jake Sullivan talk about what — how important it is to make sure we get that support to Ukraine, right?

By doing what they’re doing in the leadership, they’re supporting Putin, right?  They’re siding with Putin and Tehran.  You heard me say that at the top. 

So, if they were — if the Speaker would actually put this bipartisan bill to the floor that deals with our national security, it would actually pass in a bipartisan way out of the House.  And that’s where we are today. 

Q    But just to follow on that.  You mentioned that the President did meet with — with leaders about a month ago.  Since then, the Speaker’s office says the President has declined multiple requests that they have made for this one-on-one. 

I guess, just given what you and the President say is at stake here, why not meet with him?  I mean, it seems that you’re saying there’s — there’s just nothing to be gained —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, Ma- —

Q    — by the President getting in a room with the Speaker.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But, Mary, we — and I appreciate the — I get what you’re saying.  But we’ve actually delivered multiple times — the Senate has — on what the Speaker is asking for.

He first said to pull out — pull out — pull out — deal — I’m sorry, he first said: Put the border security — if you’re going to put border security into the national security supplemental, I want you to actually deal with it and come out with a deal that he would — that would move forward in a way that he would support.  And that border security negotiated deal that came out of the Senate in bipartisan way actually had provisions in there that he’s talked about for a long time, and then he rejected that. 

And so, then he was like, “I could only move forward with a national security supplement without border security.”  Then, in a bipartisan way, the Senate delivered on that. 

So, I — what is there to negotiate?  Really, truly, what is the one-on-one negotiation about when he’s been presented with exactly what he asked for?

So, he’s negotiating with himself.  He’s killing bills on his own. 

And if he were to put that bill that just came out of the Senate — the nat- — the national security supplemental that doesn’t have border security in it because he said he didn’t want it, he changed his mind — it would pass.  It would pass in a bipartisan way. 

So, it just — it just doesn’t make sense to us. 

Go ahead.

Q    So, how do you persuade him to put the bill on the floor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to continue to put pressure on.  We’re going to continue to answer the questions that you’re asking.  We’re going to be very clear — the President was very clear — very clear yesterday in his statement.  The National Security Advisor was very clear in his statement.  We have been talking to congressional leadership and congressional members for some time. 

And this is about — this is not about politics.  This is about national security needs.  And it is a critical — it is important to make sure Ukraine has what it needs.  It is critical and important to make sure we continue to — to give — to give what Israel needs to defend themselves against a terrorist organization. 

It is also critical and important to get that humanitary assistant [humanitarian assistance].  You just heard from the National Security Advisor how important it is to get that humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

And so, we — we’re — I think — I think the Speaker is confused.  I think the Speaker doesn’t understand what it is that his job is.  Put that bill to the floor.  Put that bill to the floor.  It will get bipartisan support. 

Go ahead, Jared.

Q    Does the White House still believe that there is an opportunity to sort of reopen the border and immigration talks or is that basically off now? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we want got to continue to move forward with a — with the challenges at the border.  That’s what we want to do: having those conversations, getting the necessary funding, the policy — the real policy, meaningful changes. 

I mean, that’s what was so important.  We spent the last couple of months talking to the Senate in a bipartisan way.  I mean, to deal with an issue that’s been around — immigration system, a broken system that’s been around — that’s been — we’ve been dealing with for decades.  So, we’re always open to have those conversations.  Always. 

But, you know, House Republicans want to do something different.  They don’t want — they sided — again, I was very clear: They sided with Donald Trump.  That’s what they decided to do.  They sided with fentanyl traffickers.  That’s what they de- — decided to do. 

When you have the Border Patrol union saying that they support a piece of legislation, that’s important.  That’s important.  When you have things in that bill that they — meaning House Republicans — have talked about endlessly for years and now they turn their backs on it.  That doesn’t make sense.  That doesn’t make sense. 

Of course, we want to move forward with dealing with that issue in a real way. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  I have a NATO question and then a Mid-East question.  Starting with NATO.  What does the White House make of candidate Trump’s proposal for a tiered Alliance at NATO?  And how would you characterize the difference between the Trump and Biden foreign policy doctrines?

And then, just secondly —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — is the administration seeking to reassure Allies in the wake of Donald Trump’s comments on NATO?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the National Security Advisor literally just answered that question moments ago, so I would refer you to what he’s — to the — to the transcript.  He did a wonderful job laying out how that all works.  So, I would refer you to Jake Sullivan’s comment just moments ago.

Look, I want to be really careful on — on making any comments on a 2024 election.  And so, you know, I’ll say this more broadly: The President has restored — has restored our alliances and made stronger in the world because of what this President has been able to do. 

And every — you know, he knows every Commander-in-Chief’s first job — right? — their first job is to make sure that the American people are safe.  That is what the President understands. 

And so, NATO is now — because of his leadership, it’s now larger, as you know, and it’s also the most vital that it’s been because of what this President has been able to do. 

And I think this President’s leadership speaks — speaks fully and speaks really loudly with our closest allies.  And it is — it is truly appalling what was said.  It’s — it’s unhinged.  And it endangers — it endangers our American national security and global stability when you hear that coming from a former president. 

So, you know, we’re going to continue to be steadfast.  The President understands how important it is to — to continue to make our Alliance strong with NATO.  And you’ve seen that — you’ve seen it in the past three years. 

But, obviously, those comments does not put our national security in the forefront.  It does not help keep — keep us safe.  And it is — it is appalling to hear those types of comments.

Q    Thank you for your comprehensive answer. 

Moving along to the Middle East.  Iranian proxies are still targeting Red Sea shipping vessels.  Why is that?  Why does the U.S. seem powerless when it comes to safeguarding commercial shipping?

And then just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — very quickly, the President’s campaign TikTok has been flooded with criticism over the U.S.’s support of Israel.  How do you respond to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I mean, our position hasn’t — doesn’t change.  Right?  We we’ve been really clear on our support for Israel to continue be able to defend itself, obviously, within the international humanitarian law.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

You’ve heard from Jake Sullivan and my other National Security Council colleagues, and you’ve heard from the President directly how important it is to do that, how important it is also to make sure that is — that we protect a civilian lives in Gaza.  We’ve been very clear.  That is why we’re working so hard. 

The President — you saw the Secretary just a couple of days ago be in the region, and we’re working so hard to get that humanitarian aid so that we can get American hostages home, so we get that humanitarian aid home — into — pardon me — into Gaza.  And so that’s always going to be what we’re going to lean into, continue to make sure we deliver on.  And so, that’s not going to change.

Obviously, I can’t speak to a campaign TikTok.  I’m — not something that I can speak to. 

But that has been our position and will continue to be.

Q    I mean, this isn’t a campaign issue.  These are Americans who are asserting their — their feelings on this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And we — and we have said all — we say — we say at all times — right? — it is important — we believe it’s important for Americans to —  we value their — we value their opinion.  We know this is a difficult time.  We get that.  We get that this is an incredibly difficult time. 

And we value and always make — we always make — obviously, bring the space — make sure there’s space available for folks to — to — for folks to, you know, share their concerns.  And so, that’s something that we’ve been very consistent here with.

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Senator Blinken spoke with Paul Whelan yesterday.  What prompted that phone call, and is there a new offer put up by the United States to secure his release?  What can you tell us?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, I — and you tal- — Secretary Blinken, so I would obviously refer you to the State Department to — to get more on that particular conversation. 

Look, we have been very clear.  We are always, always clear about believing and — and working very hard to make sure that Paul Whelan and also Evan get — come home.  And we do everything that we can.  We’re having those conversations to make sure that happens. 

I wish today, as I’m standing in front of you, I can say that there’s a deal and that we’ve made progress on that.  I just don’t have anything to share.  But — but we want to see Paul Whelan come home to his family and his friends, and we want to see Evan come home.  And don’t have anything to share on any deal or any further discussion.  But obviously, we have been very, very clear about that.

Q    No deal, but can you say that there has been another offer put forward by the U.S.? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything to share about another offer.  As — as you know, in the past, we have put forth offers that has not been taken seriously by — by the Russians.  And we’re going to continue to do — do everything that we can to get them home to their friends, to their families, and loved ones.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Jake talked about speaking with Secretary Austin yesterday.  Has the President had a chance to talk to him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, I can confirm that, yesterday, the President spoke to Secretary Austin, and obviously he continues to wish him a speedy recovery and is looking forward to the Secretary going back to the Pentagon.  Obviously, the Secretary is still working — is working from home.  But he’s looking forward for the Secretary to get back to the Pentagon.

Q    The President took time to call Congressman-elect Suozzi last night.  Any chance he talked to the Homeland Security Secretary about his impeachment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I think I said that at the top.

Q    Did you say that already?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, I did.

Q    Forgive me.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s okay.  That’s all right. 

Q    I was distracted by the gummy bears. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  The — the candy gummy bear — the heart candy coming through there. 

Q    And just real quick.  We asked Jake about this earlier.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    It seems to have really kicked up a hornet’s nest.  If there’s anything more to know later about this alleged serious national security threat, I think we would all just love to be, you know, briefed or informed in whatever way you guys can.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    If the timetable on his meeting, for example, moves up to today or something.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And Jake did say, at this time, he’s not in a position to speak about this.  I’m going to leave that to our National Security Advisor.  Obviously, it is in his lane — very much in his lane, but I will make sure that I pass that along. 

But, yes, just to answer your first question, as I did moments ago, the President did call Secretary Mayorkas earlier today, and they had a conversation.  I’m not going to get into their private conversation, but they did connect.

Oh, my goodness.  I’m going in the back.  Go ahead.  Way in the back, go ahead.  No, right — yeah.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We’ve spoken here about the White House’s outreach to Republicans about the Senate foreign aid bill.  But, for example, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was on TV last night sort of saying that she was a little bit skeptical about the humanitarian provisions in that bill.  What is the White House doing in terms of outreach to more progressive Democrats?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the — our Office of Leg Affairs and other White House officials are in — always in direct contact — continuous contact with congressional members — obviously, congressional leadership as well.  So, I can assure you that we’ve had regular conversations.  I’m not going to get into private conversation.

We hear the congresswoman’s concerns.  I just don’t have anything to share outside of what she said.

Q    And next week is the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  Should we expect, sort of, programming around that?  He has given — the President has given sort of big speeches about that in the past.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Yeah, and as you know, he went to Poland.  He went to Ukraine, actually, in a warzone country, obviously, last year in — and Poland.  I just don’t have anything to share about any travel or — or remarks.

Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Thanks.  When Secretary Austin was initially hospitalized or when the news came out about that, the White House said that there would be a hotwash about his hospitalization and why that information hadn’t been shared more quickly.  Can you give us an update on the status of that hotwash?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have an update.  I know that’s something that the Department of Defense was doing.  I don’t have an update on that.  I would refer you to them directly on that specific question.

Q    And then just one other question on East Palestine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Can you give us any more of a sense for why the President is going on Friday?  Why — why does Friday evening make the most sense?  And, you know, what can we expect to hear from him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’ll have certainly more to share with you.  As you just stated, the President is going to go to East Palestine this coming Friday.  It was at the invitation of the mayor.  The President has always said when the time is right and when it made sense for him to go, he would go.  And so, that’s what he’s doing. 

He’s going to be on the ground.  He’s going to get a briefing and — on what’s happening.  He’s going to hear directly from the people of Pales- — Palestine — Palestine.  And — and obviously this — this administration is continuing to make sure that Norfolk Southern is held accountable, and we want to make sure that we support the community as it moves forward.

And they have said they do not want to be defined — the community does not want to be defined by this one event.  And so, we’re going — the President is going to be on the ground.  And we’ve had those key important agencies — FEMA, including DOT and others, and EPA, obviously — on the ground since day one making sure that the community has what it needs.  And we’re going to obviously continue to call on Congress to pass the Bipartisan Railway Safety Act.

So, in short, the President is going to hear from the community.  We’ve been there since day one, hours after the derailment.  We continue to be on the ground.  We want to make sure that the community knows that we’re going to do everything possible to hold accountable Norfolk Southern.  And the President is looking forward to having those conversations and getting the briefing on the ground as — so, we’ll have more.

Go ahead, in the back.

Q    A new poll found that nearly one in five Americans believe that Taylor Swift was part of a plot to help President Biden win the election.  This conspiracy is particularly resonating with voters who believe the 2020 election was stolen.  Is the White House concerned at all about this conspiracy theory and the fact that so many Americans believe it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I mean, we’ve talked about this before.  Obviously, what we saw on January 6th in 2021 spoke to — spoke to that.  It was an attack on our democracy, and the 2,000-plus angry mob that was there was there falsely believing that they — it was their right or they could be able to turnov- — turnover — turnover an election.

That was, by the way — you know, there were Republican judges, Democrat judges, many others who said it was one of the safest elections that we’ve had and — and that the results, obviously, were the results of 2020. 

And so, do we — we have a concern about our democracy and where it’s going and protecting our democracy?  The President speaks to this all the time.  The President has made really critical, key remarks about that.  And does — Americans care about that.  You have a majority of Americans who actually believe that we need to protect our democracy, we need to protect our freedom.  We saw that in the results of 2022, in that midterm election.  That’s what came out of that — one of the big issues that came out of that. 

And so, we’re always going to be concerned, obviously, and speak to it.  And, you know, there’s a lot in front of Americans right now as it relates to our democracy, as it relates to our — to our freedoms. 

Anything else, look, I — you know, the Taylor Swift conspiracy, that’s for others to speak to.  I’m not going to speak that from here. 

Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Karine, the President said yesterday that he would be taking questions today or tomorrow.  What was he referring to?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to — to share at this time.  As you — as you know, the President takes questions from you all often.  I don’t have a — anything on the public schedule to speak to. 

As you know, the President is going to be in — in Ohio on Friday.  Just don’t have anything to share on his public schedule.

Q    Well, this is the second time, I think, in as many weeks that he has referenced taking questions at some point in the near future. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I’m just wondering: Are White House advisors having discussions about generally the President finding more opportunities to take questions from reporters?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, he said it last week, and he did.  He took questions from you on — on that Thursday when he said that he would get back to you on Thursday or see you on Thursday.  Give — he gave remarks and took questions. 

So, look, we always try to find ways to — for him to have engagement with all of you.  He takes initiative, obviously, on his own, many times, whether it’s on the South Lawn, whether it’s on the road, whether it’s here in the — at the White House to take questions from all of you.  I just don’t have anything on his schedule to speak to at this time.

Q    But was he likely referencing some kind of speech like he gave last week and then questions afterwards, or are we —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I really don’t have any — anything to share on the schedule.  I would say, you know, may- — you know, who knows.  We’ll see if something lands — lands on his schedule.  (Laughs.)  You guys asked me yesterday, and I’m always very, very careful on — on that. 

Q    It’s Valentine’s Day.  Are we going to have a late night?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s Valentine’s Day.  He wants to share his love to — with all of you.  I — you know, I just don’t have anything.  I mean, yesterday, you all — you —

Q    Do it before dinner time. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Do it before dinner time?  Oh, you have a date — date night tonight?

Q    Something like that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, you’re — you’re a good — you’re a good guy.  (Laughter.)

Q    I’m glad that’s in the official record.  (Laughter.)

Q    (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But you all asked that me that yesterday, and I — I’m always very careful, you know, and — and didn’t have anything at — at the time when you all asked me — asked me the same question. 

Look, I just don’t have anything right now to speak to — the President’s public schedule today or tomorrow. 

But stay tuned, as we like to say from here.  Stay tuned.

All right, everybody. 

Q    Karine, the three police officers —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We’ll see you tomorrow.

Q    Karine, the three police officers shot today in D.C.  Can you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  I’ll say — 

Q    Is the President aware of that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll say something about that because I think that’s important.  Give me one second. 

Q    Yeah, there were three police officers shot while trying to make an arrest.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I understand.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.  I got you. 

So, let me just say a couple of things here.  First and foremost, our hearts go out to these officers and their loved ones.  The President is praying they make full recoveries, and he is deeply grateful for the sacrifices police officers make to keep our community safe.  This shooting is yet another distressing and painful reminder of the toll gun violence is inflicting on families, on our communities, and, obviously, on our a — nation. 

It’s why the President has taken executive actions to help keep guns out of the dangerous hands and DOJ is implementing the new gun trafficking law in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. 

But it’s not enough.  We need — we need the Republicans in Congress to act.  We need them to be willing to make — to make sure that communities are safer.  That’s what we continue to ask them to do. 

The President is going to take — continue to take action to fund the police with billions of dollars in his budget that he’s put forth every year.  But he needs Republican laws and — lawmakers in Congress to make sure that they put law enforcement first, as well as the President has been doing.

Q    And to follow up —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — doesn’t, you know — in D.C., homicides are up, crime is up, carjacking is spiking.  Simple question: Does the President believe the nation’s capital is safe for Americans from across the country to come visit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we see — we hear the reports and see the data as well.  And all violent crime anywhere is completely unacceptable, not just here in D.C.  We’re going to call that — them all out in communities across the country. 

Everyone in every community in this country wants the same thing.  They want their families to be safe.  And — and not getting into a — not get into, you know, politics on this.  The President is wanting to make sure that communities feel safe. 

And we’re not seeing that from congressional Republicans.  We’re just not.  They continue to get in the way.  The President has taken action.  He puts — he puts that in his budget every day, making sure that we make communities safer.  And we’re just not seeing that from Republicans. 

And so, we’re going to continue to do our job here.  We want Congress, co- — Republican congressional members to join us in that.  And I’m going to leave it there. 

I’ll see you all tomorrow.  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Happy Valentine’s, ma’am.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Happy Valentine’s Day. 

1:13 P.M. EST

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

10:24 A.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Good morning.  Good morning, everybody.  Okay, so I have a couple of things at the top before we get going. 

We applaud the bipartisan coalition of senators who came together to pass the supplemental agreement this morning, which protects America’s national security interests. 

This bill will enable the Ukrainian people to defend themselves against Russia’s ongoing brutal and unprovoked attacks.  It will provide Israel with what it needs to protect its people against Hamas terrorists, and it will deliver lifesaving humanitarian assistance for vulnerable people around the world, including innocent Palestinian civilians suffering in Gaza who have nothing to do with Hamas. 

The President urges the House to send this legislation to his desk immediately so that he can sign it into law.  The costs of inaction are rising every day.  America’s leadership matters, and the world is watching — is watching what the White — the House Republicans do. 

I also want to highlight a win for the American people against Big Pharma.  Yesterday, a district court in Texas dismissed a case and — it brought against President Biden’s Medicare drug price negotiation program. 

When President Biden came into office, he vowed to lower healthcare costs for American families.  By — by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, the President and congressional Democrats finally allowed Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors, while every single Republican in Congress voted against it. 

Despite Big Pharma’s attempts to block the program, the administ- — this administration is moving forward on fully implementing it. 

The bottom line is: Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay two to three times more for their prescription drugs than other developed nations. 

President Biden will continue to stand up to Big Pharma and take action to lower healthcare costs for millions of senior — seniors and their families. 

Today, our thoughts — our thoughts are with the families of the three students who were tragically killed one year ago at Michigan State University, the five students who were injured as a result of this horrific gun violence, and the countless others traumatized by that day. 

Tomorrow also marks another painful tragedy, as we remember the 14 students and 3 educators who lost their lives six years ago at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

From Michigan to Florida, American children and educators are being gunned down in classrooms, on college campuses, and in their own homes and communities as guns remain the number one killer of kids in America. 

The President has met with countless survivors of gun violence who have turned their pain into purpose by advocating for commonsense gun safety measures that protect communities and save lives. 

In Michigan, young leaders demanded action from their legislators, ultimately leading to the most significant package of gun safety reforms to ever pass in the state. 

In Parkland, students successfully organized and saw Florida pass a major gun safety package that included a red flag law and raised the age of purchase — firearms.

Young people across the nation marched for their lives.  And thanks to their collective efforts, President Biden was able to sign into — into law the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years with Bipartisan — with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. 

The President continues to stand with millions of young Americans who are calling on Congress to do more — calling on Congress to do more. 

As the President often says, nothing is beyond our capacity when we act together.  And that includes ending the epidemic of gun violence once and for all. 

So, with that, my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, is here to give an update on what’s happening in the Middle East. 

Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Just an administrative note this morning — I’m sorry, this afternoon.

Q    It’s still morning.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, good morning to you.  (Laughter.) 

But this afternoon, the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons will meet at the White House for the third time now since the administration took office to reaffirm our commitment to combat human trafficking. 

This task force is a Cabinet-level activity created by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 that coordinates the federal government’s anti-trafficking efforts.  And that includes implementing our national action plan to combat human trafficking, which we released back in December of 2021. 

Secretary of State Blinken, Homeland Security Advisor Liz Sherwood-Randall, Domestic Policy Advisor Neera Tanden will all chair this meeting and host it.  They’ll give remarks, and they’ll have an opportunity to hear from leaders across the — the interagency and Cabinet-level agencies about their accomplishments in trying to help us combat human trafficking as well as the challenges that they’re — they’re facing and the things that we got to do better to — to address this problem. 

So, that’s it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thanks, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

Q    Could I get an update from the administration’s perspective on how the talks in Cairo are going today?  Is the White House seeing any substantive progress in those discussions?

I believe one Egyptian official said we could see a potential final draft of what a hostage deal could look like after today.  So, what’s the — what’s the perspec- — what’s your perspective?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’re — look, we’re — we’re glad that these discussions are ongoing.  And as I’ve said before, they have been — they’ve been constructive and they’ve been moving in the right direction. 

But I don’t have a specific update for you today.  And I wouldn’t want to get ahead of discussions, as they’re occurring as you and I speak right now.  

So, very much reflective of the effort that the President has put into this, and the whole national security team is devoted to this.  We want to get those hostages home as soon as possible, and that work is going on. 

Q    And a quick follow-up.  I know you were asked yesterday, but since Secretary Austin remains — his health issues are ongoing, has the President spoken with the Secretary in the last couple of days?

MR. KIRBY:  He has not spoken to him that I’m aware of.  I’m not aware of — of a call yet.  He respects that the Secretary is, you know, still hospitalized, still being seen to by doctors for this bladder condition.  And I think he wants to respect that process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks very much.  John, do you have any indication that the Israelis are holding off on a Rafah offensive because of the strong words that President Biden has had about this issue?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that we have any indication that — of their timing one way or the other, Jeff.  And that would be something for them to speak to. 

But as you heard the President say, we don’t — we don’t believe that it’s advisable to move forward with a major operation in Rafah unless or until there has been proper accounting for all the civilians that are there. 

Q    And the — the King yesterday had some pretty strong words about the deaths of Palestinians.  What was President Biden’s sense of that meeting?  And — and does that impact his own advocacy with the Prime Minister of Israel as well?

MR. KIRBY:  The President too had some pretty strong words about civilian deaths and how there’s been too many.

Certainly, the conduct of the operations was of discussion yesterday.  I won’t go into more detail than that, but you can expect, of course, they talked about the conduct of the operations. 

And as for what effect that conversation yesterday will have or the President’s own thinking on — on the — on the conduct of the operations — which, again, he’s been very candid about on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision-making — I couldn’t say.

I would just leave you with this: We have consistently conveyed our concerns to our Israeli counterparts, including the Prime Minister, about moving forward in Rafah in a major way without due consideration of civilians.  And we have consistently conveyed privately and publicly — but privately, too — our concerns about the need to continue to look for ways to reduce civilian casualties. 

As the President said yesterday, there’s been too many.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  John, the President said that there should be a credible and executable plan in place to safeguard civilians in Rafah before Israel were to launch any kind of ground invasion.  What is — in the White House view, what would a credible plan look like?  How would you ever realistically move 1.4 million people out of the way?

MR. KIRBY:  I think what — what — first of all, you know, they’d have to — they’d be the ones that have to come up with this plan.  I think what we want to see in any kind of a plan to make it credible would be to account for — as I think M.J. was asking me yesterday, to account for the now more than a mil- — a million people — some estimates up to a million and a half — that are seeking refuge in Rafah. 

It’s a small geographical space — the Gaza Strip.  Period.  It’s really small down there around Rafah.  And you got a million to a million and a half people that are seeking safety. 

And so, any credible plan that can be executable would have to take into account their physical movement — safe movement, as well as proper subsistence for them — you know, food, water, medicine, access to healthcare — and — and, you know, be able to stay together as family units.  So, all of that would have to be factored in. 

Q    Does the White House believe there is any possible plan out there that would be executable, given the infrastructure situation within Gaza right now?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we haven’t seen what the Israelis are thinking or what — what exactly they’re putting pen to paper on.  Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he had tasked his army, the IDF, to do exactly that.  So, we’ll see what they come up with.

Q    On this funding fight — obviously, you’re urging Congress to act — you all have been fairly optimistic.  But realistically, I mean, Speaker Johnson doesn’t seem to have any interest in bringing up this bill to fund Ukraine and Israel.  So what is plan B?  Is there a plan B if Congress doesn’t get this done?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into hypotheticals.  I think the President was very clear in his statement: It’s really important that the House now take this up and get it to his desk.  As Karine said, it get — if it gets to his desk, he’ll sign it.  It’s critical. 

This — as we’ve said before — we said it when we submitted the supplemental back in October — there is no magical pot of money from which to draw to try to support these allies and these partners and to try to support — oh, by the way — significant humanitarian assistance needs not just in Gaza, but elsewhere around the world. 

Congress needs to act.  They need — they need to be the ones to move forward. 

Q    But are you seeing any cause for optimism that Congress is actually going to do anything?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, it’s —

Q    Because so far it certainly doesn’t seem like the Speaker is moving in that direction. 

MR. KIRBY:  I think today is a — today is a pretty optimistic sign that it got through the Senate.  That’s not an insignificant milestone.  And, again, we’re grateful for the bipartisan leadership in the Senate.  Now it’s time for the House to act the same way. 

Q    And can you say broadly, I mean, this — if this doesn’t get done, this lack of funding, you know — not to mention Trump’s recent comments about NATO — what message broadly is this sending our allies and the world about our ability to follow through on our commitments?  I mean, can we be trusted?

MR. KIRBY:  It sends messages if we don’t get this done.  It sends messages not just to allies and partners, but to potential adversaries as well that the United States can’t be counted on, that we’re not interested in being a leader on the world stage, that we aren’t — aren’t going to be able to stand by our commitments to allies and partners who are fighting really critical fights here.  Israel is in a fight literally for their lives.  And the Ukrainians are, too, for their democracy. 

So, I think it sends a strong signal to the whole world that — that perhaps certain members of Congress aren’t willing to show and demonstrate the kind of American leadership on the world stage that President Biden has. 

Q    Jake Sullivan, yesterday, met virtually with the families of the six American hostages who are in Gaza.  And in a statement after that meeting, the hostage family said that they expressed frustration with the pace of negotiations.  Does the White House share in that frustration?

MR. KIRBY:  We would love nothing more, Arlette, than to have every single hostage back with their families yesterday and the day before that.  We are working with a real sense of alacrity and urgency here to try to get an extended pause in place, but it’s been difficult. 

I can’t blame — nobody can blame these families for being frustrated and for being anxious and being fearful.  Of course, they are.  Anybody would.  Any of you would. 

I — and I think one of the things that Jake conveyed to them was how seriously we’re taking the task and how hard we are working at it.  And as I said earlier, we believe that the discussions have been constructive and that, in general, things seem to be moving in the right direction.  But, you know, nothing is done until it’s all done.

Q    Is something standing in the way from things moving faster?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into the bits about negotiations and — and what the — what the points are that are still being horse-traded.  But there are, in fact, active discussions going on about certain modalities that would have to take place to make this work.  And, again, I think the less said about that publicly, the better.

Q    And then if I could just — on Ukraine really quickly.  Does the President plan on making any personal appeal to the House Speaker in a phone call or having him at the White House?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any personal appeal.  Al- — although, in terms of, like, today — although, as you know, the Speaker was here at the White House and had a chance to hear directly from not only President Biden, but his national security team about the importance of supporting Ukraine and Israel going forward, how important this supplemental funding was.  So the Speaker certainly has heard directly from the President.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, a couple more. 

Go ahead, Aurelia.  

Q    Thank you so much.  I would have two questions on Gaza.  The first one, yesterday during his remarks with the King of Jordan, the President said over 27,000 Palestinians have been killed in this conflict, and this is the best count that has been made public by Hamas. 

So, do you confirm that this death toll is accurate and can be seen as the official death toll in Gaza?  Have you been able to verify this figure?

MR. KIRBY:  The President was referring to publicly available data about the total number of — of casualties.  And as he said, too many of that total number, unfortunately, are innocent civilians.  He was referring to publicly available data. 

Q    Okay.  And my next question is: When the administration asked Israel to come up with a credible plan to protect civilians before it launches a major offensive in Rafah, does that mean that until now you think that Israel has been operating with a credible plan to protect civilians in Northern Gaza, for example?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we’re not — you know, it’s hard to — I don’t want to get into armchair quarterbacking past operations here.  That said, as you saw when they operated in North Gaza and then as they started to operate more in Khan Yunis, they did take steps to allow safe passage for civilians.  They dropped leaflets telling them where to go and how to get there.  They relied less on airpower. 

So, there were efforts.  That does not mean or does — and it not excuse — excuse any single civilian casualty.  They are all tragedies.  We don’t want to see any. 

But the Israelis have shown an effort in the past to try to account for the movement and the safety of civilians.  And, again, as they ponder and consider major operations in Rafah — now, with everybody moving down there — because of what happened in North Gaza, because of what happened in Khan Yunis — they have a special added burden to make sure that they can provide for their safety and security and sustenance. 

Q    Thank you.  I have a question about Venezuela.  But first about the Vice President traveling to the Munich Security Conference this week.  How important do you think the situation in the Middle East is going to be with the conference?  And what kind of support the U.S. would like to get from allies for Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s no doubt that what’s going on in the Middle East, I’m sure, will be a topic of discussion at the Munich Security Conference.  There’s no way it wouldn’t.  And I know the Vice President will have an opportunity to lay out, again, the administration’s approach to the region writ large, as well as our — our work — continue to work with our counterparts in the Middle East specifically.

Q    And about Venezuela.  So, do you have a reaction to the detention by the Venezuelan government of the human rights activist Rocío San Miguel?

MR. KIRBY:  We are aware of reports that Rocío San Miguel and I think a couple of members of her family now have been taken into custody.  We’re deeply concerned about that. 

This is a time when, as I have said before, Mr. Maduro needs to meet the commitments that he made back in the fall about how they’re going to treat put- — civil society political activists, as well as opposition parties, and even those members of — that — that — of Venezuelan society that may want to run for office.  They’ve got to meet those commitments. 

And I won’t go into speculating about what exactly happened here or what we might do as a result.  But I can tell you, we’re watching this very, very closely.  And we’re deeply concerned by her arrest.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, John.  I have two questions on the Indo-Pacific, one question on Ukraine. 

So, first, the Senate bill that just passed, the White — does the White House wish to have more fund for the Pacific in this bill or the next bill, specifically for countering China and helping Taiwan?

MR. KIRBY:  The President, as I think he made clear in his statement, is satisfied with the bipartisan work that went into this Senate bill and the dollar amounts that are in each of the buckets there: Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific, humanitarian assistance.

Q    Another on the Pacific.  Indonesia is going to have election tomorrow electing a new president.  What are — what are at stake for the U.S. in relations to this Indo-Pacific strategy on this election?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, it’s — what really matters is what’s at stake for the Indonesian people.  And we — we want them to have a free and fair election, and we want the aspirations and the votes of the Indonesian people to matter.  It’s a vibrant democracy.  And so, we look forward to seeing — seeing them be able to go to the polls and — and make their choices and make their voices known. 

We — as you know, we deepened our strategic partnership with Indonesia now.  We’re looking forward to continuing to find ways to improve that bilateral relationship. 

Q    And on Ukraine, one last question.  The U.S. has enough money right now to keep training Ukraine pilots on the F-16 for now, according to the National Guard chiefs.  So, when will this training wrap up?  And what’s the status of sending those planes to Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  You’d have to talk to the Department of Defense on that.  I don’t have that information. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Janne.

Q    Thank you, Karine and John.  I have two questions on Russia and North Korea.  The Russians’ foreign minister stated that the North Korean Kim Jong Un’s military threats were not (inaudible) and are a threat to risk signal of conflict on the Korean Peninsula and should be taken seriously.  How can you explain the intent of that statement?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry.  I did not get what you mea- — the foreign minister said what?  Russian — this is Lavrov said —

Q    Yeah.  The foreign minister, no — foreign ministry said that North Korean Kim Jong Un’s military threats were not (inaudible) and that is that risk of — signals of that conflict on the Korean Peninsula.  Do you have any comment on this?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, we take the continued efforts by Kim Jong Un to advance and develop sophisticated weapons systems and capabilities very, very seriously.  We have to.  And we also take our alliance with the Republic of Korea very, very seriously, which is why, as I’ve said many times, the President has added resources, added capabilities, really invested more in deepening our bilateral relationship with South Korea and our trilateral relationship with South Korea and Japan. 

Q    Russia also has lifted some of North Korean frozen funds and also allowed the North Korea’s financial bank account to be opened in Russia.  So, at this point, can this been seen as compensation for the trade — I mean, armed trade between Russia and North Korea?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t confirm those reports that they’ve actually made those financial transactions and certainly wouldn’t be able to speculate about what — what motivated them. 

But, obviously, we’re deeply concerned about the continuing burgeoning defense relationship between North Korea and Russia. 

Q    Thank you.

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

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Admiral, you’ve been asking Israel to avoid killing Palestinian civilians from this podium many times.  So, I’m going to share the statistics with you.  On day one, there was 198 people were killed; on day 128, 117.  So, on average, it’s a hundred.  So, either Israel is not listening to you or they believe there’s no consequences.  So, which one is it?  Or is it both?

MR. KIRBY:  You’d have to — look, I’m not going to speak for Israeli military operations, Nadia.  You know that.

Q    I’m not — but I’m not —

MR. KIRBY:  No, no —

Q    — asking you to speak for the Israeli military.  I’m asking for you, because you defending the point of view, always, that no civilian should be killed.  So, the number has never been reduced.  It stayed steady all the time.  So, I’m asking you —

MR. KIRBY:  As the President —

Q    — whether is — the White House’s message to Netanyahu, who defies every Democratic president, whether it’s Clinton, Obama, or Biden — and you know that this is a fact — do you think that they’re not listening to you, or they believe they can get away with it?

MR. KIRBY:  As the —

Q    So, what pressure are you putting on them?  That’s what my question to you.

MR. KIRBY:  As the President said yesterday, too many of the many thousands of people killed in the Gaza conflict have been innocent civilians — too many.  And we have been very, very clear about our concerns with our Israeli counterparts about that. 

And I can’t verify the specific numbers that you’re giving me, but I also — I’m not here to refute them.  Too many is too many, and that’s why we’re going to keep working with our Israeli counterparts to — to do everything we can to get them to reduce the number of civilian casualties.  And they have been receptive.

I — I understand that — that there’s still civilian casualties, and that’s unacceptable.  But they have been receptive to our messaging.  They have been receptive to our ideas and our perspectives in the past.  And we’re going to keep doing everything we can to — to get — to get those numbers down.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Sara.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, yesterday, you said that we need to accept the possibility that some of the hostages being held by Hamas may no longer be alive.  Does the U.S. believe that all of the remaining American hostages are still alive?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t have any information to the contrary.

Q    And one more, if I may.  Of course, any operation in Rafah would be Israel’s decision, and they are the ones who need to come up with — who need to present a credible plan.  But has the U.S., has the President, have any senior U.S. officials offered their thoughts or consultations on what can be done to help Palestinian civilians in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  We have consistently shared our concerns, our opinions, our perspectives, our lessons learned about urban warfare since the beginning of this conflict.

Q    But specifically about, you know, what to do in this case with where Palestinian civilians might be able to go in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not involved in drafting their plan for them.  But we have absolutely committed to them our concerns about what that plan ought to be able to account for, yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    John, when it comes to this credible plan to protect civilians, what happens if Israel does not provide this plan and moves into Rafah anyway?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I’m not going to get into a hypothetical, Gabe.  We’ve been clear about what our concerns are and what we want to see. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu said publicly that he’s tasked the IDF to come up with such a plan.  Let’s see what they come up with.

Q    But does the U.S. have enough leverage now if Israel were to ignore it?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to, again, speculate about a situation that hasn’t occurred yet.  We’ve been very clear about our concerns.  And — and we’ll — we’re going to wait and see what the — what the IDF comes up with.

Q    And, finally, by when would the U.S. like to see this plan?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s really going to be determined by whatever timetable the — the IDF is — is on. 

I want to make it clear here: This is a sovereign nation.  They plan their military operations, and they conduct their military operations, and they make the choices.  There — there’s not — it’s not like we give them a homework assignment, and they have to then turn in their plan to us for grading.

We have said that the — from our perspective, as a friend of Israel and as a supporter of their efforts to defend themselves, we would expect that any plan for going into Rafah would properly account for the now more than a million civilians that — that are seeking refuge down there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Niall.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks.  I just want to circle back to my colleague — I think it was Nadia — asked a few minutes ago about the civilian casualties.  And you said Israel has been “receptive” to our concerns.  And for months, we have heard people at that podium talk about, “The civilian death toll is too high.”  It was too high at 5,000, 10,000, 15,000.  Around 28,000 people have been killed.  What does the White House base the assessment that Israel is receptive to its concerns?

MR. KIRBY:  As I said, we have seen them take actions — sometimes actions that — that even I’m not sure our own military would take, in terms of informing civilian populations ahead of operations where to go, where not to go.  They have taken steps.

Now, obviously, those steps, while noteworthy, haven’t been enough to reduce the civilian casualties, which is why the President spoke so forthrightly about it yesterday and why we’re going to continue to do everything we can to press the Israelis to be more careful.

Q    But, respectfully, he’s been talking forcefully about it for a long time.  And the Israelis are now — have hammered people into this tiny corner in southwest Gaza, tight up against the Egyptian border, where people think there’s a looming catastrophe happening.  Shouldn’t there be more forceful action than just words?

MR. KIRBY:  We are working very, very closely with our Israeli counterparts.  We’ve made clear our concerns that we would not support a Rafah operation that did not properly count — account for the more than a million refugees that are down in — in Rafah.  We’ve been very, very clear and consistent about that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Last question, in the back.  Go ahead. 

Q    Merci, Karine. 

Q    Thank you. 

Q    John, two — I have two question, quickly, on the DRC.  And — but first, on Haiti — the meeting at Fort McNair.  You — you insisted yesterday, again, on the necessity of a significant force, international force on the ground.  Is the U.S. more ready now to get involved in such a force?

MR. KIRBY:  This — so, what we’re really focused on is — is working with Kenya, who — who has agreed to explore leadership of that force on the ground.  So —

Q    But it’s (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:  But that — and that’s part of the discussions that are going on at Fort McNair again today.  I would not expect a U.S. force presence on the ground.

Q    And on the DRC, John, we’re seeing, in Kinshasa, demonstrations — anti-Western demonstrations like we saw in Niger, in Burkina Faso, in Mali.  How worried is the U.S. that the situation can —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’re — we’re monitoring it closely, as best we can.  I don’t have anything specific to — to relay today. 

But I can tell you that we’re — we’re obviously in close touch with our colleagues at the State Department and, of course, our — our embassy personnel down there in Africa.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Awesome, thanks.  Thanks, John.  Appreciate it.  Thank you.  Thanks, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right, Seung Min. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Maybe tomorrow we’ll start at 9:30.  (Laughter.)

Q    On that note, a quick — (laughter) — a quick housekeeping question.  Is there a particular reason —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — for the — is — should we expect to see POTUS —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — later today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I — obviously, I want to be careful with that.  I always am.  There’s always a possibility to hear from the President.  I don’t have anything to share about any- — anything to add on his schedule that’s public facing.

It’s starting early, honestly, because of my schedule.  And I appreciate you all being here at 10:15.  I have — I also have a busy schedule, just like all of you.

But no, I don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q    Okay.  And I wanted to drill down a little bit on Speaker Johnson’s resistance to bringing up the Senate bill.  So, what is the White House strategy to get that Senate bill through the Senate, aside from your public comments and public pressure on Speaker Johnson?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, a couple of things I do want to — to — do want to lay out.  I love to do this, as you know.  Washington Post.  Speaker Johnson said “the package’s failure to address U.S. border security makes it a nonstarter.”  “Johnson… helped torpedo an earlier version of the legislation that includes sweeping border security measures and other re- — reforms.”

Axios.  “Johnson criticized the lack of border security provisions in the bill.”  And then “Senate — Senate Republicans largely rejected a package that included border security provisions… due in no small part to Johnson.”

The Hill.  “Johnson slammed the package for excluding border security provisions.”  But there — “but earlier this month… Johnson declared the foreign-aid-plus-border security package dead on arrival.” 

I mean, it is very confusing from what’s coming from the Speaker.  Very confusing.  He’s been very clear for years, even as recently as November, December of last — of last year, saying how important it is to deal with the border, “We can come up with a bipartisan solution.” 

And all of the sudden, he wants to — he wants to not move forward with the border, as we know.  And now, we have a bipartisan support coming out of the Senate to move forward with an important package — a national security package — obviously, that does include the border — and he doesn’t want to move forward. 

And, you know, we should not be playing politics with our national security.  That’s where we are.  We should just not be playing politics with our national security. 

Look, we have been very clear.  We’re going to continue to be clear: Congress has to act.  They need to act.  These pro- — these components that are included in the national security supplemental or what came out — obviously, out of the Senate is critical.  It’s crital to — it’s critical to our national security — not just abroad but here at home. 

And so, we’re going to continue to call on Congress to act, call — and politics should not be be- — should not be part of this.  It should not be part of our national security efforts here. 

Q    So, there is no strategy aside from the public pressure.  I mean, are you encouraging Democrats to do a discharge petition or any other sort of —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it is up to —

Q    — procedural maneuvers on that?


MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is up to Democrats in Congress to figure out how they’re going to move forward in their — in their procedure — right? — to get this done. 

And also, Repub- — remember, this is a bipartisan — a bipartisan — has bipartisan support, certainly, out of Senate.  And you’ve always said — you’ve always heard us say there is bipartisan support for — for — for these important — important components to the national security supplemental.  So, we’ve always said that. 

And so, look, we are going to put the pressure on.  You saw that in the President’s statement.  You saw — you saw that when I came and spoke here at the top.  We have to put public — public pressure here, because it is something that is critical — critical to Americans, critical to our national security not just here, obviously, but abroad. 

And — and, you know, I said at the — at the end of my — my topper, when I was talking about this particular piece, is, like, the world is watching.  The world is watching, and they’re not just watching what’s happening here at the White House.  They’re watching what’s happening in the House, right?  They’re watching what House Republicans are going to be doing, because the Senate did their job.  So, what is the House going to do?

Q    And one on CPI, if I may.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    We’re seeing some price pressures that can’t necessarily be explained away by shrinkflation or continued issues with supply chains.  If you look at the cost of services, such as auto repairs or healthcare, those costs are still rising. 

So, what is the White House’s message or what is — to Americans who, for example, may have to take out a loan to fix their car?  What specifically is the administration doing to lower the cost of services?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And that’s a good question.  And, look, we’ve been very — very clear here that prices are still too high.  We’re going to do everything that we can to lower costs.  That is something that we’ve done, whether it’s junk fees — right? — whether it’s healthcare; whether it’s the Inflation Reduction Act that also includes healthcare provisions in there to — so that Medicare can — can certainly negotiate with Big Pharma, hence lowering some prescription drug costs, which is incredibly important.  Energy costs.  All of these things are incred- — important to the American people.  So, we’re going to continue to do that. 

We’ve looked — we’ve — because of the President’s action, he’s been able to lower costs at the pump.  And so, that’s mattered as well to Americans across the country. 

So, we’re going to continue to do the work. 

Obviously, we understand there’s more work to be done, but this is an economy that is in a much different place than it was a year ago; a much different place, obviously, than it was three years ago.  When you see — when you see eggs and milk and products like that at the grocery store going down — they’re lower than they were a year ago — that’s important. 

And so, when you see, you know, 14.8 million jobs being created in this administration, that’s important.  When you see unemployment under 4 percent, that’s important. 

But, obviously, we’re going to continue to do the work to make sure that we do everything that we can to lower costs.  And that is a number-one priority for this President.  When he talks about his economy or his economic policy, economic plan, that’s what you see.

Go ahead.

Q    Committee chairs have sent a letter to the Attorney General asking for the release of the transcripts and recordings related to Hur’s investigation.  Given your insistence that the special counsel’s characterizations of the President’s demeanor were inaccurate, are you eager for this material to be made public?  Do you support their release?


MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look — and I just want to be really clear, it’s not just us.  There was also a bipartisan voices and the legal — illegal experts who have said it was wrong — flatly wrong.  Right?  It was — it was gratuitous.  It was inappropriate how that was characterized in — in the special counsel report.

I will add that this was a 15-month investigation that interviewed 150 witnesses, examined 7 million records, and cost $3.5 million of the tax- — taxpayer money — 3.5 million taxpayer dollars.  They explored every theory and found that there was no case to be made. 

So, House Republicans wasted their time, are waste — continuing to waste their time, and they’re not being serious to do their jobs.  We just — I just went back and forth about, you know, this important piece of — piece of legislation that just came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way to deal with our national security concerns, and they’re not doing their job. 

They are saying — obviously, Speaker Johnson is saying he’s not going to move forward with that.  So, we want them to pass that.  We want them to pass legislation to help secure the border and work with — on the real issues. 

You know, for any other specific on the tran- — the transcript or anything related to that — the letter, I would certainly refer you to my colleagues —

Q    So, you won’t say —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — at the White House Counsel. 

Q    Given that you think the report is flatly wrong and gratuitous, you can’t say if you want the material to be made public, if the American people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — no, what I can say —

Q    — should see this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — it’s being — they’re discussing it.  They’re looking at it.  There’s a process that’s involved.  And so, the White House Counsel can — obviously, has taken these questions from all of you.  And so, they’re looking into it.  I just don’t have anything further to say about that. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is the President a fan of “The Daily Show”? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  I was not expecting that.  I — I would have to ask him. 

Q    Did he watch Jon Stewart last night?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sounds like you did, Jeff.  Was it good?

Q    He was pretty critical of the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, really? 

Q    — as well as the former President.  And I guess my question is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He said this about President Biden?

Q    He was critical of both. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Got it.  Oh, you said, “As l- — as well as the former.”

Q    “As well as.”  Yeah. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I gotcha.  Gotcha, gotcha. 

Q    Does — and so, my kind of follow-up to that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — more jokey question is: Does — does the White House feel like it made the right decision putting President Biden out on Thursday night and to have the press conference that he did?  And related to that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — do you feel like the White House’s response pushing back against the Hur report was as quick and as robust as you would have liked it to have been?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m assuming this is responding to Jon — “The Daily Show”? 

Q    Partly, yeah —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Okay.   

Q    — and other critics as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  So, look, you — I think, and we believe, the President went out on Thursday — on the day that the report came out, it was important — we believe it was important for the — for the American people to hear directly from this President and to lay out in a very forceful way what we thought about — about the special counsel report — what he thought about the special counsel report.

And not only that, he took your questions.  He stood there and took questions from all of you.  I think that’s important.  It’s important.  He believed that’s important to — to have — to do. 

And then the next day, by the request of the White House Correspondents’ Association, which we obviously have a good relationship with and respect, we were asked to bring — to bring Ian Sams to the podium, from — obviously, the spokesperson from — from the White House Counsel, and he did.  And stood here for 45 minutes, approximately, and took questions. 

And so, I think we are going to do everything that we can, especially as it relate — obviously, as it related to the special counsel report, which we believe — let’s not forget: It said there is no there there.  Right?  It said that the — the case is closed.  So, let’s — you know, that’s what they said.  There’s nothing to prosecute.  So, we want to be really clear there. 

But we also — the President is going to stand and defend himself.  The characterization, the way that report was characterized was not — not just me saying this — legal experts on both sides said it was flatly wrong and it was gratuitous and it was inappropriate. 

And so, the President is going to defend himself and — to the American people and make that very, very clear.  And so, we believe — he believes he did the right thing.  And, you know, we’re going to continue to — to speak on this very, very loud and clear. 

But anything specific related to next steps and what happens after — after last week, certainly my — the White House Counsel’s Office can answer that more specifically.

Go ahead, Joe Joe. 

Q    Yeah.  Thanks.  I wanted to circle back to a question that Admiral Kirby was asked about President Biden yesterday now saying 27,000 Palestinians have died in the war in Gaza.  That appeared to be numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry.  Last fall, President Biden said he had, quote, “no confidence” in those figures because of the health ministry’s ties to Hamas.  Does President Biden and the White House now have confidence in the figures coming from the Gaza Health Ministry?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the Admiral kind of went into this a couple of times with some of your colleagues about the data. There’s data out there that speaks to — speaks to the — the lives lost — innocent lives lost, obviously, in Gaza — the Palestinian lives. 

And so, we have said over and over: One — one is too many, and we mourn those lives.  And we’re going to continue to be really clear about that. 

And not only that, you know, you hear us talk about the humanitarian pause.  We want to make sure that happens.  We want to make sure that moves forward.  That’s why you see Secretary Blinken was in — was in the region recently. 

You hear that from the President.  He just spoke to the Prime Minister, Netanyahu, just a day or so.  And those conversations are — are about — and also, obviously, meeting with King Abdullah.  All these conversations are about what can we do to make sure we do everything that we can, obviously, to get that humanitarian aid into Gaza and also get those hostages home. 

That’s what we want to see.  And that’s why it’s so important that — also that that national security supplemental got out of the Senate in a bipartisan way.  And we need to get that moving as well, because that has important humanitarian assistance, as well that — that the people in Gaza are going to need.

And so — and also, people in Israel are going to need as well, really important humanitarian aid. 

So, you know, I don’t have anything to add to what the Admiral shared with all of you, but we mourn — certainly we mourn the lives lost in Gaza.  And obviously, we want to make sure that that’s — that — that doesn’t happen — that doesn’t continue to happen. 

Q    But it seems like there’s been an evolution in terms of how the White House — how the administration is viewing the numbers being reported out of Gaza from the — from the health ministry.  I mean, is that fair to say that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, here’s the thing: We know thousands of lives have been lost.  We know that.  We know that.  And, you know, we’re going to speak to that when asked.  We’re going to say that is not okay.  Right?  We’re going to say that is not okay. 

Obviously, we’re also going to continue to say Israel has a right to defend itself.  We’re going to also have those conversation with the Israeli government on how to make sure that we cont- — that we — that they make sure that they follow the international humanitarian law and that they protect civilian lives — innocent civilian lives. 

So, those conversations are going to continue to happen.  But we know — we know thousands of lives have been lost. 

Go ahead.

Q    The House is expected to have round two of their attempt to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security Secretary, today.  Has the President been in touch with Democratic leadership about their efforts to block it?  We know that every vote counts, so has he been checking in to make sure that all Democrats are actually going to be there for the vote?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can — I can tell you that, obviously, the Office of Leg Affairs here who does — who deals directly with Congress, they’re in regular touch with congressional members.  I don’t have any specific conversation that the President has had on this particular issue. 

Look, you know — and I kind of — I’ve been saying this for the past couple of minutes.  It’s like the — the House Republicans need to do serious work — work that actually matter, work that’s actually — the American people care about.  This is — this is not it. 

The impeachment of Mayorkas — let’s not forget: Mayorkas played a big role in trying to get — when we were — when the border — border security conversation was happening and there was a deal that came out of the Senate — a bipartisan negotiation deal, Secretary Mayorkas was very much involved in that.  And we wanted to see meaningful change. 

And Republicans got in the way.  They got in the way and didn’t want to see that happen. 

Now they want to continue — continue on the sa- — the shameful process of impeaching him.  It’s baseless.  It is baseless. 

And so, look, they should drop this.  There’s a bipartisan — you know, a bipartisan agreement that came out — out of — for the national security supplemental.  They should focus on that instead of doing another political stunt. 

So, we’re going to be — you know, we’re going to be forceful about that.  And, look, they need to do their jobs.  They need to do their jobs instead of playing political games.

Q    And on another topic really quickly.  The Washington Post is reporting that the CDC is expected to shift its COVID isolation guidance, saying that you don’t have to isolate once you’re fever-free for 24 hours and symptoms are mild and improving.  Does the White House feel this is long overdue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I saw that reporting.  Want to be really careful because CDC is going through their pr- — process.  They’re going to decide the guidelines, so I don’t want to get ahead of that.  So, let’s — let’s let CDC go through their process.  I just don’t want to get ahead of them.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  I just wanted to return to what Joey was asking you about with those — the numbers. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Because the President is not generically saying or — or broadly estimating thousands of lives have been lost.  He’s saying a very specific number of 27,000.  So, if he’s not relying on the Gaza Health Ministry numbers that he’s previously disparaged, what is he — is he relying on something else to arrive at that figure?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the Admiral spoke to this, and he said there’s data out there.  So, we can get back to you on that.  He said it, so we’d have to connect with him on that piece.  But that’s how he responded to one of your colleagues. 

And so, I think the point that we’re trying to make is, indeed, thousands of lives have been taken — innocent lives, innocent Palestinian lives — and that’s a tragedy.

Q    But 27,000 is a lot more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — than a thousand, so (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No — but I hear you.  No, I hear you.  I hear you.  And that’s — I’m not going to refute what the President said, obviously. 

And that’s too many, right?  One — we say one is too many.  The number should be zero. 

And so, what the President wanted to do yesterday is make sure that, you know, he was very clear that lives have been lost, innocent lives have been lost, and we mourn those lives.  And we want to make sure that, you know, that doesn’t continue. 

And so, our policy is still the same, but we want to make sure that innocent lives are protected. 

And that was the point that the President was trying to make. 

And — and, you know, I’ll just — I’ll just leave it there.  I know that Kir- — Admiral Kirby spoke to data that’s out there.  So, obviously, I would refer you to him.

Q    I just — you guys aren’t citing other data, necessarily.  I — I was assuming that you’re just sort of saying “public data” so that you won’t have to admit that he’s using these numb- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I —

Q    — the Gaza Health Ministry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I hear you, Matt.  I’m going to have to refer you to — to what the Admiral said just moments ago.

Q    And then I just wanted to ask for a point of clarification.  Earlier, you were asked about the transcripts being released —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — as some House Republicans have called for.  And you said that House Republicans are wasting their time and they’re not being serious.  Were you referring to something else?  Or are you referring to them calling for the transcripts to be released as “not being serious” —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just —

Q    — and “wasting time”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wh- — what I’m saying is that there are a bunch of things that matter to the American people that they have just not focused on.  Right?  That’s what I’m talking about. 

As it relates to the transcripts, that’s something that, obviously, the White House Counsel is — is looking at.  They said they’re looking at it, so I would refer you to them. 

Go ahead, Justin.

Q    Thanks.  Seung Min asked you about the possibility of a discharge petition.  And I wanted to follow on that and ask if the President has had any conversations with progressive Democrats in the House specifically.  Because if you were to pursue a discharge position, it would likely hinge on folks who have expressed real reservations for providing additional military aid to Israel but who are probably broadly supportive of the President’s agenda.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have — I don’t have conversations to read out to you on that particular issue or topic.

Q    And then on inflation.  I know you were asked about it earlier, but there are elements of the report — food, shelter, or services — that all kind of accelerated certainly above estimates.  And I’m wondering — you said the economy was in a much different place.  Is there any worry that inflation might actually be picking back up and that we could see sort of a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have concerns —

Q    — a boomerang effect?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — basically.  Look — and you — you’ve heard Jared say this from this podium — and many others who are part of our economic team — is that we’ve — we certainly — we look at trends — that is something that we do here — and not read too much to — to — you know, to data from one month.  That is how we operate here.  And others do as well. 

But we certainly understand that there’s more work to be done to lower costs.  That is something that we’re aware of.  And so, certainly not going to get into forecasting from here.  We’re going to try and continue to make co- — progress in lowering inf- — in lowering inflation as we transition to a steady and stable — stable economic growth, which you hear us speak to that very often. 

And so, what I will say is, inflation is down two thirds from its peak.  Core inflation is the lowest since May 21st [2021].  Prices fell over the last year — as I mentioned before, gas, milk and eggs — all important products that matter to — to the American people.  And we know that rental inflation has slowed, but it takes a while to show up in CPI. 

And so, look, that’s — what we say, we look at the trend.  We see how — how the economy is moving, and we don’t focus on — on a one-month — one-month data.  And so, I think that’s what’s important here. 

But we’re also going to do — continue to do the work to lower costs. 

Go ahead.

Q    Yeah, I — I’ve seen reports that a task force has been created to prevent the accidental retention of presidential records.  What is their deadline?  What is their mission?  Does the President think this is going to work, or does — or is there an expectation that people are still going to walk home with records?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to refer you to — the specifics of that task force, obviously, to the White House Counsel’s Office.  But the President believed it was important enough — right? — to move forward with a task force.  He takes this very seriously — you know, this process of documents — takes it very, very seriously and wants to make sure that we — you know, the next stages, the next steps of this moves in a — continues to move in a transparent way. 

So, as far as any specifics to it, I would refer you to the White House Counsel’s Office.

Q    So, you don’t have a deadline, like —

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

Q    — that they would need to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline —

Q    — get it done before the next president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — I don’t have a timeline for you. 

Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    Hi, Karine.  Earlier, you mentioned that the President or the White House thought it was a good idea for him to come out last Thursday.  Just want to clear it up.  Was it the President’s idea to come out Thursday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It was the President’s idea.  Yes.  He wanted —   

Q    It was his idea? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It was his idea.

Q    And how forceful was he when he, you know, came out and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I —

Q    He said he wanted to do it at that time? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you saw the President out — do this — make a statement, take questions from all of you because he wanted to do it.

Q    Did anyone advise him against it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get into private conversations that the President has.  The President is the President of the United States.  If he says he wants to speak to — directly to the American people, he’s going to do that. 

Q    And following up on something that Mary asked and some others have asked as well.  Independent of whether House Republicans are asking for those transcripts, why won’t the White House commit to releasing even a redacted version of the transcripts if it has classified information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not saying that we’re not committing.  I’m saying that they’re looking at it.  I’m saying that they, meaning the White House Counsel’s Office, is looking at it.  I just — I just don’t have anything to share with you at this time.

It is not a “no,” and it is not a “yes.”  It is: We are looking at this.  There’s processes, there’s protocols, and they’re looking through that. 

Q    And finally, it’s our reporting that the notebooks that were part of this investigation are currently in the custody of the FBI.  Does the White House or does the President want those notebooks back?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything for you on that.  I don’t.

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The White House this afternoon is convening the descendants of families of civil rights icons and Black historical figures like Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, MLK, Malcolm X, et cetera.  What — this is also perfectly timed for Black History Month. 

What — what does the White House hope to achieve with this convening?  This is the first time of such a thing happening.  And what will be discussed?  Will they — will they be discussing the rollbacks on affirmative action and attacks on DEI perhaps? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, we’re honored to have the — over 30 descendants convene later today at the White House, as you just stated, to celebrate Black History Month.  It’s — and — and as we work to advance the values — the values their ancestors spent their whole lives trying to achieve. 

So, the legacy of these icons and their families can’t be understated.  The Biden-Harris administration looks forward to continuing to work with these generation of leaders to improve outcomes for Black Americans. 

And we’re proud of what we’ve been able to achieve, if you think about the record Black — low Black unemployment, which is really important; if you think about Black-owned business — small businesses that has really boomed under this administration; making sure that we increase homeownership and also lower — lower healthcare costs. 

And so, those are the things that, obviously, we’re going to continue to work on.  We’re proud that we’ve been able to do.  We are honored to have over 30 descendants here at the White House, especially in this important month of Black History Month where we acknowledge the — the sacrifices that they’ve all made. Don’t have anything specific or any details to share.  But this is an important moment, and we are looking forward to having them here.

Q    One more question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The D.C. City Council had a preliminary vote the other week on a Secure D.C. bill that expands the detention — detention for youth and adults who commit violent crimes, establishes drug-free zones, et cetera.  Given the President’s signing of a overturning of a D.C. criminal code last year, does the White House have a position on this new D.C. bill that seeks to address public safety here in the nation’s capital?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as police chiefs will tell you across the country, we’ve seen, actually, a significant drop in crime last year, in 2023.  And so, obviously, the President’s efforts to fund the police and measures to prevent crime are working.

According to this 2023 FBI data, there has been significant, obviously — a drop in — in crime, including one of the largest yearly declines in homicides ever. 

And so, look, if you even compare it to what we saw — what we saw in Trump’s administration in their final year, we saw that in the U.S., in this country, that the largest increase in murders ever recorded. 

So, the President took action.  We’re seeing — we saw — we’re seeing a decrease in — in last year.  And so, look, we want to do more.  Obviously, the President respects the D.C.’s right to pass measures that strengthen both public safety and public trust but not, certainly, going to comment directly on the proposal that’s still being debated.  So, we’re going to let D.C. go through their process.

And we’re going to do everything that we can to continue to lower crime here in the U.S. 

Okay.  All right.  I have one more.  Go ahead, Tia.  I haven’t called on you.

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.

Q    Is President Biden aware of the outcome of Pakistan’s election recently?  And is there any stance from the White House on that upset outcome where a majority of the seats in that Parliament are independent?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, yes, the — the President is very much aware.  Millions of Pakis- — Pakistanis turned out to vote last week, including record numbers of Pakistani women, members of religious and ethnic minority groups, and young voters. 

So, certainly, we congratulate the Pakistani people for participating in last week’s elections — including poll workers, civil society members, and journalists and election observers who have protected Pakistan’s democratic and electoral institutions. 

And so, we are — we are proud to stand with likeminded democracies, as we consistently convey clearly, both publicly and privately, to the Pakistani government and across the Pakistani political spectrum the need to respect the will of the Pakistani people and ensure a transparent election process.  It is critical, and it is obviously important. 

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

11:18 A.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.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:10 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wow, that was a flash.  (Laughs.)  My goodness.  Is that a Polaroid?

Q    It is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Whoa.  Taking us back. 

Okay.  I think — is the mic okay?

Q    Yeah, it sounds good. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah?  Okay. 

All right, everybody.  Happy Monday and good afternoon to everyone.  Hope everyone got some rest after last night’s Super Bowl. 

The President was able to catch some of the game.  And on his behalf, I want to extend a big congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on their third Super Bowl win in just five seasons.  And also congratulations to all the Swifties out there. 

The President looks forward to welcoming them back once again to the White House to celebrate their latest victory.  As you know, it is a White House tradition. 

And so, without ado, don’t have anything much more — I know — I know you guys are excited about that.  We have our — the Admiral here — my colleague, John Kirby — who is here to discuss the visit of King Abdullah of Jordan and the latest on the Israeli hostages who were freed in Rafah and also the Lobito Corridor Private Sector Investment Forum.

Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you so much, Karine.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  As you know, the President is hosting King Abdullah here at the White House this afternoon.  It’s the 75th year of diplomatic relations between Jordan and the United States, and this meeting will help further strengthen our enduring bilateral relationship. 

During the meeting, President Biden and the King will discuss the ongoing situation in Gaza, of course, and efforts to help produce an enduring end to this conflict. 

They’ll also discuss increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza and a vision for durable peace, to include the viability of a two-state solution with Israel’s security guaranteed.

Now, before we get into questions, I just want to express how pleased we are to hear the news of two Israeli hostages freed last night by Israeli Defense Forces in Rafah.  After 128 days, Fernando Simon Marian and Louis Har are now reunited with their families where they belong. 

That’s where all the hostages belong, quite frankly.  And so, President Biden and his entire team is going to continue to work around the clock to ensure and to secure their release.  We will spare no effort to do so, and that includes capitalizing on recent progress in negotiations with our counterparts in the region.  And those negotiations are ongoing.

Now, we’ve also seen reports that civilians were killed over the weekend in Rafah due to Israeli operations.  I can’t confirm those reports, but as we have said many times, the proper number of civilian casualties is zero.  We don’t want to see a single innocent civilian death — Israeli or Palestinian.

But let me be clear: There can be no enduring end to this crisis until Hamas releases the men and women that they are holding hostage — all of them.  Their release and a prolonged humanitarian pause is also essential for bringing critical relief to in- — the innocent people of Gaza who have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying conflict.  And this remains our paramount objective. 

Now, as Karine teased, just a real quick note on Africa.  Last Thursday, the United States, the government of Zam- — Zambia, and the Africa Finance Corporation convened the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Lobito Corridor Private Sector Investor Forum — try to say that 10 times — in Lusaka, Zambia. 

This was the first PGI investor forum held outside of the United States, bringing together more than 250 business and government leaders.

With over a billion dollars in U.S. and G7 financing, the corridor will ultimately connect Africans from western Angola to Tanzania and the Indian Ocean through rural bridges, upgraded 4G and 5G digital connec- — connectivity, increases in solar power, investing in agribusiness and food security, and the biggest rail investment in Africa in U.S. history.  

So, very exciting.  We’re — we’re very, very pleased to be able to move this forward — this — this development project.  And — and it’s exciting, and we’ll keep you posted.

With that, let me take some questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, John.  First off, congratulations are in order, I believe.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks.

Q    The President yesterday, in his conversation with Pr- — Prime Minister Netanyahu, reiterated the U.S. opposition to operation — expanded operations inside Rafah to — to root out Hamas’s remaining battalions there.

In your outline a few min- — a few seconds ago about what the end stage — Hamas’s release that’s — the remaining hostages to end the conflict.  Does the U.S. believe that Hamas can remain in Rafah?  Is that an acceptable end game of — you know, how are the Israelis — if they can’t go into Rafah to remove Hamas, how are they supposed to get rid of Hamas from Gaza, which the U.S. has said is their end goal here?

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, we never said that they can’t go into Rafah to remove Hamas.  Hamas remains a viable threat to the Israeli people.  And the Israelis and the IDF, absolutely, are going to continue operations against their leadership and their infrastructure, as they should.  We don’t want to see another October 7th. 

What we’ve said is we don’t believe that it’s advisable to go in in a major way in Rafah without a proper, executable, effective, and credible plan for the safety of the more than a million Palestinians that are taking refuge in Rafah.  They’ve — they’ve left the north, and they certainly went south out of Khan Yunis to try to get out of the fighting. 

So, Israel has an obligation to make sure that they can protect them. 

Q    And related to the ceasefire hostage deal talks, yesterday a senio- — senior administration official said that a framework was — was nearly reached but there were gaps remaining.  I was hoping you can provide some clarification on what the remaining gaps are and whe- — on which side of the conflict those gaps are. 

MR. KIRBY:  I — I’m sure you can understand I’m not going to get into the — the details of the negotiations. 

We do believe, as I’ve said before, that there has been constructive progress towards trying to get a deal in place for an extended pause and getting all the hostages out.  But it’s not done, and nothing is really negotiated until everything is negotiated. 

And those conversations are ongoing now.  And it would be really irresponsible for me to — to get into the details of it.

Q    And then, just lastly for me.  You — you had said the U.S. response to the killing of the three American servicemembers in — in Jordan would be pha- — phased over — over some time, a few days.  Is it safe to say that the — that the U.S. response at this point is concluded, or is it still ongoing?

MR. KIRBY:  You’re going to have to wait and see. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Thank you.  John, Secretary Austin is back in the hospital.  We wish him well, but he’s had to cancel a week — a trip this week to Europe and another gathering of the Ukraine Contact Group, which he could attend virtually if he wanted to.

First off, has the President spoken to Secretary Austin since he was hospitalized?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any conversation between the two of them since — since this just happened yesterday. 

Q    Does the President have any concerns that, with his medical problems, the Secretary can no longer serve?

MR. KIRBY:  Not at all. 

Q    There were conversations in here last week, I know, about the President saying that Israel’s moves into southern Gaza have been, quote, “over the top.”  And there were suggestions that that isn’t necessarily something new.

But that is a slightly more direct commentary on what they may or may not end up doing than we’ve heard from him in the past and we normally hear from world leaders talking about what other world leaders are up to. 

Is he changing his rhetoric on this, given the concerns expressed by members of his party, especially those in swing state Michigan?

MR. KIRBY:  The President has been pretty dang consistent, almost from the very beginning, Ed, about —

Q    He wasn’t saying it was “over the top” at the beginning.

MR. KIRBY:  But he’s been very consistent, Ed, about our concerns over civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure and the need for the Israeli Defense Forces to act with precision and deliberateness and due caution about taking innocent life.  I mean, that is not a new position by this administration, certainly not a new position by the President.

Q    Was that what he expressed yesterday in their call?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get beyond the readout.  We — I think we — we offered you a pretty good summary of the things that they discussed. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, over the weekend, satellite imagery emerged that indicates that Venezuelan military assets have been moved along their border with Guyana.  Do you have a comment?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ve — we’ve obviously been monitoring this closely, ourselves.  Our assessment is that whatever military movements there have been by Venezuela have been of a very — of a small nature and size and scale and scope.  We see no indication that there’s about to be hostilities or that the Venezuelan military would be capable of conducting any significant military activities there. 

We continue to urge a peaceful resolution to this.  And, obviously, we’re going to continue to watch it closely.  You know, I would remind that anything that we’re doing down in Guyana or in that area is done fure- — purely for defensive purposes. 

Q    And on — on Haiti.  The administration is convening a meeting, including the (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:  That’s right.

Q    — starting today.  I understand (inaudible).

MR. KIRBY:  Starting today and ending tomorrow, yeah.

Q    Okay.  What — what’s the goal of that meeting?  And when would you like to see this force deployed?

MR. KIRBY:  We think there’s a — certainly a significant need for a multinational security force of some kind down there to help protect the people of Haiti.  You’re right, there are discussions going on.  Started today, will go on again tomorrow over at Fort McNair here in town.  So, we’re — we’re glad to host them.  Look forward to seeing where we can get. 

But the idea, really, is to start to set out the general parameters of what that multinational security force could look like and how it would operate.  It’s a entry-level discussion.  I have no doubt there — there will be follow-on discussions as appropriate.

Q    John, the — on the Jordanian meeting today.  The Jordanians previewed the King’s visit here as an effort to gather support for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.  The President obviously is — has been a hard no on a ceasefire.  Is that going to be the position he presents to the Jordanian King today when they meet?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, let’s let the conversation happen before we get ahead of it.  We have been very consistent that we don’t support a general ceasefire at this time, which is, you know, again, a ceasefire that would lead to both sides laying down arms permanently and — and ending the war. 

Now, we want to see the war end as soon as possible.  And we believe one of the first steps that’s critical to doing that is a humanitarian pause — an extended pause that — longer than what we saw back in November of a week that would allow us to get all the hostages out, get more aid and assistance in, and then hopefully lead to discussions that — that could get us closer to an end to the conflict.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Oh — (laughter) — thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral. 

So, President Biden had told Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu that any potential ground invasion in Rafah should not happen without a plan to protect civilians there.  Is the President confident that this message is getting through to Netanyahu?  And where are these civilians supposed to go?  So much of the infrastructure has already been destroyed in Gaza.

MR. KIRBY:  He’s confident that the — our Israeli counterparts understand our concerns.  We’ve made them privately.  We’ve made them publicly.

I won’t speak for the Israelis or — or what they may or may not do.  But they — but they’ve heard loud and clear our concerns about where the civilians — that the civilians need to be protected. 

I can’t tell you here, talking, Selina, what that would look like.  But — but we hope and expect that our Israeli counterparts will factor in the safety of those civilians appropriately as they consider future operations down in Rafah.

Q    So, what could that look like, given the situation there?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I can’t get ahead of where we are right now.  That’s really going to be a question for the Israeli Defense Forces.  They know and they understand our concerns.

Q    And Israel’s Prime Minister told ABC News, without presenting evidence, that Israel’s military has killed more Hamas fighters than civilians.  What is the U.S. assessment of that?  And do you agree with what Netanyahu told us?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t have an independent assessment of those figures.

Q    And, just lastly, the White — what is the White House reaction to Trump saying he would encourage Russia to attack NATO Allies if they don’t contribute enough towards defense spending?  What is the message that not only sends to the world but especially to U.S. Allies?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, now you know I’m going to be careful.  I can’t talk about things been said on the campaign trail.  All I can tell you is that under this particular president, President Biden, as Commander-in-Chief, NATO is now more relevant, stronger, bigger than it’s ever been before.  And he has really prioritized our network of alliances and partnerships around the world.  And, of course, NATO is right at the forefront of that when it comes to the security environment on the continent of Europe. 

And that’s what — that’s what the American president ought to be about — be about reinforcing alliances and partnerships and sending a strong signal, particularly to NATO Allies, about how seriously we take our Article Five commitments. 

And you’ve heard from President Biden, gosh, I don’t know how many times: We will defend, if needed, every inch of NATO territory. 

That’s what the Commander-in-Chief of the United States ought to be saying when it comes to NATO.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Trevor.

Q    And just to follow up on that quickly.  Vice President Harris is going to be in Munich with a lot of those European security leaders.  Is part of her duty there to reassure allies that that deterrence is still a force here?

MR. KIRBY:  I have no doubt that the Vice President will take the opportunity while she’s in Munich not only to talk about our — how this administration is pursuing our national security interests in Europe and beyond but how important, again, we consider our network of alliances and partnerships. 

And, Trevor, there’s no other nation in the world — none — that has a network like the United States has because the President and the Vice President and national security team has invested so much energy in the last three years in revitalizing them. 

A lot of allies and partners had a lot of questions when we came into office because they didn’t feel valued.  They didn’t feel respected.  They didn’t feel like the United States was — was willing to continue to lead on — on the world stage.  And we’ve proven that we are.

Q    And on Rafah.  Does the — has the President ever threatened to strip military assistance from Israel if they move ahead with a Rafah operation that does not take into consequence what happens with civilians?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re going to continue to support Israel.  They have a right to defend themselves against Hamas.  And we’re going to continue to make sure they have the tools and the capabilities to do that. 

Q    And what’s the view about the role that Egypt should play there?  Do they need to reopen their — do they need to open that border on their side in order to allow civilians to come through?

MR. KIRBY:  They — Egypt has been a terrific counterpart, with respect to Rafah and — and the use of that gate and allowing people that need to get out to get out — people that — you know, third- — third-country nationals.  And they continue to do that.  They’ve been a terrific partner.

Q    But it is closed — right? — so the average person can’t move through there, so —

MR. KIRBY:  There will be — there have been and I suspect there will be closures at times based on the security environment.  But — but we’re not concerned about our ability to continue to communicate with President El-Sisi about — about the proper use of that gate.

Q    But just to be clear, people are actually penned in right now — Gaza civilians — who are not able to egress — right? — into Egypt.

MR. KIRBY:  You’re talking about Palestinians?

Q    Palestinians who are not able to egress.  So, is that something that the President wants to see movement on?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t want to see any forced relocation of people out of Gaza.  That’s home for the Palestinian people. 

Q    What about voluntary?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, that’s something that we — we have and will continue to discuss with counterparts in the region.  But — but it’s home to those folks.  That’s — Gaza is home.  And they shouldn’t be forced to leave Gaza if they don’t want to leave. 

Now, if there’s going to be operations in Rafah or around Rafah, the Israelis have a commitment, an obligation to make sure that they can provide for the safety of innocent Palestinian — innocent Pal- — Palestinian people that are there.

Q    But you’re not pressuring Egypt to allow them to —

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the specifics of diplomatic conversations that we’re having.  We w- — don’t want to see any Palestinian people forced out of Gaza.  That’s their home. 

If there are people that — that need to leave that are not Palestinians and want to leave, obviously, we’re working with Egypt to do that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Can you just talk to us about the feasibility of moving the entire civilian population out of Rafah?  Is that even physically doable?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s a lot of folks there, M.J. — more than a million.  Some estimates have it almost at 1.5 million.  That’s a lot of people that moved down to Rafah to get out of the fighting. 

And so, again, the — the task of providing for their safety at that number and in such confined spaces is — is difficult.  There’s no question about it.  That’s going to be a heavy lift.  For any military, it would be a heavy lift.  But — but that’s the conversation that we want to keep having with our Israeli counterparts.

That — that — I don’t know what it’s going to look like.  We can’t tell you what it’s going to look like.  That’s really for the IDF to speak to.  But it absolutely has to be accounted for.

Q    But do you think it’s a — it is a realistic goal, that it is viable to try to move those people out of that area?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, let’s see what the Israeli Defense Forces come up with. 

Q    And if they go ahead with the ground incursion anyway before the civilian population can safely be moved out of that area, would there be any consequences from the U.S.?  I know Trevor just asked a question about, you know, potentially stripping, you know, military support or security assistance.  What would the consequence be for Israel if they went ahead and did that anyway?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t want to get into hypotheticals on that.  We’ve — we’ve been very clear with our Israeli counterparts privately and publicly about what our expectations are for the treatment of the innocent people that are — that are down there near Rafah. 

And we’re going to continue to — as I mentioned to Trevor, we’re going to continue to support Israel.  They have a right and responsibility to go after Hamas.  We’re going to make sure that they can continue to do that.

But as from the very beginning, we want to make sure that they do that in a way that fully accounts for the preservation of innocent life and civilian infrastructure.

Q    And just since the President is about to meet with a close ally that publicly supports a ceasefire in Gaza, can you just talk to us about whether the President’s thinking on that has evolved at all?  You know, is he a little bit closer to potentially supporting that publicly than, say, a month ago?  Has his thinking on that evolved at all?

MR. KIRBY:  We haven’t changed in terms of our desire to see an extended pause so that we can get all the hostages home with their families where they belong, so we can get additional security assistance in, and we can see a reduction in the violence.  We are still focused on trying to get an extended humanitarian pause.

Q    I’m asking about a permanent pause.

MR. KIRBY:  I know what you’re asking.  We’re — what I’m saying is we support and continue to support an extended humanitarian pause. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, John.  I — you talk — I know you can’t give specifics about consequences.  But, I mean, would the United States’ policy change under any circumstances?  You know, you talk about an obligation to protect civilians.  The President has talked about “over the top,” indiscriminate bombings.  Is there anything — would there be any consequences?  Would the U.S. policy change?  Or is it support no matter what?

MR. KIRBY:  I just won’t get ahead of where we are right now.  And I’m certainly not going to engage hypotheticals.  We want to make sure Israel can continue to defend itself.  We want to make sure that humanitarian assistance continues to flow to the people of Gaza.  And by no means has there been enough.  There needs to be more.  And we want to get all those hostages home. 

We believe that the best way to accomplish those three goals is to get an extended pause in place to bring the violence down, to get people out, and get aid in.  And that’s what we’re focused on. 

And I — I get the — I get the thrust of the question.  I’m just not going to engage in hypotheticals about changes in policy.

Q    Is there anything beyond concern that you can give to the Israelis to — to help protect the civilians?

MR. KIRBY:  We have communicated, again, consistently and stridently since the beginning of the conflict — I mean, since the time the President went to Tel Aviv on the 17th of October, just a week or so after the attacks — how important it is that Israel knows it’s going to have our support and that they do everything they can to protect innocent life.

Q    Anoth- — another question, if I may.  What — what does — what — why did the President allow his campaign — the President allow his campaign to go on TikTok despite the national security review of the platform?

MR. KIRBY:  I’d have to refer you to the campaign for that.

Q    But, I mean, it’s still the President of the United States.  He’s still sending — the President is sending a message to Americans about the nat- — about the safety of TikTok by doing this.

MR. KIRBY:  I’d have to refer you to the campaign on that decision.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  I’m sorry to press you on this issue of — of Rafah.  But, I mean, you say there’s — you know, you’re not going to talk about possible halting military aid; you’re not going to talk about consequences.  What leverage does the White House actually have in terms of ensuring that Israel does not launch a military offensive in — in Rafah, you know, without taking the necessary steps?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I don’t think you’re all that sorry about pressing me on this, but I’ll — I’ll go ahead.  (Laughter.) 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  It’s okay.  It’s all right.  (Laughs.)

Look, it’s not about leverage.  It’s about being consistent.  And I’ve said it before, just in the last few minutes.  It’s about being consistent about our desire to make sure Israel can defend itself so that October 7th can’t happen again, which Hamas obviously wants to do.  And it’s being consistent about the nee- — how they conduct those operations matter.  And we have been consistent since the very beginning in talking to the Israelis about — about the “how,” about operations and how they’re conducted.

And I would tell you that throughout this conflict, there have been moments and there continue to be moments where we have the opportunity and have taken the opportunity to shape their thinking and to help influence the way they have conducted some of these operations.  And that remains today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.  Hi, John.  You referenced the release of two hostages.  But also, there is reports that in the process of this special operation, three hostages were killed, along with 100 Palestinians, including women and children.  Also, Egypt threatened to withdraw from the Camp David agreement if Israel invaded Rafah.  So, how does the White House navigate this rather complex picture?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I tried to address that in my opening statement, Nadia.  We don’t want to see any civilians killed, one — at any time — Israel — Israeli or Palestinian — in the conduct of operations.  The right number is — is zero. 

And so, while we’re very glad that two hostages are now back with their families where they belong, we certainly mourn any loss of innocent life as a result of those operations. 

And it just — it just underscores, I think, a couple of things.  One — and, again, we’re not — I can’t validate the numbers.  I’ve seen the reports, but I can’t confirm them.  But it does underscore two things: one, the difficulty of conducting military operations in such a closed-in urban environment where there are so many people — and as we talked about earlier, even more people now in the south in Rafah than there were before.  So, there — that’s an added difficulty for the IDF.

And, number two, it underscores the obligation that they have and that they know they have to be careful and discriminate and — and very deliberate in how they — in how they go after targets.

Last thing on this, though, and I think it’s an important point — and you didn’t ask this, but it’s an — we do know that Hamas leadership and — and fighters migrated south.  They got pressured in the north, so they went down to Khan Yunis.  Of course, they were already in Khan Yunis, but they kind of congregated there.  And then, as the Israelis put pressure on them in Khan Yunis, they gravitated further south now towards Rafah.

They — their — by their very presence and their operations down there, they are further endangering the people of — of Gaza that are now settled or trying to find refuge down there in Rafah. 

So, there’s — there is — there are legitimate military targets that the Israelis are going to want to go after in Rafah.  Again, we just urge them, as we have, to be careful. 

Q    And, also, I wanted to ask you — the President’s comments.  He referenced “over the top,” and he also said that Israel indiscriminately killing people in Gaza.  Yet, he’s willing to sign off on almost $14 billion in military aid. 

So, how can you reconcile the fact that he’s worried about civilian casualties without any serious review about how U.S. weapons are used in the civilian area?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I think you know we — just last week, late in the week, we issued a national security memorandum that — that codifies existing policies and adds reporting requirements onto those existing policies about our expectations for how military assistance is going to be provided to any foreign actor — and, of course, that includes Israel.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, John.  Just to jump off of Nadia’s question, you’ve been explicit that the U.S. does not support an operation into Rafah without a credible, feasible plan to move and protect civilians. 

Yesterday’s operation — as you’ve also acknowledged, there were reports of civilian casualties.  But is — was the operation yesterday within the grounds of the kind of operation that the U.S. would support in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I can’t really speak to the specifics of IDF operations.  You know I won’t do that.  They should speak to the operations that they conduct and — and what that looks like.

As I understand that — again, this is rudimentary and early information — this was a specific military raid to rescue hostages and not necessarily indicative of some larger operation that they have talked about conducting in Rafah to root out Hamas leaders that have now tried to find refuge among the million or so Palestinians that are there. 

Q    Yeah.  So, just in terms of, you know, what the U.S. would support, is it — is it a question of scale?  Is it a question of — of more targeted operations like this are okay, despite the possible civilian casualties, whereas a mass operation is not okay?  Like, just in terms of U.S. support.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, with the caveat that this is a sovereign nation we’re talking about and they get to decide what military operations they’re going to conduct, what we’ve said is: We wouldn’t support operations, given the current circumstances, where you have, again, more than a million people there with nowhere to go and no plan for some place for them to go so that they can be safe. 

So, we look forward to continuing talking to our Israeli counterparts about what that could look like. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Thanks so much.  John, on TikTok.  Can you explain what are the national security concerns that the administration has about TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  As you know, it’s not approved for use on government devices, and that’s — remains the — the case today.  And I think — again, I don’t want to get into too much of the — of the national security, technical reasons behind that.  But it does have to do with concerns about the preservation of data and the potential misuse of that data and privacy information by foreign actors. 

I think that’s as far as I can go. 

Q    Does the White House believe it’s wise for people to use TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, that’s — that’s not something that I — I’m qualified to say from the National Security Council.  All I can tell you is it’s — it’s banned on U.S. government devices, and we follow that guidance. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    So, yesterday was the second anniversary with the Biden-Harris administration of the Indo-Pacific Strategy.  We have a statement from the NSC, but I’m just wondering how you see the progress so far.  Are you satisfied with the progress?

MR. KIRBY:  I think we’ve made a lot of progress.  I mean, we’ve initiated AUKUS and that process is moving along on schedule to get Australia nuclear-powered submarine capability.  We’ve elevated the Quad — the Indo-Pacific Quad.  We’ve upgraded our relationships with Vietnam, with Indonesia, and with ASEAN. 

And, of course, as you know, the President hosted the leaders of Japan and South Korea at Camp David and really got not only significant developments in terms of our bilateral relationship with each country, each ally, but improved opportunities to — to get trilateral cooperation in a much better place than it’s ever been. 

I can go on and on, including adding capabilities in and around the Korean Peninsula to — to keep a better eye on what Kim Jong Un is doing and, of course, bolstering all the rest of our alliances and netwo- — and par- — partnerships in the region. 

Q    Does the U.S. believe that all of the remaining hostages are being held in Rafah?  And if so, given that that would include Americans, are there requests by U.S. officials to the Israelis for any assurances for protection of those hostages?

MR. KIRBY:  We — we sadly don’t have a whole lot of specific information about where each of the hostages are, who’s holding them, and in what condition they might be.  And sadly, we have to accept the possibility that some of them are no longer alive.  We just don’t have terrific granularity on that.

We are in constant conversations with our Israeli counterparts about what they know. 

Certainly, we’re in — we remain in touch with the families of the American hostages.  I think Jake Sullivan just met with them a week or so ago.  We’ll — we’ll maintain constant touch with them and try to get as much information as we can. 

But obviously, the whole reason we’re trying to get this deal in place is so that you can provide for the safe and secure passage of hostages out.

Yes, it’s true and we’re glad that two hostages were rescued.  But the lo- — but the — by and — by and large, the greatest number of hostages safely released were done through a hostage deal — right? — a pause in the fighting where they were able to go. 

And that’s why we’re putting so much effort into these current negotiations.  We believe that’s the best way to get hostages in greater numbers out safely. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We have to wrap it up.  Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thank you, John.  I have a question about Afghanistan, and then one about Lunar New Year.

Starting with Afghanistan.  The U.N. is holding its second International Conference on Afghanistan since the Taliban took power back.  That’s happening next week in Doha.  So, I just wonder what — what are the administration’s expectations from this gathering?  And do you see this as a move to normalize the Taliban?

MR. KIRBY:  There are no efforts by the United States government to, quote, unquote, “normalize,” as you put it, or to recognize the Taliban.

Officially, we’ve said — we’ve said it numerous times: If they want to be seen as legitimate rulers, they need to meet all the commitments that they said they would meet and make.  And they haven’t done that. 

Q    Do you think the U.N. should be holding this meeting, then?

MR. KIRBY:  I will let the Secretary-General speak for what the — what meetings the U.N. is holding.  Nothing has changed about our policy when it comes to the Taliban. 

Q    And then, very quickly, Happy Year of the Dragon.  It’s a happy year for you, a rabbit.  But — (laughter) — you are a rabbit.  You were born —

MR. KIRBY:  I’m a rabbit?

Q    — in 1963.  Yes, you are. 

Q    I have a follow-up.  (Laughter.)

MR. KIRBY:  About me being a rabbit?  (Laughter.)  All right.  Thank you.  I did not know that. 

Q    What is the —

MR. KIRBY:  But I appreciate that very much.

Q    What does the President — he’s a horse.  What is it — it’s supposed to be a prosperous year for him.  What is the President’s message for the 20 million Asian Americans who celebrated this — this holiday over the weekend?  He hasn’t issued a message.  What is his message?

MR. KIRBY:  We have, actually, I think, put something out on social media about the — the Lunar New Year.  And, of course, we’re wishing everybody who observes the Lunar New Year a happy one and a prosperous one, even the — even the rabbits.  (Laughter.)

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

Q    Yeah.  Thanks.  Admiral, I wanted to clarify the position on TikTok.  So, the administration still has concerns — security concerns about TikTok, even though the campaign has now joined it?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I cannot speak nor will I speak for the campaign. 

Q    Not for the campaign but from the —

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t do that — or their decisions. 

Q    Right.

MR. KIRBY:  Nothing has changed about the national security concerns, from the NSC’s perspective, about the use of TikTok on government devices.  That policy is still in place. 

Q    But surely there must have been some conversation between the White House here and the campaign on whether it was appropriate for the campaign to — to use it, right?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t speak to that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.  Last one.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, just following up on this TikTok stuff.  Is — is the CFIUS review still happening?

MR. KIRBY:  I’d have to refer you to CFIUS.  I’m not in a position to confirm one way or another what they’re — what they’re looking at.

Q    So, is the administration still weighing a ban on TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I have nothing for you on that, Jacqui.  I mean, I’d have to refer you to — to CFIUS.  All I can speak to credibly, which I have today, is that, from an NSC perspective, there are still national security concerns about the use of TikTok on government devices.  And there’s been no change to our policy not to allow that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Awesome.  Thank you.

Q    Can you help me understand, though, like, why — why there wouldn’t be any communication between CFIUS and the administration broadly?  I mean, with the National Security Council, given —

MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say there — I didn’t say there wasn’t.  I just said I’m not able to speak to issues regarding CFIUS.  You’d have to talk to them.  It’s an independent body.  And it’s not something I — I can’t speak for them. 

Q    I think we’re all just trying to square why the President would use this platform that his administration is weighing a national ban on because of national security concerns.

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to speak to any hypothetical ban.  I can only tell you that it’s not allowed on government devices.  That policy remains the case.  And I just can’t speak for the campaign or their decisions.  I apologize.

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

All right.  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just to — another round on that TikTok question.  Are you aware of any communication between the Biden campaign and anyone who works in the White House about the President joining TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I can’t speak to any conversations on — on — specifically on TikTok.  We got to be really careful — the campaign, 2024, can’t —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no.  Hold on, hold on, hold on. 

So, we’re not going to comment on any specifics.  And so, certainly, we would defer to the campaign on any strategy.  The CFIUS process is separate and not going to get ahead of — of what we’re going to say here. 

And I would say that the administration is on record for — for supporting the RESTRICT Act, as you all know, something that came up last year.  And it’s a bipartisan bill.  And it is, indeed, tailored and risk-based approach so we can protect Americans’ freedom of speech, and that’s what matters. 

As you know — as you know, there are folks here who are commissioned officers who certain people are allowed to have conversation with the campaign.  But I can’t speak to any specific conversations that are havening — happening about this particular issue. 

Again, it’s under CFIUS review.  Want to be really mindful of not getting ahead of that.  And also, it’s the campaign, so that is something that they would have to — have to speak to. 

And the reason why it is banned on government — government phones or government properties, obviously, devices is because that is an act of Congress.  That is something that Congress wanted — put forward to make sure that no government — government devices are used.

Q    Were you aware before the — before the campaign posted —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — to TikTok?  Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I am very, very careful.  As the White House Press Secretary, I have to — I’m in a different — kind of in a different box than most.  And so, I do not communicate with the campaign on any strategy or — or anything like that.  And so, I’m just very, very mindful of that.  I did not know.  I knew as — as you all did.

Q    And then a few follow-ups on the Special Counsel’s report —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — last week.  The — when Ian Sams was here on Friday, he said the White House was considering releasing the transcript of the President’s convers- — conversa- — interview with the special counsel, which you all have objected to that characterization of that.  Do you have an update on that review process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, certainly I’m going to refer you to the — my colleagues at the White House Counsel.  I know the President’s personal attorney, obviously, spoke to this on one of the Sunday shows yesterday.  So, I know they’re — they have been responsive.  The team here have been responsive to those specific questions.  I just don’t have anything to share. 

Q    But, also, the discussion about the Pre- — the President’s ordering it — the creation of a task force to change policies around the handling of classified information in a — in a presidential transition.  Do you have any updates on when the President will create that task force?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have any updates on that particular question about the task force.

Q    The President’s personal di- — notes from his time as vice president were among those items that were reviewed by the special counsel, and — and the interagency found they contained classified — in some cases, highly classified information.  Does the President still keep a diary and notebooks now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, that particular question, obviously, the White House Counsel would be able to speak to more directly.  But I do want to remind everyone that this was a 15-month investigation.  And I think the outcome of that investigation, obviously, has been stated, is that counsel — the special counsel has not found any — nothing to prosecute.  And I think that’s important to note. 

And I — anything beyond that, any specific questions about diary or anything like that, I would have to refer you to the White House Counsel.
Q    And then, lastly, when the President hosts the King later, they’re going to be making statements.  Why isn’t the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and given all of these questions about the special counsel and others — why isn’t he taking questions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, let’s be clear.  The day that the special counsel report came out, the President came out in the evening and took — and made a statement and took questions.  He wanted to make sure that you all heard from him directly.  And so, I want to be really — let’s not forget that that did occur on the day that the report came out. 

Look, the President is — is looking forward to welcoming the King — King Abdullah to the — to the White House.  He comes here every year, as you all know, during his presidency.  And so, he looks, certainly, forward to welcoming the King. 

So, that said — and I said this last week, and I’ll just reiterate — there are a variety of factors that go into decision-making, that go into press con- — if there is going to be a press conference or not during foreign — foreign leaders.  It’s — it depends on those — those conversations that we have with the foreign leaders and how that works out.

Look, you’re going to hear from the President, you’re going to hear from the King later — later today, around four o’clock.  I think that’s important.  You’ll hear directly from them.  There’s just not a press — press conference component to this.  Not every trip — not every visit with a foreign leader has a press conference component.

As I stated, King Abdullah has been here almost every year during this President’s tenure, and they — that has not been the case — a two-plus-two has not been the case.

Q    I just want to follow up on that real quick —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — because you mentioned the — that on Friday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The German Chancellor gave a press conference across the street in Lafayette Park.  It seems the White House here is the road block.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — that is something for the German Chancellor to speak to — as to their government, why they chose to do that.  I can’t speak to that. 

Every — there is — there are two, obviously, when — when a foreign leader comes, there are two governments that have this discussion.  They go through the process of what they want that trip to look like when they’re here at the White House.  And there are dif- — different varying — various factors that play into that.

And so, every trip is different.  Every trip is different.

And with this particular trip, King Abdullah, every time he’s been here, there has not been a two-plus-two.  That’s what I would remind — remind you all of that as well.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A new ABC News/Ipsos poll shows that 86 percent of Americans think Biden is too old to serve another term.  That is a higher percentage than what we found in a previous poll in September.  So, clearly, polling shows this is a persistent issue.  What is the White House strategy to try and change that perception?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re going to continue to lead on leadership, right?  We’re going to continue to focus on what this President has been able to get done, what the President has been able to get done on behalf of the — of the American people. 

And, look, I’ll quote a little bit of what the First Lady said, I think, incredibly well just a couple days ago: President Biden does “more in one hour than most people do in a day. … His age, with experience and expertise, is an incredible asset, and he proves it every day.”  And that’s what we believe. 

We believe that his age and his experience — because he was a senator; because he was, obviously, a vice president; because he has these long — you know, long decades of relationships with leaders, obviously, across the globe — and what he’s been able to do, that’s what we’re going to lean into.  That’s what we’re going to speak to. 
We’re going to speak to how he turned the economy back on its feet.  We’re going to speak to the 14.8 million jobs that he was able to create, how unemployment is at under 4 percent, how is he — he’s able to beat Big Pharma, because Medicare can now negotiate and lower costs for the American people. 

That’s what we’re going to focus on.  And I think that’s the most important thing at this moment, at this time, is delivering for the American people and continuing to do that.

Q    And bouncing off of the previous question.  The numbers show that President Biden has engaged in about 33 news conferences.  Compare that to Obama’s 66 and Donald Trump’s 52 by this time in their presidencies.  Can you explain why the President isn’t doing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look —

Q    — more?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, and I hear the question, and I know that folks want to hear you all.  And it’s important, because when you all hear from the President, obviously so does the American people.  So, we get the importance of that.  And we’re always going to try to find ways — obviously, outside of press conferences as well — to — for the President to be out there.

And we have found some nontraditional ways.  We think it’s important to try and meet the American people where they are.  And so, that is important as well.  Whether it’s a podcast, that’s an — important or, you know, doing — doing certain things that is not the norm.

Obviously, the person — the President, I should say, takes — you know, takes your questions when he’s on the road as — you know, more often than not.  And he finds it important to have those conversations when you all are out there with him on the road, taking your questions.  And so, he does do that.

As far as press conferences, we’re going to try and make sure when it’s the right time for — for those to happen, certainly we will — we will do so.  But it doesn’t mean that this President does not engage with — with the press corps — with the White — White House press corps or with other reporters, journalists out there who have different — different ways with communicating with the American people as well.  We think that’s important too.

Q    But why is it more effective to forego a Super Bowl interview and in- — instead —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’ve talked about this.

Q    — post short clips on social media?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve talked about this.  We believe that it is an important, obviously, tradition to — to watch the Super Bowl.  And we think there are different ways to communicate with the American people.  And we’re going to try and find different ways to meet the American people where they are.

And so, that’s a — that’s a choice that we’ve made here that we think is actually important and effective.

Q    Karine, there was some reporting this morning that President Biden told some campaign donors that Prime Minister Netanyahu, quote, “has been a pain in my ass lately” or, quote, “he’s been killing me lately.”  The reason we don’t know what the exact quote is is because the press was not in that meeting that the President had with these donors.

Why is the President not living up to his full transparency pledge in terms of opening all meetings with donors to the press?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think that — so, when the — first of all, I want to be careful.  These are campaign — campaign events, so I just want to be mindful.  Can’t speak to each of them or, really, most of them.  I know that — and as you know, when the President does speak in front of — when he does do some of these fundraising events — right? — there is — when he gives remarks, formal remarks, the pr- — the press pool is in there and they are listening to the remarks and get to — get to hear directly what the President says.

So, I think that’s also very important.  I don’t want to make it sound like he does not — there is not a process there, that when he is in front of donors giving formal remarks, that you all are not in the room as he is speaking. 

I can’t speak to this particular — to this particular scenario.  I think that is something certainly he — he does have private meetings.  That is true.  And when he has those private meetings, those meetings — so that there is candor and — and honesty and so that he can hear directly from folks, those tend to be private. 

But I want to be really careful here in speaking into every — every scenario that happens, because I don’t — I can’t speak to that particular scenario.

Q    Should — should the President of the United States be engaging privately with a random set of financial donors about issues that are of clear public import, like his opinion —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, he —

Q    — of the Israeli Prime Minister?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I hear your question.  But the President has private meetings all the time.  He does.  He has private meetings all the time.  And —

Q    Right.  But these aren’t foreign leaders.  Right?  These are people who are giving money to him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, but —

Q    — to his campaign.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I hear you, but he has private meetings with everyday people.  Some of these donors have — and I want to be super mindful here — have concerns — right? — as well, just like American — everyday American people that he has private meetings with or he sees on the road.  It’s not every meeting that’s going to be public. 

But when he has — when he gives remarks at fundraisers, there is a — formal remarks — there is — the press pool tends to be in the room, or is in the room.  Private meetings are different.  And so, that’s the way it’s been for the — you know, for the past three years in this — this administration. 

Look, I want to be really careful.  These are campaign — obviously, some of them, campaign-, DNC-related meetings, so I just want to be super, super mindful here.

Q    And what’s the distinction between formal and informal remarks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I would — honestly, I’m going to refer you — on anything that’s related to these specific meetings, I would refer you to the campaign, because they’re the ones that put it together.  They’re the ones that bring the folks in the room.  I just want to be super mindful and not go down — too far — too far a rabbit hole here.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Hey, Karine.  Any updates on when the President’s physical might be taking place?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, he will have a physical.  When we — when we have information on that, obviously, we will certainly share that with all of you.  It will be transparent.  There will be a — a comprehensive report, as we have done the last two years.  Just don’t have a — just don’t have a timeline for you.

Q    Do you — do you plan on the press getting a heads-up before the physical happens, or will we find out once it has taken place?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to do it the way that we’ve done it the last two years.  It’s not going to be anything different.  So, the way that we’ve approached this the last two years will be the same way that we do this this year —

Q    And — and does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — this third year.

Q Does the White House think that the — the idea of the President taking a cognition test — a cognitive test, as a part of this physical is a legitimate idea, particularly just on the heels of the special counsel report; more polling, as my colleague Selina just mentioned, showing that many American people have concerns about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I got this question last week, as well.  And I’m just going to say what the — what Dr. O’Connor — it’s kind of a — what he said to me about a year ago when the report came out last year, obviously, on his physical, which is the President proves every day how he operates, how he thinks — right? — by dealing with world leaders, by making really difficult decisions on behalf of the — the American people, whether it’s domestic, whether it’s national security.  And so, he shows it every day on how he thinks, how he operates.  And so, that is how — that is how Dr. O’Connor sees it.  And that’s how I’m going to leave it.

Q    What do you think about the idea of taking that kind of a test?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and I talked about this last week, too, on, I believe, whenever — on Friday.  I have known this president since 2009.  I — he is not just my — my boss, but, you know, he’s also some- — a mentor to me.  And I spent sometimes countless hours with him, whether it’s in the Oval Office, whether it’s on the road.  And I believe, for me — you’re asking me my personal opinion — he is sharp.  He is on top of things. 

He — when we have meetings with him, with his staff, he’s constantly pushing us, getting — trying to get more information.  And so, that has been my experience with this president. 

Anything else outside of that — I just shared with you what Dr. O’Connor said to me, and so I’ll just leave it there.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I know you’re not going to comment on the campaign or its decisions, but does the White House believe that TikTok is giving Americans, especially younger Americans, false perceptions about President Biden and his broader agenda?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to be really careful about speaking to TikTok specifically because there is a CFIUS review.  They’re in an independent body.  And they are going to move forward with whatever they decide to do.  So, don’t want to step into that. 

Obviously, more broadly, as it relates to social media platforms, we’ve always said there is misinformation, disinformation out there that we have to try and combat.  And so, we’ve always been very clear, we’ve always been concerned about our young people and the information that — the misinformation, disin- — that they’re getting and how that’s affecting their lives.  That is a concern that we have.  And we’ve talked about that very explicitly, very clearly.

As it relates to TikTok, going to be really careful because of that CFIUS review.  And so, just want to be super, super mindful. 

So, obviously, just not going to comment on specific cases.

Q    Separately, the Senate is on track to pass the national security supplemental this week.  Still not clear if Speaker Johnson is going to bring that up for a vote in the House.  Does the President plan to have any outreach with House Republican leadership to try to get that across the finish line?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know how important the President thinks it is to get that very all-important funding — security assistance to Ukraine; obviously, Israel, Indo-Pacific.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

Obviously, we had this really careful, strategic conversations as well with Senate Republicans and Democrats for the past couple of months for the border security because we th- — we believe that entire package was important.  But, obviously, Republicans got — Republicans, specifically in the House, got in the way and would not move that forward. 

And it’s unfortunate because that is the way, we believe, we would have been able to deal with policy issues and funding issues as it relates to the border, the challenges at the border, and also immigration. 

So, look, we are in constant communication — the team here, the Office of Leg Affairs, and other White House officials are in constant communication, obviously, with the leadership on both sides — on both sides of chamber — in each chamber to try and figure out how we’re going to move forward, how we’re going to make sure that this all-important — all-important funding gets out there. 

And so, conversations are going to continue.  We are –obviously, what we wanted to see is to — the border security component, negotiation piece of that, to be included.  But we are where we are.  And we — but we believe it’s important.  It’s important to move forward.

Q    But would the President get directly involved in those conversations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any conversations to read out.  Obviously, he tends to have private conversations.  We don’t read out every conversation.  He has relationships with folks in Congress.  But his Office of — his Office of Leg Affairs and other White House officials are in regular touch with congressional leadership and keeps — they also keep the President updated as well, which is important. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Just two things.  The first on the guidance we got for the week.  There were public events for the President today and on Friday.  I was hoping you might be able to give us a sense on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, as you make the case that the President has a lot of vigor and is doing a lot of things — (laughter) — what — what is — what has he got planned?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just talk about Friday a little bit, because I think people — I know that an advisory went out on — over the weekend about East Palestine.  All — all of you know that he’s going to be going to East Palestine on Friday.  He’s going to be traveling there.  And it’s because of the invitation that he received from the mayor. 

So, it’s going to be really important.  And while — while the President is on the ground, he’ll — he’ll get a briefing on the ongoing response and speak to the administration’s work to — to keep Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] accountable, which is incredibly important, and support the community as it moves forward. 

He also has heard loud and clear from the folks in East Palestine that they don’t want to be defined by an event.  And so, he’ll — he’ll speak to the administration’s work to deliver on the needs for family businesses that are affected.

And let’s not forget, there is the Bipartisan Railways Safety Act that he is going to continue to call on Congress to — to move forward on.

So, that is going to be a really important trip.  You are correct about that.  The President will be out there meeting directly for the — with the American people. 

I don’t have any — anything yet for tomorrow, Wednesday, or Thursday.  Obviously, when — when things move or we have something to share, we’ll certainly put that — put it — put that out there on the daily guidance.  And, obviously, there’s some movement happening in Congress as well that we’re keeping a close eye on.  And so, once we have more to share, we’ll have more to share on that.

Q    And then, secondly, you — you started the briefing by wishing a congratulations to the Kansas City Trie — Chiefs, as — as well as to all the Swifties out there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    I’m wondering: When the Chiefs are invited to the White House, does the White House intend to also invite Taylor Swift?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s going to be up to the Ka- — to the Chiefs and, obviously, their decision to figure out who’s going to come with them when they come.  And as you know, it’s a White House tradition.  I can’t — I can’t speak to attendance and who will be here. 

But we look forward — we look forward to having them here.  And, obviously, we congratulate them on a — on a great win.

Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Thanks so much.  You talked a lot about how — and the President says this too — that people should watch him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — when there are questions about his age.  And then — and the issue seems to be that they are watching him in public events, in — in some press conferences and are coming to this conclusion, many of them, that he is — he’s too old. 

So, what I’m wondering is: Is he behaving differently behind closed doors?  Because we don’t get to see that at all.  And are you — do you see and — when you interact with him privately, is there kind of a different, sort of, level of vigor that is perhaps not as visible when we’re all seeing him publicly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, let me just first say — and I was on the swing with him recently, right?  He went to Wisconsin, he went to Michigan, he went to California, he went to Vegas, and he’s going to go to Ohio later this week.  And so, he visited small businesses and he met with people on the road, obviously, and spent hours with them.  So, folks have seen him and you all have seen him yourselves as you cover this President.

And so, you see him interact.  You see him engage.  And even when he was in Vegas, he took some questions that you all had and that — you know, and — and answer — he tends to answer them in — in a light way, a funny way, and is sharp with his answers to some of you about that.

And so, look — and he is also meeting with world leaders.  He did that with the German Chancellor.  He’s obviously going to do this today with King Abd- — Abdullah.

And I spoke already about my experience with him.  And just to answer your question: I have spent countless hours with this president, whether in the Oval Office or on the road, and I have to say he’s sharp, he’s engaged, he pushes us for information.

Q    But is there anything like — like emails at, like, two o’clock in the morning —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — or, you know, is there any sort of, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I think —

Q    Can you sort of put, like, a finer point on what it is exactly that, like, you see that somehow isn’t, you know, coming across to the rest of the American people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think the fact that when he meets with his te- — his team, when he meets with staff, he is, as I said, incredibly engaged; as I said, very sharp; and asks us back and forth — we go back and forth on whatever information, whatever is — is maybe the news of the day that’s on — that’s — that’s on his mind.  And it happens very often.

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, that’s my experience with him.  But you all see him on the road.  I mean, you know, he was — when we were in Vegas, he was asked about — you know, about — he was asked a specific question about the former President, and he answered that in a — in a fun, sharp, you know, kind of way.  And that’s him.  That is him.  What you see there is him.

And so, look, I think — and I do want to step back for a second, because I think what’s very important, too, is this President’s record in the last three years and what he’s been able to get done.  And that matters.  And that matters.

And so, yes, we’re going to continue to be out there.  The President is going to continue to do everything that he can to speak directly to the American people.  And we believe that is what’s important here: getting that work done, continuing to move forward in a — in a — an impressive record of — in the last three years, especially for any modern president.

Whether it’s dealing with infrastructure, whether it’s dealing with beating Big Pharma, whether it’s getting the economy back on its feet, all of these things are important. 

Let’s not forget what’s going on outside of this country — what’s going on in Ukraine, what’s going on in the Middle East.  This is something that the President has been able to do in a pretty effective way.

Q    And then just to follow up quickly on Matt’s question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    When Super Bowl teams are invited to the White House, do they typically have a plus one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I actually — that’s a good question.  I — I can’t answer that right now.  But, look, we — we are looking forward to having them here — the Chiefs.  And they — it was a — it was a great — it was a great — a great win.  And just like we do in every — every — this is a White House tradition, to have the S- — the winners of the Super Bowl here.  And so, we’re looking forward to it.

Go ahead.  I haven’t called on you yet.  Go ahead.

Q    Is the White House doing anything to move the stalled child and biz tax bill in the Senate?

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

Q    Is the White House doing anything to move forward the stalled child and biz tax bill in the Senate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, the Pre- — the President supports that bipartisan — bipartisan legislation.  We’ve talked about it in here before.  There’s always conversations that we’re having with congressional leadership and staff on important — obviously important pieces of legislation that matters to the American people.

I don’t have anything to read out.  But obviously, we’re in support of that particular legislation.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Yeah, thanks.  On shrinkflation and the President’s video from this weekend on inflation.  So — thanks, Karine, by the way.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Sure.

Q    The — the President is blaming companies again now, it seems, for inflation.  And based on his policies, though, does the President accept any responsibility for where prices are since he came into office?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  Look, we understand how grocery — how grocery prices are a major concern for hardworking families.  We get it.  We get that there — that there are — the prices are still, you know, kind of — kind of hurting Americans. 

But what we’ve seen is that prices have gone down for eggs, for milk, for seafood.  And that’s important.  They — they are lower than they were a year ago.  And we know that’s not enough.

And so, what we — the President has continued — continuously done — and you see this in this video that you’re speaking of — he’s called on large corporations to pass their savings on to hard — hardworking Americans.  That’s what we’re doing.  And I think that’s important that this Pres- — President sees that. 

And then, in shrinkflation, for so — for folks who are watching doesn’t quite know what that is — what we’re seeing is the size of a product gets smaller even as the prices stays the same.  And that shouldn’t be.  And so, the President is going to call that.

And it’s — you know, and what you’re — you’re seeing, it’s giving families less — less for their — bang for their buck, if you think about that.  And so, the President has said, and I quote, he’s tired of being — he’s tired of seeing the American people being played for suckers.  And that is something that he’s not going to allow.

But as it relates to — as it relates to what the President is going to continue to do, he’s going to continue lower — do everything that he can to lower costs for the American people.  And you’ve seen him do that.

Q    And on — on his doctor, when can we talk to the President’s doctor?  And how come he hasn’t been — they haven’t been asked to come out here and talk with us, given the Hur report that challenges the President’s mental fitness?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, just to speak to the Hur report really, really quickly.  Special Counsel Hur is — as far as I remember, is a — is a — obviously, a R- — a Republican, a — a prosecutor.  He’s not a — he’s not a medical doctor.  He’s just not.  It’s not for him to speak to.  It’s just not.

And — and you’ve heard from — over the past couple of days since the report has been out, you’ve heard from legal experts from across the ideological spectrum, even a former Attorney General.  And he says — and they have come out to say that the stuff in this report that is capturing all of your attention right now is just wrong — is flatly wrong.  It is inappropriate.  It is gratuitous.

And so, going to leave that there.  And it is obviously up for a medical doctor to decide on that. 

Q    But can we talk to his doctor, then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I have said the Pres- — the medical doctor, the President’s doctor is going to do a physical.  He’s going to — and he has always put forth, in the last two years, a detailed — detailed memo on the President’s — on the President’s, obviously, medical physical. 

And so, I’m just going to leave it there.  I don’t have anything else to add.

Go ahead, Jared.

Q    Just curious, to sort of follow up and get some clarity.  If these transcripts were released, who makes that decision?  Is that the Counsel’s Office?  Is it the President’s personal —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to share.  That’s something that the counsel could speak to.  They’ve been answering those questions for the past couple of days.  They have to speak to that.

Q    Has President Biden expressed the desire to have the full transcript released?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You have to talk — you have to speak to the counsel.  They’ve been answering these questions for the past couple of days of incoming.  On these particular — on this particular question on the transcript, they have to speak to that.

All right.  Go ahead, Brian.

Q    Thanks a lot.  As you know, at the beginning of March, the funding for the government runs out.  What has the President been doing to avoid a government shutdown and make sure that the funding is going to be there at the beginning of March to fund important programs like WIC and SNAP?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, the President thinks that those programs should be funded.  The President thinks that Congress should do their jobs and do the basic part of their jobs and fund that — fund these incredible — incredibly important programs that the American family believe in or need just to survive.

And so, that’s what the President wants to see: Congress get to it, do their job, and make sure that the government does not shut down.  He did his job.  The President did his job a couple months ago, back in the spring of — actually, last year — not even a couple of months ag — and brokered a deal — brokered the deal with Congress, both the House and the Senate, to get a bipartisan deal forward to make sure that — this is during the deficit — remember? — and the — and the debt ceiling.

And so, he brokered that deal.  It became law because two thirds of the House Republicans voted for it.  It got bipartisan support in the Senate.  And that was the deal that he brokered.

Now Congress needs to get there — to get this done.

Q    Has he designated a negotiating team that he wants involved from the White House on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, he — we negotiated on this, Brian.  We did.  We negotiated on this.  Two thirds of House Republicans voted for it, a bipartisan support from the Senate. And Congress should do their basic job, which is keep — keep the government open and make sure these very important — -important programs that you just listed out gets funded.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, guys.  We’ll see you tomorrow.
 Thanks.

2:11 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.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:40 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone.

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have a couple things at the top, and then I’ll hand it over to our guest today.

Today, the Vice President and the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention are hosting community violence intervention leaders from across the country to recognize their efforts in reducing and preventing violence — (a reporter sneezes) — and ultimately saving lives. God bless you.

The event is a culmination of a week of activities host [hosted] by the Office of Gun Violence Prevention for Community Violence Awareness Week.

Community violence intervention programs are a key piece of the President’s Safer America Plan and have been shown to reduce violence by as much as 50 percent. That’s why the Biden-Harris administration continues to make major investments in community violence intervention, and other proven solutions to end the epidemic of gun violence.

The President’s American Rescue Plan provided over $15 billion to prevent crime and promote public safety, while the Bipartisan Safer Community Act provides $250 million in funding for community-based violence prevention initiatives.

These actions are reducing crime and saving lives nationwide, with homicides and gun violence rates on the decline in 2023.

We will continue to work to protect American communities from this senseless violence while calling on Congress to do its job and take further action to implement commonsense gun safety measures.

And finally, I also want to share a brief readout from a recent visit by — by senior U.S. officials to Guyana, Colombia, and also Mexico.

Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Fi- — Finer traveled to Guyana and Colombia February 4th and 5th, which followed a series of other high-level U.S. visits.

In Guyana, he met with President Ali and Caribbean Community — CARICOM — Secretary-General Dr. Carla Barnett to reaffirm U.S. support to Guyana’s sovereignty, to advance economic and security cooperation, and to discuss CARICOM’s priorities for their February 25th meeting. Haiti and Venezuela figured prominently in these discussions, as did Guyana’s priorities on the United Nations Security Council.

In Colombia, we issued a joint statement following Mr. Finer’s meeting with President Gustavo Petro that — that covered financing for sustainable infrastructure under President Biden’s Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity initiative, as well as ongoing cooperation on security and migration. The statement reaffirmed support for competitive and inclusive elections in Venezuela and implementation of the Barbados Agreement between representatives of Nicolás Maduro and the Uni- — Unitaria Platform.

Mr. Finer expressed appreciation for Colombia’s continued effort to promote dialogue but also underscored the need for the international community to support an electoral process free of harassment and intimidation, where all candidates are eligible to run for office.

Turning to Mexico for a second. White House Homeland Security Advisor Dr. Sherwood-Randol- — -Randall led an interagency delegation to Mexico February 6th and the — and 7th. She engaged in a wide-rang- — -ranging discussion with President — President AMLO. And then, separately, our delegation met with Mes- — Mexico’s security cabinet — both focused on bilateral and regional issues, including sustained cooperation on migration and joint efforts to promote economic opportunity and development in the Americas.

During the fourth meeting of the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee — established by President Biden, President AMLO, and the Prime Minis- — Prime Minister Trudeau — the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to a 10 joint actions to counter the trafficking of illicit synthetic drugs, including fentanyl, and firearms in North America. These are contin- — these are outlined in our joint statement that was issued yesterday.

On February 7th, Treasury des- — designated one of the — one of Ecuador’s most violent gangs and its leader for fueling the recent surge of violence in Ecuador. The sanctions are just one part of the significant assistance we are providing to our Ecuadorian partners as they confront transnational organized crime and illicit narcotics.

Finally, allow me to once again pay respect for the people of Chile as they mourn the loss of former President Sebastián Piñera. Our prayers also go out to the — to all in Chile who lost loved ones to the wildfires and forced thousands to leave their homes.

The United States is supporting firefighters by deploying technical staff, by providing satellite imagery, and offering funds to the purchasing fi- — to purchasing firefighting equipment. And we stand ready to do more.

With that, thank you for your patience. I will turn things over to my colleague, Ian Sams, from the White House Counsel’s Office.

Ian.

MR. SAMS: Thank you, Karine. Good to see everybody.

Q Thank you for coming.

MR. SAMS: Sure. Thanks.

I want to start by talking about a few things that I think are important for you all to hear and for the American people to hear.

The President spoke powerfully about this last night. After a long investigation that turned over every stone and explored every theory, the special counsel decided that there was no case there.

Notably, he said this would be true whether President Biden was president or a private citizen.

The special counsel’s assignment when he was appointed was to determine whether any criminal conduct occurred. He found it didn’t. That was the finding.

The case is closed.

I want to read you something from none other than Ken Starr — who most people in this room will remember is the independent counsel who investigated former President Clinton. After that investigation, here is what he said to Congress: Quote, “What I see the conclusion as being is just a determination that no criminal charges would be brought. Period. Full stop. That is it. It is all over at that stage,” end quote.

That rings true here.

The Special Counsel report goes on at length about the President’s unprecedented cooperation in this case. I want to share a few things about that because I think it’s very important.

One, when the classified documents were found, it was self-reported. The President directed his team to ensure that any classified documents were returned immediately.

Why did he do that? Because the President takes classified information seriously. He always has. He did not intentionally take classified documents. He understands documents like that belong with the government. He never, never made any attempt to obstruct.

Two, he took unprecedented action to get the special counsel what he needed.

He opened up every room in his family home and his beach house for comprehensive FBI searches — a first time in history. He sat for two days of interviews — an interview that, I’ll add — and the President talked about this last night — took place the day after the brutal attack on Israel. The President was managing an intensive international crisis. You just heard the Vice President talk about this.

He answered dozens of follow-up questions to the special counsel in writing.

Three, he didn’t exert executive privilege over any contents of the report. He was transparent. He had nothing to hide. There was a long, intensive, and, in many ways, yes, excessive investigation.

But for context, you should all remind — remember, in the case of former Vice President Mike Pence — who had a very, very similar incident occur right after President Biden — the case was closed within a few months. It was a brief, one-page letter to Mike Pence.

But in this case, there was a 15-month investigation. The Special Counsel interviewed 150 witnesses. He sought and obtained 7 million pages of documents, down to emails about moving trucks during the transition in 2016 and 2017. He spent more than three and a half million taxpayer dollars exploring every possible theory that he could.

And what was the result? He reached the inevitable conclusion based on the facts and the evidence that there was no case here.

And this is important to think about in context of how this report is being viewed and, by many of you, being covered. This is the first special counsel investigation ever that hasn’t indicted anyone. Every theory was explored. But the facts and the evidence disputed them. The decision was that there was no case to be made.

In that reality, we also need to talk about the environment that we are in. For the past few years, Republicans in Congress and elsewhere have been attacking prosecutors who aren’t doing what Republicans want politically. They have made up claims of a two-tiered system of justice between Republicans and Democrats. They have denigrated the rule of law for political purposes.

That reality creates a ton of pressure. And in that pressurized political environment, when the inevitable conclusion is that the facts and the evidence don’t support any charges, you’re left to wonder why this report spends time making gratuitous and inappropriate criticisms of the President.

Over the past 24 hours, we’ve actually seen legal experts and former prosecutors come out and give their analysis. Former Attorney General Eric Holder said the report, quote, “contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with longstanding DOJ traditions.”

The former Acting FBI Director said he had overseen many cases like this, and, quote, “You have — you have to have explicit evidence of willful retention of those documents, and that is just not present in this case.”

The former FBI General Counsel, who I’ll add is als- — was also lead prosecutor in the Special Counsel Mueller investigation, said, it was, quote, “exactly what you’re not supposed to do, which is putting your thumb on the scale that could have political repercussions.”

That’s the assessment of seasoned professional law enforcement officials and prosecutors with deep experience at the Department of Justice.

Unfortunately, the gratuitous remarks that the former Attorney General talked about have naturally caught headlines and all of your attention. They’re wrong, and they’re inaccurate. And they obscure a very simple truth that I want to repeat one last time, since I know it’s is hard to wade through 400 full pages.

One, the report lays out example after example of how the President did not willfully take classified documents. The report lays out how the President did not share classified documents with anyone. The report lays out how the President did not knowingly share classified information with anyone.

On page 2, which I know you all read, the report argues the President willfully retained materials. But buried way later, on page 215, the report says, and I quote, “there is in fact a shortage of evidence on these points.” Two hundred pages later.

Put simply, this case is closed because the facts and the evidence don’t support the theories here. The gratuitous comments that respected experts saying is out of line are inappropriate. And they shouldn’t distract from the fact that the case is closed, and the facts and evidence show that they reached the right conclusion.

With that, I’m happy to take questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Aamer.

Q Just a couple of housekeeping. When and whom was the President briefed about on the contents of the report?

MR. SAMS: The President was briefed by his lawyers.

Q And, second, the President — and as you mentioned, again, you thought some of the characterizations were gratuitous. Does the President still have confidence in Merrick Garland after selecting Hur to be put in this position?

MR. SAMS: The President spoke this last night. I think — I can’t remember which of you asked him what his thoughts were on the appointment of the special counsel. And he answered that, I think, thoughtfully and powerfully. And I don’t really have anything to add beyond what the President said.

Q And just finally, does the President support the release of the entire transcript of his interview to put to rest some of these things that you think are being overlooked?

MR. SAMS: And it’s a reasonable question. I think that it’s important to know that we’re dealing with classified materials in this conversation. There are classification issues there. I don’t have any announcement on, you know, releasing anything today.

But it’s a reasonable question, and there were classified stuff, and we’ll have to work through all that.

Q So, but once you can work through, like, say, a redacted version, would the President support the release, as long as you can obviously keep what needs to be kept secret secret?

MR. SAMS: Well, we’ll take a look at that and — and make a determination.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Justin.

Q Thanks, Ian. Two questions. First, you said in the topper that the President takes classified information seriously, and the President said last night that he never discussed classified material with anyone. But the special counsel’s report said that on three different occasions, he did discuss it with his ghostwriter.

I understand it didn’t meet the bar for prosecution. But how do you reconcile the President’s statement with what’s in the report?

MR. SAMS: Sure. Well, if you read the full report, it actually gets into each of those three instances. I think Justin rightly points out that we’re talking about three instances out of two hundred and, you know, fifty pages of evidence that they’re talking about criticizing. I think it’s important to look at those three examples.

Two of them are his own notes to himself in his personal diary that he was reading about to his ghostwriter for his memoir — for a memoir about his life after his son Beau died. And he was reading these passages that he had written to himself to share information with him, and he took pains — and the report lays this out — to express how sensitive some of the information was and that we should be careful with it. And of those two passages from his diaries that he talked about with his ghostwriter — weren’t in the book. There’s no classified information in the book. And so — and so, I want to just make that point.

And the second is there’s a — kind of an allegation of, you know, willfully taking a classified document that he talked about with his ghostwriter. That’s false. As the President talked about last night, he was, again, talking about a handwritten letter that he had sent to President Obama and faxed to him about the Afghanistan troop surge.

These are — these are the President’s own personal writings — you know, the President’s own diary notes to himself.

And I think there’s an important thing to think about here. There’s plenty of history- — historical analogues, the most notable of which is Ronald Reagan — President Reagan — whose diaries very famously became a subject of a lot of attention in the country. The Justice Department knew that President Reagan’s diaries had classified information in them — knew it at the time.

He took those diaries home. He read those diaries to people. He shared the actual physical copy of the — of the — of the diaries — which this special counsel report talks about Joe Biden never even gave custody of his notebooks to anybody. And — and they never even asked for those diaries back, and they never launched an investigation.

And why is that? It’s because historically, going back to the beginning of the country, presidents keep diaries. They — we should want our presidents to be thoughtful and deliberative about the decisions that they make on the most consequential issues of our time. And we have — we have entrusted presidents to be safekeepers of this information and to —

And we have expressed, you know, great gratitude, including many of you in the press, when — when presidents share, through books and other things, insights into their thinking and decision-making and historical context.

And so, I think it’s lost in the shuffle of all this that the President did what all of his predecessors had done, which was take notes for himself, keep a diary of his own daily life so that he could think back on these big moments of — of the time. And so, you know, those are — that’s important to know about this allegation —

Q Is the —

MR. SAMS: — that there was —

Q Is —

MR. SAMS: — that there was sharing of classified information.

Q Right. Is your contention that just because the President rewrote classified material in his own words and then shared it with somebody who didn’t have the security clearance for it that it was okay?

MR. SAMS: Well, let’s look at the report. I mean, we talked a little — a lot about this report. I understand it’s long — 400 pages. I — you know, I’m not sure how many people in this room have read the entire thing.

Page 3, which I think is what everybody is asking about — and understandably — says, quote, “Mr. Biden shared information, including some classified information, with his ghostwriter.” Right? But if you go to page 248, the report says, quote, “We conclude that the evidence does not establish that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to his writing assistant.” That’s in the report. That’s the conclusion that was made based on the evidence.

And I — there’s something else I want to add about this, because it’s gone — we’ve gone back and forth. On page 1 of the report, it says, “The President willfully retained classified-marked documents relating to Afghanistan.” But on page 215 of the report, it says, quote, “There is, in fact, a shortage of evidence on these points.”

On page 5 of the report — everybody read that — first few pages — it says, quote, “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited.” But here’s something that everybody should make sure that they see: Elsewhere in the report, he says, quote, “We expect the evidence of Mr. Biden’s state of mind to be compelling,” pointing to him providing, quote, “clear and forceful testimony.” That’s his comments on his state of mind later in the report.

And so, I think it’s important to kind of take the report in its totality and understand that, in that report, the facts and evidence refute the theories that are floated that they explored.

Q I think maybe we disagree on if he should have used the word “willfully” last night. But there’s one other thing I wanted to ask you about, which was that his attorneys said that they were going to work on the process to make sure that none of this happens again.

MR. SAMS: Yeah.

Q Obviously, there’s the potential that this administration has less than a year left. So, I’m wondering if you could detail what —

MR. SAMS: Don’t say that.

Q — (laughs) — what the timeline is on that, what you guys are considering for — for that type of process.

MR. SAMS: That’s a great question. I think that something that this issue a year ago brought to light is that this is a, unfortunately, very common occurrence in our country. The National Archives has talked about how 80 different libraries and collections just in the last decade or so have called and said, “Oh, we found classified documents in these papers.” And they have a process that you’re supposed to turn those back in.

But then, you know, we had the issue with President Biden. Immediately after that, we had the issue with Vice President Pence. And I think it’s important to understand that this is a common occurrence, and the President thinks that we should fix it.

Like, he gave all these documents back. He knew he did not — that these governments should be in possession — that the government should be in possession of these documents.

And so, what we’re going to do is the President is going to appoint a task force to review how transitions look at classified material to ensure that there are better processes in place so that when, you know, staffs around the building are rushedly packing up boxes to try to get out during a transition as quickly as possible at the same time and up until the very moment that, you know, they’re still governing and doing matters of state, you know, they’re going to try to make recommendations that that can be fixed.

And he’s going to appoint a senior government leader to do that. We’ll have more on that soon.

Q He posted in 2017 that he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Kelly — Kelly O.

Q — had classified material down —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Kelly O. Go ahead, Kelly.

Q He boasted about it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Kelly.

Q In your advocacy here and in the President’s counsel writing back to Mr. Hur, you’re saying that there were gratuitous comments, that there are false pieces of information. How is the American public supposed to process this when we also live in a world where former President Trump asserts that there was a politicized process that resulted in his prosecution related to classified documents and other things?

So, for the public, if Democrats and this administration say, “Trust the Department of Justice; trust the institutions,” but you’re also arguing here gratuitous political cheap shots and false assertions, how are they to process that?

MR. SAMS: Well, I talked about this actually a minute ago. And I think, you know, when you have the former Attorney General, when you have the former acting FBI director, when you have the former general counsel of the FBI, you know, these are experienced people at the Justice Department who spent decades working at the Justice Department. And they’re saying it’s gratuitous. They’re saying that this is inappropriate, that this is inconsistent with DOJ policy and practice. That’s them saying it.

We agree. You know, you heard the President speak forcefully about this last night. You heard the Vice President speak forcefully about this today. We certainly agree that it’s gratuitous.

But I explained this a little bit in the opening. We’re in a very pressurized political environment. And when you are the first special counsel in history not to indict anybody, there is pressure to criticize and to make, you know, statements that maybe and otherwise you wouldn’t make. And, you know, I think that it leaves you wondering why some of these critiques are in there.

But I think it’s also important to just fundamentally distinguish between the — the prior case that you mentioned. I want to be careful in terms of commenting on that. But the special counsel report goes into great detail about the differences and distinctions there. And I think it’s important to understand that the criticisms that you’re hearing of the gratuitous comments in the report — which are wrong, frankly — you know, this is being shared by people who have deep experience at the Justice Department.

Q On the many issues related to memory, they certainly seemed to prompt an angry response from the President and from his advocates. Is there anything being done to address that issue in an ongoing way? Obviously, counsel wrote, asking for some of those things to be removed. It is potential that Robert Hur could be called before Congress to testify in public. Are there any steps that the administration would take addressing that specific issue? Is it in relation to overall medical physician’s report of the President or other things to demonstrate what is the issue with memory and is it a factor that deals with his capacity to serve?

MR. SAMS: Well, I have a lot of issues with the contents of that question. And Karine has answered a lot about the President’s transparency in his medical records and his physical and things of that nature. And I, you know, leave that to — to Karine to handle.

But I’ll say, I just read you this. Page 248 — or — sorry, excuse me. Later in the report, he says, quote, “We expect the evidence of Mr. Biden’s state of mind to be compelling,” pointing to him providing, quote, “clear” and, quote, “forceful testimony.”

I can’t explain why the report veers all over the place on this issue. I can just say — and as you’ve heard from the Vice President; you heard from members of Congress yesterday talking about their recent interactions with the President — one, Congressman Goldman from New York, talking about his interaction with the President the day before this interview, when Congressman Goldman was on the ground in Israel, and the long and intensive and detailed conversation they had about what was going on on the ground.

We just reject that this is true. And — and I think that — I think that it — it does raise questions about the gratuitousness. And it raises — you know, makes you wonder why that’s in there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Weijia.

Q Thank you, Karine. And thank you, Ian. So, you are discrediting some of the findings in this report. You are discrediting some of the observations of President Biden. So, why should the American public accept the conclusion that charges weren’t warranted?

MR. SAMS: I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re asking.

Q I’m saying you’re claiming that much of the report is inaccurate. So, why are you so confident that the conclusion is correct? It seems like you’re cherry picking —

MR. SAMS: The conclusion has been obvious from the very beginning. It was a long, intensive, sort of meandering investigation that came to the conclusion that, in February of last year, everybody knew: that this wasn’t intentional; that this was an accident; that they were found, and as soon as they were found, the President said, “Give them back. Get them back as soon as we can and fully cooperate with everything.” So, he reached the inevitable conclusion because it’s the truth.

The conduct of the investigation throughout and the gratuitous comments in the report are troubling and they’re inappropriate. But I think that the — the finding was the obvious one because it’s the truth.

Q President Biden blamed his staff largely for the mishandling of documents and where they ultimately ended up. Does the President believe he did everything right when it comes to handling classified material?

MR. SAMS: Well, just look at the re- — again, look at the report. I know it’s long. But the report talks about how the evidence is that these were most likely things that were packed up by staff during movements and transitions and things of that nature. So, that’s reflected by the report.

It’s not some accusation by the President. It’s just true. I mean, you guys know. You guys work with White House staff all the time. We support the principal; that’s our job. And the principal relies on their staff to help them with things.

And the President said this last night. You know, he talked about how, you know, looking back, if he had been more eng- — he wishes he had been more engaged in that process of the packing and the moving things to make sure that things were being done the right way.

And I think the most important thing to remember is once it was realized that something wrong had happened, he did everything right to give it back and to fix the problem.

Q What about all the stuff that he talked about that was in his home in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked in his house? What stuff was he talking about? Classified materials?

MR. SAMS: Well, we talked ab- — I mean, the report goes on at length about this. I’d encourage you to — to read it. It talks about —

Q No, I’m talking about what he said last night. He said: The stuff in my house was all in filing cabinets that “were either locked or able to be locked.”

Didn’t he put them in his home?

MR. SAMS: I’m — I’m not really following the question. I think that what’s clear is that — and I told this to Justin a minute ago: You know, he has personal diaries that he had. Of course he has his personal diaries.

The documents that were taken were jumbled up in boxes and found inadvertently in places. And — and that’s — that’s what happened, so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We — we’ve got to move on. Go ahead, Tam.

Q Thank you. How concerned is the President and — and the team here that the, quote, “gratuitous comments” are going to damage him, damage public perception of him?

MR. SAMS: I think the public is smart. And I think that they can see what’s going on. I think that they see a president who fully cooperated. I think they see a president who did the right thing and made sure everything got back. And I think that they see that this was a long investigation that ended without a case to be made. And, you know, I think that they can see and understand, you know, when people are gratuitous and — and make comments that they shouldn’t make and that are beyond the — the remit of a prosecutor to do. I think that they understand that. And I think that they — I think that they’ll — they’ll understand that the President did the right thing here.

Q If the 7th and 8th were obviously — or 8th and 9th were obviously, like, very busy days where the President was overstretched, taking calls in the middle of the night, all of this, why continue with the interview with Hur? Why not do it on another day? Why give him the opportunity to have these lines in the report about lapses about timelines?

MR. SAMS: Is that — he should have thrown up roadblocks, is that you’re saying? I mean, no —

Q No, I — I’m saying —

MR. SAMS: — he — he committed to it. And as —

Q — he could have told the Special Counsel —

MR. SAMS: And —

Q — like, “Hey, the world is on fire. Could we do it another day?”

MR. SAMS: I’ll tell you what’s interesting about this — and this is oddly not in the report — is at the beginning of his interview, the special counsel told the President, “I understand that, you know, you’re dealing with a lot of things right now. And I’m going to be asking you questions about stuff from a long time ago. I want you to try to recall to the best of your abilities,” you know, things of that nature. That’s often what prosecutors would tell witnesses.

So, you know, he understood that. But the President was going to commit to being cooperative. He talked about this last night. He wanted to make sure he had everything he needed, and he didn’t want to throw up roadblocks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ve got to move on. Go ahead, Tyler.

Q Thanks, Karine. Just a first question: Has the President read the entire report? And when was he given the — the report? Did — did he review it when his lawyers did the privilege review? And do you have any, just, context on when he himself found the — the findings of it?

MR. SAMS: We received the report yesterday from the Justice Department formally, like, present — you know, sending it over. Obviously, the President’s lawyers were — were doing the privilege review that we disclosed to everybody was happening and disclosed when we had concluded it.

And so, I think, you know, they were — you know, they had — they had briefed him on — on — on the material, as the client, you know, as is typical in a — in a legal case. And then we received the full report yesterday.

You know, the President has been pretty busy. I’m not sure if he’s read 400 pages. I’m not sure how many, you know, folks in this room have read all 400 pages of it. But he certainly is familiar with the contents of the report.

Q And then just one quick follow-up. The President was animated last night, rejecting the idea that he did not remember when his son died. Can you provide a little bit more context about was he directly asked in the interview by the special counsel for the dates? Was it part of a broader conversation? I just think some additional context to understand what is in that report might be helpful.

MR. SAMS: Yeah, I think — I mean, the President was pretty clear last night, and I think that the American people have heard from him for years about the pain and the suffering that they went through when Beau passed away and the gravity of that.

And I think to suggest that he couldn’t remember when his son died is really out of bounds. You know, the conversations in the — in the interview back and forth — you know, he’s being asked about, you know, file folders from a basement and “how did they get there” and “what is that” and “what were you doing around that time” and things of that nature.

I don’t want to — just to be very careful, I don’t want to get into specific, you know, things while it’s still in a classification process. But, you know, it is safe to say that, of course, the President knows when his son died.

Q So do you have any sense of why the special counsel would write explicitly in the report that the President did not — was unable to recall when his son died?

MR. SAMS: You’d have to ask the special counsel why he chose to include that.

Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Ian. So, you said that you told the special counsel that the criticisms of President Biden were inaccurate, gratuitous, and wrong. So, how did the special counsel respond when you told them that?

MR. SAMS: (Inaudible.)

Q So, they ignored it?

MR. SAMS: I’m unaware of any changes that were made in response to our very strong, forceful, and rooted-in-evidence arguments that we provided.

Q And you had just mentioned how these interviews happened shortly after the October 7th attacks. The President mentioned it last night. In mentioning that, does that mean that possible memory lapses happened because he was so distracted by what was happening overseas or do you dispute that he had any memory issues during those hours of interviews?

Q I — I dispute that the characterizations about his memory that were in the report are accurate, because they’re not. And I think the President spoke very clearly about how he — his mind was on other things. I mean, he was dealing with a huge international crisis of great global consequence.

And, you know, he was trying his best to — to answer questions in this interview, because he wanted to be fully cooperative.

Q So, there were no memory lapses during?

MR. SAMS: I think you — I think there’s something important that people should remember about the way that sort of interviews like this happen. If God forbid, you know, one of you guys ever have to get interviewed by a prosecutor — and, you know, I hope you don’t — you know, witnesses are told, as I mentioned, by Special Counsel to do the best they can to recall or remember things. And they’re — they’re not supposed to speculate. You know, they want facts. They want facts and evidence.

And so, you know, I think probably in almost every prosecutorial interview you can imagine that people have said that they don’t recall things, because that’s what they’re instructed to do. So, I think that’s just important context to keep in mind.

Q And just lastly, in September, the President was asked about Trump’s classified documents being found in Mar-a-Lago, and he said, quote, “How could that possibly happen? How could anyone be that irresponsible?” But there were classified documents found in the President’s garage in a damaged cardboard box. So, would that be considered irresponsible?

MR. SAMS: Look, I think the President made clear that he gave everything back as soon as he found out that he had it. And so, you know, I think that it’s fundamentally incorrect to try to analogize the situation or to and — and frankly, the report says that too.

And the idea that — that he did anything except be totally cooperative and to take great strides to ensure that the classified documents were returned speaks for itself.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Ian, the Vice President referred today to the report as being “politically motivated.” Is that the position of the White House, that this report was politically motivated?

MR. SAMS: I — I saw the Vice President’s remarks, and I thought they were very powerful.

And I talked about this a little bit at the top of our conversation here today. You know, there’s an environment that we are in that generates a ton of pressure, because you have congressional Republicans, other Republicans attacking prosecutors that they don’t like, and it creates, you know, a need — if you’re going to determine that charges weren’t filed, people are human and they’re thinking through, you know, what do we need to do? And, you know, it leaves one to wonder exactly why he included a lot of the criticisms that were in there.

Q Also, on — with regard to the staff, President Biden has had some staff members who’ve worked for him for decades. He referenced their mistake last night. Has he had a visit with any of these staff members? Do the staff members who are responsible for taking those documents to his house — do they still work for the President? Have there been any consequences?

MR. SAMS: Well, I think I talked about this also before. I mean, this is an issue that has plagued administrations of both parties for 50 years, where accidentally things get shuffled up and taken and removed.

And the Archives has, you know — literally, they put a Frequently Asked Questions page on their website about what you do if you find them accidentally. That’s how often it happens.

And, you know, he gave them all back as soon as he found out about it. We understand that mistakes happen sometimes. I’m not going to get into sort of individual witness or parsing like that from the report.

Q It didn’t happen for President Obama, President Clinton, President Bush, Sr., or President Bush, Jr. I don’t know if three people makes it a common —

MR. SAMS: That’s actually not true. Officials from all administrations from the past, you know, half century or so have had this accidentally happen.

Q But not the principals.

MR. SAMS: But you’re — you’re parsing two things. You asked me about the fact that — and the report states this clearly: This is likely the result of inadvertent packing by staff. And you asked exactly about the staff issue. And so, I’m responding about staff issue.

Q And — okay. And you can’t say whether the staff still work for President Biden?

MR. SAMS: Well, I’m saying that — that the — the question you’re asking about the frequency and normalcy, unfortunately, of mistakes like these being made, they happen. And what — what matters is how you respond to it. And when you find out that there was a mistake that was made, you give everything back, and that’s exactly what was done.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. We’re trying to get as much people as possible. Go ahead, M.J.

Q Thanks, Ian. What does it — what does it say about Merrick Garland’s judgment that he appointed someone who ultimately put out a report that was so egregious, so inappropriate, and flouted department regulations and norms?

MR. SAMS: I think the President actually answered this question last night. I’m not sure which of you asked him it. But he talked about, you know, his views on the appointment of the Special Prosecutor, and I really don’t have anything beyond what he said.

Q Two things I was hoping you could quickly clarify. The report says that in 2017, the President told his ghostwriter that he just found all the classified stuff downstairs. Why did he not report that at the time?

MR. SAMS: Well, and this is included in the report, as well, if you read through it. The President was talking about a handwritten letter that he had sent to President Obama — that he faxed to him — about the Afghanistan policy in 2009.

And, you know, he says — you know, and this is in the report — that he’s — and he said last night, you know, “I should have said ‘sensitive’; I should have said, you know, really care- — you know, more careful language about that,” because he was talking about something that was a personal — like, a letter he sent to the President.

Q So, in his mind, it was “sensitive,” but what he said was “classified”?

MR. SAMS: Yeah, this is in the report. They talk a lot about how, you know, the President actually took great care when talking with his book writer to note things like, “Hey, I — you need to be really careful with some of this stuff. I’m not entirely sure about it.”

And so, I think that — I think that that’s important to realize, that the report itself actually talks about what care he took with this sort of information as they explore all the theories and go through all the evidence that sort of refutes most of those theories — almost all of — actually, all of those theories, when you think about the judgment that there will be no case in this — in this matter.

So, you know, that’s — that’s addressed in the report.

Q And the second thing. The President also said last night, “All the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked.” But the report says that some of the classified documents were in cabinet drawers, while others — about Afghanistan, for example — were in unsealed and “badly damaged box” sitting in his garage. So, did the President misspeak last night?

MR. SAMS: Look, I think the President was responding to a number of inaccurate allegations in this — in this report. We’ve talked a lot about — Justin asked about the diaries. I mean, this is his personal diaries. Of course, he has them in his house.

So, you know, I don’t have anything kind of to add on what he said last night.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Zolan.

Q I want to follow up on the Vice President’s comments. You’ve been saying “gratuitous.” She said “politically motivated.” Is it this — is it this administration’s stance that this report was issued in part or there was a motive in this issue — a goal — a goal with this report to inflict political harm on the President?

MR. SAMS: I think that you have to look at what — I mean, we talked about this at the beginning of our conversation today. You have a situation where former DOJ officials are talking about the political repercussions of these actions and that it’s incumbent upon the prosecutor to take great care to follow departmental policy to not criticize unindicted conduct and behavior or characteristics, which we’ve seen in — in this case. And —

Q I understand that’s former DOJ officials. But this White House right now — is it the stance by this White House that this report was issued, in part, with a motive and a goal to inflict political harm on the President?

MR. SAMS: I — I heard the question the first time, and I’m just — I, you know, have nothing to object to in what the Vice President said. I thought she was powerful and forceful.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Frances- —

Q But also, just to follow up. I’m sorry. This administration, as you said — you said that Republicans have often attacked prosecutors’ —

MR. SAMS: Yeah.

Q — independent systems.

MR. SAMS: That is well known.

Q And you said that’s created an environment where, if I’ve interpreted this right, there is an incentive by the special counsel to include some of this language. But often I’ve heard from Democrats and this White House say that those attacks against independent systems can also sow distrust with the public and those independent institutions.

By saying that this is politically motivated — not just gratuitous but politically motivated — does this not also sow distrust with the public and independent institutions?

MR. SAMS: I reject — I reject that question. You see this — and it’s in the report — the letter that the — the President’s lawyer and the White House Counsel’s Office sent to the special counsel to talk about the Department of Justice norms and policies that they see as being violated by some of the comments and remarks made in the report.

And so, you know, I think that that’s a false equivalence kind of question, because what we have argued and what we continue to say and believe is that you’re not supposed to make these sorts of things, according to Justice Department policy. We — the President, when he ran — and you guys all know this because you heard this — talked about how important it was to restore the rule of law. And he understands that. And he talked about this last night, to M.J.’s point, about the appointment of the special counsel and, sort of, how he felt about that.

You know, this is a president who is committed to the — to restoring those norms. And I think when we object to some of the gratuitousness in the comments that you’re asking about, you know, we’re — and you heard me talk about the former Attorney General and other people who have made those comments — you know, they are criticizing that this does not follow those norms.

(Cross-talk.)

MR. SAMS: Yeah, I know. We’ve got to keep going, guys.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ve got to move on. Go ahead, (inaudible).

Q With respect to the portion of the video and the transcript where he was asked about his time as Vice President and about Beau Biden’s death, why not release those parts of the video? Those aren’t classified.

MR. SAMS: It’s a transcript we’re talking about, and I already addressed this with Justin.

Q Okay. So —

MR. SAMS: (Inaudible.)

Q So, what you’re saying is this was a video; there’s was — there’s not tapes that you can release of that?

MR. SAMS: I’ve just responded. I think that the question —

Q Okay.

MR. SAMS: — is about the transcript.

Q Okay. And for — and as far as Attorney — former Attorney General Holder is concerned, you referenced him and the normal DOJ review process. He brought that up in his Tweet as well — or his X posting. What part of the normal DOJ review process is the White House saying was violated or bypassed in some way?

MR. SAMS: Well, there’s actually — it’s an interesting question. It’s a little in the weeds. Pardon me. But this — the special counsel regulations that exist at the Justice Department govern the process that is supposed to happen here. And the Justice Department has its own, sort of, manual of procedures. And, you know, as you’ve heard from those experts, you’re not supposed to, sort of, criticize unindicted conduct when you’re making these determinations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Phil, in the back.

Q Thank you. A follow-up and then a separate question. You said a moment ago that the President was responding to inaccurate information when he claimed last night that “all the stuff in my home was behind locked filing cabinets.” Is he entirely clear now, at this point, where all the documents were discovered? And does he now know that his statement about locked filing cabinets is false?

MR. SAMS: The — the report lays out in 400 pages of detail all of the evidence and all of the review that they conducted in looking into this matter. The President made sure that all of the classified documents that were found were returned promptly to the government, which is what you’re supposed to do, which is why this is the inevitable conclusion that there is no case here.

Q And that’s not what I asked, though. Does he know that his statement yesterday that all the documents were behind locked cabinets was inaccurate? Is he clear, in his mind? I know that last night was perhaps con- — you know, a stressful, confusing environment, but does he now know —

MR. SAMS: I understand what you’re trying to ask, Phil, and I think that I’ve answered the question.

Q I — I have a separate follow-up question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q And that is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Go ahead, in the back.

Q My follow-up question after that lack of a response was: There was an eye-popping moment in the report, specifically about the President’s ghostwriter. And that was that after he learned that the special counsel had began an investigation, he deleted some of his recordings. Now, those recordings were able to be recovered. What I’m curious about is: Can you say definitively whether or not the President or anyone else at the White House was in contact with his ghostwriter?

MR. SAMS: This is in the report. I mean, read the report. In the report, it says that — that they sought this, they looked into this, and that they didn’t. So —

Q So, they were not in contact?

MR. SAMS: — that’s in the report.

Q They were not in contact?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jon. And then we’re going to wrap this up. Go ahead, Jon.

Q Thank you, Karine. Ian, thank you so much.

MR. SAMS: Sure. Yeah.

Q Two questions. Just for clarity, you’re from the White House Counsel’s Office, correct?

MR. SAMS: Correct.

Q But you’re not a lawyer, correct?

MR. SAMS: That’s correct.

Q Okay.

MR. SAMS: I’m the spokesperson.

Q Okay. Any chance that we’ll get the White House Counsel to come out here and answer questions directly?

MR. SAMS: I — should I be offended by that? (Laughter.) I mean, I — I was —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Don’t worry, I get offended all the time.

MR. SAMS: I know. I mean, what? I mean, come on.

Q You did say something that was factually incorrect —

MR. SAMS: I was — I was asked —

Q — Ian. There has been a previous special counsel probe.

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jon, finish — finish your question, please.

MR. SAMS: I was asked to come today by your colleagues in the press corps, and we happily obliged.

Q Thank you. As you know, former President Trump, he was charged with a slew of criminal charges related to classified documents in his possession, including counts of willful retention of national defense information.

In this report, it’s made clear by the special counsel that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified material. He kept it in unsecured locations after his vice presidency, which presented, according to the special counsel, “serious risks to national security.”

So, my question to you, Ian, is: Can you explain to every voter out there — every American why it is that President Biden essentially is let off the hook and former President Trump is now facing these slew of criminal charges, which seem, to most people, very similar?

MR. SAMS: Great wind-up, Jon. I mean — I mean, really good wind-up. I talked about this already: page 1, willful retention; page 215, there is, in fact, a shortage of evidence on these points.

The report itself goes through in great detail the facts and evidence that led to the obvious conclusion that there was no case here. The report itself answers the question you’re asking about the distinction between two cases. As you guys have heard us from the White House say for a long time, we’re very careful about commenting on certain cases like that.

Just I would encourage you — perhaps all of you: Read the report.

Q I’ve read the report, and that’s the reason why I asked that question. And the reason why so many people seem confused, because you hear “willful retention of national defense information” related to Trump, “willful retention of classimi- — classified material” relating to President Biden, and yet one individual is facing a criminal trial being brought by the Department of Justice in Fort Pierce, Florida, and the other one —

MR. SAMS: Sure. And I think this is —

Q — is not facing any charges whatsoever.

MR. SAMS: Sure. And I think I’ve talked to many of — of you guys in the room over the last 24 hours about this. The allegation that there was willful retention of documents is refuted by the evidence in the report.

And the conclusion was made directly that the evidence does not support that claim. He explored the theory. It’s in there on page 2. Everybody focused on it. I’m exploring the theory of willful retention, but that the evidence as a whole was insufficient because that’s not what the facts show.

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

MR. SAMS: Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Appreciate it.

MR. SAMS: Really appreciate you guys.

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, Ian.

Q Thanks, Ian. There was a previous special counsel probe that did not result in indictments, by the way: the Ham Jordan case.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Thank you. I would say refer to the White House Special Couns- — no, not special counsel, but legal counsel, and they’re here. They came.

Okay. Go ahead, Aamer.

Q Excuse me. Two questions. Just following up on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — comments that the President made last night.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q President Biden called the military operations in Gaza “over the top.” And this comes after the White House has pretty consistently defended Israel’s conduct. What’s changed and what exactly did the President mean by “over the top”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, first of all, I — you know, I would say nothing has changed. His position hasn’t changed. His — I don’t think his messaging hasn’t — has changed. We don’t think his messaging has changed. He doesn’t believe his messaging has changed.

This isn’t something — the first time he’s done so — what you heard from him yesterday. Look, the President made it very clear in his comment that he was obviously talking about Israel’s conduct in Gaza. And he’s been clear — he’s been clear that the United States wants to see Hamas, a terrorist organization, defeated. He’s been very clear on that. That is a shared goal that we have, obviously, with Israel.

But at the same time — at the same time, while we have said that, we have been also very clear — the President has been very clear that they must do so by ensuring that their operations are targeted and conducted in a way that we are protecting innocent civilians, and that is something that we have been incredibly consistent about here in this administration. We want to make sure that we are also protecting innocent civilians.

So, that is what the President was — was speaking to yesterday. He was asked, like, obviously, a direct question, and he answered that.

Q Okay. Can I just ask — secondly, the President, last night, bristled against the fact that many Americans have concerns about his age. I think to question of one of my colleagues, he said, “That’s your judgment,” suggesting it’s the media’s judgment.

There’s no shortage of published polls that suggests Americans have concern about his age and stamina, and it’s been put in all sort of different ways. So, is the President out of touch with what Americans feel about this issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, look, obviously, when it comes to the report, more broadly, you just heard from my colleague, Ian Sams — that part of the report, we don’t think be- — lives in reality, and that’s what he was speaking to, where — where, you know, comments were made in that report about that — about — obviously, about his memory that we don’t believe lives in reality.

Q So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And — no, no, no. I’m going to answer your question. Just give me — just give me — just give me a beat. I’m going to answer your question.

When you have a president that has been one of the most productive, if not the most productive and effective presidents in modern time, that, you would assume, is a president that is indeed in touch with where the American people are. Right? That would assume that the President understands what’s going on around the kitchen table when Americans are sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out how are they going to deal with the economy, how are we going to deal with the healthcare.

So, in our opinion, in my opinion, he is very much in touch with what Americans are feeling out there as it relates to lowering costs, as it relates to making sure that we Big — beat Big Pharma. This is a President who understands what the American people are feeling.

Look, as it relates to his age, as it relates to what has been said by — you know, by — in this report, it is something that we don’t believe lives in reality, in the sense of this is — this is a president I have spent — I have known this president since 2009. I’ve known this president. He has been not just my boss but a mentor to me.

And no one in this building would say that — what we saw in this report about his memory. Everybody sees somebody who works very, very hard — has spent hours with him — understanding exactly where the American people are and what they’re feeling, and also how to deliver on those and critical, important issues to them.

Q Your argument on hi- — on the report and the assertion that it’s gratuitous is well taken, as well as —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — what you believe is his performance. I get that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q But he seemed to be playing with a different set of facts. The facts are that this is an issue that Americans are concerned about. And he’s saying that it’s just the media’s judgment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right, but he has also joked around with all of you and talked about — and said some — some things about his age in a way that he understands where people — where people are. He actually said that when — in his answer. He has also mentioned his old pal, Jimmy Madison, right?

He — he gets it. He gets how he’s viewed. He gets what people see and what’s written about him and what the American people also see.

But there are other things to note, right? McCarthy, when he was Speaker, said that he has found the President “mentally sharp in meetings.” You know, there are stories like that from — as — they’re saying it quietly, privately — House Republicans and other Republicans in Con- — in Congress.

But there’s reports from all of you, who have said that they have — they have interviewed some of these folks and have said the President is sharp. The President — when they have a conversation with the President, he understands the issue.

I mean, we saw it at the la- — last State of the Union. He — you know, he was able to negotiate while giving a very important speech — about 90 minutes — to the world. Like, I mean, you know, millions of Americans watch as he was able to negotiate with House Republicans in the room.

Q So, is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, people see that al- — also for themselves. They also see that for themselves as well.

Q So, is the President’s feel that this is — the result of Americans being concerned about his age is just based on a media narrative and it’s — it’s not based in reality?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, what I’m saying is that he hear — he understands what people may think. He has actually joked about it. He actually has joked about it, saying “Jimmy Madison” and have said many other things.

He says, “I know I’m not — I know people think I’m 40 years old.” Like, he has made jokes about it. So, he gets it.

What we are saying — what I am saying in front of you today is that he has results. There are a results, his record. The data shows that this is a president that gets where the American people are and has delivered in that way — whether it’s the economy, whether it’s healthcare.

Even on the global stage, what other leaders have said about him — right? — what other — what — he has been able to bring leaders together, more than 50 countries, to deal with an issue — not an issue, a war — be very clear — in Ukraine, where the brave people of Ukraine are fighting against Mr. Putin’s aggression.

So, world leaders see it. Leaders on the other side of Pennsylvania — whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat — see it. And so, that matters as well.

And that’s what we’re trying to say to you as well. It is that we have seen and we have heard from others that this is a president that has delivered and this is a president that’s going to continue to do so for the American people.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Karine. You’ve downplayed concerns about the President’s memories in situations where he has mixed up certain things. You’ve said it happens and it’s common. But yesterday, we saw the President again have a mix-up with the President of Egypt with the President of Mexico. So, how do you explain that? Is it not valid that voters would have these concerns?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, what I would say is this: This is a president that has rela- — this has had relationship with world leaders for more than 40 years. He has. And at times — and I even said this yesterday — does he has — has he, you know, misspoken, as many of us do? I’ve laid out some examples of even Speaker Johnson just on — on TV, on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, who — who said he — he supports Iran when he meant to say he supports Israel. It happens. It truly, truly happens.

In that same answer that he gave, he actually gave an incredibly detailed answer on the overlapping dynamics in the Middle East as he was — as he was responding to the question that he received from one of your colleagues.

And look, I — I want to quote one more — one more person, as I’ve been quoting folks this — today.

Yair Rosenberg at The Atlantic said, “Biden has gaffe- — gaffed names his entire career.” His entire career. It is not uncommon that he has done that, like many of us do. And he said, “He was — he was clearly — and he was clearly talking — clearly talking about Egypt, and named Sisi, and laid out his policy and the broader issues in detail. Twitter just isn’t interested” in that. Right?

And so, look, this is a president who has the experience. He has been — and you’ve heard me say this: He has been senator for 36 years; he’s been, obviously, pres- — vice president for 8; and now president. He has these long, long relationships with leaders.

I think what’s important here is to remember is that when it comes to the essence of the issue, the issue at hand, he understands that and has dealt with that — probably, you know, better than, you know, any modern-day president because of the record that we have seen, because of what has presented in front of him as we look at what’s going on in the world, what’s going on in Ukraine, what’s going on in the Middle East.

Q How did the President react when he first saw the report?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into, you know, private discussions, private conversations with the President- — with the President.

Q And just to follow up quickly. I think Justin had asked this before, but Ian Sams was making this argument that these are notes that he was reading from his own personal notes, from his own personal diary. But that can still be classified information, even if it was stuff he had written to himself. So, is the White House disputing that there was classified information there that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m not going to get into — Ian spent a good couple of minutes going back and forth and answering that question. I’m just not — I don’t have anything else beyond what Ian — Ian, my colleague, shared here.

I think the bigger picture here is that the close is — the case is closed. And I think that’s what the American people also should know as well. And so, I’m just not going to get into details from here.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. With concerns about the President’s age, are there any plans within the White House to have him engage more with the press? Engage more, you know, there — he decided not to do the interview before the Super Bowl that many presidents have done. Has there been any considerations about revisiting that or other sorts of engagements to — as you said, many people in the White House do not see the image of him that the report depicts. Are there conversations about trying to change that perception among the American people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look — look, you — you saw — you — your colleagues were I think — were you in the room, Tyler, yesterday?

Your colleagues were — and yourself — were able to see the President and ask questions yesterday. He was — he did that, I believe — if not the day before yesterday, he did that a couple of times this week — I think about three times — engaging with the press. It’s just something that he does pretty often.

You know, and we’re going to try and obviously pick moments. He’s going to, on his own, have moments where he’s going to want to walk over and talk to all of us, as he has done many times before.

And he — we’re going to continue to, obviously — to your question, yes, we’re going to find many different ways to engage with the press. That’s something that we think — it’s very important. It’s important to take your questions. It’s important to hear from all of you and hear directly to, you know, what — you know, what’s — what’s on the mind of the American people, as well as what we believe is on the mind of the American people and take your questions.

So, that’s not going to change. I don’t have — I don’t have anything —

Q Well, not would that change, but I’m just wondering if there has been more conversation in the White House in the last 24 hours about, you know, a sense of urgency to try and get the President out there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I hear the question, but he literally took questions from all of you three times this week — three times — once when we were on the —

Q But not just about questions from the press, but just more broadly about getting the President out — out more to try to combat the idea that he has memory issues as — or — and isn’t, you know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, Ty- — I hear your question, but he — we literally did — I was on the road with the President from Thursday last week until Monday evening. We went to Detroit — or Mich- — we went to Michigan, we went to California, we went to — you know, we went to Vegas. The President has been out there. You know? And that’s something that we’re going to continue to do.

And so, he wants to be out there to talk directly to the American people. You hear us say that all the time. And you’ve seen him do that throughout the month of January. And now, obviously, we’re in February. We’re going to continue doing that as we have been for the last two to three years. It’s not going to stop.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. A question about Israel. Has he communicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he believes his response has been “over the top”? Is that language he has used in their discussions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, we have read out — well, every — you know, we’ve read out conversations that the President has had with the Prime Minister. The President has always been clear with — with the Prime Minister. I just don’t have anything beyond that.

You know, what he — you know, what he — he has — he said yesterday — what the President said yesterday, he’s done before in saying very clearly obviously — obviously, we believe that Israel has a right to defend itself. Obviously, we believe we are in agreement that, you know, a terrorist organization — we have to — they have to make sure that they are — deal with this terrorist organization that Octo- — October 7th, you know, terrorized — terrorized and killed more than, you know, 1,200 people. That is a reality.

But at the same time, the President has also been clear that their military operations need to be done in a precise way, in a more targeted way. We need to protect civilians’ lives. And so, you know, that has been the case.

Now, in the broader scope, the President has been working with his team to make sure that we have another humanitarian pause. We understand how important that is to make sure we bring those hostages home to their friends, to their family, to their loved ones and also get that really critical, important humanitarian aid that’s needed in Gaza — get that in there.

And so, that’s what — that’s been the President’s position. Nothing has changed there.

Q Can you clarify whether there’s been any change in White House policy with regard to tying aid for Israel to its actions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any change of policy to announce to you — to all of you.

Go ahead.

Q Just since my colleague referenced a question that we asked last night. The question was about voters having concerns about the President’s age, and his response was that that was my judgment. I was obviously making a reference to public polls that are out there that indicate that voters do have this concern. So, does the President not believe that many voters have this concern about his age?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, the President has talked about it. He has joked about his age, right? He has. He has joked about his age, understanding what — what voters might think. He has. He has done — he done — he has done that pretty often.

I think what he — I think the other thing that you — that we want to make sure that you all understand is that this is a president that also has delivered for the American people. That is a fact. That is something that we see in the data. That is something that we see in the policy, whether it’s bipartisan legislation that we’ve been able to get through that people didn’t think we would be able to get through, whether it’s as — as it relates to, like, infrastructure or the — the CHIPS and Science Act — real, real, real things that American people feel.

And for him, that’s what he believes is important to focus on, is what the American people need in the sense of issues that matter to them. And that’s what he wants his focus to be. That’s what we want our focus to be as well. That’s what we’re always trying to communicate with all of you.

But he jokes arou- — about it all the time. He makes jokes about his age all the time.

Q I’m just asking for clarification on why the fact that we brought up that concern prompted him to say this is “your judgment,” as though there isn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because — because what I —

Q — public polling that shows that voters do have that concern.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I just state- — I just stated moments ago, it is — it is your judgment — right? — in the sense of, like, that is not what we see. Right? When we see what —

Q It wasn’t my judgment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But meaning more broadly. I’m not talking about you specifically.

Q Yes, more broadly —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: More broadly.

Q — voters have that concern.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right.

Q I’m just asking: Does the President believe and understand that that is a concern that voters have?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I already he said he understands. That’s why he makes jokes about it. I get — he understands that. But what we are trying to say is: Our judgment from here — what we see from this president is a president that is zeroed in and focused on the American people. When we see him working, he is focused.

And we don’t see what — for example, all of this was brought up by the report. We — we do not believe that part of the report lives in reality. And that is what we’re speaking to. That is what we’re talking about.

Q Do you think there’s any risk to the President sounding like he’s dis- — dismissing that concern when he has that kind of reaction to a question like that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the President is going to obviously speak for himself and lay out what he thinks is important for the — to talk about as it relates to the Amer- — American people. When it tal- — when — he wants to talk about the economy. He wants to talk about healthcare.

We’re — we are talking this week about gun violence — right? — how do we prevent gun violence, which is an issue that is incredibly important to communities across the country, when you talk — when you think about gun violence being an epidemic in this country.

Those are the things that he wants to focus on. Those are the things that he wants to — that he wants to make sure that the American people understand what we’re doing to deal with those critical issues.

As it relates to his age, he makes jokes about it. He does. You hear him make jokes about it all the time. He gets it. He gets it.

But he also wants to make sure that we are talking about the issues that — and I talked about this starting almost –starting this — the briefing here, is what people really care about when they are sitting around their kitchen table. And that matters. We believe that matters as well.

Go ahead, Francesca.

Q Thanks, Karine. Picking up on Tyler’s line of questioning. Why wasn’t there a two-and-two today with the German Chancellor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we always find different ways to — to engage with the press when we do these — when we do these types of bilats. There are many things that come into consideration. And with this trip, there was no two-plus-two. You’re going to see — obviously, you’re — there’s going to be — some of your colleagues are going to be part of the — of the pool spray in a couple of minutes — not too long from now. And so, you’ll — you know, you’ll have an opportunity to see the two of them.

Look, every visit is different. And they’re different for different reasons. It’s not just us. We have conversations with — with other countries that the leader — obviously, the leader of the team of the other country. I just — this just happens to not have a two-plus-two, but that’s not always the case.

Q And, yesterday, when you made light of the President’s verbal flubs, had you been briefed on the special counsel report or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — or seen it at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And what do you mean when I “made light of the President’s verbal flubs”?

Q Well, you made some jokes in response to questions about the President confusing world leaders with deceased world leaders. And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — what I did was I — I tried to state very clearly that — and yes, I did it in a light way, because it does happen to many people. And I actually talked about one of your colleagues that I do it to all the time.

And so, look, I — you know, I just want to be very clear: You know, this is a — this is a president that is very much focused on the American people. He is very much focused on making sure what he was elected to do gets done. What he has — the promises that he’s made to communities across the country gets kept. So, I just want to make sure that is made also very clear.

Q And finally, in response to the special counsel report, one of the President’s Republican presidential rivals, Nikki Haley, has called for a mental competency test for the President. Is that something that the White House is actively considering as a way to try and put to rest some of these allegations about his memory lapses?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I’m not a medical doctor. So, certainly, I’m not going to stand here and make — opine on — on tests or anything of that nature.

What I can say is that — and I remember talking to — I remember talking to the President’s doctor last year, when I was asked about a cogniti- — cognitive test when the President’s — when the President’s physical came out. And he said to me — and I’m — I’m paraphrasing, because this was over a year ago at this point — that because of the President’s actions every day, what he deals with with world leaders, the domestic issues that — that he has to — he has to deal with, he believes that that shows — right? — that shows that the President is very much active and understands what’s going on — right? — and didn’t believe that — didn’t believe that a test like that was warranted because of just who he is as President of the United States and everything that he has to deal with.

But, again, I’m not a medical doctor. We — the President is going to continue to be, obviously, transparent when it comes to his physical. We were over the last two years. We’ll have — he’ll have one this year, and when we’re — when we — the time permits, obviously — or when the time comes, we’ll certainly share that.

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q Thank you, Karine. Last night, soon after the President’s remarks about Israel, the administration announced a national security memo that calls for the State Department to obtain written assurances that countries that receive weapons from the U.S. will use those weapons in accordance with the law of war.

Jake Sullivan, Kirby, others have previously said that the U.S. already requires those assurances, so why did the administration feel the need to formalize that and ask for it in writing now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — so, this memor- — memorandum that you’re speaking of — and it merged, in part, with our discussions with members of Congress. And so, this, obviously, memo came out yesterday. And so, it’s called a national security memorandum. It outlines the standards and coun- — that countries must adhere, as you just laid it — as you just laid out.

But I also want to be clear: There are new — there are no new standards in this memo. We are not imposing new standards for military aid. That’s not what is in this memo. Instead, we are spelling out publicly the existing standards by the international law, including the law of armed conflict.

So, we are also — one thing that we are doing is creating a new annual report to Congress that members have requested. This is in request, because of interest of transparency. So, this is in line with conversations that we have with — with the congressional members, as we try to really, you know, work together in a way that — that makes sense and moves the ball forward.

But this is not new standards. This is — this is something — these are — these are — these are things that already exist — to your point — that is now in writing. And then, there — and we did create a new annual report for more transparency.

Q So, if Israel doesn’t sign off within the deadline of 45 days, because it is involved with active conflict, will the U.S. aid be cut off immediately?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can tell you is that we did brief the Israelis on this. They reiterated their willingness to provide these types of assurances. So, those conversations are happening, and they — obviously, they reiterated their willingness to — for these assurances.

Q Thank you.

AIDE: Karine — Karine, you’ve got time for one more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: One more.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. If the special counsel says President Biden has got “significant limitations” on his memory, then who is helping him run the country?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The President of the United States runs the country. The Commander-in-Chief runs the country.

Q How can he be trusted with the nuclear codes if — I get that you’re saying that nobody in the building would say that he’s got an issue with his memory. But just the little part of what we get to see, he has made mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake on camera this week.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be very clear here. The reality is that report — that part of the report does not live in reality. It just doesn’t.

Q So, the special counsel is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It is — it — it is —

Q — lying about the President’s memory?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It is — it is — it was gratuitous. You heard from my — you heard from Ian Sams, my colleague. It is unacceptable. And it does not live in reality. That is just the facts.

And — and, look, it is a closed case. That is what the special counsel said. And what matters is — here is that the President, in the last three years, has delivered on the economy, has delivered on healthcare, has turned this country around after the last president left us with an economy that was in a tailspin. That’s what we were dealing with. That’s what we were dealing with.

If you think about the world leaders — world leads — and issues that have been going on in this country for the past two, three years — not even in this country, in the world. Right? When you think about Ukraine, the President was able to bring together NATO — NATO Allies — they have been the strongest that they’ve ever been — and make sure that we are providing what Ukraine — the brave people of Ukraine need as they’re fighting aggression — Putin’s aggression.

And that is what this President has — has been able to do. His — his experience as former senator, as former vice president, and now a president has gotten us to a place where we’ve been able to turn things around in a way that we meet the needs of the American people, whether it’s domestic issues or national security issues, and that is what matters.

Q And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That re- — part of the report does not live in reality.

Bye, everybody. Have a great weekend.

2:51 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office Ian Sams, February 9, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

1:36 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It smells like a chimney — a fireplace.  Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Hello.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just have really one quick thing at the top and then we’ll get going with all of your questions.

So, as you all know, this afternoon, the President looks forward to seeing Leader Jeffries, Chair Aguilar, and other top leaders and members of the House Democratic Caucus.

You can expect to hear the President talk about our shared focus on delivering important progress for the American people, from rebuilding America with record jobs, small businesses, economic growth, and rising wages; to protecting and expanding access to healthcare and taking on Big Pharma; to taking historic action to combat climate change, gun violence, and efforts to roll back our fundamental freedoms.

And that’s — and that’s in stark contrast to what House Republicans are focused on.  Right now, they’re sowing chaos, undercutting our national security, and playing political games.

As the President said earlier this week, Republicans have to decide: Who do they serve?

The President and House Republicans [Democrats] know who they — who they work for — that’s — we are aware, the President is very aware, House Repub- — House Democrats are very aware — and that is the American people.

With that, we have the Admiral back in the briefing room, who is going to give us an update on the Middle East and take your questions.

Here you go, Admiral.  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Actually, I don’t have an opening statement.  I’ll save you that.  So, we’ll just go right to questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Here we go.

MR. KIRBY:  Sorry — sorry to bring you back up.  (Laughter.)

Q    That was very —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I actually knew that, and I forgot.

MR. KIRBY:  But you bounded very quickly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  Limber.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Can you talk about whether the administration has a reaction to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plans to deploy the Israeli military into Rafah?  And is the administration sending any warnings to the Israeli government against doing so, considering the humanitarian catastrophe that the U.N. said that this would cause?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, with the caveat that I always use that we’ll let the Israelis speak to their military operations and certainly any potential future military operations, I can tell you, we’ve seen no plans that would convince us that they are about to or imminently going to conduct any kind of major operations in Rafah.

I think you all know more than a million Palestinians are — are sheltering in and around Rafah.  That’s where they were told to go.  There’s a lot of displaced people there.  And the Israeli military has a special obligation as they conduct operations there or anywhere else to make sure that they’re factoring in protection for — for innocent civilian life, particularly, you know, the civilians that were — were pushed into southern Gaza by operations further north — Khan Yunis and North Gaza. 

I could tell you that — absent any full consideration of protecting civilians at that scale in Gaza — military operations right now would be a disaster for those people, and it’s not something that we would support.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Steve.

Q    Oh —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  Go ahead.  

Q    Sorry, I have a follow-up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Go ahead.  Sorry.

Q    The Israeli military has also detained three U.S. citizens during Secretary Blinken’s current trip: one woman in the West Bank on Monday and two brothers in Gaza this morning.  And that’s according to the Israeli military and family members of those people.  Does the White House have a reaction to that?

MR. KIRBY:  Just processing this information, and I — I — so we don’t — we need to — we want to know more about the reasons here.  And I’m — I’m confident that our Ambassador, Jack Lew, is looking into this.

Obviously, this is the kind of thing we take very seriously, so we’ll be talking to our Israeli counterparts and trying to get information, more context here about what happened.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Steve. 

Q    So — so, John, has Israel factored in the protection of civilians in Rafah —

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, when we —

Q    — as far as you know?

MR. KIRBY:  Steve, we haven’t seen — we have — we’ve seen no indications that there’s such — that there’s operational planning or at least planning at the level of specificity that tells us an operation — a major ground operation around Rafah is imminent.  So, we just haven’t seen the plan for it.

Any such plan — when you have more than a million folks that have been displaced down there, any such plan would have to factor in — a responsible military plan would factor in making sure that you can protect those civilians.  And as I said, given the circumstances and conditions there that we see right now, we think a military operation at this time would be a disaster for those people.

Q    And then, to follow up, Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected the Hamas proposal on hostages.  What — what happens now?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, nothing is — nothing is done until everything is done, and negotiations are ongoing. 

And as you heard Secretary Blinken say just yesterday in the region that — we’re optimistic that we will still be able to get a deal in place that will allow for an extended pause, allow for more aid to get in, and allow for a maximum number of hostages to get out.  But we’re still working at this literally around the clock.  And the Sec- — we’re — we’re optimistic we can get there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Karen.

Q    On that, just to follow up, the President had said the other day that the response from Hamas seems to be a little “over the top.”  Can you explain a little more about what part of that he was talking about? 

MR. KIRBY:  I’d really rather not get into the details and the parameters of the deal that’s being discussed.  As — as you know, there was a — an Israeli counterproposal put forward, and then Hamas responded.  As I understand it, the Israelis are looking at the Hamas response right now and working their way through that.  So, the last thing I’m going to do is get ahead of them and their decision-making. 

But as — again, as the President said, as Secretary Blinken said, there were parts of the Hamas response which were very positive and there were parts, which, obviously, we believe and our Israeli counterparts believe need a little bit more work. 

Q    And there was the U.S. strike in Baghdad that killed a senior leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah, which the U.S. has said is responsible behind the str- — the drone attack in Jordan.  Has the U.S. concluded the retaliatory strikes for the attack in Jordan, or should we expect more still to come?

MR. KIRBY:  You’ll have to wait and see. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, I know you said that you haven’t seen any formal plan for the IDF to — to go into Rafah, but —

MR. KIRBY:  I said we’re not aware of any formal planning to do that. 

Q    Okay.  Has the U.S. communicated everything that you just said about protecting civilians to Israel?

MR. KIRBY:  Secretary Blinken, in his meetings with the Israeli leaders and the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet, made clear our concerns.

Q    And did that come with any conditions with supporting Israel and offering support, resources in the future if that protection did not happen?

MR. KIRBY:  He made clear our concerns, and I’m cer- — I’m certainly reiterating them here from the podium.  But we’re going to continue to make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Hamas. 

A big part of the supplemental request that — that we submitted back in October and which I know is still being debated on Capitol Hill has money in there specifically for Israel’s security.

Q    Thanks. 

Q    Admiral, talking about the retaliatory strikes in Iraq, what’s the U.S. response to the outrage from some Iraqi officials that called it a “clear-cut assassination operation” that disregarded lives of civilians?  And what’s the U.S. response to any political pressure in Iraq to expel the U.S. forces there?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let Mr. al-Sudani talk about whatever political pressure he’s under.  I would tell you that we fully respect Iraq’s sovereignty, and our troops are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government to continue to advise and assist their military, their security forces as they continue to battle against a still-viable ISIS threat. 

We’re having discussions with the Iraqis, I think as you know, about what that posture looks like going forward and — and the validity of that mission going forward.  And those discussions are ongoing. 

But, look, if there were no attacks on our troops — who are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government — there would be no need for retaliatory strikes. 

Q    Given those discussions — how difficult are those discussions given Iraq’s relationship with Iran?

MR. KIRBY:  We have a — we believe we have a good relationship with the Iraqi government. 

I’ll let the Iraqis speak for their other bilateral relationships or their relationships in the region. 

We have a good relationship with the Iraqi government.  We still believe that the advise-and-assist mission is — is something worth talking about and — and exploring the future of it.  And I’ll leave it at that.

Q    Really quick — a quick question on Ukraine.  Ukraine replaced a top military general.  What’s the U.S. response to that?  And is that an indication that the war isn’t going as Ukraine and the U.S. would hope?

MR. KIRBY:  President Zelenskyy is the commander-in-chief of his armed forces; he gets to decide who his leadership is going to be in the military.  That’s what civilian control is all about.  We know that, and we’ll work with whoever he has in charge of his military.  We’ll continue to work with our Ukrainian counterparts. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  Staying on that subject.  I mean, do you have any concerns about instability in Ukraine as a result of this change at the top of the military?

And also, can I ask: Was it — was that decision discussed with — with yourselves and the White House before —

MR. KIRBY:  Discussed?

Q    Well, was there any discussion between President Zelenskyy and yourselves or with President Biden about the need for a change at the top of the Ukrainian military (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not concerned about Ukrainian stability as a result of this.  He’s the commander-in-chief, and civilian control of the military means you get to decide who your military leadership is.  And he’s — he’s doing that in a time of war.  He should speak to that decision. 

I’m not aware of any discussions at high levels between U.S. and Ukrainian officials about the — that decision in a pre-decisional way.  We talk to our Ukrainian counterparts all the time. 

But if the question is proposing that we were somehow abil- — we had some sort of right to give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down, that’s not true.  This is President Zelenskyy’s decision.  So, there was — there was no requirement for the Ukrainian government to — to run it by us.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, John, if the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu, said clearly yesterday that he ordered his troops to be ready to enter Rafah, why are you not taking his word at face value?  Number one.

And, second, there was an internal report — military report says that a fifth of the hostages in Gaza are dead already.  I know you blame Hamas for taking them in the first place, but do you share — do you think that Netanyahu shares the blame too in obstructing every deal that could have been possible, jeopardizing the life of hostages, including American hostages?

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, as I said, we — we’re just not aware of any specific planning for an imminent operation in Rafah, and I’ve already expressed our concerns about what that could look like for the Palestinian people that are there should it happen right now and should it happen with no due consideration for their safety.

On your second question, you’re right; Hamas took the hostages.  Hamas is responsible for — for their abduction.  Hamas is responsible for any harm that comes to them, period.  That’s the end of it. 

And there was a deal in place that did manage to get a good number — dozens of hostages out over the course of a week.  And since that ended, Nadia, we have been working almost nonstop to try to get another one in place.  And those discussions are ongoing as we speak for an extended pause that will be longer than the week that we saw.  And we’re hopeful that — we’re optimistic that we’ll be able to get there.

Q    I just want to clear something about — you said about the two brothers who — two American Palestinians who have been taken by the Israeli army.  What exactly do you seek?  And you said you wanted to —

MR. KIRBY:  We’re just processing —

Q    — know information?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re just processing these reports right now.  We’re obviously talking to our Israeli counterparts about this to get more information about what happened here.  I mean, we take this seriously, as you would expect we would.

Q    And the American from Louisiana who also —

MR. KIRBY:  Same.  Same.

Q    — in the West Bank who has been arrested?

MR. KIRBY:  Same — same thing.

Q    So, will you update us on information about that?

MR. KIRBY:  If I have something I can share, I will.  But there’s also privacy considerations we have to factor in too.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

Q    John, if — could I just parse a little bit more the Rafah statements?  On the one hand, you said a — any military operation in a place like Rafah would have to take into consideration protection of civilians.  And then you also said that any military operation in Rafah would be a disaster.  So, is — does — is it the U.S.’s position that there could be a military operation in Rafah that could be designed in a way that would be protective enough of — of civilians?  Or is the message any military operation would be impossible — any military — any military operation would be indefensible given the — given the situation in Rafah now?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we haven’t seen — I haven’t seen a —

Q    Right, I understand you haven’t seen it — 

MR. KIRBY:  — plan here.  So —

Q    — but in terms of what you’re —

MR. KIRBY:  So, any — any — our view is: Any military — any major military operation in Rafah at this time, under these circumstances, with more than a million — probably more like a million and a half Palestinians who are seeking refuge and have been seeking refuge in Rafah — without due consideration for their safety would be a disaster.

Q    But I guess —

MR. KIRBY:  And we would not support it.

Q    But I guess my question is: Can you see — could you see a path towards due consideration for their safety that could make a military operation in Rafah now, like, actually work?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s a speculative one.  I’m not going to go down a hypothetical here, Michael, in terms of what it could look like.  Again, we haven’t — we have no indications that there is such planning for a major operation in Rafah.  I’ve just said that right now, without proper planning and consideration of the — the innocent lives that are there — more than a million of — folks that are in Rafah — a military operation right now, without any kind of due consideration for that, would be a disaster for those people, and we would not support it.

Q    Do you have any concern that Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin could further erode support for Ukraine aid in the United States?

MR. KIRBY:  I — we’re convinced that there is strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for supporting Ukraine.  And we know there’s efforts now to bring something up onto the Senate floor for a vote that would have Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific, and humanitarian assistance supplemental funding in it and — without the border.  We’ll let the folk — we’ll let senators work that out. 

The President believes that support for Ukraine is critical — particularly right now, as Russia continues to try to hit their defense industrial base, continue to hit their units on that battlefront from — from east to south.  It — it’s vital. 

And he’s confident that — and he — and based on the meetings he’s had with — with leaders on Capitol Hill and the discussions he’s had, certainly over recent weeks, that, again, the leadership — even on the House side, the leadership is solidly in support of supporting Ukraine. 

Now, whether they’re going to — how they’re going to be affected or impacted by a television interview, I couldn’t begin to — to guess.

Q    I guess I’m asking beyond just Congress.  Among the American people, many of whom, you know, watch Tucker Carlson’s show and are inclined already to be skeptical of American support for Ukraine, would hearing directly from Putin potentially erode that further — not just in the halls of Congress but among the people?

MR. KIRBY:  I think the American people know well who is at fault here.  And I think they know that there was no ground whatsoever for the invasion on February 22nd, two years ago.  The — he — he invaded a neighboring country with- — without provocation.  Ukraine wasn’t a threat to anybody, and the American people understand that.  And the American people understand what Ukraine is fighting for. 

And all they’re asking for is our help.  They’re not asking for American boots on the ground. 

Again, I don’t think the American people are going to be swayed by one single interview.  And I think anybody that watches that interview — I — again, I haven’t seen — whatever — whatever is said — need to — need to make sure you’re — you’re — remember, you’re listening to Vladimir Putin.  And you shouldn’t take at face value anything he has to say.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just a couple more.  Go ahead.

Q    Admiral, can you give us a little more sense of what the President plans to speak about with Chancellor Scholz tomorrow?  The Chancellor has said, you know, he hopes the West sends a clear signal to Vladimir Putin.  And it seems like this week gives anything but that.

MR. KIRBY:  They’re going to talk about cert- — certainly the situation in Ukraine.  No question about it.

I think both leaders will reaffirm their strong support for Ukraine and finding a way to continue to help Ukraine.  The Chancellor said something like that before he left Berlin, actually — about finding ways for Europe to also do more to support Ukraine.

I think they’re going to talk about the Middle East as well and what the situation in Gaza looks like; what — what together we can do as — as strong allies to continue to make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself; that humanitarian assistance gets in to the people that need it.  And I would be surprised if they didn’t also talk about the threats in the Red Sea to international shipping.  And a lot of that international shipping affects Europe directly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Great.  Thank you.  Admiral, as you just mentioned, the foreign aid package — it advanced in the Senate just a few moments ago, but it still has a long way before final passage.  Some Democrats on the Hill say that they’ve been asking the White House to consider options to help Ukraine without their help in case that this doesn’t pass at all.  Is the White House considering any such options to aid Ukraine without the help of Congress?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’ll leave our conversations with members of Congress to — to the — to those conversations and not discuss them publicly. 

The President believes that support for Ukraine is critical, particularly right now.  And we’ll continue to — to work with both sides of the aisle in the Senate to see what we can do to make that happen.

Q    Is he sending any kind of — well, is he going to send any more direct message now as they are taking this up and now that it has advanced?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I’m not — I’m not going to — again, I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s private conversations with members of Congress and leadership on Capitol Hill.  He has been in touch with them; he will stay in touch with them.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, with everything that you said about Rafah, whether an attack is imminent or not, I noticed that what you said was that “we will not support it” and not “we will not accept it.”  So, I guess my question is: The President has military, financial, and diplomatic leverage on Netanyahu.  Why won’t he use it?

MR. KIRBY:  I think it’s not true that we haven’t tried to help influence the — the way the Israelis have been prosecuting operations.  That’s just not true.  We have.  We have — and they’ve been receptive to many of our lessons learned and the perspectives we’ve shared.

And, again, what I said was: An operation right now — first of all, we don’t think it’s imminent.  We have no indication that one is imminent.  Any operation right now, given the, you know, more than a million Palestinians seeking refuge at Ra- — Rafah would be a disaster for them.  And any operation that wouldn’t factor in their safety and their protection — an obligation that the Israelis have — we would not support.

Q    And on the Jordan King’s visit next week.  John, I think you did mention that the funding for UNRWA that has been suspended, that was specifically for Jordan.  So, can you give a little bit of a preview of whether that part on UNRWA funding and then also on refugee support for Jordan — will that be discussed between the President and the King?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know if the specific suspension of funding for UNRWA is going to be a matter of discussion.  I mean, it’s a — it’s a closed matter.  That — that money has been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation, and the Jordanians know that.  It was really for — it was a limited amount of money for a specific purpose in Jordan: to assist the Palestinians there.

But I think, in broad brushstrokes, the King and the President will certainly talk about what Gaza looks like post conflict and how our counterparts and our Arab friends in the region can help build a post-conflict Gaza or help us — help us work towards a post-conflict Gaza that, again, meets the aspirations of the Palestinian people and give them a vote and a voice in what that looks like.  And it’s going to have to start with a revitalized Palestinian Authority.

Q    And just one last question.  You did mention that this is not the end of the negotiation on — on the temporary ceasefire and you’re optimistic.  Does that mean that — I mean, can we infer from that that the President believes that Netanyahu’s response — whether that is his actual position or simply a public stance? 

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let the Prime Minister speak for his comments.  We —

Q    What is the President’s view?

MR. KIRBY:  The President believes that — that this is — this potential deal has real po- — has real possibility.  And he shares Secretary Blinken’s optimism that we’re — that we can get there. 

Discussions are active; they’re ongoing.  It’s not like either side just cut everything off.  It’s still — those co- — those conversations are still happening.  And so, the President is optimistic that we can get there.  He believes it’s possible.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  We have to take one last one. 

Go ahead, in the back.  (Inaudible.)

Q    Karine, thank you.  Admiral, you said that any responsible military operation would factor in civilians.  But 27,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza during the war, many of them children, so would you characterize the current military operation as “responsible?” 

And the second question is: Benjamin Netanyahu said the idea of sanctioning those in the West Bank who target Palestinians is irresponsible.  What would be — your reaction be to that?

MR. KIRBY:  I think our actions speak louder than our words.  We’ve — we have im- — imposed visa restrictions and we have done — and we have executed sanctions on some for the settler violence.  And I think our actions speak pretty loudly about what we believe about that.

And as for the civilian casualties, as I’ve said many, many times, I’ll say again: The number should be zero.  Too many have been killed.  Too many have been wounded.  And we know that too many have been displaced from their homes.  And that’s why we’re working so hard on this humanitarian pause, getting another extended pause in place, so that the level of violence can come down, so that hostages can get out safely, so that more security — I’m sorry, more humanitarian assistance can get in.

Again, actions speak louder than words, and I think our actions and our policies that we’re — that we’re pursuing speak pretty — pretty loudly about where the President’s priorities are.

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

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate it.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral.

Okay.  Seung Min.

Q    All right, thanks, Karine.  Two topics.  Attorney General Merrick Garland said the special counsel investigation into the President’s handling of classified documents is complete.  So, can you tell us whether the President was personally briefed on the contents of the report and, if so, when and by whom?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — I don’t have anything for you at this time.  I would refer you to the Department of Justice or the White House — obviously, the White House Counsel, my colleagues there, for specifics on the question you just asked.  I just don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q    Can you — I mean, the — the White House Counsel hasn’t said — the office hasn’t said those specifics.  Is that something you can get back to us with, whether the President was —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would —

Q    — personally briefed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Honestly, I would — you can just reach out directly to them.  They have been pretty — as you know, my colleagues there have been pretty responsive.  So, I would really direct you to them direct- — specifically.

Q    And multiple times this week, the President in his public remarks talked about having conversations in 2021 with European leaders who were deceased at that time.  So, can you give us an explanation into why the President was referring to those — to those people in those conversations and what exactly happened there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I know there has been a lot of focus on this.  I want to just step back for a second and just kind of think, really, kind of top level of what the President was talking about when he was having — as he tells a story about having these conversations with world leaders, which are obviously important conversations.  He was underlying the January 6 events in 2021: what happened; the message that it sent around the globe, around the world to our leaders — to world leaders; how dangerous it is; our democracy — how important democracy was and — or is — continues to be, obviously.

And he was asked — he was asked when he was — after he was elected, when he went to the G7, he said — and you saw this — he — it was something that we were saying throughout that trip, “America is back.”  “America is back.”  And what — what was asked of him was, “For how long?” 

And that whole story is just to reiterate, to really land, obviously, how important what we saw — that event — how important it is to continue to fight to our — for our democracy, but also, how important — how important it is — the United States — you know, their leadership — our leadership here in this — in the globe.

And so, he never thought — this is someone who was a senator.  He was a vice president.  He has a relationship with some of these world leaders for decades.  And he never thought that he would hear that.  And so, you hear him say that.  You hear him talk about it. 

He — you know, another part of it, too, is how unprecedented — how unprecedented that moment was on January 6th when 2,000 mob — a 2,000-person mob went to the Capitol because they were lied to about the results of the election, because they wanted to overturn the election.

So, just really want to make sure that we get that — that we understand why he — the reason he was telling that story.

And, look — you know, look, as it relates to the names and — and what he was trying to — you know, what he was trying to — to say, look, many people — elected officials, many people — you know, they tend — they can — they can mis- — misspeak sometimes.  Right?

Q    So, he misspoke?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And, look, I — let me give you a couple of examples.  You know, on Sunday, Speaker Johnson said “Iran” instead of “Israel.”  This happens. 

And Joe — Joe is not here.  There are many times I call Joe, from USA Today, “Michael.”  I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate that.  (Laughter.) 

Q    He doesn’t.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He doesn’t.  (Laughter.)  I’ve apologized to him many times.  Now I call him “Joe Joe,” because the President calls him “Joe Joe.”

But — and also, Sean Hannity himself has said Jason Chaffetz when he meant Matt Gaetz.  I mean, it happens.  It really happens. 

Rick Scott even confuses saving — say — saving Medicare money with cutting Medicaid — Medicare, pardon me.

And so, this happens.  You know, it — it is — it happens to all of us, and it is common.  But I do want to not — I do want to make sure we don’t forget what the overall arching kind of theme — what he is trying to say about — about our leadership on the global stage.

Go ahead.

Q    All those people you mentioned, yourself included, are a lot younger than the President.  And obviously, as he is heading into the election season, one of the things that people are talking about in polls is a concern about his age.  What do you say, then, to Americans who have that concern and they see three times in just a couple days the President getting the name of a leader wrong —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and referencing somebody who is deceased?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, again, as you just stated in your question to me, I’ve — I just laid out other — other leaders in their community or elected officials who have done the same.  So, it is not — not uncommon.

Look, as it relates to — as it relates to what the American people feel or what the American people think — I want to be really careful, because you did ask me that question in — in a context of the election, so I can’t really speak to the election — any upcoming election. 

But I can say this: This is a president that has had a — a very successful three years when you look at the economy, when you look at climate change, when you look at COVID, all the crises that he had to deal with when he walked into this administration.  That was done by someone who has experience, understands relationship on the other side of the — of Pennsylvania, understands what it means to bring two sides together to get things done, understands where the people are and Americans — Americans are and what they’re feeling, and how to deliver.

And that’s why you see an economy — all the data shows and even experts and some of you have written how the ec- — the economy has come back, and a lot of that is because of what this president has done.

So, look, his leadership, his experience, I believe, we believe speaks for its- — for itself.  And I think that’s what is important.  And I — and I hope that the American people see that. 

Q    If I can, just on the documents questions, just to try it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The President did say last January that, when it comes to his handling of classified documents, “There is no there there.”  Is that still the case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I’m going to — I’m not going to get ahead, certainly, of what — what is going to come out.  I’m just going to be really mindful here.  I’m just not going to get into hypo- — at this point right now, it would be me making a hypothetical comment because we just don’t have anything at this time, obviously. 

But I’m going to — any specifics, any — any details, or anything related to that, obviously as it relates to our — our comments from here would have to come from the White House Counsel.

Q    Will he speak on this?

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

Go ahead, Kevin.

Q    When you’re in the — in meetings with the President, how often does he confuse names like we’ve seen him do this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not seen him do that in meetings that I’ve been in.

Q    It was a pretty landmark Supreme Court day today.  How closely was the President tracking that?  Did he watch it on TV?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful.  Obviously, it’s an ongoing legal case, so I can’t comment on ongoing legal case. 

As it relates to your question about the President, he has been busy all day, obviously, delivering and working on the business for the American people.  I just don’t have anything on his — on his cable-watching schedule today.

Go ahead, Steve.

Q    Not to belabor the point, but how would you describe the President’s overall health?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  His overall health?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that is — I mean, you see him for yourself just like I see him for myself.  Is — I am not a medical doctor.  I cannot comment on his over- — overall health.  Obviously, you’ve heard directly from his physician.  He has put out — he has put out a detailed, detailed memo and document on the — on the President’s health.  You saw him do that last year. 

He’s going to have another — another annual physical, which we will be transparent, just like we have been the last two years, and share that with all of you.

I — it’s just not for me to — to comment on the President’s medical health.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.   A couple times in the past few days, the President has said that he does not support “abortion on demand.”  How does he define “abortion on demand”?  And does that mean there are restrictions that he does want to see?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I mean, the President has always been consistent when it comes to that particular question — which is, look, he has been really clear and unequivocal when it comes to supporting, restoring the protections of Roe — Roe in federal — in federal law. 

And, look, you know, as you all know, for nearly 50 years, Roe was the constitutional law.  It was the law of the land.  And it gave the right for — for women and their doctors to make decisions about their own healthcare.  And that is what we are going to continue to fight for: to make sure that Roe becomes — you know, asking Congress to act, make sure it becomes the law of the land. 

But, look, he believes — and he’s been unequivocal about it — that he supports restoring the protections — the protections of Roe into federal law.

Q    But what — what does “abortion on demand” mean to him?  Because while Roe was the law of the land, there were restrictions enacted in many states: waiting periods, other things like that.  Are — are those things he is comfortable with?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There —

Q    There is a concern, I think, from abortion advocates that using language like “abortion on demand” is repeating a conservative talking point that they view as stigmatizing. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is — and he has said this multiple times — he be- — he believes in restoring the protections of Roe, what is in Roe, what has been written in Roe, what has been laid out, the provisions in Roe for almost 50 years before, obviously, it was overturned back in 2022 by the Supreme Court.  That’s what he believes.  And that’s what I would point you to.  I don’t have anything else to add beyond that.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  What is it that the White House hopes that the officials who are meeting with Arab Americans today take away from those meetings in Michigan?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say a couple things at the top — as that this is part of the of the Biden-Harris ongoing outreach to Muslim and Arab Americans communities. 

So, as you all know — and I made this comment last week — senior officials traveled to — to Michigan, and they are obviously traveling today to hear directly from the community, to hear directly from community leaders on a range of issues that are important to them, obviously, as well — and not just them but their families — including the conflict that — that we’re currently sering — seeing in Israel and Gaza. 

This is a private meeting.   Want to — we want to give them the space to have a meeting that certainly has candor, certainly where both — where we can hear directly from them.  So, don’t want to get too far into what’s going to be discussed.

But we want to hear directly from them.  We want to hear their concerns.  We believe it’s important for — for these leaders to be — to be able to speak directly to officials in the White House. 

As you know, we have been consistent with having outreach to the Arab and Muslim — Arab American and Muslim American leaders and communities, obviously.  Also the Jewish community as well — Jewish American community.  That has — that has — that has been going on for — for some time.  And so, we are the — my colleagues, White House officials are looking forward to this conversation.

I just don’t — I want to be really careful.  It’s a private conversation.  We want to give them the space to have that privacy.

Q    But you’re stressing repeatedly that they want to hear from them.  But is anything that would come up in that meeting or any of the other ones going to affect or change U.S. policy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, I want to be really careful.  These meetings — folks are going to speak in a — in a — in — you know, in a way that they have the space for it to be open and honest.   Th- — we want to make sure that there’s privacy in these meetings.  It is critical.  It is crucial for these par- — partic- — participants to be able to do that, to speak freely. 

You know, I do want to underscore what you’ve heard from the President numerous times.  Obv- — obviously, we mourn the innocent lives that have been taken in this conflict.  And we’ve said that in — in — Palestinian lives and also in Israel as well.  We mourn those lives. 

But I want to be mindful and careful.  I don’t want to lay out a specific agenda or what is going to be next steps.  Obviously, they’re going to have those conversations. 

Q    Well, perhaps more broadly, then, what is the White House’s message to Arab Americans who are frustrated with President Biden’s Middle East policy and they want to see him break with Netanyahu and declare a ceasefire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, our message has been always very clear.  You know, he is working very hard around the clock.  You’ve heard from the Admiral, you’ve heard from the President, you’ve heard from the National Security Advisor very recently — Jake Sullivan.  He’s working very, very hard — and his team is, and you saw Secretary Blinken in the region — to stop the suffering of innocent Palestinians and — who have been caught in the middle of this — in the middle of this conflict between Israel and — and Hamas. 

And so, we mourn.  We mourn the — the innocent lives that have been taken here. 

And so, what we are trying to do — and, again, you heard this recently from — from the Secretary and also our National Security Council team — is that we are doing everything that we can to — to get another humanitarian pause so that we can get these hostages home to their families and their friends; to make sure that — some of them are Americans as well; want to get them home — and get that much needed — needed critical, critical humanitarian aid into Gaza.  And that’s what we want to see.  And that is our message.

Go ahead.

AIDE:  We’re going to have to wrap soon.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    Why did the President himself not meet with Arab and Muslim American leaders in Michigan when he was there last week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you know, that is a — that was a campaign trip, so I can’t speak to what the needs of the campaign were.  I’m going to have to obviously refer you back to the campaign in why it was set up in that way.  Obviously, it was a very productive — productive trip.  So, I’m not going to get into the specifics of the last time he was in Michigan.

But we have been consistent and have had constant communication with leaders in the community.  This is something that we have done throughout — since — obviously, since this conflict began on October 7th.  The President has met with Arab — Arab Americans and also Muslim American leaders.  And we are going to continue to have that engagement as we’re doing today.

Q    Can you give us some examples of those meetings and that kind of engagement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you know of one of them that he has — that the President has had, specifically.  You know of also the Jewish American meeting that he has had not too long ago.  I just don’t have anything else to read out to you.  But you — you are aware that the President has been consistently meeting with them.

Q    Has the President spoken to families of the Marines that were killed this week in California.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Obviously, our hearts go out to — to the — to the just devastating loss of those five Marines and their — you know, goes out to — our hearts go out to their families and to their friends and the people who love them.  I don’t have a call to read out from the President.  But obviously, they are in our — in our — in our hearts.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  To follow up on Mary Alice, has the President had more than one meeting with Arab American leaders?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we don’t read out every meeting, obviously.

Q    You keep referencing the one. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know —

Q    So, has it been more than one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because that one we did read out, and you all were aware of that.  But the President has had — and — and his White House officials have had regular communication and contact.  We just don’t read out every conversation, every meeting that the President has.  But we — we have had regular engagement with Muslim — Muslim Americans and also Arab American leaders and, obviously, as well, Jewish le- — Jewish American leaders as well.

Q    Thank you.  And on the southern border.  Can you talk about what executive actions the administration is considering?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say this at the top because I think it’s really important.  And the President, I think, laid this out brilliantly the other day about what — what — you know, what this — what this — what this time has all been about, right?  We were — we made sure — the President directed his team — and you’ve heard us say that many times, but it is true — for two months, directed his team to have a conversation with Republicans and Democrats on — in the Senate — to try and come — come forward with a — with a bipartisan agreement.

This agreement, if it had gone into law, would have been the fairest and also — and also the toughest agreement to deal with what is happening at the border and also some — some immigration issues that we’re seeing.

And let’s not forget, the — you know, the immigration system has been broken for some decades now.  And congressional Republicans are choosing to put partisan politics.  You heard me say at — the end of my topper basically was they have to decide: Who do they work for?  Who do they work for?

As it relates to executive actions, look, no executive action, no matter how aggressive, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional resources Congress can provide that — that Republicans have rejected.  In order to actually deal with this, we need them to legislate.  We need them to actually take action.

So, we are always evaluating our options.  But no executive action could actually have done what this bipartisan agreement could have done and would have been able to put into place to deal with the challenges at the border and to actually deal with immigration.

Q    I’m just asking what those options are, even if they don’t have the same impact that legislation obviously would.  What else could the President do, given that Congress isn’t going to do it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I understand the question.  What I want to say: More broadly, there’s not a executive action that actually could have done or implemented in an effective way what that bipartisan agreement could have.  Right?  That’s just — that is — that is just a fact.  There is no executive action that the President can take.

Now, we’re going to always constantly modify our approach to meet the ever-changing moment.  I don’t have anything to confirm or preview here at this time.  But if you look at the holistic — right? — agreement, not one action would have done anything to — to really make the change that is — meaningful change — meaningful change that we had needed to see at the border.  And if we have anything specific on modifying anything or taking an approach to meet the changes that we’re seeing, we certainly will share that o- — to you all, but I just don’t have any preview.

Q    Thank you, Karine.

AIDE:  (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, we have to wrap? 

Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    To follow up on Weijia — what Weijia was saying, is there a plan B now that this has failed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We are always going to look at our possible actions — always.  But I want to be really clear, right?  What that — what that negotiation — legislation would have done, there’s no executive action that could have touched what that — what that piece of agreement would have been able to do — that bipartisan agreement.

Q    Karine, I take your point.  And we’re asking you what are the details of that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just — I’m — what I’m answering for you is that we are always looking at other ways mod- — other ways to modify actions that we’ve already taken.  We’re always looking at other approaches to meet the ever-changing — ever-changing moment.  I just don’t have anything to preview for you at this time.

Q    And we’ve asked several times before.  But given the events of this past week, does the President — does the White House now support breaking off Ukraine and Israel funding now that this bill appears to have gone up in flames?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I think they’re still doing –doing their work over at — in Congress.  So, want to be mindful there.  But the President has been very clear how important it is to get this funding — to get that national security supplemental done.  He has been clear about that since October — since October, since he put that forth to Congress.  And it is important.

You heard the Admiral lay out what’s going on in Ukraine and why they need that funding and what they’ve been fighting for and how important this President continue to show his leadership, how he strengthened NATO, how he’s been able to bring more than 50 countries together to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to fight for their democracy.  That is incredibly important.

And so, we’ve talked about Israel and Israel being able to have the defenses that they need to — to fight against a terrorist organization.  We’ve been clear about that. 

So, I’m not going to get ahead of things here.  But the President couldn’t have — not have been clearer on how important this national security supplemental — this emergency request that he put forth months ago. 

And — and, you know, it’s been said here already at the podium: You know, we believe there’s bipartisan support for Ukraine.  We do.  We believe that still exists.  We believe that there are congressional members on both sides of the aisle that wants to get this done.

Q    And with regards to the Hur — excuse me, to the Hur report, I know you said you can’t comment because it’s not out yet.  But today, we learned that the White House chose not to redact anything and not exert executive privilege.  Why did the White House not exert —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would —

Q    — executive privilege?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the White House Counsel — my colleagues there at the White House Counsel. 

We’ll see you guys tomorrow.  Thank you, everybody.

2:18 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby, February 8, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

9:06 A.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Thank you so much.  Good morning, everyone.  And thank you so much for joining us on this call this morning to discuss the bilateral engagements and the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee’s fourth meeting in Mexico, which was led by the White House Homeland Security Advisor, Dr. Liz Sherwood-Randall.

As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and it will be embargoed until the end of the call.

For your awareness, not for reporting purposes, on the line we have [senior administration official], [senior administration official], [senior administration official] from the Department of Homeland Security.  From Department of Justice, we have [senior administration official].  And from the State Department Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, we have [senior administration official].

And with that, I will turn it to [senior administration official] to give us just brief toplines on the trip’s first day.

Over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Good morning.  And thank you, Vanessa. 

On February 6th to 7th, Homeland Security Advisor Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall led an interagency delegation to Mexico.  She was accompanied by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard Verma, Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Kristie Canegallo, and Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Adam Cohen, as well as Tiffany, my colleague, and I accompanied the delegation as well as other representatives from the State Department, the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and of course, our ambassador and members of the embassy team.

The focus of our bilateral engagements was to continue what has been a consistent, constructive, and candid dialogue between our two countries and to strengthen cooperation with Mexican partners on a range of topics, including managing hemispheric migration, countering traffic of illicit drugs and weapons, as well as regional coordination efforts on the same.

On the first day, Dr. Sherwood-Randall and our Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar met with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Foreign Secretary Alicia Bárcena, which was intended for the president and our Homeland Security Advisor to build — to follow up on the conversations between President Joe Biden and President López Obrador on February 3rd.

I won’t say more than — beyond what was in the readout yesterday, except to say that it was a long and substantive discussion on a range of topics and incredibly productive and constructive from our perspective.

Now, following that meeting, the full interagency delegation then met with counterparts of the Mexican security cabinet to review progress made through our joint efforts and to determine a number of next steps. 

So, on that end, we agreed to two concrete steps: to increase information and data sharing between the United States and Mexico — to increase the already existing relationship we have on information and data sharing to facilitate action against criminal organizations that traffic people, guns, and illicit drugs, including fentanyl, into our communities; and agreed to a specific set of timelines so that we keep ourselves on track, accountable, and delivering for our peoples of the country.

When I mention “specific,” we are, you know, obviously sharing information actively with the Mexicans.  We’ve agreed to basically track the same metrics and really, kind of, measure our own progress against the metrics that we’re setting for ourselves.

I’ll leave it at that so we have more time for questions.  Back to you, Vanessa.

MODERATOR:  Thank you so much one.  At this moment, I’ll turn it over to [senior administration official] to go over day two.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, good morning.  Thank you all for joining us.

So, yesterday, Mexico’s Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection Rosa Icela Rodríguez hosted White House Homeland Security Advisor Dr. Liz Sherwood-Randall and Canada’s Deputy Clerk and National Security and Intelligence Advisor Nathalie Drouin in the fourth meeting of the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee to review progress on our commitments and discuss further joint actions to stem the flow of illicit synthetic drugs and firearms trafficking.

By way of background, President Biden, President López Obrador, and Prime Minister Trudeau established the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee in January of last year, during the North American Leaders’ Summit, to guide party actions to address the threat from illicit synthetic drugs, notably fentanyl, in North America.

At the meeting yesterday, we all agreed that this is a shared threat not only for countries in North America but around the globe.  We also agreed we must not wait to act — to continue to act until this becomes an even bigger crisis in our homes, communities, and countries.

We will be issuing a joint communiqué shortly on the meeting, but I’ll take a few minutes just to go over actionable, concrete steps our three countries committed to.

So, first, we committed to increasing collaboration on the control of precursor chemicals and equipment related to illicit drug production. 

Second, we agreed to continuously review our legal framework to identify areas for improvement and to close any identified gaps.

Thirdly, we agreed to further engage the private sector to combat the production of illicit synthetic drugs and highlight legal risks.

Fourth, to strengthen diplomatic efforts to build on the progress of the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats and with other countries around the world.

Fifth, to develop and implement a common drug and substances analysis protocol, which will allow toxicologists from all three countries to improve our understanding of regional drug trends.

Sixth, to convene a forum to discuss strategies and their implementation for assisting the long-term recovery of individuals with substance use disorders.

Seven, to expand the scope of the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee to address firearms trafficking under the auspices of the North American Drug Dialogue.

Eight, to commit to developing a trilateral report that documents cross-border firearm seizures in all three countries to better inform our strategies and actions.

Nine, to commit to increase our use of the ATF’s eTrace Database to allow for more and faster joint investigations into the illicit trafficking of firearms across our shared borders.

And finally, tenth, both Mexico and Canada committed to embed personnel at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center to increase and expedite information sharing on criminals and illicit activities associated with the trafficking of both fentanyl and firearms.

And then, finally, the group committed to meet again sometime in the spring, most likely in Canada.

MODERATOR:  Thank you so much.  With that, I think we’re going to go straight into questions.  I recognize that we started a few moments late, so we’re going to go straight into questions.

Just a friendly reminder to our friends on the line that we will keep questions focused on this trip to Mexico.  You can ask about on bilateral engagements with our Mexican partners and the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee’s fourth meeting with the Mexican and Canadian partners.

Please, I know that there might be questions about ongoing negotiations on the Hill.  We ask kindly that we keep the questions focused on the trip.

With that, Candace, over to you to give our friends on the line the instructions on how to ask questions.  Over.

We’ll go first to Rafael Bernal from the Hill. 

Q    Hi.  Thank you for having this.  A couple of quick questions.  And I don’t mean to be flip about this, but is the joint communiqué going to address democratic decline in Mexico?

And related question: You know, there’s been a lot of allegations of corruption in — and drug-related corruption in President López Obrador’s immediate circle.  That’s made a lot of noise lately.  Does that affect the level of confidence in which you can engage in deals with that government?  And obviously, you know, he’s not doing all the work with his immediate and broader circles.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can take the first one, and then my colleagues can jump in on the others.

So, thanks, Rafael.  The topic of democratic governance is not in the statement because it was not the focus of the conversation.  We focused strictly on trilateral fentanyl cooperation and a number of other topics, which are the purview of the Homeland Security Advisor.

But we engage in wide-ranging discussions directly with the Mexicans on these topics, so I would not read into its exclusion as something that is deprioritized.  It just wasn’t the subject of the meeting.

MODERATOR:  [Senior administration official], do you want to take the second one?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  This is [senior administration official] from DOJ. 

The Deputy Attorney General had productive conversations with Attorney General Gertz and also members of the Mexican security cabinet.  And the issue that you flagged was never raised because what we were talking about was how we’re going to work going forward on countering fentanyl and firearms trafficking.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  We’ll go to José Díaz from the Reforma.

Q    Thank you so much.  On January 19, President Biden told the U.S. Conference of Mayors that fentanyl flows to the U.S. had slowed down.  Can you provide some metrics to back up that statement?  Because we haven’t gotten any.

And did you address — sorry, did the National [sic] Security Advisor address the complaints by the Mexican president during that meeting regarding these stories and ProPublica and other outlets about his potential involvement — sorry, the potential involvement of drug money in his first presidential campaign?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  [Senior administration official], do you want me to do the second part?  And then somebody can take fentanyl.

Really quickly, just — look, on the second part, we’re not going to get into the details of the internal conversations between the Homeland Security Advisor and the president.

Again, I think the focus of the discussion that we had, either — both in the bilateral meeting and the trilateral fentanyl discussion — was on strengthening already excellent cooperation that we have with the Mexicans on a number of topics, including law enforcement cooperation, migration, and just broader regional efforts to address the root causes of migration.

So we were focused on building on a very strong foundation of cooperation that we built.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi, this is [senior administration official] from State Department.  I can address the first part of the question if you’d like.

MODERATOR:  Please go ahead, [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, thanks.

What we believe we are seeing is more of a flattening of the numbers of fentanyl, but we are watching them month by month, and we judge it on an annual basis from summer to summer.  So I think we will have a much better idea later this summer.  But we have seen the numbers flatten, I would say, so we are hoping that will lead to a decline.

However, you know, nearing 110,000 drug overdose deaths total, with about 70 percent of those coming from synthetic drugs, including fentanyl — it’s still way too high.  So we have some work to do. 

Over.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, [senior administration official].  Thanks, [senior administration official].

We’ll go next to Colleen Long from the AP.

Q    Hi there.  Thank you for doing the call.  I have two questions.

So, the first one is: You were talking about how to measure success.  I just wondered if you could go into that a little bit more, because I assume it’s more than just, like, you know, fentanyl product seized.  And I know that it’s often really difficult to sort of, like, prove a negative if there are fewer instances of fentanyl — how do you know if you’re succeeding.  So I was kind of curious about, like, how the measurements would work.

And then, I know that you guys can’t necessarily get into this, but I just have to ask if this — you know, how these

efforts to sort of combat fentanyl may or may not be affected by, you know, whatever lack of funding is happening thanks to Congress.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, thanks.  On the metrics — and, [senior administration official], you may want to add to this as well.  Look, you’re exactly right that, you know, we’re not — it’s not necessarily effective to measure very, kind of, singular outcomes, metrics.  A lot of the metrics that we are basically discussing with the Mexicans reflect what is incredibly complex and sophisticated cooperation that we have in information sharing, in how we actually approach law enforcement operations, you know, how we actually allocate our investment resources.

And so, a lot of this is really just part of our internal planning process to ensure that, you know, when it comes to whether it’s information sharing at the ports, whether it is information on law enforcement operations in the United States that can benefit Mexico, or the other way around, trying to arrive at common metrics to show that our cooperation is improving.  It also gives us good insights into how we’re disrupting the functioning of transnational criminal organizations, a sense of where the flowing — the trafficking routes are.

So a lot of it is really trying to make sure that when we are engaging as robustly and as actively as we are with the Mexicans, that we’re basically comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges to improve how we can actually adjust to what is, you know, criminal organizations that are evolving and adapting rapidly.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  To add to what [senior administration official] said, that, you know, what the Biden-Harris administration has been really focused on is on saving American lives.  And when we meet with our partners in Canada and Mexico, that’s what we’re focused on doing, is saving the lives of our citizens in all three countries from the scourge of both fentanyl and firearms.

And so, what we’ve been focused on is taking a whole series of actions, both in this context with Mexico and Canada and stopping the flow of fentanyl and firearms, as well as doing things on the public health side, trying to make lifesaving treatments more available to members of the population of the United States, et cetera.  So I think it’s a whole host of actions.

And we have seen some progress on that front by, kind of, the flattening of the curve of the number of individuals in the United States that are dying from overdose deaths.

And so, this is just kind of one piece of everything that we are doing in the U.S. context to try and save American lives, working with our partners in Mexico and Canada, and tackling this shared threat in a global context through things like the global coalition that I mentioned and others, because this really is — the synthetic drug threat really is a global threat.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official] at State, if I can just add on to what [senior administration official] was saying.

Mexico is actually playing a very active role in the global coalition.  They are the co-chair of the working group on health issues, which is a priority for them, which has been great.  We have worked with them and other countries, and have — to identify emerging threats as well, because while it’s fentanyl right now, it isn’t just fentanyl; it’s a polydrug problem — it’s fentanyl mixed with other drugs.

And together with Mexico and other countries, we have already identified that liquid fentanyl, which is medical grade and not as lethal, is being introduced into the illicit market in the hopes of trying to hook additional people.

So the work that we are doing with Mexico, Canada, and everyone else in the global coalition is already starting to pay dividends just in information sharing and exchanges, but we also will have a lot of projects we’ll work on with them together. 

Mexico has also been very supportive in the multilateral fora.  They participated in an event with the Secretary of State at the U.N. General Assembly.  They have supported us in resolutions, saying that this is a global threat that requires global action, and also in getting additional precursors scheduled at the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

Over.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, [senior administration official].  Super helpful.

We’ll go next to José de Córdoba.  José, if you could remind us which outlet you are from.  Thank you.

Q    Yes, hi.  This is José de Córdoba from the Wall Street Journal.

I have two questions.  Last year, people in the Sinaloa cartel said they were stopping fentanyl trafficking in the areas they control around Culiacan.  Some dealers were killed.  Some labs were shut down.  Is that continuing?  And if so, has the Sinaloa cartel stopped trafficking fentanyl?  And if so, who has taken up the slack?  That’s one question.

The second question is: Does Mexico — the Mexican government accept that there are fentanyl labs operating in Mexico?

MODERATOR:  Perhaps [senior administration official] can start off with the first, or (inaudible), and then [senior administration official] can take the second one.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official] from DOJ.

So, on the first question about whether Sinaloa has stopped fentanyl production, I’ll say that that topic also did not come up during our meetings with the Mexicans.  We were focused on stopping fentanyl crossing the border from Mexico into the United States and the joint efforts we can take there, wherever the fentanyl is coming from, from whatever drug-trafficking organization is peddling it across the border.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, and I would just underscore what my colleague from DOJ said — is that the focus of the conversation was really on expanding our cooperation to deliver outcomes.  And so, we didn’t — we really actually focused on increasing those areas of collaboration.  And I think that was the focus of the discussion.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, this is [senior administration official].  So the one thing I would add to what my colleagues have said is that, you know, regardless of what Sinaloa has said publicly, we know that fentanyl is still continuing to come across our border into the United States.  We’re continuing to see fentanyl that is entering the United States, both in powder and pill format. 

So I think that just emphasizes the need for these meetings and, kind of, for our continued cooperation on these issues.

MODERATOR:  All right, is there — hearing no other comments from our speakers, I’ll go to our last question.

Jesus Esquivel, can you remind us — are you ProPublica?

Q    Hi, good morning.  This is Jesus Esquivel from Proceso Magazine of Mexico.

I have two questions to [senior administration official].  Foreign Minister of Mexico Bárcena said, even though that you say you’re going to talk about the details, that the U.S. government in these meetings — the case of (inaudible) involvement of drug money in the campaign was closed.

And secondly, it was a discussion with regard to the argument of the Mexican government that has been illegal traffic of military weapons from the U.S. and Mexico?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Happy to answer that, Jesus.

Look, so I think what you’re referring to is the press conference the foreign secretary gave after the meetings.  And she was saying that what she said (inaudible) was referring to the — that it’s just not something that — it was not the focus of the discussion, has not impacted the bilateral relationship.  And, in fact, that was really the spirit of the conversations, was building on what has been an excellent foundation that we’ve built since 2021.

And, you know, can you repeat the second part of the question?

Q    If there was any discussion of the argument of the Mexican government that has been illegal traffic of military weapons from the U.S. to Mexico.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, I’ll let DOJ speak to that.  We can step in as well.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi, this is [senior administration official].

So, that topic, we did discuss the trafficking of weapons from the United States to Mexico.  Obviously, it’s a large problem and one that we have an obligation and that we would like to assist both United States citizens and Mexican citizens with stopping.  The idea of trafficking of military weapons into Mexico came up.  We discussed it.  And there’s no evidence that military weapons from the United States are being trafficked into Mexico.

MODERATOR:  All right, I see we have one more question from José from the Wall Street Journal.  We’ll go to José.

Q    Yes, hi.  The president of Mexico has many times said that there are no fentanyl labs operating in Mexico.  I would assume that would have an impact on cooperation between the two countries on how to deal with fentanyl.  What is Mexico’s official position on that now?  What does the U.S. think about it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi, this is [senior administration official].  You know, as to Mexico’s official position, we would, of course, defer to the Mexican government to provide their official position.

What I will say about our cooperation with Mexico is that it is very strong across these issues.  I think the, kind of, series of due-outs that I went over that will be in the joint communiqué today from the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee is good evidence of that. 

And we know that our Mexican colleagues work very hard against this threat on a daily basis, that they have made great sacrifices in this fight — you know, the loss of their soldiers and policemen in this fight.  And we recognize that and appreciate that. 

And we feel that we have a very strong partnership across all aspects of this issue, from trying to shut down the flow of fentanyl across our border to working on firearms to working together on the public health aspect of this threat.

MODERATOR:  All right.  So we’ll have time for one last question.  We’ll go to Teresa Cebrián.  Teresa, would you please remind us what outlet you’re from?

Q    Hi, how are you?  Yes, this is Teresa from PBS NewsHour.

I want to talk about some reporting that fentanyl is primarily trafficked by U.S. citizens.  This is something that Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alicia Bárcena has also said.  I wanted to know if that came up in your conversations and what you’re doing to address that.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  [Senior administration official] or [senior administration official, either of you want to start off with this one?

We might have lost them.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me jump in real quick, Vanessa, just with some toplines on this.  This is [senior administration official].

So, look, I think it’s important to note here that fentanyl trafficking has an entire supply chain.  And we are, you know, focusing on the cooperation on preventing the flow of precursor chemicals, some of which are obviously dual-use.  On that, we’ve made incredible progress with the Mexicans, focusing on the transnational criminal organizations that are trafficking and involve the manufacturing of that — of fentanyl, and then, of course, the trafficking across the border.

There have been some open-source reporting that the majority of the trafficking comes in through points of entry.  That is largely accurate.  And others are saying that primarily U.S. persons coming across the border.  I think it’s important to, I think, note that the criminal supply chain is one that is incredibly long and that we are focusing on actually attacking the transnational criminal networks that are involved in managing that entire supply chain.

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

To build off of what [senior administration official] was saying, you know, this really is a — this is not just a threat to North America, this is a global threat.  And this is why we are working not just with our Mexican and Canadian partners, but our global partners through the global coalition, as I mentioned previously. 

And we’ve also been working closely with the PRC.  As you all know, we recently resumed counternarcotics cooperation with the PRC, sent a delegation there just last week.  And Mexico is also engaging with the PRC and has sent a delegation there and is working closely with them on counternarcotics cooperation as well.

MODERATOR:  All right, thank you, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  Thanks for joining us.  The embargo has now lifted.

Again, this call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials.  And we will try to get this joint communiqué on the TFC out as soon as possible and out to you guys. 

Thank you, and have a great day.

9:36 A.M. EST

The post Background Press Call on Bilateral Engagements and the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee’s Fourth Meeting in Mexico appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route New York, New York

12:43 P.M. EST
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just have two things at the top.  And then, we don’t have a lot of time.  As you all know, just a short flight. 
 
So, because congressional Republicans are choosing partisan politics over our national security and refusing to pass the bipartisan national security agreement that includes significant border reforms and funding, over the coming weeks ICE will be forced to reduce operations because of budget shortfalls. 
 
Since the beginning of the administration, we have asked Congress for additional funding and resources.  And every time, Congress has provided less than we asked for or, most recently, completely ignored our supplemental request. 
 
Here is what that means: ICE would be forced to reduce its removal operations, its total detention capacity, and more.  When ICE can’t aff- — can’t conduct these operations, our national security and public safety will be harmed. 
 
Speaker Johnson and congressional Republicans should be held accountable.  This was their choice.  They have picked partisan politics over our national security. 
 
Yesterday, new analysis showed President Biden’s investment in the IRS will reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars by making the wealthy and the big corporations pay the taxes they owe.  And — and has enacted — the Inflation Reduction Act’s IRS investment would raise over $500 billion over the next decade.  If extended, as the President has proposed, it would raise over $800 billion.
 
These iventmen- — investments are already paying off.  The IRS has already recovered more than half a billion dollars from over 1,600 delinquent millionaires.  And it’s easier for taxpayers to get their — their questions answered on the phone, in person, or online. 
 
Congressional Republicans have made their priorities clear.  They want to increase the debt by letting the wealthy cheat on their taxes and then cut healthcare, education, and other programs hardworking families rely on.  President Biden won’t let them.
 
With that, we have the Admiral, John Kirby, here, who is going to give us an update on the Middle East. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  I actually don’t have a topper for you today, so we can just take whatever is on your mind.
 
Q    On the hostage situation.  The President yesterday said something about the Hamas deal, and he expressed some skepticism about it.  He said something about their — their response was “over the top.”  Is there anything you can do to clarify what he meant by that, like — or anything you could say about what the Hamas response was?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I mean, I’m afraid there’s really not much I can say, J.J.  I mean, as we’ve all said consistently, we don’t want to negotiate this thing in public.  Hamas did come back with a response.  We’re working our way through that.  I don’t want to get ahead.
 
As you know, Secretary Blinken is in the region right now talking to our counterparts in Israel about this.  And in order to make sure we have the maximum chance for success, you know, I think the less said the better.
 
Q    Whe- — could you just give us an update on Secretary Blinken’s meeting with Netanyahu?  Has he discussed the proposal?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think they’re just coming out of the meeting, so I — I don’t have — I don’t have anything specific for you.  I’d refer you to my counterparts at State.
 
Q    How much of the Hamas offer really reflects the — the proposal that was drawn up by U.S. and Israeli chiefs that was delivered to Hamas last week?  How much of what you have gotten back from them reflects that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to get into the details.  I’m sorry. 
 
Q    It’s been more than a month since that last U.S. assistance package was sent to Ukraine.  Can you give us an assessment of how the Ukrainian army is doing right now in terms of ammunition and supplies?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I talked about this a little bit yesterday in my gaggle.  And I’m certainly going to be careful not to get into the inventory levels of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. 
 
But battlefield commanders are making some really tough decisions right now.  We know that in some units, they are marshalling their ammunition very, very closely because they’re beginning to get worried about running out.  There are marshalling what kind of other longer-range systems that they are using.
 
And the Russians know this.  That’s why they keep flying drones and missiles to — to force the Ukrainians to use air defense capabilities that they know are not being replaced right now. 
 
So, it’s causing some tough decisions on — on the commanders’ part all along that front — from the east down to south.
 
Q    And there’s a city, Avdiivka —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Avdiivka, yeah.
 
Q    I want to make sure I — yes.  Can you talk a little bit about the concerns about what that would mean if that city were to fall?  It would be the first major city taken by the Russians in a (inaudible) — 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, don’t forget Bakhmut.
 
Q    Yeah, since — I was going to say “since Bakhmut.”
 
MR. KIRBY:  Don’t forget Bakhmut.
 
Q    Yes.
 
MR. KIRBY:  But Avdiivka — what we think the Russians want it for is a — a stepping-off point, a logistics hub.  And the Ukrainians keep fighting for it.  I mean, it’s — it — they’ve — they’ve swapped territory in and around Avdiivka now for a couple of months. 
 
But we believe the Russians wanted to be able to have a base of operations for that area, the Donbas. 
 
Q    And because the U.S. hasn’t — doesn’t have the ability now to send more assistance, is that city more at risk?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think there’s risks all along that battlefront — east down to south.  And not just along the battlefront, but there’s risk inside to — in Ukraine because we know the Russians were going after their defense industrial base and other targets — civilian targets as well as military targets.  So, it’s — it’s a risk all along. 
 
Q    On the Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin, do you have any thoughts on that interview?  And is there any concern in the administration about any disinformation that could emerge from that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead of an interview that hasn’t happened yet. 
 
I don’t — I think it’s pretty obvious — it should be very obvious to everybody what Mr. Putin has done in Ukraine and the bogus — completely bogus and — and ridiculous reasons for which he tried to justify it.  I don’t think we need another interview with Vladimir Putin to — to understand his brutality.
 
Q    Do you have anything to tell us about the mis- — about Marines gone missing off California — the search for missing Marines. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry?
 
Q    Do you have anything to tell us about the Marines that have been missing and that they’re looking for off the coast of California?
 
MR. KIRBY:  All — all that we know right now is that the search is ongoing for — for the helicopter and the crew.  Obviously, our — our hopes are of the best here.  But this was a MH-53 — Marine Corps MH-53 — a large helicopter that was on its way from the Creech Air Force Base to San Diego, and that’s really all we know.
 
We’re — we’re watching this closely.  And again, our thoughts are for the best.
 
Q    Can you tell —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We can tell you that the President has been briefed on it.  So, he’s aware.
 
Q    Can you tell us the White House reaction to Schumer’s plan B? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Do you — do you have any — anything else for the — for the Admiral before we let him —
 
Q    A border question.
 
Q    Just wanted to understand your thoughts on, you know, the kind of proposal in terms of — I mean, it doesn’t really indicate a willingness to negotiate.  How would you characterize the Hamas proposal?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to get into that.  I know — I appreciate the question, but we want to have success here.  And the less said about it, the better. 
 
I’ll — I’ll turn it over to Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral.  I appreciate it. 
 
So, to your question about — I think you were asking me about the Schumer package in — in more — in more — more specifically. 
 
Look, I mean, you heard what I said at the top, right?  We — what we support is making sure that our national — the Americans — American people’s national interests are protected.  That is our focus here. 
 
And, you know, House Republicans — Republicans are making a choice here.  And this is their choice.  And the reason why the President — and you’ve heard me say this; you’ve heard the President say this — the reason why we put forward a national security supplemental is because there was an urgency, a need to make sure that the brave people of Ukraine got — got the — gets the additional help to push back on — on President Putin, to make sure that we keep our promises to Israel, to make sure that we get that really important humanitarian assistance.  Let’s not forget the Indo-Pacific. 
 
So, this is their choice.  This is their choice.  And so, our focus is always going to be our — about our national security interest on behalf of the American people, obviously.
 
Q    It sounds like you’re in favor of something over nothing.  Better to vote on a piece of the package. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m certainly not going to get ahead of it. 
 
I want to take a step back.  Look, they decided — Republicans decided to choose politics over — over important — important issues — important issues that’s relating to our national security, as — obviously, to deliver meaningful, meaningful changes. 
 
Let’s not forget: What we were requesting in the border — what the border deal — right? — that bipartisan agreement was not just about — was not just about, you know, the challenges at the border and getting those resources, but it was also about meaningful change that we can make to immigration — our immigration system — a broken system that has been broke- — that has obviously been broken for decades now. 
 
So, look, we — the — the Senate worked for a couple of months, Republican and Democrats.  They put forth a — a very — a fair — and you’ve heard me say “tough but fair” — you know, proposal that has been — that has been supported by the Border Patrol union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other — and other Republicans as well. 
 
And so, it’s — it’s — you know, it’s their choice.  It is their choice.
 
Q    Does the White House’s support for plan B — this clean supplemental without border policy — indicate that you guys view the border negotiations as done?  Or is there a way to resurrect them?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s still a process that’s happening in the Senate.  We’re going to let that play out.  We’ve been very clear what our focus is on.  The focus is about our national security — protecting the national security on behalf of the American people.  And we’ve been very clear on that. 
 
Republicans have a choice to make.  It’s clear they’re — they’re picking politics over the American people — what — what about — mor- — majority of the American people want to see when you think about the border security plan, the bipartisan agreement that was — that was put together.  And that’s for them to speak to.
 
Q    Does the White House anticipate — does the White House anticipate that Special Counsel Hur is going to release his report on the President’s handling of classified documents?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s some- —
 
Q    Have you been given a heads up on that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something —
 
Q    Have you been given a heads up on that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something for the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel — my colleagues at the White House Counsel to speak to.
 
Q    Will the President address it after the report is released?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not —
 
Q    Will we hear from him on it?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get ahead of it.  That’s something the Department of — the — that’s in the Department of Justice hands and my White House Counsel colleagues to speak to.
 
Q    You’ve got senior policy officials going to Michigan, meet with Arab American leaders.  Is it — is this damage control in a key swing state?  I mean, is this political damage control?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’ve always said — we’ve always said that we are going to — to reach out to different communities and hear directly from them, including the Muslim and Arab American community.  We have done that.  We’ve been consistent on doing that over the past several months with White House officials. 
 
You’ve — you’ve heard the President also — we’ve spoken to the President also meeting with this really — this really important community.  And so, that continues.  You heard me say, and I — you know, I think it was on one of these Air Force One flights — gaggles that — that we were going to have White House officials go to — go to Michigan to continue those conversations. 
 
And so, that’s going to happen sometime in February.  I don’t have anything else to share on that.  But obviously, I — we confirmed that that was going to — going to be the case.  And we continue — we continue to speak to people in — folks — people in the Jewish community, obviously the Arab community and the Muslim community.  We — we believe it’s important to hear from these communities.
 
Q    On — on that.  What’s your message to the protesters that we’re likely going to see today in New York City?  What’s your message to them that are com- — you know, we’ve seen at every stop, they come out.  They’re —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we’ve been pretty consistent.  You know, we’ve been — we’ve always said, you know, we — we think Americans have — have the right to hear their — to give — make sure their voices are heard in a peaceful way.  We support that.  The President supports that.  You hear the President when — when situations do occur.
 
And that’s where we are.  We think it’s important for folks to make sure their voices are heard.
 
Q    Karine, for tomorrow’s meeting in Michigan, you’re not —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not confirming any meeting.  I just want to make sure that it’s happening —
 
Q    Okay.  We understand the meeting —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — that it’s happening —
 
Q    — that’s happening tomorrow.  Just wanted to understand what specifically, you know, is the administration planning to raise with the Arab American community. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, let me just be clear: I’m not confirming anything.  We have said that White House officials were going to obviously go to Michigan to continue — this is a continuation of conversations that they’ve been having with the Muslim and Arab communities and other communities, like the Jewish American community as well. 
 
I’m not going to get ahead of what’s going to be said.  Obviously, we’re going to listen and hear what leaders of that community has to say.  We are open to that — having a real, honest dialogue.  I just don’t have anything to confirm on timing and when that’s going to happen.
 
Q    And then one more on the — on the President’s meeting with the Teamsters.  Is there, like, a new date when he’s planning to meet with them?  Or, you know, are you optimistic of an endorsement landing soon? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I know you’ve asked that question many times, my friend.  So, I’ll say this.  As it relates to any endorsement, that’s something for the campaign to speak to.  Can’t speak for — about that from my perch, obviously, as a federal employee.  The Hatch Act.  I — and I don’t have any meetings to — to read out to you.
 
Q    Was the President watching things last night?  Was he watching what was unfolding on the House — the Mayorkas vote, the Israel vote?  How was he getting briefed or paying attention to that last night?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, first of all, let me just say that, as you know, there was the — there was an event at the White House last night, a Black History Month event.  So, the President obviously spoke at that, attended that.  That happened last evening.  More than 500 people attended to celebrate not just Black History Month but what the President has been able to achieve for the — for Black Americans — the Black American community.
 
Look, you know, I have not spoken to him about this.  I’m sure he’s — he obviously caught — caught and obviously pays close attention to what’s happening.  But I just don’t have anything to say.
 
I will say, on the Mayorkas front, the impeachment — look, you’ve heard — you heard me say this yesterday.  You’ve heard me say this many times before.  It is unfortunate that this is where House Republicans spend their time. 
 
We’ve been talking about this bipartisan agreement.  They — if they really want to fix the issue at the border and the challenges that we’re seeing, if they really want to address immigration, a decades — a dec- — a system that’s been broken for decades, they can join us.  They can actually deal with this issue.
 
Mayorkas actually helped — helped with the negotiations on — on the border neg- — on the border security bipartisan deal.  But they waste — they’re wasting their — they wasted their time.  It is shameful and it is baseless what they — what they’re doing with this impeachment.
 
And so, I’ll just leave it there.
 
Q    Karine, one more question on the border.  You said that Republicans need to be held accountable for this.  The President yesterday said that he’s going to go out in the country and talk about it.  What — how is that going to manifest?  What does that look like?  And does the President plan to go to the border?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the President was at the border last year.  So, just want to make sure — make that clear. 
 
And so, he got to see for himself what the Border Patrol agents go through — their process.  And he got to see the technology that’s used.  You guys — some of — I’m sure, if you guys on the plane weren’t here, some of your colleagues were there and got to see the President in action and — and really get a sense for himself what happens at the border.  So, don’t have anything to share there. 
 
Look, the President made it very clear.  I — you know, he gave a very strong — strong speech and remarks about what he’s — the politics that are being played around the border, the challenges at the border.
 
Let’s not forget what was — many of the — many of the — of the proposals that was in that agreement — that bipartisan border negotiation agreement had things that Republicans had been talking about for years, things that they wanted to see change. 
 
I mean, when you have the Border Patrol union supporting a piece of legislation, that’s a big deal. 
 
And so, it’s politics that they’re playing.  It’s pure politics.  And so, they have to — you know, they have to be held to account. 
 
Go ahead.  I have to — this will be the last one. 
 
Q    On that.  Is there any plan for the President to convene the Big Four congressional leaders to come into the Oval again to hash out the aid package?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t have any — any — anything to — to preview at this time.  Obviously, you know, early January, he met with congressional leaders — rank and file, obviously, members — to talk about Ukraine and the importance of getting the Ukraine funding, and, of course, the border — border security challenges and — and negotiations came up in that conversation. 
 
I just don’t have anything else to share. 
 
And as you also know, White House officials continue to be in close touch with congressional members.  And that will always be the case.  And the President has long history and relationships with many members in Congress. 
 
But I just don’t have anything to — to reach out.
 
Q    Real quick, any update on the press conference tomorrow?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Stay tuned. 
 
Q    We are.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Stay tuned.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    We are still —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Stay tuned.  And —
 
Q    We are tuned.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President — the President takes — takes questions pretty regularly, but stay tuned.
 
Q    Well, he could take questions today.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Stay tuned.  Stay tuned. 
 
Well, we have a long day. 
 
Q    Okay.
 
Q    Are you — are you saying that this is the best deal you thought could be reached?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it was — just think about this:  This was a bipartisan agreement coming from the Senate — Republicans, Democrat — for two months, hatching out how to move forward with a challenge at the border and immigration and also a broken system — the immigration system.  I mean, you know, that’s a — that’s really important. 
 
And we’ve heard from Republicans saying that this isn’t really important.  What — what this deal brings forth, they couldn’t get anything better.  Right?  We’ve heard Republicans speak to how important this piece of — this pie- — this proposal was. 
 
And so, it makes no sense.  The — you know, you have two sides, two fo- — two sides of the aisle coming together — right? — and putting together this agreement that is really, truly going to make a difference w- — on the immigration — part of some — some immigration proposal, some funding — right? — discussion of funding at the border.  And they’re playing politics.  They’re purely playing politics. 
 
So, this would have been, if enacted — if they had moved forward — if they move forward — right? — and they enact this, this would be a fair and tough proposal — piece of legislation that would have obviously come in — come into law.
 
So, that’s where we are. 
 
All right.  Thanks, everybody.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
1:01 P.M. EST
 

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby En Route New York, NY appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

11:06 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining us.  Sorry for the delay.  Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll take some questions.
 
MR. KIRBY:    Thank you.  In the interest of time — and I know everybody wants to get postured and ready for the President’s remarks, so I’ll just very, very quickly just draw your attention to the letter written jointly this morning by nine of our ambassadors to countries across the Indo-Pacific, to include Japan, China, India, the Philippines, and the Republic of Korea — a letter that they sent to Congress urging them to act quickly to pass the President’s national security supplemental funding request, including the funding that it contains for the Indo-Pacific, as well as, of course, for Ukraine and for Israel. 
 
The ambassadors wrote about how, quote, “Many countries in the Indo-Pacific are intently focused on the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.” 
 
Again, with Russia’s growing strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China and with military support from Iran and North Korea, our support for Ukraine — or the potential termination of that support at such a decisive moment here in these winter months — will fundamentally affect not just Ukraine, but other strategic theaters as well, obviously to include the Indo-Pacific theater. 
 
And then, just before I close out, I’m sure many of you saw the statement that I issued yesterday, correcting what I had said Friday night about pre-notification to Iraqi officials on Friday night before the strikes that we took on facilities related to the Iran-backed militia groups.  And I deeply apologize for the error, and I regret any confusion that it caused.  It was based on information we had or that was provided to me in those early hours after the strikes.  Turns out that information was incorrect.  And I certainly regret the error. 
 
And I hope that you’ll understand there was no ill-intent behind it, no deliberate intent to deceive or to be wrong.  I take those responsibilities very, very seriously.  And I deeply regret the mistake that I made. 
 
And with that, we can take some questions.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Steve with Reuters.
 
Q    John, could you just give us a little readout of what you’re expecting Biden to talk about with the German Chancellor on Friday?  Is it Ukraine assistance?  Is it the attempt to use Russian assets to pay for Ukraine assistance?  What are you expecting on Friday?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, just broad-brush, Steve — there’s no question that they’re going to talk about the war in Ukraine and how we can work together to push back on Putin’s continued aggression.  I have no doubt that they’ll have an opportunity to discuss what things look like along that battlefront. 
 
I have no doubt that they’ll discuss the work on the Senate side that Republicans and Democrats have worked so hard to get a bill put forward, which would allow for funding for Ukraine to continue.  And the President, I’m sure, will share his views on that, as he will share his views on that with the American people here shortly. 
 
And I think that they will also have an opportunity to talk about what’s going on in the Middle East writ large, I mean, just in terms of the scope of activity that’s being supported by Iran throughout the region, but also more critically, the fight between Israel and Hamas, and share our steadfast support for Israel’s right to defend itself, as well as our mutual obligations to try to do what we can to increase humanitarian assistance and to decrease the number of civilians that are being harmed in Gaza. 
 
And then lastly, I think, Steve, they’ll have an opportunity to touch on the NATO Summit coming up in Washington soon — later this year, and just sort of check signals on the approach that we want to take and the things that we want to get done at the NATO summit.
 
Q    And lastly, John, do you know — as far as you know, has Hamas responded to the U.S.-Qatar proposal to release hostages in exchange for a pause?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I would say that the negotiating effort is still ongoing, Steve; that we aren’t at a place where we have finality on it and that we’re about in — about to be in imminent execution.  So we’re still working on it. 
 
I’d rather not talk about sort of where folks are on the particulars and where they are in terms of final approval.  But we don’t have a deal at this point, as you and I are talking.  And we’re hoping that we can get closure on it very, very soon.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Aamer with the AP.
 
Q    Thank you, John and Sam.  Following on Steve’s question on the Scholz visit, what can President Biden tell him to assure Germany and the rest of Europe that they won’t be alone in helping Ukraine, particularly considering where things are with Congress?
 
And is the President and the U.S. now in sort of a place where we have diminished credibility in these conversations?
 
MR. KIRBY:  To some degree — I don’t want to get ahead of the President here today; you’re going to hear from him soon, Aamer — and I think the answer to your first question will be, I think, part of the President’s arguments today.  So I want to be careful I don’t get ahead of him. 
 
But I think he will make clear to Chancellor Scholz how much he personally wants to continue to support Ukraine, how hard Senate negotiators worked on both sides of the aisle to get at this final bill.  I think he’ll stress that if that bill reaches his desk, that he’ll sign it. 
 
And I think he’ll also, you know, remind the Chancellor that there is strong bipartisan support, actually in both chambers.  And I recognize what we’re hearing out of the Speaker.  I get that.  But if you talk to the leaders in the House, certainly the leadership of the national security-related committees, all of them will tell you they want to continue to support Ukraine.  And that’s not an insignificant fact.  And I think he’ll be willing to, you know, remind the Chancellor of that.
 
Again, up on Capitol Hill, for all the dysfunction that we tend to see, particularly regarding on the House side, that there is strong bipartisan leadership support for Ukraine and that the President is going to stay committed to the task. 
 
And on your second question: As I’ve said before, American leadership matters.  What we say matters.  What we do matters.  And it’s American leadership that has really spearheaded and helped make the contributions to Ukraine’s security so tangible and so operational.  People look to us to lead in that effort, as we have, through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group and other initiatives. 
 
And so, it’s important — there are a lot of eyes on us right now, certainly in our allies and partners and some adversaries as well.  So it’s really important that this deal that was reached in the Senate find its way through the process, of course, but find its way to the President’s desk so he can sign it so we can continue to do what we have to do to support Ukraine.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Neria with Israel Channel 13.
 
Q    Hey, Kirby.  Thank you so much for doing this.  When America is talking about a hostages deal, is it part of a bigger deal of normalization with Saudi Arabia, or are we talking about two different paths here?
 
MR. KIRBY:  No, these are two different things.  We’re working very hard, as I mentioned to Steve, to try to come to closure on another hostage deal and an extended pause that will allow us to get the remaining hostages home with their families, to get more assistance in, and certainly to reduce harm to civilians.  Obviously, we’d like to have something that’s longer in length than a week that we were able to achieve back in November — again, to be as thorough as we can be on getting those hostages home. 
 
And then, you know, once that gets put in place then, you know, we’ll have to see where it goes from there, assuming that both sides meet their commitments. 
 
At the same time, we were, before the 7th of October, and are still now having discussions with our counterparts in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia — obviously, the two key ones — about trying to move forward with a normalization arrangement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. 
 
So those discussions are ongoing as well.  We certainly received positive feedback from both sides that they’re willing to continue to have those discussions.  But that is a separate track and not related specifically to trying to get this extended humanitarian pause in place.  Both are really important though.
 
Q    Thank you so much.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nathan with Israel KAN.
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks for taking my question.  I’d like to know about the supplemental assistance.  Is there any assessment of how critical this is for Israel right now?  How long can Israel wait before this is approved?  And are there any measures that the U.S. can pass in order to mitigate that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m going to be careful here that I don’t talk about operational security matters for the Israeli Defense Forces. 
 
But the figure that we came up with in October and then the one that’s in this bill — roughly, they’re about the same:  more than $10 billion.  And it’s designed — the figures that we came up with were achieved in close consultation with our Israeli counterparts about their expectations of what they would need so many weeks hence.  So, we’re glad to see that this bipartisan Senate bill does continue to provide security assistance for Israel. 
 
I want to say just one thing, though.  I want to be — again, I will let the Israelis speak for how much longer they have to go and (inaudible) the munition, but we know that air defense capabilities are a key, critical need for the Israelis as rockets continue to get launched against them and targets in Israel.  And they have expended quite a bit of air defense munitions, and we know that that’s a critical need.  So that’s one area where, you know, I am comfortable talking about and saying that, you know, we know we’ve got to do more to help replenish their stocks. 
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick with PBS.
 
Q    Hey, Sam.  Thanks very much.  Hey, John.  Two questions on Ukraine.  Given the response so far by Speaker Johnson, is the White House interested in and/or pursuing an alternative — for example, somehow combining the Israel bill that came out of the House with the Ukraine funding that would have to be created by the Senate and then sent back to the House?
 
And then, on air defense for Ukraine, I know you won’t be able to be specific, but if there’s no supplemental, could you say anything about how critical air defense for Ukraine levels
would be?  Thanks. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Nick.  On the first one — you’ll hear more from the President soon, so I hope you understand that I won’t get ahead of him — our focus is on this negotiated bill from the Senate side, where Democrats and Republicans really worked hard to come up with a proposal, a bill that we believe and the President has said, you know, we support and we believe will go a long way to helping us with these emergency supplemental requests.  And that’s our focus. 
 
And as the President — as we have said — as we have said, that, you know, if it gets to the President’s desk, he’ll sign it.  So that’s our focus.  And we’d prefer that, on the House Republican side, instead of political gamesmanship and ploys, that they focused on — they focused more seriously on this Senate bill, because there’s an awful lot of goodness in this bill for not just the people of Ukraine but also Israel, and, of course, to help our Border Patrol agents down at the southern border. 
 
And as the ambassador said in the Indo-Pacific, there’s a lot of goodness in here for our national security.  And we urge members of Congress in the House to take it up and to take it up seriously.  That’s our focus. 
 
On your second question, on air defense — again, without getting into inventory numbers, which I would never do for the Ukrainians — air defense, likewise, for Ukraine is critical right now, particularly in these winter months.  We have seen a continued onslaught by Russian drones — actually supplied many of them by Iran — and cruise and ballistic missiles targeting particularly two things in Ukraine: one is obviously military units, but also specifically and directly targeting Ukraine’s defense industrial base to try to eliminate Ukraine’s ability to organically produce many of the munitions that they need to defend themselves. 
 
So, air defense is critical, whether it’s short, medium, or long range.  And it’s going to become more critical over these winter months as Mr. Putin continues to try to pound away at that Ukrainian defense industrial base.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Asma with NPR.
 
Q    Hey.  Thanks, John, for doing this.  I have two questions on two different topics. 
 
First, I know, on Friday, when you spoke of the administration’s response to the servicemembers who were killed in Jordan, you had said that at that time you did not yet know, kind of, the scale of what that meant in terms of militants who had been killed or wounded.  I’m wondering now if you have anything that you can share on that front.
 
And then, second topic is: In regards to the ongoing negotiations to release remaining hostages that were taken by Hamas, could you characterize what or whom has been the primary holdup?  My understanding is this is now in the hands of Hamas, but could you characterize what is the major sticking point?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m going to be unsatisfying on both of these questions. 
 
I think the Pentagon briefed yesterday and spoke to their belief that there probably were some militia group members killed and/or wounded, but they did not have a number.  And so, I’m not really able to go beyond what they are assessing.  Your question is really better put to them.  They’re doing the battle damage assessment, and they would know. 
 
And I’m not going to negotiate here, in public, and start throwing out labels on who’s the holdup or what’s the holdup.  We believe that there has been a serious proposal put forward here and — for an extended pause that can do all the things we’ve said it can do.  And we are still now in the process of trying to get that proposal inked and underway. 
 
And I think I probably should just leave it at that lest I say anything that could negatively affect what is still a very sensitive negotiation process.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michael with the Washington Post.
 
Q    Hey.  Thanks so much for doing this.  Question or two about Ukraine.  In the Scholz meeting on Friday, to what extent are you guys hashing out a strategy about how to help Ukraine if the supplemental doesn’t pass and if there isn’t substantial more U.S. funding for military assistance to Ukraine?
 
And just wanted to ask also about Jake’s visit to Brussels tomorrow.  I mean, is that what’s on the agenda there with Stoltenberg?  Thanks a lot.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  Without additional funding to support Ukraine, the United States, at least unilaterally, won’t be able to continue to provide security assistance.  We said that very clearly.  We’ve got to have the supplemental funding in order to be able to provide continued security assistance. 
 
And I would remind that one of the things baked into that Senate bill is a significant amount, something to the tune of $20 billion, of replenishment authority for the Defense Department to help restock its shelves and a significant investment in our own defense industrial base here at home.  It’s really critical. 
 
Other nations are also providing support to Ukraine.  I think you’ve seen, just a week or so ago, the EU pledged like $10 billion in financial assistance to Ukraine.  That’s welcomed.  That’s important.  And other nations, you know, unilaterally are continuing to support Ukraine, and we certainly hope that that support will not lapse either. 
 
But again, back to, I think it was Aamer’s question, the United States is certainly seen, and rightly so, as a real leader here on the support to Ukraine front.  And people will look to us for that leadership.  And we have the most robust defense industrial base, the most significant ability to continue to support in a robust way, more robust than many other nations around the world. 
 
And so, that we might not be able to provide support doesn’t mean that support won’t still be able to flow from other countries.  But our absence from that will certainly be felt in the hands of the Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield, and that’s what we want to avoid.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Morgan with Semafor.
 
Q    Hey, John.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I’m wondering if you can give us a sense of what the impact the lapse in U.S. aid is already having on the battlefield in Ukraine.  What kind of things are you hearing from the Ukrainians?
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, again, without getting too much into their operations, we know for a fact that some of their battlefield commanders on the ground are making tough decisions about how many munitions they’re going to fire on a given day at a given target, how many do they have to keep back.  They’re making operational maneuver decisions based on their ability to continue to support the troops going forward in the field.  So they’re in a tough position. 
 
They’re also having to defend against, as I said earlier, a pretty heavy barrage in the air by drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles.  So they’re expending air defense, again, mostly medium to long range, at a rate that they’re concerned about.  And the Russians notice.  I mean, part of the tactic here is throw metal into the sky, knowing that the Ukrainians are going to have to throw metal back at it, and that there’s not a steady stream or reliable stream of backfill for that air defense capabilities. 
 
So we know that soldiers on the battlefield — on the battlefront are running low on certain types of ammunition.  We know that air defense is going to be a key inventory item for them going forward.  And we know that battlefield commanders, again, as I said earlier, are making some pretty dang tough decisions about what they’re going to expend and how they’re going to operate with what they have to spend in order to preserve some capability for the future, if that support is not coming. 
 
And I just — one last point on this, and then I promise I’ll shut up.  But, I mean, these winter months, it’s not as if the fighting has stopped.  Both sides are slugging it out in the air and on the ground.  And so, it’s not as if everybody can just take a knee here and wait for the spring, the “spring offensive,” and so we’ve got months and months to help resupply the Ukrainians.  The time is now.  They need this stuff now.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Kevin with CNN.
 
Q    Thank you, John.  On Friday, you said, after these strikes, that there had been no communications, backchannel or otherwise, with Iran.  Has that changed in the last couple of days?
 
And then, I had a separate question on the hostage negotiations.  In the past, there had been reporting about some of the difficulties in actually getting in touch with Hamas, you know, between the communications blackouts in Gaza and the bombardments there, that there had been gaps in when Qatar or Egypt could actually communicate with the leaders.  Is that having any effect now in the back-and-forth over the hostage deal that appears to be coming together?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I know of no private messaging to Iran since the death of our soldiers in Jordan over a week ago. 
 
On your second question — again, I’ll be careful here because I don’t want to insert myself in the negotiations — but the communication with Hamas is done through Qatar.  And that communication process — because, ultimately, whatever is being negotiated has to reach Hamas leaders in Gaza too, not just the ones that are present in Qatar — that communication process can sometimes be cumbersome.  It doesn’t mean that it’s not effective; it doesn’t mean that it’s not reliable.  Just, at times, it can be cumbersome.  But we have managed in the past to work through that.  And I have no doubt that we are right now still able, through the Qataris, to communicate effectively with Hamas leaders.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Aurelia with AFP.
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks for taking my question.  A really quick one on the impact on the battlefield.  Without American assistance, what do you think will happen on the battlefield in Ukraine?  Do you think the Ukrainian forces will collapse?  Do you see the conflict dragging on?  What’s your scenario here?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not very good at predicting the future when it comes to military operations.  I’ll just tell you that American security assistance and the security assistance from so many other countries remains critical to Ukraine.  They’d be the first to tell you.  In fact, President Zelenskyy has said that without foreign support he would not be able to wage this war in Ukraine’s defense and to be able to claw back, as they have, more than 50 percent of the territory that the Russians originally took.  It’s absolutely vital.  It’s critical.
 
And the President is going to stay focused — and, again, you’ll hear more from him in just a wee bit — we’re going to stay focused on making sure we can continue to find a way to get them that security assistance. 
 
But as I said — again, I’m not going to predict the future here; I would not do that — but as I said to the previous question, the commanders on the battlefield are having to make some difficult decisions that they should not have to make to be able to defend themselves and their troops.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And as Kirby said, we’re going to hear from the President in a wee bit, so we’ll let you go. 
 
If you have any other questions, feel free to reach out, and we’ll get back to you. 
 
Oh, wait, Kirby has one more thing.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yep.  Just again, I want to foot-stomp my apology at the top.  I made a mistake there on Friday night, and I do really regret it.  And I promise you I’ll do a better job going forward and work harder to not put bad information out there.  Again, my apologies.  Thanks.
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Again, if there’s anything else we can do, feel free to email us, and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.  Thanks.  
 
11:33 A.M. EST
 

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:38 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, boy.  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  A couple of things at the top before we go into questions.

This month is Black History Month, where we celebrate and recognize Black Americans and their contributions to the core of who we are as a nation.

Today, the President and the First Lady will host a Black History Month reception attended by the Vice President and the Second Gentleman.  There will be a performance by R&B singer Tank, and the President will be introduced by Ni- — Nijel Murray, a Las Vegas high school student who founded a non-for-profit that provides foster kids new clothing and basic necessities.

This year’s theme is “African Americans and the Arts.”

Whether it’s through music, written and spoken word, fashion, film, or other forms of creative expression, African American and Black culture anchors American culture in every passing moment, setting — setting trends both in the U.S. and around the world.

Since taking office, President Biden and Vice President Harris have ensured that our governments look like America, from the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, to the Cabinet, to the nearly one third of judicial nominees who are Black Americans.  In fact, President Biden has appointed more Black women to the federal circuit courts than every other administration in history combined. 

Under the President’s leadership, Bidenomics has ushered in a historic economic recovery, creating 2.6 million jobs for Black Americans. 

2023 marks the lowest year for Black unemployment and the smallest gap between Black and white workers over decades of — of record.  Black wealth has increased by 60 percent since the pandemic, fueled in part by a Black-owned small business boom not seen in over 30 years, a historic over $7 billion in investments for historically black colleges and universities, and the increase of Black homeownership since January 2021.

In the spirit of Black History Month and the icons we honor in February, the Bl- — the Biden-Harris administration will continue to create opportunities and ensure equity for Black Americans in order to realize a nation that truly and fully works for all.

As you all heard from the President just moments ago, there are important issues our country is facing today. 

Our immigration system has been broken for decades, and it’s long past time we fix it. 

That is why the President instructed his team to negotiate in good faith with a bipartisan group of senators to seriously address the immigration system.  The bipartisan agreement we have come to is the toughest and fairest reforms to our immigration system in decades.

You heard the President.  He described what it is — what’s in the bill.  A couple of things I’ll — I’ll call out is 1,500 CBP personnel and 100 cutting-edge inspection machines to catch fentanyl; improving our ability to process asylum claims, dropping the processing time from five to seven years to six months; and so much more.

Now it’s time for Republicans to choose: Will they support the Border Patrol union who have endorsed this bipartisan agreement, or will they continue to play games with our national security?  Will they show some spine and do what they know is right, or will they put partisan politics ahead of our national security?

As the Border Patrol union put it, this bill is a step in the right direction and is better than status quo.  Republicans should listen to them and pass this bipartisan agreement.

Zeke, you want to kick us off?

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Following up on the President’s comments earlier regarding the Hamas response on the ceasefire and hostage deal talks.  The President described it as “over the top.”  Does he believe that there’s a workable path forward with Hamas still — still demanding a permanent ceasefire as a condition for the release of the remaining hostages?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s what I’ll say — and Secretary Blinken spoke to this and as the President said today as well — you know, Hamas has — has responded to the framework of a hostage deal.  This is as we — we speak to — speak towards a hostage deal.  The United States is re- — is going to review that response.  There’s still a lot of work to be done here before we have a deal.

So, we are not going to get in the way of that.  And it’s very —

Q    But the President called it “over the top.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, they have a deal.  They’re — they have responded to a framework hostage deal.  We think that’s actually incredibly important.  We’re going to review that response. 

And, look, there’s a lot of work to be done here.  We’re going to be really, really careful.  These are sensitive negotiations, as you know.  This is a negotiation process that has been also led by Qatar and also Egypt — those leaderships there.  And so, we’re going to be really c- — careful in not telegraphing that information about the response from here. 

But, look, the President has been very clear.  You heard from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan when he was on multiple networks doing interviews, talking about the next steps here.  It is important that we get to a humanitarian deal. 

The President has been — and his team — has been working around the clock to get this done.  We want to make sure we get those hostages home, including the American hostages.  We understand there are about six of them that are part of that — that are part of the — the folks who are still part of the Amer- — hostages — I should be more clear — that are being held.  We want to get them home. 

We want to make sure we get that all-important humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people. 

That’s what we’re working on, and I’m not going to stay here — stand here and telegraph any- — anything there. 

But, look, there’s a — they have responded — Hamas has responded to a framework of a hostage deal, and that’s critically important in doing what we need to do in getting these hostages home and getting humanitarian aid in.

Q    On a different subject, two more ships came under fire today in the Red Sea: the attack — the deadly attack on Kurdish fighters; a base that housed Americans a couple days ago.  Does that signal that the President’s strategy now of striking these Iranian-backed militias but not Iran directly has not had its deterrent effect or even reduced their capacity to carry out these sorts of attacks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we believe — and you heard again from the National Security Advisor on Sunday — that it has — our response has degraded they ca- — their capabilities, and we think that’s incredibly important.

Look, the United States — the President has said this; you heard this from — you heard this from our NSC — NSC colleagues here.  The United States will not hesitate to take further actions to defend against these unlawful, reckless attacks against the U.S. ships and international — international commercial vessels.  We’ve been very clear about that.  We will act. 

And, as you know, we have formed a coalition with other — obviously, with other countries to make sure that we — you know, we respond — we respond to this.

Q    And then on the supplemental.  The President, in his remarks, laid the blame for this seems-to-be pathway to failure of this legislation at the feet of Donald Trump, the former President. 

He is the current occupant of the Oval Office.  Doesn’t he bear some responsibility?  He didn’t engage with House Republicans.  He negotiated with the Senate but not the House, the other branch of the legislative branch. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You know, where is he taking responsibility here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President has — has taken this issue incredibly seriously from day one.  You heard us say this over and over again.  You heard this from the President.  On the first day of his administration, he said — he said, “I’m going to put forward a legislation — a comprehensive immigration legislation.”  That was introduced more than three years ago — more — more than three years ago, and they have failed to act — failed to act.

And just a couple of quotes here.  And you’ve heard me say these quotes, and I’ll say them again. 

This is from Speaker Johnson in October of 2023 — not too long ago, just a couple months ago.  He said, “We must come together and address the broken border.”  In November of 2023, “I think we can get a bipartisan agreement” on border security.  That’s what he said — the Speaker of the House.

In December of 2023, “Statutory reforms designed to restore operational control at our southern border must be enacted.”  He hims- — himself has said we need a bipartisan agreement; we can get there.  This is Speaker Johnson. 

So, what changed?  And that’s a question for the Speaker.  What has changed that now there is — there’s actually a bipartisan agreement coming — we saw the text — it was released; it’s coming out of the Senate — that they have worked on for two months — for two months now.  And he has an opportunity.  It has been called the fairest and the toughest agreement — border deal that we have seen in decades.

The Border Patrol union said that we should move forward.  It’s better than status quo. 

And so, what has changed?  This is something for the Speaker Johns- — Speaker Johnson to speak to.

We have — the President has said he wants to get work done.  And they keep getting in the way.  House Republicans keep getting in the way.  And that’s where we are today.

Q    And so, what’s the President’s plan once this bill goes — goes down? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re going to —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, here — here’s the thing — well, it is a bipartisan agreement that is the fairest, the toughest agreement that we are going to see or has — we have seen in decades.  The text is out there.  The text is out there.  The Border Patrol union supports it.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports it.  Republicans — governor — a Republican governor and a — and — and Democratic governors have put a letter to- — together — an op-ed supporting this bill.  It could not be stronger or more fairer. 

And this has taken two months — two months.  And I just don’t understand, again, why Republicans are getting in the way of this.  They should not.  They should not.

And so, look, the President — again, they’re — by the direction — direction of President, sent his team to work with the Senate.  He’s taking this very seriously.  He put forth a border security supplemental, obviously, that’s part of the national security supplemental.  We have a deal.  There is a deal there — a deal that is supported by Border Patrol union.  That says a lot. 

So, why can’t they move forward on it?

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, to follow up on that.  This deal looks like it’s going to fail.  So, without getting into specifics, is there a plan B?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into — again, as you just said, get into specifics of a plan B.  There is a border that exists right now in front of congressional members — in front of senators and in front of House members — right there, a bipartisan agreement that has been endorsed by the Border Patrol union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It has — it has been worked on for two months.

And the President laid out in a very comprehensive way what’s in that deal.  You know?

Speaker Johnson has said, just the last three months go- — before we headed into 2024, how important it was to get a bipartisan deal. 

We’ve heard from Sen- — Senator Tillis, “You don’t normally make this country less safer for political points.”  This is coming from one of their colleagues.

Senator Cornyn, “It makes no sense to me for us to do nothing when we might be able to make things better and stem the flow of humanity across the border for the next year.” 

This is what Republicans have been saying.  So, you know, it is up to them to answer this question.

Q    President Biden pointed out that Trump spent the last 24 hours reaching out to Republicans, pressuring them not to support the agreement.  So, what has the President done to personally engage with lawmakers?  Or what does he plan to do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, early January, we had key lawmakers here at the White House from both sides of the aisle.  It was obviously a meeting on Ukraine and importance of moving Ukraine funding to make sure that the brave people of Ukraine were able to continue to fight against Putin’s aggression.  And he had that conversation.

Some of that — obviously, some of the folks there were from the National Security — Security Council team and other parts of his — of his international security team as well.  So, look — or the international community.

So, in that — during that time, it came up.  Border security came up.  The President laid out how important it is to get something done, how this immigration system was — has been broken for decades.  And so, he brought it up then. 

We’ve had — White House officials, including the President, have been in contact with members of Congress.  We don’t read out, obviously, every conversation that the President has.  He has long relat- — long-time relationship — decades of relationship with some of those members on the Hill. 

So, we’ve been engaged.  We have been engaged.  When the President directs his team to go up to Congress and to really work through this negotiation process with both Republican and Demo- — Democrats, that is the President acting, the President taking this very seriously.

Q    And then, finally, the President said on Thursday that he would stand here and answer all the questions that we want about this issue. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    So, can you confirm that there is a press conference on Thursday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is: Stay tuned.  And — I’ll say: Stay tuned.  I’ll leave it there for now.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Steve.

Q    What — what happens now to the Israel and Ukraine aid?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, right now, we believe that there is, again, a bipartisan agreement that includes aid for Israel; that includes much-needed aid for Ukraine; that includes humanitarian aid; obviously, this border security deal; Indo-Pacific, also, a component in that national — national security supplemental.  We think that it needs to move forward.

We’re still going to stand pretty — pretty — pretty steadfast and say this needs to move.  This needs to move.  There is a bipartisan deal on — on — right there in front of them. 

Q    So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And they need to move it forward.

Q    So, do you separate it out or just hope for the best?

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

What we’re saying right now is there bi- — there’s a bipartisan agreement.  There’s a deal right now in front of them — in front of congressional members in the House and in the Senate. 

Q    And, lastly, the New Hampshire Attorney General identified two Texas-based companies of being behind the fake robocall that circulated in New Hampshire.  What — did they give you a heads up?  Do you have any reaction to this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have any — any reaction to that.  I would refer you to the campaign since that was related to, obviously, the New Hampshire primary.  So, I would refer you to the campaign on that specific question. 

Go ahead.

Q    Follow-up on Zeke.  What exactly did the President think was “over the top” in the Hamas response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do- — I’m not — I — again, these are incredibly sensitive — sensitive negotiations that are happening.  I’m not going to telegraph any of the conversations.  I’m just going to be super careful here.  This is incredibly important that we get this done, obviously.

I’m just not going to go into — go into it any further.

Q    Because the Secretary of State called the deal — the proposal from Hamas “serious,” so it seems like there’s a little bit of a disconnect. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to go into it any further.  I laid out that, obviously, Hamas has responded to — to the deal.  It’s important that we get this done.  It’s important we get — we get hostages home to their family.  And it’s important that we get this critical humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

Q    All right.  And, on October 4th, President Biden said he thought that there was another means by which we may be able to find funding for Ukraine that would bypass Congress.  You guys weren’t able to talk about what he meant back then, but now that this deal has collapsed, what is that alternative means?  Is there work behind the scenes —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean —

Q    — to come up with something?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I think they still have to vote on this.  Right?  I think tomorrow.

Q    Well, President Biden said that the deal wa- — wasn’t moving forward.  So, it seems like he’s moved —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s —

Q    — past that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I think we’re still going to be steadfast and continue to — to push forward and ask — and say to Congress, “It’s time to act.”  That doesn’t stop us from that — from doing that.  That doesn’t stop us for say- — laying out what’s in the deal and how critical and important it is.  It doesn’t stop us from saying, “Hey, you got to stop playing political games.” 

This is something that majority of Americans want to see: get — making sure that we get on top of dealing what is happening at the border, making sure that we fix a broken immigration system.  Doesn’t mean that we stop talking about it.  Doesn’t mean we stop pushing. 

The votes haven’t happened yet.  So, we’re going to keep calling this out and saying, “Hey, it’s time to act.  It is time to act.” 

This is an agreement that took two months that had both Republicans and Democrats at the table negotiating this.  This is important.  This is about securing the border.  This is about trying to start the process and fixing a broken immigration system.  And this has been around for decades — for decades. 

So, until the vote happens, we’re going to continue to move forward and speak to how important — how important it is to get this bipartisan agreement done. 

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  What is the administration’s response to today’s court of appeals ruling on presidential immunity?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to comment.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  So, you guys talk a lot, including today, about how the border wouldn’t be such a big deal if Congress would have just passed your immigration bill on day one.  Who was in charge of Congress on day one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, it’s been three years.  It’s been three — three whole years — more than three years, more than a thousand days.  And, look, this is a difficult issue, obviously.  This is a difficult issue.  And what we have said is that Congress has to act, right?

Congress — Democrats, Republicans have to act.  But in those three years, it is true that Republicans have gotten in the way.  They just have, Peter.  They have constistently [consistently] used immigration — the immigration system, the broken system — as a political stunt.  That’s what they’ve done. 

They’ve gotten in the way in trying to get more Border Patrol agents.  They’ve gotten in the way in actually trying to fix what’s happening — the challenges at the border.  They did. 

Q    So, did the Democrats —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, they voted —

Q    — that were in charge —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — they’ve actually voted —

Q    — for the first two years, no responsibility?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It has — I’m not saying that Democrats have not been in control the first two years.  That’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying House Republicans have gotten in the way.  They have.  They have purposefully gotten in the way in trying to fix what’s happening at the border. 

Q    Okay.  And how is President Biden ever going to convince the three quarters of voters who are worried about his physical and mental health that he is okay, even though, in Las Vegas, he told the story about recently talking to a French president who died in 1996?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not even going to go down that rabbit hole with you —

Q    Why —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — sir.

Q    What is the rabbit hole?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to go — go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    He said he talked to Mitterrand in —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You saw the President in Vegas, in California.  You’ve seen the President in South Carolina.  You saw him in Mic- — Michigan.  I will just leave it there. 

Go ahead.

Q    How is that a rabbit hole?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the border deal, McConnell just said, “We have no chance to make a law here.”  So, the President earlier was just outlining how urgent the stakes are — especially with Ukraine, saying they’re in dire straits.  So, assuming the President must be very eager to get something to Ukraine, if this fails, as all indications show, what might that pathway look like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that —

Q    — for Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — what pathway?

Q    Essentially, it looks like this — this is going nowhere.  The President was laying out the stakes here for Ukraine.  So, assuming this doesn’t go anywhere, as all indications show, what’s the President’s plan for Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President’s plan for Ukraine is to — telling Congress they have to act.  We need Congress to act in order to help the Ukrainians who have been fighting bravely — fighting bravely against Putin’s aggression. 

He laid that out.  He laid out what we’ve been seeing from Putin the last couple of months, how much more aggressive that he’s gotten. 

And so, these are critical — critical, needed military — military aid that — that Ukraine needs to help them continuing their fight on the ground.  And, you know, it is important.  It is important to get this done. 
But not just that, we have to remember the President put forward a coalition of more than 50 countries to help Ukraine.  He gathered and make sure and brought together our — our partners and a- — and our allies to help Ukraine. 

We have to make sure that United States continued to stand with this coalition.  And so, we’re going to continue to tell Congress they have to act.  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  I’m not going to get into a plan B. 

What I’m going to talk about is there’s an agreement in front of Congress right now — a bipartisan agreement — that is the most fair — which is incredibly fair, which is also very tough.  Something that we haven’t seen — a bipartisan agreement we haven’t seen in decades.  And we got to get this done. 

Q    Senator Chris Murphy had some strong thoughts.  He said, “What the hell just happened?”  “I can’t believe this is happening.”  Does the President feel the same way?  How is he processing what’s going down?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you heard from the President.  He spoke to this very — very — very sternly and laid out what he thought he saw was going on.

We — I don’t think he could have been any more clear.  He called out the politics around this, political stunts around this.  He even said — I said it at the top — Republicans need to have a spine here.  They need to have a spine. 

This is not about their politics over there.  This is about the American people.  Amer- — a majority of Americans want to see Congress work for them on this issue, on the border, on this broken immigration system.  So —

Q    And just lastly, what’s the White House’s reaction to that controversial Wall Street Journal op-ed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, a couple of things about that — the op-ed that — that we saw.  It is — it is unacceptable to actually put fo- — put to- — put together a bunch of people, honestly, and — and write an op-ed that is actually dangerous. 

And so, obviously, the President spoke to this.  He — he spoke to this — well, not spoke to this.  But you saw a tweet from this President over the weekend about how unacceptable that type of language is.  And that you cannot — obviously, what a small group of people have said is — is — is we have to call out that — call that out.  But to — to group an entire community is unacceptable. 

And, obviously, we will stand with the — we will stand with the people of Dearborn on this issue.

Go ahead.

Q    Two questions.  What is the — a number of Republicans have insisted that there are unilateral actions that this administration could take on immigration.  Do you all see additional unilateral actions you could take around border security?  What are they?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, this is an opportunity to do this in a comprehensive way, to not do this piecemeal.  That’s what this — that is what the border agreement shows.  Right?  It is a negotiation with Republican and Democrats in the way that we need to move forward with policy — right? — in a bipartisan way, and there’s no reason to do this piecemeal.  There isn’t.

Q    But if it potentially fails, as the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — you know —

Q    — articulated today —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — that it’s likely going to do (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re going to continue to push Congress to move forward.  That’s what we’re going to do.  And that’s one of the things that the President was trying to do today.  Right? 

He laid out the politics on — around this.  He laid out what was in the bill, what is in the text that came out on Sunday, and said how important it is to have — to move forward with — with this — with this bipartisan agreement. 

And so, we’re going to continue to do that.  They have to still move with their process.  “They,” meaning the Senate.  They have to vote.  They have to move with this process. 

And so, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals because this is — we believe this is the best way to move forward in dealing with the border.  This is the best way to move forward in dealing with an immi- — with an immigration system that has been broken for decades.

Q    And then, separate topic, on the hostage negotiations.  You know, our team who’s been covering this all in the Middle East says that Hamas is still insisting on a permanent ceasefire.  Is it still this administration’s position that it opposes a permanent ceasefire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What we have been working towards and you’ve heard a say over and over again: We want to see a humanitarian pause.  We want to make sure that we get these Am- — American hostages home and also hostages more broadly, obviously, home to their families.  And we want to make sure that we get that critical aid — the critical aid that Palestinians need — into Gaza.  It is important to get that aid, whether it’s medical, whether it’s food.  We have to get that in. 

And so, we believe a humanitarian pause gets us there.  You know, there is a — as I stated at the top, Hamas has responded to the framework of a hostage deal.  And so, we’re going to review it.  And I’m going to be really, really careful; I’m not going to dive into or telegraph information about their response from here. 

But we’ve been very clear that we believe that we need to get to another humanitarian pause because that humanitarian aid needs to get in.  And also, we need —

Q    But to be clear, humanitarian pause — it is the administration’s position that a permanent ceasefire is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have been very clear.

Q    — not — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have been very clear on where we stand on the ceasefire.

Q    And that hasn’t changed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That has not changed.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Senator McConnell, when he was talking today about the, sort of, collapse of the deal, suggested that Senate Democrats should draft a new — new legislation that would handle Ukraine, the Pacific, and Israel.  Is that a process that the White House would be engaging with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m just going to —

Q    — Senate Democrats on?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals or a plan B from here. 

There is literally a bipartisan agreement that has taken two months to get done, and we believe it is the fairest and toughest agreement as it relates to, certainly, the border — the border component and the immigration system — something that Republicans in Congress — many Republicans in Congress have been wanting to see that type of — that type of agreement for decades, and now they have it. 

And it’s important that we move forward with the national security supplemental.  It’s important we move forward with Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific. 

And so, there’s a deal.  There’s a deal in front of them.  We should move.  We need to act.  We cannot play politics with this.

Q    And then, I wanted to look back on your answer to Weijia on the press conference. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    “Stay tuned” sounds like Karine for “no.”  (Laughs.)  So —

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

Q    I said “Stay tuned” sounded like Karine for “no.”  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You said Karine for “no”?  (Laughter.)

Q    Yeah.  Yeah. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wow. 

Q    So, I’m just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A translation.

Q    Is there — (laughter) — is there any question?  I mean, the President seemed pretty explicit. 

And I — I ask this in addition to the context of Friday, where he’ll be hosting the German Chancellor, and it doesn’t appear like there’s a press conference on the schedule.  That’s another one of these foreign leader visits.

And skipped his Super Bowl ad — or Super Bowl interview.  So, it just seems, again, like we’re in one of these instances where the President is not communicating with the press, and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, seriously, stay tuned.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is — that is the — that is the — that is the answer for you. 

Look, I mean — look, the President took questions yesterday.  He took questions today.  So, I wouldn’t say that he is not engaging with the press.  I would not say that, because he does.  

And when I have — if — when we have more to share on, later this week, what Thursday might look like or Friday with the German Chancellor coming — certainly, as it relates to the press component, certainly, we will share that.  It really, truly is “stay tuned.”

Q    I guess, the criticism — and you look not only on engagements, which now the President trails his predecessor in terms of that, but interviews where it’s, you know, half of most of his recent predecessors at this point in his term — interviews, where it’s less than half.

It — can you, kind of, flesh out — I mean, there’s no kind of denying this — the strategy in what your —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — I — look, I’m not going to stand here and deny the — the numbers.  I’m not — that’s not what I’m going to do here. 

But I will say that the President — one of the things that the President has been able to do is communicate in non-traditional ways.  That is true. 

And he’s done that in a way we have not seen other presidents do.  That is true, right?  Whether it is podcast; calling radio — into radio programs more often; speaking to digital creators; and — and taping interviews and local — local — local news stations.  That is something that he has done in a more, I would say, regular way. 

And so, look, we’re — we’re trying to do everything that we can to meet — to meet Americans, also, where they are and try to do it a little bit differently.  Doesn’t mean we’re not going to sit down and do interviews, right?  It doesn’t mean we’re not going to sit down and do networks’ interviews. 

We are going to do that.  We’ve done them recently, whether it’s David Muir — Muir or Fareed Zakaria or Scott Pelley and many others.  We have been able to have some of those sit-down interviews, and we’ll certainly continue to do that when we feel the time is right.

But the other (inaudible) is we have found some non-traditional ways, as well, to communicate with the American people.

Go ahead.

Q    Just to follow up on that.  Anything specifically on why you’re not doing the Super Bowl interview?  I mean, that’s a massive audience in an election year of people who may not be tuned into the White House or this election at this moment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as you know, Super Bowl is a great annual tradition.  And the President certainly — President Biden looks forward to — to watching the game this Sunday, just like millions of — as you just stated, just like millions of Americans are go- — are going to be doing that.

And, look, you know, we hope that the viewers who tuned in — you know, we know that the viewers who tuned in, they come — they tune in to watch the game.  Right?  And so, obviously, you know, that is — that is just a fact.  They want to see the game.  They want to see their favorite team.  They want to see a halftime show.  That is what the Super — it’s that type of tradition.

The President will find many other ways to communicate with Americans — the millions of Americans out there.  And we will find those ways to do it where we think the time is right.

Q    Also, in February of last year, the President had his annual physical.  Is he going to have it this February?  Is that scheduled yet?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline on it.  Obviously, he is going to have his annual physical.  When we have more to share, we certainly will do that.

Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    Karine, to ask it more bluntly and also more broadly —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — can the President do business with Speaker Johnson?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, that’s a question for Speaker Johnson.  And I say —

Q    I’m asking you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And the rea- — no, no, no.  No, no, no.  Let me finish my question.  The reason why I say that — or let me finish my answer. 

The reason why I say that is because the President has directed his team to work with Senate to come forward with a budget — a budget agreement.  They worked really hard on it the last couple of months.  It answers a lot of the questions that Speaker Johnson and many House Republicans have wanted to see.  Right?

It actually addresses a lot of the issues that they have with border security, that they have with the immigration system.  It actually brings forth a real — a real bipartisan way in dealing with that.  When you have the Border Patrol Union supporting this, I don’t know what the problem is.  I really don’t know. 

Why cannot — well, I do know what the problem is.  Let me — let me answer my own question.  It’s politics.  Politics.  And they’re putting politics ahead of getting things done for the American people.  It really is a question for Speaker Johnson. 

Q    And I know the Speaker was here a couple of weeks ago, but why not invite him here over the next couple of days to hash this out?  Does the President believe that wouldn’t be fruitful?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, hash out what?  The agreement is in front of them — a bipartisan agreement.  You know, again, Border Patrol, U.S. Chamber — U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It has Republicans from the Senate who worked really hard on this, as well as Democrats.  It answers a lot of the questions that he has had, that other Republicans in Congress have had — Republicans in the House, more specifically.

You know, it is — you know, to not — the President said this.  I’m going to repeat it.  To not have the spine to deliver for the American people and to play politics, how do you get things done?  This is their job.  They’re supposed to legislate.  They’re supposed to legislate.

Q    And, finally, a question on another topic.  For an administration that has focused so much on gun violence, what is the White House’s response to the Jennifer Crumbley verdict today?  And does the White House —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    — believe that parents should be held accountable in these instances — in school shootings? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, we — we saw the breaking news just not too long ago.  And that said, other related cases are ongoing.  So, without speaking specifically on today’s verdict — want to be really careful here — I can say that the President remains committed to stopping tragedies like these happening in the first place.  That’s what he’s committed to doing. 

That’s why recently we announced a new executive action to help promote the safe storage of firearms.  We know that most students who carry — carry out K-to-12 school shootings are using firearms they obtain from home, from a friend or a family member.  We know that to be true.

The importance of safe firearm storage cannot be overstated.  And the administration will continue to use every tool at our disposal to implement these and other commonsense gun safety measures to protect our children, our schools, and our communities.

Look, when it comes to — when it comes to gun violence, the President has said this is an epidemic.  It is the number-one killer of our kids.  It truly is. 

And so, the President has taken action these last couple of years.  He’s done more than two dozen executive actions.  Obviously, you know that he signed a bipartisan deal to deal — a bipartisan legislation to deal with — to deal with gun violence, a legislation that we hadn’t seen in — or hasn’t passed in 30 years.

So, he takes this very seriously.  We do not want to continue to see gun violence happening and our kids — being the number-one killer, it shouldn’t be.  It just shouldn’t be.

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you talk about the actual consequences at the border itself if this bipartisan agreement doesn’t proceed?  And is it the administration’s position that if it doesn’t pass, that the border is not secure from national security threats?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I mean, look, this is stuff that the President has talked about before.  I mean, look, there are challenges at the border.  You all report that.  We see that.  It gets overwhelmed at the border. 

So, this is why, the first day of his — of his administration, the President put forth a comprehensive immigration policy, because he wanted to deal with that.  That was his first piece of legislation.  That was the first piece of legislation that the President put forward.

So, obviously, this has been an issue not just the last three years of this administration but for decades, including the last administration — for decades.  So, we leaned in, we worked with the Senate for this bipartisan agreement, and it shouldn’t be — and what we’re seeing now — and you heard directly from the President, obviously — is politics — politics getting in the way. 

And Americans see this.  They want to — us to deal with this issue.  And the majority of Americans do. 

Q    And just on East Palestine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Do you have any update on the President’s plan to travel this month?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you know, the President is planning to travel to East Palestine this month, in February. When we have more information on the date and what that day is going to look like, obviously, we’ll — we’ll share that.

Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thanks.  Quick scheduling question before I hit my two questions.  Has the Speaker invited the President to give the State of the Union on March 7th, and has he accepted?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, we already did.  That — that happened a couple of weeks ago.

Q    All right.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s all ready to go.

Q    Excellent. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re ready to go.

Q    Wouldn’t miss it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  March 7th, here we come.  (Laughter.)

Q    What is the administration’s message to Black voters who are already disillusioned over slow progress on racial justice and who are now upset over the situation in Gaza?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, it is Black History Month.  I just actually, at the top, laid out promises that the President has made to the Black community and promises that he’s kept, we believe, to the — to the Black community in making sure — for example, when we walked in, the President wanted to make sure that the White House used the full force of the federal government to deal with racial equity, to deal with racial justice. 

He signed an executive order to make sure that the agencies within the federal government, as they move forward with policy, had equity at the center of it.  And so, that is really important too. 

And under this President, we’ve seen 2.6 million more Black Americans have jobs.  That’s because there is — make sure there is equity at the center of all the policies — again, economic policies. 

And so, look, you know, the President wants to make sure that all communities are not left behind, right?  He wants to make sure that — that we create an economy from the bottom up, middle out.  And that’s really important. 

And, you know, when you think about Black wealth is up — it’s up a record 60 percent since 2019 — and that’s accounting for inflation — that’s because of the work that this President has done. 

Look, he’s going to continue to speak directly to the American people about all issues — all issues.  He’s going to continue to hear from the American people about all issues, including —

Q    How about the experience over Gaza? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I was going to say including — including concerns that many people have of what’s going on in the Middle East, including Gaza. 

Look, the President understands that people have — there’s a lot of emotions out there, a lot of feelings out there.  He gets it.  A lot of opinions out there. 

And that’s why we always say — right? — when — when we do see protesters, we — we say, “Okay, it’s good for — it’s okay for them to protest, just as long as they’re doing it in a peaceful way.”  And, certainly, we’re always here to listen. 

And so, the President believes in that.  Obviously, he’s been very steadfast on — on his support for Israel, especially after what we saw after October 7th when you have a terrorist organization like Hamas saying that they want to do — they want to see October 7th happen over and over again.  You know, he believes that they have the right to defend themselves. 

At the same time, we also need to make sure that, you know, we have those conversations with — with Israel on protecting innocent lives in Pales- — Palest- — in Pale- — the Palestinian lives in Gaza and many people who are very much innocent, right?  They are innocent. 

And so, that’s another reason this humanitarian pause is so important: to get that much-needed aid into Gaza as well. 

Q    Quickly, on El Salvador.  What is the White House’s reaction to the reelection of Nayib Bukele, who used a little bit of, you know, creative interpretation of the constitution to get a second term and describes himself as the world’s cutest dic- — the “world’s coolest dictator”?

I’m so sorry.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Is that — was that your opinion?  (Laughter.)

Q    He calls himself the “world’s coolest dictator.” (Laughter.)  I apologize.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s okay.  I don’t mind.  I’m —

Q    Sorry.  Yeah, so, what is the administration’s reaction to the reelection of a guy who calls himself the “world’s coolest dictator”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — (laughter) — so, look, we respect, obviously, the — the Salvadoran people.  This was their decision to make, obviously.  And so, we look forward to working with the President-elect on a various — various issues of mutual interest.  I don’t have anything else to add.  I can’t speak if he’s the coolest or the cutest.  I don’t know.

Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you.  Just to follow-up on Anita’s question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The question for many voters — minority voters, like Arab Americans and African Americans — it’s not about protests and emotions and opinion; it’s more of the justice and equality and human rights that this administration held very high —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — when it came.  So, how do you address this disparity between what the President’s message has been and his people who actually disagree fundamentally with the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And we understand.  We understand that people are going to fundamentally disagree, not on just issues — this issue, many issues.  That’s — that’s what a democracy is all about — right? — for people to disagree and agree.  That’s how it works. 

What I am saying is that the President’s — look, the President’s commitment continues, right?  It stands.  He’s been very steadfast about that. 

What I am saying is that — and what I was trying to say is that, yeah, people are going to have different — difference of opinion.  We get that.  And what I’m saying is that we value that.  We value the fact that people are going to have difference of opinions. 

And the reason why I brought protest: because that’s what we’ve been seeing.  Right?  We’ve been seeing — that’s how people have been expressing themselves.  And just as long it’s peaceful, obviously, people have the right to express themselves. 

The President is going to continue to speak directly to the American people, as he has, to talk about the importance of the different decisions — policy decisions that he’s making, just like today. 

He laid out why it’s important, he believes — right? — to make sure that Ukraine has the funding that they need.  He laid out why it’s important why Israel has the funding that they need.  It’s important to also make sure that we have those humanitarian aid.  It’s important to have that border security and try to start fixing the immigration system.

So, look, we can’t — I can’t speak to everybody’s — you know, I can’t speak to every group or everybody’s, you know — their disapproving of how we’re moving forward with an issue, right?  But what we’re saying is we understand what people are going through.  We understand that this is a difficult time.  We get that.  And that’s what I’m speaking to.

Q    And one more question on Gaza.  Did the White House receive an ironclad evidence that actually the UNRWA staff member — 12 of them — were involved in the October 7th attack?  Because four news organizations, including Financial Times, Channel 4, and Sky News —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — found no evidence to support the Israeli claim.  They said, actually, what they provided was just cellphone messages and cards that been found after Israel went to this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re talking about UNRWA?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    So, where are you in the process of re- — of reviewing that?

And, second, considering the disaster humanitarian situation in Gaza, what’s the alternative if you’re wai- — if you’re waiting for the results to come out or the review to come out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The alternative of — of —

Q    To the funds —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The UNRWA funds.

Q    — that the White House suspended.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, a couple of things there.  As you know, there’s an investigation happening.  So, we’re going to let that investigation move forward. 

And, look, you know, funding for Palestinian civilians is a — is a team effort.  And so, for example, while we continue to provide funding to organizations like WFP, other countries may continue to fund UNRWA, which is their own sovereign decision.  That is their right. 

As we’ve said before, it is important for UNRWA to complete its internal review.  As I just stated before, the U.S. will provide any additional funding.  We got to get to the bottom of this.  To your point, we got to get to the bottom of this.  But there’s no denying that UNRWA does critical, lifesaving work here.  And we get that, and we understand that. 

So, we’re going to — as I said, it is — getting that critical — critical need to Palestinian civilians is a team effort.  And there are other — obviously, other avenues that we have used.  But they have to have this investigation.  We got to get to the bottom of this.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A clarity question on the border, and then another topic —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    — if I can.  Mitch McConnell did just say, “We have no real chance here to make a law.”  Does the White House still think that there is a chance that this border bill gets passed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, it is — it is deeply disappointing, if that is indeed the case.  Obviously, Mitch McConnell is — is part of leadership there.  And so, obviously, what he — what he says has weight.  But it is disappointing to hear, right?

As the Pre- — President stated, there is no reason why politics should get in the middle of this, really.  There really isn’t. 

We are dealing with an issue that a majority of Americans care about: fixing the — starting the process to fix the immigration system, dealing with the challenges at the border.  It’s there.  It’s right in front of them.  The text came out on Sunday. 

We don’t understand why they won’t move forward.  I keep saying — and I actually do understand, which is they’re getting pol- — they’re letting politics get in the way. 

They need to show some spine here.  They need to show some spine and deliver for the American people — what a majority of American people want.  And it should not be about politics here. 

You know, it’s taken more than two months where folks were working — people in the Senate were working around the clock to get this done, through the holidays to get this negotiation done.  And, you know — and they did it in a bipartisan way. 

You know, it is — it is — it is unfortunate, if that is indeed the case that it doesn’t get out of the Senate or, you know, just doesn’t move forward, period. 

Q    And then, on another topic.  Expanding access to affordable Internet has been a priority for this administration, but the Affordable Connectivity Program is going to expire soon unless Congress takes action.  We’ve been talking a lot about how difficult it’s been for Congress to move forward on things.  Is there any sense that the administration thinks that that program will be extended?  And if it isn’t, does the administration have other ways to keep that program going without congressional action?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, Karen, it’s a great question.  I would have to g- — talk to our Office of Leg Affairs to get a better sense of where they are with this and what their read is. 

Obviously, this is why the bipartisan infrastructure legislation was so important.  We had the broadband component to it and getting technology, getting that access to all Americans across the country.  Whether it’s rural America, urban America, suburban America, whoever you are, it is important to make sure that they have that access. 

It’s important — it is so important.  That’s why the President wanted to make sure that it was included in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation.

But, look, I — as I’m reading out “bipartisan” — that was done in a bipartisan way — right? — the infrastructure legislation.  So, it’s not like we can’t get this done.  You know, we have had some pretty historic — historic pieces of legislation that was — been done in a bipartisan way. 

And so, look, I have to talk to Office of Leg Affairs.  We’ll look at — we’ll have more to share for you. 

Go ahead, right in the middle.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the joint letter nine ambassadors sent to the Congress today.  Can you explain what is the White House role behind it?  How much do you think it helps?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this morning, nine — as you just stated, nine of our ambassadors to countries across the Indo-Pacific, including to Japan, China, India, and Ph- — and the Philippines and the Republic of Korea, wrote a letter to the four leaders in Congress — this is Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, and Jeffries — urging them to act quickly to pass the President’s national security supplemental funding request, including the funding it contains for, obviously, the Indo-Pacific, as well as for Ukraine and Israel. 

We were in contact with ambassadors thr- — although they wrote the letter themselves, we have been in contact with those ambassadors. 

Q    And one quickly on upcoming President Biden, President Xi’s call.  Do you have a timeline?  Are we expecting days or weeks or months?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, boy.  (Laughs.)  I don’t have a — I don’t have an update on a — on a scheduled call with President Xi and the Pre- — President Biden.  I just don’t have anything to share at this time. 

Q    And was it President’s first bubble tea yesterday?  And why did he choose to do that?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I want to be careful.  That was a — that was technically a campaign event.  So, I certainly will leave it to the campaign to answer that question more specifically. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  There’s a — there’s a report just came out like two hours ago.  I’m not sure if you give us more information or a comment: The U.S. and four of its European allies hope to announce in the next few days a series of commitments made by Israel and Hezbollah to diffuse tensions and restore calm to Israel and Lebanon border. 

So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not going to — I’m not going to comment on report — reporting on a potential deal.  I’m just not going to (inaudible).

Q    One more question, if you don’t mind.  So, we’ve been hearing a lot that this administration might claim, officially, Palestine as a state.  This is something that we’ve been hearing a lot as a source — as sources from the White House or from the State Department.  How serious is this — is this administration considering that the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The two-state solution?

Q    Yes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve been very serious.  The President has talked about this multiple times.  That’s what he wants to see: a two-state solution.

Q    But we were talking about directly to claim Palestine as a state.  So, Israel is a state already, but the — the administration is going to go and claim it after the war as a state and — and act with it as a straight — as a state.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, my answer is the same.  The President has been very clear: He wants to see a two-state solution.  He’s been clear about that for many, many years, and he’ll continue to do so. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I’m going to ask you about layoffs.  So, UPS is cutting 12,000 jobs.  Wayfair is cutting 13 percent of their workforce.  Macy’s, Amazon, Google, Citibank, Blackstone, they’re all announcing layoffs.  The President talks about how he’s added back all the jobs lost in the pandemic and created 5.4 million jobs. 

What’s the level of concern that 2024 will be that wave of layoffs that we’re going to start to see?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I’m certainly not going to speak to every company that you just named.  But if you look at — and you just stated, if you look at under this — obviously, he takes that very seriously — any layoff.  Right?  He understand what that means to a family and how that could affect a family. 

But the President has also done a lot of work to get this economy going again.  Right?  He’s done a lot of work to make sure that this economy is — is being built from the bottom up, middle out.  He’s put — if — some of this piece of legislation that I’ve talked about talks about making sure that, you know, workers are — are being paid fairly — right? — that wages are — are competitive — right? — that — that there are good-paying union jobs.  And we see that.  We see that. 

So, it’s not just those 14 million jobs.  Many of those jobs are good-paying jobs — right? — that meet the moment that — that the Americans need. 

And re- — let’s not forget, when the President walked into this administration, the economy was in a tailspin.  He had to turn that around.  He had to turn that around. 

So, obviously, we’re always concerned hearing about layoffs, but at the same time, we are trying to build an economy that works for all and leaves no one behind.  And you see that whether it’s the — in the — in the CHIPS and Science Act, whether it’s the bipartisan infrastructure legislation — make sure that those jobs are good-paying jobs, good union jobs.  And many of them you don’t need a college education, so that’s really important as well.

Q    The New York Federal Reserve just released a report today saying that Americans have $1.13 trillion in credit card debt, which is now another record.  Is there an affordability crisis in the U.S.?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what we have been seeing, as you know, from the data — the data has been very clear here — that wages are going up, consumers are spending a lot more, and — this is important — wages are meeting inflation.  That’s important.  And — and obviously, inflation is — it has gone down.  And I think that’s important as well.  You got to look at the holistic components of the data.  And I think that tells you a story of where we are as an economy.

Go ahead, Phil.

Q    Yesterday, the White House Office of Management and Budget said that the President would veto a standalone Israel aid package coming out of the House.  Is that still the case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, that’s still the case.  I mean, this particular — this particular — you’re talking about what the House — the House put — put forth? 

Look — and you heard — I — I tweeted about this.  As you sa- — you know, the SAP came out, as you just stated.  Look, it — the President put forward — and I said this before — a — a national security supplemental.  And the reason why a president puts forth a national security supplemental is because every — like every other president, it is an emergency request.  It is an important request on behalf of — of Americans and our national security, and that included the support of Israel, Ukraine, and our partners in the Indo-Pacific — as I was just talk about — as well as a robus- — a robust humanitarian assistance as well.  They are all important so that we can tin- — can continue to — to move forward in these elements in — in a way that is important to our national security. 

And instead of working in good faith to address the most pressing national security challenges, the Isr- — the Israel-only supplemental is n- — is another cynical — it truly is a cynical political maneuver.  That’s how we see it. 

There’s a way to deal with this in a comprehensive way.  Right?  That’s what this national security supplemental — not do it in a piecemeal.  That’s not how we want to do this.  We want to do this in a comprehensive way. 

And it does not help — this bill — this — this bill that we — that has been introduced, it doesn’t help the people of Ukraine that really need it.  It doesn’t aff- — offer humanitarian assistance to people who need it.  It does- — it’s not including Palestinian civilians who have nothing to do with Hamas and makes a political game of Israel’s — Israel’s security.  That’s what we’re seeing. 

So, we don’t want to see politics here.  We want to do this in a way that — that meets our needs at this moment — our national security needs.

Q    And then a second question.  The President said last month that there was a crisis at the border.  I know the White House is calling on members of Congress to — I think, in your words, to put policy about politics.  In the absence of that, though, is the President evaluating any executive actions that he could take on his own to address that crisis?  Is he looking at, perhaps, a menu of things like, you know, maybe a state of emergency or new policies that he can enact on his own?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have a bipartisan agreement that the Senate put forth.  Republicans and Democrats came together.  There’s actually a piece of legislation.  Text came out on Sunday.  Folks have been working on that for two months, and it is the toughest and the fairest piece of legislation that we’ve seen in decades.  There is something out there — right there in Congress for them to answer those questions that you just asked me.  It is — it is a — you know, it is unfortunate that politics is getting in the way.

The Border Patrol Union, Phil, supported this —

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — supported this legislation. 

Q    I — I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce —

Q    I — I hear —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — support — supports this legislation. 

Q    I hear all of that — absolutely —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  

Q    — and that’s all been well reported. 

Q    Do you support it?  (Laughter.)

Q    But the — in terms of, like, generally, the consensus is that this thing is either imploded or it’s dead on arrival.  And — and we can wait until there’s an actual vote.  But is there anything that the President himself is evaluating that he could do, assuming what we all expect is going to happen happens, which is that this bill does not pass?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We want to see this agreement move forward.  That’s what we want.  I don’t have anything else to speak to.

Go ahead, George.

Q    It’s been two weeks since the Court gave the President a victory over Texas on the border control.  Two days ago, Governor Abbott said he’s going to expand Texas’s control of another stretch of the border.  Has Texas won this showdown?  When can we expect to see any action by the President in response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I mean, I’ve — we’ve been — I’ve been pretty clear about what Governor Abbott continues to do, which is play politics, which is — doesn’t make the lives of people who live Tex- — in Texas any safer.  And it certainly doesn’t make the lives of migrants any safer, either.  It’s inhumane, and it’s — it’s dehumanizing.  And it’s unfortunate that’s what the governor wants to do.

Obviously, this is something that the Department of Justice — is a legal issue that they’re handling.  So, I’m not going to get ahead of that.  But we have seen how — how the governor has treated the immigration issue.  We’ve seen how he’s treated the border issue.  And instead of talking to — maybe he should talk to his congressional colleagues in the state and tell them, you know, “Hey, do your job.  Act.  Let’s really figure this out in a legislative way that can become law.”  That — maybe that’s what he should be doing.

But I don’t have anything else to say.

Go ahead, Steven.

Q    Hi, Karine.  Thank you.  I’ve got a Russia-Ukraine question and then a border question.  Tucker Carlson is in Moscow and just confirmed that he’s going to be interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin.  He argues that Americans have a right to know all they can about a war they’re implicated in.  Carlson contended in his preview video that the Biden administration has opposed and even attempted to hinder his attempts to interview Putin.  Do you have —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, say that — say that last part again.

Q    He said that the Biden administration has allegedly attempted to prevent him from interviewing Vladimir Putin.  Do you have a comment on either the interview or that allegation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely not.

Q    And for the border —

Q    Absolutely not a comment or absolutely not that didn’t happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely not a comment, to be more clear.  Period.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thank you. 

On the border.  President Biden said today that the immigration system has been broken and that he intends to drive home the message that, quote, “The only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends.”  Secretary Mayorkas repeatedly said that the border is secure, and that’s one of the reasons House Republicans are trying to impeach him.

Did President Biden just confirm that Mayorkas gave Congress false information when he said that the border was secure?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can I — I actually want to go back to your question.  It’s a ridiculous premise and a ridiculous statement that was made about this administration.  So, I just want to be very —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — about — yes.  I just want to be very, very clear.  It’s just ridiculous.

So, going to Secretary Mayorkas for a second, to your second question.  We believe what House Republicans are doing — and I’ve said this many times — nothing new here — it’s shameless.  It’s — it’s baseless.  There’s no merit for it.

And as I’ve been talking about this bipartisan agreement that came together with Republicans and Democrats over the last two mon- — two months, Secretary May- — Mayorkas was involved.  He was part of that. 

And what they’re doing is — you know, is all politics here — politics.  And as the President said, our immigration system is broken.  And he has repeatedly asked — repeatedly asked Congress for resources to take more action and secure the border.  The administration, as I just mentioned, including Secretary Mayorkas, negotiated in good faith with Congress.  And we believe that that bipartisan legislation should be passed, should be moved forward.

But what House Republicans continue — want to do is choosing to play politics instead of doing their jobs.  That’s what House Republicans are doing.  And it’s really shameful, as I just started saying, and they should focus — they should focus on what multiple — and here’s the thing — multiple House Republicans have said this too — that — that there’s no impeachable offenses committed here.  That’s what some of their colleagues have said.

Just yesterday, Republican Congressman Ken Buck wrote an op-ed saying that weaponizing impeachment undermines both the Constitution and the seriousness that an impeachment ought to have.  That is one of their colleagues said this.  So, we really shouldn’t even be talking about this.  We really shouldn’t.

It is a political play.  It is a political ploy.  And we’d encourage these House Republicans to drop these stunts that do nothing to address the serious issues and serious concerns that the American people have, including immigration systems, including the border.

Q    Is there not an inherent contradiction, though, with the President saying today that the border is not secure and Secretary Mayorkas saying under oath to Congress that it is?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here is what I will say: Secretary Mayorkas has done everything that he can do and — to deal with what’s going on at the border and to deal with a broken immigration, to the point where he was part of this negotiation process that we saw the Senate — the Senate go through.  The President has confidence in the Secretary, and I think that’s what matters.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thanks, guys.

3:39 P.M. EST

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

Via Teleconference

8:03 P.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Good evening, everyone.  Thank you for joining tonight’s press call on the bipartisan national security agreement.  As a reminder, the contents of this call will be embargoed until its conclusion. 
 
This call will be on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.”  For your knowledge and not for attribution, today you will be hearing from [senior administration official], [senior administration official], and [senior administration official]. 
 
With that, [senior administration official], I will turn it over to you. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you very much.  Thanks for joining, everybody.  Obviously, we’re grateful to have this opportunity to talk about the — this movement forward on these critical national security supplemental requests that the President put forward and the terrific work, really, truly in a bipartisan way to come together to get this arrangement. 
 
I just want to hit a couple of the top points of why we think what — what we’ve — what we’ve been able — what Senate negotiators have been able to achieve here is so important. 
 
Number one, it helps provide now critically needed military assistance to help the people of Ukraine defend themselves.  I don’t need to tell you all that Russia continues to launch aerial assaults on Ukrainian cities as well as Ukrainian defense industrial base sites and Ukrainian units as — as the winter months there now progress.
 
This — this — this deal will also help us invest in our own defense industrial base, supporting American jobs across the country and to help — help our ability to produce weapons and equipment that the United States can send to Ukraine, again, to help them continue to battle back against Russian aggression.
 
And then, not unimportantly when it comes to Ukraine, this arrangement will help us make sure that the United States can continue to send economic assistance to Ukraine.  Putin has made destroying Ukraine’s economy a central aim of his war strategy.  And being able to boost Ukraine’s economy is, quite frankly, essential to their survival. 
 
If Ukraine’s economy collapses, they will not be able to keep on fighting, and this assistance will help Ukraine pay its first responders — medical and — and fire and police — as well as be able to import basic goods and provide essential services to its population. 
 
Now, on Israel.  This also will help authorize the United States to provide additional military assistance to help Israel defend itself against Hamas, which I want to remind everybody has still made su- — made it clear that they are committed to conducting the attacks on the Israeli people and Israeli sovereignty, like — like on October 7th, again and again and again.  They truly have a genocidal intent when it comes to Israel.
 
The aid in this agreement will help, also, Israel replenish its air defenses and to ensure that it’s prepared for any future contingencies. 
 
Again, I don’t think it needs reminding that Hamas launched this — this conflict and continues to launch air assaults on the — Israel sites, Israel cities, Isr- — the Israeli people.  So, air defense is a ke- — a key part of this.  And we’re glad to see that we’re going to be able to help support Israel and their air defense capabilities. 
 
It’s also going to include some money — extra money, almost to the tune of $2 and a half billion for Central Command — U.S. Central Command — as they continue to help defend our troops and our facilities in Iraq and Syria and help defend international shipping throughout the Red Sea, a critical international waterway.  So, we’re grateful for that. 
 
On humanitarian assistance.  It includes important humanitarian aid funding to help civilians that are in need all around the world, whether it’s in Ukraine — clearly there’s a humanitarian assistance concern there and true humanitarian needs — but also in — to help Palestinians in Gaza, where we are actively working to increase the flow of aid for Palestinian civilians who — who have nothing to do with Hamas and shouldn’t be held accountable for what Hamas chose to do on the 7th of October. 
 
And lastly, if I could, just quickly on the Indo-Pacific.  This deal will provide resources to help our allies and partners in the region as they need to build the capabilities necessary to address threats from an increasingly assertive PRC, as well as an increasingly assertive North Korea, and to meet emerging challenges.  It’s critically important that we maintain our focus on the Indo-Pacific and to be able to preserve peace and stability there. 
 
This arrangement helps us.  It gives us those extra funds that we need to focus on the Indo-Pacific, even as we are engaged elsewhere in Europe and in the Middle East. 
 
And with that, I’ll turn it over. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, [senior administration official].  Our immigration system is broken and has been for years.  And as you have heard from President Biden, that’s why a few months ago, he instructed his and te- — his team to work to address it. 
 
Now, after negotiating around the clock and through holidays, we have a bipartisan national security agreement that, if passed into law, would include the toughest and fairest reforms to our immigration system in decades. 
 
This bipartisan agreement would make asylum processing fairer and more efficient, while ensuring protection for the most vulnerable.  And it would give the President emergency authority to shut down the border when it is overwhelmed. 
 
The question is now for Speaker Johnson and House Republicans.  If they believe we must take action as a country to secure our border, doing nothing is simply not an option. 
 
This is not a matter of partisan politics.  This is a bipartisan agreement.  And it would make our country safer.  It would make our border more secure, treat people fairly and humanely, consistent with our values as a nation. 
 
And now I’ll turn it over to [senior administration official] to walk through more of what’s — what this agreement would do. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, [senior administration official], and thanks, everybody, for participating on today’s call. 
 
As [senior administration official] noted, the legislation makes significant changes to our asylum system.  It creates a fast, fair, and functioning asylum process that will provide people who merit protection with asylum much faster, including by empowering asylum officers to grant asylum during credible — during screening interviews. 
 
But it also imposes consequences much faster to those who do not have a legal basis to remain.  It does so in a number of ways that I’ll walk through very quickly. 
 
First and foremost, it creates a new non-adversarial and non-detained provisional removal proceedings process that will allow individuals to receive a final decision in a few months — no more than six months — instead of the five to seven years that the process currently takes for individuals we are encountering today. 
 
The bill does this by modifying the screening threshold that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officers will use to evaluate protection claims with a goal of making it more likely that those who pass the initial screening are ultimately found to have a valid asylum claim at the end of the process. 
 
It also expedites work permits to those who are here and who qualify so they can get to work more quickly.  And it does so by allowing individuals who pass their initial screening interview — again, using a modified screening threshold that will make it more likely that those who pass the screening are ultimately found to have an asylum claim — the ability to be eligible for work authorization once they pass that screening.  That is significantly faster than is the case in our current immigration system. 
 
The legislation provides significant resources to secure the border and impose consequences on individuals we encounter.  It adds 1,500 CBP personnel, including Border Patrol agents and officers who will work at our ports of entry. 
 
It adds 4,300 asylum officers and additional USCIS personnel to help speed asylum claims and get to a final decision much faster. 
 
It adds 1,200 Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel to ensure that individuals who are ordered removed are removed more quickly, as well as the ability to operate significant more repatriation flights than we are currently operating. 
 
It will deploy 100 cutting-edge inspection machines to help and detect the stop — and stop the flow of fentanyl at our border, as well as funding for cities and states that are sheltering migrants. 
 
And, lastly, it will include a new funding to expand the capacity of our partner countries to accept and reintegrate migrants who are repatriated from the United States.  These resources are badly needed and will support and expand our workforce after decades of chronic underfunding that have led to enormous backlogs in the immigration court and the asylum system. 
 
They will allow us to enhance the security of the border, as well as significantly speed up processing for individuals who claim asylum at the border. 
 
Lastly, the authority — the legislation, I’m sorry, includes a temporary emergency authority that will allow the President to shut down the border when encounters reach elevated levels.  This authority will allow the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security to temporarily prohibit individuals from seeking asylum, with limited exceptions, when our southwest land border is overwhelmed. 
 
The authority preserves access to other protections, consistent with our international obligations, and will sunset after three years.  Importantly, again, this authority will be used when the number of migrants encountered at the border reach historically high levels — levels at which the U.S. government strains to process migrants quickly and effectively. 
 
Additionally, the authority is limited to a set number of days each calendar year.  And in the third year of implementation, it may only be exercised for half the year. 
 
And now I will turn it over to [senior administration official] to talk through some of the other important changes this legislation makes before we turn it over for questions. 

[Senior administration official], back over to you. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you.  Additionally, the legislation would strengthen a migrant’s right to counsel, providing additional tools to ensure humane and fair treatment of those seeking asylum, especially the most vulnerable.  For the first time, the legislation would require gov- — the government to provide legal counsel for the most vulnerable asylum seekers, such as young, unaccompanied children ages 13 and younger. 
 
It would also strengthen requirements so that migrants are always provided with clear and accessible information about their rights, including their right to counsel. 
 
The legislation would also increase lawful pathways into the United States for certain populations and allow some individuals already here to adjust status or access work authorization more easily.  Specifically, the legislation would provide additional visas for families and workers.  It would raise the cap on the number of immigrant visas available annually by adding an additional 250,000 immigrant visas over five years. 
 
These additional immigrant visas expand lawful pathways into the United States, prioritizing family reunification, and also get U.S. businesses access to qualified workers that they need.  It promotes family unity, allowing individuals who came to the United States as children on their parents’ skilled labor visas to remain in the United States with their families even after turning 21. 
 
The legislation would make clear that non-citizens can travel to the United States on a temporary B visa to visit family members.  It would establish a faster pathway to permanent status for Afghan allies and their families who entered the United States under Operation Allies Welcome.  And it would expand work authorization to fiancés or spouses of children of U.S. citizens and H-1B visa holders so that they can more quickly support themselves in the United States. 
 
The administration calls on Congress to not delay and to immediately pass this bipartisan national security agreement. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks, [senior administration official], [senior administration official], and [senior administration official]. 
 
With that, we will move to the question-and-answer period.  As a reminder, this is on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.”  We will be taking questions one at a time.  Please use the “raise hand” function to queue up for questions. 
 
When you are called upon, please state your name, your outlet, and, for the benefit of everyone, please limit your questions to one per person. 

I will give it a second for you all to queue up. 
 
All right.  We’ll start with Elliot.  You should be unmuted now. 
 
Q    Hello.  Yes.  Hi, I’m sorry about that.  My question — thank you — is for [senior administration official], I believe.  I’m just trying to get a better understanding of how things would change on the ground on day one. 

So, right now, as you know, there’s — the administration makes extensive use of parole through the CBP One app and — with Cubans, Haitian, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.  How would those two programs change under this — under this law, under this legislation? 
 
And then, how about someone who crosses illegally and wants to claim asylum?  What would happen?  I’m just trying to understand mechanics.  Would they be sent back to Mexico?  What would — if — I guess it would depend on whether this emergency is in effect.  But could you explain just a little bit how things would change on the ground in those scenarios on day one?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Absolutely.  Thanks, Elliot. 

So, on day one — were day one, for example, to be today, given where we are in terms of encounter levels at the border, we anticipate that the President and the Secretary would trigger this emergency authority immediately based on where we are on encounter trends and the levels that are set in the legislation. 
 
When the emergency authority is being implemented at the border, individuals who are encountered will not be generally eligible for asylum.  The legislation will require a manifestation of fear standard, and individuals who manifest a fear would be processed for a fast interview to determine whether they have a fear of persecution or torture such that they cannot be removed. 
 
In terms of CBP One, when we are exercising the emergency authority, the legislation requires that 1,400 individuals be processed through our land border ports of entry in a safe and orderly means.  And so, we anticipate that CBP One would continue to be in effect when we are exercising the authority. 
 
And, lastly, the legislation does not impact the CHNV process at all.  And so, that process will continue.  Thank you. 
 
MODERATOR:  Okay.  Next, we will go to Michelle.  You should be unmuted now. 
 
Q    Hi, everyone.  Sorry about that.  Can you address the 90-day windows in the bill where people have to receive their initial asylum screening?  And what happens if the government doesn’t meet that 90-day window?  Is there any, like, enforcement of it?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, hi, Michelle.  Thanks for that question.  So, the legislation creates a new provisional removal proceedings process for individuals who are encountered and who are not detained through the process. 
 
As I think everybody knows, right now, individuals who are — who we cannot detain are released with a notice to appear into the immigration court process, and that is a lengthy process that can take five to seven years, we anticipate, for individuals who are being encountered today to reach a final decision. 
 
What this legislation does is require that those individuals go into this new process, and we will be required to conduct an initial protection screening interview within 90 days, as you noted.  We anticipate that — once we are fully staffed and resourced, that that interview will happen significantly faster than 90 days.  And at that initial interview, our CIS personnel will be assessing whether individuals have a reasonable possibility of being subject to persecution or torture if they are returned. 

We anticipate that this higher standard will lead to more individuals being screened out during the protection screening interview.  And the legislation will also require that some mandatory bars to asylum be reviewed during that interview. 
 
If we cannot get to an interview within 90 days, we will be required to schedule a protection merits interview for those individuals.  However, the legislation does include a ramp-up period.  I think we all recognize that this will be a new process; it will need significant resources in order to be implemented. 
 
Again, Congress has not adequately funded our immigration system now for many decades, which has led to the backlogs we are seeing both in the immigration court system and in the affirmative asylum context, and those backlogs are directly contributing to what we are seeing on the border. 
 
So, once we are fully resourced, we fully expect that every individual we encountered will reach a final decision within that 180-day period.  And, in fact, I think we anticipate that it will be substantially faster.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We will go to Gabe next.  You should be unmuted now. 
 
Q    Thank you, [moderator].  Thank you all for doing this. 

[Senior administration official], you mentioned that it’s up to the Speaker Johnson.  Does the President plan to meet with Speaker Johnson directly to sell this bill? 
 
And then, also, some DH- — DHS officials we’ve spoken with have told us that the emergency shutdown provision in the bill may not be effective unless Mexico agreed to take on more migrants.  Has Mexico agreed to take on more migrants? 
 
And finally, a point of clarification.  Fourteen hundred, you said, will be processed through CBP One, even though the border would be shut down.  I want to make sure that I understood that correctly.  So, even if the border were, quote, “shut down,” CBP One would still be in effect on that — any given day?  Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m happy to take the first question.  The President speaks regularly with members of Congress from both parties and has called on Congress — the Senate and the House — to pass this national security supplemental.  We’ve been clear that this is a bipartisan agreement.  This is representative of Republicans and Democrats coming together to put solutions on the table.  And we are — are calling on Congress to take it up quickly and to pass it quickly.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, [senior administration official]. 

With regards to the other two questions, first, obviously, the government of Mexico has been a critical partner for us over the last few years and has, you know, accepted returns of third-country nationals, both under our Title 42 implementation and, more recently, under our Title 8 authorities.  And we are hopeful that they will continue to do so, but they’re obviously a sovereign nation, and we will need to engage them in conversations about this new authority. 
 
That said, we have significantly increased our capacity to operate repatriation flights to countries throughout the hemisphere.  Over the last three years, we are operating record numbers of those flights, and we will always seek to return individuals who are encountered to their home countries before we would seek to return them to Mexico.  And I don’t anticipate that will change as a result of this legislation. 
 
And, lastly, I think when we are exercising the emergency authority, as we noted earlier, we — the emergency authority will require that we process a set number of individuals each day — 1,400 — through our ports of entry in a safe and orderly manner.  This will ensure that there is access to the asylum system in the United States even during times of emergency, which we feel is critical.  And as such, yes, CBP One will continue to operate during the emergency periods.
 
That said, individuals who are processed under CBP One moving forward, if this legislation should be enacted, will be subject to the new provisional removal proceedings process.  That means that they will be going through a much faster process in order to get to a final decision than they currently are today. 
 
Thank you.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We will go to Priscilla next.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Hi.  Can you hear me?
 
MODERATOR:  Yes.
 
Q    Okay.  Great.  A few quick questions.  How quickly does the administration think that they can operationalize this bill if it were to pass?  Given that there are resources involved and talks with other countries, are we looking at months?  Years?
 
And then a question for [senior administration official].  Is there any backup here if House Republicans don’t budge and there is still a need in Ukraine funding and (inaudible)?
 
Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure, I can take the first part of that question, and then, [senior administration official], I’ll turn it over to you for the second one. 
 
So, again, I think we will implement the bill on day one.  And as we discussed, given where we are today in terms of encounters, we anticipate that the emergency authority would be exercised immediately on day one, as the President noted the other day. 
 
We also, though, appreciate it will take some time to resource the system that, again, has been chronically underfunded by Congress now for many decades.  We do anticipate that it will take three years to fully resource the system, but we will be processing individuals we encounter through the new authorities starting on day one and ramping up quickly over time.  And we have, in fact, asked for and received special authorities in order to expedite our ability to hire, train, and deploy personnel at USCIS, ICE, and CBP.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, Priscilla, thanks so much for the question.  The bottom line is this is really critical funding here to help us support Ukraine with a range of capabilities.  And it includes almost $20 billion to help replenish U.S. military weapons and equipment — basically replenishment authority from the DOD inventory, which is critical, because, as you know, we ran out of that authority here in late December.  So, this will — this will be critical to us to be able to continue to support Ukraine. 
 
And without this funding that we have — that Senate negotiators have worked so hard to — to achieve in this — in this proposed legislation, we won’t have the ability to continue to send arms and munitions to Ukraine. 
 
And I want to remind that the last shipment from the United States with the authorities that we had left or was signed out on the 27th of December — and some of that materiel is still arriving — but there’s nothing in train behind it unless or until we can get this funding.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks, [senior administration official].  We will go to Pedro next.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Thank you.  Thank you.  A couple of questions.  Number one, are there, in the — in the new legislation, any funding for ICE to increase capacity of detention and bedding in the country and removal as well?
 
And, also, for [senior administration official], is — Speaker Johnson mentioned this morning that he was agreeing to maybe approve funding for Israel as a standalone.  I wonder if the President has considered that idea or the President wants to see the whole package approved rather than just a fund for Israel alone.
 
Thanks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Pedro, I can take the first part of the question.  Yes, the funding includes billions of dollars for ICE to expand our ability to detain individuals who are encountered at the border and put them through the expedited removal process in a detained setting.  It includes funding to add more than 1,200 personnel to ICE in order to help us process and remove individuals, again, much more quickly.  And it will also include funding to expand our ability to operate repatriation flights.  And all of that information is on the factsheet that I think you’ll be receiving shortly.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And as for the idea of something individual on Israel — to your second part of your question — the President wouldn’t have combined all these four different national security areas into one supplemental request if he didn’t believe that all four were absolutely critical to our own national security and to the national security interests that we have all around the world — in Europe, in the Indo-Pacific, and absolutely in the Middle East. 
 
It’s hard to look at what the Speaker has been talking about as much more than a political ploy.  We believe that Senate negotiators have worked really long and hard, that this is the path forward.  And if this legislation ends up on the President’s desk, then obviously he’ll — he’ll move forward.  He’ll sign that and he’ll move forward on it because this addresses all these very distinct but also very urgent national security needs.  And this is the approach that the President wants to see us take.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We will go to Danny next.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Thanks very much for doing this call.  Just a couple of things, if I may.  Firstly, obviously, Speaker Johnson has previously said that this bill would be “dead on arrival” in the House.  What are the main elements in today’s plan that you think would be able to change his mind on that and the mind of Republicans in particular?
 
And, secondly, Chancellor Scholz of Germany is coming to the White House on Friday.  Are you going to be asking him to make the case to congressional leaders and Republicans, again, in particular, regarding the importance of aid for Ukraine? 
 
Thanks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can take the first.  You have heard from President Biden — we must act.  Speaker Johnson and House Republicans should provide the administration with the policy changes and resources that we are requesting to secure the border. 

This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that represents real solutions that have been negotiated over months by Senate negotiators.  And there’s no reason that Congress should not pass this legislation to support national security priorities, like they have many times before, with strong bipartisan support.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On the Germany question, the Chancellor and, of course, the whole nation of Germany have been critical supporters of Ukraine go- — as they have battled for their democracy and their sovereignty over the last two years.  We welcome all of the contributions that Germany has made.  They have provided lethal and non-lethal capabilities.  And the President is looking forward to continued discussions with Chancellor Scholz about all the different ways where Germany can contribute to — can continue to contribute to those efforts. 
 
So, there’s going to be a wide-ranging agenda with the Chancellor on Friday.  And I have no doubt that that conversation will expand beyond what’s going on in the European continent and in Ukraine specifically to include issues concerning the Indo-Pacific and tensions there, as well as the Middle East. 
 
It is not our habit nor our practice to ask or to urge foreign leaders to engage with members of Congress on any particular policy issue.  Should the Chancellor feel that that’s a part of the discussions that he wants to have while he’s in Washington, that will be up to him, but there will be no pressure campaign from the President or from the White House to have Chancellor Scholz deliver any particular message.
 
Again, Germany has been — has been a key — obviously a key NATO Ally but a key partner in supporting Ukraine.  And we look forward to having a discussion with him about all the manner — all the ways in which we can continue to support that effort.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  And our final question will come from Camilo.  You should be unmuted now.
 
Q    Hey, folks.  Can you hear me?  Yes?
 
MODERATOR:  Yes.
 
Q    Okay.  Great.  Awesome.  So, obviously, this bill that was published today is markedly different from the day-one bill that the President and you guys have repeatedly talked about that was sent to Congress.  And, ultimately, nothing happened with that bill.  There were no asylum restrictions in that bill.  And, obviously, there was certainly not a shutdown authority — as you’re calling it — in that bill.  Can you concede that there has been a major pivot in the sense of how this administration is handling asylum and border policy?  And if so, can you explain why that pivot has occurred? 
 
Thanks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, Camilo.  I’m happy to take that.  If you look at the President’s record over the years, he has long sought and supported bipartisan solutions to our broken immigration system.  I think you’ll agree that the American people overwhelmingly agree with what President Biden underlined in his day-one bill and in his funding request: Our immigration system is broken, we have an imperative to secure our border, and we must treat people fairly and humanely. 
 
And the question is now for Speaker Johnson, House Republicans: Will you join Republican and Democratic senators to deliver these meaningful policy changes and additional resources to the border?
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks, [senior administration official]. 
 
And with that, that is all the time that we have today.  As a reminder, this call — the embargo for this call will lift now. 
 
Thanks.  Thanks, everyone. 
 
8:37 P.M. EST

The post Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on the Bipartisan National Security Agreement appeared first on The White House.

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

5:43 P.M. EST

MODERATOR: Good evening, and thank you all for joining the National Security Council press call on U.S. military operations.

As a reminder of the ground rules of this call, it is being held on the record with no embargo.

We will take some questions in a moment and I’ll ask everyone to use the “Raise Hand Feature” on Zoom to indicate if you have a question.

I’ll turn it over to John Kirby for some opening remarks.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, everybody. Good evening. Sorry we’re a little bit late.

As you all no doubt know, today, in response to the continued attacks on our troops and facilities in Iraq and Syria, and in particular the attack that killed three of our soldiers in Jordan, wounding dozens of others, U.S. military forces struck more than 85 targets at seven facilities utilized by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the militant groups that they sponsor. Three of the facilities are in Iraq, four of them are in Syria.

Numerous aircraft, including B-1 bombers, dispatched from the United States were involved in this operation, firing more than 125 precision-guided munitions over the course of about 30 minutes.

Target facilities included command and control centers, as well as headquarters buildings and intelligence centers; rocket, missile, and drone storage facilities; and logistics ammunition supply chain facilities.

These targets were carefully selected to avoid civilian casualties and based on clear, irrefutable evidence that they were connected to attacks on U.S. personnel in the region.

The Department of Defense is in the early stages of battle damage assessment, but we believe that the strikes were successful.

We do not know at this time if or how many militants may have been killed or wounded. All U.S. aircraft are now out of harm’s way.

The President has been kept informed throughout the afternoon.

The United States does not seek conflict with Iran or in the broader Middle East. But as President Biden has made clear, we will not hesitate to defend our people and hold responsible all those who harm Americans, at a time and a place of our choosing. That began tonight, but it will not end tonight.

And with that, I’m going to turn it over to Lieutenant General Sims, the Director of the Joint Staff, for a little bit more detail on the operation itself.

General Sims.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Thank you, sir. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Just to add quickly to what Mr. Kirby briefed, we did, in fact, strike at seven different facilities. Within each of those facilities, there were a number of targets. All told, as Mr. Kirby mentioned, 85. They were struck with multiple U.S. aircraft — those aircraft from the U.S. Central Command, as well as, as mentioned, the B-1s that flew from the United States.

This has been in the planning since we were asked to look at it. This was designed around the weather, when we had our best opportunity as it related to the weather. That presented — good weather presented itself today. And as a result, this took place.

As mentioned, it was seven different locations. Of those locations, four of them were in Syria and three of them were in Iraq.

And I will — I’m happy to take your questions.

MODERATOR: Thank you, General Sims.

For our first question we’ll go to Phil Stewart from Reuters. Phil, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Yes, hi. Could you please explain to us: Why did you feel the need to use bombers that came all the way from the United States? You know, what were the facilities in Iraq? The Iraqis are also condemning this operation. If I could get a political reaction from the U.S. official. Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: I’ll let General Sims take the first question, Phil, and then I’m happy to take the second one on Iraq.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: First of all, I would tell you the beauty of the American bomber is we can strike anywhere in the world at a time of our choosing. We’re not limited to just the aircraft that are in the Central Command, as was the case in this situation, and we’re able to employ those bombers from the United States. It also limits the requirement to have a number of forces forward. We can, again, conduct this from home turf, so to speak.

I’ll pass it to Mr. Kirby.

MR. KIRBY: And on Iraq, Phil, we did inform the Iraqi government prior to the strikes occurring.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go to Kelly O’Donnell from NBC. Kelly, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Are there any components of this initial operation that are from the cyber realm?

MR. KIRBY: Kelly, the operations that we can speak to this evening are the operations that we laid out in the opening statement and what you saw from the President and Secretary of Defense. That’s the operation that occurred today and that we can speak to.

As I’m not going to, nor would I ever, preview or get ahead of any future potential operation one way or the other.

Q Understood.

MR. KIRBY: But as I said, these responses began tonight, but they’re not going to end tonight.

Q Could I then ask: Do you expect that there will be any video component to these strikes that may be released at a certain point? Or how long would you anticipate the battle assessment about what you’ve accomplished? How long would that typically take for these kinds of strikes?

MR. KIRBY: I’m going to turn it to the General on the BDA question.

We’re still looking at imagery to see what can be made publicly available. We’ve done it before, as you know. We’re certainly going to take a look at the imagery available. And if we can — we’ll make whatever public that we can, but we’re still working our way through the imagery.

And I’ll turn it over to General Sims on the time horizon for the BDA.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Thanks. I think, again, we’ll let the sun come up, and we’ll be able to start to make some better determinations in terms of battle damage assessment. We feel pretty confident. As we mentioned, it was 85 individual targets within each of these locations. We feel really confident about the precision of those targets and the fact that those were strong military targets.

We did — as you would imagine, we are able to see a good portion of those through our collection methods. And the initial indications were that we hit exactly what we meant to hit with a number of secondary explosions associated with the ammunition and logistics locations that were mentioned by Mr. Kirby earlier.

Q Thank you for taking my question.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Kelly.

Next question is Aamer Madhani from the AP.

Q Thanks, Sean. Just a follow on the B-1. Was the B-1 meant to send a signal to Iran specifically, reminding Tehran that the U.S. is capable of striking high-value targets inside Iran, including its nuclear facilities? And why was it not — was it decided not to strike targets inside Iran? Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: I’ll let General Sims take a crack at that first one. And I’m happy, General, if you want, to take the second.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Yes, sir.

Sir, we’re not trying to send a signal to anybody other than those who mean Americans harm. And in this case, we struck targets that got after exactly that. As we mentioned before, IRGC-related targets, targets that are holding locations for munitions that have been used against our men and women located in the region, as well as locations that have been providing command and control and intelligence collection in those strikes against Americans.

And the B-1 allowed us to do that, again, from the United States. It enables us to do so at a time that we choose and with a significant number of munitions.

I’ll pass it back to Mr. Kirby.

MR. KIRBY: Aamer, as I said in my opening statement, we do not seek conflict with Iran. These targets were chosen, as we said, to degrade and disrupt the capabilities of the IRGC and the groups that they sponsor and support.

As the General said, we believe that these targets fell into exactly that criteria. And the goal here is to get these attacks to stop. We are not looking for a war with Iran.

I’ll leave it at that.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go to Mary Bruce with ABC.

Q Hi there. Do you expect the Jordanians to participate in this at all? There’s some reports that Jordanian aircraft are also slated to join in the operation as a sign of solidarity.

And just to be clear, are the strikes for today completed? Should we expect any more action tonight?

MR. KIRBY: I’ll take the first one and kick it to the General on the second.

I have nothing for you on that one, Mary. We’re here to talk about U.S. actions against the IRGC and the groups that they support.

And I’ll kick it to the General for the second.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Ma’am, can I just confirm the second part of your question? I’m sorry.

Q Just wondering if there’s — if we should expect any more strikes today and tonight. I mean, I know, obviously, in the coming days we’re likely to see something. But are strikes for today completed?

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Yeah, Mary, I would just say we have — you know, right now, all of our aircraft are out of harm’s way. I’m not going to provide any particulars as it relates to timing on future strikes.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go to Tamara Keith with NPR.

Q Thank you. And, Kirby, you sort of addressed this, but I’m hoping you can expand upon it, which is what the signal you’re trying to send with these particular strikes to the IRGC and to Iran more broadly, and why you think this particular targeting avoids a wider Middle East conflict. Like, what about this targeting?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah. The signal is: The attacks have to stop. The attacks have to stop.

And these targets were chosen because, as I said in my opening statement, all these facilities were connected to and being used by the IRGC and their proxy groups to conduct attacks on U.S. personnel in the region. Carefully chosen targets for that purpose.

So the signal is — to the IRGC and to these groups: The attacks have got to stop.

And they’re also not just a — it’s not just — this wasn’t just a message-sending routine tonight. This was about degrading capability; taking away, in a more robust way than we have in the past — taking away capabilities by the IRGC and the militant groups.

And I want to repeat, again, what I said in my opening comments: These responses began tonight; they’re not going to end tonight. So there will be additional responses. There will be additional action that we will take, all designed to put an end to these attacks and to take away capability by the IRGC.

And when you ask, “Well, how does this comport with not wanting a broader conflict?” — because if you’re taking away capability of an adversary who’s trying to kill your troops and act against your interests in the region, if you’re trying to take away their capability, then you are by default working to deescalate the tensions. And that’s the approach that we’re taking.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go to MJ Lee with CNN. MJ, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hi, thank you. You were clear that weather was a big factor in the timing. Were there any other significant factors for the decision to start (inaudible) tonight? And is there anything you could say on whether (inaudible)?

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Ma’am, I heard the first part of your question on weather. You came in garbled there at the end.

Okay. So I understood your question as to be our timing associated with the weather. We — as you would expect, we were hoping to have better weather. Our munitions can, as you know — our munitions are very precise and don’t take a lack of cloud cover. We can issue those or conduct those with good cloud cover.

In an interest of ensuring that we’re hitting all the right targets and that we’re avoiding unnecessary casualties, it’s good for us to have clear weather to allow us to see those targets as we develop them. That all came together for us as we were planning this. The weather did turn today to allow us to conduct these strikes. And as a result, we’re very confident in the targets that we struck today.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go with Jennifer Jacobs from Bloomberg.

Q Thank you. I know you can’t say when we’ll see additional strikes, but are you able to say if they might be seen over days or will it be weeks? And will you tell us when it’s over?

And then, two other things. Is there any other details you can share on the ordnance used or anything more on the other aircraft other than the long-range bombers? Anything else you can detail about the aircraft used?

MR. KIRBY: I’ll take the first one and then kick it to the General.

Obviously, we’re not going to telegraph future operations one way or the other, JJ. As I said, there will be additional response actions taken in coming days. And I think that’s about as specific as I want to be about it.

And today, we saw the first set of responses. It will not be the last set of responses that you see.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Ma’am, I would — in terms of munitions and the B-1, in terms of the flight — I think is what you said there at the beginning — I won’t go into the particular munitions used. I would tell you it was more than 125, all of them precision, all of them designed to hit the exact spot that we mean to hit.

In terms of the flights from the United States, a single non-stop flight for the cruise, from the B-1s, all of that enhanced by our transportation command and our ability to gas and go along the way without any issues or incidents from the United States there and where they’re at now.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go with David Sanger from the New York Times.

Q Thanks very much. John, in addition to the signaling that you do by hitting 85 sites, there’s the conversations that have always taken place through backchannels with Iran. This week, we saw the Iranians send a few signals of their own. They didn’t want to have a direct conflict either. Was there any advanced messaging to them saying, “Look, you’re going to get hit because three people got killed, but we don’t want to escalate this” — something that would give them enough understanding to get their people out of the way and that they were going to lose some facilities, but that if they calmed it down, this would be the end of it?

MR. KIRBY: No, David.

Q No conversations at all?

MR. KIRBY: There’s been no communications with Iran since the attack that killed our three soldiers in Jordan.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go with Nick Schifrin from PBS.

Q Hey, guys. Thanks very much. I appreciate it. The question that you probably won’t be willing to answer, John, but can you say anything more about what you mean or what the administration means when it says “first tier” of multitier? Can you talk at all about any plans or any part of what’s happening tonight that might target leadership of these groups separately than what’s already happened tonight and perhaps any targeting of Yemen? Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: I’m sorry, I missed the last part there. Any targeting of what?

Q Yemen. Yemen was the last — very last part.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, well, you nailed it, Nick. I’m not going to get into any speculating about future operations and options available to us. I think you can understand — I think, hopefully, everybody can understand why we simply are not going to do that.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go with Missy Ryan from the Post.

Q Hi. Thank you very much. I just want to follow up on Nick’s question, actually, and ask whether or not you were aiming to target any sort of senior figures from IRGC or militia groups in these strikes, you know, like occurred on January 3rd. And if not, can you talk about whether or not there — or either way, can you talk about whether or not there was an impact from this sort of period of anticipation about these strikes and the reports that Iranian — that IRGC and militias were able to move people around? Was that a factor in the decision — if you didn’t target leadership — in the decision not to do that in this first wave?

MR. KIRBY: The targets were carefully chosen as facilities that we knew were involved and used by the IRGC and these militant groups in attacks against U.S. personnel. They were all carefully selected for that purpose.

As I said, this is just a first set of responses. I’m not going to talk about any potential future operations one way or the other.

And then, for the second part of your question, I’m happy to defer to General Sims in terms of, you know, whether and what degree, you know, they saw preparatory movements by these groups before these strikes.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Ma’am, I can’t give you any particulars about people moving from any of those locations.

I would say — and, you know, it’s (inaudible) — I’m not going to speak for the Iraqi — or the Iranian-aligned militia groups here. But my guess is, based on the fact that they took the shot at us and have taken multiple shots at us now, that they were anticipating a response. And, you know, their defenses were likely to move people around. We’re pretty confident that the locations we got, as Mr. Kirby mentioned, were pretty significant in degrading capability. And we will know better, in terms of what that BDA looks like, tomorrow.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go with Alex Ward from Politico.

Q Thanks for doing this. One question. Was there any — and I know you said that you don’t know yet the assessment of militants — but was there an intention to kill militants as part of this operation?

And secondly, understood that there will not be any strikes inside Iran as part of any of this, but were any options presented to the President to strike inside Iran? Thank you.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Sure. I’ll speak to that first part now and then I’ll pass to Mr. Kirby.

I would tell you that we know that there are militants that use these locations — IRGC, as well as Iranian-aligned militia group personnel who use these locations. We made these strikes tonight with an idea that there would likely be casualties associated with people inside those facilities.

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about the details of the options that were presented to the President. I hope you can understand why, Alex.

But I’ll just go back to what I said at the top and what the President has made clear: We are not seeking a war or conflict with Iran.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go to Nadia from Al Arabiya.

Q Hi. Thank you for doing this. Just to add to all the questions that have been asked, can you specify if the militia that ordered the attack, that killed the three U.S. servicemen, were targeted? Or was it just a blanket target against IRGC facilities in that location, either in (inaudible) or Bukamal?

MR. KIRBY: General, you want to answer that?

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Yes, sir.

So I would tell you, ma’am, that we struck against a number of targets tonight that kind of cross — that move across many different aspects of the Iranian-aligned militia groups in Iraq and Syria. And I would tell you I feel that we confidently struck targets that will impact their ability to conduct future strikes against Americans.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go with Patsy from VOA.

Q Hi, thank you for taking my question. So, is your understanding that there will be more strikes on various groups? And at this point, can you specify which groups? I know these have been asked before, but which specific groups were targeted?

And then, just to follow up on MJ’s question, which I think wasn’t really asked: Was the timing, other than the weather, was there any significance to the fact that the President today has just finished participating in the dignified transfer of the remains of the three soldiers? Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: I’ll take the second one. And I’ll defer to the General, although I think his answer to Nadia seemed to get at your first question, Patsy. But I’ll defer to General Sims on that, on the first one.

The timing of the strikes tonight were — for all the reasons that General Sims put forward in terms of all the many factors that go into being able to do this in the most effective way, to include considerations of the weather, it had no connection, none whatsoever, with the timing of the dignified transfer today at Dover Air Force Base.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: And then, ma’am, on that first part: You know, we see all these groups — not all, certainly, but a good portion of these groups now that are working together, communicating together with one another in this Islamic Resistance of Iraq, so to speak. And so, again, we feel confident that the strikes tonight made a good impact or had a good impact on that group of militants.

Q So is that the reason why you did not specifically say it was Kataib Hezbollah that was behind the strikes that killed the American soldiers but the umbrella group instead?

MR. KIRBY: I’ll try briefly, General. But please feel free to jump in.

As we said, Patsy, it was the intelligence community’s assessment, and that they were most comfortable with, which was that those attacks in Jordan were carried out by the umbrella group, Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a group that is supported by Kataib Hezbollah. Kataib Hezbollah is one of the participants. And that was the intelligence community’s best assessment.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go with Aurelia from AFP.

Q Hi, and thanks for taking my question. You said that you are pretty confident that the strikes have significantly degraded the striking capabilities of these groups. Is it to say that once the whole operation is over, you are also confident that there will be no strikes whatsoever from Syria — in Syria and Iraq against U.S. positions?

MR. KIRBY: We don’t want to see a single more attack or strike on U.S. personnel or facilities in the region. We don’t want to see a single one.

The response actions that we took tonight, which are only the first of more to come, are meant to degrade and disrupt the capabilities of these groups to conduct these attacks supported by the IRGC.

And I’m not going to get ahead of future targets and what we will or we won’t do. We want the attacks to stop. We want them to stop right now. And I think I just need to leave it at that.

MODERATOR: For our next question we’ll go to Phil McCausland from BBC.

Q Hi all. Thanks so much for answering these questions. Just curious, is there any evidence or concern that, you know, like, this delay — or not delay, but waiting a few days on the strikes allowed targets to be hardened or moved?

And then secondly, I’m just seeing some Arab news organizations reporting that there’s been some retaliation on their side. I’m wondering if you all are seeing anything regarding strikes in eastern Syria from them. Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: I think General Sims already dealt with the question about any pre-strike reactions by the IRGC. But, General, feel free to elaborate if you feel the need to. And I’ll defer to you, too, sir, on the second question about any retaliation tonight by the groups.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: I’m not tracking any retaliation in eastern Syria right now.

And as to your first one, I’d agree with Mr. Kirby. I mean, again, I won’t speak for the IRGC or the Iranian-aligned militia groups in terms of what orders they gave their people to move around or to harden beforehand.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go with Kimberly from Al Jazeera.

Q Hi. You said that your targets were selected to avoid civilian casualties and you had clear and irrefutable evidence that the targets were connected to attacks on U.S. personnel in the region. Can you tell us what that clear and irrefutable evidence was?

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Ma’am, I’m not going to get into our intelligence collection. I would just say we spent a good amount of time discerning the appropriate targets here. And in this case, we’re confident that we got after targets that were associated with the continued attacks against Americans.

Q How do you expect, sort of, the American public to trust the intelligence? Do you just expect them to take your word for it?

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: Yes.

Q Do you feel that the American military has a good track record when it comes to —

MR. KIRBY: We’re going to move on to the next question. Thank you.

Q Okay. I just — everyone else has had a chance to finish. I just want to double check. Will you be making any of this public in any way? Or will you have a chance for reporters —

MR. KIRBY: Kimberly, that’s what we’re doing right now. It’s what we’re doing right now, ma’am. We are sitting here talking to you guys on the record.

Q Excuse me —

MR. KIRBY: We’re going to move on.

Q Okay. So you will give reporters —

MR. KIRBY: We’re going to move on. Thank you.

Q — the chance to see the evidence?

MR. KIRBY: We are talking to you tonight and we are sharing with you everything we possibly can at this early hour.

And as the General has made clear, we’re going to go through the battle damage assessment and we’ll learn more. And I have every expectation that the Defense Department will share with you what they can, as appropriate. But we’re not going to share anything that’s going to prejudice or be — or make our job difficult, because we have additional options here ahead of us and additional responses to take. But we’ll be as transparent as we can be. My goodness, that’s what we’re doing on this call here on a Friday evening. And we need to move on.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we’ll go to Howard Altman with The War Zone.

Q I actually have several questions. One, can you please tell us the additional airframes that took place in this attack? Will there be additional force structure additions to the region given what’s going on?

And have there been any attacks against U.S. allies in the region in the wake of these strikes?

LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIMS: So, on the first one, I would just say it was a number of U.S. fighter aircraft from the Central Command AOR, in addition to the bombers. I won’t get into the particular types and numbers.

In terms of force structure, no conversation now about adjusting forces in the area of operations. And again, as demonstrated by the B-1s, not a reason to have to bring a bunch of extra stuff there when we have the ability to strike from the United States.

And then, on your last one, I have not been provided any information since the strikes on any attacks in any of the region since — or any other nations in the region since the strikes tonight.

MODERATOR: Thank you. This concludes our press call for this evening. Again, as a reminder of the ground rules, this call was held on the record under no embargo.

We appreciate everyone taking the time to join us on this Friday evening. Hope everyone has a good weekend. And if you have any follow-up questions, don’t hesitate to reach out.

6:14 P.M. EST

The post On-the-Record Press Call on U.S. Military Operations in the Middle East appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Detroit, Michigan

1:32 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Good afternoon, everybody. So, I just have one quick thing at the top.

So, after decades of opposition and without the support of a single Republican in Congress, President Biden enacted a law that finally takes on Big Pharma and gives Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices.

President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act will save millions of seniors on some of the — the costliest prescription drugs on the market. And today, Medicare will send initial offers to manufacturers of the first 10 drugs selected for drug price negotia- — negotiation to help bring down the price of these prescription drugs.

This is the first time ever that Medicare is not accepting the drug prices the pharmaceutical companies set. The Drug Price Negotiation program is a prime example of the ways President Biden is working to lower costs for American families. And he won’t stop fighting for results, even as Republicans in Congress continue to try to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, cut Medicare and Social Security benefits and ins- — and insurance for millions, and keep — keep healthcare costs high.

The administration remains focused on continuing to protect these programs and deliver lower costs for seniors and hardworking families.

And one more thing — I know folks are asking about this — as it relates to the dignified transfer tomorrow. So, we’re working with the families, and we’ll respect their wishes, as you all can understand. We’ll have more information, obviously, on what tomorrow will look like, as we normally do, in the daily guidance, which will be released later this evening.

And so, with that, I have my co- — my colleague here, Admiral John Kirby, to discuss the executive order the President signed today.

Admiral.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine. Just before I get to that, right before leaving Washington, the President placed a call to the European Commissioner — European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, to thank her and the E- — the European Union for a significant financial aid package that they just approved for Ukraine, some $50 billion, which will go a long way to helping Ukraine as they continue to battle back against Russia’s aggression.

And then, just briefly, today, on the — on the executive order. I think you all saw that today the President signed a new executive order that will implement new measures to address actions that undermine peace, security, and stability in the West Bank.

This EO will allow the United States to issue financial sanctions against those directing or participating in certain actions, including acts or threats of violence against civilians, intimidating civilians to cause them to leave their homes, destroying or seizing property, or engaging in terrorist activity in the West Bank.

And the State Department also today issued four designations under this new executive authority, and — and that’s all public. And you guys, I’m sure, have seen that.

I do want to remind that this executive order came in the heels of a — of a Cabinet memo issued by Jake Sullivan back in November, directing departments and agencies to — to take appropriate action and to develop further policy options for dealing with the violence — the settler violence in the West Bank. And that was followed in December by Secretary Blinken announcing visa restrictions for certain individuals who are involved in this violence.

So, again, the President has spoken very, very clearly on this since the very beginning — that the settler violence in the West Bank is unacceptable, and we’ll continue to examine tools at our disposal to deal with it.

That’s it.

Q John, how do you determine the four people when there are hundreds of incidents against West Bank Palestinians? Do you expect there to be more, including on Israeli government officials? And is this a signal to them who support — openly support and facilitate these violence?

MR. KIRBY: There’s no plans to target with sanctions Israeli government officials at this time. I’d refer you to State to speak about how they chose these four individuals. This was an initial set of designations. I’m not going to preview whether there will be more or not going forward, but it is a new tool that we’re going to take a look at using appropriately.

And I think I lost your — you had one more question.

Q Yeah, I mean, is this a signal to those officials in the Israeli government who openly support and facilitate such violence, including Itamar Ben-Gvir, who’s — who supply the weapons to these people who perpetrate?

MR. KIRBY: I think — I think it’s a signal to the whole world how seriously President Biden takes this violence against the set- — the settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. He’s been very, very clear on that for a long, long time. It’s got to stop. It’s unacceptable. It’s a — it’s a detriment to peace and security, certainly there in the West Bank but to the Palestinian people in general.

Q Does the — is there any significance to the timing around the EO, particularly as sentiment grows in the U.S.
regarding the U.S. position in Gaza?

MR. KIRBY: As I said, I mean, this — this process of looking at tools at our disposal really started in November with Jake’s memo. That led to visa restrictions, and then that led to work with the Treasury Department and the State Department on another tool. And the tool is — that we’re choosing today is this EO that will authorize sanctions.

So, again, it all really stems from Jake’s memo back in November to direct agencies to take a look at what tools we have at our disposal.

Q Is the — the EU deal, does that give any breathing room for the U.S. to continue negotiations for the border and Ukraine? You know, the funding that has — that — the EU funding for Ukraine, does that provide any cover, you know, as the U.S. continues to negotiate for the border?

MR. KIRBY: So, a couple of things, I mean, it’s a financial aid package.

Q Yeah.

MR. KIRBY: It’s not designed for security assistance. And it’s certainly going to be welcome to the Ukrainian people, no question about it, because it will help alleviate some of the financial strains that they’re already under. And so, again, we — we welcome it.

But it’s not a substitute for American leadership when it comes to security assistance. And that is why it’s so critical for us to continue to urge Congress to pass that national security supplemental. There’s $60 billion-plus in there for security assistance for Ukraine.

As I’ve said many times, it was carefully arrived at. The Ukrainians need it. And we need Congress to act on it.

(Cross-talk.)

Q Just quickly, did President Biden tell Prime Minister Netanyahu the executive order was coming?

MR. KIRBY: We informed the Israeli government before it was announced.

Q Was it conveyed at that level, though?

MR. KIRBY: We informed the Israeli government before it was announced.

Q Real quick, just to follow up on the — on the timing. I understand you’re saying that Jake, you know, issued a memo in November. But the issue with settlers goes way back even before the October 7th attacks.

MR. KIRBY: It sure does. Yeah.

Q Why did the administration, you know, never take any actions and is only doing so now? I mean, is this a sign of political pressure to appear a certain way? Is that — is that why the EO is finally coming through?

MR. KIRBY: No, not at all. A couple of thoughts here. First of all, to — to work on sanctions through an EO and sanctions designation — sorry, I just hit your mic — you know, that takes time to develop the — the tool itself and then to choose who and how you’re going to designate entities or individuals.

I mean, there’s a — there’s a lot of just administrative staff work that goes in to the — to building of sanctions as a — as a tool and the designations that go with it. So, I mean, this was a — this was a long time in train.

And again, what — what you’re really seeing now from us — the visa restrictions, these sanctions — it’s an outgrowth of the — of the dramatic increase in settler violence —

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY: — or violence on set- — sorry, settler violence on Palestinians in the West Bank, which have — has been a result of the attacks on the 7th of October.

Q Is the — is the increase significant? And is that what the U.S. government is watching?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, this is — this is a direct answer to the dramatic increase in violence that we’ve seen by settlers on Palestinians in the West Bank —

Q John —

MR. KIRBY: — since the 7th of October.

Q Kirby, should we expect any forthcoming remarks or speech or comments from the President? There’s been a lot of activity in the Middle East: There’s this new executive order today; the death of U.S. service members — obviously, we know he’s going to the dignified transfer tomorrow; massive protests today in — in Washington, around the White House and downtown, closing bridges. I’m just wondering if the President is considering addressing the nation about the events that have unfolded in the region but also here in — in the States over the past few days?

MR. KIRBY: He has kept up a pretty steady drumbeat, I think, of talking to the American people and to our — our allies and partners around the world, publicly and privately.

And I would — while I don’t have anything on schedule to speak to in terms of a set piece event, I have every expectation that you’ll continue to hear from him about what’s going on in the Middle East.

Q John, can you give us an update? There’s some reporting that the U.S. has selected sites for its response to the fatal attack —

MR. KIRBY: I don’t —

Q — including Iranian sites in Iraq and Syria. Is there anything you can share?

MR. KIRBY: No, I can’t. I’m not going to —

Q Can you say whether the President has made a decision, or is this still a deliberative point?

MR. KIRBY: I — I’m not going to telegraph punches, as I’ve — as I’ve said before. I’m not going to get into speaking about potential future military operations one way or the other. That would be the worst thing I could possibly do.

The President has made his decision about responding. Options were presented to him. He made his choices and — and his decisions. And — and we’re going to — and we’re going to move out.

As I said the other day — or yesterday — this will be a multitiered approach over — over a period of time. The first thing you see will not be the last thing you see.

Q Any update on negotiations to bring the hostages back?

MR. KIRBY: No updates for you today. I mean, the work continues. We’re — we’re very actively involved in these discussions, but I don’t have a specific update for you.

Q Admiral, on the timing of this. You know, we saw the three troops unfortunately killed this week. Why are we waiting now to do something? Why — why was there no action before when there were these increased attacks on U.S. troops in the Middle East? What’s — why are we doing action now as opposed to before?

MR. KIRBY: My goodness. There’s been a lot of action. I mean, the — the — as the attacks have — have continued against our troops in Iraq and Syria, you have seen us respond swiftly and appropriately. And as matter of fact, in previous retaliatory strikes that we have taken, you’ve seen us go evermore after the IRG [IRGC] specifically and IRGC targets. So, we have —

Q Things have ramped up now. Talks are — talks are ramping up now.

MR. KIRBY: Talks are ramping up?

Q About the President saying he’s picked a — you know, he’s made decisions about this.

MR. KIRBY: Look, I can’t speak for why certain officials think it’s in — in anybody’s best interest to get out there and — and be speculating in public with anonymity about military operations in the future. I think that’s highly irresponsible.

What I can tell you is that — that we have taken this threat seriously from the beginning. And the — the attacks have been appropriate, and they have been more aggressive in — in recent weeks and months by us, is what I’m talking about.

And now, as I said the other day, there are three American soldiers that were killed, and we have three grieving families. So, if there’s escalation here, it’s an escalation on the part of these militia groups.

Q John, Chinese warships are reportedly escorting commercial cargo vessels transiting through the Red Sea. How does the administration view these naval escorts? And has there been any coordination between the Chinese and — and us?

MR. KIRBY: I know of no coordination between the PRC, the PLA Navy, and the U.S. Navy or the coalition in the Red Sea. I’m not aware of — I can’t validate reports that they’re escorting. I had not heard that reporting.

Q But if that were true, would this be something that the U.S. approves of?

MR. KIRBY: Look, we’ve said many times that if the Chinese want to be helpful to this effort about protecting shipping in the Red Sea, then we would certainly welcome that. But I can’t verify those reports.

Q Kirby, there’s a report from my colleague that precision equipment for Russian arm makers came from Taiwan. Have you seen the report? Is the White House aware?

MR. KIRBY: No, sir, I have not seen that. I can — but I’ll take the question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead (inaudible), Admiral.

Q A couple of Republicans in Congress have called on the Speaker to put forward an aid bill for Israel without any offsets or IRS cuts of any kind. Is that something the White House would support, a standalone Israel aid bill?

MR. KIRBY: We submitted the national security supplemental as a package — you know, Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific, and border security — because all those things are important to the President. He believes they’re all important to our national security. And that’s the approach that we’re taking with Congress right now, to work on that package of — of funding for all four of those — those areas. That’s — that’s where our head is right now.

Q I’m not sure which of you can answer. But can you say whether the President will speak to the Arab American community or the Muslim American community while in Michigan? And if not, what is his message —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look —

Q — more broadly, to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things I do want to make sure that you all have, which is that the trip today in Michigan, obviously, is a political trip. I said this yesterday at the podium. It’s organized —

Bye, Admiral. (Laughter.)

(Cross-talk.)

Q He ran away.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s like, “Okay, I’m out of here.”

— which is, obviously, organized by — by the campaign. And so, I’m going to let them speak to the trip itinerary. I believe they did a background call yesterday. So, I’m sure you all have that information.

But I do want to say, more broadly, that the President has met with Americans with varying opinions about the conflict between Israel and Hamas, obviously — something that I’ve mentioned many times at the podium. Officials at the White House are also in regular contact with Muslim and Arab American leaders in Michigan and across the country.

And as part of those ongoing conversation that the Biden — the Biden-Harris administration is having and the outreach, obviously, that we’re doing to the Muslim and Arab American communities, senior Biden administration officials will travel to Michigan in February — we’re in February now — to hear directly from community leaders on a range of issues that are important to them and their families, including the conflict in Israel and — and Gaza.

So, I don’t have any additional details at this time, but obviously, when — when we’re able to share more information, we will. But as I just stated, we do have White House officials —

Q Can you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — that are — that are planning to go out to Michigan in — in the next couple of days, if not — if not — several weeks, if not a couple of days, to — to Michigan.

Q Karine, two senators —

Q Could you be specific of who they are?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — we’ll have more to share. I don’t have specific on who — specifics on who those folks will be.

Q And has the President engaged —

Q You got two senators — you’ve got two senators and one congressmember on this flight. Were invitations extended to the entire Michigan delegation for this trip?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we normally extend invitation to — to both — both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, when we travel into the state. Obviously, when it comes to the congressional member, it’s usually — the person that usually comes is the person’s district that we’re going into. So, we usually have the two senators and then congressional members — usually the person that represents that state — that district — pardon me.

Q How is his relationship with Congressmember Rashida Tlaib, who is clearly upset and, you know, representing a lot of her constituents who are also upset?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, which we — we’ve said — we’ve said many times that we understand how difficult this is for many — obviously, many different communities around this time as we’re seeing what’s happening in the Middle East, more specifically with Israel and Hamas. And we understand. We get that.

And — but, look, I’m not going to get into — we don’t — you know, we don’t speak to every private conversation that the President — that the President has with members of Congress. Obviously, he has a long — long-standing relationships with many members of Congress because of — because of his own career — 36 years as Senator, 8 years as Vice President, as you all know, and being President for the past 3 years. So, just not going to get into private — private discussion.

Q Karine, a quick couple —

Q Sorry. Was she invited and didn’t come, or was it just that Congresswoman Dingell was invited because it’s her district?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m just saying that we normally extend invites. And so, the — the folks that normally come for the — for congressional districts are usually the person who — who represents that district. But I — you know, the Office of Leg Affairs usually extends invites to both — both sides of — both folks — Republicans and Democrats. But we’re — we’re not going into Congresswoman Tlaib’s district, obviously.

Q Just to follow up on that, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Is the President meeting with any Arab American community leaders today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any meetings to speak to at this time. Obviously, this is a political meeting. All of the arrangement for it — a political trip, to more — to be more precise — all — this entire trip was done and organized by the campaign. So, any specifics on that — I think they’ve actually spoke to that when — when they did a backgrounder yesterday. And so, I would let — I would let the campaign —

Q They did not do a backgrounder yesterday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Or they put out a background — they put out —

Q They — we just saw the note, but it didn’t have any details.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Okay, when they put out a note on this particular trip — a background note on this particular trip. So, they will have that information as to how — why they — you know, what’s going to happen today and how they led that — how they kind of put that together. I just can’t speak to a campaign —

Q Can you speak to the event after the UAW event? Is that a fundraiser? Is that meetings with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s all —

Q — the community? Is that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s all a political trip. You would have to ask the — you have to ask the campaign who (inaudible).

Q Just a general guidance policy. When the President travels, the White House often puts out detailed guidance of where he’s going. Even if it’s, you know, a fundraiser that’s closed door, it will say the city. The guidance for this travel has all been “greater Detroit area.”

Is there a specific reason why the White House is not being fully transparent about where the President is going specifically today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I don’t have anything to share. I mean, what we have in the guidance is what we have in a guidance to share with all of you. I don’t have any — I don’t have any specifics on that.

Q Was there a specific decision today? Was there concerns about why the White House would not put out — obviously, there’s been a lot of protesters around —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Not that — I mean — I mean, honestly, not that — not —

Q — (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — not that I’m tracking. Not that I’m tracking.

Q Can I just follow up on —

Q Can former President Trump — I’m sorry. Go ahead.

Q May I just follow up on Nandita’s question on the timing. This EO —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The timing of — oh, the EO.

Q The EO.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q I mean, we heard about the EO. We heard about the background call on the EO maybe like 15 minutes before it came out. And, you know, we were just — I was just wondering whether it had anything to do with a Michigan trip so that the President can say something to American Muslims and Arab (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, you heard from the Admiral. He said that this — these types of things — these types of sanctions take a long time. They’re not easy to do. They don’t turn around very quickly. These take time.

So, I don’t — I don’t have a timeline for you. This is something that, obviously, the State Department can speak directly to.

But these types of sanctions — when we do sanctions, they do take a — when, especially in this — in this particular instance — the State Department and other agencies that do sanctions like the Treasury or the Department of Justice — it takes time.

Q Yesterday —

Q Karine, just on — like, just your — the President’s personal reaction to, you know, the families in Michigan who’ve lost relatives in Gaza who are now refusing to meet him? There’s now the “abandon Biden,” you know, campaign that’s kind of taking off. What is his personal reaction to what’s happening in Michigan right now? And, you know, is he going to stop and talk to protestors? You know, is he like — you know, how is he thinking about today? And what’s his message?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, the President has always been very clear that — and I’ve said — I just said it moments ago, that he believes Americans have the right to share their varying views and varying opinions on situations, just as long as it’s peaceful. We’ve been very clear about that.

And we also understand that, you know, this is a difficult time. We get that. I mean, this is a President that understands that.

I don’t have anything else more to share. I think people have a right to share their views, again, just as long as it’s peaceful.

We’ve been very clear about where we stand on what’s going on in Israel and Hamas, as far as believing that Israel does have the right to defend itself, just as long as — it followed the — they have to follow international humanitarian law. And we’ve had conversations with them, obviously, from the top — from the top down, from different — obviously from the National Security Council and also with State — the State Department and the President himself have been continuing in those diplomatic conversations.

And, look — and we see what’s going on. We see what’s going on — the lives that are being lost by innocent Palestinians. We have to remember that Hamas is a terrorist organization. And sadly, what they do is they embed themselves in — you know, in infrastructure where folks live, in hospitals. And it is — it is what they do.

And so, look, the President, again, understands this is a difficult time but also believes that — that folks have the right to — you know, Americans have the right to view their opinions.

Q So, there’s a lot —

Q Trump said yesterday that he would block the Nippon Steel takeover of U.S. Steel. Does the White House have any comment on that or any update on the timeline of that review? Would it still be ongoing by the time — past either the inauguration of a second Biden term or otherwise?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I want to be careful on commenting on everything that the candidate — because he is a candidate —

Q Right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — Donald Trump says.

I think, as it relates to the review, I don’t have a timeline for you. It’s ongoing. I just don’t — I can’t say much more — much more than that.

Q I have a question on Venezuela, Karine. It’s actually for Kirby before he escaped. Can you confirm that the U.S. government is holding back delivery — no, sorry, that’s not it. (Laughter.)

Can you confirm reporting of a years-long U.S. operation sending undercov- — undercover operatives into Venezuela to build drug-trafficking cases against the country’s leadership? This just came out today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I don’t have anything to share on that at this time. Obviously, we can look into it.

Q Can you have the answer to — a follow-up —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Yeah, we’ll get that answer and follow up with you.

Q And then just one more (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Can you confirm that the U.S. government is holding back delivery of 31 SeaGuardian and SkyGuardian drones to India until they carry out a meaningful investigation into the conspiracy to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t have anything to say on that. I can’t confirm —

Q Karine, yesterday, President Trump met with the Teamsters. We understand that the union has also extended an invite to President Biden. Is he confident he’s going to win that endorsement? When is that meeting coming through? Is he — is he talking to the Teamsters leadership? I would imagine there are a lot of conversations underway —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I want to be really careful about talking about any endorsement. That’s something that the campaign can speak to.

Oh, we are being told to sit down. We’re about to land.

So, I don’t want to speak to — to that. That is something that I would —

Q When is the meeting? When is he meeting?

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

Q Karine, really fast — there’s a poll out where Americans are viewing the economy in a much more favorable light, but they’re not attributing it to any of the President’s policies. I mean, I don’t know what’s — what to say.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, the consumer confidence is going up. That’s really important. And it’s because of what the President has done. Bidenomics is — is working. Unemployment is under 4 percent. Fourteen million jobs. He’s going to continue to lowering cost.

And so, we know — economists have said — it takes a long time to make that connection.

But consumer — consumer confidence is up, and that’s what matters and that’s what we want to continue to see.

All right, guys (inaudible).

Q Thank you, Karine.

1:54 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby En Route Detroit, MI appeared first on The White House.

National Security Council
Via Teleconference

10:27 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Good morning, and thanks for joining today’s call on measures to address actions that undermine peace, security, and stability in the West Bank.
 
As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and it is embargoed until noon today.
 
For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the call today we have [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].  They’ll have a few words at the top, and then we’ll turn it over to Q&A.
 
[Senior administration official], I’ll turn it over to you to kick us off. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, everybody.  I will — let me give a topper on this, and then I’ll turn it over to my colleague for a little more detail on the executive order that will be issued today.
 
So, President Biden has been clear that the United States strongly supports Israel’s right to defend itself following the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred October 7th and in its effort to defeat Hamas and to make sure that we can never, ever again see a day like October 7th.
 
And we are taking a holistic approach to this entire crisis, not just in Gaza, but the larger context — Israel, Gaza, West Bank, and the larger region.
 
I think the President spoke to this today at the prayer breakfast, if you look at his remarks, about actively working for peace, security, dignity for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people, and an enduring peace.  What he is working on every single day — an enduring peace, which ultimately includes two states for two peoples.
 
So the steps we’ve taken include — one of the tools include financial sanctions.  So this includes taking steps to cut off Hamas’s access to international financial systems.  And since October 7th, of course, we have issued, I think, five rounds of sanctions against Hamas, including the most recent round of sanctions against Hamas just last week.
 
The President has also spoken about his concern repeatedly and consistently, publicly and also in almost every diplomatic conversation he has with Israeli leaders, about the rise in violence that we have seen in the West Bank from extremist actors. 
 
And these actions pose a grave threat to peace, security, stability in the West Bank, Israel, and the Middle East region.  And they also obstruct the realization of, ultimately, an independent Palestinian state existing side by side with the State of Israel, and by extension, the enduring peace and stability for Palestinians and Israelis alike, which, again, the President spoke to just this morning. 
 
The President has raised these issues, again, repeatedly, consistently, not only with Prime Minister Netanyahu but including on his visit to Israel at the beginning of the crisis, and regularly, including in his visit to Israel and to Bethlehem in the summer of 2022. 
 
And senior administration officials are engaged in this daily and regularly, including our team on the ground.  And General Mike Fenzel, who’s the head of our U.S. security — our U.S. security coordinator. 
 
So, in November, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan issued a cabinet memo, and he directed departments and agencies to take appropriate action and to develop policy options for further action against the actors responsible for this conduct and violence in the West Bank. 
 
And in December, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced visa restrictions on individuals contributing to actions that undermine peace, security, and stability in the West Bank. 
 
So, following on these measures, today President Biden is signing a new executive order to implement a set of new measures to address actions that undermine peace, stability — security, stability in the West Bank. 
 
And under this new EO, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with one another, have the ability to sanction foreign nationals engaged in actions that include the directing or participating in acts or threats of violence against civilians, intimidating civilians to cause them to leave their homes, destroying or seizing property, and acts of terrorism.
 
These actions include, as I mentioned, directing or participating in acts of or threats of violence against civilians; intimidation; destroying, seizing property; or terrorism. 
 
And today, I think we’ll kind of — and I’ll describe in general terms what you’ll see later today — but the State Department will be announcing an initial set of designations under this new EO.  And these designations include individuals that have directly perpetrated violence and those who have engaged in repeated acts of intimidation, property destruction, leading to the forced displacement of Palestinian communities. 
 
I would just emphasize also this EO is non-discriminatory.  It applies to Israelis and Palestinians alike.  It applies to foreign nationals and those who are engaged in acts of violence on the West Bank and undermining stability there.  And of course, we continue to go after, through sanctions and other means, designated terrorist groups, whether Gaza, the West Bank, or throughout the region.
 
So just to kind of put a little bit of a descriptive nature of the types of activities that we’re talking about here:
 
Later today, the State Department will issue the initial round of designations under this new EO.  And without getting into names, the types of activities — for example, one individual initiated and led a riot, which involves setting vehicles and buildings on fire, assaulting civilians, causing damage to property, which resulted actually, in that incident, in the death of a Palestinian civilian. 
 
Another individual assaulting farmers and as well as Israeli activists.  Direct attacks with stones and clubs, resulting in injuries that required medical treatment.
 
Another — just, again, descriptive nature — attempted to break in windows of passing vehicles, blocking roads, intimidation, all of which are — some of these activities recorded with video evidence.  And actually, some of these individuals have been prosecuted in the Israeli system.
 
Just finally, assaulting Palestinian Bedouin civilians, threatening with additional violence if they not leave their homes; burning fields; destroying property. 
 
Those are the types of activities that this EO covers.  And I think when the individuals with the descriptions are announced later today, I think you’ll see that in plain black and white. 
 
So that’s what we’re talking about here.  Again, this is very consistent with the policies that we’ve laid out for some time, and builds on the cabinet memo that Jake issued last fall and then the action from Secretary Blinken regarding visa restrictions for certain types of destabilizing activities in the West Bank. 
 
And with that, why don’t I turn it over to [senior administration official] to say a little bit more about the EO and some of the sanctions that it covers, and then we can open up to questions.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks.  And I think you’ve done a great job of outlining, so I’ll be very brief. 
 
But just to underscore again that, today, President Biden is signing a new executive order which implements a new set of measures to address actions that undermine peace, security, and stability in the West Bank.
 
The EO, in effect, blocks all property and interests [in property] of any person designated under this EO.  And as [senior administration official] emphasized, we will be rolling out an initial set of designations today.  So all property and interests in property in the United States of those individuals will be blocked. 
 
It will also prohibit U.S. persons making any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any of these persons, and the receipt or any contribution of provision of funds, goods, or services from those persons. 
 
So that is a standard set of full blocking financial sanctions.  Additionally, the entry of the designated individuals under this EO will be blocked from the United States. 
 
So it is a traditional financial sanctions EO.  The consequences will be to remove the individuals from access to the U.S. financial system and block any assets that are within the United States and within our jurisdiction.
 
I will pause here and allow time for questions.  But again, to emphasize, I think this is an important step to directly address the threats to U.S. national security and regional security arising from extremist violence in the West Bank, and underscores the extent to which the administration takes this threat seriously.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you both.  We’ll now turn to questions.  You can queue up by using the “Raise Your Hand” function on Zoom.
 
Our first question will go to Mike Shear.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey, guys.  Thank you.  Two quick questions just on how this works.  One, when it comes to property, what does “blocking” mean?  Does that mean that — I mean, I understand what it means for cash in an account, but in terms of physical property.
 
And can you give us some sense of the magnitude of the number of people and entities being sanctioned?  Are we talking, in this first round, like a dozen, or are we talking scores?  Or is there some way we can give a little bit of a sense of scale?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The second question, I’ll take briefly.  So, the first — there’ll be four names announced later today.
 
And on the blocking and implementation, I’ll turn it to [senior administration official].
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks, Mike.  And thanks, [senior administration official]. 
 
On the blocking — so this is a traditional and ordinary financial sanction.  The individuals who are named under this EO will be added to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. 
 
The way that blocking works is that all U.S. persons and all persons within our jurisdiction or transiting the jurisdiction are directed to block — and another form of — phrase that people will use is “freeze” — any interest in property.  That can include any — the physical property being managed; it can include financial assets. 
 
But it is a sanction that is analogous to our many other sanctions programs and includes a full freezing of a U.S. person’s ability to transact.  And any U.S. person in possession of or managing property or assets on behalf of one of these persons will need to follow OFAC regulations around how to treat that property and to ensure that it is blocked within the United States.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Tamara Keith.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi.  Thank you so much for taking my question.  Not to go in a slightly different direction, but I will. 
 
[Senior administration official], I know that you are involved in the talks to secure a ceasefire or extended pause and the release of hostages.  And I am wondering if you can give us an update on how it’s going, how soon something might come through, and how Prime Minister Netanyahu’s public rhetoric might be affecting those talks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thanks.  I won’t say too much about that other than I think the President spoke to this at the prayer breakfast this morning.  We are working this every single day to get the hostages home. 
 
Again, just to give you a sense of the pace: I was in the region last week, in Cairo and Doha.  Bill had the meeting in Paris, which was reported in the media.  We had Sheikh Mohammed, the Qatari prime minister, here on Monday.  Jake and I met with the families of the hostages later that day.  Yesterday, spent a couple hours with Ron Dermer, who’s in town, on this and other issues. 
 
So we are doing all we possibly can to get the hostages out of Gaza.  And that comes through an arrangement that would also lead to a significant humanitarian pause.  And so, there is a kind of framework for that.  There’s an active negotiation.  We continue to work it every day. 
 
I do not want to get into, kind of, the state of play beyond that, other than we are doing all we possibly can to try to facilitate this arrangement as we did back in November, with the recognition that this deal is, of course, much broader — broader in scope.  That makes it, on the one hand, more promising.  The idea is to get all the hostages out.  It also makes it, of course, more complicated because there are a number of elements. 
 
But we are just actively engaged on this.  Secretary Blinken is heading out to the region again next week.  And it really is a top priority as, I think, again, the President alluded to today in his remarks at the prayer breakfast.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jacob Magid.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  Couple questions.  How does this — American citizens, who are highly represented in the West Bank, can they be covered through these actions?  Or does it have to be something else, given that they already — they don’t need a visa, for example? 
 
And then, I just wanted to get a clarification on the difference between this action and then the one announced with the visa restrictions, because this also is a visa restriction.  Was that announcement just, like, this is something we’re going to do, or were there visa restrictions that were made already a couple months ago in addition to that?  So just a clarification between those two.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, American citizens are not the intended target of this EO.  The measure is focused on foreign nationals — foreign nationals, again, engaged in actions that threaten peace, security, stability of the West Bank.  And it is not linked to the visa restriction.  It is really additive and just another tool following on the cabinet memo that Jake issued in the fall. 
 
But maybe I can turn it over to my colleague for addition.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  Yeah, just to clarify, I think there were — and to underscore what [senior administration official] just said — we did issue visa restrictions, as we had announced in December, as part of our ongoing efforts to counter extremist violence in the West Bank.  Those were issued under a separate State Department authority, which provides for visa restrictions, although the names of individuals under those visa restrictions are withheld and kept private. 
 
This sanctions action, like other full blocking sanctions programs that we have in other situations that threaten U.S. national security around the world, includes both financial sanctions — so, additional financial sanctions and a visa restriction, and that visa restriction is public as well.  So there’s a slight distinction.  It is complementary to and additive to the actions that we have already taken too.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Karen DeYoung.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi.  Thank you.  I wondered if you could explain how you determine responsibility for incidents.  I mean, do you have people on the ground?  Do you get it from the Israelis?  The U.N. has recorded, I think, almost 500 settler attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank since October 7th.  They listed 370 people killed.  How do you determine these names and convince yourself of responsibility?
 
And secondly, do you count things like, for example, this American teenager who was killed?  Or do you wait for the Israelis to tell you who was responsible?
 
Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Maybe I can take that one.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, go ahead.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, so we have a process, as we do for all of our sanctions, that requires us to build evidentiary packages that would pass judicial review.  That means that we look for — for each sanctions designation, it requires multiple forms of evidence and to ensure that that evidence can be corroborated from both credible sources.  That evidence can include information from public reporting, information that has been passed from court documents or convictions in foreign states.  It can also include intelligence reporting.  But it must have multiple well-documented pieces of credible information before designating any individual. 
 
And all of our sanctions are subject to a very robust legal review process to ensure that we do have designation packages that stand up to judicial review. 
 
Like other sanctions programs, we intend to continue to pursue actions under this EO, and we’ll continue to scrutinize evidence of actions that would fall under the conduct.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ve got time for two more questions.  Our next question will go to Zeke Miller.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  Can you let us know whether this was in any way briefed or reported to the Israeli government?  I know Dermer was in town yesterday meeting with Jake.
 
And then separately, what are the impacts of these sanctions on — maybe let’s start with these four sanctioned individuals today.  What are they going to lose access to?  How does it affect Americans — to (inaudible) question — Americans who live in the West Bank, you know, transacting business with these individuals in the West Bank, with the Israeli government supply, or American NGOs or nonprofits that have supported settlers?  What’s the impact — real-world impact going to be for those individuals?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  [Senior administration official], do you want to take the one on the government of Israel?  And then I’ll take the second question.
 
MODERATOR:  I think we’ve lost audio there.  So, [senior administration official], if you want to take that second question first, then we can circle back to [senior administration official].
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  Great.  So I think in terms of the practical implications of these sanctions, like other sanctions, these are designed to deny individuals access to the U.S. financial system.  They are designed to ensure that these individuals, if they have property within the United States — if they, for example, had a savings account or were transacting, making payments through the U.S. financial system, those funds would be frozen and blocked, so not returned to them but instead held pending any lifting of the designation due to them changing behavior.  It would also prohibit U.S. persons, unless otherwise authorized via the licenses that can be issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, from making contributions, from providing services to these persons. 
 
So it does, like other financial sanctions that we impose, absent a specific license — and we are able to issue licenses to make sure that our sanctions have the desired effect without having unintended consequences — these individuals would be prohibited from making financial transactions with, from receiving contributions from, or receiving services from U.S. citizens anywhere in the world. 
 
OFAC has a robust licensing program to be able to work through any issues that that would cause.  And we’ll be issuing standard general licenses this morning to make sure that this does not, for example, impede the ability of organizations to conduct humanitarian work, the U.S. government to continue to conduct its work in the West Bank and elsewhere. 
 
But the immediate impact is to restrict these individuals’ access to the U.S. financial system and also restrict their ability to receive services, including financial services, from U.S. persons.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, guys, I’m back.  I dropped for a couple of minutes.  Sorry.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think there was a question about whether we had notified the government of Israel.  Did you want to take that one?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, we have.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our last question will go to Yuna.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi, thank you.  Thank you for this.  My first question is just a clarification.  When this is published at noon, will we know the names of the individuals that are sanctioned?  That is one.
 
Second, you said that the Israeli government was notified.  Was it notified on the level of a prime minister?  Was it notified — also the last question — while Dermer was in town in D.C.?
 
And the last one: Was part of it was considered sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich?  On what exactly basis were they considered to also being sanctioned?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, we did a very — we did a regular notification to the Israeli government, to senior officials of the Israeli government, both from Washington and from Ambassador Lew.
 
I know your second question that has been — I’ve seen that reported anywhere.  That’s just wrong.  That is not something that is currently under contemplation.
 
And the — I don’t know when the names will come out.  I think the EO at noon.  The four names I think come out a little bit later.  [Senior administration official], do you want to confirm that?  From State.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The names will be issued at noon as well.  So the State Department — the designations will be — under this EO, either the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the other, can issue designations.  And these designations will be issued by the Department of State at noon, contemporaneously with the EO being posted, as well as the broader rollout. 
 
So you will have the names.  State Department will have — as is normally in these sanctions programs, you will have a full press release with the names and the details of the rationale for the designation and the conduct that we are designating the individuals for, at noon.
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you both.  This is all the time that we have.
 
As a reminder, this call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials.  And it is embargoed until noon Eastern.  Thanks again for joining.
 
10:50 A.M. EST

The post Background Press Call On Upcoming Measures to Address Actions That Undermine Peace, Security, and Stability in the West Bank appeared first on The White House.