Press Briefings

1:28 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon.  Hello. 

Hi.  I have a few things at the top before we get started.

As the Presi- — as the President and his team continue working to deliver a historic bipartisan agreement on the border, House Republicans have a choice to make: They can keep playing po- — politics or they can work in a bipartisan way to secure the border.

Sadly, this is not new.  For years, they have refused to heed the President’s requests for action on much-needed funding for border security. 

For example, in the bill the President introduced in his first day in office, more than a thousand days ago, he requested funding to develop and deploy exped- — expediting screening technology to improve our ability to catch narcotics and contraband at every port of entry.  Republicans never acted on the bill. 

Each year in office, President Biden has requested record-breaking border security funding into law.  But without exception, House Republicans have tried to stop the President from delivering the resources we need at the border.

As recently as October, President Biden submitted a supplemental request for additional resources for border security; House Republicans did not take it up. 

Now House Republicans are going further and signaling that they may refuse even to consider a historic bipartisan border security deal that would strengthen America’s national security.  

Perhaps Speaker Johnson and House Republicans should reflect on what they’ve had to say over just the past few months. 

In October, Speaker Johnson said, “We must come together and address the broken border.”  And in November he said, “I think we can get a bipartisan agreement” on “border security.”

But suddenly, we’ve heard a change of tune.  One Republican member from Texas even said, why would they do anything to help President Biden? 

This is about helping the President — this is about helping the American people.  It’s not about helping the President.  It’s about the American people.  This is about securing the border. 

Republicans in the Senate are working with us to do just that.  Republicans in the House should as well.  

Look no further than their effort to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, an impeachment that even conservatives say is unconstitutional. 

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board said, “Grandstanding is easier than governing, and Republicans have to decide whether to accomplish anything other than impeaching Democrats.  Impeaching him accomplishes nothing beyond political symbolism.  A better idea is to strike a deal with Mr. Biden on serious border security reforms.”  That’s from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. 

Former President Trump — Trump’s own impeachment lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, urged Republicans to vote no.

House Republicans’ own impeachment witness, Jonathan Turley, said there is no basis for impeachment. 

And former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served in Bush administration, said House Republicans should “drop this impeachment charade and work with Mr. Mayorkas to deliver for the American people.” 

Members of the House Republican Conference have said this is baseless.  Congressman Ken Buck said, “Secretary Mayorkas did not commit an impeachable offense.”  And Congressman Tom McClintick — McClintock said, “These are not impeachable offenses.”

So, our challenge to House Republicans is this: Will you go against the very voices you typically listen to play a dangerous, unconstitutional game, or will you listen to what many of you yourselves have — have been saying?  Come to the table, work on a bipartisan border security solutions, finally fund our needs at the border, and actually tackle the problem instead of playing politics with it.

So, this is not about politics.  This is about bipartisan solutions to help the American people and secure the border. 

We hope, for the sake of the country, House Republicans challen- — change course from their years of playing politics with this issue.

So, now , yesterday, a new IMF report found that the United States is leading the global economic recovery.  As Axios put it, the U.S. is winning the world economic war.  The United States economy grew faster than any other large, advanced econo- — economy last year by a wide margin and is on track to do so again in 2024.

And the Washington Post wrote earlier this week, “Falling inflation, rising growth give U.S. the world’s best recovery.”  That’s thanks to strong actions taken by this President to recover from the pandemic and invest in America. 

And yesterday, we got new evidence Americans are seeing the results, with consumer confidence at the highest level in more than two years and inflation expectations falling to the lowest level since the start of the pandemic.

And before I turn it over to my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, as you all know, this Friday, the President and the First Lady are honored to attend the dignified transfer of the three U.S. Army soldiers we lost in Jordan.

As the President said, these service members represented the very, very best of our nation. 

The President spoke to each of the families yesterday to offer his heartfelt condolences, and he and the First Lady will have an opportunity to meet with them in person in Dover on Friday.

As the Pentagon announced yesterday, the President and the First Lady will be joined by Secretary of Defense.

And so, with that, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.  Just very briefly here at the top, I just want to note that the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, had a chance to meet today with the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer, while he was here in town. 

They, of course, discussed the situation on the ground in Gaza; also had an opportunity to talk about continued efforts to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance in to the people of Gaza.  And, of course, they talked about our ongoing collective efforts to get all the hostages released, get them back home with their families where they belong.  And those negotiations and discussions are — are certainly ongoing right now.

Now, this meeting comes on the heels of Jake’s meeting yesterday with the families of the American hostages and his discussion yesterday as well with the Amir of Qatar, Sheikh Al-Thani, again, all really around trying to see what we can do to — to get another deal in place, another pause in place to get those hostages back with their families.

And with that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, Aamer.

Q    Admiral, I want to make sure I get this right — Iran’s ambassador to the U.N. warned today that Iran, quote, “would decisively respond to any attack on the country, its interests, and nationals under any pretext.”  One, do you have any reaction to that warning? 

And, two, more specifically, could that be read as a tacit acknowledgement by Iran that the U.S. can keep the Mid-East conflict from expanding if President Biden shows restraint in his response that may be forthcoming?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, the folks that need to show restraint are these groups that Iran backs.  But nevertheless, I would just say a couple of things.

  First of all, as we’ve said many times, we don’t seek a war with Iran.  We’re not looking for a broader conflict.  We’re not looking for a war with Iran.  That’s number one. 

Number two, we have obligations in the region, including those to our troops and our facilities.  And now, as Karine reminded everybody, those attacks have taken the lives of three of them.  We will have to do — we will do what we need to do to make sure that — that those responsible are held properly accountable. 

Q    Is there attribution yet of who — which militant group or groups were behind this?

MR. KIRBY:  We believe that the — the attack in Jordan was — was planned, resourced, and facilitated by an umbrella group called the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which contains multiple groups, including Kata’ib Hezbollah. 

Q    And was KH the principal behind it?  They seem to have the fingerprints of this sort of precise attack.

MR. KIRBY:  As I said, I mean, this certainly has the earmarks of the kinds of things that Kata’ib Hezbollah does. 

But, again, for our purposes today and the question you’re asking, the attribution that — that our intelligence community is comfortable with is that this was done by the umbrella group called the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thank you.  John, can you tell us more about the latest hostage proposal that is supported by the U.S. and the Qataris?  The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. said today that it — it envisions a much longer humanitarian pause than we saw back in November, plus more food and water and medicine.  What details can you tell us?

MR. KIRBY:  Not a lot.  And that’s on purpose, because I don’t want to say anything from the podium that could torpedo these very sensitive discussions.  Nothing is negotiated until everything is negotiated, and not everything is fully negotiated at this point, Nancy.

I will tell you that, in broad strokes, we are looking at an extended pause is the goal.  How long?  That’s all part of the discussions, but longer than what we saw in November, which was about a week. 

We’d like to see a longer pause than that not just because that helps facilitate the movement of so many more hostages out — you can get more people out if there’s a longer cease in the — a longer stoppage in the fighting — but so it can also give us an opportunity to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance in.

Q    We’ve heard 45 days.  Does that sound about right?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to talk about the details.

Q    And can you talk also about — it’s been shared that this would be a multistage process where civilian women, the elderly would come out first, then, perhaps, soldiers, corpses after that.  What can you tell us about the notion of a multistage process and why that would be preferable?

MR. KIRBY:  The goal of an extended-level pause is so that you can get the maximum amount of hostages out.  The modalities of that — should we be able to get this in place — of who’s coming out when and in what sequence is all part of the discussions right now.  So, I’m just not going to get into that.

Q    Well, how has Hamas responded, if at all, to this latest proposal?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just tell you that the discussions that we’ve been having and will — and are continuing to have have been constructive.  They’ve been — we believe they’re moving in the right direction. 

But, again, I — I don’t want to — I don’t want to come across as too sanguine here.  And I certainly don’t want to get into the actual details of it.  And I — I hope you all can understand that.  I mean, the last thing that I’d want to do is say something up — from here that all of a sudden gets inserted into the negotiations and becomes a sticking point. 

We want to see this deal in place.  We want to see it in place as soon as possible.  These families are grieving, and they — they want to see their loved ones again.  And we want to see if we can facilitate that.  But — but obviously, you know, we’re mindful of time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  It has been three days since the attack in Jordan that killed three service members.  The President said yesterday that he had decided how to respond, but we haven’t seen any public action — you know, at least publicly, we haven’t seen any action.  So, with every day that passes and no response, are you missing an opportunity to signal resolve?

MR. KIRBY:  I think we’ve signaled resolve pretty well.  And as I said the other day, we’ll respond on our own time, on our own schedule.  And — and we’ll do that.

And I would — I would also caution you not to — not to think that the first thing you see — you talked about publicly seeing not — the first thing you see won’t be the last thing.

Q    Can you confidently say that Iranian-backed forces have not begun moving assets out of the region in anticipation of a possible retaliatory strike?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re monitoring as best we can.  I’m not going to speak about what the intelligence assessments tell us.  But — well, I’ll just say that we’re confident in the planning.  And we’re confident in the — in the response that —

Q    Is it possible that —

MR. KIRBY:  — we’re primed to undertake.

Q    — we’re moving assets out of the region as they’re getting ready for the U.S. to respond?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to talk about intelligence assessments. 

As the President said, we’re going to respond.  And we’ll — we’ll respond in an appropriate way.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q    Admiral, can you give us a little understanding of the process?  When the President said “yes,” very definitively, he’d made a decision, and yet we know there’s still ongoing work related to the attribution and assessment of potential targets and those sorts of things.  Is it a multipart decision process for the President?  Or is the “yes” he gave already put into, kind of, the action that the Pentagon would need to go forward?  Or would he come back and review the specific targets and that kind — can you shed any light on that longer process?

MR. KIRBY:  Just in — in terms of process, the — the — his decision to move forward was based on discussions that he had with his national security team over the previous three days, including yesterday.

And when you’re talking about what we’re anticipating here, which won’t just be a one-off — as I said, the first thing you see will not be the last thing — there’s a lot of moving pieces in that in terms of what you’re going to choose to go after and what you’re electing not to go after and why.  And — and he asks all those questions.  He did that in this case.

But it’s a — it’s an iterative process.  And I would fully expect, Kelly, that because, as I said, this — this will be a response over time, you should expect that the President will continue to weigh options ahead of him, continue to ask tough questions, continue to talk to his national security team as things go forward. 

Q    And does he want this to be a U.S.-only response, or would he welcome military action from partners who’ve been a part of some of the other work in the region?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re — we’re focusing on a U.S. response.  They killed American troops.

Q    When the Kata’ib Hezbollah says that they will suspend the attacks on U.S. forces, do you believe them?  Would that spare them retaliatory strikes?

MR. KIRBY:  I’d say a couple of things.  Number one, you can’t take what a group like Kata’ib Hezbollah says at face value.  Number two, as I said in my answer to Aamer, they’re not the only group that has been attacking us.  And they’re certainly not the only group that is a participant in this Islamic Resistance of Iraq. 

So, they’re not the — they’re not the — the sole proprietors here of the violence that had been — has been visited on our — on our people. 

And number three, back to that point, there are three families that are going through the worst possible grief right now.  And let me tell you something.  The — Karine talked about Dover.  That’s — that’s a tough day.  That is a tough day.  They killed American soldiers.  And I’d leave it at that. 

Q    And just secondly, John, the Ron Dermer meeting, did Jake ask him about post-conflict Gaza, and do you have a better sense of how long this conflict is going to last?

MR. KIRBY:  I couldn’t tell you how long it’s going to last.  The Israelis have spoken about this themselves, that this could go on for months.  I’ll let them speak to their operations and where they see it — it going. 

We obviously want to see this conflict end.  And — and certainly, we’d like to all see it end as soon as possible, but it has to end in a way that doesn’t imperil the Israeli people from the threat of Hamas, which is right next door.  So, we’re going to continue to support them in their efforts to do that. 

As for the discussion with Mr. Dermer, I know that was focused on humanitarian assistance, on the hostages specifically, and the general situation in Gaza.  I don’t have more detail than that. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    I just wanted to clarify Kelly’s last question.  The U.S.’s response, whenever it happens, it will be unilateral.  It would not be, sort of, the joint exercise we saw with the Houthi assets earlier this month? 

MR. KIRBY:  That’s our expectation. 

Q    Okay.  Does the President believe, John, that it is important for the U.S. to strike back immediately and quickly following the deaths of the three U.S. service members?

MR. KIRBY:  The President believes that it is important to respond in an appropriate way now that three American soldiers have been killed.  And what’s appropriate?  Well, you know, it depends on what your — what your response is going to look like and what you’re going to go after. 

And as I said earlier, we will respond in a time and in a manner of our choosing on our schedule.  And just because you haven’t seen anything in the last 48 hours, that doesn’t mean that you’re not going to see anything. 

And as I said earlier, when you see the first thing, don’t come to be thinking that that’s going to be the last thing.

Q    Is the President open to maybe holding off on whatever strikes may come to give time and sta- — space for the ongoing hostage negotiations to continue moving in the right direction?  Is — is that a consideration at all?

MR. KIRBY:  As I said a few days ago, there should be no impact — we — there’s no reason why what we’re trying to do in terms of getting hostages out and what we have to do to respond appropriately to this latest attack in Jordan to be affe- — for one to affect the other.  So, we are going to respond.  We are also going to continue to work on trying to get the hostages out.  Both can be done.  Absolutely, both can be done.

Q    Well, it could certainly be a complicating factor, though, right? 

MR. KIRBY:  As if it’s not complicated already, M.J.  I mean, this is hard work.  This is hard diplomatic work that’s going into trying to get those hostages out.  It’s hard. 

But that doesn’t mean that you — that you put on — you put the brakes on that because you feel you have to respond, which we do.  And it doesn’t mean that you don’t respond to the attacks in Jordan because this diplomatic work is — is still going to remain difficult ahead of us.  We — we can and we will do both.

Q    So, you’re saying the hostage negotiations, that those are not a factor in the President’s thinking and deliberations over how to strike back — that those two things are totally separate in his mind? 

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think I’m going to parse out the President’s decision-making process here.  I think, though, I — hopefully, I’ve adequately answered the question: We’re going to respond to the killing of our three soldiers.  He’s already — he told you that yesterday.  He’s made his decision.  There will be a response. 

We are also going to continue to have the conversations that are needed.  And they have been good.  They’ve been — there have been — it has moved in a constructive way. 

And, again, we’re not — nobody is doing a touchdown dance here.  We got a long way to go.  But we still think that there’s — there’s real significant ability here to — possibility to get an extended pause in place to get these hostages out. 

Q    And can I just quickly get your read on Kata’ib Hezbollah’s statement yesterday saying that they would suspend military and security operations against U.S. forces?  What was the administration’s read on that statement?

MR. KIRBY:  I think, as I said to Steve, we — we certainly read it, but we’re not going to take it at face value.  And we recognize that they’re not the only group that has been attacking our troops and our facilities in Iraq and Syria. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ken.

Q    John, just — separate the topic.  The FBI Director was on the Hill today.  He said Chinese hackers are preparing to wreak havoc and target critical U.S. infrastructure.  Has the ad- — administration seen any evidence that critical infrastructure could be compromised?  And what are you doing to strengthen those systems?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just tell you that this is something we’re moni- — we monitor very closely all the time, and we take all these threats seriously.  You have to, each and every day.  There’s not a day where we’re not taking a look at cybersecurity, particularly when it comes to critical infrastructure.  And I think that’s as far as I’m going to go on that. 

Q    And Jake met with the Chinese Foreign Minister recently in — in Bangkok.  Did that issue come up at all?  Did he bring up cyber in their discussions?
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into the specifics of the conversation.  This was a follow-up to the meeting out in San Francisco between President Xi, Pre- — President Biden and really meant to look at the ways in which both our countries are meeting the commitments coming out of that discussion, including the work on counternarcotics; the military-to-military communications, restoration of that; and a whole range of other issues, including cross-Strait tensions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, do you have confidence that the Kenyan government has satisfied the requirements from the Kenyan Supreme Court outlined for this multilateral force to be sent to Haiti?  And if not, what is your plan B?  Obviously, the U.S. has been pushing for this multilateral force to be led by the Kenyans for some time, and the U.N. Security Council resolution was predicated on their leadership.  So, do you have a plan B if that doesn’t work out?

MR. KIRBY:  We were very grateful that Kenya had agreed to step up to lead that multinational security effort.  I’ll let the Kenyans speak to where they are in the judicial process.  That’s really not for us to speak to.  We’re grateful that they had stepped up and volunteered to do that.

We still believe that that kind of multinational security presence in Haiti is important.  We’d still like to see it move forward.  And we’re — we’re obviously watching closely what happens in Kenya, but it’s really for the Kenyans to speak to.

It won’t change — regardless of how this comes out, won’t change our central position that we believe some sort of multinational security force presence on the ground is important for the people of Haiti.  I mean, they still are suffering the violence of these criminal gangs and thugs and organizations that are just literally making life almost impossible for the people of Haiti. 

So, we — we still believe that’s important.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Cristina.

Q    Thank you.  Admiral, given the Chinese hacking warning, can the American people be — feel a confidence in the electoral system?

MR. KIRBY:  What I can assure the American people of is that we take cybersecurity extremely seriously.  We put a new strategy out just last year — a cybersecurity strategy.  We — we are always mindful of the threats to critical infrastructure. 

And one of the things the President believes is critical infrastructure is, of course, the — the free and fair election process here in the United States and making sure that — that that can — that can occur.  We — we were able to do that in 2022. 

The President is confident that the national security team, the folks over at Cyber Command are all taking this as seriously as they — and the intelligence community is taking this as seriously as possible and that we will be able to ensure that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thank you so much, John.  I’ve got a question on Turkey and another one on Venezuela.  Just starting with Turkey, we’re seeking an update on their possible return to the F-35 program once or if they scrap their Russian defense missile system.  But I just wanted to ask you, you know, what this process would look like, would sanctions needed to be lifted.  And what does the White House want here? 

MR. KIRBY:  There’s no change to our view that the F-35 program for Turkey is incompatible with their use of the S-300 and S-400 missiles.  So, we’re still having those discussions.  And should Turkey be able to resolve our concerns about that, then there could be a restoration of — of moving into the F-35 program.  But — but that’s — that’s where we are.  There’s no change in that.

Q    On Venezuela.  Their leadership now says they’ll suspend U.S.-Venezuela repatriation because of the U.S. threat of sanctions that you outlined on Monday. 

Sorry, I was just trying to catch your eye. 

How does the White House —

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m listening.  I’m — I’m listening.

Q    Just texting somebody?  (Laughter.)

MR. KIRBY:  No, no. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.) 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  I’m taking notes so that I don’t screw this up.  (Laughter.)

Q    — see that affecting movement on the southern border, and what are you doing to prepare for that possible challenge?

MR. KIRBY:  So, I really don’t have much more to give you today than what I gave you the other day.  They made — the Maduro regime made commitments back in the fall about what they were going to do to allow free and fair elections and allow for the active participation of opposition parties.  They have until the spring to move forward on those commitments, and we’re going to be watching that closely. 

I’m not going to preview any economic levers at this point.  We’re looking for the Maduro regime to step up and meet the commitments that it made in October.

Q    So, the President will host the Japanese Prime Minister Kishida for the (inaudible) on April the 10th.  It’s still January, but what should we expect from the meeting?  And speaking with Japan, Japanese company Nippon Steel offered to buy U.S. Steel last December.  I know the President always welcome the investment from the foreign countries.  So, what is the President’s opinion on this offer?

MR. KIRBY:  So, the President is looking forward very much to having Prime Minister Kishida here.  Japan, as you know, a terrific ally and great friend not just in the region, but the effect that they have around the world.  So, there’s going to be a lot on the agenda. 

It is January, and the — the state visit is in April.  I have no doubt that you’ll hear more from us in greater detail as we get closer to it.

But, look, tensions in the Indo-Pacific; opportunities to improve our alliance, the capabilities; opportunities to improve trilateral cooperation with South Korea, Japan, and the United States together — there’s going to be a lot to talk about. 

I don’t have anything new to say about this U.S. Steel potential purchase.  That would be inappropriate for me at this time.  But I would just tell you that the President is the most pro-union president we’ve had.  He absolutely wants to make sure that there’s a level, fair playing field for steelworkers in this country.  That will always be foremost in his mind.  That’s about as far as I think I can go.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aurelia.

Q    Thank you so much.  I will have a question on Ukraine.  So, the E.U. said today that they would only be able to supply half of the million artillery rounds that they had pledged for Ukraine.  And this comes at a time when U.S. assistance has stopped.  So, how bad is all this for the Ukrainian forces?  And do you see an impact on the battlefield already?

MR. KIRBY:  It sure as heck ain’t good.  And this is why we need the supplemental funding.  It’s critical.  And artillery rounds are one of the most expended munitions on the battlefield — continue to be.  It’s absolutely critical that we get this funding for Ukraine so that we can get back to leading the world in supporting Ukraine and their ability to defend themselves.

So, I can’t speak for the European Union or other European nations.  I — but I — I have said in the past that — that other nations will be looking to us for our leadership.  They will be looking to us for decisions and certainty about what support for Ukraine is going to look like going forward.  It’s absolutely vital we get that funding.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  A couple more.  Go ahead, Andrew.

Q    Thank you.  Admiral, right now, obviously the U.S. is contemplating retaliatory strikes that could be in Iraq or in and around Iran or other countries.  U.S. and British planes have hit targets in Yemen.  U.S. forces have come under attack in multiple countries in recent weeks.  All these are part of the same larger conflict.  At what point would the administration consider this to be at least a small regional war?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I absolutely don’t agree with your description of a “same larger conflict.”  There’s a conflict going on between Israel and Hamas. 

Q    I didn’t even mention that one.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m mentioning it.  And we’re going to make sure that we continue to get Israel the support that they need to defend themselves against a still viable threat. 

We were being — there were attacks against our — our troops and facilities in Iraq and Syr- — Syria well before the 7th of October — certainly in the last administration as well. 

And as for the Houthis, they can claim all they want that this is linked to Gaza, but two thirds of the ships that they’re hitting have no connection to Israel whatsoever.  So, it’s just not true.  It’s a falsehood. 

And we’re going to continue to do what we have to do to protect that shipping.  And as we did just today, if we see an opportunity to prevent a missile from getting launched, we’ll take it out.  We’ll do what we have to do. 

Q    And on the subject of Gaza.  Officials with the World Health Organization, the U.N. World Food Program, and UNICEF are all warning that the humanitarian situation there is quickly approaching the point of being a famine and that the decision by the U.S. and other countries to pull UNRWA funding will make the problem even worse because of UNRWA’s unique capabilities in Gaza.  Does the White House share these concerns?  And what’s the administration prepared to do to fill any gap in aid to Gaza caused by the decision to defund UNRWA?

MR. KIRBY:  We absolutely share the concerns about the humanitarian crisis that’s in Gaza right now.  Certainly, we know that severe hunger is one of those issues, which is why we’re working so hard to get more security assistance in to the people of Gaza, which is why it’s so important that these discussions that we’ve been having about an extended pause actually come to fruition.  Because it’s not just — it is primarily about getting those hostages out, of course, but it also will give you a longer opportunity to increase that — that aid.  So, absolutely, we’re concerned about that.  No question about it. 

Now, look, we suspended funding temporarily to UNRWA as they do this investigation.  We believe it was the right thing to do to stop that funding while they investigate.  And we’ll see how that investigation goes.  We’ll see what they learn.  And we’ll see what accountability measures they put in place. 

I would remind that — that it is a suspension.  It is not a termination.  We’ll take a look at what our options are depending on how the investigation goes.  And the money that was suspended — there wasn’t a lot left in the allocation.  And the money that was suspended was really designed more for their efforts in Jordan, not in Gaza.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  If the border bill plus Ukraine aid fails, is there an alternative legislative vehicle to get aid to Ukraine?  And do you believe that House Republicans, in killing the bill, are helping Vladimir Putin?

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, no.  The supp- — th- —

Q    No other alternative?  No other —

MR. KIRBY:  The — the national security supplemental is what we need.  It was thoughtfully calibrated, thoughtfully arrived at through discussions with our Ukrainian counterparts.  We need that funding.

Right now, as you and I are speaking, we aren’t sending additional security assistance to Ukraine.  There’s nothing left.  We’ve got to have that funding. 

And on your first question — do I think House Republicans are supporting Vladimir Putin? — I — I’m not —

Q    In effect.

MR. KIRBY:  I — yeah, look, I’m not going to get up here and impugn members of Congress. 

We believe that there is strong bipartisan support and bicameral bipartisan support for Ukraine.  And the leaders of the — on the House side of those oversight committees for national security, intelligence, foreign affairs — they all support supporting Ukraine. 

But it is a matter of getting there, and there are active negotiations going on.  Now, I’m going to — I’m not going to get into Karine’s lane here, because this is really what she’s been talking about, but there are active negotiations going on, and we’re doing that in good faith.

Q    But if — if that supplemental is the only vehicle for aid to Ukraine, if that fails, there’s no aid to Ukraine.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, that —

Q    Is that what you’re saying?

MR. KIRBY:  What we need is a national security supplemental funding.  That is the discussion that’s going on right now.  Your — I can’t put myself 2 or 10 steps ahead of where we are right now and what that would look like.  We want to get the funding for Ukraine.  The President submitted the supplemental in October.  We believe it’s the right amount and we believe that that’s the right vehicle to get it — get it to them.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve got to wrap it up.  Way in the back.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, you’ve been saying since October 7th you don’t want to escalate.  And when you’ve been asked last time what do the Iranians want, you referred us to the Iranians.  But what’s the strategy behind repeating the message, “We don’t want to escalate”?  Did the Iranians convey a message — a private message to you that they don’t want to — to escalate also? 

MR. KIRBY:  I — I don’t have any private communications with Iran to speak to.  I’m not really — I probably don’t understand the question as well as I should.  Nothing has changed.  We don’t want to see the conflict widen or escalate.  And almost everything the President has done since the 7th of October has been designed to prevent that escalation. 

Now, of course, I’m mindful of the attacks by the Houthis.  We’re mindful of the lethal attacks in Jordan, which is why he is taking the actions that he’s taking and it’s why he’s about to take the actions we’re going to take.

Q    One more question on the (inaudible) statement yesterday.  Was it — the Kata’ib Hezbollah statement yesterday in Iraq.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, yeah.

Q    Was it a result of a diplomatic engagement with the Iraqi government pressure?  Were you in contact with the Iraqis on this statement?  Or did you pressure them, something like that?

MR. KIRBY:  No.

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

Q    I want to go back to Dover for a moment.  If — in the past, when there has been the transfer of remains, it has been done late at night and there’s been some photographs but no actual press coverage of that event.  Is this going to be a different situation, given the fact that the President is about to — or has already decided what his response is going to be to the drone strike that took out those three Americans?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not sure I follow.  What — why would the — why would the dignified transfer be different —

Q    Will the President be —

MR. KIRBY:  — because the President decided to make a response?

Q    Will the President be making any statement at that event?

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, oh, oh.  No.  Just to level set here, the — the way these dignified transfers happen, they — you talked about some coming in in the middle of the night.  They come in — it — it’s not — the arrival time is set by the military.  It has nothing to do with who’s going to be there to meet them.  That’s number one.  So, they come in at whatever hour the U.S. military system has that plane arriving.  It’s completely independent of any other factor.  That’s point one.

Point two, on the press coverage, that is determined by the families — not by the administration, not by the U.S. military, not by the folks at Dover — the families get to determine whether they want media to be there.  And in some cases, when you have — when you — we’ve had multiple families involved, some families want it, some families don’t. 

And so, the media are allowed to witness a transfer or two and then they are taken away for the ones that the families don’t want.  It is up to the families, not to — not to — to us.  We have nothing to do with that. 

And, no, the President won’t be speaking at Dover.  That’s — that’s not the appropriate venue for anybody to speak.  It is a very, very solemn, dignified ce- — ce- — well, I think you could call it a cemetery — the- — ceremony.  We call it a — a transfer. 

But — but there is a ritual to it.  And it’s very somber, and it’s very solemn.  And — and that’s not the place for speeches. 

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

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate that.  Thank you.

Q    Thanks, John. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, Aamer. 

Q    Thanks.  On — on East Palestine.  Why — why did the administration decide that things have, I guess, coalesced and it’s now time for President Biden to go? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the mayor and community leaders invited the President to meet with East Palestine residents and also assess the recovery progress that’s been going on for some time now, as you all know.  And so, the President had always said that he would go when it is most helpful to the community. 

And with this invi- — invitation — obviously, very recent — and the current status of the recovery, we felt that the time was right.  Again, we got an invitation from the mayor and community leaders to — to come a- — very, very recently, and so we are working with them to figure out the best time to do that in February. 

Q    And there is- — there isn’t a date yet that you’ve —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s no date yet, but obviously, we’re working with community leaders, we’re working with the mayor, elected officials to find the exact time and day to — to go in February.

Q    And can you just square — you know, the mayor has made some comments — reported comments that seem less than inviting to President Biden to come while praising former President Trump as actually having more impact on helping the situation and getting the ball moving as things have happened.  Does the mayor, one, want President Biden to come?  And, two, why is — from what you’re saying —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — he’s inviting him. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, he is.

Q    But at the other end, he’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’m assuming he wants him to come if he’s inviting him. 

Q    Yeah.  But wh- — what’s — why is he also at the same time — have you got — have you guys gotten a sense, and does it matter —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No —

Q    — to President Biden, that he’s — at one end, he’s, sort of, I don’t know, dunking on him while also calling him to come and visit, from what you’re saying?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the — the invite came from — from the mayor —

Q    Right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — and — and other folks on the ground.  So, I think that’s important.  Right?  The mayor obviously wants the President of the United States to be there. 

The President has always said he is a president for folks who live in red states, folks who live in blue state — doesn’t matter if you’re in rural America, urban, suburban — he is a president for all.  And so, let’s just never forget that. 

And I will — also want to take a step back.  Look, the mayor is allowed to say whatever he wants to say.  But he also invited the President — this — this President, this current President to — to come.

Look, this is — if you think about what happened in East Pales- — East Palestine, on day one — on day one, within hours of the derailment, we were on the ground, at the President’s direction — within hours. 

And — and he sent personnel there — this is the President — sent personnel — personnel there.  EO- — EPA, DOT, FEMA, HHS have all been on the ground to support the community until this day.  They’re still on the ground today. 

And so, look, the President has been very clear.  Anytime there is a situation that happens in a community that is devastated by what — whether it’s a — whether it’s a derailment or a natural disaster, obviously, the President says this all the time: He is there for that community for as long as it takes.  And he’s proven that.

So, he’s looking forward to going to East Palestine in February.  We’re going to find the day that works best for the folks on the ground.  He always said that when the time was right, when it was the most helpful for him to be there, he was going to be there.  

Q    Just very quickly.  Tomorrow, is there any official business in Michigan for the President or is this solely a political trip?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a political trip tomorrow.

Go ahead, Steve.

Q    Your topper about the border deal — are you now pessimistic that a border deal will get done?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, we’re not pessimistic at all.  I mean, look, the conversations in the Senate with Republicans and Democrats that’s been going on for about two months now, we believe have been going in the right direction.  They’ve been productive.  I’ve — I’ve said this before.  The President says this.  He’s optimistic, and we appreciate that they have been doing this in good faith. 

But we’re also going to call out House Republicans.  And we’re going to call out Speaker Johnson.  And I think it’s important for us to do that because it’s like upside-down world over there.  You know, they’ve been flip-flopping over there. 

This is going to be a deal, if it is — actually goes into law, that is, yes, going to be tough.  But it’s also going to be fair.  It is a bipartisan agreement.  That’s how we move policy forward.  That’s how we move legislation forward on behalf of the American people. 

So, we’re always going to be — we’re always going to be very clear-cut and straightforward on how we the- — see things.  And so, that’s why we — we’re going to call out what we’re seeing with House Republicans. 

It is not in line — it is not in line with what they have been saying for years about what they wanted to see. 

Q    The President has faced a lot of criticism in Michigan from the Arab American community.  What does he say that — what’s his message to them — those who feel disenchanted by the Gaza operation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  Obviously, as — as I — as Aamer was asking me, tomorrow he’s going to be going to Michigan.  It’s going to be a political-organized trip that is going to be done by the — the campaign.  So, any itinerary or pieces like that or related to that particular trip, the campaign could — could answer to that more broadly, obviously. 

But what I wo- — want to say is that, you know, the President has met with Americans with varying — varying opinions about the conflict that we’re seeing, sadly, in — in Israel and Hamas.  Officials at the White House have had numerous conversations and in regular contact with Muslim and Arab members — (aide coughs) — Americans — Americans leaders in — in Michigan — (aide coughs) — and across the country — hopefully Sam is okay.  Get some water.  Concerned for him.  (Laughter.)  

And, look, the President is going to continue — continues to believe that Israel has a right to defend themself.  They have a right to defend itself, as long as they continue — they — it is done in accordance of humanitarian — international humanitarian law.  So, we will continue to have those conversations with them.

At the same time — at the same time, he is heartbroken –heartbroken by the suffering of innocent Palestinians.  That is, you know — you know, who have — who have who have been caught in the middle of this conflict, sadly, and — between, obviously, Israel and Hamas. 

And he — you know, he continues to press for humanitarian aid.  You’ve heard the Admiral speak to that when he was getting a couple of questions on that.  And when we’ve had the humanitarian pauses in the past, we’ve been able to get about a hundred — a hundred hostages home to go back to their family and friends, right?  There are families and — families and loved ones who are heartbroken right now waiting for — for their loved ones to come home.  That is very important.  And also to make sure we get that much-needed humanitarian aid into Gaza.

And so, this is what this administration has been doing around the clock, trying to get to another humanitarian pause so that we can get that much-needed assistance into Gaza and get those hostages home to their loved ones.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Karine, is the White House open to a separate bill that funds Israel and Ukraine and tabling the current supplemental package, as some Senate Republicans are discussing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what we want — and to answer that question very straightforward is that we want the national security supplemental to be passed.  That’s what we want. 

As you know, we introduced that in October.  I’ve said this very, very often: When a president asks for a supplemental bill, it is because it is a emergency request.  This is an emergency request that we believe is important for our national security, hence the name of the supplemental, for — for — not just for — for around the world but for us here — for Americans here in this country.

And so, we are going to be very focused on getting that done.  We appreciate the conversations, the — that’s happening on the border secur- — on border security in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats.  But we want to see the national — national security supplemental bill move forward as it stands, as it is al- — altogether.

Q    I understand that’s your preference, obviously.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But is the White House open to a separate bill that just deals with Ukraine and Israel?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s — that’s not the discussion we’re having.  That’s not what we’re looking for.  That’s not what we’re moving towards for.  That is not the discussions that we’re having.  That is not what we want to see.

We want to see the entire national — we want to see that national security supplemental move forward.  That is what we’re working towards. 

Q    Just to clarify, when you just said, “That’s not the discussion that we’re having,” do you mean that the White House has not been engaged with Senate leaders — Senate Republicans, in particular — about that idea, which is being discussed right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what we have focused on — I mean, the answer is we’re focused on getting the national security supplemental moved forward as is, in the way that the President requested it.  That’s what we want to do.  That’s how we’re moving forward.  And that is, we believe, what has been asked in that bill.  Those different components, those different pieces are incredibly important.  It is what’s needed for our national security.  And we need to move forward with it as is.

Q    But has anyone at the White House had discussions —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I — 

Q    — with members about that idea?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There — look, I don’t have any discussions to share with you about — about that.  I can tell you what we’re moving towards.  We’re moving towards on making sure that we get that national security supplemental moved forward as it is, as the President requested from Congress. 

That’s one of the reasons we’re having these really important bipartisan conversation in the Senate to see what we can do at the border security, but we want that national security supplemental to move forward.  That’s what we want.  We want that request to move forward.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Boeing’s CEO said today that the company caused the problems with the 737 Max and needed to return focus to safety.  Obviously, in addition to the administration’s role on ensuring air safety, the government is one of Boeing’s biggest customers.  So, are you guys confident that the leadership at Boeing can execute that pivot back to safety?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — what we want to make sure and what FAA wants to make sure and it is their top priority that we make the safety — obviously, the safety of Americans as they fly across the country, obviously, and beyond is safe.  And that is what we want to be very, very clear about. 

I can’t speak to — obviously, there’s an investigation going on.  They’re looking into it.  I’m going to let that investigation go — go forth.  I don’t want to get ahead of that.

But obviously, we’re concerned.  You know, obviously, we’re concerned.  We want to put Americans’ safety — we put Americans’ safety first.  That’s what FAA does.  But I’m not going to get into the leadership of Boeing.  I’m not going to get into specifics of that. 

FAA has acted.  They’ve taken action.  And we’re going to let that process move forward.

Q    And in addition to the Max, the Osprey, which is made by Boeing, is under review.  I was just wondering if you have any update on the review there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have any — we don’t have any updates for you at this time, Justin.  What I can say is that the Department of Defense is better to answer those specifics as it relates to the Osprey.

Q    And one last one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    A judge in Delaware yesterday ruled that Elon Musk’s pay package at Tesla was excessive.  Elon then tweeted that companies shouldn’t incorporate in the President’s home state.  So, I’m wondering if you have any reaction to the ruling.  But barring that, thoughts on Delaware’s corporate governance, legal system, anything you might want to share?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful.  I’m not going to get into a private company’s legal cases.  Look, this ruling — and I’ll just add a finer point: This ruling has — doesn’t involve this administration at all.  It just doesn’t.  So, I really don’t have anything more to share from here.

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  There’s some big protests planned tonight in Dearborn, Michigan, on the eve of the President’s visit to Michigan tomorrow — Arab Americans protesting the administration’s handling of the war between Israel and Hamas.  Does the President have any plans to meet with any Arab American community leaders when he’s in Michigan tomorrow? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as I stated, this is a political event.  They can — the campaign certainly can speak to — can speak to — you know, can speak to the different parts of the trip directly. 

I’ll say this, and I kind of said this at the — at the top when I was asked this question.  The — you know, the President has had meetings with Muslim and Arab leaders.  Obviously, we don’t — we don’t read out every meeting.  So, those — so has — White House officials here have been in regular contact with Muslim and Arab leaders, folks in those community.

Don’t have anything else to share beyond — beyond that.  And I — you know, I’ve laid out that we understand — like, we get this is a very difficult time for people.  We get that.  We get that it’s a very difficult time for folks. 

And, you know, we — we always believe it’s important, the President believes it’s important for — for Americans to feel like their voices can be heard and to — and to do that in a peaceful way.  And so, that is where we’re always going to be on that. 

I laid out just moments ago, like, how — how — how heartbreaking it has been to see Palestinians — innocent Palestinians, you know, have been caught up — caught up in the middle of — of what we’re seeing between the — obviously, Israel and Hamas. 

And — and so, we’re going to continue to push for these humanitarian pauses to make sure hostages come home to their loved ones and families and get that all — very important, needed humanitarian aid into — into Gaza.

Go ahead.

Q    Does the President believe he may alienate Arab Americans with his policy?  And is he willing to sustain that kind of difficulty because he believes in his view about Israel’s right to defend itself?  Is that a cost of this war that he’s willing to sustain?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, you know, when the President thinks about things, it’s not about the politics, right?  It — it truly isn’t.  It is — and we always do this — right? — we do a step back about what happened on October 7th. 

Israel was attacked by a terrorist organization, Hamas, and those leaders in that organizations have said they want to see October 7th happen over and over and over again.  And the President is going to continue to believe that Israel has a right to defend themselves.  Of course — of course, they need to do it following the international humanitarian law.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

And, of course, we are heartbroken by what we’re seeing with innocent Palestinians being caught up in the middle of that.

And, of course, we understand how folks are feeling in the community.  And it’s important for them to have their voices be heard.  And we respect that.  We respect that. 

But we cannot forget what happened on that day and what has led us to where we are today.

Q    On a separate topic.  There have been notable exchanges on Capitol Hill today with some of the tech company executives being questioned about their content and about protections for users and so forth.  Do you know if the President has had a chance to see any of that?  Does the White House have a view about how forthcoming these CEOs have been and if there’s more they need to do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a couple of things on that.  Obviously, we have been monitoring the hearing.  The country is experiencing an unprecedented youth mental health crisis.  That’s a fact.  That’s what we see in the data.  And there is now undeniable evidence, as I just stated, that social media and other online platforms have contributed to that. 

It is exactly why this President, the Biden-Harris administration has made tackling the mental health crisis part of their Unity Agenda, which you’ve heard the President speak to in the last State of the Union and you’ve heard him speak — speak about this throughout the past three years.  It’s a key priority.  And that is a key priority for the nation, obviously.

It’s an issue that cuts across political — politics and affects red states and blue states.  You heard from the different — different congressional members — from Republicans and — and Democrats — speak to this today very passionately, asking difficult questions.  And it’s why this administration has invested historic resources and launched new tools — new tools to ensure the safety of Americans here. 

So, we know there’s a lot more work to be done.  The work is far from over.  This administration is going to remain to be committed to providing Americans with the support and the resources needed as we’re dealing — as we’re dealing with this crisis right now.

Go ahead.

Q    Following up on that.  Senator Lindsey Graham said specifically to these CEOs, “You have blood on your hands.  You have a product that’s killing people.”  Is that the view of this administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to — I’m going to let the Senator obviously speak to — for himself. 

What I can state is that the data, the evidence — there is evidence that showed that — that, you know, this — these — these platform has been devastating to our young people’s mental health.  And it’s — it has been part of a mental health crisis that we see here, and that’s why this President has taken action. 

And look, we have to do everything that we can — this President believes we need to do everything that we can to have the resources to make sure that we — we as- — we help Americans as we’re dealing with — through this mental health crisis. 

We believe that particular issue is a — is a unity issue.  It brings people together.  Both Democrats and Republicans, they support this.  And it has been a key platform of this President.

I’m not going to dive into every — everything that congressional members said — a senator, specifically, said today.  But obviously, we are — this country is experiencing a crisis amongst our young people.  And we have to do something, and the work is far from over.

Q    At least one of the CEOs endorsed the Kids Online Safety Act.  Anything about that bill in particular that the White House might like?  Have you had conversations with Senator Schumer about trying to get it for a floor vote?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — I can’t speak to that.  I haven’t spoken to our legis- — legislative team on that particular piece, that act.  But obviously, we think Congress has — has a — has a place here to act, to move forward legislation, to strengthen protections for a child’s — children’s privacy.  We think that they can do that to protect the health of kids, to protect safety online for children.  They can act, and they can certainly do things to move forward the — move forward on that. 

Q    And if I could ask just one on the immigration negotiations.  We’ve learned from some of our Senate sources — and it’s been talked about a lot in a lot of other outlets — about part of the deal, including — the deal that is still being worked on, including these numbers, you know, that — that the border could be shut down specifically if migrant crossings increase above 5,000 per day.  Were those numbers acceptable to the White House?  Were they the numbers that the White House or the President was pushing for?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into specifics or details.  I just don’t want to get involved from here — the podium — on what is being discussed, what is being negotiated.  I think it’s just — it’s just the right thing to do to give folks the space as they’re doing this in good faith in the Senate.  I think it’s important to do.

We’ve been very clear: We think the system is broken — the immigration system is broken.  We have to do everything that we can to deal with the challenges at the border. 

And it’s good that we’re — there are — there’s bipartisan support in moving forward in that way from the Senate. 

And so, that is what we’ve been very clear about.  I’m just not going to get into numbers or specifics or dive into policy discussions from here. 

Q    I get that.  But from a messaging perspective, House Republicans are diving into these numbers.  They’re responding to them —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Yeah. 

Q    — and they are calling them out and saying this is a reason they can’t support this kind of bill.  So, are you guys doing yourself a disservice —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — by not talking about some of these specifics?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be very clear here: House Republicans are actually getting in the way.  They’re not part of the discussion.  They’re not.  They’re not part of trying to figure out how to come to — to a bipartisan agreement.  We would like them to be, but they’re deciding not to. 

And it’s on them.  The question to them is: Why aren’t you all interested or wanting to work with your colleagues over at the Senate?  We have said, if this law passes, it will be, yes, the toughest and the most fairest set of reforms to secure the border and deal with real, real solutions to — to reform the immigration system.  That is what we believe. 

And let’s not forget what the President put in his supplemental.  Right?  He wants the border agents, drug detection equipment, immigration judges, and asylum officers.  He wants resources. 

And so, that’s what the President is looking forward to doing — looking forward to do in the supplemental.  He laid it out very clearly.  But House Republicans are — you know, they’re flip-flopping on this.  They’re truly flip-flopping on this issue. 

Go ahead, Jared.

Q    Is there a timeline or deadline for these talks or are you happy to just have them be open-ended as long as it takes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we think — again, we think it’s moving in the right direction.  We think it’s happening in good faith.  We appreciate the conversations that are happening on the Hill with the bipartisan legislators in the Senate more specifically.  And we want this to move as quickly as possible, obviously.  Yeah. 

Do we want it to happen today?  Did we want it to happen two weeks ago?  Obviously, yes.  But we want to give them the space to do this. 

This is an issue that we have been dealing with for decades, even in the last administration, obviously — for decades — for decades.  And so, now we’re at a moment where we can come to a bipartisan agreement, where this is happening in the Senate.  And so, we think that’s a good thing.  We think that’s a good thing. 

As you heard me call out House Republicans — because it’s important to do.  They’re being disingenuous right now with where they are, where they’ve been on this issue.  And we’re going to call them out.

Q    I ask because a lot of times these bipartisan talks that deal with, like, fiscal issues or whatever have a date certain — whether that’s a government shutdown deadline or something else — right? — a trigger.  That’s not the — so, there’s not, like, a date circled on your calendar?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline for you, Jared.  I don’t.  We want to get this done, obviously, as soon as possible.  Let’s not forget I — I talked about three year- — more than three years ago, more than a thousand days ago, we put forward — the President, his very first piece of comprehensive legislation was to deal with immigration.  That’s what he wanted to do on the first day.  So, it’s been three years.  So, obviously, we want to get this done. 

Go ahead, Phil. 

Q    Two questions on East Palestine.  First, has the White House coordinated or discussed with DOJ any type of damage settlement or compensation for folks there who were affected by the derailment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have any specifics.  I would have to refer you to Department of Justice on that piece.  Obviously, we want to make sure that Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] is held to account.  We’re going to make sure that happens.  We are determined to — to get that done. 

I think you’ve heard that from the Department of — of Transportation, as well, from Secretary Buttigieg.  You’ve heard that from us many times.  We want to make sure that they pay — they pay for the derailment that they caused.  And so, it’s — obviously, that is — that is a priority. 

Q    And then, next month, when the President is in East Palestine, will he drink the water there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, what I can tell you is the President’s focus has been to do everything that he can to support this community from day one.  We get what’s going on on the ground.  We understand what’s going — that’s why we’ve had the EPA, that’s why we had DOT, that’s why we had HHS, that’s why we’ve had FEMA on the ground. 

You know, this is not about some sort of, like, political stunt here.  This is not about — this is not what this is about.  This is about this President being a president for everyone and showing up — showing up for this community.  That’s what this is about. 

I’m not going to get into some sort of political stunts —

Q    But — right.  (Inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — about drinking — about drinking water.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What we’re going to focus about is making sure they have what they need.  And the President was invited by the mayor, by community leaders.  He’s going to show up.  He always said he would be there when it was the most helpful.

Q    The reason I ask is despite some of the — the federal assurances, there — there are folks on the ground who are not political —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and are just very concerned, and they — they doubt some of the assurances they got from federal regulators.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And we — and we understand that.  We get that.  We get that.  Something horrible happened to that community — a derailment happened in that community that caused a lot of — you know, some damage — real damage to folks who live there.  We get that. 

That’s why we’ve had, again, EPA, FEMA, HHS, DOT on the ground within hours by this President’s direction.  So, we’re taking this incredibly seriously, Phil, and the President is going to go down there in February when the time permits — right? — the best time to do this.  We’re working with folks on the ground — to visit the community and be there. 

And it’s not going to be about politics.  It’s not about being in a red state or a blue state.  You hear this — us say this over and over.  You hear it from the President over and over again, because he wants to be — make sure that he’s there for this community. 

I have to go.  I actually have to go into the Oval Office.  Thank you, everybody. 

2:28 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route West Palm Beach, Florida

12:03 P.M. EST

MS. DALTON: Good afternoon, everybody. Quickly at the top, there’s news out this morning that consumer confidence continued to surge this month as Bidenomics grows the economy from the middle and the bottom up. Consumer confidence is now at its highest level in more than two years as Americans feel more optimistic about their personal finances and inflation expectations are falling.

This is no accident. It’s a direct result of the President’s agenda. In fact, this morning, we’re headed to Florida where President Biden’s Investing in America agenda has now led to more than $9 billion in private sector investment across Florida, as well as $14.5 billion in federal funding that has already been announced for clean energy and infrastructure projects across the state.

That includes roads, bridges, transit, rail, airports; $800 million for better access to clean water; and $2.7 billion to provide affordable, reliable high-speed Internet to everyone in Florida.

When President Biden entered office, the Florida unemployment rate was 5.9 percent and many small businesses had closed. Today, Florida’s unemployment rate has dropped to 3 percent with 1.2 million new jobs created since January 2021. Meanwhile, Floridians have filed 1.8 million new business applications in the same time period.

Florida residents are also saving money on their healthcare premiums and prescription drugs, high-speed Internet, and home energy costs. In fact, more than 4.8 million Florida residents with Medicare will benefit from the $2,000 yearly cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, a $35 monthly cap per in- — per insulin prescription, and free vaccines. And an astonishing 4 million Floridians signed up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces during the open enrollment period for 2024 and will benefit from up to thousands of dollars per year in savings from lower healthcare premiums.

With that, I’m going to turn it to John to speak to some foreign policy news this morning.

MR. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Just a couple of things at the top. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met today with Amir Sheikh Al Thani of Qatar to discuss the latest between Israel and Hamas in — in Gaza as al- — as well as also to talk about our continued efforts to try to get a hostage deal in place. We’re going to have a readout of that conversation to you all soon here.

Today, Mr. Sullivan is also having a chance to meet with the families of the Americans that are still being held hostage by Hamas.

And then, finally, I mentioned it the other day — I can’t remember whether it was yesterday or the day before — about the inaugural meeting that we’re having with the PRC on this Counternarcotics Working Group. So, I just wanted to give you a quick little readout that we brought a — the meeting was today, and we brought a whole delegation of the government, led by Jen Daskal of the NSC, that included DHS, DOJ, State, Treasury.

And what was interesting was the PRC reciprocated, and they brought a whole-of-government delegation as well. So, it was a good set of discussions.

They committed to cooperate on increased law enforcement coordination to tackle the distribution and export of precursor chemicals for — for the opioids that are taking so many lives, to deal with addressing illicit financing and to increase our information-sharing across the two governments.

Again, the goal here is to produce concrete and measurable actions that lead to a reduction in the supply of these precursor chemicals that are killing, again, so many Americans.

So, that’s a good start, but it is just a start. And there’s a lot more work to be done. There’s another set of meetings tomorrow. I believe that Treasury will be sort of leading there in Beijing. But again, a really good start to — to this — to this process. That’s it.

Q Has the IC come to a conclusion on who was behind the Jordan drone strike? And if so, can you say which militant group was behind the strike?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not in a position today to confirm exactly what group is responsible, Aamer. We’re still working through the analysis.

But as I said the other day, I mean, clearly this is the — the work has all the hallmarks of — of groups that are backed by the IRGC and, in fact, by — by Kata’ib Hezbollah as well. So —

Q (Inaudible) why wait 4- — it’s about 48 hours-ish now since the attack happened. Are you essentially giving these groups the opportunity to move personnel, move their weaponry out of the way? And what message does it send by waiting two days to strike back at — at this point?

MR. KIRBY: As — as we said, Aamer, and as the President has said, we’ll — we’re going to respond. And we’re going to do it really in a way and a time of our own choosing. And, you know, that’s no different — that’s not a different approach than we’ve taken in the past.

Q President Biden said this morning that they, as in Iran, are supplying the weapons that were used in this attack. Does that mean that Iran was the manufacturer of the drone that was used?

MR. KIRBY: That — Iran — I won’t get into the specifics about the actual drone. Again, DOD is still working through the forensics of the attack.

But — but we know for a fact that Iran and the IRGC provide these groups weapons and capabilities. We know for a fact that they have provided them drones in the past as well. But as for the exact drone that was — that was involved in this attack, again, DOD is still working through the forensics on it.

Q Will the President attend the dignified transfer of remain — remains?

MR. KIRBY: The President had an opportunity this morning to speak with the family members of the three service members who were tragically killed in this attack. He was grateful for their time.

He expressed to them how proud we all are of their service, how we mourn and feel this — feel sorrow over their loss, made sure that those families knew that not only was that service and sacrifice going to be honored and respected but that they would continue to get the support that they need as they work through what no family wants to have to go through. As I said, no Blue Star family wants to become a Gold Star family.

In that conversation, he also gauged their feelings about him going to the dignified transfer at Dover on Friday. All of them supported his presence there. And so, the President will be going to the dignified transfer on Friday.

Q John, on Israel and the hostage deal. What was the President’s reaction to Prime Minister Netanyahu voicing some disinterest in releasing, quote, unquote, “thousands of terrorists” in order to get a hostage deal done?

MR. KIRBY: The President’s view is we got to continue to do everything we can to get those hostages out. And he also believes that the work that we’ve been doing on the ground — Bill Burns, our CIA director; Brett McGurk, who was just in the region; Secretary Blinken — is — these have been productive discussions. They’ve been constructive. They — we believe that we are — that we are — that we’re making progress on trying to get an extended pause in place so that we can get those hostages out.

And the President is not going to waver on that. That’s what his commitment is.

Q So, is he disappointed that Prime Minis- — Minister Netanyahu said those words about not wanting to release thousands of —

MR. KIRBY: I think we’ll let the Prime Minister speak for himself. There’s no reason for us to change course here. We still believe that this is the right thing to do.

And we believe that there’s — that there’s — again, I don’t want to sound too sanguine, but we believe the work has been — has been productive, and — and we’re going to stay focused on that.

Q So the frame- — the framework hostage deal is still progressing; this wasn’t a setback at all?

MR. KIRBY: We aren’t looking — we — we believe we continue to make progress. Let me put it that way.

Q Do you have any clarity on why the drone was able to get to the — get to the base, why — why that was successful? Was there a mix-up? Do you have any more clarity on what happened with the attack?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t. I’d point you to the Defense Department to speak to the — again, they’re doing the forensics to figure out how this happened, as you would expect they will do, and then — and then — so that they can learn lessons and try to prevent such an attack in the future. But I don’t have any more granularity on that.

Q On a two-state solution. The British Foreign Secretary has floated the idea that it’s time to look at how to recognize the Palestinian state — what it would comprise, how it would work. Is the U.S. on the same page there?

MR. KIRBY: Well, look, we’ve been very clear. We want to see a Palestinian state. The President still believes very strongly in the promise of a two-state solution. And there’s a lot of work that has to be done to make that a reality. It’s going to require leadership, again, on both sides.

But we certainly share the Foreign Minister’s belief in the — in the importance of moving towards getting an independent Palestinian state —

Q But what does moving —

MR. KIRBY: — with Israel’s security guaranteed.

Q So, what does moving towards that look like? We know you support a two-state solution. But isn’t it time now to start thinking about how that would actually work?

MR. KIRBY: We’ve been working on this since almost the — well, the very — very beginning of the administration. It’s one of the reasons why — I mean, prior to October 7th, we were working so hard on a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, because we believe that that — it was — baked into that would have been something for the Palestinians.

And so, we still think there is an opportunity here, and we’re going to keep pursuing it. We think that that could be a significant milestone towards getting you closer to a two-state solution.

Q John, the President said when he left the White House that he had reached a decision on — on the strikes. What is the guiding principle as he makes this decision? And is it fair to say that these strikes will be more forceful than the ones that were done previously?

MR. KIRBY: Well, with the caveat that I’m certainly not going to telegraph punches here or get into specifics of potential future military operations, to your question: guiding principle is making sure that we continue to degrade the kinds of capabilities that these groups have at their disposal to use against our troops and our facilities and to send a — send a strong signal to their backers and the IRGC that these attacks are unacceptable.

And we’re going to do — the President will do what he has to do to protect our troops and our facilities and to look after our national security — our national security interests in the region.

And I would tell you that, as I said yesterday, we — they have now taken the lives of three American troops. And so, I think it’s fair for you to expect that we will — we will respond in an appropriate fashion. And it — and it is — it’s very possible that what you’ll see is — is a tiered approach here, not just a single action but potentially multiple actions —

Q Can you say if it will o- —

MR. KIRBY: — over a period of time.

Q And can you say if it will only be military in its nature? Or is economic responses, such as sanctions, on the table as well?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I don’t think I’m going to get into more detail than that.

Q On Ukraine aid. Some European leaders sound more pessimistic about the U.S. providing funding for more Ukraine aid. For example, President Macron talked about wanting European leaders to be ready to support Ukraine over the long term if — if U.S. aid doesn’t come through. Is there some reason why some of these European leaders are sounding more pessimistic? Do you know? Is there —

MR. KIRBY: You can hardly blame them when they look at what’s going on on Capitol Hill. We put a supplemental request in place in October for $60 billion. The number was carefully constructed in concertation with our Ukrainian counterparts about what they were going to need. You can hardly blame other leaders around the world from thinking about what other decisions they have to make now based on the uncertainty that the United States is going to be able to come through.

And it — and it points precisely to what we’ve been saying before: that American leadership matters and people do look to us for our example and for that leadership.

And, you know, again, we’re hopeful — still hopeful, the President is, that we’re able to get this supplemental funding and we can — can go back to being the world’s leader in supporting Ukraine.

But, again, I don’t think you can — I don’t — I think other leaders in Europe and elsewhere can be forgiven for working through in their own minds how they’re going to be able to support Ukraine should the United States not be able, thanks to what’s going on on Capitol Hill, to be able to continue that support.

(Cross-talk.)

Q I just wanted to follow on J.J.’s earlier question on Netanyahu’s comments earlier. On the optimism for some — for a deal coming together, where — where’s that space? Because Netanyahu is saying not — no to thousands of prisoners and they’re going to stay in Gaza. Hamas is saying a deal has to hinge on lots of prisoners and them being out of Gaza. So, where — where is the space, I guess?

MR. KIRBY: Again, I can’t speak to the Prime Minister’s public comments. All I can tell you is the conversations that we have had in just recent days with our counterparts, including Israel, lead us to believe that — that — that there’s real potential progress here towards getting a deal in place for an extended pause that will allow those hostages to get home.

And I think that’s what the Israeli people want too. They want their loved ones back with — back in — with their homes and their families where they belong.

Q Kirby, and just a quick follow-up on —

Q Quickly following up. Are there any plans for the President to speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu, given his comments and given where things are with the hostage deal right now?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t have another call on the schedule to speak to.

Q One more — I have one more and a follow-up on that one. So, Hamas has said that the number of hostages that they would be releasing still has not been specified in these talks. Is that accurate?

MR. KIRBY: I won’t negotiate here on Air Force One.

Q Can I ask for clarification on some — on a question earlier? Has the U.S. identified who was behind the attack that killed three American servicemen?

MR. KIRBY: I — I already answered that question. We’re still — we’re still working our way through that.

Q But — but the President has decided on his response, he said. So, how can he decide on his response if you’re still working through that?

MR. KIRBY: I just don’t have anything more to add on that.

Q Can I ask you a question about another part of the world, particularly that the President, I know, has a lot of interest in? Northern Ireland’s largest British unionist party agreed to end a boycott, the one — that, essentially, I think, ends the Belfast government’s standstill. Did the — has the President taken note of this? And is there any White House reaction?

MR. KIRBY: We — we welcome that there is progress here. But as we understand it, there is still some legislation that’s required, and certainly we’d leave that to the — to the elected
officials in Northern Ireland to speak to. But as we understand it, there’s still some legislation that has to be inked before they can get that forward.

Q Just a quick one on Pakistan. Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Is there any concern that the U.S. has that the Pakistani government may be trying to send a message to his supporters? He’s obviously not on the ballot, but they do have the — the upcoming election in February. Does the U.S. have any concern that the Pakistani government may be trying to target Khan’s supporters through this sentence?

MR. KIRBY: We see this as an internal judicial matter for the Pakistani government to speak to. Obviously, as a democracy, just like for any other country, we want to make sure that elections are free and fair and that judicial processes are also done, you know, in the most appropriate manner possible, recognizing an individual’s rights. I think I’d leave it at that.

(Cross-talk.)

You guys done with me?

Q I’ve got — I’ve got one last question on Sudan, if I may. Given all the political and diplomatic capital you’re using up in the Middle East, are you able to bring any pressure on countries like the United Arab Emirates, who we know are backing the RSF that the U.S. has accused of ethnic cleansing? Do you have any extra diplomatic clout to put pressure on the UAE?

MR. KIRBY: I would push back on the notion that we’re somehow so fixated on what’s going on in the Middle East that we can’t focus on other places around the world, including Africa. We continue to be engaged diplomatically to make sure to — to do what we can to see that the aspirations of the Sudanese people are met and that the — and that the violence between these two sides stops.

Q Do you have any examples of what you’re doing on that front, including pressuring the UAE?

MR. KIRBY: You know, I’m sure — I’ll refer you to the State Department for details, but we continue to work this diplomatically.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

Q I wanted to ask about the border and the President’s statement that he would shut it down. What does that tech- — I mean, obviously, the bill would need to pass. But then what technically does that mean? Like, what would it look like, shutting the border down?

MS. DALTON: Look, I think Karine talked about this quite a bit yesterday. But this is a president who believes we need action to secure the border. He’s been working in good faith with Republicans and Democrats on a negotiated proposal to do just that, to deliver on meaningful policy reforms and meaningful resources that would allow us to secure the bor- — border.

Now, I’m not going to get into the particulars of what that proposal looks like at the end of the day. But, look, this is a — you know, a president who has unequivocally stated he is committed to securing the border and working in good faith across the aisle to get it done.

Q On the border deal itself, Speaker Johnson reiterated this morning that he is against, you know, the Senate deal. However it ultimately looks, it’s dead on arrival in the House. Does the White House still think it’s worth pursuing a negotiated deal?

MS. DALTON: I think we’ve unequivocally said yes. And if, you know, Speaker Johnson is serious about securing the border, which he also said this morning that he is, then he should work across the aisle with us — reach back across the aisle in good faith and join us. We’re working along with Senate Republicans as well as Democrats.

We think that if this proposal that’s on the table was to be enacted, it would be the most meaningful, fair, significant piece of legislation to secure the border that we’ve seen in decades.

Q Olivia, on — on the border again. Can you explain a little bit further why the President doesn’t take some executive actions on the — on the border himself?

MS. DALTON: Well, I think the President has also been clear that he needs additional authorities from Congress. And part of what he’s asking Congress to do here is to deliver those authorities.

I’m not going to get specifically into more of what the bill says down on the — you know, the line items. But the President has been really clear: He needs additional authorities to secure the border. And that’s exactly what he’s asking Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work with him to deliver.

Q Why not test his executive authority?

MS. DALTON: I’m sorry?

Q Why not test his executive authority, just do it?

MS. DALTON: Look, I think the President has a view — that, by the way, was shared by Speaker Johnson under the pri- — prior administration — that he needs a greater authority in order to secure the border and take action on the border. So, that’s what we’re — we’re looking to do.

Q So, Olivia, is it his position, then, that there’s nothing all the more that he can do on migration, that this is the limit to his authority?

MS. DALTON: Look, you heard from the President, I think, on the — just a moment ago that certainly he feels that there are things that are within his power, but there are also things that are not within his power that he’s looking for congressional authority to do in order to step up border security.

Q But why doesn’t he take — take some of those steps that are within his power? That’s what I’m asking. Like, there are some things in his power. Why doesn’t he do those?

MS. DALTON: Look, we’re in the middle of negotiating in good fa- — faith across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to try and get this proposal done. I’m not going to get into the particulars of those conversations and what is or is not on the table.

But, look, we think that there’s no reason we can’t come to a very significant deal here that, again, would be historic in nature that would deliver on meaningful reforms and resources that would help us secure the border. And, you know, that’s the stated goal of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

What’s standing in the way? We don’t think politics should.

Q What’s the White House’s view of this House Homeland Security vote that we’re expecting today to impeach Mayorkas? You know, they — they argue that he has refused to enforce immigration laws.

MS. DALTON: I don’t know that I can respond to that any better than Secretary Mayorkas did in his letter to the committee this morning, where he laid out extensively everything that he and the Department have done to be responsive to the committee and their requests — the testimony, you know, the documentation, all of the things that they have done to be responsive to this committee.

Now, look, there is an active process underway. President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, Senate Democrats and Republicans are actively talking about bipartisan meaningful policy reforms and resources to help secure our border. House Republicans could be working with us on that as part of that effort. Instead, this is what they’re doing today.

We think that the American people would much rather see Democrats and Republicans working together in Congress, on Capitol Hill, with the White House to deliver on the — what we need to do, the action that we need to see to secure the border.

Q Just a quick question for you, Olivia. So, first, the call that the President had with servicemembers’ families, that was this morning at the White House?

MS. DALTON: That’s correct.

Q Okay. And when the President goes to Detroit this week, will he be meeting with Muslim and Arab American leaders when he’s there?

MS. DALTON: We have not confirmed travel — other travel this week.

Q Okay. And is there any other official business that’s taking place on this trip to Florida?

MS. DALTON: The President has two political events today. I’d refer you to the campaign to speak in more detail about those. But don’t have any additional official events to — to discuss on the ground here in Florida today.

Obviously, the President is continuing to stay in touch, as you’ve already heard from Admiral Kirby, with his team here — his team on the ground about the — you know, for critical national security updates; update- — updates on the border negotiations; economic news, like the consumer spending data we — we just got this morning; and — and more.

Q Can you tell us any more on the call with the — the Gold Star families? How much time did he spend on — on the call with them? Did he have any reaction after the call that he conveyed to staff? And is there anything you can tell us about what specifically he told the families?

Q And was it three separate calls?

MS. DALTON: I am happy to try to get some more texture from those calls that took place right before he arrived here. He — he conducted those calls right before he left the White House this morning. I don’t have a duration of each of those calls. I’m happy to try to get more that I can share out of those for you.

But certainly, as Admiral Kirby described, he was — you know, expressed his deepest sympathies for their loss, his pride in their service, and his hope that he could be there for their dignified transfer on Friday.

Q And there were three separate calls?

MS. DALTON: I believe so, but let me just come back to you with that.

Q And is the campaign fully reimbursing the White House for today’s trip, since there are no official events? Do you have any —

MS. DALTON: There are well-established guidelines that we always follow. We’ve done trips in recent weeks and months that are all political, all official, or a mix of both. And in every case, we follow the letter of the law in terms of the cost sharing that — that Counsel dictates.

Q Is that normal protocol, for the President to ask the Gold Star families if it will be okay for him to attend the dignified transfer?

MS. DALTON: I believe that is normal protocol. Certainly, the DOD and others could weigh in there, but I — I believe it’s protocol — certainly, you know, something respectful to — to offer to these families if they would want the President to be there.

Q And the Federal Reserve is meeting tomorrow. They — you’re going to have a jobs report on Friday. Do you think we’re going to hear from the President on the economy this week? And just where does he think the economy stands now compared to six months ago? And does he have a personal view on whether interest rates should — should be reduced?

MS. DALTON: You know, I think you — you hear from the President a lot on the economy. So, I’m not sure that will be any different this week. But I don’t have any specific sets of remarks to announce at this moment in time.

Certainly, we think it’s a huge deal that consumer spending continued — or consum- — consumer confidence continued to grow today for the third month straight. It’s a good sign that people are starting to feel the impact of the economic progress we’ve — we’ve been seeing and are starting to really internalize that.

Q Can you talk a little bit about the decision with this trip today to go to, particularly, Jupiter, which is kind of one of the hearts of Florida — Trump country in that Trump has a golf course there. Is the President taking a — I don’t know — maybe a little pleasure in tweaking the former President a little bit about going into his home turf?

MS. DALTON: I can’t speak too — too much in depth to the — these campaign events since I wasn’t involved in planning them or putting them together. So, I’d refer you to the campaign there. I just don’t want to get too close to — to crossing the Hatch Act line here.

Q But has the President told you — have you spoken to the President about — about these stops and has he said anything about whether he plans to say something about Trump?

MS. DALTON: I would leave it to the President to speak to this. I cannot, as a federal official, speak about campaign events, unfortunately.

Q There are reports that a House Democrat is being investigated by DOJ. Any White House comment or reaction?

MS. DALTON: (Inaudible.)

Q There’s a House Democrat being investigated by the DOJ — conflicting reports on who exactly. Any — has the White House been following this? Any comment or reaction? I think it’s Cori Bush.

MS. DALTON: We’re seeing the same news that you are. But certainly, on anything related to a DOJ investigation, would refer you to them, as they’re independent in this respect.

Q President Donald Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Abraham Accords. Do you have any response?

MS. DALTON: Other than this is news to me, I — I had not heard that yet. But no, I don’t — I don’t necessarily have a — have an immediate comment or reaction to that from you — for you.

Anything else? Okay. See you, guys.

Q Is there someone from the campaign on the trip?

MS. DALTON: Sorry?

Q Is there someone on the camp- — from the campaign on the trip who might gaggle?

MS. DALTON: I’ll see who’s on the ground.

Q Okay. Great.

12:29 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton and NSC Coordinator John Kirby En Route West Palm Beach, FL appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:39 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  I have a couple things at the top, and then we’ll get started. 

As the President said over the weekend, we have been working in good faith and across the aisle to make real progress on one of the most important issues we are facing: securing our border.  Now we need Speaker Johnson to step up and provide the authorities and resources we requested to secure the border. 

I want to point out one thing to all of you.  Until recently, Speaker Johnson has also advocated for new resources and new legal authorities via legislation to secure the border.

The Trump administration argued the same thing with the full-throated endorsement of then-Congressman Mike Johnson. 

For his part, over the last two months, President Biden and his team have been working with a bipartisan group of senators to put together toughest — the toughest and the fairest border security bill in history. 

This bipartisan agreement would deliver the resources the President asked for in his supplemental, like 1,300 new Border Patrol agents, 375 new immigration judges, 1,600 new asylum officers, 100 cutting-edge inspection machines to catch fentanyl.

It would also provide a president with a new emergency authority to secure our border when it becomes overwhelmed.  And as you heard from the President, he would use that authority if the bipartisan agreement became law. 

Now, if Speaker Johnson continues to believe, as President Biden and Republicans and Democrats in Congress do, that we have an imperative to act immediately on the border, he should give this administration the authority and funding we’re requesting to secure the border.

Now, after three months — or three months ago, President Biden issued a landmark executive order to ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promising — the promise and managing the risks of AI.

The order directed sweeping action to strengthen AI safety, security; project — and protect Americans’ — pardon me — Americans’ privacy; advance equity and civil rights; stand up for the consumers and workers; promote innovation and competition; advance American leadership around the world; and more.

Today, Deputy Chief of Staff Bruce Reed convened the White House AI Council, consisting of top officials from across government.  Agencies reported that they have completed all of the 90-day actions tasked by the EO, including using the Defense Production Act to compel developers of the most powerful AI systems to report vital information.  And they have drafted a proposed rule to compel U.S. cloud companies to report on providing computing power — competing — computing power to foreign governments. 

President Biden’s directive to his team has been to move fast and fix things.  In just 90 days, the Biden-Harris administration has taken the most sweeping actions of any country to harness the promise of AI while putting in place strong guardrails to protect against the risk.

Fifteen years ago, then-President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair — Fair Pay Act into law, making — marking a victory in the — in the fight for equal pay. 

To build on the progress we’ve made under this law, today President Biden announced new actions to advance pay equity for the federal workforce and employees of federal contractors. 

These new actions will help pay millions of workers fairly, close gender and racial wage gaps, and result in tangible benefits for government workers. 

These policies are good for workers, our economy, and American families. 

They advance pay equity and strengthen the economic security of women across the country.

And President — and the President remains committed to building on this work.

And finally, I have two shoutouts in the room. 

First, I just wanted to introduce you all to Sam Michel, who is joining us in the briefing room today.  He has been loaned to us by — from USTR.  I want to ca- — personally thank the Administrator for allowing Sam to be with us while — while Emilie is — is on maternity leave.  He’ll be, of course, Acting Deputy Press Secretary while she’s out.  We hope you take a moment to come to the back, come to Lower Press, and say hello to Sam.  We’re very, very happy to have him for these next couple of months.

And one more shoutout.  We want to congratulate Doug Mills on becoming a grandfather — congratulations, Doug — and welcome you back to the briefing room.  I know you’ve been gone for some time, and we are really excited to have you back.  And again, congratulations.  We have missed you, my friend.

And, finally, I’m going to give it over to Admiral John Kirby, who’s going to give an update on the Middle East.

Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  I know there’s a lot of interest — and rightly so — in the attacks — attack that our troops faced over the weekend in Jordan — an attack that claimed three of their lives and sent more than 30 of them to the hospital, some with serious injuries.

So, I just want to make a few points right at the top.

First, the President and the First Lady — as well as everyone in the administration — send their condolences to the family of those who were killed.

No Blue Star family ever wants to become a Gold Star family.  And sadly, there are now three more families on that roster.  It’s hard to imagine the grief they’re feeling right now and that they will feel for the rest of their lives.

We want them to know that we’ll make sure that they get all the support that they need and that we mourn with them.

We also wish a complete recovery for all those wounded in this attack.  They are receiving and will continue to receive the very best medical care that the military can provide them.

Second, these troops were conducting a vital mission in the region, aimed at helping us work with partners to counter ISIS.  And even as the Defense Department gathers more information about the attack, that mission must and will continue.

Third, the counter-ISIS mission is separate and distinct –indeed it has been longstanding and unrelated to our efforts to support Israel and to prevent a wider conflict in the region.

We do not seek another war.  We do not seek to escalate.

But we will absolutely do what is required to protect ourselves, to continue that mission, and to respond appropriately to these attacks.

Now, I know the first set of questions I’m going to get are: “Well, what does that look like?  What’s appropriate?  And what response options is the President considering?”  I hope you can understand why I will not telegraph any punches here from the podium, nor will I get in front of the President or his decision-making.

He’s met twice with the national security team — yesterday and today.  He’s weighing the options before him.

As he said yesterday, we will respond.  We’ll do that on our schedule, in our own time.  And we’ll do it in a manner of the President’s choosing as Commander-in-Chief. 

We’ll also do it fully cognizant of the fact that these groups, backed by Tehran, have just taken the lives of American troops.  And I think I’ll leave it there. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  Now, quickly, just on one other topic.  Over the weekend —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sorry.

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m sorry.

Over the weekend, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan held more than 12 hours of meetings in Bangkok with his counterpart from the People’s Republic of China, Director Wang Yi. 

Mr. Sullivan and Director Wang took stock of progress on key issues following the meeting between President Biden and President Xi back in November.  Now, that includes discussing efforts to resume military-to-military communication, which has occurred; addressing artificial intelligence safety and risks; and advancing bilateral counternar- — counternarcotics cooperation.

In fact, the launch of a working group on counternarcotics will begin tomorrow in Beijing.  Our delegation will be led by Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Jen Daskal.

The two sides also held constructive discussions on global and regional issues, including those related to Russia’s war against Ukraine; the Middle East, of course; the DPRK; the South China Sea; and Burma.  And they also discussed cross-Strait issues.

And with that, I will take some questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, John.  A couple of just basic fact-pattern questions.  Can you confirm that the initial report suggests that there’s the — this — the attack drone that killed the U.S. forces were misidentified for a U.S. drone that was returning to that base?

MR. KIRBY:  I cannot. 

Q    Can you update us on has the U.S. definitively — definitively confirmed attribution of the attack beyond just vaguely “Iran-backed militias.”  Do you have the specific militia groups that you know launched this attack?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re still working our way through that right now.

Q    You said that the President was still weighing his options.  Does that imply that the President right now has not made a decision how he wants to respond?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead of the President’s decision-making.  He — as I said, he met twice with the national security team, including not just — not very long ago.  When we have something to speak to, we’ll speak to it.

Q    And will — speaking of speaking to it, will we hear directly from the President?  Will he speak to the American people about this attack and his response when it happens?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, he mentioned it yesterday in South Carolina.  I won’t — I don’t have anything on his schedule to speak to, but I have no doubt that he’ll continue to communicate with the American people about how important it is that these missions continue and that our troops and our facilities are safe. 

Q    And last one for me.  Has the President directed any change to force posture in the region to protect American troops there?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t talk about force posture changes one way or another, and we certainly don’t preannounce them, particularly when it comes to areas on the ground that are potentially under threat.

I can just tell you that the President is confident that the Defense Department, under Secretary Austin, will do what they got to do to — to look after force protection issues.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q    John, do you expect the President will go to Dover for the dignified transfer when these Americans are returned to the United States?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything on his schedule to speak to.

Q    Given the fact that, while there are Americans in harm’s way frequently, it has been a while since we have had this kind of an incident resulting in deaths, do you think that is a consideration of the public type of response? 

There are a range of responses the President could use.  They go from, you know, military strikes, to — sometimes it’s cyber, sometimes it’s things the public cannot see.  Do you believe this event rises to a level where whatever the President’s decision is, would have a public — we would know when —

MR. KIRBY:  You mean you’re going to know?

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, without getting ahead of the President’s decision-making — I won’t do that.  And as I said, in my opening statement, I’m not going to telegraph punches.  We’ll make these decisions on our own time, as I said.  We’ll — the President will choose for himself how he wants to respond. 

And as I said in the opening statement, we’ll do it fully cognizant of the fact that now and just — and what just happened, American lives have been taken.  And so, his decisions, whatever they are, will be informed by all those circumstances. 

What that looks like and when that comes, I’m just — I’m just not able to say right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Was this strike in Jordan fundamentally different than what American forces have been facing for months now?  In other words, does the U.S. believe this was a deliberate attempt at escalation?

MR. KIRBY:  It is fundamentally different now because we have three families who just got the worst possible news.  That’s different.  And the scope of the wounded now — more than 30 injured, some of them seriously — that’s also different. 

And it’s possible that the number of wounded could go up.  As you may know, traumatic brain injury symptoms, for instance, don’t present themselves right away.  And that is a very serious physical injury itself. 

But, I — look, I — it is — this wasn’t the first drone attack on an American facility in the region.  There have been others.  And the fact that this one had lethal consequences doesn’t mean that the previous ones weren’t intended by these Iran-backed militias to have that same effect.  This time they killed Americans, and they wounded a lot of them.  It doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have preferred that outcome in the past.

Q    An official has told ABC News — confirming the report about how the troops there had mistakenly identified the drone as one of their own.  Can you talk about how this might have gotten past the defense systems at Tower 22?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’m going to let the Defense Department talk about the forensics on this.  I’m sure that they are already picking it apart and trying to figure out how this happened, and that be inappropriate for me to get ahead of that.

Q    In your interviews all morning, you didn’t rule out a strike inside Iran.  Can you just talk a little bit about the array of options in front of the President, and, for instance, could this be in phases?  Could we see a smaller scale one than a larger scale one later?  Like what — what —

MR. KIRBY:  No —

Q    — what’s the array of options?

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m not going to do that.  I appreciate the question.  And that’s why I tried to take it out of the consideration in my opening statement.  I’m not going to — I’m simply not going to talk about that right now.

Q    And just lastly, do you think this could complicate the ongoing ceasefire negotiations to release more hostages?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s no reason that — whatever our response is, there’s no reason for that to have an impact on our ability to try to get these hostages released. 

And as I said last week, so I can say today: Those discussions are ongoing.  We believe they have been constructive and are moving in a good direction.  Don’t want to sound sanguine here.  There’s a lot of work left to be done.  We don’t have an imminent deal to speak to.  But based on the discussions we’ve had over the weekend and — and in recent days, we feel it’s moving in a good direction.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, how does the President balance a desire to not see escalation in the region with a decision to respond?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s the hard part of it, isn’t it, Jeff?  I mean, that’s what being Commander-in-Chief is all about, is — is acting in accordance with our national security interests –what’s — what’s unacceptable to those interests and what has to be done to protect those interests. 

There’s no easy answer here.  And that’s why the President is meeting with his national security team, weighing the options before him.  He’ll do that, as he’s done in the past, in a very careful, deliberate way so that our national security insers [sic] are — our interests are best preserved.

Q    And has the President — has the administration communicated via a third party to Iran what — the message that you’re saying on TV about not wanting to have escalation?

MR. KIRBY:  I am not aware, as you and I are speaking, that there’s been a private message relayed to leaders in Iran.  We have done that in the past.  But as you and I are speaking right now, I’m not aware of such a mechanism.

Q    And just on the hostages, can you give us an update on the latest there and what you expect in terms of a ceasefire (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, the discussions have been pretty constructive.  What we’re — and I want to be careful here because I don’t want to say anything that would torpedo the deal we’re trying to put in place.  But what we’re — what we’re trying to work on is another humanitarian pause of sufficient duration that will allow a large number of hostages to get released. 

And as you’ve seen in the past, when we did this back in November, you’ve got to have — you got to have a pause in the fighting to get them safely out.  So, that’s what we’re — we’re aiming at. 

And then, of course, if you — if you get that period of time, whatever that ends up being, then you can take advantage of it to get more humanitarian assistance in.  And certainly, when — when there’s a pause in the fighting, that means there will be a reduction in civilian casualties, which is also a goal of ours.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  M.J.

Q    Admiral, can you confirm: Is the President currently actively considering potential attacks inside Iran?

MR. KIRBY:  We are not looking for a war with Iran.  We are not seeking a conflict with the regime in a military way.  And as I said in — in the opening, we’re not — we’re not looking to escalate here. 

This attack over the weekend was escalatory.  Make no mistake about it.  And it requires a response.  Make no mistake about that.

I will not get ahead of the President’s decision-making.

Q    So, you’re not saying either way whether striking inside Iran is or isn’t on the table?

MR. KIRBY:  We are not looking for a war with Iran, M.J.  I am not going to speak to the President’s decisions.

Q    And the administration’s assessment for a number of months now has been that Iran does not want a direct war with the U.S., either.  Does yesterday change that assessment?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not at liberty to discuss — or to — to speculate about what the Supreme Leader wants or doesn’t want.  Clearly, these attacks continue, and now they’ve had lethal consequences.  We know these groups are supported by Iran.  Make no mistake about that.  We know that. 

And this administration has taken action in the past to hold them accountable, and we’ve taken action over the last three years to hold Iran accountable for a range of destabilizing activities: issued more than 500 sanctions — or 500 entity sanctions just since we came into office, as well as changing our force posture in the Middle East appropriately.

So, we’ll just — I mean, w- — but we’re — we’ll continue to look at the options available to us.

Q    Is it clear to you now whether the attack yesterday was at Iran’s direct urging or if this was more a proxy group that was mostly acting on its own?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to talk about intelligence issues.  We know that Iran supports these — these groups.  The degree to which they order and direct is — is something that, you know, intelligence analysts will look at. 

We know they support them, we know they resource them, we know they train them, and we know that they’re certainly not discouraging these attacks, whether it’s attacks by the Houthis, what Hamas did on the 7th of October, what Hezbollah has proven capable of doing, and now, of course, what these militia groups continue to do in places like Iraq and Syria and now — now Jordan.

Q    And just one last one on the UNRWA controversy.  Israel says that they have information about 13 employees who were connected to the October 7th attack.  Do you have any reason to believe that that might have been more widespread, that there could be information that later indicates that it was beyond those 13 people? 

MR. KIRBY:  I haven’t seen any information that affirmatively makes that case, that it’s more than, now, 13.  I think last week, we were looking at a dozen.  That’s why an investigation is so dang important here, so that we can look at the scope of the problem set. 

But you got 13,000 UNRWA employees — the U.N. Relief and Works Agency — you’ve got 13,000 of them in Gaza alone.  And, as I said last week, let’s not impugn the good work of a whole agency because of the potential bad actions here by a small number. 

I am not dismissing the seriousness of the allegations against those employees.  And whether there’s going to be more that will be found, hopefully the investigation will — will give us more insight. 

It is important — the UNRWA staff and Commissioner-General and the U.N. Secretary General Guterres last week made it clear they’re taking this seriously.  That’s our expectation too.

It’s really important that this investigation be as thorough and as transparent and as credible as possible.  And we’re going to be watching real closely.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

Q    John, can I push you a little bit more on the hostages and the linkage between the — potential linkage between the hostages and whatever action you guys decide to take? 

One of the things you guys talked about since — since October 7th is how intertwined the region is — whether it’s Lebanon and Hezbollah or Hamas or Iran or the — you know, the Houthis — and the — the difficulty with — with, you know, not wanting to set fire in — you know, a spark in one place that then, you know, goes all around the region.

So, what gives you any confidence that if you guys are close to a deal on the hostages and then the President orders a strike, that that deal doesn’t fall apart as a — as a result of outrage and anger in the region at the actions of the United States? 

And how does the President — you know, how does the President make that calculation given, you know, six Americans still in — in Gaza and the other hostages and everything else?

MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say we were confident though, Mike.  We — we’re mindful of — of the way some actors in the region are trying to make connections across the region. 

What I — what I said was there’s no reason why our work on a hostage deal needs to be affected or impacted by what happened over the weekend or what we do about what happened over the weekend.  And we will respond. 

We still want to keep the work going, our shoulder to the wheel on this hostage deal.  And — and we’ll just have to see where it goes. 

I also want to repeat what I said earlier.  We’re not overly sanguine here.  We’re not cocky.  We understand there’s a lot of hard work ahead.  And that work ahead of us diplomatically, certainly, might be affected by — by events elsewhere in the region, not just — not just what happened in Jordan and what — what might come as a result of that.

But there’s no reason why it should, and that’s why we’re going to stay at that task.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Francesca.

Q    Over here.  Thanks, Kirby.  Given these deaths, does the White House acknowledge that the previous retaliatory strikes that it has taken in the region have been ineffective at protecting American troops? 

MR. KIRBY:  The strikes that we have taken in the past have definitely had an impact on degrading and disrupting the activities of some of these groups.  Clearly, they have decided to keep conducting those attacks.  And now it’s had lethal consequences for American troops. 

And so, we will weigh an additional set of options before us.  The President will make his decision to respond appropriately.  The attacks need to stop. 

Q    Does the President have all the legal authority he believes that he needs to respond to these attacks? 

MR. KIRBY:  Yes. 

Q    What is the legal basis?

MR. KIRBY:  Article Two, Constitution.  Commander-in-Chief, self-defense of our troops.

Q    Doesn’t believe he needs additional authority from Congress?

MR. KIRBY:  The President has the authority to take the action he needs to — to protect our troops and our facilities overseas under Article Two. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks.  The President faces a great deal of political pressure here at home — with the Republicans, for example, calling for direct strikes on Iran.  Does the President feel that pressure?  And how much does that pressure weigh on his — on his decision-making?

MR. KIRBY:  The pressure the President is feeling, if you want to call it that, is to make sure we can continue to protect and defend our national security interests in the region. 

First and foremost, his mind is solidly, as I put my opening statement, on the families of those who just got the worst possible news you can and troops that are in the hospital trying to recover.

Number two, on the vital mission sets that our troops are performing across the region — in this particular case, a counter-ISIS (inaudible). 

That’s the pressure he’s under to make sure that those troops get the support that they need, get the resources they need, and that the mission is able to continue; and that our national security interests in the region, which are wide and varied, are preserved and protected. 

Q    And just one other thing, if I may.  You — you said earlier that, you know, this attack was — (a reporter sneezes) — escalatory — 

MR. KIRBY:  Bless you.

Q    — but the United States doesn’t want a war.  Do you believe that Iran wants a war?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s up to Iran to decide and for Iran to speak to.  I can’t, as I said earlier, speak for the Supreme Leader.  I wouldn’t do that. 

Clearly, there’s a calculus by at least the IRGC that conducting these attacks is — is worth the risk that they’re taking.  And we obviously are going to keep working to change that calculus. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  So, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stol- — Stoltenberg is in Washington.  What are you hearing for — from the NATO Allies?  Are you — sharing with you any concern about the possibility of a wider war?

MR. KIRBY:  You talking about the Middle East?  Yeah, we’re — we’re glad the Secretary-General is here.  I think he met with Secretary Austin this morning.  I know he’s meeting with Jake Sullivan today.  Lots on the agenda. 

I won’t speak for our Allies or the Secretary General.  I think it’s safe to say that our — many of our European Allies certainly share our concerns about what’s going on in the Middle East.  I mean, my goodness, many of them are participants — willing participants in our coalition in the Red Sea to protect shipping there. 

So, clearly, they have concerns about that.  And I have no doubt that the Secretary-General will raise those issues with Jake and — and did raise it with Secretary Austin.

Q    And another question, if I may, around the U.N. Agency for Palestinian Refugees.  Several American allies are suspending their aid to the agency. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    But others are saying, “Okay, we can’t cut off money right now amid need warnings of famine, the collapse of the health system —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — and so many Palestinians displaced.” 

The agency is saying that it will run out of money very soon.  Do you fear that suspending the American aid to this agency is going to deepen the humanitarian crisis in Gaza?  Do you have a plan B, an alternative to bring aid to the Palestinians?

MR. KIRBY:  I think a lot of it is going to depend on what the investigation finds and what accountability measures and corrective measures UNRWA is willing to make as a result of what happened. 

I mean, these are serious allegations, even though it’s a small number, percentage-wise, of the — of the 13,000 who are on the ground in Gaza.  I mean, this is serious, and they are taking it seriously. 

So, let’s see where the investigation goes.  We understand that they are very, very dependent on donor contributions, and the United States has been the leading donor for many, many years. 

We have suspended our — our contributions to UNRWA pending the results of this investigation — all the more reason that, as I said, this investigation be credible, transparent, and thorough, and frankly, timely. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Franco.

Q    Thanks, John.  And thanks, Karine.  I wanted to ask about the border.  President Biden talked about shutting down the border on the basis of national security.  Are there not steps that he could use under executive authority to — some measures to, kind of, seal some of the border efforts? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He has said he’s — he’s willing to use executive measures and — and, you know, if he gets — if he gets the — the bill passed, if he gets border funding, and it — and includes those authorities, he’ll use those authorities. 

Q    Why not — why wait — why wait until Congress?  Why not —

MR. KIRBY:  We need — we need — we need legislative support for border security measures.  And we need the funding to be able to put in place border security measures that the President can utilize. 

He has done some things, like putting U.S. troops down there to alleviate some of the responsibilities or administrative responsibilities of Border Patrol.  And — but we need this — we need this funding. 

Q    And if I could ask about Venezuela.  Is the President considering any steps to take against Venezuela, whether it’s tightening sanctions regarding the high court’s decision to uphold the ban on the only viable opposition candidate posing a challenge to Maduro?

MR. KIRBY:  The Maduro regime, when they signed an — signed on in October down in Barbados, made some commitments about opposition political parties, about free and fair elections, and what all that meant.  And they haven’t taken those actions.

Now, accordingly, they got until April to do so, so we have options available to us.  I’m not going to preview any of those at — at this time.  But we certainly have options, with respect to sanctions and that kind of thing that — that we could take.  They — they’ve got until April.  They need to make the right decisions here and allow opposition members to run for office and release the political prisoners that they’re holding right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Admiral, so, the U.S. is backing Israel annihilating Hamas, which is an Iranian proxy.  But why isn’t the U.S. doing the same thing with other Iranian proxies, like the one in Iraq, the one in Syria — which resulted in the death of the three servicemen — and, down the road, maybe in Yemen?  Why is — there’s, like, a — not a consistency?

MR. KIRBY:  Hamas violated a ceasefire that was in place, slaughtered 1,200 people, basically started this war against Israel.  We’re going to support our ally and our partner, Israel, as they fight this war. 

We are not — let me go back to what I said in the pas- — in the beginning: We’re not looking for a war with Iran, and —

Q    Aren’t we already at war with Iran? 

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not looking —

Q    Isn’t that clear?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not looking for a war with Iran. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    And can you —

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, I just want to clarify two of your previous answers in this briefing. 

Are you suggesting, in response to the border question, that the President is withholding executive action on the border until he gets the money that is part of this supplemental?

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m not suggesting that.  I’m suggesting that the way forward — the proper way forward is to get the supplemental passed.

Q    Okay. 

And then, in response to M.J.’s question earlier, it sounded like the administration has ruled out strikes within Iran. 

MR. KIRBY:  Jacqui, I appreciate the question.  I think you can understand — I hope you can understand I’m not going to telegraph punches here.  We are not looking for a war with Iran.  We are not looking to escalate the tensions any more than they already have been escalating.  In fact, everything we’ve done has been designed to try to deescalate those tensions.

That said, this was a very serious attack; it had lethal consequences.  We will respond, and we’ll respond appropriately.  I’m not going to telegraph what that’s going to look like.

Q    The question, though, was if you were actively considering targets inside Iran.  And your answer was, “We don’t seek conflict with Iran,” which indicates that the administration would view strikes within Iran as escalatory. 

And so, is it that the administration ultimately does not hold Iran responsible for these attacks or that the current level of risk and loss to U.S. troops is somehow acceptable?

MR. KIRBY:  I do appreciate the question and the chance to — to say it again: I am not going to telegraph punches for the President of the United States.  I’m not going to get ahead of his decision space on how he’s going to respond.  We’ll respond appropriately. 

And you’re — you know, you’re right.  This attack had lethal consequences, which these attacks in the past have not had.  And as I said in my opening statement, as we work through what those options are, we’ll be mindful and informed by the fact that there are now three American soldiers that have been killed. 

Q    So, it’s clear, obviously that “don’t” didn’t work.  Does the President have any regret over not pushing — punching back harder in any of the prior responses that he’s taken to these proxy attacks on U.S. forces?

MR. KIRBY:  I would — I think I would push back on the idea that we did push back harder.  We have taken significant action against Iran economically.  We have certainly taken some additional and more aggressive steps to go after these groups.  We’re certainly taking aggressive action against the Houthis to try to defend shipping in the Red Sea. 

I mean, this idea that somehow we’ve just, you know, whistled past the graveyard here and — and walked away from the challenge that Iran poses just isn’t borne out by the facts.

Q    Well, you —

MR. KIRBY:  Iran — these proxy groups have been attacking our troops and our facilities in Iraq and Syria well before this administration as well. 

Q    There’s been pretty strong criticism —

MR. KIRBY:  And we —

Q    — though.  Like, for instance, Mike Waltz said this morning that, “When you’re trying to play defense constantly, rather than punching back in a meaningful way, this blood is on this administration’s hands.”  What — what is the response from the White House to an accusation like that?

MR. KIRBY:  What I would tell you and I would tell the congressman is: We’re mindful of what Iran is doing in the region, and we have taken aggressive action against these proxy groups and about — and on their influence in the region.  And there are decisions yet to come. 

So, let the President make his decisions.  Let him weigh these options.  And then we’ll act.  These groups have choices to make, and we’re going to do everything we can to — to make sure that they make the right choice here. 

But the idea that we have somehow laid down and — and not pushed back on Iran is simply not borne out by the facts. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, Ken.

Q    John, in Israel over the weekend, some ministers from the Netanyahu government attended a conference that is calling for Israel’s resettlement of Gaza.  Did the administration notice that?  And do you have any —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we noticed it.

Q    — view on that?

MR. KIRBY:  Some of this rhetoric and the language that was attributed to some of these ministers at this event — irresponsible; reckless; incendiary, I’d go so far as to say.  And certainly isn’t — doesn’t comport with our strong policy statement, what we have made clear, that there can be no reduction in Gazan territory. 

Q    What does it say, though, about the persuasion efforts you’ve made to try to prevent Israel from pursuing these settlements?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I wouldn’t — you know, you got a couple of ministers in the Cabinet using this reckless behavior or conducting this reckless behavior and making these incendiary comments.  That doesn’t mean that we still don’t have an open line of communication with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Cabinet, the War Cabinet, and that they haven’t been receptive to — to listening to us and to our messages. 

I — you know, these are individual Cabinet members.  They can speak for themselves and what they — and what they said and what they did. 

It doesn’t comport with our view, and we find it reckless.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  In the back.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Oh, sorry. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    You said that the President, in his response, has authorization under Article Two.  Does that mean that he’s planning to bypass Congress in any matter of war in terms of this response?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get ahead of his decision-making.  He has the authority under Article — Article Two as Commander-in-Chief.  And as we have in the past, so we will in the future, appropriately inform leaders in Congress about what we’re doing in — in keeping with that authority.

Q    Okay.  So, I just want to follow up, because the President was sent a letter on Friday from a bipartisan group of lawmakers, and he had been accused of unauthorized strikes against the Houthis.  And by bypassing Congress, they said, “No President, regardless of political party, has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war.”  Do you think that that would apply here given this escalation?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not at war with the Houthis.  We’re not going to be at — we’re not looking for a war with Iran.  The President is comfortable that he has the appropriate legal authorities to act in self-defense of our ships, our sailors, and our troops and our facilities at sea or ashore.

Q    Right, but isn’t it time to involve the American people?  I mean, given the fact that the American people were not happy about — I mean, all —

MR. KIRBY:  This is what the American people are not happy about: attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea.  I also suspect they’re not happy about seeing American troops killed at a base in Jordan.  The President has the authority to defend those troops and those facilities, and he’ll do that.

Q    You said the President is weighing all of his options.  This is an election year.  Is the President looking at his polling when he’s weighing all of these options?  Is the President looking at what —

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, my goodness.  That’s a heck of a question.  He’s not looking —

Q    Not really.

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.

Q    Not really.

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.  Ma’am.

Q    Is the —

MR. KIRBY:  Let me just stop you right there. 

Q    Let me finish my question.

MR. KIRBY:  The Commander-in-Chief is not looking at polling or considering the electoral calendar —

Q    He’s not looking at —

MR. KIRBY:  — when he’s defending —

Q    — how they feel about the war on Gaza?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll — now can I answer the question? 

He’s not looking at political calculations or the polling or the electoral calendar as he works to protect our troops ashore and our ships at sea.  And any suggestion to the contrary is offensive.

Q    Is he looking at the polling with respect to —

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.

Q    — does the American public want a broader Middle East conflict when he weighs his political decision-making?

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am, I’ve answered that question. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Let’s go.

Q    No, you didn’t answer that question.  Is he weighing that?

MR. KIRBY:  He is not concerning himself with the political calendar.

Q    Does the American public have the opportunity —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — to weigh in on whether —

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am, I —

Q    — they want “Made in America” —

MR. KIRBY:  I have answered your —

Q    — stamped on the bombs —

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am, I’ve answered your question.

Q    — that are going to be dropped?

MR. KIRBY:  I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to move on.  Go ahead, Phil.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.

Q    You touched on this briefly in response, I think, to Jacqui’s question.  But what is the President’s response to Republican critics who are of the mind that this attack was the result of perceived weakness? 

For instance, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said that, “President Biden’s fear of escalation has morphed into a doctrine of appeasement.”

MR. KIRBY:  They can speak for themselves.  That’s obviously not the way we see this.  We have held Iran accountable, as I’ve said, through various means and methods.  We will continue to do that.  We’ll continue to act to defend our — our troops and our facilities and the missions and our national security interests.

Q    And then a follow-up on the border.  The terms of the Senate deal that are under discussion would get — give DHS expulsion authority if border encounters hit an average of 4,000 a day over the course of a week.  Does the President consider that threshold of daily encounters a crisis?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to negotiate in public.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead —

Q    I’m not asking — of course, (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:  You’re asking me about a specific provision that the — that you allege is in the deal.  And, as Karine has said many, many times — and she’s absolutely right — we’re not going to negotiate here in public on what — what’s in or what’s not in this — in this deal.

Q    Setting aside the deal in question and waiting for more details to come to light, is there a number, in particular, with regards to border cr- — crossings that the President would see as a crisis?

MR. KIRBY:  The President himself has talked about the fact that — that there’s a crisis going on at the border and the numbers are too high and we’re going to do what we have to do — regionally — not just with our own Border Patrol but regionally with Mexico and other countries — to see if we can get that — that number down.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  We’ve got to wrap this up.  Go ahead.

Q    A question on Venezuela.  My colleagues are reporting that the administration will restore sanctions on the country’s energy sector if opposition candidates are not allowed to run.  If Venezuela were to lift that ban, would the U.S. not take the options that you were referring to earlier?

MR. KIRBY:  A lot is going to depend here on what Maduro and his regime do.  They’ve got until the spring to honor their commitments — the commitments they made back in October — to allow opposition parties and opposition candidates to run freely, as qualified, for President and to release political prisoners.  They’ve got the decision make — they’ve got decisions they have to make before we weigh what decisions we’ll — we’ll take.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, Jon.  We’ve got to wrap this up.

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  John, the Iranian foreign ministry has denied any involvement in this drone strike in northeast Jordan.  What’s your response to that denial?

MR. KIRBY:  They support these groups, they resource them, they provide them weapons, they train them.  They certainly aren’t discouraging these attacks.  Now, what — to what degree it was directed out of Tehran, I can’t — I can’t say.  And I wouldn’t get into intelligence assessments one way or another. 

But, clearly, they continue to support these groups.  So, clearly, there’s a — there is a responsibility that appropriately needs to be laid at the feet of leaders in Tehran.

Q    And then you also said the President is consulting with his national security advisors in terms of what steps he may take in response to what happened on Sunday.  Will the President also reach out to congressional leaders just to consult with them?  Will he reach out to, for instance, the —

MR. KIRBY:  As we have in the past, so we will in the future.  We will con- — we will do appropriate notifications with leaders of — in Congress, as we have just in the recent past.  We’ll continue to do that appropriately going forward.

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

Q    Yes.  Thank you.  Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, Kirby.  Two questions.  The AP is reporting that, apparently, there was a confusion between this enemy drone and another drone that has been launched out of this U.S. installation, and I guess two officials have stated that this was a confusion.  Apparently, the enemy drone was confused with an American drone that was returning back to the U.S. installation.  Do you guys have any information about that?

MR. KIRBY:  That was, I think, one of the first questions I got here in the briefing.  And, as I said then, we — we can- –I can’t corroborate those accounts by — by U.S. officials.  The Department of Defense is, as you would expect them to do, going through all the forensics here to figure out exactly what happened and how to make sure it doesn’t happen again.  And I certainly would not get ahead of them on that.

Q    Now, just one — going back to the Venezuelan subject that we’ve been discussing.  As you know, María Corina Machado is the leading opposition candidate there.  She’s been banned from running for office for 15 years by the Venezuelan Supreme Court.  Does that put things in perspective, because there is some reporting that the U.S. is expected to renew the sanctions against the Venezuelan oil —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, again, I — we’ve now dealt with it a few times.  I don’t have any additional context to — to relay to you.  Mr. Maduro and his regime have decisions they have to make.  We want to see him meet the commitments they made back in October to allow opposition parties and candidates to run appropriately and to release political prisoners. 

We have decisions to make as well if they don’t do that.  They’ve got until April.  We’ll see what they do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate it.  Thank you.

Q    Thank you, John.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Has the President called already or does he plan to speak with the families of the fallen service members?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any calls to read out.  Obviously — and as Kirby started off this briefing, obviously, the President and the First Lady sent out their deepest condolences and heartfelt thoughts to the families, to their friends, and also the units — their un- — their unit as well. 

And this is a sad day.  This — yesterday was a very, very sad day for not just their family and the units and the friends but also the American people.  And so, obviously, we continue to mourn with them.  Once we have more to share about a call or outreach, certainly we will let you all know.

Q    And the President is scheduled to travel tomorrow on some political travel to Florida.  Does he — does he plan to keep that or is he going to stay back in Washington to consult with his national security team?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the President will continue his travels tomorrow to Florida.  It’s a — it’s a political travel.  So, any specific questions you may have — I know you’re not asking me —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — I know.  You know — I know you’re going to ask me that.  Obviously, the campaign is going to — will answer those questions about the particular travel tomorrow. 

The President has been, I think — I think the Admiral started off the briefing saying that the President met with his national security team, including Secretary Austin, this morning and continues to stay focused on what’s going on, obviously, in the Middle East and continues to stay updated.  Just don’t have anything to share beyond that. 

Q    And why is he going to continue traveling — do political travel in the midst of this (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you know, and you heard — hear us say this all the time: The President is president wherever he travels, wherever he goes.  It doesn’t change in this instance.

Obviously — obviously, what we saw happen yesterday in Jordan to our service members is — it’s a sad day.  It’s deeply troubling.  And you heard the President yesterday in South Carolina.  I know you were part of the pool that was traveling with him this weekend.  He — he said, “We shall respond.”  And he means that.

Obviously, we’re not going to telegraph what that’s going to look like and, you know, the President is going to make that decision.  Just don’t have anything else to share. 

But he can be president — he was able to speak to that in South Carolina at a political event and make sure that he lifted up the three souls, as he said, who were lost yesterday. 

And so, he can certainly be able to deal with an issue like this — you know, a — a very important one, obviously — anywhere that he is. 

Q    And then lastly from me, is the administration contemplating any changes to the supplemental funding request for additional needs for security for the American troops in the region after this instance or the potential response — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — somebody was coughing, so I missed the beginning of your question.  I apologize. 

Q    Changes to the supplemental.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Changes to the supplemental?

Q    Yeah.  In light of recent events, will more funding be needed? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I see.  So, look, I — look, I don’t have any changes to the supplemental.  Obviously, the President, back in October, put forth his national security request, which is obviously an emergency request, as presidents tend to do.  I don’t have any changes to that. 

And there’s conversations — as you know, you hear us say it — say this very often — negotiations happening in the Senate with Republicans and Democrats on the border security piece, which is also part of the supplemental.  And we want to see that — obviously, the supplemental pass in its fullness in what the President put forth in October, and that’s what we’re working towards. 

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the immigration negotiations.  Over the weekend, former President Trump urged his party to reject the deal.  He said it’s “a very bad bill” and it’s okay.  He said, “Please blame it on me.”  I wonder if I can get your reaction to that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say this — is this.  You’ve heard the President — you’ve heard the President loud and clear: Congress needs to act.  It — we ne- — they must act. 

Speaker Johnson and House Republicans should — they should provide the administration with the policy changes and also the funding needed to deal with the border sec- — border security, and also immigration more broadly, as we’re talking about an immigration system that has been broken for some time. 

And let’s not forget, I mean, this is the thing — right? — what the — what the senators in — the senators of both Republican side and Democrat side have been talking about what they’re dealing with — the bipartisan agreement that they’re coming forward with are things that House Republicans have said and Republicans more broadly said they wanted. 

They have said over and over again this is what they want to see.  They want to see tough — a tough — tough changes, right?  They want to see something that’s actually going to be instrumental in — in being able to deal with what we’re seeing at the border. 

This is what is being worked on.  This is what is being worked on right now.  And so, if Republicans are serious — if they are serious about addressing the situation at the border, if they are serious about addressing the security at the border, if they are serious about really changing — changing real policies and — and coming up with — with policies that’s going to make a difference and putting forward resources, then they would be part of getting this bipartisan agreement passed. 

This is exactly what they’ve been asking for — literally what Republicans have been asking for.  And now here it is.  It’s coming to fruition.  It’s being discussed.  There’s potential bipartisan agreement. 

That’s what the American people want to see.  Seventy-five percent of the American people have said that they want this issue to be dealt with — an issue that — again, that they have been for — that they have been for for years. 

So, they should get on board.  They should get on board and help the senators get this done. 

Q    Why do you believe Republicans haven’t gotten on board?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s for House Speaker — this is for the Speaker to speak to.  He’s — he’s been very vocal about this.  The Speaker seems to want to make this a political — a political football.  Right?  It’s like a hot potato.  They don’t want to hold on to it. 

But this is exactly what — what the senators are talking about.  As it relates to the border security, coming up with a bipartisan agreement is exactly — is exactly what they’ve been talking about — coming together with a tough, fair, bipartisan agreement that deals with the issue — policy changes, funding, and resources — right? — that is needed so that we can deal with what’s happening at the border and also really deal with the immigration system more broadly. 

Q    If the deal does fall apart, are there elements of it that the White House could tackle on its own without Congress?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals.  There’s a deal happening.  If I say — if I answer that — right? — then it’s getting in the way of the negotiations.  I don’t want to do that.  I want them to have the free space to be able to have honest, good-faith conversations, as they’ve been doing for the past two months, and we appreciate what’s happening in the Senate. 

We want to let that process go.  We think it’s moving in the right direction.  Obviously, the President supports what’s happening.  Our team has been working with them for the last two months.  It is important discussion. 

And we believe, again, we can — we can get this done.  And we appreciate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate working for the past two months, through the holiday as well, to really try and work out a bipartisan agreement.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The President said the border deal that’s being negotiated in the Senate would give him the power to close the border.  Speaker Johnson, however, saying the President already has the authority to do that without congressional reaction — action on this.  What’s your response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this.  Speaker Johnson has been very clear as well, when he was pushing H.R.2, even during the Trump administration, that presidents — presidents need new — they need actual authority.  Right?  They need authority — enforcement authorities, and they have said this. 

The Speaker, when he was then Congressman Johnson, said this.  “A president needs authority to actually deal with the border sec- — border and actually deal with the security at the border.” 

And so, I don’t know what’s changed.  I don’t know why, all of a sudden, he believes that the President — the President doesn’t have — already has the authority, when he says that the President needs authority.  This is something the Trump administration said.  This is something that they agreed when the Trump administration said.

And so, what is being discussed right now in — with the Sen- — in the Senate is a new enforcement tools that do not currently exist — they do not currently exist. 

And so, that’s what we’re — that’s what — that’s what the President is speaking to.  You know, and he says the moment that he has those new enforcement tools that he will act.  The day that he signs it, he will act.

Q    This deal is angering immigration advocates.  What’s being negotiated does not include anything to address the root problems of migration, and it has nothing included to provide a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers, which is something that President Biden called for legislation he proposed on his first day.  So, why is the President okay with this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we don’t — we don’t even have the text yet to — to what’s being — you know, what the bipartisan agreement is going to be.  Right?  So, I don’t want to get ahead of that.  I’m not going to dive into what’s in it and what’s not in it.  Let’s see what the senators put forward in the text.  I think that’s important to see.

Once — once it’s out there, folks will take a look.  We believe it’s going to be — it’s going to be tough but fair and it’s going to provide new enforcement tools.  Obviously, that’s going to be important.  Policy changes.  That’s going to be important.  But also resources.  That what — that’s what we believe.

But we’re not going to get into what’s in it, what’s not in it.  Let’s let the senators continue to do their negotiations and put forward this — the text. 

Q    But we’re already seeing immigration advocates slam what’s being proposed as “callous,” —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.

Q    — as “unworkable.”  So, how does the President respond to the message from some people that he’s going back on his campaign promise?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.  But what I’m saying to you is that let’s see what the Senate bipartisan agreement is.  Let’s let them put out the text, and then we can have that discussion on whatever it is that they — they want to look through and discuss. 

But, right now, we believe this is the best way forward — a bipartisan agreement is the way forward in dealing with this immigration system.  A bipartisan agreement is what we need to deal with — what’s the challenges that we’re seeing at the border.  That’s what we want to see.  And that’s what the Senate is working towards. 

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Back in the winter of 2018 and the spring of 2019, President Trump vowed to shut down the border with Mexico, using almost the identical language that the President used on Friday.  Many — many, if not most — if not practically all Democrats called that “xenophobic” and even “racist.”  Why shouldn’t people make the same conclusion about this President’s threat to shut down the entire border with Mexico?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we believe the new enforcement tools that currently don’t exist, that will be — we believe that will be part of this bipartisan agreement — will be fair.  We believe it’ll be — yes, it’ll be tough, but it will be fair.

Q    But he didn’t say he wanted to use — excuse me.  Sorry to interrupt.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no —

Q    He didn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no —

Q    He didn’t say, “I would — on day one, I will use enhanced enforcement to improve the processing of people at the border.”  He said, “I will shut the border down,” which — which suggests a total rejection of all people attempting to cross the border without — without a visa or without — without proper authorization, which, you know, stands in contravention to decades of international and U.S. law that — that governs the — the movement of people around the globe and the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and the refugees and asylum si- — system.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, no, I under- —

Q    So, why isn’t that the same thing that Trump did?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I understand your question.  What I’m saying to you: The new enforcement tools — right? — that we believe — that do not currently exist, that will be part of this bipartisan agreement — there’s going — there are different — there are different definitions — right? — of what that looks like, of what actually shutting down the border looks like.  Right? 

So, we’re going to let them work through it.  We don’t know what that looks like exactly, right? 

What we are asking for, what the President wants to see is that we deal with the challenges at the border — right? — that we have an opportunity to deal with what’s going on, the security, and make sure that we have the funding and the resources to deal with what we’re seeing at the border. 

There are going to be different — there are different definitions to what that looks like.  And so, we’ll see what — the text comes out of the Senate.  And so, we will — we will make — we will certainly have a — I guess — a broader conversation once that happens.  But we believe it’s going to be fair.  It’ll be tough.  It’ll be fair.  They’ll have the resources available to deal with what’s going on at the border.  And also, there will be some policy changes as well. 

But to say that — to define what that looks like right now, it’s getting ahead of the process.  And we need to let Republicans as well as Democrats — there are Democrats up there, obviously, talking to Republicans.  They are both having those conversations on what it will look like — a bipartisan agreement.  And that’s what you need.  In order to really deal with this issue, you got to do it in a bipartisan way.

Q    And just to — just to follow up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You’ve said a couple of times, as you did just now, that we should wait.  You don’t want to get ahead of the process. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I think your answer to the previous question was that we don’t know what’s in it.  Yet the President and the White House have explicitly said it should pass. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    And so, how is it that, on the one hand, the President has —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — said, “Pass this thing and send it to me,” but then when asked about it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look —

Q    — you say, “I don’t want to get ahead of it.  We don’t know what’s in it.”  How could you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because there —

Q    How can you say you want to —

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

Q    — pass it, when you don’t know what’s in it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s the thing: Both things could be true, and I’ll explain why.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The White House team has been part of — right? — the negotiations.  Right?  And the President has been getting regular updates, right?  So, obviously —

Q    Right.  So, you do know what’s in it.  You just don’t want to —

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

Q    — tell us what’s in it?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying is, negotiations are still happening.  They’re literally still happening.  They’re still discussing this.  If I tell you this is happening today, who knows what could happen the next day? 

And also, I don’t want to get ahead of the conversations, right?  I don’t want to get in the middle of negotiations.  And that is true. 

But the White House team has been really talking to and part of this discussion for the past two months.  So, the President has been getting updates — has been getting updates, but — but at the same time, negotiations are still happening.  And that’s just the reality that we’re in. 

And talking about that from the podium, that will have an effect on negotiations.  And you know that, Michael.  It would.  It would have an effect on negotiations.

Q    Right.  Except the President has — didn’t — didn’t exhibit that kind of caution over the last few days, right?  He —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, for me, from here, I have to exhibit that type of caution. 

Q    Okay, fair enough.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And the President is the President.  Right?  And he wants to give confidence to the American people that we’re — that we — he believes this is going to be — yes, it’s going to be tough, but it’s also going to be fair, and we have to — in order to deal with this situation.  And it’ll be a historic — if it gets done, this will be a historic deal.

But, you know, we have to get this done in a bipartisan way.  We truly do.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Karine, the families of some of the American hostages are back in Washington this week.  Is the President willing to meet with them again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to read out.  As — as you know, Jake Sullivan, the President himself, Secretary Blinken have met with the family of the hostages in the past.  Just don’t have anything to read out on — on his schedule at this time.

Q    And just separately, we reported last week that the President had met with some of the ceasefire advocates backstage at the UAW conference.  I wondered whether this is a kind of conversation that the President is willing to have more of these kinds of conversations going forward, given the immense pressure that he’s facing from advocates calling for a ceasefire, calling on him to support a ceasefire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, you know, it’s hard to say if he’s going to have regular conversations.  Look, the President — it’s not the first time that the President has had conversations with protesters from whatever side of — certainly of the issue that they’re on. 

The President — he says this all the time — he’s the President for all Americans.  That’s something that he believes.  And he’s always willing to hear people out.  And he believes — and we’ve said this before — when it comes to protesters, people — Americans have the right to — for their voices to be heard, just as long as they do it peacefully.

And so, hearing that, you know, what — the President speaking to protesters, that’s who he is.  He’s going to — he’s going to listen to Americans and hear what they have to say just as long as they do it peacefully.  I just don’t have anything else to read out.

Q    Do you — do you have anything you could share, just from his end, how he spoke to these ceasefire advocates in that meeting?

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

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is the White House tracking the latest developments with Evergrande, the Chinese real estate company that Hong Kong is now ordering it to be unraveled, and the implications that that will have on the Chinese economy and potentially the global economy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ve seen those reports.  I just don’t have anything to share on the President — where the President is on being briefed about that.

Q    If his econ team is watching it and has a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — view on it, we’d love to hear it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We will — we will make sure we get back — back to you on that.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, the Department of Energy has finalized a rule for energy savings standards on appliances like refrigerators; washing machines; wine, beverage chillers; freezers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; electric, gas, and stovetops.  So, is our kitchen one of the root causes that’s killing the environment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this — let me just start from the top here because I do have a couple of things to say.  As you just stated, the Department of Energy today — they finalized a congressionally mandated energy efficiency standard for residential cooking, as you just laid out the different products.  And what it will do — it’s going to reduce household utility costs while improving appliance re- — reliability and performance, which is really important.

The standards — these standards, which reflect a joint recommendation from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and Consumer Federation of America, they are projected to save Americans approximately $1.6 billion on their utility bills over 30 years.

And so, this administration is always committed to using every tool at our disposal to lower costs.  This is certainly an option here, right?  Something that we’ve taken — an action that we’ve done and is going to be, obviously, for American families across the country.

Altogether, the energy efficiency standards advanced by this administration will provide nearly $1 trillion in consumer savings.

Q    But — but do the standards — the effects of the standards outweigh the cost of the regulations?  Do the companies that have to build these things with workers and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — what —

Q    Do the effects to the environment —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say more.

Q    Do the effects to the environment outweigh the added costs of the regulations for new manufacturing plants to be built — changing standards, redesigning equipment, that kind of thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re talking about making sure that these — these products are efficient — right? — making sure that they’re working in a way that’s not just that — obviously, they’ll still have the performance that they need, obviously, protecting the environment. 

But I think one al- — other big benefit, as I just laid out, is making sure that we’re saving Americans money.  I think that’s important.  That’s important that we’re — we — we’re able to do that.  1.6 billion dollars over 30 years, that’s what Americans want to see.  That’s an —

And let’s not forget, this is a congressionally mandated ef- — energy efficiency.  So, this is something that Congress went through.  This is something that they evaluated, and that’s how it got put forward to the Department of Energy.

So, this has had a lot of eyes on it.  Right?  This has had a lot of, kind of, research to make sure that this was the right thing to do for the American family, the American people.  And I think that’s what should matter.

Q    One more, if I might, on Iran, actually.  Could — at what point does the President, then, cut off the money to Iran by — by stopping or reducing their benefit from oil sales?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything to share on that particular thing.  I — as I — as the President said himself yesterday, after he acknowledged the three souls that were taken from us, our service members — brave — who bravely — who are — who bravely protect our national security, and obvious- — obviously, us as a country — you know, he said that we shall respond. 

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

AIDE:  Karine, I think you have a couple minutes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Go ahead, Brian.  I haven’t called on you. 

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  On the border.  When the President said that he would shut down the border, does that mean that the President would temporarily sign off on shutting down border crossings at ports of entry?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into specifics and details.  The President is very clear: He wants to make sure that we deal with the border — border security, that we deal with the challenges at the border.  And he has said if these new — these new authorities — right? — these new enforcement — enforcement authorities were — were put — were made into law, obviously, he would use it.

They’re working through the text.  Right?  The Senate is working through the text on what that looks like, how that is defined.  So, I’m not going to get into specifics from here.

Q    Well, can you give us a little bit more about what the President meant when he said he would shut down the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, he — I just — I mean, it’s very clear.

Q    Does he mean he’d stop people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — from being able to cross back and forth for jobs–

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What he wants to do is —

Q    — for employment, for trade?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I hear you.  What he wants to do is make sure that we deal with the challenges at the border.  That is what he wants to make sure that we do.  He wants the — the new authorities, the new enforcement tools that is being discussed — that he believes, if it’s put into law, will help him deal with the issues at the border. 

And not just that.  We’re talking about immigration policy, actually doing meaningful changes to immigration policy so that we can deal with a broken system — a broken immigration system that has been broken for some decades now. 

And so, we’ll have some — I’m sure once they come and havw a bipartisan agreement, the text will be — will be released, and then we’ll have more to share there. 

I think I have to go. 

Q    So we should take him at his word is what you’re saying, right? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’ll say this.

Q    “Shut down the border” means “shut down the border”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll say this.  I’ll say this.  I’ll say this.  The first day of his administration, the President took this issue very seriously.  He put forth a comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with what’s happening with the —

Q    We’ve heard all that.  We want to talk about the news.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me — wait, let me — you — you don’t get to decide —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You don’t get to decide what I say and what I don’t say.  Either you — either you hear me out, or we can — you know, I’ll see you on Wednesday.  Totally up to you.  Totally up to you. 

Q    I just want to know if he means —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right. 

Q    — what he says.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Q    I guess not.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was — he means what he says.  Not going to go into his — to details here. 

Here’s — here’s the reality: The immigration system is broken.  It’s been broken for decades, even in the last administration.  The President introduced this piece of legislation three years ago.  House Republicans got in the way.  They refused to do anything about it. 

Now he’s in a — he’s in this position to have a — potentially a bipartisan agreement that the Senate has been working on with Republicans and Democrats on a real — on a real solution to move forward.  Seventy-five percent of the American people, majority of the American people want us to work on this issue. 

And they’ve been very clear.  The 2022 midterm elections, what did they say?  They want to see Congress doing — doing things in a bipartisan way to really address the issues that matter to them — that matter to them.

Here’s this President actually working with Republicans and Democrats to deal with this issue — to deal with this issue.  That’s important.  And I think that’s what the American people care about. 

I’ll see you guys on Wednesday.  Thank you so much. 

2:44 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

8:05 A.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Good morning, everybody.  Thanks for joining us on a Sunday morning.

Just to go over the ground rules quick, the call will be embargoed until the conclusion of the call.  It’s attributable to senior administration officials.

For awareness, but not for reporting, joining us on today’s call are [senior administration official] and [senior administration official]. 

With that, I’m going to waste no time.  I’m just going to hand it right over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, [moderator].  And thanks, everybody, for joining this morning.  [Redacted] to be leading the counternarcotics working group meeting that is going to be taking place on the 30th of January. 

I think as everybody knows on this call, President Biden has made beating the overdose epidemic a key priority in his Unity Agenda for the nation, including a focus on cracking down on global illicit drug trafficking and disrupting the flow of illicit fentanyl and its precursors.

And as part of that effort, we are focused on pursuing all avenues to effectively reduce the flow of precursor chemicals that fuel the manufacture and distribution of synthetic drugs, including fentanyl. 

And I don’t think I have to tell anybody here that 100,000 people a year die in the United States from fentanyl overdoses.  More people in the United States between the ages of 18 and 49 die from fentanyl than any other cause. 

As all of you also know, for years bilateral cooperation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China on counternarcotics has been suspended, which has hindered our progress.  But that changed during the November 15th meeting between President Biden and President Xi Jinping at Woodside, California.

At that meeting, the leaders announced the resumption of bilateral cooperation on counternarcotics with a focus on reducing the flow of precursor chemicals that fuel illicit fentanyl and synthetic drug production. 

And so, we are announcing — this is an announcement to say that that first meeting is happening on January 30th.  It will take place in Beijing.  This is a key part of the implementation of the resumption of our bilateral cooperation on this effort. 

The working group is a whole-of-government effort.  It includes a delegation from DOJ, DHS, State, and Treasury.  And it is a platform for ongoing coordination to support concrete enforcement actions with the goal of countering the evolving threat of synthetic drugs and to address the supply and distribution of precursor chemicals and pill presses to those who manufacture and distribute these deadly substances. 

As I said, [redacted] going to be heading the delegation.  We will also be joined by:

• Rob Silvers, who’s the Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Department of Homeland Security;
• Anne Milgram, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration;
• Troy Miller, who is the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection at the Department of Homeland Security;
• Todd Robinson, the Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement;
• Scott Rembrandt, the Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Office of Strategy Policy in the Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes at the Department of Treasury;
• Bruce Swartz, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and DOJ Counselor for International Affairs at the Department of Justice; 
• Katrina Berger.  She is the head of Homeland Security Investigations;
• And Vance Morgan from the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

And through this interagency working group, the United States will pursue a range of efforts across law enforcement actions, efforts to institute precursor chemical controls, monitor emerging front trends, counter illicit finance, and coordinate with other partners to help disrupt the global illicit drug supply chain. 

We also think that this working group is so important because it provides the enduring architecture that will help us continue the coordination and the communication that will allow us to help verify what progress we are making and to continue to push for new progress as time goes on. 

That said, this working group is, as I said, I think a really critical and pivotal moment for our direct diplomacy and the implementation on this issue.  It’s by far not the only marker of progress.  And our working-level officials from U.S. departments and agencies and PRC ministries meet regularly in Beijing and the United States and continue to do so on a quite regular basis to make progress on the commitments that President Biden and President Xi made and to share information to reduce the flow of precursor chemicals. 

I will stop there and, [moderator], turn it back to you.

MODERATOR:  Great.  I think with that, we’ll go ahead and open it up to questions.

Our first question is going to go to Cate Cadell with the Washington Post.

Q    Thank you very much for doing this on a Sunday morning.  I just want to start by asking: Are you going to come into these meetings with any specific outcome in mind? 

And also, Chinese officials who sort of repeatedly indicate that they feel that it’s the U.S.’s own inability to crack down on the fentanyl supply in the U.S., I mean, what is your read on how willing they are to make any major changes at home?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that.  Maybe I’ll take the first question — part of the question, [senior administration official], on PRC actions — and then turn it over to you for the asks, if that makes sense. 

Look, I think, as [senior administration official] had mentioned, counternarcotics cooperation has been stalled for quite a number of years.  Immediately, though, after the two presidents met last November, China issued a notice to its domestic chemical industry, advising on the enforcement of laws and regulations related to trade and precursor chemicals.  This essentially is a notice putting their companies — their chemical companies on notice that they will start to take law enforcement action if there’s trade in these precursor chemicals. 

A similar notice to industry that China sent out in 2019 led to a drastic reduction in seizures of fentanyl shipments to the United States from China.  And so, our expectation is that we’ll start to see the same happen in this precursor chemical industry as well. 

In addition, we have information that the PRC started taking action against Chinese synthetic drug and chemical precursor suppliers right around the time of the summit and in the following months.  So we saw companies shut down.  We saw international payment accounts blocked.  And this really is the first law enforcement action against synthetic drug-related chemical sellers by Chinese authorities since 2017. 

In addition, in November of last year after the two presidents met, for the first time in nearly three years China submitted 145 incidents to the International Narcotics Control Board Global Database.  This is the mechanism used to share real-time information internationally about things like shipments and suspected trafficking. 

And this information — our hope is that it will help global law enforcement agencies identify trends and conduct intelligence-driven investigations that disrupt illicit synthetic drug supply chains. 

And again, we’re starting to see reductions in seizures of precursors at some U.S. airports already.  I think the nature of the drug trade means that we can’t just rest on the laurels of this set of actions that happened right after the summit.  The hope is that — and our goal is that we use this working group to drive continued progress.  As the drug trade evolves, as we see these chemicals come online, we’ll need to continue that coordination with Chinese authorities to ensure they’re acting on those new trends and new developments in the drug trade. 

But let me stop there after addressing, again, the Chinese actions and turn it back over to [senior administration official] for our expectations coming out of the working group.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  [Senior administration official], I think you said it perfectly.  A big goal of this is continued pressure, continued dialogue, ensuring that we continue to push and encourage joint law enforcement actions, that we open up and improve our dialogue on illicit financing, that we continue to maintain communication about new chemicals as they come online, and that we set up robust information-sharing mechanisms for that communication to happen, and to continue to encourage the PRC to continue to submit information about chemicals to the U.N., as [senior administration official] just indicated. 

And so, we are coming in with goals of furthering the work that has already started in very concrete and specific ways.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Our next question will go to Christina Anderson.

Q    Thank you for taking my question.  So, I’m wondering: What’s to stop them from instead of shipping directly to the U.S., shipping via third countries so that they can sort of evade the whole mechanism?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question.  I’ll take a stab at it.

I think what [senior administration official] described and what we’ve seen is actions with respect to the companies as a whole, which is not specific to them shipping to the United States but it is specific to the companies that supply and distribute regardless of where the chemicals go. 

And so, certainly our expectation and our ask and part of our continued dialogue will be to try to ensure that exactly what you’re talking about does not happen.  That would not be consistent with the goals of what we’re trying to achieve here.

MODERATOR:  Next, we’ll go to Demetri with the FT.

Q    Morning.  Thank you.  Two questions.  First, is China having a parallel discussion with Mexico?  Or do you have any kind of trilateral discussions with the U.S., Mexico, and China?

And then separately, is there anything that China is not doing right now that you want them to do?  Because it sounds like they’ve started the progress, but are there things that they’re reluctant to do that you want them to do?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Demetri.  I can take the first part and then turn it over to [senior administration official] to address parts of it. 

Certainly, we know that China has started some conversations with the Mexicans on this.  I think I’d refer to you to either the Mexican or Chinese government to content — or comment on the content of those. 

But certainly, this is a problem that affects multiple different countries.  I think the President and Secretary Blinken have both said there are two kinds of countries: those that have a fentanyl problem and know it and those that have a fentanyl problem and don’t know it, that it’s so quickly spreading. 

So this is going to have to be an issue that goes beyond just the U.S., China, Mexico, Canada.  It will have to be an issue that is addressed globally as well.  And that’s our hope through some of the mechanisms that we have set up.

In terms of what China is doing, I think — you know, our initial ask coming out of this summit, as we discussed back then, was really the notice to companies to start focusing in on precursor chemicals, where they were going, know your customer, better labeling, disruption of financial transactions or specific company operations that we knew and we had passed information to the Chinese on, and we’ve seen that happen. 

And I think the next step — again, to [senior administration official]’s point — is really, as we see that trade continue to evolve, there are going to be new companies of concern that pop up.  The goal is to use these law enforcement-to-law enforcement mechanisms to pass that information and ensure that there’s action and follow-up.  That’ll have to be — that’s not a one-time ask; that is a continual process, I think. 

And then I think on the “know your customer” piece, that will be a big part of conversations as well.  Proper labeling, ensuring that there’s not diversion of some of these dual-use chemicals to cartels and other customers that are known bad actors. 

So, again, I think our hope is, in this working group, that we can really start to dig into the specifics.  This is such a complicated problem.  It’s not one that you can use one summit, you know, get action, and then consider it done.

The fentanyl listing back in 2017 was very different because, you know, it was one drug, and that one listing was able to really shut down the trade.  The precursor chemicals is just such a much more difficult problem to solve.

[Senior administration official], back to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yep, what [senior administration official] just said was very comprehensive.  I would just add a couple of things.

One, in addition to seeking a situation where the PRC is responsive and acts upon information that we pass to them, I think, ultimately, we’d like to get to a place where the PRC is able to themselves identify and take action with respect to bad actors or actors that are clearly acting in ways that are concerning.  So, for example, chemical companies that are advertising and selling very large numbers of chemicals that we know have very limited commercial value, or as [senior administration official] said, companies that are doing bulk shipping by using pre-printed labels and in ways that are kind of clear triggers of certain kinds of deceptive practices. 

So a big ask of this trip is to encourage independent action as well.

And then, just on the Mexico point, I will — I just wanted to add that I think — I’m sure you also know the United States has a trilateral working group with Canada and Mexico on fentanyl-related issues.  And we have been closely, you know, encouraging and monitoring the conversations that are happening between Mexico and the PRC as well.  And I think it’s, as I said, really important that this is a multilateral issue, and it’s important that all affected nations are engaged in communicating with one another about the scope of the problem.

Q    Can I just get one clarification?  At the moment, is China only acting when it receives information from the U.S., or is it independently finding that information domestically and acting on that, and then telling the U.S.?  Or is it both?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There is a combination of those things.  As [senior administration official] said, we would like to see more of all of it.

Q    Thank you. 

MODERATOR:  All right.  And it looks like that is our last question.  So, with that, we’ll conclude the call.  Thank you all.

8:23 A.M. EST

The post Background Press Call on the Counternarcotics Working Group Trip to Beijing appeared first on The White House.

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

10:31 A.M. EST

MODERATOR: Good morning, everyone. And thank you for joining us on a Saturday morning.

Quickly, to go over ground rules, this call will be embargoed until the conclusion of the call. It’s attributable to a senior administration official.

For awareness but not for reporting, joining us on today’s call is [senior administration official]. And with that, I will waste no time and I will hand it over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks so much. And, folks, thanks for giving up part of your Sunday mor- — or Saturday morning for this.

I wanted to give you a bit of a readout of the National Security Advisor’s meeting with Chinese Communist Party Politburo Member Director Wang Yi — and Foreign Minister — Wang Yi.

The two met over 12 hours over two days, here in Bangkok. The discussion built on the candid and constructive meetings we’ve had not only in this channel, but also between President Biden and President Xi Jinping in Woodside, California, in November 2023.

The last meeting between Mr. Sullivan and Director Wang took place October 2023 in Washington, D.C. And I think altogether now, this is the fourth meeting in this channel with Director Wang but the eighth meeting between directors and national security advisors. As folks will remember, the previous incumbent of the role was Yang Jiechi. And Jake Sullivan often met frequently with that individual too.

This quite low-profile channel between the National Security Advisor and Director Wang is an important way to manage competition and tensions responsibly. The two-day format of these meetings, which is what we’ve done in every case, allows us to dive deeply into substance and have a strategic, thoughtful conversation about the direction of the relationship and key issues both countries face.

The two sides are committed to continuing this strategic channel of communication and agree to pursue additional channels of communication not just at the cabinet level, visits in both directions, but also a telephone call between the two leaders at some point in the coming months.

We’ve said this before, but it bears repeating, that U.S. diplomacy, these channels of communication, do not indicate a change in approach on the PRC. Mr. Sullivan underscored during the meeting that the United States and the PRC are in competition but that the United States does not seek conflict or confrontation, and there are areas of cooperation in the relationship.

During the meeting, Mr. Sullivan and Director Wang took stock of progress on key issues following the Woodside summit, including resuming military-to-military communication, advancing bilateral counternarcotics cooperation, and addressing AI safety and risks.

The United States and the PRC will launch a working group on counternarcotics, as agreed by the two leaders, on January 30th. I think we’ll have some more details and an announcement for you on that tomorrow.

On military-to-military channels, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown, held a virtual meeting with his counterpart on December 21. And the Defense Policy Coordination Talks, essentially a communication mechanism at DOD with their Ministry of Defense counterparts, took place in early January.

As next steps, we look forward to the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement meetings sometime this spring, as well as communications between theater commanders and at the minister or secretary level in the coming months.

On AI, both sides reiterated their interest in discussing emerging challenges such as safety and risks posed by advanced forms of AI. We also discussed next steps towards the U.S.-China dialogue on this issue. We expect to hold it sometime in the spring; don’t have a date for you yet on that.

Mr. Sullivan underscored continued concern with the PRC’s unfair trade policies, non-market economic practices, and retaliatory actions against U.S. firms.

He reiterated President Biden’s commitments — or, rather, comments to President Xi that the U.S. will continue to take actions to prevent advanced U.S. technologies from being used to undermine our own national security but that we are focused on de-risking, not decoupling. And our approach remains a small yard, high fence — that is we’re focused on the narrow band of technologies that are the most advanced and present military challenges.

The two sides welcomed ongoing communication on this issue in economic channels, including between Secretary Yellen and Secretary Raimondo and their counterparts.

Mr. Sullivan raised other specific issues in the bilateral relationship where we have differences. None of these would surprise you; they’re issues we consistently raise in conversations with PRC counterparts.

The two sides also discussed important global and regional security issues, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Middle East including the Red Sea, DPRK, the South China Sea, and, of course, Burma.

They discussed cross-Strait issues. Mr. Sullivan reiterated that the United States remains committed to our One China policy guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, Three Communiqués, and Six Assurances. He indicated the U.S. opposes unilateral changes to the status quo from either side, that we do not support Taiwan independence, and that we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved peacefully.

The two sides, as I mentioned before, discussed additional high-level diplomacy between the United States, and we’re committed to continuing consultation in key areas through the mechanisms that we’ve announced previously.

I’ll stop there, and happy to answer any questions you might have.

MODERATOR: With that, we’ll open it up to questions.

We’ll go to Trevor Hunnicutt with Reuters first.

Q Hey, thanks so much for doing the call. Two questions. Just curious if there was any specific date for the Biden-Xi call beyond the coming months.

And then also, I was wondering if you could give a little bit more detail around the conversation on Iran and its support for the Houthis, whether China had made any progress in terms of convincing Iran to change its support for the Houthis. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks so much. On the phone call, I don’t have a date for you yet, but we’re expecting it to take place this spring, some point in the coming months. This leader-level channel is absolutely critical to maintaining direction in the relationship and following up on some of the issues from Woodside. So, I think important that both sides go ahead with this. And, of course, at Woodside the two leaders discussed maintaining communication through telephone calls.

On the Red Sea, we certainly underscored that Iran continues to take irresponsible actions that exacerbate regional tensions and instability, including by supporting the Houthis’ attacks against civilian ships in the Red Sea. Mr. Sullivan raised the importance of Beijing using its substantial leverage with Iran to call for an end and bring an end to these dangerous attacks.

You know, we certainly — this is not the first time we’ve called on China to play a constructive role. Beijing says they are raising this with the Iranians, and I think you’ve seen that reflected in some of the press reporting. But we’re certainly going to wait to see results before we comment further on how effective we think — or whether we think they’re actually raising it.

MODERATOR: Next, we’ll go to Michelle Jamrisko with Bloomberg.

Q Hi, yes, Michelle from Bloomberg. Thanks for doing this. I just wanted to ask on the fentanyl piece. In previous discussions and previous rounds of trying to negotiate around this with China, there wasn’t — seemed to be much change in what they were doing. I’m wondering what kinds of measures may have been discussed in terms of holding them to account for delivering on the sort of cooperation on counternarcotics.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. Great question.

I think we briefed on some of this back — right after the Woodside summit, so I’m going to pull from some of those discussions.

So when we announced the restart of the counternarcotics working group last November, that was a company that (inaudible) by actions the Chinese side took, including releasing a notice to their precursor chemical — actually their entire chemical industry — about trafficking in precursor chemicals to the United States. It listed out potential criminal liability. Specific, I think it included DEA’s list of chemicals of concern, called for additional scrutiny on pill presses and equipment.

So that notice that was sent out to the chemical companies, we’ve already seen tangible impact on the ground. China has moved to shut down a number of companies and operations that were trafficking in the illicit chemicals and precursors.

We have also seen, we understand, reductions in precursor chemicals seized at some U.S. airports, originating from China. So we are already starting to see immediate impact.

However, this type of cooperation, because of the nature of the drug trade, really needs to be continuous and ongoing. It’s not just one snapshot in time. So our goal is to use this counternarcotics working group, which will include participation from a broad cross-section of agencies on our part, to really ensure that what we’re doing is iterative, that we’re continuing to share information on cases on particular points of origin of these precursor chemicals.

MODERATOR: Next, we’ll go to Nike Ching with Voice of America.

Q Good morning. Thank you so much for the call briefing. On South China Sea, how was this issue being discussed? And how worried is the United States that escalating tensions between the People’s Republic of China and the Philippines over South China Sea may trigger a conflict in the Indo-Pacific?

And separately, if I may, was there a discussion on a potential trip by Secretary of State Antony Blinken this year to Beijing?

And finally, how was Burma discussed? How does the United States assess the Chinese influence over the junta to put an end to the conflict? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks for those questions.

First, on South China Sea, Mr. Sullivan underscored the importance the United States places on the South China Sea, that we remain committed to promoting freedom of navigation and overflights, respect for international law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea, in close coordination, of course, with our allies and partners, namely Philippines, in the case you’re mentioning.

I think diplomacy plays an important part of that peaceful resolution of disputes. We support ongoing diplomacy between the two parties there. And I’ll leave it at that for now.

You asked about Burma as well. Of course, while he was in Thailand, Mr. Sullivan also met the Thai prime minister and deputy prime minister and foreign minister. In those meetings, he discussed Burma, as well — the efforts to address the worsening crisis there; discussed the importance of providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Burma; welcomed efforts to advance meaningful implementation of the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus.

In his follow-up, then, with Director Wang Yi the following day, you know, I think it’s fair to say that China certainly does have influence in that region. But Mr. Sullivan and Director Wang discussed the ongoing crisis, and we hope to have follow-up discussions at lower level in the coming weeks and months, given the need to really remain focused on promoting a return to the path of democratic transition in Burma.

You asked one more question, which somehow has — oh, Blinken’s travel. We didn’t discuss specific dates, and I would refer you to the Department of State for any conversations on that. But we do expect at some point that Secretary Blinken would make another trip this year. That channel is incredibly important. And, of course, Secretary Blinken was the first Cabinet official last year to travel to China, and his counterpart has since traveled to the United States on a reciprocal visit. So it would be up for him to return to Beijing at some point soon.

MODERATOR: Next, we’ll go to Sangho Song with Yonhap News.

Q Thank you for doing this. You briefly mentioned the two sides also discussed the DPRK, so can you elaborate on that? Was there any discussion, ongoing concerns about the (inaudible) rhetoric and weapons tests, and cooperation between Russia and North Korea and China’s role vis-à-vis North Korea (inaudible)? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, thanks for that question.

Yes, the two sides did discuss DPRK. I think we are deeply concerned — I know we are deeply concerned about the recent testing of weapons. We are deeply concerned about the growing relationship between Russia and the DPRK and what that might mean for Mr. Kim’s intentions. We raised those concerns directly with China, given their influence on Pyongyang.

And we hope these discussions will continue further between our two envoys. For example, I think the Chinese just sent their vice foreign minister to Pyongyang this week, if I’m not mistaken. So our next step would be a call between our envoy and the vice foreign minister upon his return.

MODERATOR: And our last question will go to Demetri with the FT.

Q Thanks. Good morning. So, two questions. Again, on North Korea, can you give us a sense of is China actually playing a constructive role? Because it seems to be they haven’t been doing very much recently. Is that changing?

And secondly, on Iran, can you just give us a sense of where you think China has leverage over Iran and where might they not have leverage? I mean, how much leverage do they have and why?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks for the question, Demetri.

On DPRK, I’m not sure I would characterize anything recently as constructive. Russia certainly has a growing role there and growing influence. But certainly, Beijing certainly maintains influence as well. And I think our expectation would be that they have to use that to bring us back to the path of denuclearization.

On Iran, you know, China is one of, I think, Iran’s largest trading partners, obviously buys substantial quantities of Iranian oil. I think we would characterize both the economic and trade relationship as giving it leverage — as giving Beijing leverage over Iran to some extent. How they choose to use that, of course, is China’s choice. But Iran’s influence over the Houthis and the Houthis’ destabilization of global shipping raises serious concerns, not just for the U.S. and China but for global trade.

So, again, I think there should be a clear interest in China in terms of quiet some of those attacks. But whether it chooses to use that leverage in that way, I think that remains to be seen.

Q And you’ve been talking to Iran — to China about Iran for a couple of months. Have you seen any indications that they’re playing ball in a positive way?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We’ve seen in public press reporting, and it mirrors what the Chinese are telling us directly, that they are raising it with Iran. But, you know, I think we’re looking to actually facts on the ground, and those attacks seem to be continuing.

I’ll leave it there for now.

MODERATOR: That concludes our call. Thank you all for joining us. You can anticipate that a transcript of the call will be out later today. Thank you.

10:49 A.M. EST

The post Background Press Call on APNSA Jake Sullivan’s Meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi of the People’s Republic of China appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:20 P.M. EST

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

A couple of things for you at the top — or, actually, one big thing at the top. 

This week, we saw more evidence that our economy is strong and inflation is falling under President Biden.  Inflation has now fallen back to pre-pandemic levels, and the economy grew 3.1 percent last year, stronger than during the Trump administration. 

At the same time, wages and household wealth are higher than before the pandemic.  In 2023, we also saw prices fall for key household purchases, like gas and milk, eggs, toys, appliances, and airfares. 

While experts predicted a recession — we heard that over and over again last year — President Biden helped grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up, and Americans are feeling the results.  2.7 million jobs were created last year.  And consumer sentiment surged 29 percent in the last two months, the biggest jump in more than 30 years. 

We know our work is not done.  President Biden will never stop fighting to lower costs and give hardworking American families more breathing room. 

This stands in stark contrast with House Republicans, who don’t have a plan to lower costs and whose MAGA-nomics fails the middle class with ta- — tax giveaways for wealthy and big corporations; cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare; and higher costs, from prescription drugs to utility bills. 

Now, tomorrow, as you all know — have been tracking, tomorrow is international Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time we mourn one of the darkest chapters in human history, when 6 million Jews were systematically targeted and murdered.  We also mourn the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution.

As the President said in a statement this morning, this year our charge to remember the Holocaust is a press- — is as pressing as ever in the wake of the evil attacks by Hamas terrorists on the people of Israel, which amounted to the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. 

Additionally, since October 7th, we have witnessed an alarming rise of despicable antisemitism at home and abroad, which must continue to be met with our unequivocal condemnation. 

We must continue to call out Holocaust denialism and efforts to minimize the horrors that Hamas perpetra- — perpetrated on October 7th, including the horrific use of rape and sexual violence to terrorize victims. 

President Biden will continue to stand up to antisemitism and hate-fueled violence at home and abroad, including through the first-ever National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism he announced last year.

This is our charge: to ensure we cannot continue to say “never again.” 

All right.  Now, as you can see, we have two guests in the room with us today.  Since day one, President Biden has led the most ambitious climate agenda in history, unlocking clean energy breakthroughs, advancing environmental justice, and rallying the world’s leaders to transition away from fossil fuel. 

And our — and whether it’s historic hurricanes, floods, or wildfires, the science is clear.  Climate change isn’t — is the existential threat of our time. 

So, today, the Biden-Harris administration announced a temporary pause on pending decisions on exports of liquefied national — natural gas to — to certain countries until the Department of Education [Energy] can update the underlying assessments. 

And to talk a bit about — more about this is today — today with us is the President’s Na- — National Climate Advisor, Ali Zaidi.

Ali, thank you for coming back. 

MR. ZAIDI:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The floor is yours. 

MR. ZAIDI:  Thank you. 

Thanks, everybody.  Today, as Karine noted, the Biden-Harris administration is announcing a pause on pending applications to export liquefied natural gas to non-free trade agreement countries from here in the United States. 

The department’s pause will remain in effect until the agency updates key economic and environmental analyses.  These are the analyses that underpin the way the Department of Energy makes decisions about these authorization applications. 

Specifically, the Department of Energy has said that it will focus on better understanding energy costs and the implications of future exports on energy costs for American consumers and manufacturers; on energy security for the United States here and around the world; third, on greenhouse gas emissions — and in particular methane emissions, which we now know are more potent than previously understood; and also on the burden that export potentially places for the frontline communities where this gas is chilled, liquefied, and then exported. 

We need to do that accounting with the benefit of also a sharper and more current read on the market, both on the demand for global LNG as well as the projections around long-term supply. 

Let me be clear: The U.S. is already the number-one exporter of LNG, and we have been and remain unwavering in our commitment to support our allies and partners around the world.  But we have to absorb — at this moment, we have to absorb very clearly all that is in front of us. 

From day one, President Biden has listened to the science, he’s looked out for frontline communities, and he’s followed the facts.  That’s absolutely critical. 

And that’s really been the story of the President’s leadership on climate from day one, whether it was signing us back into the Paris Climate Agreement, reversing countless rollbacks that threatened public health and our energy security, passing the biggest climate investment in the history not just of the U.S. but of the world, and rallying everybody around the whole world to raise our climate ambition.

In Glasgow, just a few years ago, that meant bringing people together around the Global Methane Pledge, which now over 100 countries have joined.

And just weeks ago, at the United Nations Con- — Climate Conference, that meant bringing the world together on the need to transition away from fossil fuels. 

So, today, from President Joe Biden and DOE Secretary Granholm, we hear more steps in the right direction as we work to tackle the climate crisis and to protect future generations. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  (Inaudible.)  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  And thank you, Ali, for being here.  So, why is this pause coming now and not on day one?  It’s almost three years into the President’s term.  And since he took office, the administration has approved thousands of oil and gas projects.  So, why didn’t you take this pause on day one to do all the critical analysis you just talked about?

MR. ZAIDI:  So — great question.  The Department of Energy — this analysis that the agency is undertaking, it’s not unprecedented.  It’s routine.  And the analytical basis for these decisions — the economic analysis, the environmental analysis — is, at this point, in most cases, about five years old.  We’ve also seen the market change dramatically over this period of time.

If you look just at the United States, which has now become the number one exporter, we’ve seen massive buildout here of LNG, as well as approvals that would double — just if you look at what’s under construction — double the export capacity just if the projects that are under construction, when they come to fruition.

So, the — that dynamic has changed.  The second thing that we’ve seen change is our evolving understanding of the environmental implications of this.

Look, over the last 10 years, for example, we’ve started to really understand the potency and threat that methane presents to the environment.  Methane is this super-polluting greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO2.  And, in some instance- — some scientists believe that it represents about half a degree of the warming we’re seeing here.

And so, one of the things that we need to do is take in and integrate some of that additional learning around lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis.  It’s really important that the department does this routine work.  And I think this will inform how we approach this program going forward.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Justin.

Q    Thanks, Ali.  I — the — I know the administration has said this review is expected to take several months.  Can you be a little more specific about the length of time this might take? 

MR. ZAIDI:  The department is going to move with speed.  They’re going to really take this head on.  It’s a commitment from the Secretary.  What we know is that there’s important information to collect.  I just spoke a little bit about the market dynamics. 

We need to understand, for example, also, the impact of potential costs on our consumers here in the United States, on manufacturers here in the United States.  A large group of manufacturers that have thousands of facilities across the country, making things like steel and aluminum, actually sent in a letter to the department saying they have a lot of input they’d like to provide. 

So, the department will be doing that work.  It will be engaged in a public comment process.  This has to be a transparent process and engaging one.  And — and they will continue to — to move that forward.

Q    And — and, as you mentioned, this — there’s been several reviews.  In the past, those generally haven’t involved pauses.  So, why this time is there a pause on these pending sales?  Some of your critics are saying it’s because of politics — trying to please environmental activists ahead of the election.  What do you say to that?

MR. ZAIDI:  I think we’ve got to be clear-eyed about the challenges that we face.  The climate crisis is that: an existential crisis.  And we’ve got to be, I think, really forward-leaning into making sure that we’re taking that head on.

But here’s — here’s, I think, the critical context for your question.  And that is that if you look at the approvals already that have been completed, you’ve got the number of projects that are under construction set to double the existing capacity, and then approvals beyond that that would double it yet again.  So, there’s a long runway here.  And we’re taking a step back and thinking, “Okay, let’s take a hard look before that runway continues to build out.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Monica.

Q    Can you share the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that this rule would cut in the short term?  Can you detail that in any specific way for people to understand?

MR. ZAIDI:  That’s a really — I think that’s part of what this review is all about: is to understand what are the implications of LNG.

We’ve started to learn more about leakage rates at different parts of the supply chain — upstream, midstream, downstream.  We’ve started to learn a lot about what happens to LNG as it’s chilled and then shipped overseas.  We’re also seeing major shifts in the demand for this product.  What is it backing out on the other end?

You think about a lot of our allies and partners who use that LNG today actually are on a trajectory to back out that demand, to replace it with things like clean energy and energy efficiency. 

So, this will take all of those factors in and, hopefully, produce a — an answer that helps us answer this — this really important question.

Q    And is there a specific benchmark that the administration is trying to reach when it comes to renewable scaling that gets to where you could restrict natural gas exports even further?
MR. ZAIDI:  I think the President has been very clear about his targets and ambition for the United States on climate as a whole.  That’s getting to an economy that does not put greenhouse gas pollution into the sky by the middle of the century — net zero by no later than 2050 and getting halfway there by the end of this decade.

The way we do that is by deploying clean energy.  We’ve already doubled the pace of deployment of technologies like solar and wind here in the United States. 

Under the President’s leadership, we’re really seeing a renaissance in the use of technologies, like advanced nuclear folks announcing commitments to invest in that and plants that were slated to retire staying on to continue to produce clean power. 
We deployed over a million electric vehicles last year in the United States.  So, I think it’s a sector-by-sector strategy pinned down in this North Star goal of getting to net-zero emissions economy wide.  And part of that conversation needs to be, as it was at the United Nations Conference, how we globally transition away from fossil fuels.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aamer.

Q    This also comes at a time when the world is still grappling with a two-year-old wa- — war in Ru- — with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  What assurances on U.S. LNG can you give allies? 

And, second, can you just also just respond to the criticism we’ve heard today, particularly from the industry, that essentially the administration has handed a win to Russia? 

MR. ZAIDI:  Look, we have, I think, beat expectations in terms of our — the speed and alacrity with which we’ve moved to be a forceful ally to folks facing down energy challenges, especially our partners in Europe. 

Just to rewind, in the — right after the invasion — the Russian invasion, the U.S. and the EU got together — we launched a task force to focus on energy security.  And what that looked at was short-term needs, medium-term, and long-term. 

As part of that — and I think the numbers are really important here — we set targets for how much gas would be delivered to Europe to help it deal with the Russian aggression.  In 2021, we delivered 22 bcm.  The task force set a target of 37 bcm in 2022, 50 bcm in ‘23, and 50 in the years that followed.

We overdelivered in ‘22 — 56 relative to the 37 target; in ‘23, 65 relative to the 50 target.  And the capacity that we have online and that will come online will allow us to be a really strong partner to our allies. 

And let’s all — I mean, before we make an assessment or draw a conclusion based on what the industry is putting out, let’s listen to what our allies are saying.  We got a letter from 60 members of Parliament from across Europe saying, “Hey, be a partner to us in the short run — and you have been — but also be a partner to us in the long run as we all take on this existential threat.” 

And that’s what President Biden, I think, has done so effectively.  He’s — he listens to the science.  He follows the facts.  He stands with our allies and partners.  He deals with these near-term challenges without taking our eye off the ball on the existential threat that we all face.  The President has, I think, delivered exceptionally well on that.

Today’s step moves us continuing in the right direction. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We kind of have to wrap it up.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, Ali.  The President in his statement today said, “We will heed the calls of young people in frontline communities who are using their voices to demand action from those with the power to act.”  To what extent is this a response to activists who have expressed some displeasure with the President’s overall record on climate so far?

MR. ZAIDI:  You know, young people have been such a central part of the coalition that really helped, I think, the President imagine this climate agenda and secure it every step of the way.  You see it in him standing up to the gun lobby, you see it in him with student debt cancellations.  But you really see it in the President’s climate agenda, where he’s launched an American Climate Corps, where he’s delivered the largest investment in climate — not just in the history of the country but of the world. 

He’s done it by bringing everybody in — farmers, ranchers, now part of the solution; folks who work upgrading buildings; electricians, auto workers, all powering this future.  And that’s the vision that I think young people are excited about — one that’s not about just getting sucked into the doom and gloom of the sky turning orange and the smoke that we breathe into our lungs but of what we can see together if we get this right. 

I think young people know they’ve got, in Joe Biden, a partner and ally, a leader who is willing to be forward-leaning and fearless and taking on this crisis and unlocking the massive, massive opportunity that sits on the other side of that. 

Q    And what’s your message to activists who say you have to — you should move beyond the pause to actually reject some of these projects?

MR. ZAIDI:  Look, if the question is does the science urge us to find every single way to move as quickly as we can faster and faster each day to take on the climate crisis, it does.  It’s code red.  That’s what the scientists say. 

And in Joe Biden, from literally day one, every single day of this administration, we’ve been creative, innovative, and, I think, intrepid in finding ways to move faster and faster in taking on this crisis. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Last question, Ed. 

Q    Yeah.  Thanks.  Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Ali.  So, 32 oil and natural gas industry groups have signed on to a letter saying that the pause sends the wrong message to the allies but also that it will push countries specifically in Asia to turn to coal plants when they can’t get that increased LNG, you know, which we’ve seen in India, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Germany when they couldn’t find enough natural gas.  So, what’s your response to that criticism?

MR. ZAIDI:  I think we’ve got to be really thoughtful about the interaction of energy supply and demand as we manage through a transition to a clean energy future.  And look, I hear you.  The industry that produces fossil fuels has a perspective on how to manage that supply and demand.  So do the industries that populate our economy and economies around the world — folks who are making steel and cement, folks who are making solar panels and batteries, folks who are just focused on delivering good products at a good price.

We’ve got to look at all of those things.  That’s part of the department’s analysis: economic and environmental. 

And in the meantime, you’ve got a system that is ready to meet our allies and partners where they are, provide that energy security.  But we’ve got to do both of these things at the same time: meet our energy security needs and look at the challenge that we face on climate change.  That’s what the President has been, I think, uniquely able to do is manage those near-term challenges, be really, really strong in standing with our allies as they work through the challenges that are right in front of them, and then work on this energy transition to a clean energy future. 

And, you know, we can — we can sort of go through where different groups are.  And that’s exactly — that’s exactly what the Department of Energy process is all about is making sure U.S. manufacturers, U.S. consumers, they’re all at the table, providing the input, providing the analysis so that we can come to the right bottom line.

Q    But does the pause then push other countries towards coal?

MR. ZAIDI:  That — I don’t think that bears out in fact.

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

MR. ZAIDI:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate you.  All right.  Okay.  Now we have the Admiral here, who’s going to — Admiral John Kirby, to be precise — (laughs) — who’s going to give an update on the Middle East. 

Go ahead, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.  I just got a couple of things to get through here with you all. 

Today, President Biden spoke with Qatari Amir Sheikh Al-Thani and Egyptian President El-Sisi.  As a matter of fact, that second call with President El-Sisi just wrapped up here a little bit ago — to discuss the latest developments in Israel and in Gaza, including our efforts to secure the release of all the hostages taken by Hamas.

Now, we’ll have readouts of those conversations soon, as I think you can expect.  But to give a brief update of — of where things are, we continue to do everything we can to facilitate
another hostage deal, just like we did back in November.

Our Coordinator for the Middle East, Brett McGurk, is actually returning this afternoon to D.C. from a good set of discussions with counterparts in the region, to include, of course, Qatari officials.

We’re hopeful about progress, but I do not expect — we should not expect any imminent developments.  And I certainly won’t get into negotiating here from the podium or speculating about possible outcomes.

Suffice it to say that at every level — from the President right on down — we’re doing everything we can to bring these moms and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters back home to their — their families.

Our thoughts remain with them and, of course, their loved ones, as well as all the innocent Palestinians that continue to be caught up in this war that Hamas and Mr. Sinwar started on the 7th of October. 

Now, shifting topics, if I can, to another part of the world.  As you may be tracking, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is in Bangkok today meeting with senior Thai officials and his Chinese counterpart.

Yesterday, Mr. Sullivan had a separate meeting with the Thai Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.  In those meetings, Mr. Sullivan reaffirmed the importance of the U.S.-Thailand treaty alliance and partnership, and discussed opportunities to strengthen cooperation across a range of bilateral and global issues.

And, of course, when he has the opportunity to meet with his Chinese counterpart, it will be a follow-on to the discussions that President Biden had with President Xi over — back in — in San Francisco and to continue to work for ways to — to improve our bilateral relationship, but also to make clear and — and be firm about issues where we don’t always agree with China.

And then, finally, I’d like to just take a moment to welcome Turkey’s approval of Sweden’s application to join NATO this week.

As many of you know, the Turkish parliament voted to approve the articles of ratification on Tuesday.  President Erdoğan signed those documents yesterday.  And we’re expecting the instruments of ratification to arrive in Washington, D.C., very, very soon to be deposited at the State Department, as per process.

We certainly encourage Hungary to move forward with their process quickly so that the Alliance can welcome Sweden into NATO without further delay.

And with that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nandita.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Kirby, I wanted to ask you about the World Court decision ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide, but it stopped short of ordering a ceasefire.  You have suggested multiple times that South Africa’s claim does not really have merit.  And I’m wondering: How does the U.S. repair relations with South Africa, which is a big voice for non-aligned countries in the Global South?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t believe that our disagreement over the founding claim of the allegation causes any permanent damage to the bilateral relationship with South Africa.  We just happen to disagree on that point.  But we’re also going to keep working to — on that relationship, as we do many others.

Q    So, you fundamentally believe the U.S. — they claim that the U.S. is supporting a genocidal state.  That is not going to impact relations with South Africa?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t — I don’t believe I heard that from South Africa.  South Africa filed a case based on allegations that they believe genocide was being conducted by Israel in Gaza.  I don’t believe it was directed at us at all. 

We simply have said consistently we find that that — that that claim is — is unfounded.  And, you know, the — the court also did not find Israel guilty of genocide.

Q    Sorry.  One quick question on President Biden’s top migration advisor at the NSC departing the White House next week.  How does her departure impact border policy negotiations and asylum talks if (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  She — Katie has done an amazing job as — particularly, helping us in the — in our Summit for Democracy and getting the L.A. Declaration on human migration going and really working on a truly hemispheric approach to trying to get at the root causes of migration.

She’s just been absolutely critical.  We’re all going to miss her.  She’s just a — a great professional and has — has been a true public servant in that regard.  And she wants to head on back to Chicago to spend more time with her family, and we — she certainly has earned that after three years with the administration.

I don’t have anything to — personnel announcements to make in terms of who’s going to replace her.  But I can assure you that — that we’ll find an appropriate professional to come in and — and take those duties.  And I have no doubt that the foundation of the great work that Katie has done will stand as well no matter who comes in behind her.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aamer.

Q    Just to follow on the ICG — ICJ.  Is the President disappointed that the court did not definitively dismiss the genocide claim?

MR. KIRBY:  Actually, I mean, I think the court’s ruling is consistent with many of our — our — many of our positions, ma- — and — and much of the approach that we’ve taken with Israel. 

For instance, in, you know, the view that Israel has the right to take action against the terrorists of that — on the October 7th attack; that — that they have an obligation to be mindful of minimizing civilian casualties; that they have an obligation to assist the international community to get humanitarian assistance.  And all of these are things that we — that we have been pushing and urging for as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    In his phone call today with the Qatari Amir, did the President speak with him at all about these leaked comments from Netanyahu calling the country problematic?  And what kind of assurances did he offer?

MR. KIRBY:  The main purpose of the call was to continue to discuss the possibilities of another hostage deal and a humanitarian pause that would go along with that. 

Q    So, you can’t say if that came up?

MR. KIRBY:  The main purpose of the call was to talk about the — the possibilities of getting us back into another hostage deal.

Q    And the U.N. Relief Agency said that they have fired some of their staff after Israel has accused them of being involved in the Hamas attack.  What is the White House thinking on this?  I know the State Department have said — has said that they’re suspending aid temporarily.  Are there other steps the U.S. is considering taking on this?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we have suspended any outlying or yet to be allocated funds for — for UNRWA, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, pending the results of this investigation.  We’re obviously going to be watching this very closely.

We welcome the U.N. Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of UNRWA — their comments today calling for a full investigation. 

As Secretary Blinken made clear in his call with the Secretary-General yesterday, we expect that that will be a complete and thorough and transparent investigation — we all want to see that; it’s good for everybody — and that those who are — who are — who — who should be, are properly held accountable for that.  And as — as you saw, the U.N. said even including the potential for criminal prosecution.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thank you, Karine and Admiral.  The death toll in Gaza is staggering, reportedly now more than 26,000.  Is there anything at this point that would stop the President from supporting Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  We continue to believe that Israel needs to get the support that they need to defend themselves against a — a still viable threat by — by Hamas, an organization that wants to wipe them off the — the map.  So, we’re going to continue to support Israel. 

At the same time — and we can — we can still continue to urge Israel to be more careful and more precise.  We can continue to urge Israel to get more humanitarian assistance in.

Q    Does the President still believe his personal diplomacy with Netanyahu is as effective as it was earlier in this war?

MR. KIRBY:  It is as vital now as it was on the 7th of October, and I fully expect that you’ll continue to see the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu engage appropriately.

Q    So, to clarify, there is no red line, there is no point at which the President would stop his —

MR. KIRBY:  I would just tell you —

Q    — support?

MR. KIRBY:  — that we continue to believe the approach that we’ve been taking — on behalf of Israel to help them, as well as on behalf of the people of Gaza to help them — is — is showing results.  And we’re going to continue that approach.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  And thank you, Admiral.  When the President spoke with Netanyahu one week ago, did he press him to scale down the Israeli military option?  And did he talk about any timeframes for when he would like that to be done?  As an example, the President stressed that he is “not in it for a year of war,” according to reports.

MR. KIRBY:  Gee, could it be that you’re referring to some certain press coverage?  Huh?  I —

Q    Can you confirm that?

MR. KIRBY:  I cannot.  And I’m not going to get into more detail about the call.  We gave you a — a pretty fulsome readout.  I was up here talking about the call. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu and the War Cabinet have a big job in front of them.  We’re going to continue to make sure that they have the benefit not only of American security assistance, but American — American advice and counsel, which we have been providing since the very, very beginning.

Q    How much of the President’s asks to Netanyahu have to do with his concerns about how the war is impacting his chances of reelection?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s not about American asks.  It’s a conversation that we’re having with Israeli leaders about how they’re prosecuting this conflict, this war against Hamas.  And from the very beginning, we have not been bashful about offering our insights, our perspectives, our lessons learned from our own experience with urban warfare in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and we won’t be bashful going forward. 

And does that mean that there are going to be things that maybe we don’t see exactly the same way that the Israelis think — look at it?  Yeah, it probably will.  It has and it will going forward.  That’s what friends can do.  That’s what allies can do.

Q    But I’m asking how much is the President concerned that this war is impacting his chances of reelection?

MR. KIRBY:  The President is concerned about Israel’s right to defend itself from a legitimate terrorist threat.  The President is concerned about the humanitarian crisis that’s going on in Gaza right now — people in desperate need of food, water, medicine, and fuel so that they can drink fresh water and — and subsist. 

The President is concerned, as I said at the very outset, with the hundred-plus hostages that are still being held by Hamas and other Islamic Jihad groups there in Gaza and making sure that they get home to their families.  I mean, my goodness, just today, those two calls — he’s working at this personally at his level to see if we can’t get them home.  That’s what he’s concerned about. 

He’s not looking at the clock and the electoral calendar.  He’s looking at the clock in terms of the lives that are at risk in Gaza right now: hostage lives, Palestinian lives, and — you know what? — even Israeli Defense Force lives because they keep taking casualties.  That’s the clock he’s worried about. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Patsy.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, this ICJ ruling, it’s going to be part of a global conversation on this conflict.  Does it — does the ruling and the subsequent proceeding — will it impact U.S. policy or messaging at all?

MR. KIRBY:  Policy or messaging on — on what?

Q    On the conflict in Gaza.  I mean, I know that you’ve stated — or the statement that said that this goes in line with what you’ve been saying. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah

Q    But going forward, do you believe that it will change — it will sway the President one way or —

MR. KIRBY:  It gets hard — it’s hard to see that.  I mean, I think we’ll have to watch this — this is obviously just the — a provisional order by the court.  We’ll have to watch how the process plays out. 

But it’s difficult to see that it alone is going to change the approach.  As I said, the President believes the approach we have been taking has been getting results.  And we’re going to keep at that. 

Q    And I understand that the ICJ order does not call for a ceasefire, but more than 150 countries have.  And more than 1,300 Americans scholars and the majority of American voters are also calling for a ceasefire.  So, how would you respond to criticism that President Biden, at this point, is really out of touch with what Americans want and also what the U.S. — what the world demands of U.S. leadership on this issue?

MR. KIRBY:  The President would like this war to end too.  He would like to see the people of Gaza, the Palestinian people, live in peace and security.  He believes in that too. 

And we are pushing for pauses in the fighting so that we can get hostages out and — and aid in.  I mean, absolutely. 

We don’t believe that right now a general ceasefire is the best approach.  But that doesn’t mean that the President isn’t respectful of the wide range of views out there or — or the desire to — to end the violence and end the war.  Of course, he doesn’t want to see the war go on one more day than it — than it needs to go on. 

But it — but they do face a very viable — continued viable threat from Hamas that they have every right and responsibility to go after.

Q    And just really quickly on the Jake Sullivan meeting.  What was Jake’s message to Wang Yi on Taiwan?  Was there anything new that was conveyed, anything that’s more urgent in light of Beijing’s intimidation — increased intimidation on Taiwan?

MR. KIRBY:  As far as I know, the discussions with Wang Yi are just beginning and ongoing.  So, I mean, I can’t talk about it in the past tense.  And I’m sure when Jake gets back, we’ll be able to give you a little bit better sense. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Sabrina.

Q    Thank you.  The fact of the matter is that ICJ has not dismissed the allegations of — against Israel, wi- — with respect to genocide.  They do believe that those allegations warrant further investigation and deliberation.  So, do you stand by the words that you used earlier this month to characterize those allegations — that they are “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever”?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

Q    And what are you basing that off of if the U.N.’s top court believes that there is a plausible risk of genocide?  They’re specifically directing Israel to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide and, again, have not —

MR. KIRBY:  It was not found that they are committing genocide.

Q    But they — they do — they are not dismissing the case. 

MR. KIRBY:  And we have not found —

Q    And they do believe —

MR. KIRBY:  — that they are committing genocide.  We have no indication that that’s — that that’s going on, Sabrina.  And we have no indication that they are deliberately trying to exterminate the people of Gaza. 

Q    Well, the ICJ specifically cited inflammatory statements that were made by Israel’s defense minister, referring to human — Gazans as “human animals,” the President of Israel saying the entire population of Gaza is responsible.  Do you not see that as risking incitement?

MR. KIRBY:  Comments like that are certainly also counterproductive and unhelpful.  No question about that.  But we haven’t seen indications that the Israeli Defense Forces are getting up out of the rack every day, putting their boots on the floor, and saying that they’re designed — their whole effort is to go exterminate the Palestinian people.  They’re trying to eliminate the threat that Hamas poses.  

I want to be very clear — and I know I’ve said this a million times, and you’re all probably sick of me following up on this — but that doesn’t mean that we excuse any single innocent life lost.  The right number of civilian casualties is zero. 

But there’s no indication that we’ve seen that validates a claim of genocidal intent or action by the Israeli Defense Forces. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you.  John, you said this month about the UNRWA, “You can’t hold them accountable for the depredations of Hamas.”  How about now?

MR. KIRBY:  Certainly, it — it looks as if, Peter — and again, there’s an investigation going on, so I’ll be careful — but it certainly looks as if there’s cause to be concerned about the actions of some of the members of UNRWA, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency.  But that does not, nor should it, impugn the entire agency and the entire — all the body of work that they’re doing. 

They have helped save literally thousands of lives in Gaza.  They do important work.  Doesn’t mean that there aren’t some folks in that group that — that need to be punished for, potentially, these kinds of behavior.  But that doesn’t impugn the entire organization. 

Q    That’s bad, though.  If there are 12 people who are accused —

MR. KIRBY:  It’s bad — it’s bad if there’s one.  It’s bad if there’s one.

Q    That’s bad.  And the U.S. is giving them money.  How much money?

MR. KIRBY:  We have suspended the — they have su- — we have suspended —

Q    How much before the suspension?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have the dollar figures here, Peter.

Q    John —

MR. KIRBY:  It — I’ll take the question and get back to you.  But we have suspended unallocated funds pending the outcome of the investigation.

Q    Who does this White House vet?  Because we know that people coming across the southern border are not vetted.  Now we know that people that are getting hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. money are not being vetted.  So, who do you guys check out?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s — it’s interesting that you’re combining the two — the border and this.  But let’s just — let me — let me — just give me a second. 

It’s not like — it’s not like we don’t have a process at the border.  And there is a challenge there.  And the President does want to get more Border Patrol agents.  But this idea that just there’s no vetting and there’s no proper immigration enforcement going on at the border just does not — does not comport with reality. 

There’s — a lot of work needs to be done to get better at that.  But that’s — put that aside, because that has nothing to do and you know it has nothing to do with UNRWA —

Q    (Inaudible) big picture —

MR. KIRBY:  — and Gaza.

Q    — of what this administration is doing and how —

MR. KIRBY:  It is a U.N. —

Q    — resources are being used. 

MR. KIRBY:  It is a U.N. agency.  And, yes, we have contributed to their work.  And that work has been meaningful, and it has been important in places like Gaza.  But we also are willing to hold them accountable for this particular incident and before the pa- — alleged behavior by these particular employees. 

Q    So —

MR. KIRBY:  And as I’ve said — wait, just give me a second now.  As I said, we want this investigation to be complete and thorough and transparent.  And if it — if the — if in the investigation it’s determined that people need to be held accountable, then obviously we want to see that too. 

Q    But up until today, the U.S. policy then has been: We don’t negotiate with terrorists, but we will give them hundreds of millions of dollars. 

MR. KIRBY:  Come on, now.  That’s — that’s conflating here.  This is not — you’re — you’re — that’s like saying the whole UNRWA is a terrorist organization.  You know who is a terrorist organization?  Hamas, not UNRWA. 

Now, if they have — if the investigation proves that — in this case, I think it’s about a dozen employees were assisting Hamas, and even to the point of maybe even, you know, involved in hostage taking, then absolutely, they need to be held to account. 

And we will — although we’ve already suspended any additional allocations to UNRWA, we’ll certainly consider additional — you know, what it — depending on the investigation, whether that requires any additional changes in the way we support UNRWA going forward. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Asma.

Q    Thank you.  I’d like to ask about the logistics of moving people from, kind of, place to place within Southern Gaza.  We have reports that the Israeli military ordered evacuations from Khan Yunis and some of the places where people had already moved to.  What is the guidance for where these Gazans are — go at this point?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that I’m qualified to — to speak to that.  I mean, the — the Israeli Defense Forces have been doing the best that they can to try to inform people about where to go and where not to go and — and where safe passage is. 

But I’m not — we’re not privy to that process.  And I — I don’t think it’s an appropriate question for me to answer.

Q    Okay.  One —

MR. KIRBY:  What we do just in general — I want to make sure — that they have provided safe corridors and safe passage for people to get out of harm’s way.  They — they’ve done that in the past.  Our expectation is that they should do that going forward. 

Q    And I wanted to go back to something that Selina had asked earlier about the relationship between Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.  Is there a sense thus far that the advice that you are giving, I guess, is being counseled and heard and listened to? 

And I guess I ask this in part because we’ve had, you know, in our ear, someone like Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has been rather outspoken that it seems like Netanyahu is — is not really abiding by the respect and guidance that has been given by this administration. 

And so, is it your sense that he’s listening?  And if not, how do you adjust or change behavior if there are no consequences?

MR. KIRBY:  We believe that the — the Israeli War Cabinet and the Israeli Defense Forces have been receptive to our advice and counsel on our lessons and perspectives.  And we know that in many cases, it’s led to actual changes on the ground — opening up Kerem Shalom, providing safe passage from the north to the south when they were operating in the north, moving in on the north in smaller forces than they were, relying less on airstrikes.  I could go on and on. 

They have been receptive to a lot of the things that we’ve wanted to see them do.  It doesn’t mean that we’re going to see eye to eye on everything and every aspect of the way they’re prosecuting this operation — their operation.  They are a sovereign nation. 

We provide our advice and counsel on the lessons learned.  They have to make these decisions, and they have to answer for the decisions that they’re making or unmaking.  That’s really for them to speak to.  But we are confident that we have the connective tissue with our Israeli counterparts to be able to provide that perspective.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aurelia.

Q    Thank you so much.  I have a question on Haiti.  So, today, a court in Kenya blocked the government’s decision to send police forces —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — to Haiti as part of an international mission.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    So, the — the administration has been very supportive of that move.  So, what are the next steps here?  Are there alternatives?  What are the next steps for Haiti?

MR. KIRBY:  As we understand it, the government of Kenya is appealing that — that court decision, and I think I’d let — let it stand there.  That’s really for them to speak to.  It’s an internal legal and judicial process in Kenya.

We still — we’re still very grateful for the government of Kenya’s willingness to participate in a multilateral — multinational, sorry, security posture there in Haiti.  We still think that’s really important because the — the gangs and the thugs and the criminals are still causing a lot of chaos, mayhem, killing, violence.  And the people of Haiti deserve a whole lot better than that. 

So, we’re still supportive of the mission set, but I’ll let the government of Kenya speak to this appeal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Thank — thank you.  Admiral —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, this gentleman right here.

Go ahead, sir.

Q    Thank you.  Coming back to Taiwan, Taiwan’s defense ministry has reported that, since December 7th, 54 Chinese balloons crossed the median line, roughly half of those entered Taiwan’s airspace, and 16 crossed over the island.  Are you aware of these incursions?  And what do you think is the purpose? 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we — we’re aware that there were some of these surveillance balloons that were flown, particularly in — before and around the time of the election.  And, as I said at the time, these are questions that the Chinese government need to answer — what was the purpose and — and what they were doing.

I don’t — we — it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to answer that question.  Clearly, we made — at the time, asserted that there should be no interference in the people of Taiwan’s ability to conduct free and fair elections.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Janne.

Q    Thank you.  Thank you, Karine.  And thank you, John.  I have two questions.  It is known that North Korea is planning to (inaudible) provocations for targeting this year’s general election in the South Korea and the presidential election in the United States.  What are the United States’ pre- — preparedness measures for the possibility of North Korea intervening in the elections? 

MR. KIRBY:  No foreign actor, state or no- — or — or non-state should interfere in our elections, period.  And we’re going to be just as vigilant in this election cycle as we have been in past about doing what we can to identify and thwart any attempts for election interference.

Q    Based on the North Korea’s missile pro- — provocations so far, do you believe that North Korea actually has the ability to attack the United States?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’ll refrain from getting into intelligence assessments.  We know that the North Koreans continue to pursue advanced capabilities, including ballistic missile capabilities, that — that they want to ha- — they want to be able to achieve long-range outcomes. 

And I think — but, look, obviously, we’re going to do what we have to do to make sure we can protect the United States, protect our allies and partners.  And the President has devoted more capabilities into the region and has worked really hard with our counterparts in Japan and South Korea, particularly on trilateral cooperation, to be able to defend ourselves.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Got to start wrapping up.  Go ahead, Nadia, in the back.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Back on the ICJ.  I want to follow up on Sabrina’s question.  There is a ruling that says 15 to 2 that Israel should not destroy evidence of crimes against Palestinians.  Do you agree with that ruling, at least?  Number one.

MR KIRBY:  Again, without — making it clear that we haven’t seen such crimes and we’ve seen no indication of such crimes, obviously we respect the court’s role as an arbiter of — of solving peaceful disputes.  And we would not want to see anybody, should there be that kind of evidence in any situation, move to destroy that evidence. 

Q    Okay.  And all of the collective incidents that we’ve been asking you over the month, whether it’s a civilian who was carrying a white flag that’s being shot dead, whether desecrating of graves, whether journalists who’ve been killed or targeted, can you tell us, when you said that you relayed this message to the Israelis, how can we get some kind of accountability?  How can we get answers for all these questions that, collectively, you call “incidents” and you cannot comment on each individual incident?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not really sure how you want me to answer the question, so I’ll just repeat what I’ve said before.  We’re not going to react in real time to every single event.  When we —

Q    But my question — sorry.  My question is: Do you relay this to the Israelis?  Do we — can we get an answer from you about the Israelis been responding — whether they are really responding to you positively and they’re saying, “We are aware of this, and we’re investigating it,” et cetera?  Do you get an answer for us, from them?

MR. KIRBY:  To the — to the best of our ability, if we have something that — that we can speak to in terms of what the Israelis are doing, I’ll do- — we’ll do that.  But it is really for the Israelis to speak to their operations and what they’re doing and — and if they investigate what their investigation is finding. 

Doesn’t mean that we’re going to be bashful about speaking out if we have concerns.  We’ve done that in the past.  We’ll do — we’ll do that in the future.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Brian.

Q    Thanks, John.  On Hungary’s bid — on Hungary holding up Sweden’s bid for NATO.  Is the President — what’s the President’s understanding for why Hungary hasn’t approved Sweden’s bid for NATO?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that we agree necessarily that, you know, Hungary is holding it up.  I mean, they’ve already indicated that they’re going to move on this.  And, as I said in my opening statement, we urge him to do that quickly now that Turkey has. 

So, we’re — we’re very, very optimistic that Sweden will soon become the newest NATO member.  And — and Hungary has said that they aren’t going to be the holdup, quite frankly.

Q    Is — is the President aware of any demands that Hungary has made before it moves the process forward?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not — I’m not aware of any specific demands made by — by Hungary.  Again, they have said clearly that they’re not going to be the holdup, and we urge them to move quickly now that Turkey has.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Monica. Last question.

Q    Thank you so much.  Admiral, we know that Director Burns is traveling to Europe for these potential hostage talks.  But you said at the beginning of your remarks that we shouldn’t expect any imminent developments on that front.  So, is that your way of just lowering expectations for any outcome?  Is it —

MR. KIRBY:  No, that’s just my way of being honest with you about where we are in the process.  I mean, I’d love nothing better than to be able to stand up here on a Friday afternoon and tell you, you know, we’re — we’re there.  We’re not.  And it would be irresponsible for me to — to say otherwise. 

What I’m hoping you get away — and I won’t speak to the CIA Director’s travel one way or the other.  But what I hope you take away from all the work we’ve been doing in recent days and weeks, including the phone calls that the President had today, is how seriously we’re taking the issue, how hard we’re working to try to see if another hostage deal can be put in place. 

Q    And is there anything else the NSC can share on the Russian plane crash that was carrying those Ukrainian POWs?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m afraid I don’t have additional context or information to — to share on that, just we’re watching this and we’re — we’re certainly interested in getting as much information as we can.  But I don’t have anything more. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much, Admiral.  Thank you.  Have a good weekend.

MR. KIRBY:  You too.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Got a couple minutes.  Aamer.

Q    Thanks.  Speaker Johnson said in a letter today if the details of the Senate deal were true, it — (coughs) — excuse me — it would be dead on arrival in the House.  So, how do you go forward with the Sen- — Senate legislation knowing it can’t pass the House?  Are — are negotiators trying to make adjustments to make it more palatable to House Republicans? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the administration has been working for some time now with the Senate to work in a bipartisan way with Republicans and Democrats to find a solution, to find a way to deal with a broken immigration system and, obviously, the challenges that we’re seeing at the border.  And we feel that it’s been happening in a — in a good-faith — good-faith nature. 

And these — these negotiations about policy changes, obviously, and also funding resources, that will be important in dealing with that issue. 

Look, House Republicans, they have a choice to make, right?  They have to choose whether they want to solve a problem — actually solve a problem, like the Senate is trying to do in a bipartisan way, and — or, you know, get in the way and score political points. 

That’s a decision that House Republicans have to make.  It’s clear that senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have made their decision.  They have said, “We’re going to do this.  We’re going to try and figure out — negotiate in good faith and try to figure out how do we come to a bipartisan agreement.”

And, you know, the — the President has been very clear.  He asked in his supplemental request what he needed — what he think we needed as a country, what was the emergency ask that he had for our country in a nat- — as it relates to our national security.

House Republicans, they have to choose: Do they want to help, or do they want to score political points?

Q    Okay.  And then just one thing quickly.  The year anniversary of the East Palestine derailment is, I think, about a week away now.  When is he going to go?  And is — you know, it’s been almost a year.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is this becoming more of a hindrance to the President and a sign of, almost, insensitivity by not going?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not sure it’s a — it’s a sign — I wouldn’t say it’s a sign of insensitivity.  Let’s be clear here.  From the moment — the day of the derailment that we saw in Eas- — East Palestine and what the community had to deal with, within hours — within hours, we’ve had federal assistance, federal employees on the ground — within hours.  And that was because of this President — right? — because he understood what that community would be going through. 

So, he was — he was ver- — we were proactive.  And we got folks there within hours.  We’re talking about EPA, Department of Transportation, talking about FEMA, HHS, CDC.  And we’ve been on the ground — folks have been on the ground sin- — since that day — since that day.  And this is a whole-of-government approach — whole-of-government approach. 

So — and the President is going to continue to ask Congress to act.  Obviously, there’s a rail safety act that needs to be strengthened.  And the President is going to continue to do that.

As it relates to the President’s trip, if — obviously, don’t have anything to announce at this time.  When it is — when it is appropriate or helps — help the community for him to be there, obviously, he will be there.  He’s done that. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s in a rural area, urban area, suburban area, red state, blue state, the President has always been there to — to as- — to — to assist and be there for the community.  So, when it is helpful, he certainly will do that. 

But I want to — you know, you asked the question about insensitivity.  But the President did do exactly what the community wanted him to do — that was right for the community — was give assistance within hours of the derailment. 

And we’re holding — let’s not forget, we’re going to hold accountable Norfolk Suffolk [Southern], like we are going to make sure that they — they actually, you know, stay to account what they caused on the ground with this derailment.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Back to the border negotiations.  Can you share anything about where the President stands on scaling back his parole authority?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I want to be —

Q    Is that a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I —

Q    — red line?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.  I hear you.  And I — and I get — I get the — the red lines and I get where we stand maybe policy-wise on particular issues. 

There are negotiations happening, as you know.  You hear me say this almost every time I’ve been at the — at the podium for the past month or two as we talked about this.  But we want to be careful because we want to give them the space to have a good-faith conversation, to have a good-faith negotiations about what policy — real policy changes, you know, subs- — you know, I won’t say “subst-” — “substantial” — but real, meaningful policy changes that they can make to deal with the broken system that we see in the immigration system. 

I just don’t want to get into characterizing or laying out or — or, you know, thinking through what our policies are any — are on particular issues, because we just don’t want to get in the way of that.

The moment I say something, the moment it goes into the room of the negotiations.  And we just don’t want to do that. 

Q    Okay.  Got it.  And then, does the President have any response to at least 25 Republican governors signing a joint statement supporting Texas in its standoff with the U.S. at the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s what I would say.  My message to those — how many governors in that letter?

Q    I believe it’s 25 —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Twenty-five governors.

Q    — at least. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would say to them that — are they Re- — you said Republican governors?

Q    Yes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would say to them that if they truly want to help with — with the issue at the border, with the immigration system, that they need to talk to their — they need to talk to the congressional members, the senators in their state.  That’s what they need to do.  They need to ask them to make sure that they have the resources they need within their respective states to take action — right? — to actually deal with a broken system. 

The way that we deal with this is legislatively.  The way that we deal with this is for Congress to act.  And so, that’s what those 25 Republican governors need to do. 

They ne- — they really want to help?  They really want assist?  They really want to see change with the immigration system?  They really want to fix the challenges that we see at the border?  Then they should talk to their senators and the conger- — and their congressmen or congresswomen who are in their states.  That’s how we get this doing — going. 

And we are appreciative of the senators right now, both Republican and Democrats, who are doing just that.  And we want to come to a bi- — bipartisan agreement.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Monica.

Q    Last night, Alabama executed a man with nitrogen gas, which is the first time that that new method has been used.  I’m wondering if the White House has any reaction to that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, we do.  The reports of Kenneth Smith and the — and his death last night, obviously, is troubling.  It is very troubling to us as an administration.  It is very troubling to us here at the White House.  It underscores why the President support the — support the Attorney General’s mora- — moratorium on federal death penalty, pending review of the policies and procedures governing its use. 

The President has — long had said and has had deep — deep, deep concerns with how the death penalty is implemented and whether it is consistent — consistent with our — our values. 

So, we are deeply troubled by it, by what we he- — by — about Kenneth Smith’s death.  And so, you know, it is just troubling to hear.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  How concerned is President Biden about Trump weighing in on these border negotiations, especially considering how much influence he has over the Republican Party?  Does he think it’s appropriate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, that’s for the Republican Party to speak to.  Seriously.  It — I mean — I want to be really mindful, because that’s candidate Trump speaking, right?   So, I want to be careful — there’s upcoming elections, as you hear me say as often as I can.  Got to be careful, as a federal employee.  There’s something called the Hatch Act, as you all know.  So, don’t want to comment specifically on — on him. 

But, look, there is a real issue, a real challenge at the border.  There truly is.  The President understands that.  The President has said that himself.  And we know that the immigration system is broken, and it has been for decades now. 

We want to get that done.  We want to fix that.  We want to take steps to get to a place where we can — we can deal with the issues at hand.  And that’s why he put forth, on his first day, a comprehensive immigration policy.

The President is taking this very seriously.  He’s taking this very seriously on behalf of the American people. 

Q    But in terms of what’s happening right now, is the President concerned that politics is getting in the way, given the circumstances here, what he was just saying about what Speaker Johnson had said?  How can there still be optimism that this can move forward (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s optimism because what we have seen in the Senate are Republicans and Democrats coming together in a bipartisan way to find an agreement.  That is optimism.  That is optimism.  This has been happening for the past couple of weeks, couple of months now.  And we feel that is an optimistic look on, you know, both — folks from both sides of the aisle coming together and having those negotiation conversation on real ways to fix the problem — to fix the broken immigration system. 

So, yeah, I think that’s — and — you know, you all — you all see this, in the way that politics is today, the fact that we’re seeing that in the Senate, that’s a good thing.  That’s a good thing.

And I already said, House has to make a decision — they have to make a decision — House Republicans have to make a decision if they want to be part of the solution or part of the problem. 

Q    Has the President spoken with McConnell since inviting him to the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have any calls to read out.  As you know, as you just laid out, they were here just last week.  And this was obviously a conversation — the border — border security was a conversation for — in during that meeting.  Obviously, it was about Ukraine and getting that all-important, continued funding for Ukraine. 

But obviously, that came up.  I just don’t have anything else to read out. 

But I would say, folks here in our administration, and ov- — obviously the Office of Leg Affairs have been in constant communication with senators — senators over the border security bipartisan agreement negotiation.  And so that has continued and that will continue. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  A couple of questions on artificial intelligence.  There were fake sexually explicit images of Taylor Swift all over social media this week, likely generated by AI.  How concerned is the White House about the misuse of this kind of technology?  And does the White House want to see Congress move forward on legislation that would make sharing, posting images like that a federal crime?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m glad you asked that question, because it is alarming.  We are alarmed by the reports of the — of the circulation of images that you just laid out — false images, to be more exact, and it is alarming. 

So, while social media companies make their own independent decisions about content management, we believe they have an important role to play in enforcing — enforcing their own rules to prevent the spread of misinformation and nonconsensual, intimate imagery of real people. 

Sadly — sadly, though, too often, we know that lax enforcement disproportionately impacts women and they also impact girls, sadly, who are the overwhelming targets — the overwhelming targets of online hara- — harassment and also abuse. 

So, the President is committed, as you know, to ensuring we reduce the risk of gener- — generative AI producing images, like through his latest executive order that we announced just — just in the fall of last year. 

So, this problem is not new.  And it’s one that the Biden-Harris administration has been prioritizing since day one.  We have taken this very seriously.  Again, this is alarming to us. 

You — as you know, he launched a task force to address online harassment and abuse.  And he did that just this fall.  The Department of Justice launched the first national 24/7 helpline for survivors of image-based sexual abuse. 

And so, our commitment and that we will continue to do and continue to take action and make sure that we continue to work on this. 

And, again, this is very alarming.  And so, we’re going to do what we can to deal with this issue.

Q    Should there be legislation, too, moving forward?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, there — there should be legislation, obviously, to deal with this issue.  But as I just stated, the President is taking action — whether it is a task force, whether it’s Department of Justice doing what it’s can with the 20 — 24/7 online assistance.  And so, we’re going to continue to do what we can from here. 

Of course, Congress should take — should take legislative action.  That’s how you deal with some of these issues, obviously.  But, you know, it is alarming to us, and we’re going to continue to do what we can from the federal government. 

AIDE:  We got to (inaudible). 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Francesca.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Following up on the border talks.  I assume there have been no conversations with Speaker Johnson since they were at the White House either. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I don’t have any conversations to read out since last week. 

Q    Okay.  Sure.  And in his letter —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It would be just over the last week.

Q    — in his letter today, he also said that House Republicans would move forward next week with impeaching Secretary Mayorkas.  Given these strong differences of opinion on the border, how realistic is it really that there is a deal that it can even pass — that would pass the Senate and the House at this point?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we have to be optimistic because there is actually conversations happening in the Senate — there are — in a bipartisan way.  Right?  And so, we feel confident about that. 

It’s been happening in good faith.  Right?  In order to have negotiations, you have to have it in good faith, and that’s what we believe.  There has been progress in their conversations. 

And so, we are optimistic about that.  Now, as I stated moments ago, multiple times already in this past couple of minutes, House — House Republicans have to make a decision here.  They have had to make a decision on if they want to be part of the solution or part of the problem.  That’s on them.  That is on them. 

I’ll say one thing about the impeachment of Mayorkas or the proceedings to impeach Mayorkas: It is shameful.  It is shameful that’s how they want to use their time to — you know, wasteful time to — to try to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.  I think it is shameful. 

And what they should do — they should do, which is the premise of your question, is work with us, work with Democrats, work with Republicans, you know, work with the senators who are actually trying to do something to find a solution. 

Q    Does the White House believe that House Republicans are intentionally dragging out these negotiations until after November’s election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  House Republican — which negotiations?

Q    On the border — on border security.  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, they’re not even —

Q    That they want them to drag out until —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I mean —

Q    — until after the election.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, they have a choice to make.  The negotiations right now are happening in the Senate.  They’re working towards a bipartisan agreement, and  we appreciate that.  They’ve been happening in good faith.  We think it’s headed in the right direction.  They’ve been doing it for the past couple of weeks — past almost months now.  And so, we think that’s important. 

House Republicans have a decision to make.  They do.  They have a decision to make. 

Go ahead.

Q    If I could go back to the execution from last night.  Could you talk in a little bit more specifics about what exactly the White House finds so troubling about it?  Was it the prolonged death and the pain?  And then also, did President Biden himself have a reaction to this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have not spoken to the President about this.  So, I — I don’t have a reaction for — for you on him specifically. 

But, obviously, the President has spoken to this.  This President has spoken to this — he’s spoken to how it is — it is indeed — he had deep concerns with how the death penalty is more broadly, right?  The death penalty is something that he has deep concerns, and he feels like is implement — when it — the way it’s implemented, it — and he questions — right? — deep concerns on whether it is — whether it is consistent with our values.  So, that is something for sure that he’s been consistent about. 

It is troubling — the — you know, the use of nitrogen gas.  Of course, it is troubling — it is troubling to us. 

And so, there’s been a moratorium from the Attorney General on federal death penalty — a pending review.  We need to look into this pending review of the policies and procedures. 

And so, yes, there’s a more broad — more broad, obviously, concern of the death penalty.  And the President has been very consistent about that, has been very clear about that. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just back to the border.  Does the administration think Texas is failing to comply with court orders around the placement and removal of razor wire? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I mean, the Supreme Court is the highest, you know, law — you know, court of the land.  It is.  And they made a ruling. 

And, you know, on Tuesday, as — as you guys probably saw, DHS sent a — Texas a letter outlining the access Border Patrol needs in Shelby Park, for example, to do their jobs and demanding Texas confirm this access will be honored.  Border Patrol needs to have access in order to do their job.  They just do. 

And, you know, what we’re seeing from Governor Abbott — you’ve heard me say this over and over again — they’re making harder — they’re making it harder — he’s making it harder for Border Patrol to do their jobs.  They need access.  They need access.  And right now, they don’t have that. 

And it’s under the Constitution of the United States, a federal law is the supreme law of the land, and any conflicting state is preempted.  That’s the law. 

Q    So, you think they’re failing to comply with the court’s orders?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, it’s the law.  It is literally the law.  I mean, they — you know, it is the law. 

And we are — what we want is Border Patrol to be able to do their job.  And right now, Governor Abbott is getting in the way. 

And you saw it — you see it — DHS sent a letter on this.  I would refer you to their let- — to — to what they wrote. 

Q    Is DHS still trying to work with the Texas National Guard? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, DHS wants the Border Patrol agents to have access.  They want them to be able to do their job so that they can follow the law.  In order — when Border Patrol is trying to have access to that — to that area, they’re actually trying to enforce the law.  That’s what they’re trying to do.  And Governor Abbott is getting in the way of that. 

And so, they’re trying to do their job, enforce the law, and make sure that, you know, they — they are able to — to do what they are meant to be doing as Border Patrol agents.

Q    So they’re communicating with the Texas National Guard? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I would ref- — I — honestly, I would refer you to the DHS on communication.  I’m not — I’m not tracking every communication that they’re having.  What I’m saying more broadly, which is true, which is Border Patrol needs to be able to do their job, and they’re getting in the way of that. 

Q    And — and just a quick one on the border talks.  We understand — we and others have reported that the White House has said that they would accept limiting parole at the border as a condition in the Senate border talks.  Can you confirm?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I cannot confirm that from here.  I’m going to let the negotiators have their — their process, go through their process.  We appreciate — we think it’s happening in good faith.  We think there’s been progress.  And we want to see a bipartisan agreement here.

Go ahead, Asma.

Q    Karine, if I can also go back to the death penalty.  I just wanted to seek clarification on the administration’s position broadly on this, because I do know that federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for the Buffalo shooting incident that, of course, was a horrific tragedy.  But I wanted to understand: Is it the administration’s position that the death penalty as a whole should not occur?  And if so, how do you reconcile —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — that with the Justice Department’s case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s — what I will say is there is a moratorium currently — right? — on the federal executions while the Department of Justice is reviewing — right? — they are reviewing this process, reviewing the policies, reviewing procedures governing in this — in the use.  And I think that’s what’s important. 

And the President always has had deep concerns with how the death penalty is implemented.  He always has. 

So, there is a moratorium.  There’s a review happening.  We’re going to let the review continue via the — obviously, the Attorney General’s Office.

Q    Does the administration support the seeking of the death penalty in the Buffalo case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There — there is a moratorium.  There’s a review on that.  I’m just going to leave it to that.  I’m not going to speak to any particular case at this point in time. 

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A recent Joint Center for Housing Studies report from Harvard found that a record half of U.S. renters are renting — their rent is, like, t- — more expensive than they can actually afford.  And for those considered to be most burdened — obviously, Black and Latino households — they’re paying as much as 50 percent of their earnings on — on rent, and rent is still higher than pre-pandemic levels. 

Considering some of these successes that the White House has lifted up, whether it be the GDP report or this recent inflation report, how do you weigh that success compared to this type of data where renters are — are clearly needing relief? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s talk through the Harvard study for a second.  It goes through the end of 2022.  So, I want to be clear about that. 

And over the course of 2023, this past year, we saw incomes rise faster than prices and many market-based measures of rents stabilize, which I think is important to note. 

But we know that housing, you know, affordability remains a challenge for — for families, as you just laid out, families –in particular, poor families, Black and brown communities, obviously. 

And so, while for decades there has been no action at — at all, as we — as we talk about housing affordability, and this President has taken some action to — making sure that we’re lowering housing costs — a couple of things: putting policies in place to build more housing, for example; reducing mortgage insurance premiums by 800 bucks per year for hundreds of thousands of first-time buy- — homebuyers; expanding rental assistance; and taking on unfair junk fees that drive up the cost of rent. 

So, those are actions that we have taken.  Remember, there’s been inaction on this for decades, but the President has taken some action. 

So, we have a plan that — that the President put forward on continuing to low- — lower housing costs.  And so, we want to House Republicans — you know, Republicans more broadly in Congress to take action.  There’s ways to — to really deal with this in a legislative fashion.  And so, we want them to take action. 

There’s a plan that the President put forward.  And so, look, we’re going to do what we can from here, but we need Congress to act. 

Go ahead, Kirstin.

Q    Yes.  Thank you.  This week, some senators say they’re planning to hold hearings that would investigate the root causes of safety lapses at Boeing after this most recent incident.  And, of course, this isn’t the first time that the Boeing Max program has faced review.  With all that said, has the administration considered expanding its quality control inspections for other Boeing planes?  And if so, what could that scope look like?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  As you know, safety is the number-one priority for FAA.  So, that’s important to note. 

And let’s not forget, FAA actually recently launched an investigation and increased its oversight on Boeing.  So, that’s also important to note. 

This week, the FAA informed Boeing that it will not grant any production expansion of Max, including the 737-9 Max.  And additionally, added to that, the FAA approved a thorough inspection and maintenance process that must be performed on each grounded Boeing 737-9 Max aircraft. 

And so, any specifics on that, obviously, you would have to go to FAA to get more information on those particular things.  But there is an investigation.  FAA has launched one.  We want to make sure that — we want to make sure that safety — when it comes, obviously, to flying — is safe.  That is their number-one priority. 

Q    Is the administration satisfied with what Boeing has done so far?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, there’s an investigation.  We’re going to let the investigation move forward. 

Obviously, FAA is on top of this.  And so, we’re just going to — I don’t want to get ahead of — of that — of — of what’s currently at hand right now. 

Go ahead, Jared.

Q    Given the urgency on the Ukraine aid portion that I know the President has been pressing upon members of Congress and where they are in talks on the border and immigration, has there been any consideration or is there a thought that at a certain point in time, these two issues are going to have to be separated from the supplemental?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We are — very much continue to be where we’ve been for the past couple of months since the President put forward his supplemental — his national security supplemental back in October, which is — this supplemental ask is — all of it is important.  All of it.  And we want Congress to act on every part of the request that the President has made. 

We’re having these border security negotiations in the Senate in a bipartisan way.  We want to come up with an agreement.  But border security was also, obviously, in the supplemental. 

So, that is where we’re focused on.  We’re focused on moving all of the supplemental request that’s been asked by this President that was asked back in October.  That has not changed. 

Q    So, there’s not a concern that as these talks continue and even make progress that you’re going to run out of time to kind of get Ukraine what it needs? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — I mean, look, I think you’ve heard from NSC, you’ve heard from the Admiral: We’ve already run out of time.  We have.  As it as it relates to Ukraine, you know, the funding for — for Ukraine ended last year — at the end of last year.  So, we have.

And we’ve seen what Putin has done — right? — he continues to — the barrage, the attacks on Ukraine has just intensified.  It’s intensified. 

And so, that is what — that’s been the consequence of the lack of action.  So, we have to continue to work with Congress and — and be very clear with Congress.  That’s why the President brought — one of the main reasons the President had every — had the leaders — some of the leaders and committee chairs here last week and ranking members here last week is to talk about Ukraine funding and how important it is that Ukraine has the funding that they need and the security assistance that they need to defend themselves against — against Putin’s aggression — and what that means not just for their national security and their democracy, but for our national security too. 

We know very well what happens if you don’t stop a dictator.  We’ve seen history.  If you don’t stop a dictator, what could happen?  Right?  And so, the President has been very clear about that: We need to help Ukraine. 

Q    And I guess that’s what my question is: Why not separate the two then if —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re — right now, we’re moving in a fashion where we want to see the President — national security supplemental move forward.  There is a reason — and I said this moments ago — there is a reason why the President puts forth a supplemental plan — right? — it’s because he sees it as an emergency.  He sees it as an important request on behalf of the American people. 

Go ahead, Toluse. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  President Trump — former President Trump yesterday said that he was encouraging all states to send their National Guard troops to the border to help Texas and to move migrants back across the border.  Do you have any response to this effort to have states take on federal immigration policies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’ve been pretty clear about — you know, these states, if they really want to help and assist, if they want to help get more resources, to — to deal with the border — the challenges at the border, they should be calling on their senators and representatives to join the administration of working in a bipartisan agreement to get that done.  That’s our message.  That’s what we’ll tell all the governors — the Republican governors, obviously, in particular.

Look, Border Patrol needs — they need res- — they need resources.  They need to be able to have these resources to do their jobs. 

The immigration system has been broken for decades.  You hear me saying this over and over again — not just me.  It is the truth; it is a fact.  And so, in order to deal with this, we need policy changes.  We need funding and resources. 

So, that’s what we would tell them.  We would tell these governor — Republican governors to talk to their representative, call on them to take action — call on them to take action.

I know I have to —

Q    Can you speak to President Biden’s relationship with Governor Abbott?  I know there has been a lot of back-and-forth — there are court cases.  How is that relationship, and what can you say about it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you know, they’ve — they’ve had opportunities to meet a couple of times.  The President has been in Texas.  You’ve seen it for themselves — for yourselves how they have engaged with one another. 

And, you know, we’ve been very — we will not shy away from calling out what we see as political games from the governor because it is not safe.  It does not protect our communities.  It’s not — it doesn’t help Border Patrol to do their jobs.  So, we will continue to call that out.  That’s not going to hold us back. 

But the President — you know, he is a president for all Americans.  You know, it’s not about the governor of Texas.  It’s about the people of Texas, because — you hear me say this, and he has said this — he’s gov- — he’s a governor for — I mean, he’s a president — pardon me — for red states, blue states.  And that’s who he cares about.  He cares about the people of Texas and the American people more broadly across the country. 

I know I have to — I have to start — I have to start going. 

Go ahead.  Go ahead.  Yeah, go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  In the letter that you mentioned that DHS sent to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, they asked, you know, Texas to give CBP full access to Shelby Park by today.  As of, you know, a couple of hours ago — about an hour or two ago, Texas National Guard hadn’t take down the — taken down the razor wire.  They still had these barriers up.

I guess, is the President concerned that, you know, Texas doesn’t seem to be backing down or listening to the letter that DHS sent?  And I guess, would it — how does the administration plan to respond if they don’t, you know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — give DHS access? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to let DHS speak to how they’re going to respond — obviously, DOJ speak to how they’re going to respond.  What I will say, it’s — it’s shameful.  It’s shameful that politics is being played here, political stunts are being done here as — as we’re trying to deal with an issue that Americans really care about.  Right?

And all we are asking for is Border Patrol to have access to an area so that they can enforce the law.  That’s what they’re trying to do.  They’re trying to actually do their job to enforce the law.  That’s what Border Patrol agents are meant to do, and that’s what they’re trying to do.  And you have politics being played.  And you have a governor getting in the way of that — in the way of that. 

And so, it is a — it is — it is shameful that we continue to see these political stunts, and we continue to see these political games.  It is not safe.  It does not help solve the problem.  It does not help solve the issue. 

Q    On India?  On India?

Q    A follow-up?  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, then I have to wrap it up.

Go ahead.  Go ahead, Brian. 

Q    Thanks.  Thanks a lot, Karine.  I had a question on the border.  With the President’s emergency ask — you know, he’s asked Congress to — for more money to hire more Border Patrol agents, to hire more officers to vet people who want to come in to make sure they have legitimate claims.  Should the American people be prepared for the situation on the border to get worse if that money is not approved?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, I’m not going to get into — you know, read the future of what things — of how things are going to turn out.

What I can speak to is what we’re trying to do right now to deal with the challenges, to deal with the broken system — the immigration system.  That’s what I can speak to. 

What I can speak to is what the President has asked for.  You just laid out, he asked for more border agents.  Obviously, he’s asked for 2,000 — to hire 2,000 more Border agents and law enforcement officers; install new drug detention — detection and technology to stop fentanyl from coming into — into the country, going into communities; hire more immigration judges and asylum officers.  That’s what was in his — in his plan.  That’s what he’s asked for.  That’s what he wants to see. 

Now, we’re having a very important conversation with the Senate — Senate Republicans and Democrats.  We appreciate that.  We think Congress must act; they need to act.  And that’s how we’re going to deal with this issue. 

If you think about it this way too: Three years ago — more than three years ago, the President, on his first day, put forward a comprehensive immigration legislation and put it forward toward to — to Congress.  If Congress had taken action three years ago — if they had taken action, worked towards that, we wouldn’t be where we are today.  We just wouldn’t. 

But now we’re having these conversations, and hopefully we can get to a bipartisan agreement. 

Go ahead, Andrew.  You have the last question.

Q    Thank you.  On the subject of the border and the Texas Guard.  I understand, you know, you want to refer some of these questions to DHS, because DHS, you know, controls the Border Patrol, but at a certain point, Texas Guard — Texas National Guard soldiers and National Guard soldiers from other states are being used to frustrate federal authority.  They are being used to get in the way of federal immigration enforcement and to flout a court order from a federal court. 

At what point does the President step in and say, “Enough of that.  These are American soldiers.  I am federalizing the National Guard and ordering them to let the Border Patrol do their jobs, because they took an oath to the Constitution and I am their Commander-in-Chief”?  When does that — when does enough become enough?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this: I’m not going to speculate on any actions the President is — could — could use.  I’m just not.  I’m not — I’m just not going to do that.  It is very clear, and I would remind everyone that the circumstances under which the federal government can mobilize a state’s National Guard are outlined in the law.  Right?  So, that — I’ll leave that there.  But I — just not going to get into speculations on any actions the president is going to take at this time. 

And I’m going to reiterate — I’m going to reiterate: If these Republican governors actually cared about doing something to — to deal with the challenges at the border, about doing something — real, meaningful actions — right? — to deal with the immigration system that’s been broken for decades — under Democrats, under Republicans, not just this president — then they would — they would reach out to their representative — their congressional representatives, you know, their senators and congressmembers in their state who they — I’m assuming — they know well.  I’m assuming they’ve worked with them on issues that deals with the federal — the federal — the federal government. 

They should talk to them, and say, “Hey, we need you, Congressman X.  We need you, Senator X, in my state, to work with Congress to work — maybe with the senators who are — the Republican and Democrat senators who are doing this process, going through the negotiations.  We need you to work with them so that we can fix, so that we can deal with the challenges at the border.”  That’s an — that’s an easy ask.  That is not difficult.  That is something actually easy to do.  It does not take much work from them —

Q    I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to make those requests and to talk to their congressional members that they probably talk to and speak to about many other issues as it relates to their state and the federal level.

Q    I — I understand that, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I understand you’re talking about the political process.  But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s not a political process.

Q    But what I’m talking about is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on a second.  It’s not a political process for a governor in their state to talk to their congressional members about taking legislative actions.  That’s not politics.  That’s just the right thing to do on behalf of their constituents. 

Q    I — I understand the point you’re trying to make, but —  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is not politics.

Q    — what I’m — what I’m saying is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — go ahead.

Q    — that this appears to be a concerted effort, led by the governor of Texas and joined by Republican governors, encouraged by the Republican likely nominee for president — who I know you cannot talk about up there — to flaunt — to flout federal authority, to undermine federal authority.  And you — you don’t seem to be willing to say the President will uphold the authority of the federal government.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ve already answered this question multiple times.  And I’m happy to repeat myself to you, Andrew. 

Number one, the President has taken this incredibly seriously — incredibly seriously.  When you have a president — for their first legislative action is to deal with immigration and put forth a comprehensive plan to Congress, because that’s the way you’re going to actually deal with this issue, three years ago — three years ago, Andrew — and no action has been taken by Congress. 

When you have a president that has been working with negotiators — via, obviously, his team here — with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to have a real conversation to talk about — in good faith to talk about comprehensive ways to deal with policy, comprehensive ways to deal with funding, to deal with the immigration system — that’s a president that’s taking it very seriously. 

The President had Republicans and Democratic leaders here — and ranking members of those committees — and that conversation was — had to deal with Ukraine, but that came up as well.  And the President said it is important for Congress to act.  We have been saying this. 

If you have a Republican governor that is playing political stunts and continues to do that, and put, actually, the Border Patrol agents in harm’s way and preventing them to do their job, that’s a political stunt.  We’re going to call that out too. 

DHS has taken action.  DOJ has taken action.  That’s a president that’s taking it really seriously.  I can’t speak to DOJ actions, obviously.  But the — those things are being taken very seriously, because Border Patrol agents need to get to the area to do their jobs to enforce the law. 

So, if you think about it, you’re asking about our legal authority.  The governor is literally getting in the way of Border Patrol agents to do their jobs, enforcing the law.  That’s a problem, and that’s something for him to answer. 

Guys, I got to go to a meeting with the President.  Have a great Friday, guys.

2:46 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby, and National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Duluth, Minnesota

11:36 A.M. EST
 
MS. DALTON: So, as you all know, we’re in the — en route to Superior, Wisconsin, where the President will be visiting the Blatnik Bridge in a full-circle moment.  He first visited the Blatnik Bridge about two years ago after the State of the Union in 2022 to talk about the important investments we’re making through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in America and making sure that we’re equ- — equipped to outcompete the wor- — rest of the world in the decades ahead.

So, today, we’re on — on the way back to the Blatnik Bridge, where the President will talk about the billion-dollar investment we’re making in the Blatnik Bridge today, make sure that we can repair that bridge that was crumbling to the ground and was slated to be out of commission by 2030 just a couple of short years ago and now will be fully replaced so that this vital economic artery can continue to serve the — all of the commercial needs that we have here in the United States and Canada.

As part of this visit today, he’s also going to announce, in addition to the Blatnik Bridge, 36 other Mega infrastructure projects across the country from coast to coast — from Oregon to New York to Arizona — that will similarly have a transformative impact on our — on our infrastructure and on our economy and create great-paying jobs in the process.

Very quickly before I turn it over to John, we also have another bit of news we’re making at the White House today.  You may have seen this morning that the First Lady, Secretary Cardona, the new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, and 70 principals from across the country are convening at the White House today for a town hall to announce a new set of actions we’re taking to ramp up safe gun storage in communities across the country.

You’ve heard us talk about the epidemic of gun violence in America and the fact that gun violence is the number-one killer of kids in our country.  We know that a big factor in that statistic is the fact that nearly 5 million children are living in homes with unsecured weapons.

We know that most school shootings, mass shootings occur with weapons that were obtained at the — in — in a school shooter’s home or in the home of a family member or friend.  We also know that unsecured weapons are a big contributor to self-inflicted wounds that children are experiencing.

So, today’s action, the Education Department is working with principals across the country to ramp up community education about the importance of safe storage of guns so that we can save more kids’ lives.

With that, I’m going to turn it to John to talk about some foreign policy news.

MR. KIRBY:  Good morning, everybody.  Today, I’m pleased to announce that President Biden and the First Lady will host Prime Minister Kishida and Mrs. Kishida of Japan for a state visit on the 10th of April. 
 
And this will obviously underscore the importance of our alliance with Japan and our bilateral relationship and also all the work we’re doing together to improve and strengthen not only our bilateral cooperation but our cooperation with Japan and other allies across the Indo-Pacific, really trying to pursue a safe and secure, prosperous Indo-Pacific.

So, the President is very much looking forward to seeing Prime Minister Kishida here in a couple of months for, again, a formal state visit, which will include a state dinner.

And then, secondly, just wanted to draw your attention to the Treasury Department’s announcement today that they are sanctioning another four Houthis, individuals who are directly tied to the attacks in the Red Sea.  And we’re pleased to be able to announce that the United Kingdom is joining us in the sanctions on these four specific individuals as well.

I’m sure Treasury will have more information for you on the individuals if you — if you want that.  But it’s just another example of how we’re trying to use all the levers at our disposal to — to hold the Houthis accountable for these reckless attacks.

That’s it.

Q    Admiral, there were reports that came out while we were in midair that President Biden is tapping CIA Director Burns to — to help broker a hostage deal.  Can you give us more information on that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’d refer you to the CIA for more on the — on Director Burns’s travel and activities.  He has been, as I think you know, involved in helping us with the hostage deal that was in place and — and trying to help us pursue another one. 
 
I would just tell you that, as I’ve said many times, the discussions that we’re having about trying to get a renewed hostage deal in place are sober and they’re serious.  And Brett McGurk is in the region as we speak also trying to see what we can do to get one moving. 
 
Q    John —
 
Q    And related to that — sorry — can I ask: The — the government’s reaction to the leaked comments from Prime Minister Netanyahu saying Qatar’s role in the hostage talks were “problematic,” does that concern the administration and the prospects of potentially upsetting those delicate hostage negotiations?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think I’m going to comment on leaked comments attributable to another foreign leader.
 
The Israeli people want their loved ones back.  We want to make sure we get our American hostages back to their families where they belong.  There’s a lot of energy being put at this across the region with our Israeli counterparts, as well as our other counterparts, including the Qataris.  And we’re just going to keep working at that. 
 
Q    John, do you have any more information today about the plane that was shot down — the Russian plane that was shot down — and whether or not there were Ukrainian prisoners of war on it and who was responsible for it, et cetera?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’re still trying to gather some more information on this, Jeff.  I’m afraid I don’t have more detail to share with you today.
 
Q    John, given that there’s no security deal yet for Ukraine, are our allies in Europe stepping up in terms of providing what Ukraine needs to fight against Russia, in terms of both military equipment and also in terms of ammunition?
 
MR. KIRBY:  There are more than 50 nations that are helping support Ukraine as part of the coordination efforts that Secretary Austin has been leading — the Ukraine Defense Contact Group.  I think you know he hosted yet another — I think it was, like, the 13th one of those — virtually just earlier this week — again, more than 50 nations participating. 
 
So, there’s still an awful lot of energy across this, sort of, network of coalition, allies, and partners to help support Ukraine.  Each country does it in their own way and does it to the degree that they can.  So, just like us, these are sovereign decisions.  But we haven’t seen any slackening or disunity when it comes to supporting Ukraine. 
 
Q    So, given everything that you just said, what do you say when those that are opposed to aid for Ukraine argue the Europeans should just help out Ukraine by themselves; American ammunition, American military equipment is not necessary?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’ll tell you what — I’d say a couple of things.  Number one, they are helping out Ukraine, and the facts bear that out over the last two years. 
 
This has been a U.S.-led effort.  And certainly, we’re the biggest contributor to Ukraine, but there’s an awful lot of countries — not just in Europe, but all around the world, in the Indo-Pacific — that are stepping up in their own way to support Ukraine.  And, again, that support continues to — to flow. 

The second thing I’d say is —
 
(Bumps a microphone.)  Sorry.
 
— they’re watching what we do.  American leadership matters, not just because we’re the biggest contributor but because we’ve also been principal to coordinating the delivery of assistance and getting it to the right hands in Ukraine. 
 
And so, what we do matters, what we say matters, and they are watching closely whether or not the United States can deliver.  And as I’ve said before, Ukraine is heading into a critical few months here as winter is full on and spring approaches.  And the Russians have shown no intent to slacking off from — from the drone and missile attacks.  So, it’s an important time.
 
Q    John, on the strikes against the U.N. facility in Southern Gaza yesterday.  Do you have more information about what happened, who is behind it?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re — we’re working hard to get a little bit more fidelity.  And I’m afraid I just don’t have much more detail on exactly what happened. 
 
We’re aware that there — there have been casualties.  We’re certainly — our condolences go out to all those who are affected by this.  You don’t want to see a U.N. relief works agency facility hit in any way. 
 
But we just don’t know what that looked like, what caused it.  And we don’t even know, you know, the full extent of all the damage. 
 
Q    You know, covering a couple of the President’s domestic — this is maybe more for you, Olivia — but in the President’s events this week — rolling out his first campaign rally, his first major endorsement yesterday — there were protesters protesting Israel’s campaign against Hamas and Gaza, calling for a ceasefire. 
 
Protesters are not new to presidents.  But what is un- — a little unusual is these are protesters who make up parts of his base.  What is your message to those people who are angry and are, you know, planning to interrupt your — your messaging and your events?
 
MS. DALTON:  The President has talked about, you know, his support for the First Amendment and the right of — that Americans have a right to make their voices heard and to protest peacefully.  He supports that. 
 
And he knows that this is an issue that is deeply personal to many, many Americans.  He has also been clear about his view — views on this.  And, you know — you know, we’ve talked about the fact that he believes strongly — and this is more in John’s lane — but that Israel needs to defend itself and have — have what it needs to defend itself in the face of an existential threat.
 
While — while at the same time, we, of course, have been — you know, the President has talked in deeply personal terms about his heartbreak at the humanitarian toll that this has inflicted on Gaza, the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and the need for Israel to do everything in their power to execute this campaign with — while abiding by the rules of — of law and making sure that they’re doing whatever they can to reduce civilian harm. 
 
Q    Can I ask one more?
 
MS. DALTON:  Yeah.
 
Q    There were reports last night and this morning that the former President is getting involved with Republicans on the Hill with regard to border policy and some of the negotiations going on there.  How much do you expect the former President — who has now all but, you know, locked up the nomination — to, sort of, impede any negotiations with the Republicans on the Hill?  And what will you do to, sort of, guard against that?
 
MS. DALTON:  Well, look, what I would just say is that, you know, the President has been clear: We need action on the border.  We’ve been engaging in good-faith, bipartisan negotiations with both Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans to that end.  We believe that there’s no reason that shouldn’t continue. 
 
We believe that, you know, there needs to be action on the border, that we need to come together on commonsense compromise on border measures and border policy and border resources.  And we — we still are hopeful that that can happen. 
 
Q    You said in the —
 
Q    John, is the administration considering federalizing the Texas National Guard?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I talked about this the other day.  I don’t have any decisions with respect to that to speak to for the — for the President.  I — I don’t have anything on that. 
 
Q    You said in the past you’re optimistic on talks.  Now you’re saying you’re hopeful on talks.  Are there talks still going on?  Like, do we know right now, or is this just up in the air?
 
MS. DALTON:  I’m — what I said was I think, you know, we’re hopeful that the talks can — can continue and that we can continue to build on the progress we’ve made so far in these talks to work toward a bipartisan agreement on meaningful border policy reform and border resources. 
 
I mean, the President has been clear in — you know, in stressing the importance of action on the border, going back to last year when he put forward his supplemental request, which included resources to stop the flow of fentanyl, to put more than 2,000 more personnel on the border. 
 
This is a president who knows we need action and is working in good faith to try to — to make that happen.  And we just see no reason for politics to get in the way here. 
 
Q    The fourth quarter GDP numbers, obviously, today beat expectations.
 
MS. DALTON:  Yeah.
 
Q    How is the President viewing this?  And, like, are you confident you can avoid a recession this year?
 
MS. DALTON:  Well, I think —
 
Q    It’s happened until now, obviously.
 
MS. DALTON:  Well, you might have seen the President’s statement out just a short time ago on the strong economic growth we saw last year: over 3 percent growth, building on three years of growth under this president; historic, you know, job creation, small-business creation; coupled with growing — rising wages, increased confidence — consumer confidence, and strong personal finances. 
 
We think all of this is — it’s not an accident, right?  It is an — it is — it crystallizes the — and validates the approach that this President has taken since day one to grow the economy by growing it from the bottom up and the middle out.  You’ve heard that — him say that before. 
 
This is a president who believes that we grow our economy by growing the middle class, and today’s data just show that he was right.
 
Q    Does he think you’re out of the woods on inflation?
 
MS. DALTON:  I — again, we’re hesitant to make — we’re not in the — the prediction game here.  But I think you’ve heard the Treasury Secretary, I think you’ve he- — heard Lael Brainard talk about the fact that we’re, you know, seeing a lot of indications that — that the economy is showing signs of resilience.  And we’re ho- — hopeful that that will continue. 
 
This President certainly sees this as a reason to continue to put his foot on the gas pedal, make sure we continue to make — build on the progress, which is why we’re going to Wisconsin today to talk about these historic investments.
 
Q    John, can I —
 
Q    The President —
 
Q    Can I just quickly ask, on the — I’m sorry.  Can I just quickly ask, on the state dinner in April, does President have a particular message that he’s hoping to get across during that state dinner?  Or is it more of a routine, you know, show of solidarity?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Japan is one of our closest allies in the whole world, certainly a — a very critical alliance in the Indo-Pacific.  So, again, as I said, I won’t get ahead of the President, but I think you can expect to see a robust discussion about how we’re deepening our bilateral cooperation with Japan and improving our alliance capabilities across the board but also how we’re working together across a range of other threats and challenges in the Indo-Pacific.  And that would — also includes, you know, improving trilateral cooperation with South Korea as well. 
 
But there will be a lot — there’ll be a lot to discuss.
 
Q    And Nippon (inaudible) takeover of U.S. Steel — or proposed takeover — is still probably going to be under review when that happens.  Will the President talk with his Japanese counterparts about that deal?  They’re probably going to want answers about why the U.S. is treating the Steel’s transaction as a potential security risk.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I — I don’t anything more specific to talk about in terms of the agenda.
 
Q    All right.  Thank you.
 
Q    The President has said before that he’s — that he’s — has a good relationship with Mitch McConnell.  Just following up on Katie’s question.  Mitch McConnell apparently isn’t — is making decisions now based on the idea that former President Trump will be their party’s nominee.  Has President Biden reached out to Senator McConnell?
 
MS. DALTON:  I don’t have any calls to preview or outreach — new outreach to share at this particular moment. 
 
But what I can say is the President, as you saw last week, hosted bipartisan leaders at the White House to talk about the urgency of the supplemental requests.  He went around the table.  He invited every single person around the table to speak.  And he laid out in very clear detail the stakes for Ukraine if we don’t pass the supplemental request. 
 
And, as you also know, we’ve been in good-faith negotiations with Senate Democrats and Republicans to take action on the border, to make sure that we deliver meaningful compromise on border policy and resources.  And, look, we are going to continue to work on that in good faith, and we hope that Republicans will remain at the table so we can do that.
 
Q    And just one other — just one other quick topic.  The President has made his opposition to the death penalty well known.  Does the White House have any comment on the Alabama case now where the — a man is going to be executed with a new — a new — in a new way?
 
MS. DALTON:  So, this is a state-level case, and I won’t speak to the details of this particular case. 
 
But I would just reiterate that, broadly speaking, the President has been very clear about his views on the death penalty going back for years and his concerns about the way that it is implemented and whether or not it’s consistent with our values of fairness and justice. 
 
You know, he has also talked about his support for the DOJ’s federal moratorium on the death penalty while they conduct a very comprehensive review of the policies and procedures that govern the use of the death penalty at the federal level.  And he continues to support that.
 
Q    Olivia, a strong —
 
Q    Is the White —
 
Q    — GDP number today.  You’ve also touted a number of other economic indicators which show, as you put it, a resilient economy.  Why, in your view, is this not resonating with voters, according to most polls that we’re seeing right now?
 
MS. DALTON:  Well, we actually think that it is.  And last — in the last two months, we’ve seen a double-digit jump of 29 percent in consumer sentiment.  We think that people — we’re seeing signs that people are starting to feel the impact of the record job creation, the record small business creation, the fact that wages are rising, that inflation is coming down.  It’s now — as of today, we’re seeing inflation return to pre-pandemic levels.  And we think that there are indications that, over the last couple of months — again, as I said — consumer sentiment has jumped in such a way that it tells us people are starting to feel that impact.  And we have to keep at it.

Q    And yet —

Q    Olivia —

Q    Yet I see, in poll after poll, the President doesn’t get his approval rating, in terms of how he’s managing the U.S. economy, really, above the low 40s.  How do you explain that?

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, I think we’ve also been really clear that this is not going to — things don’t just, you know, happen overnight here.  We’ve — the American people have been through a rough period during the pandemic, and this has been a — three years of strong recovery but a recovery. 

Now we’re seeing encouraging signs that consumer sentiment is improving over the last couple of months.  We’re also seeing, by virtually every indication, that the economy is humming. 

So, we — we know that this is a moment where the President — you know, we’re on our way to Wisconsin right now to talk to the American people about the ways that we’re continuing to invest in our communities, invest in our future, invest in our ability to compete on the world stage in the years ahead. 

That’s a message — the President will continue to deliver it.  And — and we hope that we can, sort of, keep our foot on the gas here in terms of the real progress people are feeling.

Q    Olivia, pro- —
 
Q    Is the White House planning on protests and interruptions when the President speaks publicly now?  Is that something that you’re just preparing for?

MS. DALTON:  You know, look, it’s — it’s hard to — these things are hard to predict.  There have always been protests.  And the President is — you know, I can’t remember a campaign or a — you know, an official I have worked for that has not, you know, encountered — encountered interruptions.  So, it’s nothing out of the ordinary.  And, you know, the President really, truly believes in the First Amendment right that Americans have to peacefully protest.

Q    But there were a dozen protests and interruptions during his remarks on Tuesday.  I mean, that — that’s more than we’ve seen with Biden.

MS. DALTON:  That’s well within folks’ right to do, and it’s consistent with their First Amendment right that the President supports.

Q    Olivia, following up on what Jeff’s — was asking about Mitch McConnell.  Is the White House confident that McConnell remains committed to advocating for a Ukraine and border deal?
MS. DALTON:  I — I don’t know that I can speak for Senator McConnell or ascribe his —

Q    Is the White House confident that he’s your, kind of, helper, ally in this?

MS. DALTON:  What I would just say is that we’ve been able to work in good faith with Senate Democrats and Republicans, to date.  We hope that that will continue.  But we — you know, I talked about this a little bit last week.  We feel that we have made progress.  And, again — (press cabin door opens) — hopeful that that can continue.

(Laughter.)  Are you okay?

Q    And a follow on the bridge today.  I know the White House said without the funding from the infrastructure law that the bridge would have had to close down, I believe, in the year 2030. 

MS. DALTON:  That’s right.

Q    So, do you have a timeline on when the — the project — under the infrastructure law — funding would be completely done with the repairs and all the upgrades that the President is going to talk about today?

MS. DALTON:  I think that’s something that we’re going to hear more about from officials on the ground, so I won’t get ahead of them.  But I’ll make sure we get you that answer.

Q    May I follow up on Jeff’s question on the death penalty?  I understand Alabama is a state-level case. 
 
But more specifically on the use of nitrogen gas, does the President have a position?  Is this something the administration has conducted any research on?

MS. DALTON:  I just don’t have anything on this to share — like, anything new to share today beyond what the President’s broad concerns with the federal — views of the federal death penalty are.

Q    Real quick.  Any update on the President’s physical and when he’s going to be getting that?

MS. DALTON:  I don’t have anything to share today, but we’ll keep you posted, as always.

Anything else?  Good?

Q    Thank you.

MS. DALTON:  All right.  See you all.

11:57 A.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton and NSC Coordinator For Strategic Communications John Kirby En Route Duluth, WI appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

11:53 A.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Hello.  Good afternoon.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Hi, Weijia.  (Laughs.)

Q    Not quite.  It’s still morning.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, that’s right.  We are a bit early.  We got nine more minutes before it’s afternoon.  Okay.

Today, President Biden announced that a record-breaking 21.3 million Americans have enrolled in healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act.  It’s another major milestone in his work to expand access to affordable healthcare and lower costs for families.

Not only do more Americans have healthcare coverage than ever before, but thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which every single Republican in Congress voted against, this President has capped the cost of insulin to 35 bucks for seniors, allowed Medi- — Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for the first time ever, and has saved millions of Americans an average of 800 bucks per month [year] on their healthcare insurance.

The American people have made it clear.  They don’t want the Affordable Care Act weakened and/or repealed.  They want it strengthened and protected.

President Biden will continue to fight to bring down healthcare costs and prescription drug costs as well.

With that, we have the Admiral in the briefing room today, who’s going to give us a little bit of an update on travel to Africa and also an update on the latest on the Middle East.

Okay.  Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.  Afternoon, everybody.

So, yeah, I do a little bit of gripe — gra- —

Q    Good afternoon?  Good morning.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good morning. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, good morning.  I’m sorry.  Yeah.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Okay.  Okay. 

MR. KIRBY:  I wasn’t paying attention, clearly. 

I do have a little bit of a grab bag of stuff to get through.  And I’ll — I’ll promise I’ll try to do it as quickly as I can.

Yesterday, as I think you’re all aware, in direct response to a series of escalor- — escalatory attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Iraq and Syria — including, of course, at al-Asad Air Base over the weekend — the United States military conducted strikes on facilities that were used by the Iran-backed Kata’ib Hezbollah (inaudible) militia group, as well as other affiliated groups in Iraq.

Initial reports that we’re getting indicate that we had effective results on all three targets: Two headquarters buildings and an intelligence facility were destroyed.

I want to emphasize that these actions were taken in self-defense following, of course, the attack on our forces in Iraq and certainly consistent with international and domestic law.

As the President has said, we’re not going to hesitate to take necessary action to protect our troops and our facilities, and we’ll stay vigilant going forward, of course.

Separately, I’m also sure that you saw yesterday a joint statement from 24 countries expressing support for the action that the United States and our — United Kingdom armed forces — with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Netherlands — took against the Houthis on Monday.

I think it’s notable that more and more countries now wanted to show that they condemn the Houthis’ indiscriminate and unlawful attacks on international commerce and that they support the actions that we and our partners are taking.

Now, as you may have seen, several Cabinet and senior administration leaders are engaging with countries across the African continent this week, building on our commitment to accelerate U.S.-Africa partnership opportunities following the Africa Leaders Summit last year.

Just run through quickly, if I can, just to, kind of, give you a sense of the scope.

Secretary Blinken, of course, is traveling to Cabo Verde, the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Angola this week.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield is visiting Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Sierra Leone.

U.S. International Development Finance Corporation CEO Scott Nathan led a presidential delegation to attend the Inauguration of the DRC President Ta- — sorry, To- — Tsheke- — To- — Teshikedi — Tshisekedi over the weekend.  Apologize for that.

EPA Administrator — Administrator Regan is in Mozambique and Ghana, sharing solutions and building partnerships on a range of environmental priorities.

USAID Deputy Administrator Coleman is traveling to Maputo and the central and northern regions of Mozambique.

And the CDC’s Principal Deputy Director Nirav Shah is visiting the Sahel and West Africa to discuss our health partnerships.

And, of course, Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor, spoke with his Kenyan count- — counterpart earlier this week.

That’s a lot of activity just this week across the continent.  And there’s just the start of what we think will be a very busy 2024.

We’re looking forward to deepening those relationships and — and improving on that coordination.

Now, before I get to your questions, there — I do want to correct something that I said yesterday.  I got asked about another meeting with our Mexican par- — partners and whether there was something on the schedule.  And I said that I wasn’t aware that there was anything on the schedule.  But if I had done my homework, I would have been able to answer that question better. 

At the conclusion of the last U.S.-Mexico Ministerial on Migration on the 19th of January, we did say in our readout that we would continue our strong cooperation on migration on the margins of the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee meeting in Mexico City in early February.  And so, we’ll have more to share soon on that.

But — but I had — I was incorrect.  There was actually something on the schedule, and it’s in early February.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Chris.

Q    One person missing from your travel announcement with Africa: President Biden.  Is he going to go to Africa this year?  He has said he’s going to go.

MR. KIRBY:  I have nothing to announce with respect to presidential travel.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, April. 

Q    Okay.  And one more thing.  Also, the Russians say that Ukraine shot down a military transport craft carrying Ukrainian POWs.  Does the U.S. have any information on that?

MR. KIRBY:  No, we don’t.  We’ve seen the reports, but we’re not in a position to confirm them.

We’re obviously doing the best we can to try to get more clarity and more information on it, but I don’t have anything more for you right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, April, and then in the back.

Q    John, could you give us information as to what the roadblocks were last year for the President not to go and what some of the roadblocks could be this year, in what is considered an intense year, why he would not go?  What are some of the roadblocks?

MR. KIRBY:  I wouldn’t describe them as “roadblocks,” April.  I mean, as you know, there was a lot of international travel last year, and it was really a scheduling challenge.  And we’ll — we’ll see what this year holds.

The President is still very, very committed to making sure we are expanding and deepening our relationships on the continent.  And as I just laid out in the opening statement, there’s an — that’s just this week.  There’s an awful lot going on.

Q    But, as you said, there are scheduling challenges –there are challenges, but the President made a commitment that he would go as well as his Cabinet Secretaries.  The Vice President went last year.  The Cabinet Secretaries —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — are still going.  What is the importance of going to Africa for him in this moment still?

MR. KIRBY:  He — he’s still committed to making sure that that — that we’re all in on Africa.  And, again, I don’t have a —

Q    But a travel (inaudible).

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have travel — I don’t have travel to speak to now, April.  But — but I can assure you that the President is very, very committed to deepening the relationships we have on the continent and to furthering all the lines of effort that we agreed to in the Africa Leaders Summit.  That’s why so many administration officials are — are visiting right now.

Q    So, what are the positives that have come out of all the administration officials going and not him thus far?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s an awful lot of good work being done here.  And I just kind of laid out for you briefly who’s going and what they’re — and why they’re going and what they’re — what they’re trying to get done.  And all of these visits, all of these discussions very much build on the Africa Leaders Summit and the things that we committed to doing economically, diplomatically, socially, and even, in some ways, from a security perspective. 

So, I think — let — we’ll — we’ll have good — I think, a sense once these trips are over and these — these principals come back on — on what kind of progress they made, and we’ll just continue to work at it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Kevin.

Q    The U.N. refugee agency in Gaza says there has been a mass casualty event at one of its shelters in Gaza.  They say it was struck by two tank shells.  There are hundreds of people who are sheltering — displaced people who are sheltering here.  Does the White House have a comment on this?  And does this reflect a lower-intensity phase of fighting in Gaza?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I don’t have any information on this particular event, the way you described it.  I — I didn’t — I don’t have any background on it to share.  I’m just learning about it myself.  So, look, why don’t we — when the briefing is over, we’ll see if we — you know, if we can comment on it one way or the other.  I don’t know.

That aside, with the — with the caveat that I don’t know anything about this particular event that you’re describing, the Israelis have taken steps to — to transition their operations.  They have removed a division of troops.  That’s a lot of troops.  That’s thousands of troops. 

And they are pursuing, on the ground, more targeted operations against — particularly against the leadership.  They are relying less on — on airstrikes.

Low-intensity operations doesn’t mean no-intensity operations.  And even in a low-intensity environment — again, I won’t speak for them — but from my own experience, even in low-intensity operations, you’re still going to be in combat.  There is still going to be fighting and there’s still going to be casualties. 

So, again, I would just — you know, as we think about this going forward, we shouldn’t expect that as they transition to low-intensity operations that there’s not still going to be some violence.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrea.

Q    John, just continuing on the Gaza question.  Yesterday, the President’s speech was interrupted by multiple protesters calling for a ceasefire.  Now, we’ve seen these kinds of interruptions at — at various events, but we’re also seeing increased polling among the American public that is clamoring for a ceasefire.  Is the President — you know, is his perspective on this changing at all, given the daily mounting casualty toll?  Is he starting to rethink whether it might be prudent to — to ask for a halt in — in the fighting and beyond just the pause?

MR. KIRBY:  I would remind that, since very early going in this conflict, we have been urging our Israeli counterparts to be careful and precise.  We have talked about the civilian casualties and how we don’t want to see more.  We have urged them to take different actions, and they have responded to that advice and counsel.

He understands that there are strong feelings here on all sides, as you would expect.  I mean, he’s been doing this a long, long time.  He also believes it’s really important that Israel have the right and the ability to continue to defend themselves against which is — what is clearly still a viable threat from Hamas. 

But that doesn’t mean we’re going to stop, again, urging
a stronger focus by our Israeli counterparts on minimizing civilian casualties and on getting aid in.

And you talked about a pause.  I would also remind that, from the very beginning — or nearly the very beginning — this administration, under President Biden’s leadership, has argued and tried to push for humanitarian pauses in the fighting so that hostages could get out and aid could get in.  And we are still doing that.

Brett McGurk is in the region as we speak.  In fact, he’s in Doha today having discussions with our Qatari counterparts about the possibilities of another — another hostage deal.

Q    Can I — can I just follow up on — sorry — on that?

So, the President has been pushing for pauses.  You’ve been talking here from the podium about pauses.  The Israeli — Israelis today have again, sort of, ruled out a — a Gaza ceasefire.  They’ve said that there were pauses for humanitarian purposes.  Those have been breached by Hamas.  We’re hearing out of the region that there’s movement towards something like a one-month pause.  Can you give us an update on that? 

And then, you know, whether — you know, whether that is — whether there’s any additional language that would come as part of that about if a further — like, a more permanent solution?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I don’t have any additional context to provide today.  We talked about this a little bit yesterday.  As I said, Brett is in the region right now.  And while he’s having lots of conversations on lots of issues, this is certainly top of his agenda.  And he’s in Doha, as I said, today.

I — I don’t want to get ahead of those discussions, except to repeat what I said yesterday, which is these are very sober and serious discussions we’re having.  And we certainly want to see another humanitarian pause put in place so that we can, again, get aid in and get people out. 

But how close we are to that and what the parameters of that are going to look like, how many days and the — that’s all part of the discussions we’re having right now.  And it would not be appropriate for me to try to speculate on where that’s going right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We sadly don’t have too much time.  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thank you, Admiral.  On Sergey Lavrov.  He’s calling for an emergency U.N. Council meeting over the plane crash.  Just want to get your reaction to that, and if there could be any truth to the Russian version of events that the U.S. believes there were Ukrainian prisoner — prisoners of war on that plane. 

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we just don’t have enough information to comment on this — on this plane crash.  We’re — we’ve seen the reports of it.  We’re trying to get more information.  But it would be imprudent for me to speculate beyond that.  I just don’t know the veracity of these — of these reports. 

You know, the Ukrainians are claiming one thing.  The Russians are claiming another.  And we just don’t know enough to comment on it.

Q    And Iran’s Foreign Minister told ABC News yesterday that he believes the risks of a “wider war in the region” is going up.  He’s blaming the U.S. for it, says that if the U.S. stopped providing aid, then Netanyahu wouldn’t survive for 10 minutes.  Wanted to get your reaction on that.

MR. KIRBY:  If — if the Iranian government is concerned about escalation, then the best thing they could do would be to cut off the support that they give to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and these Iran-backed militia groups in Iraq and Syria.  We don’t want to see conflict escalate.  We don’t want to see some broader war.  We’re not looking for a war or a conflict with anybody.  We’re actually trying to de-escalate. 

And if the Iranians are serious about that and they want to de-escalate, well, we would welcome them stopping this support. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    John, can you give an assessment on — on what the White House’s assessment is of the hunger crisis in Gaza?  We know from several aid groups that, you know, this —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — “could not be worse” is the words that have been used.  But what’s the White House’s take on — on that right now?

MR. KIRBY:  We understand that the situation — the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire.  And specifically, when it comes to food insecurity, we’re mindful of that — which is why, again, you got Brett in the region right now.  We’re trying to do everything we can to get additional humanitarian pauses in place so that aid can get in.

It is obviously designed to help us get hostages out, of course.  But when you have a lull in the fighting, man, you got to take advantage of that, and you got to get more trucks in. 

And so, we’re very much focused on this.  And that’s why food is such a principal product of the humanitarian assistance that’s going in.  We’re mindful, though — we’re very mindful —

Q    Has the White House seen —

MR. KIRBY:  — that a lot of people are hungry. 

Q    Has the White House seen reports that there are Palestinians who are trying to make flour out of animal feed at this point, like, it is — it is that level?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re — we’re mindful of the dire circumstances that some people are living in in terms of food insecurity there in Gaza.  Absolutely. 

Now, one of the things we talked about — I don’t know, a week or so ago — was we had worked with the Israelis to open up the Ashdod — Ashdod port for the delivery — direct delivery into Gaza of flour, specifically because we know how important flour and the ability to create meals from that is to the people of Gaza.  So, we’re very focused on this. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Okay, thank you so much.  Admiral, can you comment on what happened in the Red Sea this morning?  Two Maersk vessels had to turn back after explosions happened.  So, were these explosions due to strikes by the Houthis?  And if so, does it mean that the campaign against the Houthis still is not working?

MR. KIRBY:  What I can tell you and what I do know what happened today it was that there were three Houthi missiles fired at two merchant vessels and — in the Southern Red Sea.  One missile missed by something like 200 kilometers.  The other two were shot down by a U.S. Navy destroyer.

That — that’s — that’s what I know.  It’s — obviously, underscores that the Houthis still intend to conduct these attacks, which means we’re obviously still going to have to do what we have to — have to do to protect that shipping. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you.  Following on the humanitarian crisis.  President Biden recently said that there were no sticking points when it came to the border deal, which, of course, impacts the supplemental.  But there does appear to be disagreement over an aid package for Palestinian civilians.  So, would the President support any measure that did not include aid for Palestinian civilians?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t negotiate here from — from the podium.  That wouldn’t be appropriate. 

We are, we believe, making good progress here on the Senate side in a bipartisan way to try to get this supplemental funding passed and in place.  We understand that that certainly includes lots of different moving pieces, but it would be irresponsible for me to go into much detail here. 

Q    Thanks.

Q    Thank you.  Admiral, I want to ask on behalf of my colleagues in Argentina: There are reports in local media down there that they’re getting ready to finalize the purchase of the F-16s that was approved in the U.S. last year.  I’m wondering what your read is on that and what you can say about the context of potentially Argentina moving closer to Washington, maybe further from Beijing?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything on the F-16s.  Let me take that question and get back to you rather than try to pontificate from here.  But obviously, we — we value the biparti- — the bilateral relationship with Argentina and certainly want to do what we can to improve it, grow it, deepen it.  But let me get back to you on the F-16s.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Last question.  (Inaudible.)

Q    Thank you.  Two questions.  On Iran proxies, any confirmed reports that Iran has provided Mohajer-6 combat drone to the Sudanese army? 

And secondly, why is there a double standard when it comes to that administration dealing with the Iranian proxies in the region?  On one hand, you (inaudible) Israel annihilating Hamas, but only (inaudible) degrading Houthis and the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not sure I understand the premise of the second question.  I’m not — there’s — there’s no double standard here.  We’re acting in self-defense.  In both cases, strikes against the Iran-backed groups in Iraq yesterday were designed to prevent them from continuing to attack our troops — self-defense. 

And the same thing goes for the attacks against the — the Houthis.  And whether it’s ashore or knocking their stuff out of the sky when it’s on the way to these ships like we did this morning, it’s about self-defense.  There’s no double standard here. 

And I didn’t understand your first question.  What was a —

Q    Can you confirm reports that Iran has provided Mohajer-6 combat drone to the Sudanese army?

MR. KIRBY:  To the Sudanese.  I don’t — I have not seen that report.  I’ll take the question and get back to you. 

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

All right.  Chris. 

Q    I just wanted to recap one thing.  You said there was an Africa travel update.  I’m just sort of puzzled that there’s nothing more on the President — you know, I just thought —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.

Q    — that was going to be — we were all waiting for that at the end of that — that (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  Well, he did talk about Africa travel, but not as it relates to the President.  But there are, as you heard from the Admiral, Cabinet Secretaries, obviously, being — being really active with their travel, going to the continent, and having really important conversations —

Q    Is it still the President’s commitment to go to the continent?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, it is the President’s commitment to go to the continent.  As it relates to a timeline, a date, I don’t have that to share with you at this time.  But we wanted to lift up the Cabinet Secretaries, as we have also said that we would see an influx of Cabinet Secretaries traveling to the continent, which is what you’re seeing.

And the President is — very much wants to — wants to go to — to the — to the continent, obviously. 

One of the reasons why we lifted up in the topper today is because the President wanted to show his commitment to the continent of Africa.

Q    And a personnel question.  Mike Donilon and Jen O’Malley Dillon —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A personal — oh, personnel. 

Q    Personnel.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m like, “A personal question?”  (Laughter.) 

Q    Personnel question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was like, “Why now?  Why here?”  (Laughter.)

Q    Mike Donilon and Jen O’Malley Dillon are leaving the White House for the campaign.  When are — when is their last day here at the White House (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just want to —

Q    — stay for the State of the Union?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I appreciate the question.  So, a couple of things.  You guys all saw the President’s statement yesterday, last night, announcing that Mike Donilon and Jen O’Malley Dillon will leave the White House in the upcoming weeks to join the reelection campaign. 

Like the President said, they have served with dedication and purpose as we have delivered on a historic recovery.  And he is thankful to Mike and Jen both for their service in the White House these past three years. 

Both are trusted advisors to the President, as you all know, who have deep experience and played important roles in the historic successes he has delivered for the American people, ranging from building an economy that works from the bottom up, middle out, not the top down; standing up for our basic freedoms as Americans; or protecting our democracy from unprecedented threats.

And on a personal note — now, I can — I will say this personally, I’ve known Jen O’Malley Dillon for some time.  And she is — has been an excellent colleague.  Mike — Mike — Mike Donilon has become a friend over the last three years.  And we are very sad to lose them.

As it relates to a timeline, it’s going to be in the upcoming weeks.  I just don’t have a timeline to share at this time.

Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q    In terms of the event yesterday, where the President obviously indicated that the views of the public are passionate and there are expected protests, is he now braced for protests at every event where the public is expected?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, let me just say more broadly, obviously, the President respects people’s right to — to speak out peacefully, as you just stated in your — in your — in your question to me, Kelly O. 

As it relates to events and what to expect, that is something for Secret Service.  Obviously, they deal with that.  That’s not something that I can speak to.  They look out for that.  They deal with that, so I don’t want to get ahead of the Secret Service process. 

But, look, you know, again, the President believes that Americans have the right to speak out, make their voice heard as long as they do it peacefully.  And so, we res- — we respect that. 

Q    And, of course, the event was about, in large part, a strong view that the administration and the campaign have that reproductive rights, abortion rights are an essential in this campaign season.  Do you get a sense that the President is going to find ways to do more to personalize this story of how women are affected by it?  He cited ways where women are not getting medical care.  He talked about how influential it is.  Is there some other outreach that he can do? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, appreciate the question.  Look, I think what you heard — obviously, yesterday was a campaign event that the President did with the other principals in the administration — and you heard him speak passionately and fiery, I will say, about the issue. 

On Monday, as you all know, this week would have been the 51st — if Roe was still a constitutional law, it would have been the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  And we talked about — you’ve heard from the President; you’ve heard from the Vice President — talk about how devastating the overturning of Roe have been to women across the country. 

And just the amount of — of legislation that is restricting that right, restricting that reprod- — reproductive right that we’ve seen in states. 

What I will say as it relates to outreach — there is something that I will share with all of you.  On Sunday, the President and the First Lady spoke to Kate Cox, who was forced to go to court to seek permission for the care she needed for a non-viable pregnancy that threatened her life — that threatened her life.  They thanked her for her courage in sharing her story and speaking out about the impact of the extreme abortion ban in Texas.  The First Lady invited Kate to join her as a guest at the State of the Union, and Kate accepted.

So, those are ways that you’re going to hear the President lift up those very personal stories.  You saw that yesterday with Amanda who came and who introduced the President.  And it is important.  It is important for Americans to hear the horroring [harrowing] stories that we’re hearing from women of their experiences across the country. 

And one last thing I’ll say — and it looks like you have a follow-up, and I apologize — is that, you know, this is a President and administration — the Biden-Harris administration is standing with the majority of Americans on this — with majority of Americans.  And Republican elected officials are just not.

Q    I had a follow-up (inaudible) there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know you had a follow-up.  (Laughs.)

Q    Was that a private call or was that something that you recorded?  Sometimes we’ve seen those —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — as released later.  What’s the status of that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, it definitely was a private car- — co- — call — pardon me, a private call.  I — I cannot speak if it was recorded.  But obviously, it was a private call that they thought it was really important — the President and the First Lady — to reach out to Kate. 

As you all know and all have reported — and she’s been on some of the networks here — her story is incredibly powerful, devastating.  And — and it speaks to the moment that we are in now when we talk about women having the right to make these deeply personal decisions about their healthcare that was taken away by the Supreme Court. 

And we have Republican officials that continue to talk about — and in Congress introduce, you know, national bans.  And so, that is not where this President and this Vice President stands.  And you’re going to continue to hear us to speak to that.

Go ahead, Kevin.

Q    When you talked to the President afterwards, is he frustrated that he wasn’t able to sort of deliver this speech as he intended?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — look, the President — from my view — and I think some of your colleagues have written about this — it was a fiery speech.  It was a deeply, deeply impactful speech.  You heard how the crowd reacted to the speech.  It was a speech that, I think, landed in a way that talked about how this President and his entire administration is going to fight for women.  And that is also important.

Look, you know, I said this at the top when I was asked this question, he respects all Americans — you know, their right to speak out as long — and make sure that their — their voices are heard, just as long — they do it in a peaceful way.  That’s what we want to see. 

And he’s made clear about where he stands on — you know, on the — on the issue that we’ve been talking about, obviously, today with Israel being able to defend themselves, understanding the painful time that a number of communities — and we’re certainly working to be supportive of resource — and resource — and respect different points of views. 

But he’s been very, very clear.  And, look, we’re going to — you know, we’re going to continue to — to be clear about that — where we stand — and also, obviously, respect the peaceful protest that, you know, Americans are allowed to do.

Q    Was there any effort after the speech yesterday to try and engage some of these protesters, to have President Biden talk with them directly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I can’t speak to any — any opportunities to engage with the protesters.  But, obviously, they made — they made their voices very loud and clear.  And I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    When is the last time he talked to folks who are advocating for a ceasefire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I think he hears from Americans all the time.  I think he — he —

Q    But in terms of, like, a direct conversation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, he — I can’t speak to a direct conversation that he’s had, but he hears from Americans all the time about their different views that they have.  And so, that is — you know, that is the — something that the President is very aware of. 

So, don’t have any direct conversations to speak to, but obviously the President has — is aware of what’s happening and how people feel.

Go ahead.

Q    So, the UAW — President Biden will speak to the UAW, today.  The UAW has also called for a ceasefire.  Does that complicate the — you know, any effort to sort of get — you know, does it complicate the relationship between President Biden and the union if these large unions — it’s not just the UAW, but others who are also calling for a ceasefire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll say this.  The President — as you know, in the fall, the President joined UAW workers on — on the picket line.  And he was the first president to ever do that.  Because this is a President who says it all the time: He believe the union built the middle class.  He believes that the unions are — should be able to, you know, get the benefits that they deserve for working so hard — right? — for working and — you know, on behalf of the American people, obviously.

But, look — and he supported them for their historic fight to get a historic contract.  So, he has — he believes he has and we believe he has a very good relationship with unions, not just the UAW. 

And, look — and — and not just that.  He fought very proudly to — and — and won the type of major investment needed to ensure that we have EV future — EV future made in America, right?  When we talk about manufacturing, when we talk about bringing manu- — manufacturing back to America, and that is something that he has been very proud about. 

And so, he’s been a union guy for a very long time.  He continual — we will continue to do that.  He’s going to go and speak to UAW.  Obviously, he has a good relationship with UAW if he’s going to go do that. 

And he proudly, proudly stood next to union workers, as I stated, in the fall to — on the picket line — something that no other president has done. 

Go ahead.  And then I’ll come to the back.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The Boeing CEO is being scrutinized on Capitol Hill today.  What has been the President’s reaction to the ongoing safety concerns?  And is there any message from the White House to reassure American travelers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, as — as I’ve stated, and I’ve stated this before, FAA, their — one of their number one priorities is to make sure that Americans feel safe flying, and — and certainly they’ve take actions to — to show their commitment to make sure that, you know, flights are — are safe and they feel safe doing that. 

I don’t have any specifics.  Obviously, as you just mentioned, the executives are — are on the Hill.  And that is something FAA and — is continuing to look into exactly what’s going on there. 

Just don’t have anything more to share.  I’m going to not get ahead of — of what they’re looking into.

Q    And just going back to the earlier question on the UAW.  I know you can’t talk about the campaign.  But, you know, the President has called himself the most pro-union president.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    We haven’t seen an endorsement yet. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Could you just talk a bit about what the President’s message is going to be and your views on whether or not he’s going to clinch that endorsement soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, and not just the President has called himself the p- — the most pro-union president; other unions have called him the most pro-union president.  So, I just want to make that clear.

I cannot speak to endorsements from here.  That is something that the campaign would have to speak to. 

Again, the President was very proud to join — join union members at the picket line early this fall.  He has fought for union members throughout — not just the last three years, but throughout his career.  And that’s something that he’s going to continue to do. 

I’m just not going to speak to any — any endorsements from here.

Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you give an overview about the President’s trip that he’s taking tomorrow to Wisconsin?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you all know, he’s going to go to Superior, Wisconsin.  I’m not going to get ahead.  We’ll have more to share about that tomorrow or if not later in the day.

Look — and I think I said a little bit about this earlier this week when I announced the trip — he’s going to continue to talk about investing in America; what he’s doing to make — make Americans’ lives a little bit more easier — right? — a little — giving them a little bit more breathing room; talk about Bidenomics. 

And one thing that I will say — and I don’t want to get ahead of it — I think you saw a tweet from a congressman from Minnesota 8, who — who touted the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, something that this congressman — Congressman Stauber — who did not vote for it.  And it — what’s interesting is it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. 

Obviously, we were thankful to Republicans who — who did work with the President to — to put forth this Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and voted for it and pushed for it.  But there are some Republicans who didn’t, and they see the benefits of this particular law and now are touting it, but didn’t vote for it — did not vote for it at all. 

So, the President is going to go to Superior, Wisconsin.  He’ll have a — he’ll have more to say.  I’m not going to get ahead of him.

Q    Do you suppose the President will call out that congressman, in particular —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ll see.

Q    — while he’s on the ground there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ll see.  I mean, I called him out.  And we called him out on — on “X” — now, I think it’s called.  (Laughter.)  So, you know, we’ll continue — we’ll continue to be very clear about that. 

Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, what do you have to say about the confirmation — Senate confirmation this afternoon of the 34th and 35th Black women judges in this administration? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — what to say about that, specifically —

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — the confirmation? 

Look, this is a president who has been very clear and has stuck to his commitment: When he said that he wanted to make sure he had an administration that looked like America, including, obviously, a judicial system that looked like America.  And he’s been very proud.  He has been very proud of the women that he’s been able — the women of color, Black women that he’s been able to put forward to get confirmed for some of these judicial appoint- — appointments.

And so, look, you see that in his administration.  You see that in his appointments.  He wants to make sure that we represent what this country looks like.  And he’s been very proud of that.

Q    In the long term —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — what does this administration believe that this will do to reshape the court system in this nation —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think —

Q    — with these appointments?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s important that we — that we have this type of representation.  And you hear us say this many — many times: representation matters.  And I think that is important that we make sure we have, obviously, not just representation, but the women and the — and the — the men and women that he has been able to appoint to these position have been incredibly ex- — experienced.  They’ve been impressive with their own record.  They are more than qualified to have these appointments.  And I think that’s important too.

Q    But I’m drilling down on the Black women, at a time when people are walking away from DEI.  And this is historic.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is historic.  We agree with you, April. 

Q    We’ve never seen it before.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is historic and important.  It is historic and important.  And this is a —

Q    But they —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s not forget, this is a commitment that the President said that he — he would move forward with — right? — making sure we have representation, making sure we have diversity, making sure we have talented, experienced people in these roles.  And that’s what he’s doing.  That’s what he’s doing.

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I have more questions about Boeing.  Has the White House been in touch with Boeing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Any, like, personal, pri- — like, conversations with —

Q    Correct.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — with executives of Boeing?

Q    Since the loose-bolt issues arose.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any — I don’t have any calls or meetings to read out. 

Q    Okay.  So, this isn’t the first time the FAA and Boeing have been under scrutiny.  You know, the 737 Max was grounded just a few years ago.  And you just said that their priority is to make sure people are safe.  So, did they fail here?  I mean, how could we be in this position again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we always — I’m going to start off and say the same thing that I said.  Their priority is to make sure that — that Americans feel safe and that they are safe, and they’re going to continue to work toward that goal. 

And look, certainly, everything is being looked into.  There’s a — as you — as was stated by your colleague, there is a hearing happening in the — on the Hill.  And we’re always going to look into what we can do — and FAA is going to do this — to make sure that we continue to — that we do everything possible to make sure that they are safe, that people feel —

Q    But what’s your message to American flyers who might be thinking: “Well, we can’t trust Boeing.  We can’t trust the FAA to do its oversight part.  What are we supposed to do?”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — I think what — what the President has said and will continue to say is that that’s the FAA’s top priority.  Their top priority is — is certainly to make sure that Americans feel safe.  That’s why they launched an investigation and it is — is increasing, obviously, their oversight of Boeing.

And — look, and we’ve talked about how the Boeing Max 9 aircraft will remain grounded, right?  That’s what they’re going to do — that’s one way that Americans could feel that FAA has taken action — until FAA is satisfied — they are satisfied that they are safe to return to service. 

And so, look, that is — that is a commitment that Americans could be sure of.  That is a top priority of FAA’s.  We want to make sure that we look into it and figure out exactly what happened, and they’re going to get to the bottom of it.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just wanted to get an updated read on inflation impacts of the Red Sea attacks.  I wonder if the White House is seeing anything in the data that (inaudible) concern?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’ve been asked about this a couple of times.  I think the Admiral may have been asked about this yesterday as well. 

Look, we’re — these are things that we’re obviously going to continue to monitor.  We have not seen any — any impacts.

Our national security team and obviously our economic team are going to continue to keep a close eye on this, on the evolving situation in the Red Sea.  The Department of Transportation and the Navy are in close communication with oc- — ocean shippers and insurers industry and other stakeholders.  And we’re taking steps to ensure shipping in the Red Sea is an un- — unobstructed. 

So, that is something that we’re certainly going to continue to monitor and keep an eye on.

Okay, go ahead.

Q    In the wake of recent job cuts at outlets like the Los Angeles Times, does the administration support legislation — like that moving forward in California — that would require social media platforms to pay news outlets for their content?  And is the — the administration concerned about the layoffs at the L.A. Times, Time, and — and other outlets?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we are always — we are always going to support the freedom of the — of speech, obviously, and support — and we believe journalists have a really difficult job — right? — to make sure that they — you know, making sure that they are able to — to report on — on the facts.  And so, certainly, we’re always going to support that. 

And we’ve been very clear in not engaging with the Los Angeles Times while they’re going through — while they’re going through this process.  I know they — they went on — went on strike.  So, we’re — we’re very respectful of — of that as well.

As it relates to the legislation, I haven’t seen the legislation.  I have not spoken to the team here, so I don’t want to get ahead of that.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  This week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for a crackdown on Zyn nicotine pouches, saying that companies seem to set their sights on young kids, teenagers, and even lower and use social media to hook them.  Does the administration believe there should be a crackdown on Zyn?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something for FDA to speak to.  I can’t speak to that from here.  I’ve not seen that report, so I would refer to the FDA specifically.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  There are about 800 gotaways at the border every day, 96,000 since October 1st.  Does President Biden want to locate these folks who have disappeared into this country to parts unknown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s what I will say is that the President — one of the reasons that the President is having these negotiation procedures or process with the Senate — with both Republicans and Democrats — as I’ve said many times before, is because we want to deal with what’s going on at the border.  He is taking this very seriously.  He’s — he wants to make sure that we come up with a bipartisan agreement.  And we are very appreciative for that. 

But there’s also the diplomatic aspect of it, of making sure that we’re having conversations with Mexico, and we have had — and we’ve had productive conversations with them. 

And DHS is maximizing — they are maximizing its enforcement efforts.  And since May 12th — and you’ve heard me say this as well — DHS has been able to return more than 482,000 individuals who did not have the legal basis to be here.

So, we’re doing what we can — right? — at the border.  DHS is doing — maximizing their process, doing what they can at the border. 

But we need help, right?  We need Congress to actually act and do their part as well.  And we’re having those negotiations and we’re having those processes. 

I cannot speak to the 800 — the 8,000 number you just provided to me.  What I can speak to as what we’re trying to do on the policy side and the funding side to make sure that we — the Border Patrol, the law enforcement on the ground have what they need.

Q    Different topic.  Is election denying a joke now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What do you mean?  You have to say more than just make a random statement (inaudible).  (Laughter.)

Q    Why did the President say, “Hello, Virginia!  And the real governor, Terry McAuliffe”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was making a joke about Terry M- — he was making a joke — 

Q    What’s the joke?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was — I mean, if you play it back, it’s clearly that the President was making a joke. 

Q    What’s the joke?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was making a joke about McAuliffe’s previous term as governor.

Q    How are you guys going to convince people, though, that this idea of denying election results is very bad if President Biden is going out —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  How is he —

Q    — and making jokes about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, he did not deny — he did not deny it.  He congratulated Governor Youngkin.  Matter of fact, when he won his election, he did it out of the gate — out of the gate.  Really, truly.  He — he congratulated the governor.  And not only that, we’ve had opportunities to work closely with the governor over the past couple of years. 

And, you know, this is a president that works across the aisle.  We’ve seen that many times.  And he was making a joke.

Go ahead, Toluse.

Q    Do you have an update on the border negotiations?  Has the President made any calls or done anything over the past couple of days to move those negotiations along?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the update that I can give you is that our team has been in regular contact daily with — with the negotiators on the Hill doing — obviously, as I’ve mentioned many times, both Republicans and Democrats.  We feel like it’s been in good faith.  We feel like it’s — it’s been — it’s — we are grateful that these conversations have been happening for the past couple of months.  And we certainly want them to continue. 

As — as it relates to the President, the President has — tends to have conversations with members of Congress because of his long- — long-term relationships with many of them.  Don’t have anything to read out.  But I can say that our — our — our team here has been in regular contact — daily contact with negotiators.

Q    There was reportedly a pretty raucous lunch in the GOP Senate conference yesterday.  A little bit of debate over whether or not Republicans should have multiple days, potentially up to three weeks, to review this, as opposed to a deal being put on the floor and senators being forced to vote on it very quickly. 

Does the President, who was in the Senate for a very long time, have thoughts on whether or not Republican senators and Democratic senators should have time to review what the deal is?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is something — as it — as it relates to the process and how they’re moving forward, you know, the process and the technical and the procedures and all of the things that is related to passing legislation or agreeing on a piece of legislation, that’s something for — for the leadership to speak to.  I can’t speak to it from here. 

AIDE:  We’ve got to wrap to gather.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  We have to gather.  Let’s see.  Go ahead, sir. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Kirby mentioned those ongoing talks with Mexico about immigration.  Have — has that dialogue and, like, the handshake deal with China from last year yielded — yielded any substantive results regarding fentanyl flow —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, yeah, absolutely. 

Q    — in the country yet?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I believe we made some announcements. 

Q    Can we get some numbers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Happy to — happy to get back to you with some announcement that we made after the meeting that the President had with President Xi on the — on what we think was a productive conversation on fentanyl specifically.

Look, the President has been very clear.  When it comes to fentanyl, he wants to make sure we get that out of our communities across the country and has been very committed in having conversation with Mexico and having conversation with China. 

We’ll — happy to — to give you a — more update on that. 

We have to go because you all have to gather because the President is heading to UAW.  Thanks, everybody. 

12:37 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:20 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone. 

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  One thing at the top.  Oh, guys —

Q    Is there an echo?

Q    The voice of God.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Referring to the briefing room audio system.)  Does it sound like the voice of God?  I don’t know.  I don’t think people would say that.

Okay.  We’ll try this again.  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Today we learned that last year, 19 states achieved their lowest average unemployment rate on record, 23 states sent [set] new record-low unemployment rate last year, and 32 states had an unemployment rate below 4 percent for the entire year.

We created a total of 2.7 million jobs last year for a historic 13 — 14- — 14.3 million jobs created under President Biden, all while wages are rising and inflation is falling.

And we’ve continued lowering costs for families — from healthcare and prescription drugs to utility bills.

This is the heart of President Biden’s strategy to grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up.  Now we’re seeing consumer sentiment rise as more Americans feel the results of President Biden’s economic plan. 

And with that — I said I was going to be real short; I am — Admiral John Kirby is here to give an update on the Middle East.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.  I will also be short.

I think, as you — all of you saw, yesterday, the militaries of the United States and the United Kingdom, with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands, all conducted an additional round of strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen.

These self-defense strikes targeted missile systems and launchers, unmanned aerial and surface vessels, storage facilities, fighter aircraft, helicopters, and attack boats — all with the goal of further degrading Houthi — the Houthis’ ability to conduct further attacks on ships in the Red Sea.

Initial reports from the Pentagon indicate that all the targets were hit and that they will help further degrade Houthi offensive capabilities.  That said, the Pentagon is still conducting a battle damage assessment, so I’d refer you to them for any additional detail.

I just want to remind that the United States is acting in — in part — I’m sorry — is acting as part of a coalition of countries committed to the defense of our ships and our sailors, to upholding the freedom of navigation in a major international waterway, and, of course, to holding the Houthis accountable.

And as the President has made clear, we will not hesitate to take further action as appropriate.

With that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, Zeke. 

Q    Thanks, John.  On the strikes yesterday, can you walk us through a little bit of the — when the President approved those strikes?  Was that — was there a new convening of his national security team for that — for that operation?  Or was that sort of the — greenlit a couple of weeks ago when the fir- — when these strikes started?

MR. KIRBY:  No, these — this — these additional strikes yesterday required additional conversations and discussions across the national security team, and the President made the decision to authorize the — this particular round of strikes very recently.

Q    And would — that national security team, would that include Secretary Austin?  When was the last time the President spoke with the Secretary?

MR. KIRBY:  It would — those discussions did include Secretary Austin.  I — I don’t have the exact time on the calendar of when the — those discussions happened, but he was involved and engaged in all those discussions.  Yeah.

Q    And then on a different topic.  There’s a report that the Israelis have presented a new cease- — a ceasefire — a temporary ceasefire for a hostage deal for — a two-month pause to release all the hostages and the bodies of — of their — of civilians and soldiers.  Can you confirm that?  Is the U.S. engaged in it?  Is Brett — as Brett is in the region right now, is he trying to actively, sort of, dru- — drum up support for that framework of an — of a deal?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not able to confirm those specific reports that you’re al- — that you’re talking about in the press.  Brett is in the region.  He was in Cairo today, as a matter of fact, and he’ll have other stops along the way. 

Certainly one of the things he’s in the region talking about is the potential for another hostage deal, which would require a humanitarian pause of some length to get that done.  And that’s definitely on the agenda. 

He’ll also be talking about a range of other issues, including humanitarian assistance, including getting assessment of Israeli Defense Force operations and the protection of civilian life.  I mean, there’s a lot on his agenda. 

But I can’t confirm these reports that those are the parameters of a deal that’s being discussed. 

The last thing I’ll leave you with is that the — as I’ve said before, the discussions are sober and serious.  Again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are or give you — I can’t give you odds on — on if and when we’ll be able to get there.  But the conversations are very sober and serious about trying to get another hostage deal in place.

Q    Could you characterize — sorry, just — the — where the — the holdup is — and this seems to be a — a far more, you know, significant offer on the part of the Israelis.  I mean, we’ve seen from them —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — through their public messaging.  Is — is Hamas the real holdup here?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I don’t know that, you know, it’s time now to be talking about holdups.  I mean, these are — these are ongoing discussions.  I wouldn’t even class- — classify them as “negotiations” quite at this point but “ongoing discussions with counterparts” about what’s in the — what’s in the realm of the possible here to get these hostages out and how long would that last, the pause itself, and what would that mean for humanitarian aid.  There’s a lot of components here. 

And so, I wouldn’t describe it as us running up against some kind of obstacle here or a — or a stop or a hard spot.  We’re — we’re just having these active conversations, and hopefully they will bear fruit.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q    Do you think that a pause of a really extended nature, whether it’s two months or it’s weeks — very different than what we saw in the earlier release of hostages — would that not only serve to — to be a pathway for hostages to come out but also to change the overall nature of the fight and transition to a different character of or intensity of the conflict?

MR. KIRBY:  You know, Kelly, it — it’s possible, but I — I really think we’ve got to be careful about getting ahead of where we are in the — in the process.  The focus would rightly be on getting the hostages out — more than 100 that we know Hamas or their affiliates are still holding — and, of course, increasing the humanitarian assistance. 

Could — you know, again, it would depend on how long, right?  And so, I think it’s possible that it could have some larger implications for the conflict itself, but it’s just too soon to know right now.

Q    And do you think that the substantial loss of life among the IDF — the 24 — is that a component of changing how Israel may view where we are in the war now — to have a — you know, a catastrophic incident like that?

MR. KIRBY:  Only the Israelis could answer that question.  It was a terr- — terrible day for the IDF yesterday.  That’s an enormous amount of troops lost in one day.  And certainly, our condolences go out to all the families and their teammates as well. 

But as for what impact yesterday’s actions might have on this, I — I think that’s something we would refer to them to speak to. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, you’ve said multiple times that the U.S. doesn’t support a general ceasefire right now.  But would the White House support a 30-day, a 60-day, or a 90-day ceasefire, if that’s something that Israel was open to for a hostage deal?

MR. KIRBY:  Sure, absolutely.  If that would require — if that would give us the opportunity to get hostages out and get more aid in, we would absolutely support a humanitarian pause of — of a longer length than the week that we were able to accomplish.  Absolutely, we would.

Q    And do you think that’s realistic, that a 90-day pause, for example, might be agreed?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are in the discussions, Jeff.  So, I can’t confirm the reports out there about what the length might be.  But we are in serious discussions about trying to get another pause in place.

Q    And just lastly, on Brett’s trip.  Can you give us a sense of who else he plans to meet with and what his message is during this visit?

MR. KIRBY:  He’s working on a range of issues, so his messages are really in line with our policy, which is making sure Israel knows that it has the support that it — that it needs, making sure we’re getting humanitarian assistance increased to the degree we can, getting the hostages out, and obviously working — helping to work towards an arrangement where a pause can be in place to allow all those things to occur.

He’ll also, no question, have other discussions about other regional issues, including continuing to explore the idea of — of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  I don’t have a readout of all his discussions that he’s had.  He’s only just gotten in the region, I think, yesterday.  So, we’ll see if we can get you a little bit more granularity on — on where he’s going next and who he’s going to be talking to.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  There were Russian strikes on residential neighborhoods in Kyiv and Kharkiv.  What does this say about Russia’s strategy right now?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s very much, I think, of a piece of what the Russians have been trying to do since the winter months have set in, which is to make — to — to further victimize the Ukrainian population, to try to break their will and their — and their back.  And the attacks on civilian infrastructure, residential homes and — and areas is, again, not something that Putin has shied away from in the past.

We don’t see a lot of movement on the battlefront from east to south.  There’s — there’s — neither side is really making a lot of progress, and we’re not seeing any major push by the Russians to some sort of ground offensive.  And I’m not ruling out that they might not try to pursue that when the ground gets a little harder.

But that — but what they are doing are trying to overwhelm Ukrainian air defense systems.  And those air defense systems have been pretty effective at knocking a lot of this stuff out of the sky.  Things get through, obviously.  They don’t get — they don’t hit every- — everything. 

But that’s why it’s so critical that we get this supplemental funding, because, as I said earlier, the Ukrainians are making some tough decisions on the battlefield about what they’re going to shoot and what they’re going to save for another day.  And — and the — and the Russians know that.

So, part of this is trying to break the back of the Ukrainian people but also trying to — to force the Ukrainians to continue to use munitions in defense of themselves.

Q    Is the U.S. seeing evidence that Russia is increasingly targeting Ukrainian arms production sites?  And, if so, what does that mean?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, actually, I’m glad you asked that question.  They have, in fact — we have seen them start to go after more of Ukraine’s defense industrial base.  Again, all of a piece of wearing down the Ukrainians’ ability to defend themselves over time, which, again, it just makes — it just underscores how important it is that we get this supplemental funding for — for Ukraine.

Secretary Austin, I think, as you know, hosted yet another contact group today.  We’ve got 50-some-odd nations involved in here trying to contribute stuff to Ukraine, and they’re all looking to us for leadership.  They all want to know where we’re going be here, you know, in a couple months.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, John.  Is — are the U.S. strikes on the Houthis aimed simply at degrading their capabilities or also at interrupting the rate of resupply of materiel from Iran?  And — and what has the U.S. observed about those resupply efforts?  Are they slowing down?  Are they speeding up?

MR. KIRBY:  Two different efforts here.  We already have in place and have been doing interdiction to try to stop the flow of munitions from Iran to Houthi-controlled Yemen.  And, matter of fact, that’s how we lost — tragically lost those two Navy SEALs.  They were involved in an interdiction mission of that sort.

The strikes that were taken are something separate and distinct.  And it really is designed about — to disrupt and des- — and degrade Houthi offensive capabilities, to — to make it harder for them to — to continue these attacks.

Q    But are you seeing any efforts by the Iranians to — to pick up the pace of supplying the Houthis as they come under attack by the U.S.?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just say we’re watching this very, very closely.  I mean, it’s not — Iranian support of the Houthis is nothing new.  They have — they have not only supplied things to — to them but to Hamas and Hezbollah and other groups in — in the region.  And I would just say we’re monitoring that flow as closely as we can. 
I think that’s as far as I’m going to be able to go today.

Q    And then can you give us an update on the effort to prevent a war with Hezbollah and Amos Hochstein’s efforts in the region?

MR. KIRBY:  We are involved diplomatically, not just with the — the Israelis but with officials in Lebanon to — to see what we can do to keep that — the conflict from widening and escalating there along that northern border with I- — Israel.

We still don’t believe that it’s in the interest of the Israeli people, certainly not in the interest of regional security, for another front to be opened up. 

We have not seen — and I think this is important, and I’ll let Amos speak to his discussions; he has been a significant interlocutor in — in having these discussions — but we have not seen Hezbollah jump in with both feet and come to the aid of Hamas.  There have been — I’m not going to, obviously, dismiss it.  There has been rocket fire exchanged on both sides.  We want to see those tensions de-escalate.  But we have not seen Nasrallah give the orders that, you know, they’re going to go all in to help Hamas.

As a matter of fact, I mean, take a look at it — and I know we’re all talking about the Houthis, and I get all that.  But — but there ain’t a whole lot of people that are jumping in with two feet to help Hamas in this war that they started on the 7th of October.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Justin.

Q    Thanks.  John, I have one on the Middle East.  But first I wanted to follow up.  Zeke asked about Secretary Austin.  He had his first public appearance today from a very secure printer closet — (laughs) — over at the Pentagon.  I’m wondering if you have a sense of when he — when we might see him in person, if that’s been a conversation between the White House and the Pentagon about, kind of, getting him out and —

MR. KIRBY:  Getting him out?

Q    Yeah.  (Laughter.)

MR. KIRBY:  I think, as I understand it, and you should check with my Defense Department colleagues, but I think he hosted that contact group from home, from — over Zoom.  And we — he’s done these virtually before.  Getting 50 nations all together in the same place sometimes can be difficult.  So, this one was another virtual one, and I understand that he took it from home.

I — I don’t have anything on — I certainly wouldn’t be in a position to speak to his schedule and when you might see him out more publicly.  But I know that they’re working through — at the Defense Department — working through what his schedule will look like once he’s able to get back to work in the Pentagon and then, you know, how they build out his calendar.  But that’s really for them to speak to. 

Q    And then, on the Middle East, you mentioned yesterday that we were engaging the Saudis and regional partners still on that normalization effort.  But I wanted to ask about the G20.  There was the announcement about the India to Europe, sort of, rail and waterway trade pipeline —

MR. KIRBY:  The economic corridor. 

Q    Yeah. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    Has — has the conflict in Israel, sort of, put that either on the backburner or effectively killed that effort?  Or is that something that’s still an active part of talks?

MR. KIRBY:  The short answer is no.  But, look, this — that — that is a major rail corridor that, actually, we’re calling an economic corridor.  Because while it’s principally around a rail system, there would be all kinds of logistics and sustainment hubs along the way and offer all kinds of opportunities for infrastructure improvement and employment opportunities. 

And it’s — that’s — you know, that’s a years-long process.  It’s going to take a long time to get there.  The President knows that. 

And so, our — our work and our efforts to start laying the groundwork, literally, if you’ll excuse the pun, but laying the tracks for that are ongoing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  In the back.

Q    Merci, Karine.  John, I just want to go back on the strikes on the — on the Houthis.  You listed a number of countries — allies involved in this — UK, Canada.  How is this coordinated?

And, by the way, has the mission — does the mission have a name?  Is it — is it just, like, “We’re Striking the Houthis Operation”?  And how does the coordination happen?  Is the President involved?  Has he talked to Prime Minister Trudeau, for instance? 

MR. KIRBY:  So, couple of — there’s a lot off — there.  Not every nation is involved in the actual dropping of munitions.  In this case, it was the United States and the United Kingdom.  Other nations, as I indicated in my opening statement, they contribute other capabilities.  I’ll let them speak to what — what they’re doing to support these strikes on — on Houthi capabilities ashore. 

There is an awful lot of coordination done at various levels.  I mean, the President spoke yesterday with Prime Minister Sunak.  And, obviously, this was on the — on the plate to talk about it, given that that conversation took place in advance — a few hours in advance of the strikes that we actually took. 

And we always read out his calls with foreign counterparts.  So, I’ll — you know, it’s not like he would have a conversation with another prime minister and you wouldn’t know about it.  But he is involved at his level, of course, but so is Secretary of Defense; so is Secretary of State; so is Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor.  And then staff levels at the NSC up and down the chain of command are involved, clearly, with our — our counterparts. 

Q    So, this mission is just “We’re striking the Houthis.”

MR. KIRBY:  You’re asking for the name?

Q    Well, is it an operation organized and well-thought?

MR. KIRBY:  I would — I’d refer you to the Pentagon if they’ve — if they’ve given it an operational name or not.  That’s really for them to — to speak to. 

We’re not so much worried about what bumper sticker you slap on it.  We’re interested in making sure we’re going after Houthi capabilities and trying to degrade their ability to continue to conduct these attacks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thank you so much, John.  I’m right here. 

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, sorry.

Q    Just a quick question about whether the administration includes environmental impact assessments in calculating how to support allies like Israel and Ukraine. 

Just for reference, we interviewed some environmental experts who estimated that, in the last 60 days, U.S. supply flights to Israel contributed to 133,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions.  That’s a lot.  Right? 

So, is that part of the calculation that you make?  And how do you balance your desire to protect the environment with your desire to protect your allies?

MR. KIRBY:  I know of no — and I’m happy to take this question.  I know of no mathematical analysis that we’re conducting at an agency level to — to judge the impact of using jet fuel, for instance, to — to fly support to Ukraine or — or get it into the region for Israel. 

Again, I’ll take that question.  But we’re focused, rightly so, on making sure that our two partners have what they need to defend themselves.  And that’s really where the President’s head is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Arlette.

Q    Thank you.  One of my colleagues has reported that Israel has prono- — proposed that a — Hamas senior leadership could leave Gaza as part of a broader ceasefire agreement.  Is this something that the U.S. believes is a viable proposal?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t want to see Hamas in charge of Gaza anymore.  They chose to violate the ceasefire that was in place, and we, certainly, agree with our Israeli counterparts that whatever the future of post-conflict Gaza looks like, it can’t include Hamas leaders. 

Now, how that’s actualized, I think, I’d refer to the Israeli Defense Forces to — to speak to.  And I’m not — I understand where the question is going.  I’m just not going to get ahead of discussions that we’re having in the region about post-conflict Gaza and what that — what that can look like and what a hostage deal — what the parameters of that would look like. 

The last thing I’ll say on this is we have been very consistent that whatever governance looks like in Gaza after this is over, it’s got to be representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people who are not represented by Hamas and who do not — the majority — don’t support what Hamas has put them through in — in visiting this kind of violence inside the Strip. 

So, whatever — whatever it looks like, it’s got to be representative of their aspirations.  And we believe that a good place to start to get to that outcome is a revitalized Palestinian Authority. 

Q    And Senate Republican Whip John Thune told reporters today that he thinks that the Ukraine aid the President proposed may need to be scaled back a bit, specifically when it comes to non-lethal assistance.  Is this something that the White House would be open to, scaling back —

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t —

Q    — any portions of it?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t negotiate in public here.  The President’s supplemental request that we put forward way back in October was thoughtful, it was carefully done and crafted, it was done in consultation with our Ukrainian partners about what they believe they were going to need in the early months of this year.  And it came up to, I think, more than $60 million, or something like that. 

So — I’m sorry.  Sixty billion.

And we believe that that was an adequate request.  And that’s the request that we want considered.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Peter.

Q    Thank you, John.  Why are you guys making it easier for people to enter the country illegally?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t believe we are.  Why do you think we are?

Q    Well, you guys sued to cut razor wire that was put in place by Texas officials and —

MR. KIRBY:  So that the Border Patrol could actually do their jobs. 

But keep going. 

Q    Well, you won in court.  So, now what?  The Border Patrol union president is saying the Supreme Court’s decision is going to “undoubtedly encourage more illegal immigration.”  Do you guys know better than the Border Patrol union?

MR. KIRBY:  The Border Patrol needed access.  And that’s why we sued to get rid of that razor wire so that they could do their jobs. 

And you know what else will help them do their jobs, Peter?  More Border Patrol agents.  There’s an idea.  And if you go back to the supplemental request that we put in, there’s money in there for some 1,300 additional Border Patrol agents. 

We want to help them do their jobs.  We want to give them more resources.  And the answer we kept — keep getting back from House Republicans is no, no, no.

Q    Does razor wire work?

MR. KIRBY:  Does razor wire work for what?  Does it work for the Border Patrol to allow them to have the access they need to be able to better process people that are trying to get across the border?  I don’t think so.  And that’s why we asked for it to be removed.

Q    But what is the President’s plan?  This is happening just weeks after 300,000 people came into this country over the southern border illegally.  The razor wire, officials down there think, was keeping some of them out.  And you guys just sued and won to remove it.

MR. KIRBY:  On behalf of the Border Patrol, who needed — who needed to have better access to it. 

Look, let me go back to your other question.  And I — and I know I’m running short on time, so I won’t — I won’t filibuster here. 

But “what’s the plan?”  Please look at the stuff we’ve put forward: the immigration reform legislation that the President put forward on day one, the work we’re doing in the region.  Just last week, we had Mexican officials here to talk about how together we have and will continue to try to stem the flow of migrants. 

You mentioned the numbers.  No question there’s a lot of people trying to make that journey.  But it’s not just to the United States, it’s to other countries in the world — in the region.  We’re seeing historic movement.  Not since World War Two have we seen this many people on the move in this hemisphere.  And the Mexicans are really stepping up and trying to do the more — more on their southern border to keep that flow going north lower.  And we have seen, in recent weeks, some success at that.

The idea that we don’t have a plan or a strategy or we’re not taking this seriously, it’s just not borne out by the facts. 

And, you know, again, if the — if the folks on the House Republican side are serious about border security — and they claim they are — then they should act on the supplemental request.  And, you know, let’s negotiate this in good faith. 

The President has said he’s willing to make compromises.  He’s willing to negotiate in good faith.  So — so, let’s — let’s have that discussion. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Sabrina.

Q    Thank you.  Israel has said that it is going to build a buffer zone.  It appears to already be demolishing structures inside Gaza along its borders, despite the U.S. position that Gaza’s territory should not be reduced.  Does the administration object to this plan?  And if the Israelis are moving forward anyway, then what is the administration doing about it?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let the Israelis speak to this idea.  Nothing has changed about our view, Sabrina.  We do not want to see the territory of Gaza reduced in any way.  We won’t support that.

Q    And you — the administration has communicated that directly to the Israelis, that they shouldn’t create these buffer zones?

MR. KIRBY: I won’t talk about our diplomatic conversations. 

We have been very clear and consistent, both in private and publicly, that we do not want to see the territory of Gaza reduced in any way.

Q    To the back?

Q    Thank you.  John, could you please confirm — could you — could you please confirm if Russia has used more North Korean missiles in Ukraine —

MR. KIRBY:  They have.

Q    — after your —

MR. KIRBY:  They have, yes.

Q    — two weeks ago announced aid.

MR. KIRBY:  They have.

Q    What’s your response to President Putin’s visit, in the near future, to North Korea?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, what we’re — what’s concerning to us is this increasing relationship, this deepening relationship between North Korea and Russia.  Because, obviously, Mr. Putin stands to benefit from it, as he not only gets ballistic missiles and using them for use in Ukraine, but also artillery shells.  And he’s using them to a fare-thee-well, as well. 

So, we’re watching this very, very closely, as we are North Korea’s own pursuit of advanced military capabilities.  And what concerns us is not just Mr. Putin’s ability to benefit from this relationship, but Kim Jong Un’s ability to benefit from this relationship and what that means for peace and security in the region.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks.  Staying on North Korea.  There’s been a number of reports recently about — that there have been signs that Kim Jong Un is preparing for some kind of attack or even preparing for war.  Have you seen any indication of a change in posture from North Korea?  Is there any concerns that you have about — about that?

MR. KIRBY:  I want to be careful here.  I don’t get into intelligence assessments.  But we’re watching this very, very closely.  And I would just tell you that we remain confident that the defensive posture that we’re maintaining on the Peninsula is appropriate to the risk.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    On the Houthis.  Back to the Houthis.  So, Treasury issued a general license allowing the Houthis to profit from oil sales.  Why designate or redesignate them a special terrorist group if you’re going to allow them to make profits off of oil sales within the country?

MR. KIRBY:  It doesn’t.  You’re talking about General License Number 25 —

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  — which is designed to allow for the import of some petroleum products, such as cooking oil, so that the Yemeni people aren’t suffering and they can — and they can eat.  It does not allow — and I’m happy to get you the exact language, Ed — but it does not allow for the transfer or the export for profit of Yemeni petroleum products.  They are not going to be allowed to profit off of this.

Q    There are five licenses in general — or in total.  One of them also allows them to get payments for goods going through the ports, as well as fees from people leaving airports.  Again, same question, allowing them  —

MR. KIRBY:  Again, you —

Q    — revenue to do their operations.

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m happy to refer you to Treasury for more detail.  My understanding of that license as well is it will not allow them to profit.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead. 

Q    A senior administration official told Politico that one aspect of your plan to stop the Houthis is to have China pressure them to stop.  Does the administration have any indication that China has sway with the Houthis and any interest in applying such pressure?

MR. KIRBY:  China has influence over Tehran; they have influence in Iran.  And they have the ability to have conversations with Iranian leaders that — that we can’t.  And so, what we’ve said repeatedly is: We would welcome a constructive role by China, using the influence and the access that we know they have, to try to help stem the flow of weapons and munitions to the Houthis.

MR. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s wrap it up. 

Go ahead.  Go ahead, Courtney.

Q    Thank you.  You mentioned earlier the meeting with Mexican officials that was last week to talk about migration.  Can you talk through what some of the next steps are after that meeting and whether U.S. officials are going to meet with them again in the coming weeks?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have another meeting on the schedule right now to speak to or to announce.  I have every expectation that there will be additional conversations at various levels of the staff.  We’re focused on root causes of this migration and helping try to, with our Mexican counterparts, alleviate some of those root causes.  There’s lots of reasons why people are on the move, depending on where they’re coming from.

We’re also working closely, as I mentioned to Peter, with Mexican officials about what they might need to help as they deal with pressure at their southern border.  And they have taken some action.  They’ve put more soldiers down there.  They are doing more work at railheads and — you know, and bus routes to try to stem the flow. 

And so, we’re going to keep having those kinds of conversations with them.

Q    When you say “what they might need,” are you talking about support from the U.S. to stem the flow at their southern border?

MR. KIRBY:  Support from — from the U.S., support from in the region.  I mean, again, we’re trying to take a true regional approach on this.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, sir.  Go ahead, in the back.  Go ahead. 

Q    Me?

Q    Thank you.  So, as Turkish parliament is appearing to move on — on Sweden’s NATO accession, Hungary’s Prime Minister is suggesting that it’s still up for negotiations.  He invited the — his Swedish — Swedish counterpart for negotiation on NATO’s accession.  Do you see this as, you know, still up for negotiation?

And relatedly, the Polish Prime Minister suggested that Hungary is quietly wak- — working with Russia and betraying Europe.  Is that your assessment as well?

MR. KIRBY:  First of all, we understand that the Turkish parliament may be taking up this decision today.  Obviously, we’ll watch this very closely. 

As the President has said, Sweden is more than ready to become a NATO Ally, and we certainly look forward to their accession into the Alliance. 

But I’m not going to get ahead of the Turkish parliament.  Obviously, these are discussions and a vote that they have to hold.

I can’t speak for what the Hungarian government is doing or about to do.  They have indicated in the past that they certainly won’t be the holdup here, that they won’t be the last to accede.  They’re also, I’m sure, watching what’s going on in Turkey very closely as well.

But, look, it’s time for Sweden to become a NATO Ally.  They have a modern and advanced military, one that we’re very comfortable with.  And they’ll add real significant military capabilities to the Alliance.

MR. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Andrew, last question.

Q    Thank you.  John, two questions on two unrelated subjects.  The first: A federal court in California this week is scheduled to hear arguments in a lawsuit from civil and human rights advocates that is seeking a court order to prevent the U.S. from providing any more aid to Israel.  Aside from what the Justice Department has argued in court papers, does the White House have any reaction to the lawsuit?

MR. KIRBY:  We won’t speak to an individual lawsuit.  That wouldn’t be prudent.  I will just tell you that nothing has changed about the President’s strong view that we’ve got to continue to make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself.

Q    And then, the second question.  If the state government of Texas, specifically the governor, is using National Guard personnel to impede the law enforcement efforts of federal authorities, why is the President hesitant to simply federalize the Texas Guard and order them to cease and desist rather than going to the courts and having to wait for the court process to play itself out?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any pending decision by the — by the President as Commander-in-Chief to federalize the Texas National Guard.  I mean, obviously, as Commander-in-Chief, he has that option.  But I’m not going to get ahead of any decision space that the President might be in.

Q    Does the administration believe that it’s a proper function of the Guard, under — under state authority, to be used to frustrate federal authority?

MR. KIRBY:  They have — they have a chain of command under the governor, and we respect that chain of command.  We can disagree on the use of the National Guard and other — even state assets for the way that Governor Abbott is treating that border.  We certainly disagree from a policy perspective. 

But, legally, he is, by — you know, by authority, the state commander-in-chief of the National Guard.  It doesn’t mean we have to agree with every which way they’re used.  And I won’t get ahead of the President’s decision space, again, one way or the other.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you. 

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

All right.  Zeke, want to reset us?

Q    Yes, thanks, Karine.  Has the President been briefed on that shooting in Joliet, Illinois, and the subsequent manhunt there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, thank you for that question.  So, we are tracking certainly the connect- — the connected fatal shootings that took place in Joliet, Illinois, just outside of Chicago.  Our thoughts are with the families of the victims of this senseless act of violence.

Federal officials are supporting the local law enforcement investigation, and we will know more as they complete their work. 

As law enforcement has stated, the shooter appears to have died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds.  This recently — this recent tragedy underscores the need for Congress to act and to take action to end this epidemic of gun violence that we’re seeing across the country. 

Our administration is taking aggressive steps to keep guns off our streets and out of the — out of those who mean to do harm by cracking down on gun trafficking, stolen firearms, and enhancing background checks to stop sales to those in crisis, and all thanks to key provisions of the President’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that we were able to do about almost two years ago now. 

But we need Congress to do more: universal background checks, red flag laws to provide further protections and tools to prevent such tragedies.  The longer they wait, the more communities like Joliet will continue to be torn apart by gun violence. 

So, we are certainly tracking this.  And so, we’re going to see what the — what the law enforce- — local law enforcement say about the more specifics of this horr- — horrific, horrific gun violence. 

Q    Thanks.  And on a different topic, it’s election day — primary election day in New Hampshire.  The President’s name is not on the ballot, but many of his supporters are trying to write his name in — onto that ballot there.  Without speaking to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — 2024 at all, how does the President plan to spend this evening?  Does he plan to watch those — those results?  How does he plan to monitor the outcome of the race?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I appreciate the question.  So, look, as you know, the President is going to be heading out in a couple of hours to head to Virginia.  He’s going to be doing a dual — obviously, a dual event with the Vice President.  Can’t go too much further into that, but, obviously, you all know he’s going to — they’re going to be speaking about reproductive healthcare, the importance of that. 

Yesterday would have been the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court overturned Roe.  And — and we have seen the devastating effects that that overturning of Roe have had across the country with women obviously not being able to — many of them not being able to make decisions on their own healthcare. 

So, you’ll hear from the Vice President, obviously.  You’ll hear from the President.  So, that’s what he’s going to be doing later on today. 

I have not spoken to him on how he’s going to be taking in the results tonight.  So, I don’t have anything — specifics to share on how that’s going to — how the President is going to be spending his evening, but certainly he is always — certainly always focused on the American people.  And that mu- — that much I can promise.

Q    And does he have any concerns that — that he might lose that write-in campaign?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I think the President’s concern right now is making sure we continue to deliver for the American people.  That’s his focus.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    I’m going to try a couple on the border negotiations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, sure. 

Q    Now that it seems there’s a semblance of optimism on the Hill that this is inching closer —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve always been optimistic.

Q    No, on the Hill.  On the Hill.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, okay.  Okay, okay.

Q    — a semblance, though — (laughter) — that it’s inching closer to the finish line, has the President spoken to negotiators this week?  Will he meet with any of the Senate leaders on this to get it across the finish line?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have any — we don’t have anything to preview on any conversations that the President has had specifically with the negotiations.  And I’m assuming you’re speaking to — you’re speaking about the senators, both Republicans and Democrats.  Obviously, he gets regularly updated from his team, who have been in close — a part of these negotiations in close — obviously, in close contact with members in the Senate.  And they’ve been doing this for months now — for months.  So, he’s getting regular updates — every day, daily updates. 

And the President said last week — I think you — someone asked him if — how he felt about it.  And he thought it was basically — that a deal was — was coming — was soon to come. 

So, look, we’re — we continue to be optimistic.  This is an important, important negotiation to try to figure out how do we address a broken system, the immigration system, how do we deal with border security.  It is a bipartisan negotiation, which we really, truly appreciate, to get to that agreement.  And we are going to continue to be optimistic. 

If there are any conversations that the President is going to have that we feel — you know, that we will — we will — that is necessary to share, we certainly will do that.  But as you know, the President — you know, because he has relationships with many of those Senate members, tends to have regular commun- — communications with some of those senators on the Hill.

Q    And Arlette had asked Kirby — so, he touched on this somewhat, but I think more specifically for you because of the politics of this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — if the border policy changes come in at a higher number, the total cost of that compared to what the administration had asked for in the supplemental for border security, is there wiggle room in the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You mean in the appropriations process?

Q    — in the — yeah.  Is there wiggle room from the administration on the number that is put for the Ukraine funding?  If — would that come down from the administration’s side to keep this still in that ballpark range of $106 billion?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be really mindful and really careful here.  I’m not going to say what we would accept or not accept. 

What I will say is that the national security supplemental that the President put forth back in the fall is incredibly important.  We want Congress to move forward with it.  We want Congress to act on the supplemental.  It is an emergency request.  That’s why presidents usually put forward supplementals.  And it’s about our national security not just abroad, but obviously here in the U.S.  And it includes Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan.  It also includes, obviously, the border security. 

So, there are different parts and pieces to this that are very important.  And — and it was a thoughtful process. 

I’m not going to get into the appropriations part of it.  I’m not going to get into anything else beyond — you know, beyond letting the negotiators, as it — as it — as it is focused — as they’re focused on border security — to allow them to do their negotiations. 

Again, these — the negotiations that they’re talking about is, obviously, policy and — and funding as well. 

What are we going to do to give the resources that are needed to deal with what’s going on at the border?  I’m just going to stick it to there — keep it to there.

Go ahead, Nancy. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the razor wire case.  Now that the Supreme Court has decided in favor of the administration, what is the plan?  How quickly does the administration intend to remove all the razor wire that has been set up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I don’t have the — the specifics on the — what the border security is going to do and how they’re going to do it.

Look, we are certainly glad that the Supreme Court made the decision to — to vacate the injunction that prevented border security to actually do their jobs, to do humanitarian work, to actually — to actually enforce laws.  And it got in the way. 

And what — and what was put forward that — what — what — what Texas was doing — the governor was doing was actually ineffective.  And that’s something that we have to remember: It was ineffective. 

And so, now it’s going to — it’s going to allow border security to do their jobs.  It’s going to allow border security to actually act if there is an issue or some — a dangerous situation happening and they need to act and save lives.  It’s going to allow them to do that and actually do their jobs and enact law. 

Look, at the bott- — at the — you know, the bottom line here is that we need changes in policy.  We need funding.  And that’s what the conversations are happening in the Senate.  And so, that’s incredibly important.  We do not need political stunts.  We do not need political stunts that we’re seeing — that was — that we’re seeing from the Texas governor. 

But, look, this is — this is — we’re glad that it happened.  And now Border — Border Patrol will be able to do their jobs.

Q    My c- — my colleague who is down at the border has new video of the Texas National Guard setting up razor wire right now, today, even in the wake of this decision.  How does the administration plan to deal with that without getting into some kind of direct conflict with the Texas National Guard?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, what was — what was decided on was the ability for the Border Patrol agents to cut through the wire, right?  The — the — kind of, the initial reason as the wire is being put — putting la- — being laid out there, that still has to go to the fi- — the cir- — court, the Fifth — the Fifth Circuit.  Right?  They still have to go through that process.  Maybe it goes to the Supreme Court.  I’m going to be careful and not talk about that legal process.

But what we know that we are able to do, that the Border Patrol is able to do is cut through the border wire so they can actually do their jobs.  There’s a whole ‘nother process that has to go through the — the legal system.  So, we’re going to let DOJ and others continue that process.

But now, Border Patrol has a — has the ability — ability to do their jobs because now they can cut through the wire.

Go ahead, Arlette.

Q    You started the briefing talking about some of these positive economic indicators and how the mood of consumers is changing as you’re seeing some of these positive signs in the economy.  But so far, it really hasn’t changed in their perception of how President Biden has contributed to this and — and helped them.  Are there discussions about different ways that you can try to communicate this message, given the fact that, so far, it just hasn’t sunk in with the American psyche that Biden should be getting credit, in your belief?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we’re going to just continue to have the conversation.  We’re going to continue to have the President talk — speak directly to the American people.  You saw him do that in many different ways in the past two weeks, where he’s been able to address Americans at their home — right? — where he’s been able to go to a business and talk to folks at — at a — at a business.

And so, look, we’re going to try — obviously, we’re always trying to find ways to communicate with folks on the ground.  And we understand, look, polls don’t vote; people vote.  That’s really important to remember as well.

And — but I think the data still matters.  The fact that consumer sentiment is high in a way that we hadn’t seen it in some time — right? — the numbers show that — and the fact that the economy is indeed stronger than it was.  Since the President walked into this administration, he’s been able to create more than 14 million jobs.  All of that matters. 

We’re going to do our job.  We’re going to continue to have those conversations with the American people.  And you’ll see that.  And you’ll see contin- — the President has been doing that for the last three years, and he’s not going to stop.  And we’re going to make sure that the American people hear directly from him as — you know, as often as we can.

Q    And is the President frustrated that Americans are feeling better about the economy, but they’re not feeling better about his role in it? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think what the President is — is proud to see is that the data is showing that consumer confidence is up, is that we’re able to see gas prices under three bucks in more than — in 27 states.  That’s important.  That’s what the President is happy to see. 

The President is — is happy to see that we’ve created more than 14 million jobs.  That’s what we’re going to continue to work on, an economy that is — that — that makes sure that we build it from the bottom up, middle out.  And let’s not forget, we’re going to continue to lower costs for the American people.

And so, as long as we do that, as long as we do our job, the President does his job, then that’s what matters.

Go ahead.

Q    Hi.  Thank you so much.  So, you said at the beginning of the briefing that 19 states have experienced the lowest unemployment rate on record.  What do they have in common?  Are they geographically clustered in one area?  And to what do you attribute this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, that’s a good question.  I don’t — I don’t have specifically which 19 states.  Certainly, we can get that number.  It’s in the — obviously, it’s in the data.  So — it’s in the stun- — state unemployment data, so you can actually pull it fr- — directly from there.

I think we attribute that to the President’s plans and policies and what he’s been able to do for the past three years — right? — whether it’s legislation — historic piece of legislation — whether it’s the Bipartisan Infra- — Infrastructure — Infrastructure Act, or whether it is the CHIPS and Science Act.  I mean, there are multiple — we believe, multiple reasons, multiple policy changes that the President has been able to do to get the economy going.  And we see that in the data. 

And so, we — we believe that what the President has done is working.  Now, we have more work to do in lowering costs, and we’ll continue to do that.  But certainly, this is the President and this administration’s work at hand, along with some of the work that we’ve been able to do with Congress.

Q    To the back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The President, you alluded to, is speaking about abortion at the event tonight in Virginia.  He has often said he would like Congress to codify Roe.  Are there talks between the White House and legislators in Congress about doing that?  I know they don’t have the votes for it, but is there an effort right now to prepare for that underway?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can’t speak of an — of a — of conversations specifically on — that we’ve had with legislators.  We talk to legislators on a — an array of issues and — and, certainly, different agendas.  I know that legislators in Congress have tried to introduce pieces of legislation to codify — to do just that, to codify Roe. 

And so, look, here — here’s where we are: Majority of Americans want to make sure that their rights are protected, that their freedoms are protected.  That’s where majority of Americans are.  They want to make sure that women have the right, the ability to make decisions on their reproductive healthcare.  That is something that we know.

And Republicans do not stand with the majority of Americans.  You have about, I believe, three national bans that were — that were introduced by congressional Republicans.  And so, that is a problem. 

And so, we have to be very clear.  This is why the President, the Vice President, his entire administration is going to continue to speak loud and clear and stand on the side of the majority of Americans.  And so, until we have Republicans that are willing to — to stand with the majority of Americans on this and do something and make sure that our freedoms and rights — women’s freedoms and rights are protected, then we’re not going to be able to make this happen.

But doesn’t mean that the President is not going to continue to call f- — call on that.  And so, that’s what we want to see.  In order to truly deal with this issue, we have to see legislation in Congress.  And that is just the facts.

Q    And is that the message that he wants to get across tonight?  And apropos tonight, is there a reason that this rally or this event was scheduled on the same day as the New Hampshire primary —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — where the Republican candidates —

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

Q    — will be in focus?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — scheduling of this political rally to the campaign.  So, I’m not going to speak to that.  And I’m not going to get ahead of what the President is going to say.  You’ll hear from him directly tonight.

But, look, you heard from the President yesterday during his task force — his for- — task force on this particular issue, reproductive healthcare.  Yesterday, he spoke to the importance of making sure that we stand with majority of Americans.  You saw the Vice President in Wisconsin speaking to the issue.  We were — we were very clear on where this administration stand.  We stand with majority of Americans on this. 

Q    Maybe the sixth row?  (Laughter.)

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

Q    I mean, you haven’t gone past the fifth row yet.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    I’m just saying.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Thank you for keeping track, but I believe the gentleman is — there’s a gentleman that I called on that’s sitting in your row. 

Q    Well, that’s true.  That’s true.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Oh, thanks.  Thanks, James.  I appreciate that.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Does the White House support a possibility of limiting immigration parole that seems to be now at the center of Senate negotiations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to speak to the specifics of the negotiation process, what’s being discussed, the policy discussions, or even the funding component of the discussions.  Just not going to do that from here.  Can’t negotiate from the podium because we want to make sure that they have — negotiators have the freedom to have a good-faith conversation.  I’m just not going to inject myself from here.

Q    Another topic.  Venezuelan President Maduro is accusing the U.S. of plotting to kill him, specifically the CIA and the DEA.  Has the White House seen these accusations?  And how do you respond to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I have not seen those accusations.  Obviously, that is — sounds a bit — a bit — well, it’s not even a bit.  It’s just not factual.  I’m just going to leave that there. 

Q    Sixth row (inaudible)?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  I’m trying to call some people I haven’t called on.  Go ahead, in the back.  Go ahead, go ahead. 

Q    I know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, go ahead.  This young — this young lady. 

Q    I’m trying to help you do that.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I know.  Thanks for the help.  But I got it.  Go ahead, go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    Sorry, me?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Yes.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  We’re sort of seeing a lot of House Republicans push back on the Supreme Court ruling, sort of encouraging the Texas governor to ignore it.  People like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Could you start from the beginning?  I missed the beginning of your question.

Q    That’s okay.  So, we’re seeing some House Republicans encourage Texas to ignore the Supreme Court ruling.  Representative Clay Higgins also sort of said it’s a “civil war.”  Is that rhetoric helpful to solve the situation at the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  None of it is helpful.  That rhetoric is not helpful.  The political stunts are not helpful.  They’re just not.  They’re not dealing with the issue that we’re seeing at the border. 

What we have asked and what we have said: Let’s work in a bipartisan way.  That’s why we are very grateful to what the senators are doing right now in negotiating in a bipartisan way, in good faith, to come up with a solution on a system that has been broken for decades — an immigration system that has been broken for decades. 

And so, you have Republicans coming together, Democrats coming together in the Senate to actually figure out how — what are the policy changes that we can — meaningful policy changes that could be put forth, what’s the funding — funding stream that is needed to deal with the border.  And that’s what we want to see, and that’s what we appreciate.

All of the political stunts that — some of them put — you know, put Border Patrol agents’ lives in danger.  It puts migrants’ lives in danger.  That’s not helpful.  That is not helpful at all. 

Go ahead, Courtney.

Q    Thank you.  Will President Biden renominate Todd Edelman for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia?  There was reporting that that’s not going to
happen. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s nomination process.  So, just don’t have anything to preview. 

Q    It’s to renominate, though, not —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get ahead of the process at this time.

Q    Okay. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, sir.

Q    So, knowing that there’s bipartisan negotiations happening in the Senate right now when it comes to the supplemental — obviously, House Republicans are not involved, but we do know Speaker Johnson was obviously here at the White House meeting with President Biden.  Are — is the White House or President Biden or any administration officials speaking directly with House Republicans about this, knowing that they’re basically saying that it’s dead on arrival, whatever comes out of the Senate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, the President spoke to this last week a little bit too.  He said — you know, he — he called out — he said to House Republicans: Do you really want to actually fix this problem?  Do you really actually want to do the work that’s needed to deal with the issue that we’re seeing at the border?  Do you really want to fix this immigration system?  I’m adding on to what the President said, but that’s a question for House Republicans. 

I think we have proven — Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate have proven that we actually want to work on this issue, on this broken system. 

And so, look, if they are real about this, if they want to fix this problem, then they would get involved.  They would get involved.  But they haven’t, right?  You heard me say, back at the end of last year, they left in the middle of December while negotiations were happening with Republicans in the Senate and the Democrats in the Senate. 

So, you know, this is a real problem.  This is an issue that Americans care about, and they want to see it done in a bipartisan way.  That’s what we’re trying to do.  That’s what we’re trying —

I don’t know why House Republicans continue to get in the way.

Q    But outside of the meeting last week, have they been in constant contact at all with House Republicans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, don’t have any specific communication or conversations to read out.  Obviously, it came out — it came up in the — in the meeting that the President had last week with leadership.  And that — it was obviously about Ukraine and the importance of America supporting Ukraine in their fight for freedom.  But obviously, as well, border security came up.  And there was an agreement.  There was an agreement with folks in the room that we needed to deal with both issues.  Both issues were really important. 

And so, that’s what I will leave you with.  But House Republicans could speak for themselves.  And we are saying to them: Why are they getting in the way?  Why don’t they come to the table and actually have these negotiations with us as well?

Way in the back, go ahead.

Q    Great.  Thank you.  Immigration is now the top issue for Americans — over the economy, over inflation.  That’s according to a new Harvard poll.  So, is immigration the President’s top priority?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There are many issues that are top priorities for this President, right?  This is a president that has to deal with multiple issues all at once. 

Obviously, immigration is clearly important.  I just went into — into a back-and-forth with your colleague here about what’s been going on — right? — what he’s been doing; what Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have been doing; how these negotiations are so important to get to a bipartisan agreement to deal with immigration, this broken system, and the border security. 

So, obviously, it’s a priority for this President.  And he is managing multiple things that are important — that are important and key to the American public.

Q    I just want to follow up on that.  Also on the border.  Speaker Johnson — he put out a statement talking about this issue.  He’s saying that the VP wants Congress to, quote, “grant mass amnesty and spend taxpayer dollars to process — not stop — more illegals,” and “her ‘solution’ is to…incentivize the lawlessness and the chaos.”  Can the White House
respond to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I will say to the House Speaker: If you truly care about the border and dealing with the border in a way that — that actually helps the American people and if he really cares about a broken immigration system that’s been broken for decades, then come have a conversation — a true, good-faith conversation.  Be part of the solution.  Be part of the negotiations.  Actually do something that’s going to make a change for the better.

And right now, that’s not what we’re seeing.  He’s getting in the way.  And, you know, that’s not what this President is about. 

He wants to see this done in a bipartisan way, a bipartisan agreement that is effective and that actually has meaningful policy changes and also funding streams that make sense — that make sense.

All right.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you tomorrow.

1:16 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 

1:04 P.M. EST 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Trevor — (laughter) — what did you do?

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What’s going on?  You causing problems?

Q    We’re ready.  We’re ready.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Are you sure?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, I can — I’m happy to just stand here and wait.

Q    You guys are early.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re — we’re —
 
Q    On time.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   — we’re not — we’re on time.  1:02.  I don’t even know if it’s 1:02.  I think that time is a little either fast or slow.

Okay.  Good afternoon, everybody.  Where is the rest of the class? 
 
Q    Good afternoon.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, my gosh.  Okay, well, good afternoon.  Happy Monday.  Today marks what would have been the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a ruling from the Supreme Court that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to make deeply personal healthcare decisions free from the interference of politicians.  But then the Supreme Court ruled to take that constitutional right away.

The aftermath has been devastating.  Women’s health and lives now hang in the balance.

Today, 21 states have abortion bans in effect, 27 million women of reproductive age live in states with bans.  That’s more than one in three women.  Over 380 state bills restricting access to abortion care were introduced just last year.  And on Capitol Hill, congressional Republicans have proposed three national abortion bans.

The stories of women being denied care are gut-wrenching.  In Texas, a woman was forced to go to court to ask permission to receive the care her doctor recommended before she ultimately fled Texas to receive the care she desperately needed. 

And she’s not alone.  We’ve seen one harrowing story after another of women who are experiencing a miscarriage and are turned away from emergency rooms, then, later — later, nearly dying — nearly dying because of that.

This should never happen in America.  Never.  But here’s the reality: The overturning of Roe v. Wade has led to the chaos and confusion we’re seeing play out — out across the country.  And it’s exactly why President Biden will continue to fight back and urge Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade back into federal law.

The health and lives of women are on the line here.  So, in about an hour, you will hear directly from the President on this, who will convene a meeting with the Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare, while Vice President Harris today kicks off her reproductive freedoms tour in Wisconsin.

And with that, as you can see to my right, I am grateful to welcome Jen Klein, the Director of the White House Gender Policy Council, back in the briefing room.  And she will talk about our actions that we’re taking today.
Jen.

MS. KLEIN:  Thank you, Karine.  As Karine said and as has — as President Biden has made clear since the day of the Court’s decision to overturn Roe, Congress must pass a federal law restoring the protections of Roe.  And, in the meantime, the Biden-Harris administration will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, the administration has taken action to help ensure that women receive the care they need in an emergency, to protect access to safe and effective medication abortion, to defend the right to travel for medical care, to expand access to contraception — affordable contraception, to strengthen privacy protections for patients and doctors, to support access to reproductive healthcare for service members and veterans, and to partner with state leaders, who really are on the front lines of protecting reproductive freedom.

To coordinate this work across the federal government, the President established a Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access, which I chair alongside HHS Secretary Becerra.  And today, as you heard, as we mark what should have been the 51st anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, President Biden will convene the fourth meeting of that task force with agency leaders.

The task force will hear directly from two physicians who are on the frontlines of the fallout from the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, and who will — who will share their on-the-ground experiences of how state abortion bans have wreaked havoc on their patients and interfered with their ability to practice medicine.
The President will then receive updates from his task force on the efforts to protect access to reproductive healthcare and the continued threats to emergency care and FDA-approved medication abortion.

Task force members will also report on new policy actions the administration is taking to strengthen access to reproductive care.

While the President is convening his Cabinet, the Vice President is in Wisconsin, a state where Republican elected officials want to enforce an extreme abortion ban from 1849 — that’s before women had the right to vote — that includes no exceptions, including in cases of rape or incest.

As you heard from Karine, she’ll kick off her Fight for Reproductive Freedoms tour, and she’ll be hearing and listening to women and healthcare providers about the devastating impact of state abortion bans.

And with that, I am happy to take some questions.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, go ahead, M.J.

Q    I’m just wondering how much more new action the White House believes they can take between now and November on this front.  Or do you mostly expect that the actions and announcements that are to come will be, you know, expansions on actions we’ve already seen since the Supreme Court took action?

MS. KLEIN:  Yeah, I mean, as the President has been quite clear since Roe was overturned, the ultimate solution is to pass federal national legislation to restore the protections in Roe.  And we will continue to work to hope that Congress will pass that legislation so the President can sign it. 
 
He has also been clear, literally since day one, of — when the decision came down in Dobbs that we will do everything we can.  So, that’s why he’s issued three executive orders and one presidential memorandum.  The executive orders are on strengthening access to abortion and contraception, on protecting patient privacy, on protecting patient safety and security, on protecting access to emergency care, and defending the right to travel. 
 
And we will take actions in all of those areas.  We have already, and we will continue to. 
 
So, to your question, is there anything left to do?  I think the answer is yes.  And today, when the President convenes his task force, you will see actions in a few more areas.  They do build on the executive orders that he has already released. 
 
So, just to outline what — a little bit more about those — what those policy actions today will be — you know, first, on contraception, there will be new guidance to support expanded coverage of a broader range of contraceptives at no cost under the ACA.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services will also issue a letter to private insurers, state Medicaid programs, and Medicare to reinforce their obligations to cover affordable contraception.
 
On emergency care, the — there — they will be — HHS will be announcing a comprehensive plan to educate patients about their rights under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA, and the process for filing a complaint; and also disseminate training materials for healthcare providers, convene those providers to ensure that they know how to comply with EMTALA, and also establish an expert team at HHS to help hospitals and healthcare providers comply with those legal obligations under EMTALA. 
 
And last piece is we will take additional steps to implement the presidential memorandum on medication abortion to protect the safety and security of patients, providers, and pharmacies who need, prescribe, or dispense medication abortion. 
 
Q    And could you just talk to us a little bit about how the White House is viewing ballot initiatives heading into November — the importance of them, what the landscape is?
 
MS. KLEIN:  Yeah, I think the ba- — the series of ballot initiatives — most recently in Ohio, but also in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Vermont, California — really show how salient this issue is and how every time Americans are given the opportunity to make their voices heard, they make their voices heard very loudly and clearly in favor of reproductive freedom.  And there are more ballot initiatives coming, and we will do everything we can to support state leaders, as I said, on the ground, who are on — really on the front lines. 
 
Q    Thank you. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.
 
Q    Thank you.  Can you talk a little bit about the significance of this rally in Virginia tomorrow and just how much more time you think the President is going to spend on the issue of abortion between now and November?
 
MS. KLEIN:  I can’t speak to the rally tomorrow directly because that’s a campaign event.  So, it’s a political event. 
 
What I can say is that the President has been prioritizing and delivering on reproductive freedom for his entire administration, starting with creating the Gender Policy Council and asking me, actually before Dobbs, to help lead the administration’s whole-of-government approach to Texas S.B. 8, and then, of course, once Dobbs came down, to mobilize the entire administration’s efforts, and he will continue to do that. 
 
And, of course, the Vice President, who has been a leader on this issue, will continue to be that leader.  She’s, as you just heard, in Wisconsin right now.  She will, of course, be part of the — of the rally tomorrow with all four of the principals participating.  And she will be around the country — she’s met with legislative leaders, state and local officials around the country.  And they will both continue to draw the sharp contrast between what this administration stands for and what Republican elected officials stand for for the months to come.
 
Q    Just bouncing off of M.J., though, do you feel that the White House is reaching the limits of what it can do when it comes to abortion rights without congressional action?
 
MS. KLEIN:  Again, I think, you know, the President was — was quite clear.  He literally said it, you know, within an hour of the Dobbs decision coming down: that the only way to restore the rights that were lost — the fundamental constitutional right that was lost that was protected for nearly 50 years under Roe vs. Wade is to have federal legislation.
 
And that’s why he is — his entire administration is laser-focused on that.  And he has made it entirely clear that when Congress sends him that legislation, he will sign it immediately. 
 
I don’t think that means that there is nothing we can do.  I think there’s quite a lot we can do.  And I think that’s evidenced by what we’ve done so far to — you know, all the categories that I mentioned, but really to protect access to reproductive healthcare in this country. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly.
 
Q    Can the federal government help to define some of the circumstances that women have found themselves in when medical questions about is it the life of the mother at risk — where state law may not spell it out very clearly or clearly enough, is there a role for the federal government there? 
 
And since some of these instances do result in ordinary citizens having to get involved in litigation, is there something that the administration can do to support them in pursuing those remedies?
 
MS. KLEIN:  Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, to — to state the obvious: We are seeing a lot of chaos — legal chaos and medical chaos — because of the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and the state abortion bans that have been passed across the country. 

You know, it just bears mentioning that there are 21 states with abortion bans right now.  That means that 27 million women, one — of reproductive age — one in three are living in states with those bans. 
 
There are federal tools.  So, the one that, you know, we are talking about today that we are going to build off of — EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act — you know, the administration has long said — long held the view that that law requires that when somebody walks into an emergency room requiring emergency care to stabilize their medical condition, that treatment, even if it includes abortion, is required under federal law.
 
So, I think, you know, that’s one of the things that we’re trying to make sure that, as I said, patients know what their rights are, know how they can file a complaint — but even before you get to that, that providers know what is required of them under that federal law.  And — and that’s what we will be doing more of.
 
Q    So, you think you can add clarity where there is confusion at this point?
 
MS. KLEIN:  Yeah, I mean, again, you know, to return to where we started, ultimately, the only way to — to ensure that, you know, women in every state across the country have the right that they lost when Roe was overturned is to pass a piece of federal legislation restoring Roe.  But I do think this is a step — an important step in that direction.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    To your point about federal legislation, is the President willing to compromise with lawmakers who think there should be some restrictions on reproductive rights in order to get a bill through?  Or is his approach more all or nothing at this point?
 
MS. KLEIN:  I — I think what the President has said — and he will continue to say that he believes that Roe was rightly decided and that we need a bill that restores the protections that were in Roe. 
 
And, you know, by the way, the majority — the vast majority of American people agree that Roe was ri- — rightly decided, and that’s exactly what we need to do.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.
 
Q    Thanks.  You mentioned the 21 states that have a ban at the moment.  Do you have any number or any estimate of how many women have been forced to travel out of state s- — since the — you know, since the decision?
 
MS. KLEIN:  I don’t have numbers on that.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Courtney, in the back.
 
MS. KLEIN:  I — I will say one thing, which is that the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in two cases in Alabama, where the right to travel is at issue, where the Alabama Attorney General has threatened to prosecute women and those who help those women cross state lines.  But that’s not a — that’s not a number for sure.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Courtney.
 
Q    Thank you.  You’ve been talking about abortions and medical emergencies.  On the Fifth Circuit’s decision on that, it’s unusual to see a court agree to review agency guidance, let alone rule on whether it can be implemented.  How does that court’s decision affect your strategy going forward as you try and navigate this post-Roe landscape?
 
MS. KLEIN:  Yeah, as you probably know, in addition to, you know, making clear our longstanding position that that law and the guidance that followed it reflects the position that EMTALA does cover emergencies — when somebody walks into an emergency room needing medical care and that’s — abortion is the care that is required, that that is covered by EMTALA — of course, that — we are also — the Department of Justice is also litigating that, defending that in court, and that stands before the Supreme Court at the moment in a different case.
 
Q    And on traveling, are you doing anything to support providers in states that are seeing an increase in patients from neighboring states with more restrictive laws — for example, Illinois?
 
MS. KLEIN:  I think the best answer to that question is that we’ve been really working with those state leaders in states like Illinois, New York, where they’re seeing an influx of patients.  But, really, that’s more about, you know, connecting states to each other, which has been one of the things we’ve done in our state convenings, so that they can learn from each other and help each other.  There’s less of a federal role there.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Last question.
 
Q    Can I ask one more thing, Karine?  Thank you. 
 
Does today’s announcement that the administration is going to publish training materials for providers in medical emergencies — does that mean you’re going to pr- — advise that same information to hospitals in Texas and Idaho, which I know are the st- — states involved in those cases that the Justice Department is in?
 
MS. KLEIN:  That information will be available to any hospital and healthcare provider who needs to access it.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Last question in the back.  Go ahead, Evan.
 
Q    I just wanted to ask about medication abortion and the Supreme Court weighing restrictions on the mailing of mifepristone.  Do you see — or rather, does the Biden administration see this as sort of the next big frontier of this abortion fight?  And then, you know, what are the stakes of that case, and is there any recourse that the White House would have?
 
MS. KLEIN:  I do think that that’s a really important frontier.  You know, they’ve already made it clear that, in some sense, they don’t think they need to pass a national abortion ban because there is a national abortion ban if they were to be able to limit the mailing, the dispensing of mifepristone. 
 
So, you know, I can’t speak to the litigation.  But, of course, you know, again, there’s a case in the Supreme Court, Alliance Defending Freedom vs. FDA, where exactly what’s at stake is the — is whether limits can be put on the FDA who has made a judgment to — to — initially, a judgment to approve and then further judgments to regulate using their scientific, evidence-based judgment that this is a safe medication that should be available.  It’s, by the way, 53 or so percent of abortions in this country. 

So, we will continue to — to defend that and make clear that, you know, that is a safe and — and legal drug. 
 
You know, one of the reasons I think that case has attracted a lot of attention is because it is obviously squarely about medication abortion, but, you know, you have pharmaceutical companies and executives, you have medical associations, you even have conservative legal scholars re- –weighing in on the danger of that case, because it could have implications for any drug that the FDA, you know, long ago approved and has regulated several times since.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you so much, Jen. 
 
MS. KLEIN:  Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know you have to go to the Oval Office.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   Thank you.  Thank you so much.
 
Okay.  Thanks, Jen. 
 
Couple things before we continue.  So, just a scheduling update.  So, on Thursday, January 25th, the President will travel to Superior, Wisconsin, to discuss how his Bidenomics and Investing in America agenda are rebuilding our infrastructure, lowering costs, spurring a small-business boom, and creating good-paying jobs. 
 
The — President Biden remains focused on investing in America and opposing congressional Republican efforts to shower massive giveaways on the wealthy and big corporations, cut Medicare, cut Medicaid and Social Security, and block us from lowering costs for American families.
 
And before we continue with the briefing, I wanted to say one last thing to my dear friend, Emilie, the Deputy of — the Deputy Press Secretary, as she is going to head out to maternity leave today.  And, Emilie, we are so happy for you and Steven on your — on your road to parenthood.  And I think you are such an amazing human.  You’re going to be an amazing mom and just have so much joy.  I know everyone here feels that and everyone, certainly, on our team.  And I’m going to miss you terribly.
 
You’re going to — you’re going to be gone for, like, five months — five months too long.  But I’m going to miss you terribly, and I hope you, you know, spend that time — I know you’ll spend that time being very, very busy.  But, also, time with your — your little one. 
 
And so, excited for you.  I have something for you.
 
MS. SIMONS:  Aww.  Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Give me one second.  Give that to you.  Well, actually, you open — you open that.
 
MS. SIMONS:  Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   I want you to open it.  I want you to show everybody.
 
MS. SIMONS:  Okay.  (Laughter.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   Show my gift to everyone.  (Laughter.)  It’s a little gift for Emilie. 
 
Q    Aww —

MS. SIMONS:  “Future President.”
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  “Future President.”  (Laughter.) 
 
Q    Very nice. 
 
MS. SIMONS:  So sweet of you. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Please — please come in the back — to the back if you don’t get a — if you get a second today to say goodbye to Emilie and wish her — wish her luck. 
 
All right.
 
MS. SIMONS:  Thank you, Karine. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   All right.  We love you, Emilie.
 
And with that, we have Admiral John Kirby here to give us an update on the Middle East.
 
Admiral, podium. 
 
Q    Follow that, sir.

MR. KIRBY:  Karine is bringing you up, and I’m bringing you down.  (Laughter.)  Just a couple of things, I promise, and then we’ll get right to it.
 
Today, the United States is announcing additional sanctions designed to protect our — not only our financial system but our national security.  First, the United States, today, sanctioned Iraqi airline Fly Baghdad and its CEO for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, otherwise known as the IRGC, and, as well, supporting Iran- — Iran-aligned militia groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
 
Additionally, the United States is designating three leaders and supporters of Kata’ib Hizballah, one of the IRGC’s Iran-aligned ami- — militias in Iraq, and one business that facilitates and launders funds for Kata’ib Hizballah.
 
Kata’ib Hizballah, I think as you all know, has been responsible for a series of drone and missile attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria. 
 
Now, second, we imposed a fifth round of sanctions on Hamas.  This is the fifth round since the October 7th attacks.
 
And alongside the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom are also placing sanctions on key Hamas officials and facilitators.
 
We’ll obviously continue to use all the tools at our disposal to target Hamas, its financiers, and its financial transfer mechanisms that funnel funds in support of their terrorist activities.
 
In a — in a related way, I can also let you know that the President just recently hung up the phone talking to Prime Minister Sunak of the United Kingdom.  Clearly, they talked about what’s going on in the — in the Red Sea and the need for a continued international multilateral approach to disrupting and degrading Houthi capabilities. 
 
They also had a chance to talk about, obviously, what’s going on in Gaza with a — stressing the need to continue to bring down the number of civilian casualties and to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. 
 
And, of course, they also talked about Ukraine and the urgent need that Ukraine is facing right now for additional supplemental funding and support for their ability to defend themselves in the — on the field of battle.
 
And then, lastly, I’d be remiss — speaking about the field of battle — if I did not also point you to the President’s statement today, acknowledging and mourning the death of two Navy SEALs who were killed while conducting an interdiction operation in the — in the Gulf of Aden — trying to interdict munitions and weapons that we believe were heading from Iran to — to the Houthis in Yemen.  It’s a — underscores how dangerous the mission can be and the dangers that these — these brave warriors are willing to face every day.
 
And I think, as we all go about our day, we ought to just take a moment to remember that a couple of families are — just got the worst news possible.  And it’s important that they know that the President and the First Lady will stay solidly behind them and their families, make sure that they get all the support they need.  And I know that the same sentiment has been expressed to them from the Defense Department and from the Navy Department. 
 
With that, I’ll take questions.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Trevor.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, I just wanted to go back to the President’s comments from last week about there being a number of types of two-state solutions and referencing the idea that a number of — of U.N. members don’t have their own military.  Is it — is it the President’s current view that a Palestinian state that’s demilitarized is the most viable outcome there?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead of — of where the — where we are in the process of trying to achieve a two-state solution, Trevor. 
 
It’s the President’s view that a two-state solution is the best path forward for people of Gaza, for the Palestinian people, as well as the Israeli people. 
 
And as he said in those comments, there’s a lot that can go into creating what that construct looks like.  And, you know, when we say “two-state solution,” what does it actually mean?  And there’s many different interpretations.  There’s lots of different ways you can get at that ultimate solution.  And the President, as he has always done, kept an open mind about trying to pursue that. 
 
Now, he’s also under no illusions at how difficult it’s going to be to get there, particularly with this conflict going on in Gaza. 
 
So, we’re going to keep the discussions going with our Israeli counterparts.  We’re going to keep talking about it with Mahmoud Abbas.  We’re going to keep talking about it with our counterparts in the region in the hopes that more progress can be made. 
 
One significant milestone to help us get there is prot- — is try to pursue normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which we still believe is possible.  We were working on it very hard before the 7th of October; we’re still working on it hard.  And we’ve got, you know, positive feedback from — from the partners in the region, including Saudi Arabia, about pursuing that.  That could open up additional opportunities to try to get at a reasonable two-state construct. 
 
Q    Is the reporting accurate that the President has flo- — floated that idea in his last call with Bibi Netanyahu and that it’s something that he’s —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Floated what idea?
 
Q    — sympathetic to?
 
MR. KIRBY:  What idea? 
 
Q    A demilitarized Palestinian state.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into the — the specifics of the discussions that the President is having with the Prime Minister.  I think he was very clear with all of you about how he views the ultimate path to a two-state solution and the need for some flexibility in how you describe what that looks like. 
 
But, again, it’s going to require leadership on all sides in the region as well.  And it’s going to require leadership there to also be willing to look at it the same way that the President is.
 
Q    Just one more thing.  By my count, there is at least two different Israeli operations today that are taking place in Gaza, in hospitals.  What is the current U.S. guidance to Israel about operations within hospitals where civilians are seeking care?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We don’t want to see hospitals as warzones.  We don’t want to see hospitals as battle- — battlefields.  They should be as protected as possible. 
 
That said, we know that Hamas deliberately uses places like hospitals to store weapons, house their fighters, even, to some degree, for command and control.  And so, that places a special need on the Israeli Defense Forces but also a special burden on how they approach any fighting in or around hospitals. 
 
They have a right to defend themselves.  They have a right to go after these leaders.  They have a right to take away the ability for Hamas to — to store and — and resource themselves, even if that is in hospitals. 
 
But, again, I would say the same thing that we’ve said before on this issue, that we — we expect them to do so in accordance with international law and to protect innocent people in hospitals — medical staff and patients as well — as much as possible. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Seung Min.
 
Q    And just a quick follow on that question.  Has the — have the Israelis briefed the U.S. on their plans to protect those civ- — civilians?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of specific military briefings about that. 
 
Q    And does the U- —
 
MR. KIRBY:  But we’ve been very clear about our expectations. 
 
Q    And does the U.S. agree with a prominent Israeli War Cabinet member who said recently that the remaining hostages can only be released through a ceasefire?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We believe — well, I mean, look, we’ve seen the way — the way we got those hundred hostages out was through a one — a week-long humanitarian pause, stopping the — a temporary stoppage in the — in the fighting, because, obviously, at the very root of it, you can’t — you can’t enact safe passage for hostages out of a danger zone if people are shooting at each other.  So, you need a — you need people to lay down their arms at least long enough to affect a hostage transfer. 
 
And that one week got a hundred people out, and the fact that there was no fighting helped enable that.  So, clearly, we still support pauses in the fighting to get hostages out. 
 
We don’t support a general ceasefire, which is usually put in place in the expectation that you’re going to end a conflict, that it’s going to lead to specific negotiations.  That’s — that’s no — no change to our policy there. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thank you, Kirby.  So, on Friday, the President did make his view clear about a two-state solution, but he also suggested that Netanyahu was open to that view.  So, did Netanyahu express to the President that, or why did the President think that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I — I — they had a — they had a very constructive conversation.  And I think I just need to leave it at that.  Pri- — the Prime Minister should speak to his comments, and I’m sure he has and he will.  All I can tell you is where the President’s head is: still believes in a two-state solution. 
 
And as you heard him say himself, he believes that there — that there’s a way to it.  He’s optimistic that we can get there and that it could — you know, obviously, any two-state solution is going to require some compromises. 
 
Q    On Friday, when we asked you about it, you said, obviously we see things differently than Netanyahu, based on his public remarks.  But the President interpreted those public remarks differently.  He said, no, Netanyahu didn’t say that he was opposed to a two-state solution.  So, based on what Netanyahu has said publicly, how do you interpret whether he’s open or not to a two-state solution?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I would point you back to what the President said: They had a good conversation, including about the importance of a two-state solution.  That doesn’t mean that we agree on every component of what that can look like.  That’s why leadership is important here.  That’s why the President is not going to let go of this, and it’s why we need leadership in the region on moving forward.
 
But, look, this is — if this was easy, I mean, my goodness, we — we’d have a — we’ve had a two-state solution for years now.  It’s not easy.  It’s hard.  It’s really hard.  And it requires a compromise.  It’s going to require negotiation.  It’s going to require sacrifices, again, on both sides. 
 
The President understands that.  He’s not Pollyannaish about that.  And that’s why he’s staying — he’s staying true to it.
 
Q    Thank you. 
 
Q    Two things, if I can also ask about this.  Over the weekend, we did see Netanyahu make rather explicit, again, his opposition to a two-state solution.  Do you or does the administration not take that opposition at face value when Netanyahu is saying he does think this is irreconcilable with a Palestinian state?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We can and have, and I’m sure we’ll have very frank discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Cabinet about the future of — of the Palestinian people and what Gaza looks like post-conflict.  And, as I said earlier, that doesn’t mean we’re going to agree with everything.
 
I’ll let the Prime Minister speak to his comments.
 
Q    I guess I’m just struggling to understand.  It seems like the President supports a policy or this White House does, and then the Israeli Prime Minister is coming out in direct opposition to that policy.  And I don’t understand (inaudible) —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, is the suggestion that we should then change our minds —
 
Q    I don’t understand how the —
 
MR. KIRBY:  — and we should not —
 
Q    No, no, no —
 
MR. KIRBY:  — advocate for it anymore?
 
Q    — it’s just, how does the President think that he gets there?  That’s what I don’t understand.  Or is he thinking that he gets there without Netanyahu?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, only the — the Israeli people determine who their elected officials are going to be, not the United States.  That’s one. 
 
Two, the President still believes — and he’s, again, not Pollyannaish.  He knows this is going to be hard stuff.  And it has been — it has proven extraordinary elusive — ext- — to date.  But he believes that it’s in the best interest of our Israeli friends to have an independent Palestinian state. 
 
Now, how that looks, what that looks like, whether they have a military or not, that — those are discussions that — that need to be had in the region and with leaders on both sides.  But he still believes in the power and the promise of it, and he has for — for many, many years.
 
So, we’re going to keep at this.  We’re going to keep these discussions going. 
 
It’s also important to remember that Israel is in the middle of a hard-fought fight here with — with Hamas, and we’ve got to make sure that they can continue to defend themselves.
 
Q    Can I ask you one unrelated question as well?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Sure.
 
Q    On Friday, you were asked about a Palestinian American teenager —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.
 
Q    — who was killed in the West Bank.  I think you were trying to get some additional information. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.
 
Q    Do you have additional information?  I’m just curious how you all are interpreting that situation and if the administration has been in touch at all with his family.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I — I don’t know about family communications.  I’ll come back to you on that one.  That’s a good question. 
 
But we have been able to get some more information about this.  Cert- — certainly a tragic killing by all accounts that — that we’ve been able to glean so far. 
 
Our deepest condolences go to the family.  I think he was 17 years old — just a teenager.  So, our thoughts and prayers are certainly with the family.  And we call on Israel to conduct a full, thorough, transparent investigation into his killing.  And, of course, we have every expectation that those — that those responsible for it will be held properly accountable. 
 
This kid is 17 years old.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Talk about another family that is going through some enormous grief right now.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, sir.
 
Q    After last week’s meeting on Ukraine here at the White House, the Speaker of the House implied that President Biden did not particulate — articulate a clear strategy for Ukraine.  So, does the White House have one?  And what, quoting Speaker Johnson, is the “endgame” for Ukraine?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Look, I — I can’t — I can’t speak to what the — the Speaker has heard or read or understood from the countless discussions that we’ve had with members of Congress about Ukraine and what we’re trying to do here.  It’s — it’s been pretty transparent and pretty clear: We want Ukraine to win this war, as the President has said.  We want a whole, prosperous, sovereign Ukraine.  We want Ukraine’s borders — internationally established borders — to be fully recognized by everybody, and that includes Mr. Putin.  And we want to be able to continue to give Ukraine the support that it needs so that it can — so that it can achieve those outcomes.
 
And we’ve been nothing but clear about that.  I mean — and with every package that’s gone out to Ukraine, there has been a consultation with Congress.  There’s been a conversation.  We’ve been very clear about this. 
 
And we have talked to the Ukrainians throughout this last two years — it’s hard to believe we’re coming up on two years — meeting their needs along the way.  We want to continue to do that.
 
Q    What do you make of Speaker Johnson’s comments –repeated comments —
 
MR. KIRBY:  The —
 
Q    — that there’s no strategy?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The Speaker can own his comments, and he should — he should be the one answering questions. 
 
I can tell you, we have been nothing but clear and consistent with members of Congress since the beginning of the war about what we are doing to help Ukraine succeed on the battlefield and what we’re going to need to continue to do.
 
I mean, we can get caught up in all this — the comments out here on the microphones, but the next couple of months are going to be critical for Ukraine.  I mean, if you think that the fighting is just going to stop because the snow is falling, think again.  The Russians continue to fire drones and missiles at Ukraine.  And the — and while the battlefront hasn’t moved a lot on either side, there’s still a lot of active fighting going on there.
 
And Ukrainian commanders, I believe, can be forgiven right now for having to make some pretty difficult decisions about what weapons they’re going to expend, what shells they’re going to fire, what missiles they’re going to use, because they don’t know when the next shipment is going to come.  And that’s a horrible place — that’s a horrible place to put the Ukrainian military in as the Russians certainly aren’t suffering under that — that same uncertainty, as they reach out to North Korea for ballistic missiles — and, by the way, continue to fire them — and drones from Iran and — and producing on their own. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Sabrina.
 
Q    Thank you.  My colleagues at the Wall Street Journal reported on a proposal by Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar for a post-war Gaza that would create a pathway toward a Palestinian state in exchange for a Saudi recognition of Israel.  Is the U.S. aware of this proposal?  Does the administration support it?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I am not going to — obviously, not going to try to negotiate here from the podium.  So, certainly seen that reporting.  All I can tell you is that we — as — even on the call with Prime Minister Sunak today, we continue to be in touch with our counterparts, our allies and partners, about trying to get those hostages out, trying to get the appropriate humanitarian pause in place so that we can do that and get additional aid in, as well as making sure that — that Israel has what it needs to defend itself. 
 
But I — I won’t — I won’t get into specific negotiations one way or another.
 
Q    And is there anything else that you can tell us about Brett McGurk’s visit to the region, both in terms of the focus of his discussions and how, you know, the first day of talks has gone?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I don’t have any readout from his first day of talks.  He just got in the region.  I’m sure we’ll have more to say about it as he — as he moves through this trip.  As you know, he comes in and out of the region all the time.  And I suspect that in all his discussions he’ll be talking to a range of partners and counterparts on a range of issues to include, of course, the fighting in Gaza and our desire to — to get those hostages out. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly O.  We have to wrap it up soon because we have to gather soon. 
 
Q    Does the U.S. have any concern that the positions of the Israeli government on two-state solution or the pace or intensity of the war have more to do with Benjamin Netanyahu’s domestic position in term- — as opposed to the long-term goals that the U.S. and allies would have that there is a focus on his own needs versus what might be — what the U.S. believes is the right course?
 
MR. KIRBY:  In all our discussions, Kelly, with the War Cabinet, we’re — we’re not having them from a perspective of their domestic politics.  And — and I recognize the validity of the question, but we’re not — we’re not focused on what their domestic political issues are.  That would be — that wouldn’t be a sound place for us to have discussions with them about the war in Gaza.  That’s really for them to speak to that — whatever pressures they might feel or might not feel from a domestic perspective. 
 
What we want to make sure is that they know they’re going to continue to get our support but that we also want to see reduction in civilian casualties, more humanitarian assistance going in, and, obviously, as I said earlier, get those hostages out. 
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Admiral, just a quick one on China.  Over the weekend, the Chinese ambassador to the Netherlands was commenting on ASML’s ban of further chip equipment to China.  And he said it stretched — “The U.S. has stretched its idea of security far too far, even the matters that have nothing to do with military risks” and that the U.S. is “putting pressure on their allies to do the same.”  I was wondering if you had any response to that.
 
MR. KIRBY:  No, we talked about this coming out of the — the G20.  I mean, there is — it’s not just about the United States.  Other countries share our concerns about certain export licenses of certain technology that can have a national security implication.  And we made it very clear: We’re trying to de-risk, not decouple. 
 
And our decisions in terms of — of these export licenses is really designed specifically to make sure that we can continue to protect U.S. national security.  That’s what we’re focused on. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead —
 
MR. KIRBY:  And these — and these companies obviously have to make their own decisions. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jon.
 
Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  John, it seems as if the administration and Prime Minister Netanyahu are on the same page as it relates to the hostages, and that is that you can’t talk about having a cessation of hostilities in Gaza without a release of the hostages.  Would you agree with that idea?
 
MR. KIRBY:  You — you — we believe that it’s important for — in order to be able to get hostages out safely, you’ve got to have a pause in the fighting. 
 
Q    And where do things stand as it relates to that?  We’re almost approaching February.  The hostages were initially taken October the 7th of last year.  Are there efforts underway? 
 
There’s various reporting, for instance, about efforts in Cairo, Egypt.  Can you confirm those efforts?
 
MR. KIRBY:  What I can confirm for you is that there are ongoing, serious, sober discussions with our partners and — and our counterparts to try to get another hostage deal in place.  I wish I could stand here, Jon, and tell you that, you know, I can announce it today or we’re going to do it tomorrow.  I can’t do that. 
 
But I can assure you that this is not something we’ve — we’ve forgotten about.  It’s not something we haven’t worked on every single day.  And as I said earlier, you know, Brett is in the region, and I have no doubt that this will be a key part of his agenda while he’s over there. 
 
Q    Thanks, Admiral.  There have been roughly 150 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.  Is the U.S. response working?  Is the U.S. doing enough to protect its troops?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’ll continue to do what we have to do to protect our troops and our facilities.  We are certainly mindful of the — of the danger.  And — and in these attacks over the weekend, now, a small number, but a number nonetheless, of — of U.S. troops were being evaluated for traumatic brain injury.  That’s a — that’s a wound, and we take that seriously.
 
Q    And the Houthis, they aren’t stopping their attacks.  So, when the U.S. retaliates, how can that not be seen as escalatory?  And how does this all end?
 
MR. KIRBY:  If you’re trying to — look, if — if you’re — if you’re going to scrap with somebody, and you can find a way to tie one or both of their hands behind their back, that’s not deescalating — or that’s not escalating, that’s deescalating.  That’s taking ability away from the other party to — to inflict harm. 
 
And the strikes that we have conducted ashore in Yemen have degraded Houthi capabilities.  As I’ve said earlier, it doesn’t mean that they don’t still have offensive capability available to them.  Clearly, they do, because they continue to — to use it. 
 
And as the President said, as long as they continue to make that choice, we have a choice too.  We have a choice to keep defending our ships and our sailors and merchant traffic.  And we have a choice, when we have the information available to us, to preempt their ability to conduct those attacks.  And we’ll continue to do that. 
 
Q    And there was a pretty stark statement from a senior Israeli official to ABC News saying that Israel is closer than ever to a war with Hezbollah and possibly a full regional war.  Do you agree with that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Everything the President has done since October 7th — everything — has really been designed to — to keep this conflict from escalating and — and widening.  And we’re going to — that’s — that’s going to be our focus. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Toluse.
 
Q    I wanted to get your response to a comment from the EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell.  He was meeting with other European Union foreign ministers in Brussels, and he said that the Israeli military operation is not working and that it is “seeding hate for generations” in Gaza.  I wanted to get your response on what the White House thinks of that.
 
MR. KIRBY:  The Israelis themselves have talked about the progress that they’ve made against Hamas leadership.  We believe that going after leadership is a useful approach when you’re — when you’re dealing with a terrorist network.  It worked for us with al Qaeda; it worked for us with ISIS. 
 
I’ll let them speak to their progress.  We’ve been very careful not to armchair quarterback this thing and throw in plays from the sideline.  But — but they have made some progress against the — the network.  They’ve made some progress against the network’s ability to resource itself and the infrastructure — particularly underground infrastructure — that they continue to use.  But as the Israelis have said themselves, that’s going to be a fight that’s going to take them some time. 
 
So — and as for the second part of that comment, I mean, look, every single — every single life lost — innocent life lost is a tragedy and should be mourned.  And we have been very clear with our Israeli counterparts about the need to be more precise, more deliberate, more cautious.  There have been too many civilians killed in this conflict.  And we — the right number — the right number is zero.  And we recognize that there could be long-term effects from that.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  M.J.  And then you have the last question.
 
Q    Thank you, John.  Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected Hamas’s conditions to end the war in exchange for releasing all of the hostages.  Does President Biden support that decision? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  The decision by?
 
Q    Prime Minister Netanyahu.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’d let the Prime Minister speak to his — his comments.  We want to see all of the hostages home.  And we want to see Israel not have to face a threat next door like the fa- — like the one that they faced on the 7th of October.
 
Q    I’m just asking if the President supports this decision to reject a proposal that would have freed all of the hostages, including, of course, the six remaining Americans? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  I can’t val- — I can’t validate that proposal itself.  I’m not in a position to confirm that proposal.  What I —
 
Q    Well, the Prime Minister has talked about it publicly.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I understand that.  I’m not in a position to confirm that. 
 
What I can tell you is that the President supports Israel being able to defend itself.  He supports getting all those hostages out.  He supports, in order to do that, an additional humanitarian pause of some length that will allow those hostages to go to freedom safely and more aid to get in. 
 
And, again, you need a pause in the fighting to be able to do that.  We don’t support, still today, some sort of general ceasefire.
 
Q    And just on the — going back to the phone call between the President and the Prime Minister on Friday.  We reported that the Prime Minister, in that phone call, had privately indicated that he was not ruling out the possibility of any Palestinian state in any form.  Obviously, you’re aware of what he has said in public over the last few days.  My colleagues have referenced those statements.  I guess I’m just wondering, as far as you’re aware, is there any daylight between what the Prime Minister says in private versus in public on this matter.
 
MR. KIRBY:  That’s a question for the Prime Minister and his office.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Last question.
 
Q    So, if the U.S. aid is delayed further for Ukraine, is there a danger — does the President worry that other European states might withdraw their support? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  I would say that the President is mindful that other nations are watching what we do.  Obviously, Mr. Putin is watching what we do.  And other nations not involved in this conflict are watching what we do — I’m sure.  I’m sure China is watching it too — President Xi. 
 
But our allies and our partners, yeah, they’re watching closely what we end up doing here, because American leadership has been critical in supporting Ukraine.  We have literally led the way, not only in the contributions but in the coordination of contributions of other nations to get stuff into Ukraine. 
 
And so, yeah, I think it’s entirely possible we — we should expect that some of our allies and partners might have to make different decisions if — if they see American leadership falter here or the United States pull back from supporting Ukraine.  And that would have potentially disastrous consequences for Ukraine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Admiral.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah —
 
Q    Has the President had any conversations with any of these European states?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, he just talked Prime Minister Sunak today, and one of the topics was Ukraine.  So, yes, absolutely.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks.  Thanks, Admiral.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much, Admiral.
 
All right.  We don’t have too much time.  So, rapid fire, I guess. 
 
Go ahead, Seung Min.
 
Q    Okay.  First of all, does the White House see this week as sort of a make-or-break week when it comes to the border deal coming together and advancing in the Senate? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we think this week is — obviously, you heard from the President on Friday — right? — right before he — right before he addressed — or when he was addressing the mayors.  So, this is — I think the way to look at it is this is an urgent moment, an urgent time to get things done at the border, to make sure we move his national security supplemental forward. 
 
And it’s not — obviously not just the border security.  You just heard the Admiral talk about Ukraine.  You just heard the Admiral talk about Israel.  All of these requests in that supplemental is urgent, is important.  That’s why supplementals are for when you have an emergency request. 
 
So, the border is important.  We think that — we’ve had said before, and I think you also heard a little bit from the President on Friday, that we think it’s going in the right direction.  We are very grateful and than- — and very thankful to the senators — to the senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who have been doing this for several weeks, several months now trying to get to a bipartisan agreement on the border. 
 
And we want to see that happen.  It is time.  They have to act.  And we need to move quickly.
 
Q    And there is a robocall circulating in New Hampshire that uses what appears to be fake audio of President Biden’s voice.  And acknowledging that’s obviously a campaign issue and that the campaign itself has spoken to it, can you nonetheless talk about the concerns that the White House has about the President’s likeness being used in this false manner?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as you just stated, because I always have to say that at the — at the top: It’s a robocall for an upcoming election, 2024, obviously.  So, I just want to be careful in that comment. 
 
But that call was indeed fake and not recorded by the President.  I can confirm that. 
 
And so, I just want to be really careful since it doesn’t — it is a primary election.  It is a campaign.  Don’t want to speak too much about that. 
 
And, look, more broadly, as we talk about deep fakes, the President has been clear that there are risks associated with deep fakes.  Fake images and misinformation can be exacerbated by emerging technologies.  And that’s why this President has directed the Department of Commerce through — through the AI Safety Institute at NIST to help develop clear watermarking and content — content standards.  So, that’s important. 
 
But, again, to the — your — your question on — on this robocall, that was not the President.  That was fake, and it was certainly not recor- — recorded by this President. 
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  On Friday, President Biden said that he does not believe the border is secure, which is different from what Secretary Mayorkas has testified multiple times on the Hill.  Why do they have two different views of the security of the border?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the President has been really clear, right?  He has been clear that we need to move on the border.  The border needs — he needs resources to deal with the situation at the border.  That’s why they’re having these conversation at the Senate — on the Senate level.  And that’s why he’s asking for mor- — more resources. 
 
And he wants to see additional resources but also changes to policy to address what we’ve been seeing at the border.  So, him asking for it, him saying that we need to deal with the bor- — border security — as Mayorkas, as we all here have been doing at the White House — I think shows that, yeah, we have — there’s an issue at the border, we need to deal with it, and we have to act now.  There’s an urgent need to act now. 
 
We want to find a bipartisan agreement to deal with that.  And so, we feel that meaningful change and additional resources are critical at this time. 
 
Q    But it’s Mayorkas who is tasked —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — with, you know, making sure those resources are applied.  If he is saying something different than the President about whether it’s secure or not, I guess I just have a hard time understanding why there is a disconnect here. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — look, the President has repeatedly said that the sys- — the immigration system is broken.  He has said that on day one — from day one when he put forward his first piece of legislation.  His first big policy was to deal on the border.  And it’s been three years.  We haven’t seen any action.  We’re glad to see that there’s conversation at the Senate. 
 
But he has said — he has said it is broken.  The immigration system is broken.  Border security, we need more resources.  He’s been very, very clear — very clear at — at — about that. 
 
And I think those are the actions that he’s taken over the last three years.  Those — when you look at this bipartisan agreement, obviously — those conversation, when it leads to the border security, has been about that.  How can we see significant, meaningful — meaningful policy changes and also funding — adding funding to that to deal with what’s happening at the border?
 
So, look, it’s broken.  The system is broken.  The President has said this.  That’s why we have — that’s why, on the first day — again, I’m just repeating myself here over and over again — he put forward a comprehensive immigration policy to Congress to deal with that broken system that we — that has been around for decades. 
 
Q    I just had a very quick follow-up on the — the robocall.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    You know, understanding that that may raise some — some federal issues as well, is there going to be any kind of federal response in terms of national security, election integrity, law enforcement policy, anything like that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything else to share beyond, you know, confirming that it was indeed a fake.  It was not recorded by this President.  Want to be also really, really careful because it’s an ongoing — obviously, an election year that we’re in, 2024, so I don’t want to get too far into it. 
 
But I also just laid out why we have to be mindful.  Right?  There are going to be deep fakes.  That’s why the President has taken this very seriously over the last couple of years here in the administration. 
 
So, I don’t have anything to preview or to lay out on any response from the federal level.  But I can certainly confirm that that was not the President.  It is not the President’s voice.  He did not re- — record that message. 
 
Okay.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s been a while.  Hi.
 
Q    It has.  Hello.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Where you been?
 
Q    Just preparing for this moment.  (Laughter.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think I’m going to disappoint you really badly if you’ve been preparing all this time for this moment.  It’s not going be that exciting, I’m pretty sure.  (Laughter.) 
 
Q    Well, let’s see. 
 
Karine, why do you think it is that more and more people polled feel like, over time, President Biden is getting less and less mentally sharp?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which poll is this?
 
Q    ABC has President Biden’s rating for health since May down five points and for mental sharpness down four points.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, I have to say that’s a little confusing for me, because if you look at what this President has done the last three years, historical pieces of legislation — right? — and when it comes to a bipartisan infrastructure deal, many presidents before, like your favorite president, had said that (inaudible) —
 
Q    Who’s my favorite president? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  Why don’t you — why don’t we let the American people guess.  But had said —
 
Q    No, no, no, no, no, no, no.  
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, no, no, no, no.  Let me finish.  Let me finish.  Let me finish.  You asked me a question.  I’m going to —
 
Q    I don’t understand what you’re —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no, no.  Let me —
 
Q    — what you’re getting at.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me finish.  Let me finish.  Let me finish, and you’ll — you’ll guess who I’m talking about.  Who used to say, “Infrastructure Week.”  Infrastructure Week, which was a punchline, became a joke.  And now we are seeing Infrastructure Decade because of this President. 
 
There’s the CHIPS and Science Act.  Right?  There is the Infla- — Inflation Reduction Act. 
 
These are legislation that is going to have a difference for generations to come.  Right?  And so, this is something that this President has done.  That’s pretty sharp for this President to have been able to do that. 
 
Let’s look at the economy.  The economy — now unemployment is under 4 percent.  Fourteen million jobs created.  The economy is in a better place than when it was when he walked in.  That’s just a fact.  That’s just the data. 
 
And we’re seeing consumer sentiment is going up.  And we saw just in December how — how people spent more, and we hadn’t seen that in some time. 
 
So, I think you needed a president like President Biden to get that type of stuff done.  Someone who’s had Senate experience, someone who was the VP — Vice President under –under President Bi- — Obama, obviously, and someone who has been a pretty effective president over the last three years. 
 
Q    Okay.  Following up on immigration.  Authorities in Fairfax County, Virginia, ignored an ICE detainer.  They released an illegal immigrant from Honduras who is charged with sexually assaulting a Virginia minor and production of sexual abuse material.  Doesn’t that go to show that as record numbers of people appear at the border, you guys have no idea what kind of people are coming into this country?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me just say, first of all, this is why the President is having negotiations with the Senate — senators, Republicans and Democrats — right? — for the past couple of weeks to deal with what’s going on with the border security — right? — as it re- — as it relates to border security. 
 
This is why the President, on day one, put forward a comprehensive immigration plan that — that, more than three years now, Congress didn’t do anything about. 
 
But he’s appreciative that we’re having these conversation in the Senate. 
 
We’ve de- — we’ve deployed additional troops and federal agents to the border who have, by the way, returned more than 482,000 individuals since May.  That’s the — that’s what we’ve been able to do. 
 
We’ve led the largest expansion of lawful pathways, and — that we haven’t seen in some time.  The President continues to have diplomatic conversation with Mexico, who have actually taken — taken actions to deal with the situation. 
 
There’s more work to do.  There’s more work to do.  We understand that.  We have said that.  You’ve heard that from the President on Friday.  We understand that there’s more work to do.  We need more resources.  We need more funding, which is why we’re having these negotiations in — on the Hill. 

But Republicans in the Senate is working with us; Republicans in the House are trying to get in the way.  So, it’s up to them.  Are they going to help?  Are they going to actually deal with an issue or continue to move forward on a political stunt?
 
Q    And as President Biden tries to make the national conversation more about reproductive rights, abortion, how many weeks into a pregnancy does he think abortion should still be legal? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you’ve asked me this question before.  I have been very clear.  The President has been very clear.  We want to see the protections in Roe — we want to see Roe become the law of the land.  That’s what the President wants to see.  That’s what the President believes in. 
 
And let me be very clear here: It’s not some sort of shift that the President is making.  Majority of Americans want to see their protections protected by their — by — by this — by — by the — by the folks who are here in Washington, D.C., in Congress, by this President and the Vice President.  That’s — the President is standing with majority of Americans.
 
We saw that in the 2023 midterm elections, and we saw that in 2022 — not midterm election, but the 2023 election and 2022 midterm elections. 
 
They’ve been very clear.  We need to stand for freedoms, for — make sure women have the right to make their own decision — personal decisions on their body, on their healthcare.  That’s where a majority of Americans are. 
 
Guess what?  Republican officials, they’re not there.  They’re not with majority of Americans.  So, the President is going to continue to stand with the majority of Americans on this.
 
Go ahead, Brian.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  The President on Friday said that he wants to see massive changes at the border.  What kind of policy changes is he discussing and open to?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I am not going to negotiate from here.  I’m going to be very careful, very mindful.  We want to see meaningful change — meaningful change — so that we can actually deal with a broken system.  The immigration system is obviously broken, and we want to make sure that we have resources to deal with what we’re seeing at the border.
 
And so, that’s what they’re talking about in the Senate with both Republicans and Democrats.  I’m not going to negotiate from here.  I’m going to let them have those conversations.  I think that’s important that they have the space to do that. 
 
But the President wants to deliver meaningful change.  And he is also very grateful to — to those legislators continuing to have those conversations.  We think it’s headed in the right direction, but not going to get into specifics as to what those policy changes would look like.
 
Go ahead, right behind you.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you.  Biden admitted Friday that the border isn’t secure.  Does he have any plans to visit the southern border before the election?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President was in — visited the border recently.
 
Q    In January of 2023?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, yeah, that was — that was a year ago.  He’s been there.
 
Q    In December of 2023, there were 300,000 migrant encounters, which is the highest month ever on record.  How bad does the border crisis have to be for Biden to take a trip back?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just to reiterate what I just said seconds ago, the President has been to the border.  He has visited the border.  He saw for himself.  He spoke to law enforcement.  He saw exactly what goes on at the border.  The President understands what’s going on at the border, which is why he included in his national security supplemental — right? — which is, again, a request that is — when you feel like there’s an emergency, you make that supplemental request, which is what the President did.
 
It included border security.  It included, obviously, Ukraine and Israel.  And it is incredibly important, which is why he continues to push for it.  And you’re seeing those conversations happening in the Senate in a bipartisan way — a bipartisan agreement, and the President is very thankful to that.
 
And so, I’m going to leave that there.  He’s taking this very seriously. 
 
Remember, day one — day one, he put forward an immigration — a comprehensive immigration legislation.
 
Go ahead, Earle.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  You made clear that the — that call in New Hampshire was a fake with the President’s voice, and that was discouraging people from coming out to vote.  Does that mean that he would encourage people to go out and vote in New Hampshire, even though he’s not on the ballot (inaudible)?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I am not going to speak to an ongoing — an ongoing election.  I can’t — I can’t from here.  I’m a federal employee.  I cannot speak to this.
 
Q    Even if he doesn’t (inaudible) or he doesn’t want to (inaudible) —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I cannot — I can’t — you — I would refer you to the campaign.  I cannot speak to that from here.
 
Q    And then a quick follow-up from, I think, Friday.  I know that the President, through his Chief of Staff, apologized to Asa Hutchinson, who is a defeated candidate.  It — does that — I know that he wanted — he didn’t agree with those words in the DNC statement, but does he fear that the DNC has taken its eye off the ball as far as trying to win over disaffected Republicans with that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be very careful, because you are speaking — you’re — you are asking me, essentially, about an upcoming election, an election year that we’re in.  So, I’m not going to speak to the DNC.  I would refer you to the DNC themselves.
 
But I — I reiterated that the statement that came out from the DNC, that I can speak on behalf of the President, that what he — what was said and what was in that statement did not reflect this President. 
 
I just don’t have anything else to share beyond that.
 
Go ahead, Toluse.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Governor Whitmer was on “Face the Nation” on Sunday, and she talked about the abortion issue.  And she said that it would be good for the President to talk more about it.  And she also said that he should use more “blunt language.”  What’s your reaction to that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, in a — in a few minutes, you’re going to hear directly from this President.  He’s going to be meeting with his task force.  It is the fourth time he’ll be meeting with this task force.  The President has made it very clear that women across the country should be making these personal — deeply personal decisions about their own bodies, and not politicians. 
 
He’ll continue to stand for that.  He’ll continue to stand with overwhelming — overwhelmingly majority of Americans.  And — and, you know, he believes and agrees that — that reproductive freedom is a fundamental right.  It is a fundamental right. 
 
Within — I believe, if my timing is right, within the hour after the decision was made by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, you heard from the President.  He — he spoke passionately about it.  He spoke forcefully about what had just happened, freedoms being taken away. 
 
And at the top, I talked about how 21 states now have — have bans on abortion or some sort of restriction — restrictive ban on abortion or restrictive — restricting rights on that.  And that affects 27 million women — 27 million women.
 
So, you’re going to hear from the President in very — like I said, in a few short minutes, you’ll hear from him, and he’ll speak directly to this.  And he’s been very, very clear, he’s going to stand with the majority of Americans on this.
 
Q    On another issue, the President is going to South Carolina on Saturday.  He’s going to spend the night.  Do you have any more information about what he’s going to be doing —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ll have —
 
Q    — especially on Sunday?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I believe the campaign will have more to share on his trip to South Carolina.  I don’t have anything at this time.
 
All right.  Okay.  All right.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Karine, you said to Peter that the President wants to see Roe restored.  It’s still not clear to me, though, if he supports the late-term abortion restrictions that were included in Roe.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — well, if it’s in Roe, then that’s what he wants to see.  I’m just not going to get into it.  It’s — whatever is in Roe, what Roe was when it was a constitutional law, that’s what the President wants to see restored.  He’s been very clear about that.
 
Q    He also said he wants to be a president for all Americans.  But how, in this situation, with this issue, does he best represent the pro-life Americans who want to see more unborn babies saved?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is a majority of Americans — a majority of Americans wants to see their rights protected, wants to see women have their rights protected, wants to be able to — wants — want women to be able to make those deeply, deeply personal decisions on their bodies on their own, and not politicians.  That’s what the majority of Americans want to see.
 
And so, the President is going to stand with the majority of Americans on this issue.
 
Q    And do those unborn babies have any rights, then?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into that specific — I’m not going to get into that question.  I’ve been very, very clear about this — where a majority of Americans stand, and that’s what matters. 
 
But the President wants to see Roe become the law of the land, and that’s what he’s going to continue to ask Congress to do.
 
Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you tomorrow.
 
2:08 P.M. EST
 

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Gender Policy Council Director Jennifer Klein, and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 
1:47 P.M. EST
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Chatty Friday.  We were just saying everybody is chatty out here.
 
Oh my gosh, the first row. 

Q    Yes!

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s give it up — (applause) —

Q    Almost the second —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — give it up to the ladies.  (Applause.)

Q    And no heels!
 
Q    Yes, we’re all wearing snow boots.

Q    Should I move to the third row?  It seems like —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Joe Joe, you have failed us in the second row.  You have failed us in the second row.  (Laughter.) 
 
Q    Almost.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Almost.  Almost. 
 
All right.  With that, good afternoon.  Happy Friday.  Thank you for those who were able to show up in this winter — wonderful winter storm in D.C.  I have a couple of things at the top. 
 
So, today we got more evidence that President Biden’s economic plan is delivering results that more and more Americans are feeling.  Consumer sentiments increased 13 percent this month, rising to the — its highest level in more than two years. 
 
In the last two months, sentiments has surged by 29 percent — the biggest two-month jump in more than 30 years.  It’s clear Americans are starting to feel President Biden’s strong economy.  Wages have risen faster than inflation for 10 months in a row.  The unemployment rate has remained below 4 percent for the longest stretch in 50 years.  Inflation has fallen by about two thirds.  We have more work to do, obviously, but we are on the right path. 
 
President Biden’s agenda is a sharp contrast with congressional Republicans’ plans to cut taxes for the wealthy and big corporations while raising healthcare and prescription drug costs for hardworking American families. 
 
And a few moments ago — I saw some of you have already been reporting this — the President signed the continuing resolution passed by bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate that prevents a needless shutdown, maintains current funding levels, and includes no extreme policies. 
 
Instead of wasting more time on partisan appropriation bills that violate the budget agreement two thirds of them voted for last spring, House Republicans must finally do their jobs and work across the aisle to pass full-year funding bills that deliver for the American people and address urgent domestic and national security priorities by passing the President’s supplemental request. 
 
Today, more good news, President Biden announced his administration is canceling debt for another 74,000 student borrowers across the country.  With today’s actions, the Biden-Harris administration has now canceled debts for 3.6 million Americans.  And that’s a big deal, as some will say around here — a big deal. 
 
The — those receiving relief as a part of today’s announcement include teachers, nurses, firefighters, and others who earn forgiveness after 10 years of public service. 
 
It also includes people who have been in repayment for 20 years but never got the relief that they earned.  And in practical terms, it means that today, thanks to President Biden and this administration, millions of American families have a bit more breathing room to start a business, save their — save for their kid’s college, or buy their first home. 
 
From day one of the — of this administration, the President vowed to improve the student loan system so that obtaining higher education provides Americans with opportunity and prosperity, not unmagi- — unimaginable burdens of student loan debt. 
 
The President will continue using every tool at his disposal to get student loan borrowers the relief they need to reach their dreams. 
 
Turning to this — this afternoon, the President’s — obviously, his schedule this afternoon.  The President knows that mayors get things done, and he is looking forward to welcoming bipartisan mayors attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting to the White House later today. 
 
The President will highlight the ongoing partnership between federal and local governments to ensure communities across the country realize the full potential of Investing in America agenda. 
 
The President will highlight the most significant investment in our nation’s infrastructure in generations, the biggest investment in fighting climate change, progress preventing [and] reducing crime, our work to end homelessness, and much more. 
 
With that we have the — the Admiral here, John Kirby, who’s here to discuss the Middle East.
 
Admiral, the podium is yours.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Good afternoon, everybody. 
 
President Biden had a chance to speak this morning with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  The President and the Prime Minister discussed ongoing efforts to secure the release of all remaining hostages that are being held by Hamas. 
 
The two leaders also reviewed the situation in Gaza and the shift to targeted operations that will enable the flow of increasing amounts of humanitarian assistance while keeping the military pressure on Hamas and its leaders significant. 
 
The President welcomed the decision from the government of Israel to permit the shipment of flour for the Palestinian people directly through Ashdod port while our teams are separately working on options for more direct maritime delivery of assistance into Gaza. 
 
The President also discussed recent progress in ensuring the Palestinian Authority’s revenues are available to pay salaries, including for the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank. 
 
The President also discussed Israel’s responsibility, even as it maintains military pressure on Hamas and its leaders, to reduce civilian harm and to protect the innocents.
 
The President also discussed his vision for a more durable peace and security for Israel, fully integrated within the region, and a two-state solution with Israel’s security guaranteed.
 
Now — and we’ll have a formal readout of the call here shortly if it’s not out already. 
 
Just one last thing.  This morning, U.S. forces conducted three successful self-defense strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen.  This is the fourth preemptive action that the U.S. military has taken in the past week against Houthi missile launchers that were ready to launch attacks — in this case, anti-ship missiles. 
 
CENTCOM — Central Command — will have a more — more details on this a little bit later, but, as you know, there are U.S. Navy ships in the Red Sea as well as international shipping.
 
These actions were, I want to stress again, done in self-defense, but it also helps make safer international waters for both naval vessels as well as mar- — merchant — merchant shipping. 
 
Thank you. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Colleen.
 
Q    John, so the call with Bibi and the President today was the first since Christmas. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yes. 
 
Q    Can you talk a little bit about why the delay, especially because they were talking so frequently over the fall?
 
And then, also, on Bibi.  Does the President think a two-state solution is possible with Bibi in office, given what he’s said about it?
 
MR. KIRBY:  On the modalities of the call and the frequencies, as I’ve said before, they will talk as appropriate.  This was deemed by both leaders as the — as the — the best opportunity for yet another call, Colleen, and I have no doubt that there will be additional calls going forward, clearly.
 
The President still believes in the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution.  He recognizes that’s going to take a lot of hard work.  It’s going to take a lot of leadership there in the region, particularly, on both sides of the issue. 
 
And the United States stands firmly committed to — to eventually seeing that outcome.  Right now — and we’re — obviously, we’re talking to them actively about post-conflict Gaza and what governance there needs to look like and the importance of an independent Palestinian state for long-term security, not just for the Palestinian people but for the Israeli people as well. 
 
Currently, of course, we’re rightly focused, as I said in the opening statement, on making sure Israel has what it — continues to has — have what it needs to defend itself. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  And thanks, John.  So, you continue to reiterate the administration’s policy that you support a two-state solution.  Senator Elizabeth Warren says that if “Netanyahu opposes that, then we need to question why we are supporting the Netanyahu government.”  So, why is the U.S. supporting a government that opposes U.S. policy?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not sure what the context means of supporting the government, but let’s just take it — I’m going to assume it’s meant in the context of this war they’re fighting.  It is certainly supporting the Is- — we’re certainly supporting the Israeli governments to defend themselves. 
 
But it’s really bigger than that, Weijia.  It’s about supporting the Israeli people’s right to exist, right to be a nation.  I mean, again, you don’t have to look any further than the 2017 manifesto of Hamas to see what their ultimate plans are.  They want to wipe the country off the face of the — off the map. 
 
So, we’re defending Israel’s right to defend itself.  The Israeli people get to decide who represents them, who their elected officials are.  We don’t decide that.  And we will always work with whoever the Israeli people decide to put in — into power and government.  We’ll always work with them, regardless of the differences, maybe, on political issues. 
 
They chose this government.  This is the government that is in charge of conducting warfare against Hamas.  We’re going to make sure that they have what they need, in addition to making sure, as I said in the opening statement, that we’re doing everything we can to alleviate the humanitarian suffering in Gaza. 
 
Q    Warren is not alone in expressing these concerns.  Is the President worried that, given what Netanyahu has said about opposing a Palestinian state, it could complicate the efforts to pass the supplemental?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The President is under — two things — under no illusions of how elusive a two-state solution has been and how much hard work there’s going to be ahead for all of us to try to get there. 
 
On the — on the supplemental — again, I don’t want to negotiate here in public — we believe that we’re making progress here in terms of working in a bipartisan way with the — with senators.  And we’ll see where this goes. 
 
But — but the President comes away from the meeting with congressional leaders the other day — largely, that was a meeting about Ukraine —
 
Q    Right.
 
MR. KIRBY:  — and bipartisan support on Ukraine, but that they understand the — the urgency of — of supporting Israel as well. 
 
Q    Thanks, John.
 
Q    Thanks.  Thanks, John.  You’ve said that — or you said yesterday that the U.S. is taking away capabilities from the Houthis with each and every one of these strikes and making it harder for them to continue to propagate these attacks.  Can you quantify that progress, describe that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I would leave it to the Pentagon to go through their battle damage assessment.  After every strike, they’ll — they’ll do an assessment on how successful it was.  They believe that they have had good effects on degrading some of these Houthi capabilities. 
 
But clearly — and the President alluded to this yesterday — they still have some offensive capability.  And we’re going to keep taking the actions we believe we need to take to defend ourselves.  But I — I couldn’t give you a percentage.  That’s really a better question for U.S. Central Command or for DOD to speak to.
 
Q    And you also said yesterday, the U.S. has additional options available to take on the Houthis.  What is the administration waiting for to use those other options?  Is there some red line or something that would happen?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think it’d be fair to say we’re waiting on anything.  I mean, we’ve been — we’ve been taking shots as needed, including this morning. 
 
Well, you know, three anti-ship cruise missiles were sitting on the rails ready to go, and we knocked them out before they had a chance to launch them.  And we also designated the Houthis as a specially designated global terrorist.  That allows us some additional economic levers that we didn’t have available to us before.  And we’ll keep reviewing our options going forward. 
 
Again, I’ll say it that — that the Houthis need to stop these attacks.  They can make that choice.  Clearly, they’ve made opposite choices.  So, we have choices to make too, and we have options available to us as well.  We’ll continue to explore those options. 
 
Clearly, one of the options that we are and will continue to take are in the military realm, if needed. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrea.
 
Q    John, just on the North Korean underwater nuclear weapons systems test yesterday.  Do you have any information on that?  What’s your response to that?  And —
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a lot of specific information.  I — we’re not in a position where we can validate those claims.  We’re in touch, obviously, with our South Korean partners to see whatever information and context they might have about that.  So, I can’t — I can’t verify the claims by the North that they’ve — that they’ve actually tested such a weapon. 
 
It is — it does, though, underscore the continued provo- — provocations by Kim Jong Un and his regime in Pyongyang.  The continued pursuit — again, whether this is true or not, there’s little doubt that they continue to pursue advanced military capabilities to threaten their neighbors and to threaten the region. 
 
And that is why President Biden has taken significant steps to shore up our alliances in the region.  You saw in Camp David a historic agreement between Japan and South Korea to improve trilateral cooperation; a new nuclear consultative group session with South Korea that was announced when President Yoon was here; as well as the addition of U.S. military — particularly intelligence capabilities on and around the Peninsula so that we can get better information about what Kim Jong Un is up to.
 
But we haven’t taken our eye off this one bit. 
 
Q    Okay.  And then on — I’m sorry, just on Gaza and — and that conflict.  We’ve spoken before about your concerns about the conflict spreading.  Now we have reports that a Palestinian American teenager was killed today in the West Bank.  Can you confirm that?  And was that something that President Biden discussed with Netanyahu during the call?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re seriously concerned about these reports.  The information is scant at this time.  We don’t have perfect context about exactly what happened here.  Seriously concerned about it.  And we’re going to be in constant touch with counterparts in the region to — to get more information. 
 
But it’s — it’s definitely deeply concerning.  But afraid — I’m afraid I don’t have more information to that right now.
 
Q    Did the President bring it up?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I — I don’t believe that it was a subject of the call.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.
 
Q    Just back to the issue of the two-state solution.  What would you say is the President’s hope and expectation here?  Is it that the Prime Minister’s stance on this will eventually shift?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The — the hope is that when there’s a — when this conflict is over that we can work in a collaborative way with the Israeli government on — and counterparts in the region on good governance in Gaza — good governance that the President hopes can lead to — (a reporter sneezes) — a viable two-state solution. 
 
Bless you.
 
And, again, he’s not — he’s not Pollyannaish about this.  He understands how hard it is.  This is something he’s been pushing for for a long, long time.  He knows it’s going to take dedicated leadership on all sides here to bring it about.  And — and that means constant engagement by his administration and — and the national security team.  So — so, we’re going to — we’re going to keep at that work. 
 
Q    I guess I’m just wondering: If the two leaders are completely at odds on something as fundamental as the creation of a Palestinian state, do you know if the President has reason to believe that, at some point, the Prime Minister’s view on this will change?  Publicly, he has been very clear about where he stands on this.
 
MR. KIRBY:  You mean the President has been very clear, publicly, where he stands on this?
 
Q    The Prime Minister has been very clear on the fact that he rejects the idea of a Palestinian state.  The President also has been clear that he wants a two-state solution.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, this is just — this — we — we’re not going to agree on everything.  We’ve said that.  And good friends and allies can have those kinds of candid, forthright discussions, and we do.  It’s not going to change the President’s view that the best long-term solution for regional security, particularly the security of the Israeli people, is a free and independent Palestinian state that they can live in — in peace and security with — and this is an important caveat — with Israel’s security also guaranteed.  He still believes in that, and we’re going to continue to talk to our Israeli counterparts. 
 
This isn’t about, you know, trying to twist — twist somebody’s arm or — or force a change in their thinking.  The President — sorry, Prime Minister Netanyahu has — has made clear his concerns about that.  President Biden has made clear his strong conviction that a two-state solution is still the right path ahead.  And we’re going to continue to make that case.
 
Q    So — so, what is the overlap there?  I guess, you know, when the two leaders are having conversation, like their phone call today, what is it that the Prime Minister is saying to the President to indicate that that gap can be bridged?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into the Prime Minister’s side of the conversation.  I think that’s better for his staff that — to speak to.  All I can tell you is that the President reiterated his strong conviction in the viability of a two-state solution — understanding, of course, that we’re not going to get there tomorrow, that there’s an active conflict going on, and that we want to make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself. 
 
But as we’re talking about post-conflict Gaza — and we have been now for many, many weeks — you can’t do that without also talking about the aspirations of the Palestinian people and what that needs to look like for them.  So, we’re going to continue to have those conversations.
 
Q    John, were the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday a factor in why this call took place today?  Was that something that the U.S. decided they wanted the President to speak with him today about that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  No, this was a call that we’ve been actually trying to land on the schedule for quite a bit of time here.  So, this was not — you shouldn’t read into the fact that the call happened today as — as some sort of response to the Prime Minister’s discussions or comments yesterday.
 
Q    And did they talk specifically about those comments yesterday?  Or it was a more general reiteration of the President’s support for a two-state solution?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, without getting more beyond the readout, I would just say that there was — certainly, on the agenda for both leaders was to talk about post-conflict Gaza, governance in Gaza, and, of course, a two-state solution.
 
Q    And can you just tell me a bit more about what the President meant yesterday when he was asked by my colleague whether the strikes in Yemen are stopping the Houthis and the President said, “No”?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think, you know, if you just look at what happened yesterday, it’s pretty self-evident.  They continue to have offensive capability and they continue to be willing to use it.  We also have plenty of defensive capability available to us, and we continue to use it as well.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Did the President address Netanyahu’s use of the phrase “from the river to the sea” in their conversation today?  I know the White House has previously said that phrase is divisive, so —
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware that that specific phrase was discussed.
 
Q    Well, do you condemn him using that phrase?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Look, there’s a — there’s a connotation with that phrase.  We’ve talked about this before.  But when — you know, when you use the phrase “river to the sea,” it — it speaks basically to the mantra of Hamas and in their manifesto, where they basically describe the geographic bounds of what they believe to be Palestine.  And if you look at it on the map, if you go look at the — the four corners that they describe it, it’s basically the State of Israel.  They just don’t believe it should exist. 
 
So, again, it’s — it’s not a phrase that — that we recommend using, given because of that context.
 
Q    But this wasn’t Hamas.  This was Netanyahu.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I understand.  I — I don’t have anything more on that.  And I certainly don’t have anything more on the conversation to read out with respect to that.
 
Q    You had talked about the hard work it will take to, kind of, come to an agreement of sorts on a two-state solution.  Can you outline what that kind of work and conversation would look like?  Does this mean more calls between Biden and Bibi?  How — how does he expect to —
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think there’s certainly going to be more calls between the two leaders.  And there’ll be more conversations between our two teams.  I mean, Secretary of State Blinken has been there — what? — four or five times since the 7th of October, and I have every expectation —
 
Q    Does the President —
 
MR. KIRBY:  — he’ll be back again as well.  And we’re — we’re going to continue to have discussions with the team across a range of issues. 
 
I understand that the two-state solution is the issue today because of the comments in the press here.  But every discussion we’re having in the region has — has a component of it about post-conflict Gaza and governance and what that looks like and, yes, of course, our continued interest in a two-state solution.  But it also has to do with humanitarian assistance, with getting the hostages released, and making sure that Israel has the weapons and capabilities that it — that it needs to — to defend itself. 
 
And I’ll just end with this.  I mean, prior to the 7th of October, as you all know, we were working closely with Israel and Saudi Arabia on a potential normalization deal — a normalization deal that the President believes Hamas was also aware of.  And it certainly could have been a contributing factor to the violence that they visited on the Israeli people on the 7th.
 
(Reporter sneezes.)
 
MR. KIRBY:  Bless you. 
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I lost my train of thought.  (Laughter.) 
 
But the — the point is we’re — we’re still having discussions with counterparts about that normalization.  And we’ve gotten some positive feedback, even from Saudi Arabia, about what that could look like going forward.
 
As a part of that normalization, should — should we be able to get there — and we were making progress before the 7th — obviously, there would be a component in there for the Palestinians.  There have — there would have to be.  And we’re not giving up on that. 
 
And if you’re able to get to that normalization, that could be a significant milestone in overcoming some of the challenges of a two-state solution.
 
Q    Did the President in his call today with Netanyahu express any concern about Netanyahu continuing to say that he doesn’t stand for a two-state solution? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think I’ll just leave my description of the call the way it was, and you — again, you’ll see a readout here coming from us on — on paper. 
 
But, yes, they talked about — they — they talked — in general talked about the possibilities of a two-state solution.  And the President reaffirmed and reiterated his strong belief in that possibility. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aurelia.
 
Q    Thank you so much.  You mentioned progress on the front of the tax revenue issue in the West Bank.  Does that mean the Israeli Prime Minister has committed to release his tax revenue?
 
MR. KIRBY:  There was — there was discussions in their — in their Cabinet about that.  And that was what I was referencing there was ongoing discussions within the Cabinet about the revenue and — and using it appropriately. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, earlier this week, you talked about the 500 entities — about Iran — 500 entities that have been sanctioned by the administration last year.  Have you seen any impact of these sanctions — any type of impact it has had on Iran’s behavior?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Five hundred entities since the beginning of the administration, not last year.  Some 50 sanctions regimes, about 500 entities. 
 
We know they’ve had an impact on Iran’s economy, which — which struggles.  But look, we also know that there’s other ways that you have to push back on Iran’s destabilizing behaviors, including bolstering and strengthening our — our military capabilities in the region, as well as working with partners.  I mean, we’ve now got a coalition of 20-some-odd countries — ships and aircraft and other capabilities — trying to protect Red Sea shipping. 
 
So, there’s been a lot of effort here to — to — to hold Iran accountable for their destabilizing activities. 
 
Q    And if you allow me, John, a colleague has asked me to ask you: Yesterday, Mexico and Chile, requested the International Criminal Court to investigate potential crimes against civilians in Gaza and the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel.  Any reaction on this —
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re aware of those — of that report and the potential referral to the ICC.  I don’t have a comment for you on it at this time.  We’re still gathering more information about what this — what this would entail. 
 
But I want to say again that we don’t have any indications that there’s deliberate — deliberate efforts to commit war crimes by the Israeli Defense Forces. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    John, yesterday, Jake Sullivan met with the family members of hostages being held by Hamas.  I’m wondering if you can give us any — any readout?  Were — was he able to provide any updates to the families?  What — what message did he have — have for them during that time?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The main message was that we’re still working out this.  And as I said in — in the readout of the call, that was right at the top of the list for the President to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu about efforts to get another hostage deal going. 
 
And I just — I want to protect the private nature of the conversation.  But — but Jake also made sure that they were aware that those efforts are ongoing, and that they’re serious.  The discussions we’re having are sober and serious about potentially getting another hostage deal in place. 
 
I’m not suggesting and you shouldn’t take away from this that we’ll have something to announce imminently or that we’re over the finish line.  I don’t mean to suggest that at all.  There’s a lot of hard work still ahead. 
 
But we haven’t given up on the effort.  And the efforts are being taken very seriously by the national security team.  And, you know, Brett McGurk was just in Doha last week, and that was a big reason why he was there. 
 
So, that was — Jake wanted to bring them together, A, to make sure they knew, you know, we still kept — that we kept that connective tissue with them, that we still obviously care about their loved ones and getting them home, that they’re a priority for President Biden, and updated them in general terms about the discussions that we’ve been having in the region. 
 
Q    Was he able to give any kind of update about the condition or what was known about the condition of any of the hostages?  Is — do we have new information or any information about how the hostages are doing at this point?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any information to share with you about what we know about the — the individual hostages.  I will say, as I’ve said before: Regrettably, we just don’t have a lot of tactile information about where they are or what specific condition they’re being held. 
 
And as I think you can imagine, it is very likely that they’re being moved around quite a bit.  So, it’s hard to get real fingertip feel on exactly how they are.  But we have to assume they’re being held in just the utmost deplorable of conditions. 
 
Q    On the supplemental, just given the latest developments, I mean, how is the President thinking of this idea of conditioning aid to Israel?  Is this being pushed by some of his allies?  Is that something he supports?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We believe that the approach that we’re taking right now has had results.  And we’re going to continue that approach, which is, obviously, making sure that Israel has the capabilities it needs, and that continues.  But also urging them at every turn to be more precise, more targeted, more deliberate with respect to civilian harm; urging an increase in humanitarian aid and assistance; and of course, trying to get another humanitarian pause in place so we can do a hostage deal. 
 
I would tell you, as I’ve said before, that this approach that we’ve taken of at once supporting Israel and their military capabilities, but also providing advice, counsel, lessons learned from our own experiences in this kind of fighting has had results.  They have changed the way they have conducted operations. 
 
In fact, they have already started a transition to lower-intensity operations, again, largely at our urging.  They opened up Kerem Shalom, a second gate of humanitarian assistance, largely at our urging. 
 
So, the President’s continued discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu and at lower levels across our team has had results. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Patsy.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, am I correct to understand that the President believes there is wiggle room in the Prime Minister’s position in opposing Palestinian statehood?  And what is the President prepared to offer beyond pushing for a Saudi-Israel normalization deal to convince the Prime Minister to accept the two-state solution?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The Prime Minister should speak to his own headspace when it comes to that.  And of course, he’s talked poli- — publicly about — about a two-state solution. 
 
All I can do is say what I’ve said before: The President still believes in the promise and possibility of that.  He believes it’s going to take hard work and leadership.  He’s willing to put his shoulder to the wheel for that eventual outcome. 
 
At the same time, we’ve got to make sure that they have what they need to defend themselves, and we get humanitarian assistance in. 
 
And, I’m sorry, your second question was —
 
Q    Yeah.  I mean, what is he prepared to offer, whether it’s a carrot or a stick in terms of trying to persuade the Prime Minister to go in line with U.S. policy?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I’m certainly not going to goti- –negotiate here from the podium about a two-state solution.  It is something that is — remains his policy, his desire to see it.  We’re going to continue to push for that. 
 
Q    Okay.  And Jordan says that Israel targeted their field hospital in Khan Younis today, injuring one patient and a staff.  Can you confirm this?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I cannot.
 
Q    And one more.  Does the administration believe that the Houthis will stop their attacks if there is a ceasefire in Gaza?  And does that play a factor into the calculus on —
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think you got to take anything the Houthis say with a big grain of salt.  We’re not — we’re not taking what they say to the bank. 
 
And this idea that this is somehow about Gaza just doesn’t square with the facts.  I mean, most of the ships that they’re going after have nothing to do with Israel.  So, we’re not taking anything at face value. 
 
They need to stop these attacks.  We’ve got capabilities available to us to use it if we have to. 
 
Q    Just to — just to clarify: What’s happening in the Red Sea, the attacks from the Houthis, does not play a factor into the calculus of whether or not you’re pushing Israel for a ceasefire? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  No. 
 
Q    Thank you. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Brian.
 
Q    Thanks a lot.  Thanks, John.  On Ecuador.  Is the U.S. and — and the President considering ramping up its military assistance to Ecuador as it confronts these violent drug gangs?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m aware of no such plans to do that. 
 
Q    There was — the U.S. had an inaugural working group on defense issues with Ecuador last year.  Is the President wanting to ramp up that cooperation?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m aware of no such plans. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, in the back.
 
Q    All right.  Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, John.  Two questions.  First, does the President plan similar calls, as he had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with President El-Sisi of Egypt and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I have little doubt that there’ll be additional conversations with both those leaders, as well as I’m — I’m going to — I suppose, King Abdullah of Jordan as well.  But I don’t have anything on the schedule to speak to today. 
 
Q    All right.  The other question is that when — before he was inaugurated, President Arévalo of Guatemala came to the U.S. and met with Jake Sullivan and others in the National Security Council.  I believe he had a call from the President before he was sworn in. 
 
Is the administration discussing an apology for the 1954 coup in Guatemala come this June on its 60th anniversary?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Not that I’m aware of.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  A couple more in the back.  Go ahead, Jared.
 
Q    Thank you.  So, on this call between the President and the Prime Minister, how much of it was focused on getting a better handle of, kind of, the timeline of these Israeli operations; the transition, I guess, to the less intense operations?  And more broadly, is the President, is the administration satisfied with the progress that they’re seeing Israel making reaching its objectives in the war?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a time hack for, like, you know, how long they talked about each topic.  I went through quite a list of topics.  That call was about 30 to 40 minutes long.  It’s — and where they discussed all these things. 
 
Clearly, the President was interested in the Prime Minister’s assessment of how things are going on the battlefield.  And as I said earlier — and they’ve acknowledged — that they have, in fact, begun a transition to lower-intensity operations, which means less troops — they pulled out a whole division from — from the North; a slackening reliance on airstrikes.
 
But again, you know, it’s really for the IDF to describe what those look like and — and the progress that they’re making. 
 
And clearly, yes, the President was interested in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assessment of progress they’re making.  I won’t divulge that.  That’s really for the IDF to speak to.  But they have in general, in their press conferences, talked about the pressure that they’ve been putting on leaders of Hamas and the numbers of leaders that they’ve been able to take off the battlefield, and the resources and, quite frankly, underground architecture that they’ve been able to take away and degrade. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    Oh, okay.  John, thanks.  Thanks, Karine.  When it comes to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, is there concern that his public comments about a two-state solution could negatively impact the discussions on a hostage release?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The short answer, I think, to that is no.
 
Look, obviously, each of these two leaders have stated publicly a different view on the promise of a two-state solution.  It’s not going to change President Biden’s mind one bit.  He still believes in it. 
 
They also still both believe in the importance of getting these hostages home to their families.  And that’s why we’re continuing to work at this.  And as I said earlier to a previous question, that work is serious and it’s sober and it’s ongoing.  And — and we are represented at that table in the region, trying to get those hostages released. 
 
And — and I — again, I don’t want to — I’m not going to put odds one way or another, except to say that — that there’s a lot of people in the region, including our Israeli counterparts, that are — that are working on this.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, I’m trying get as many people as we can.  Go ahead, Janne.
 
Q    Thank you.  Thank you, Karine.  And thank you, John.  I have two questions on Russia and South Korea and North Korea.  The Russian ambassador to South Korea said in an interview with the South Korean media that he was ready to improve relationship with South Korea and deny the North Korea and Russia arms deals.  As you know, the North Korea and Russia’s foreign ministers and President Putin have met in Russia this week.  What is your interpretation of this?  And a follow-up.
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’ve talked at length about the burgeoning relationship between North Korea and Russia.  I stood up here and showed you a graphic and a slide of the — the belief we have and the desire by the Russians to purchase ballistic missiles from North Korea — has happened; have been used in Ukraine — as well as artillery ammunition. 

So, the — this burgeoning relationship between the two countries is certainly worrisome.  It’s worrisome for the people of Ukraine and our interests there as well, as well as it is for — for the Peninsula.
 
Q    Quick follow-up.  Kim Jong Un said that South Korea was a “hostile” country.  He then —
 
MR. KIRBY:  It’s not.
 
Q    He then threatened to devastate South Korea and United States and Japan with nuclear weapons.  Do you think these threats from Kim Jong Un are just the words, or do you think that there will be a real war?
 
MR. KIRBY:  You have to take rhetoric like that seriously from a man in charge of a regime that continues to pursue advanced military capabilities, including nuclear capabilities.  That’s why — and I won’t go through the list of all the things that — as I already said to a previous question — that we’re doing to try to address that threat.  You have to take that seriously. 
 
Kim Jong Un ought to focus more on feeding his people than on buying and purchasing advanced military capabilities.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Just a couple more.  Go ahead.  And then we have to start wrapping it up.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you.  Yes, thanks, John.  Do you — John, do you still oppose a general ceasefire?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Do we still oppose a general ceasefire?  Yes.
 
Q    Why?
 
MR. KIRBY:  For the same reason that we have in the past: We don’t believe a ceasefire is going to be to the benefit of anybody but Hamas.  We do support humanitarian pauses, as I said, to try to get hostages out and more aid in.  But we don’t support a ceasefire at this time. 
 
I think it’s important to remember that there was a ceasefire in place on the 6th of October, and Hamas, Mr. Sinwar —  Mr. Sinwar chose to break that ceasefire.  He’s the one that chose — chose this war.  There was a ceasefire, which we obviously were in supportive of, and Hamas chose to break it.
 
Q    And this — is the current situation beneficial to Israel, speaking strategically here?  The current situa- — is the current situation beneficial to Israel?
 
MR. KIRBY:  The current situation.  What do you mean by “the current situation”?
 
Q    The ongoing conflict.
 
MR. KIRBY:  The Israeli people have every right to expect that their military and that their government is going to act in their safety and security.  And I guarantee you that if — if this was any other country, including this one, we wouldn’t stand for that kind of threat to live next door to us like that — a threat that truly has existential ambitions. 

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the map.  So, the Israeli people have a right to expect that their government is going to try to protect them from that threat, which we still believe — and certainly was verified in the call today — that is a — still a viable threat to the Israeli government, to the Israeli people. 
 
Q    One more question on the Houthis.  How long do you — do you believe you can maintain that current course?  I mean, striking them and then they strike back.  You said you have other options.  At what point you can use another option?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I’m not going to get ahead of the President or his decision-making.  We have plenty of military capability available to us. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  We’re going to wra- —
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’d like these — just one — I’m sorry. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m so- — no, I’m so sorry.
 
MR. KIRBY:  No, it’s my fault.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m so sorry.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I just got — my throat caught, and I — I got caught on my word.  

We want — we obviously are not seeking a conflict with the Houthis or a war in Yemen.  The — the best outcome would be for these reckless attacks by the Houthis to stop today. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right —

MR. KIRBY:  But we have the capability we need. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sorry.  Sorry.

MR. KIRBY:  Sorry, sorry.  Sorry, I did it again.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   All right.  Last two.  Go ahead.  And then we’ll end with you.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, President Biden admitted yesterday that the retaliatory strikes against the Houthis aren’t working.  Why aren’t they afraid of the U.S.?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, you’d have to ask the Houthis what’s in their mindset.  I’m not going to get in between the ears of Houthi leaders. 
 
They claim it’s about Gaza.  It’s not.  They claim that this is some sort of, you know, U.S. and — and Britain effort to — to have — to wage war on them.  It’s not. 
 
We’re simply trying to do two things.  We’re trying to defend our Navy ships and sailors and the Navy ships and sailors of other nations that are in the Red Sea with us.  And, two, protect international shipping.  This is about self-defense. 
 
And again, this — this conflict — well, first of all, we’re not — we don’t seek a conflict.  There doesn’t need to be a conflict.  But the exchange of fire that we have seen in recent days doesn’t have to go on one day — one day more if the Houthis would make the right decision to stop these attacks.
 
Q    Right, but they’re a terrorist group attacking U.S. interests.  You know, wouldn’t your response make them stop?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, terrorist groups commit acts of violence oftentimes for — not just for the sake of committing acts of violence but for political posturing or political messaging of some sort, or perhaps tied to religious fervor. 
 
And they are a designated terrorist group.  They are conducting terrorist attacks on shipping in the Red Sea.  And we have to respond to that.  I don’t know what the alternative would be.  Should we just stop — stop defending ships and just let them have their way with the Southern Red Sea?  I don’t think that’s in anybody’s interest. 
 
So, we’re not going to — we’re not just going to lay down here and — and wait for them to come to a different approach.  They need to stop the attacks.  If they don’t, we’ll continue to defend ourselves and make it harder for them to conduct them.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, last one.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Admiral, the House Armed Services Committee has asked Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to appear publicly before them next month for failing to disclose his hospitalization.  Would the White House support the Secretary testifying publicly?
 
MR. KIRBY:  That’ll be a decision for the Secretary of Defense, and he has to make that decision.
 
Q    And since he was released from the hospital, has he clearly explained to the President or any senior officials here what exactly happened?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the — the personal and private discussions that the Secretary has had with the President of the United States.  They have spoken as recently as late last week.  And as you heard the President say himself, he has full trust and confidence in Secretary Austin and his leadership at the Pentagon, and that will continue.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I appreciate it.  Have a great weekend.
 
All right, Colleen.
 
Q    Thank you.  So, I wanted to ask about the Uvalde report yesterday.  The President had said that he hadn’t seen the full findings but that he wasn’t sure that there was criminal liability.  So, a couple of things.  I wondered if he had time to look through the full findings and if his opinion has changed at all.  And then, also, if not, is there another way that law enforcement should be held accountable for the failures (inaudible)?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, there’s a couple of things I want to say about that.  The DOJ’s report — which is what you’re obviously referring to, Colleen — shows that there were multiple points of failure with the law enforcement response in Uvalde. 
 
And so, we can only imagine how this news adds to the heartbreaking Uvalde families — how they’re feeling.  And certainly, as — as a mo- — mom, myself, I — this is one of those days that you wish never, ever happens and you don’t want to imagine.  So, this obviously is very heartbreaking, not just for the families for that — for that community.  And so, no community — no community should have to ever go through what Uvalde community suffered. 
 
And — but I’ll say this, and I think it’s really important: that these families were able — in Uvalde were able to turn things around.  And they put — they — they turned their pain into purpose and helped pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which we know — which we see it’s already starting to save lives. 
 
And — and so, while the President is going to continue to take — to certainly — to do everything that he can through executive action to protect communities from gun violence, he’s not going to stop to ask Congress to — you know, to do something.  You hear me say that.   You hear him say that often.  They need to do something to stop this epidemic of — of gun violence.
 
And so, we’ve been very clear.  We need universal background checks, a national red flag law.  We must ban assault weapons, obviously, and high-capacity magazines.  And this — these actions can’t wait.  These actions can’t wait. 
 
And so, I just wanted to lay that out because that report was — was, I’m sure, very difficult — forget about us in the room — very difficult for the Uvalde community, and the President understands that.  I just don’t have anything beyond that to add.
 
Q    Okay.  Just — sorry, one more.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.  That’s okay.
 
Q    On the — the debate — or the — the discussions on funding.  It sounded like yesterday there — they were pretty close on the immigration and Ukraine funding agreements.  And I just wondered if the White House was willing to concede more.  I think part of the — one of the main issues they were talking about was parole authority.  I wondered if there were any more concessions being made or — like, what’s happening?  (Laughter.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, for the past several months, I’ve been very careful to not negotiate from here.  So, I’m not going to — to break that.
 
What I’ll say is — and I’ve said this many times: We really appreciate that senators, both Republican and Democrats, continue to have this conversation, continue to negotiate on border security. 
 
Obviously, this is something that’s import- — that is very important to this President.  It came up in the — in the congressional meeting that they had two days ago.  And the President was very clear that Congress needs to act.  We need to be zeroed-in and focused on this and also the funding for Ukraine, as Ukraine continues — continues to defend themselves from — against Putin’s aggression — right? — Putin’s invasion.  And so, that is some- — something that we need to continue to do. 
 
Obviously, there has been a global coalition that the President has upheld to — including NATO alliances f- — more than 50 countries — in support of Ukraine as they’re trying, again, to fight for their freedom.  So, we need to continue to do that.  The President believes all of the — all of the parts and the pieces and what he’s asked for in his — in his national security supplemental needs to pass. 
 
But going back to border security for a second, we think the conversations are going in the right direction.  We are optimistic about it.  It is important to act now.  The immigration system, what we’ve seen at the border has been broken for decades now, needs to get fixed. 
 
And so, the Pres- — the President is going to continue to encourage Congress to act.  And, again, we are very thankful and appreciative and encouraged by what we’re seeing by senators, both Republicans and Democrats, continuing these negotiation processes.
 
Q    To follow on that: You say that you’re encouraged they’re going in the right direction.  But the President was asked yesterday, “What are the sticking points in the border agreement?”  And he said, “I don’t think we have any sticking points left.”  If that’s true, why haven’t senators announced an agreement yet?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we’re going to let them speak to that.  But that’s — we’ve been saying it’s headed in the right direction, right?  We’ve been saying that we are encouraged by it, right?  That is, I think — what the President just said lays — pretty much backs up what we’ve been saying. 
 
So, I just don’t want to get into specifics.  As it relates any — as it relates to a specific, I think the negotiators should speak to that.  Let them have those conversations on the Hill.  Let them talk to you all about what it is that they’re discussing specifically.
 
I want to be very careful not to get involved in the negotiation process.  It is — we understand how this works.  And speaking from that — from here, from the podium, don’t want to affect the progress that we believe that they’re making on this. 
 
Look, border security is important.  We understand it’s important to the American people.  We have to do something.  We have to get — get some — get some — an agreement — a bipartisan agreement put forward so that — so that we can deal with that issue at the border.
 
Q    Did something change in the meeting that he had this week with leaders to give him that optimism?  I mean —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah —
 
Q    What — what does he — does he think that it’s close to a done deal to say that yesterday?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be really mindful.  The meeting two days ago was not a negotiation meeting.  It was not.  It was about Ukraine and the importance that — the importance for us to continue to support Ukraine and how Congress has to act.  And what’s expected of us, not just in our national security — obviously, it’s important to our national security — but also globally. 
 
And so, that was the purpose of this meeting.  It was not part of the negotiation.  There are negotiations happening, as I just stated, over at the Hill, with Republicans and Democrat senators.  And we’re going to let those negotiation happen. 
 
What we dis- — what the President wanted to be really clear about is the importance in — to continuing to support Ukraine as they defend themselves. 
 
As you know, Ja- — National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and DNI Avril Haines were a part of that meeting.  They laid out some examples of the consequences for Ukraine on the battlefield. 
 
And so, that is what the conversation was about.  Obviously, and as you all heard from some of these congressional leaders, they brought up the border.  Border security was discussed, but it was not nego- — in a negotiation meeting. 
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    J.B. Pritzker was in Des Moines this week and was talking about the inhumane practices of receiving — you know, these — basically, these migrants are still being sent by airplane to Chicago.  Like, I — I think the total number is 30,000 have been shipped to Chicago alone.
 
And the mayors are meeting in town.  They’re certainly going to ask for more resources.  What — what can the federal government do to help cities like Chicago that are really struggling with this, especially given the subarctic temperatures that —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — we’re seeing right now.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you’ve heard me say this very recently about how those actions that are being taken by Republican leader- — leadership is a inhuha- — inhu- — inhumane, and it’s demoralizing.  And it doesn’t — it doesn’t lead to the safety of — of communities here. 
 
And so, we’ve called that out, and we’ll continue to do that. 
 
And I’ve spoken to this already, but I’ll — I’ll lay it out a little bit more.  During the last year, what our administration was able to do, it — in corrob- — in corroboration with states and cities across the country, we launched this one — one — one-stop shop clinics to help eligible noncitizens get working permits and decompress the re- — respective shelter system. 
 
That was something that — that — that local leaders and state leaders asked for.  And so, we were able to, obviously, work in collaboration in getting that done. 
 
To date, these clinics have — have served more than 10,000 people.  So, they’ve been effective. 
 
And so — and another thing that you’ve heard us speak to is that we’ve provided more than $1 billion in grant funding for jurisdictions hosting recently arrived migrants.  So, that’s been important. 
 
And, look, here’s the thing.  I just went — I just had this whole — kind of this whole back-and-forth with your colleagues here about border security and about this negotiation that’s happening in the Senate.  That’s what we — we would like to see.  We want to do more.  We want to do more, but it requires Congress to act. 
 
That is where we are now.  That’s why it’s so important that these conversations, these negotiations on Capitol Hill with senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have been going on for the past several months.  We are encouraged.  We want to see the supplemental passed.  It is important to get that done as well. 
 
Remember, border security was originally a part of the — of the supplemental.  So, we look — we look forward to continuing collaboration with the states, these jurisdictions, obviously, just to see what else we can do.  But in order to get more, Congress needs to act. 
 
Q    I had a follow-up on what John was saying about deliberate war crimes.  That seems to differentiate between deliberate and inadvertent war crimes.  Can you say anything about —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —
 
Q    — what you’re parsing is that — that phrasing?  I was — it startled me because it seems to imply that you acknowledge that there have been war crimes committed.  But perhaps not —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —
 
Q    — deliberate.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t think that’s what the — the Admiral was inferring to.  He doesn’t — I don’t — I — I can speak very — I think very — very, I think, forcefully and — and say that that is not what he was referring to.  
 
Look, we — we have been very clear about Israel’s absolute right to defend itself.  That’s something that we say all the time, right?  Obviously, this is our relationship, what we believe, as well, its — its obligation to abide by international law — right? — to make sure that we are — they are protecting civilian lives, whether Israeli lives or Palestinian lives.  We’ve been really clear about that. 
 
And so — and so, I just want to be really careful.  I’m not going to go beyond what the — what the Admiral said here.  And I wouldn’t parse his words too much here. 
 
But we’ve been very clear on where — where we stand on — on — on what — what we believe we stand on.  Obviously, we want to continue to have these diplomatic conversations, as the President had with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And our focus has always been making sure, obviously, no civilian lives — right? — one civilian life is too many; getting those — that humanitarian aid into Gaza is incredibly important; making sure hostages — American hostages, all hostages come home; and trying to continue these pauses — these humanitarian pauses that you have seen the President lead on.  And they have been very successful, as — as the Admiral has said.
 
Q    If the International Court did rule that war crimes were committed, would the U.S. support —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not going to get into hypothetical- —
 
Q    — that rule?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals from here. 
 
Go ahead, M.J.
 
Q    Karine, does the President believe that a ban on menthol cigarettes would save the lives of Black Americans?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be really careful.  There’s a rulemaking process that’s currently happening.  Not going to get ahead of that.  That is something for, obviously, the respective agency — FDA — to — to kind of take a look at that.  I just don’t — I want to be really mindful — 
 
Q    I wasn’t asking about the rule.  I was just asking whether that is something the President believes.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I hear you.  I just want to be careful because there’s a process — a rulemaking process that’s currently happening on that particular issue.  And I just don’t — I don’t want to comment on this rule because — on that pro- — on your question, because that rulemaking process is currently happening. 
 
FDA is doing their part.  They are the experts here.  I’m just not going to get into specifics of — of that at all.
 
Q    Well, they may be the experts, but I think there’s abundant research that shows that this is a leading cause of deaths for Black Americans.  I’m just asking whether the President believes that could be a benefit of banning menthol cigarettes. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear your — I hear your question, M.J.  As you said, there are experts who have spoken to this.  I’ll let the experts speak to this.  When there’s a rulemaking process, this is — this is always the case here.  Because there’s a rulemaking process, we’re just not going to comment. 
 
Go ahead, Jacqui.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  What is the administration’s response to the 14 House Democrats who voted with Republicans the other day to denounce the, quote, “open-borders policies” of the Biden administration?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — what do you mean?  What’s our comments on what? 
 
Q    Well, do you have a response to 14 Democrats in the House believing that —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, the —
 
Q    — this President has open-border policies?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, we’ve been very clear.  We want to deal with what’s going on at the border.  That’s why we’re having these conversation — these negotiations in the Senate with Republicans and Democrats.
 
The President understands that this is an issue that matters to the American people.  And we feel like those conversations that are happening, those negotiations are heading in the right direction. 
 
And so, the President understands.  He put the border security — right? — there was — that’s part of the supplemental.  His request on funding for border security was part of that national security ask, that emergency ask. 
 
So, we believe we need to do more.  The President understands we need to do more.  And we — we see Republicans and Democrats in the Senate want to do more. 
 
Q    Is it — is it still the position of the administration that the border is secure?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Our position is that we need to do more at the border.  We have to do more at the border.  That’s why these negotiations are currently happening.  That’s our position. 
 
Q    And is it the position of the administration that the efforts to impeach Secretary Mayorkas are unconstitutional?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What we believe is that what House Republicans are doing is playing political games.  That’s what we believe.  And they’re not doing their jobs — the jobs that the American people want them to be doing. 
 
And let’s not forget, they won’t even let Secretary Mayor- — Mayorkas even testify.  They want to impeach him, but they’re not even let — allowing him to testify. 
 
And so, it is shameful.  That’s what we believe.  It is shameful.  And what we’d encourage these House Republicans to do — and this is something that we saw coming out of the midterms in 2022 — American people want to see Republicans and Democrats working together to deliver for them, to address the issues that matter.  That’s what we would rather see. 
 
Q    On the constitutionality portion, though, I saw that there was a memo that came out that was touting this open letter from constitutional law professors, making the argument that impeachment based on policy disagreements is unconstitutional.  Is that the approach the administration is taking to this?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What letter are you speaking to?  The same one?
 
Q    There was an Ian Sams memo that went out, and it was — included an open letter from a number of constitutional law professors who are arguing that impeaching a Cabinet Secretary on the basis of policy disagreements is forbidden in the Constitution. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I’m going to let my colleague’s letter stand for itself.  I’ve been very clear on how we feel and what be- — we what we think about these impeachment proceedings.  And — and a proceeding that is not even allowing Secretary Mayorkas to testify. 
 
Q    I’m just trying to gather, though — because it came to us from, you know, the White House, obviously —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — that, you know — is this something that the administration is going to fight in court on the — on a constitutional basis that this is not something that could happen?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And I will say, I’m going to let my — my White House colleagues at the Counsel — at the Counsel’s Office respond to that. 
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Karine, a month ago today when you were asked about whether the White House had any regrets about linking Ukraine aid with border funding, you said, “No, not at all.”  I wanted to know if that was still the case today.  Does the White House have any regrets about this strategy?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all, because both of those things are important to the President.  There — they are emergency requests.  That’s why they — he included it in the supplemental.  And we believe all of it needs to move forward. 
 
Q    And then, just very quickly, on student loans.  There has been some Republican criticism from people like Senator Bill Cassidy, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, specifically saying that the President is pandering in this election year, trying to buy votes with these kinds of moves on student loans.  There have been other lawmakers who have echoed something similar, saying it’s not fair for Americans who didn’t go to college to have to pay for those who racked up too much debt.
 
What is the White House response to that (inaudible)?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we’ve heard that rhetoric many times before.  That’s nothing new, what you laid out to me.  Look, the President made a promise that he would do everything that he can to take action to give American families a little bit of a breathing room.  And that’s related to student — student debt as well.
 
And you heard at the top when I said — I laid out that, you know, folks should not have to be crushed by student debt to be able to start a family, to be able to — be able to buy a home.  Right? 
 
And so, this is what we have — we’ve seen over the past several decades.  And the President has been very clear: He’s going to do everything that he can to give people a little bit more breathing room to give people — make sure he lower costs for folks. 
 
And that’s what we’re seeing.  Right?  We’re seeing that from — from an array of — of folks just across the spectrum. 
 
And so, I’ve heard those comments.  That is not something that the President believes.  The President believes that it is important.  You’ve got — you’ve got to remember, this is a president who grew up in a middle-class family, who — who knows what it’s like to sit around a kitchen table and try to figure out which bill are you going to pay.  Are you going to pay that medical bill?  Are you going to be able to pay that medical bill?  Are you going to be able to put food on the table?  Are you going to be able to pay the tuition for — for your kid that’s going to college?
 
And these are difficult conversations that American families have every month.  And so, if the President can do something to give families a little bit of dignity, a little bit of an opportunity to really be part of — of a growing economy, be part of the middle class, he’s going to take that action.
 
Go ahead, Sabrina.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  When the President was asked yesterday about Arab Americans not wanting to vote for him over Gaza, his response was to point to former President Trump’s travel ban on Muslim-majority nations.  Putting aside for a moment that most Arab Americans are Christian, is that the bar here, that his predecessor and likely opponent wants to ban Muslims and President Biden doesn’t?  And how does that relate to the substance of their criticism of Gaza?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I want to be really careful because there’s a mix of — of upcoming election on — on — in your question — in 2024.  Look, I would look at — and I really want to be mindful here and careful. 
 
I think what the President was doing was trying to give a reminder of where we were before — right? — what it looked like before in the last four years in the last administration.
 
You have a president that has been very clear in protecting Arab Am- — Arab Americans or any communities that are under attack, any communities that have felt left behind.  And so, he is — I think his — his record and what he’s been trying to do for folks here in this country — all communities, including the Arab — Arab American community — is very, very clear. 
 
And so, I think he was — it was a question that he was asked.  He answered it very quickly.  It probably — you know, he — he thought of it as, obviously, asked in a political way.  And so, that’s where he went.
 
But I just also want to be super careful because this is an upcoming election.
 
Q    And then away from the campaign, then.  Since the conflict began, the President has sat down with Muslim leaders only once that we know of, on October 26th, and there was only one Palestinian American who was present for that meeting.  Why has the President not met or engaged more directly with Palestinian American leaders in the more than three months since this conflict began?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you just stated in the top of your question, he has had direct conversation with leaders in — in the respective communities.  His team has — regularly have stayed in touch with members and leaders of those respective communities that you just laid out: Arab Americans and Muslim Americans as well.  And so, those conversations are obviously very important.
 
I don’t have anything to read out or lay out of any upcoming — upcoming discussions with those leaders in the — in those communities.  But he has been — he’s had direct conversation.  He’s had — listened to them.  Those were private conversations.  We try not to read — read out specifically what was discussed.
 
But obviously, the President and his team has been in regular communications.
 
Go ahead, Akayla.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Monday is obviously the anniversary of — of Roe v. Wade.  Do you have any preview of what the President plans to do to mark the day?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, as you know, the — the campaign made an announcement of the four principles here — the President, the Vice President, the First Lady, and the Second Gentleman — are going to do an event on Tuesday as — and touch on Roe v. Wade.  I would refer you to — to them on exactly what that’s going to look like.
 
And, you know, the — the Vice President is going to do a tour specifically focusing on Roe v. Wade.  So, certainly, we would refer you to — to the Vice President’s office.  And, certainly, we’ll have more — more to share on that.
 
All right.  I was t- — I’m being told to wrap it.
 
Go ahead, Sara.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  On Wednesday, when you were asked about, ahead of the meeting, Speaker Johnson’s H.R.2-or-bust position, you had said, Speaker Johnson is not the only congressman in the room.  He has held to this hardline position. 
 
But was there any indication from House members who were present in the meeting or in other conversations that have been had with House members that they — there is a possibility of them taking on a Senate-passed agreement?  Like, if — if an agreement were to be reached and passed in the Senate, has he gotten any kind of assurances that the House would take that on?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I will say, I think there was broad — a broad agreement in the room in that meeting that we needed — they needed to deal with Ukraine and also the border.  So, there was a broad agreement there.  I’m not going to get into specifics on how that would look like. 
 
But I think that’s important.  If both Republicans and Democrats in that meeting are saying, “Yes, we need to deal with this.  We need to figure out how to make sure we support Ukraine.  We need to figure out how to make sure we deal with the border security,” I think that’s important.  And so, that is what we were able to get out of that meeting as well, that type of understanding of addressing those two things.
 
Q    But is he optimistic that even if — you know, if the Senate is able to come to an agreement, that it would be taken on and passed in the House?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’ll say this — I’ll add to this.  It was a balanced and constructive conversation.  That’s what we saw, and that’s what happened.  And there was, again, broad agreement to — to certainly deal with making sure Ukraine gets the funding that they need, making sure that we deal with border security. 
 
So, that is the two — two important things that came out of that meeting.  We are going to continue to have a conversation in the Senate, do the negotiations in the Senate on the border security to get something done — something that the American people want to see.  And then we’ll see what happens.
 
I don’t want to get into hypotheticals.  I don’t want to guess what’s going to happen.  Obviously, Speaker Johnson has been very vocal, and he can speak for himself.  But it is important.  It is important that we see a bipartisan agreement, bipartisan conversation happening.  And we’ll see where it goes.  But the President is going to continue to encourage, obviously, Congress to move forward.
 
Go ahead, Joey. 
 
Q    Yeah.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I haven’t called on you.
 
Q    Yeah.  Thank you.  Well, regarding the House.  And a version of this question was asked, I think, during the Air Force One gaggle yesterday.  But with Speaker Johnson saying he is communicating regularly with former President Trump on border negotiations, does the White House believe that Speaker Johnson is, in fact, negotiating in good faith toward an agreement on the border?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to let Speaker Johnson speak for himself.  What I can say is that, right now, we are in active negotiations with members in the Senate, and it is in good faith.  With Republicans and Democrats, it is happening in good faith.  And we are encouraged by where the conversation is going.  We are — we are — we believe there has been progress. 
 
And so, let’s start there.  Let’s start there and let them do their job and continue — or do their negotiations and continue to have those conversations.  And I’m just going to let the House speak for themselves.
 
Q    Do you think Speaker Johnson actually wants a border agreement?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s for him to speak to.  I’m not going to speak fr- — from here.  I know I keep getting — did I call on you, Weijia?
 
Q    Just a quick follow on — on the border talks. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
Q    Very quick.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
Q    Is the President open to passing, signing a border deal before one is reached on Ukraine or does it have to be concurrent?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I can’t speak to the timeline of all of this.  What I can speak to is we are having those conversation in the — in the Senate, negotiations, as I’ve mentioned multiple times already from here.  I’m sure you’ve — you’re tired of me saying that over and over again. 
 
And what I can also say is that we want to see the full national security supplemental move forward.  That is what we want to see.  We want to see it move forward, and that includes Ukraine, obviously includes Israel, obvious- — obviously includes border security.  That’s what the President wants to see, and that is the direction that we hope that it goes in.
 
All right.  I haven’t called on you.  Go ahead.
 
Q    So, is the White House supportive of the bipartisan tax bill that was introduced this week that expands the Child Tax Credit but also has a lot of cuts for businesses?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we think that — we are encouraged by what we’re seeing, obviously, with the tax deal that is — that is going forward.  And so, we think that’s important.  Obviously, the President passed the American Rescue Plan, as you know, very early on.  It had the Child Tax Credit.  The President has been very clear that he wanted to see that move forward in full, and it’s — you know, continuing that per- –more permanently. 
 
And so, that is important.  But we are pleased that the House and Ways and Means — House Ways and Means Committee advanced a bipartisan tax bill that will increase that — right? — that will increase it. 
 
And so — and let’s not forget, these — this is for millions of families — millions of families.  It’s going to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and support construction of hundreds of thousands of affordable rental housing, as well, in that bipartisan agreement.
 
So, it is a welcome step forward.  And we believe Congress should pass it.
 
All right, guys.  We’ll see you on Monday.  Thank you, everybody. 
 
Q    Have a good weekend.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Stay — stay warm and dry.
 
2:53 P.M. EST
 

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route to Morrisville, NC

12:36 P.M. EST

     MS. DALTON:  Well, good afternoon, everyone. 

We are on our way to Raleigh, where the President will announce $82 million in investments from the American Rescue Plan’s Capital Project Fund to connect thousands more North Carolina homes and businesses to high-speed Internet as part of the Biden-Harris administration’s Investing in America agenda. 

     A couple of reasons why this is really significant.

     Stepping back, you may recall, when the President entered office, 24 million Americans lacked access to the Internet.  Period.  Millions more lacked access to affordable, reliable

Internet access — had limited or spotty connectivity.

The President crisscrossed the country during the 2020 campaign and heard from families about how they were driving their kids in the throes of a pandemic to the back of fas- — fast-food restaurants to get Wi-Fi to complete their online homework; heard from seniors about their limited access to tel- — telehealth visits; and how badly small businesses needed access to reliable, affordable Internet.

That’s why, when the President entered office, he made a commitment to endin- — ending that digital divide and ensuring that every single American and small business would have affordable access to reliable Internet, high-speed Internet by the year 2030.

Today’s announcement in North Carolina is a step forward in doing that.  North Carolina is a state where one in three people lives in a rural area, so expanding high-speed, reliable Internet to thousands more homes and businesses is a very big deal.

And beyond that, the President will talk about how the American Rescue Plan has made it possible for more than 880,000 North Carolinians already to save money on their — their monthly Internet bills.

But beyond that, we’re going to North Carolina for another reason.  Many of you may not know that North Carolina currently produces 40 percent of the fiber-optic cable we use here in America.  And so, for a place like, you know, Hickory, North Carolina, which is responsible for producing all of that fiber-optic cable, the investments that we’re making here in North Carolina are very significant, as well as the investments we’re making all across the country, because private sector companies like CommScore [CommScope] and Corning are making more than $550 billion of investments and expanding production locally so that — so that that fiber-optic cable can be manufactured locally with the attendant 650-plus jobs that are coming to the state.

So, this is really a win the President will be talking about for the workers of North Carolina.  It’s a win for families and small businesses.  And certainly, it’s a win for the econ- — economy of the state. 

And the — the President is also delighted, as always, to be joined by Governor Cooper for this day.

So, with that news at the top, I’m going to turn it over to Admiral Kirby, who has some updates to share with you about the goings-on in the world.  John.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Olivia. 

Man, it’s cold back here.

Q    It is.

MR. KIRBY:  You should turn the heat up.  (Laughter.)

So, just a couple of things off the top.  I know you saw reports out of Central Command last night about some additional strikes that we took to knock out a range of Houthi missiles that were prepared to fire into the Southern Red Sea. 

We did it again this morning, striking at some anti-ship missiles — a couple of anti-ship missiles that we had reason to believe were being prepared for imminent fire into the Southern Red Sea.  Central Command —

(A reporter gestures for Mr. Kirby to speak louder.)

MR. KIRBY:  Louder?  Nobody ever asks me to talk louder.  (Laughter.)

Central Command will have a statement out soon.  So, you’ll — you’ll see all that.  But that — that happened this morning.

Obviously, you’ve all seen the reports out of Pakistan that they — they fired some missiles in — into Iran.  We’re monitoring this very, very closely.  We don’t want to see an escalation, clearly, in South Asia — South and Central Asia.  And we’re in touch with our Pakistani counterparts, as you might expect. 

We’ll let the Pakistanis speak to — to their military operations.  I’m not going to parse that or do any — or try to, you know, operationalize it here from — from Air Force One.

And then lastly, Jake Sullivan, our national security advisor, will be meeting this afternoon with families of the American hostages that are still being held by Hamas. 

And we suspect that most, if not all, of the families will be represented in that meeting.  The manifest is still being worked out.  But we’ll have more to say after — after that meeting occurs.

That’s it.

Q    John, just to start things off.  What are the U.S. concerns about the situation between Pakistan and Iran?  And why would you see possible risks of escalation?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, these are two well-armed nations.  And again, we don’t — we don’t want to see an escalation of — of any armed conflict in the region, certainly between those two countries.

I want to let Pakistan speak to their military operations.  I want to be careful about that.  As you know, they were struck first by — by Iran, which was obviously a- — another reckless attack, another example of Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the region.  So, again, I think I’ll leave it at that.

     Q    Did the United States — was the United States aware of those attacks before they happened?  Did the Pakistanis give —

     MR. KIRBY:  I am not aware of any prenotification that we received at all.

     Q    Does the United States intend to support Pakistan, seeing that it’s a major non-NATO ally of the country?

     MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have an update for you on that.

     Q    What’s — what about just arms control?  I mean, this is — the President said that this shows that Iran is not well-liked.  I mean, isn’t that why they want a nuclear weapon?

     MR. KIRBY:  Who?  Iran?

     Q    Yes.

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let the Iranians and the regime speak to their — to their ambitions.  We still maintain and our policy is that we — we do not want to see an Iran with nuclear weapons, because an Iran with nuclear weapons is bad for the whole region, if not globally.

Now, as the President said when he first came into office, certainly would have preferred to achieve that outcome through diplomacy.  Obviously, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. 

So, we will make sure that we have the capabilities and the options available to the Commander-in-Chief to prevent that outcome if it comes to that.  He has said clearly, we will not allow them to achieve a nuclear weapon capability.

Q    John, as a long-term strategy, should Americans just expect the regular airstrikes to be the — the — at least the near term, if not the long term?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we certainly don’t want that to be case, J.J.  We’re not — we’re not looking for a conflict with the Houthis.  We’re not looking for a conflict in the region.  But we have to be able to act in our own self-defense, not just for our ships and our sailors but for merchant ships and merchant sailors and international shipping in the Red Sea.

And, as you heard the President say this morning right before he came out here, these — these strikes will continue for as long as they need to continue to — to try to disrupt and degrade the Houthis’ ability to continue to cot- — conduct these attacks.

Q    But he also said, “No,” they’re not working.  So, why continue with the same strategy if the Houthis are still continuing to attack?

MR. KIRBY:  With each and every one of these strikes, we are taking away capability from the Houthis.  With each and every one of these strikes, we are making it harder for them to continue to propagate these attacks. 

Again, as we’ve said many times, they have a choice to make.  The choice ought to be to stop these reckless attacks.  If they don’t, then we — we have additional options available to us, and we won’t be — we won’t be shy about using them.

Q    And then can you talk about what other things are on the table?  Could — I mean, could there be a change in tactics, a strike on Iran?  Can you talk about what could be on the table in the future?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  No, I’m not going to telegraph punches one way or another, except to say is — what the President said this morning, that if the Houthis continue to — to go down this path, we will continue to — to do what we can to disrupt and degrade their ability to — to make those — to make those choices.

Q    And one more on Pakistan.  Has the United States assessed that these were legitimate targets?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any military assessment independent here to talk about.  As I said, we’ll let the Pakistanis speak to their operations.

Q    On the Iran, do you have any reaction to the Taliban calling for peace between the countries?

MR. KIRBY:  Between Iran and Pakistan?  Is that what you’re saying?

Yeah, look, I’ll let — I’ll let — I’ll let the Taliban speak for themselves.  I’ll let other nations that have weighed in here speak for themselves.  You’ve heard from us: We’re watching this closely.  We don’t want to see an escalation.  We’re in touch with our — our Pakistani counterparts, as you might expect that we would be.

If the Taliban want to be taken seriously on the world stage, they need to meet the commitments that they said they would meet when — when they took over the governing structure: to treat women and girls appropriately, to abide by international law.  And we haven’t seen them meet those commitments.

Q    Do you have any reaction to Netanyahu rejecting a Palestinian state in a post-war scenario for Gaza?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just tell you that nothing has changed about President Biden’s desire that a two-state solution is really in the best interest of not only the Israeli people but — but, of course, the Palestinian people.  In fact, it’s in the best interest of the region.  And we’re not going to stop working towards that goal.

This is — this is not a new comment by Prime Minister Netanyahu.  We obviously see it differently.  We believe that the Palestinians have every right to live in an independent state with peace and security.  And the President and his team is going to continue to work on that. 

Obviously, the focus right now is making sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Hamas and — and that humanitarian aid and assistance continue to get to the desperate people of — of Gaza. 

But there’s going to be a post-conflict Gaza.  And we have been exceedingly clear about what we want to see that look like.  And we want governance in Gaza that’s representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people, that they have a vote and a voice in what that looks like and that there’s no reoccupation of Gaza.

Q    But what reason do you have to believe that he’s not actively working against that outcome, if that’s his view?

     MR. KIRBY:  Again, he’s been very clear about his view.  We’ve been very clear about our view.  That’s not going to change, and we’re going to continue to have those discussions not just with our Israeli counterparts but with our other counterparts in the region.

     We still think — Trevor, this is a — we still think it’s viable.  We still think it’s possible.  We still think it’s the — it’s the best outcome for the Israeli people as well as the Palestinian people.

     Q    The Wall Street —

     Q    You said he’s been “very clear” on that before.  When — when has he specifically said he does not want —

     MR. KIRBY:  He has said in — in recent comments that he’s not — not in support of that.

     Q    Publicly or privately, do you mean?

     MR. KIRBY:  Publicly.

     Q    Okay.

     Q    The Wall Street Journal reported that the Iraqi Prime Minister had asked the U.S.-led military leadership to leave the United — to leave Iraq.  Is that something that you guys have heard formally?  Is there any comment that you can —

     MR. KIRBY:  I’d say — I’d say a couple of things on this.

I mean, first of all, I’m not going to disclose diplomatic conversations that we’re having with the Iraqis.  We are there at their invitation.  We continue to be there at their invitation to go after — to help them, the Iraqi security forces, go after ISIS, which is still a viable threat in Ir- — in Iraq and — and in Syria, quite frankly, as well. 

And we’re — we’re grateful for the cooperation that we get, the support that we get.  We’re grateful for the relationship that we have with the Iraqi security forces.  And we’ll be in constant consultations with the Iraqi government as this moves forward.

Q    But it — were — were those comments a surprise to the administration?  I mean, they were on-the-record comments.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to — I’m not going to characterize diplomatic conversations one way or the other.  We — we know we’re at the — we’re there at the invitation of the Iraqis, and — and we’ll consult with them appropriately about what that — what that mission looks like going forward and, therefore, what posture and resources have to be applied to that mission going forward.

Q    Kirby, on the Hill, there is a growing number of Democratic lawmakers who have said it’s maybe time to rethink the strategy with Israel, given that Netanyahu has repeatedly ignored U.S. guidance and advice.  There’s more people who have favored conditioning aid.  I just wonder what the administration’s responses to that are.

MR. KIRBY:  I — I think the — the record does not bear out that the — that the Israelis have ignored American advice or — or U.S. leadership’s views and perspectives and — and counsel.  That just — the record just doesn’t bear that out.

Whether it’s tailoring their military operations in the north, adding additional humanitarian corridors, opening up the Kerem Shalom gate, providing information to — to folks on the ground about where they’re operating, relying a little less on airstrikes than they were on the outset — I could go on and on.

All of these things were really driven by President Biden and by the national security team in terms of urging the Israelis to take a different tack than maybe what they would — would have otherwise done.

Now, again, they’re a sovereign nation.  They get to choose what military operations they conduct.  We understand that.  But as Secretary Blinken has said many, many times: How they do that matters, and we are talking to them about the “how.”  And they have been receptive to those messages.

I also want to say, while I’m on this topic: One civilian casualty is one too many.  And there have been too many.  And we have talked to them about that as well, in terms of tailoring their operations to be more — more discriminant, more cautious, more careful.

And, as a matter of fact, one of the things that we’ve ur- — we had been urging them to do and you’re now starting to see them do is transition to lower-intensity operations, particularly up in the — up in the north.  They’ve announced, just over the last couple of days, the removal of a whole division of troops.  That’s the beginning of what we hope will be this transition to lower-intensity operations.  And that is something that we have been urging them to do.

Q    And — and if I could just ask on that.  Does the administration plan to go to Congress to authorize any of the strikes that it needs to take against the Houthis, or do you feel that these don’t need congressional authorization?

MR. KIRBY:  These — these strikes are being done in keeping with the President’s Article 2 authorities under the Constitution of — as Commander-in-Chief and also being conducted in accordance with U.N. Charter Article 51, self-defense.

Q    On the hostage meeting today that Jake Sullivan is doing, is there a particular reason for it?  Does he have something to announce to them?  Is he just reassuring them that you’re still on it?  Or is — what’s the reason for it?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t — we don’t have an announcement.  I wouldn’t lead you to think there’s going to be some announcement coming.  I think it’s an opportunity to keep the conversation going and to make sure that they know, from our perspective — and I don’t want to get ahead of Jake here — but that they know, from our perspective, how — how hard we’re working to try to get their loved ones back home with them where they belong, and — and, as I said the other day in the briefing, that we are working this very, very hard.  There are serious discussions go- — ongoing about trying to get another hostage deal in place. 

Q    Can we go to yesterday’s meeting after — with congressional leaders?  Afterwards, Speaker Johnson talked about how he was in touch with former President Trump.  Does the White House have any concerns about the influence of the former President on its ability to make a deal with Congress and how that dynamic works?

MS. DALTON:  Right.  Well, look, I think, as you know, as federal officials, we can’t speak to Trump as a candidate under the Hatch Act. 

But what I can say is that, as the President has repeatedly said, there is strong bipartisan agreement on the need for action on the border.  The President has continued to be clear about that since he introduced comprehensive immigration reform on day one, since he has continued to stress his openness to working with congr- — congressional — Senate Democrats and Republicans together to find compromise and common ground on the border in good faith, and as he’s consistently asked Congress for more resources to deal with the border. 

Q    Is —

MS. DALTON:  And so —

Q    Is it possible, though, to act in good faith?  Does —

     MS. DALTON:  Well —

     Q    Does Trump’s presence complicate that in any way?

MS. DALTON:  Look, I think you’ve heard from the President, even this morning on the South Lawn just a few moments ago.  He believes that our work with Senate Democrats and Republicans on the border, while we haven’t reached a final agreement on funding and policy, is moving in the right direction.  He is optimistic that the conversations are productive and positive, and we’re going to keep at it. 

But, look, here’s the bottom — bottom line: We’ve, right now, put forward a national security supplemental request that not — let’s not forget, if — if Congress is really serious — congressional Republicans are serious about the border, they could act tomorrow and pass the President’s request to put a thousand more border agents on the border, to get a thousand more — over a thousand more law enforcement agents down on the border to stop the flow of fentanyl. 

     But what we’re seeing is, instead, this conversation.  Now, the President is willing to have this give-and-take, have this conversation, and work in good faith across the aisle.  But what he would really like to do is see Republicans reach back across the aisle and seize the opportunity at hand to work in good faith to come to an agreement here.

(Cross-talk.)

     Q    Given the urgency that — that you spelled out with especially Ukraine aid, has there been any discussion with Congress on decoupling these issues, maybe breaking up that — that security supplemental to deal with these issues separately?

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, I’m not going to get into the private discussions with Congress. 

But, as you saw yesterday, the President met with key leaders in Congress to discuss the stakes for Ukraine.  He went around the table, gave everybody the opportunity to speak.  It was a robust discussion where everybody had the opportunity to make input.  And you better believe the President was very clear about the stakes for Ukraine in this moment, the urgency of that funding.

As you know, I think, the NSA Jake Sullivan, DNI Director Haines both laid out very clearly and in detailed fashion some specific examples of what the stakes would be in Ukraine if we weren’t able to get Congr- — get — get past this point of Congress obstructing the flow of aid to Ukraine very — very soon. 

And one of the critical things the President underlined was not just about our concerns with respect to Ukraine and the national security stakes there but also with respect to what we’ve seen in the past from, you know, unchecked brutal aggression by dictators.  Learning the lessons of history, we know that they don’t stop when they are left to their own devices and left unchecked. 

And so, certainly, the President conveyed a sense of urgency about the stakes for our — our NATO partners in the region, what — what it would mean for our NATO partners in the region if — if we don’t get Ukraine the aid that they need.  And certainly, we don’t want to see, you know, our own troops put in a position where we might need to put boots on the ground. 

Q    Olivia, the President said that there’s no sticking points in the border talks.  So, why don’t we have a deal?  I mean, what’s the next step there?

MS. DALTON:  Look, I think you heard from the — I’m not going to, you know, go farther than what the President said this morning.  But as I just said a moment ago, the President remains very — you know, these conversations have been productive and they are moving in the right direction.  The President thinks that those conversations with — that the — that our team has been having with Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans has been fruitful so far.  And we’re — we remain, you know, cautiously optimistic that we’ll get there.

Q    Are we on to you now?  Are we done with Kirby?

MR. KIRBY:  It can be, if you want.  (Laughter.)

Q    I just didn’t want to start asking —

     MS. DALTON:  (Inaudible) —

     Q    — domestic questions if (inaudible).

MS. DALTON:  — J.J. 

Q    Okay.  On electric vehicles.  There has been — with the extreme weather, there’s been some difficulty in getting those battery charged.  Do you have any thoughts on that?  As you know, the — the administration has been really pushing for EVs to be the future of car transportation.  Do you have any thoughts on the — the troubles with charging those batteries?

MS. DALTON:  Well, as a car owner, I can promise you that whether you have a gas-powered vehicle, a hybrid-powered vehicle, and a fully electric vehicle, extreme weather temperatures impact the — the functioning of your car.  Right?  So, that is not unique to electric vehicles. 

And certainly, we are contin- — we’re always concerned about making sure that electric vehicles — we continue the progress we’re making to make them affordable and reliable for every American. 

We saw EV sales quadruple last year [since President Biden took office].  We think that’s good progress.  And we want to see that continue. 

Certainly, again, with respect to some of the — the reporting that we’ve seen this week in Chicago and elsewhere, we think these are isolated incidents, but we are looking into them and seeing where we can make an impact.

Q    Could you say something about the Uvalde report?  In particular, you know — you know, what can communities do around the country to prevent this from happening in the future?  And then on the criminal penalty issue, in particular.

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, so, as I came out here, the Attorney General’s press conference was still ongoing.  I know the — the President spoke to this very briefly on the South Lawn just a moment ago to underscore that we are committed to taking action to address some of the recommendations that are in — contained in that DOJ report.  And I expect that very shortly, as soon as that press conference is completed, you will all receive a more detailed statement from the President.

But without getting ahead of that, I think the report today lays out very clearly and in heartbreaking detail some of what these families have been going through for the last two years.  These families — we can only imagine how today’s report adds to the heartbreak that they’ve felt. 

And I would just say that, you know, one thing that has been particularly remarkable about Uvalde and the community here — which, of course, the President and the First Lady were able to visit in person in May of 2022 — is how in the immediate aftermath of that they all traveled to Washington and were a very critical catalyst in the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which is, today, saving lives. 

They turned their pain into purpose in a very real way and are — are saving others’ lives today as a consequence of their courageous advocacy. 

     That’s cold comfort to a parent that’s lost a child.  But part of what you’ll hear from the President in his statement today is a commitment to moving forward and implementing the lessons learned here and also making sure that our White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is equipped to better support communities in the aftermath of these attacks going forward.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t add that his perennial call for Congress to act is really the only, you know, way to stop future Uvaldes from happening.  We need to see congressional action on a national red flag law, on universal background checks, on ending assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and so much more.

Anybody else?  I think we’re landing, so —

Q    Yeah, you need to get back to your seat.

MS. DALTON:  I think we all do.

Q    On congressional talks.  After yesterday, do you think that the talks are now close enough for the Senate to vote next week?

MS. DALTON:  I’m not going to make any forecasts.  But I think — as I’ve said, I think, you know, you’ve heard optimism from the President this morning that there has been productive conversations with Senate Democrats and Republicans both.  And we — without, you know, forecasting or making any predic- — predictions here, you know, we think things are moving in a positive direction.

So, I’ll leave it there.  See you all.

Q    Thanks, Olivia.

12:59 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby En Route Morrisville, NC appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

(January 17, 2024)

2:33 P.M. EST

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

     Q    Good afternoon. 

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, today, the Biden-Harris administ- –(the briefing room sound system experiences technical difficulties) — the levels.  Is there a — should I start?  Sou- — is — do I sound, like, echoey?

     Q    Yes.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, well, sorry.  Here we go.

     Today, the Biden-Harris administration took new actions to tackle hidden junk fess by proposing a rule that would end excessive overdraft fees. 

     For too long, some banks have charged extreme overdraft fees, sometimes $30 or more, that often hit the most vulnerable Americans the hardest. 

Today’s proposal by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would cut the average overdraft fee by more than half, saving them — saving the millions of families that pay these fees an average of $150 a year.  That would add up to save Americans $3.5 billion a year.  Unfortunately, some Republicans in Congress continue to defend the rights of big banks to exploit their customers. 

President Biden believes it’s wrong that some companies rip off Americans simply because they can, and his administration won’t let them.

As we work to lower costs and build the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, we got more evidence today that Americans are feeling the strength of the economy.  Retail sales beat expectation last month, capping a record holiday shopping season.  From TVs to toys, Americans were able to buy gifts for their loved ones that were more affordable and arrived on time thanks to the President’s work to fix and strengthen supply chains. 

And today, a new poll from Axios showed Americans have a surprising degree of satisfaction where — with their economic situation.  The poll showed Americans are optimistic about their finances.  Sixty-three percent say their finances are currently good, and eighty-five percent believe they will get better this year.  That’s not an accident; that’s Bidenomics at work. 

(Referring to the briefing room sound system.)  The volumes are incredibly weird right now.  Did we get that fixed?

Q    I think so.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, I think so.  All right. 

And now, as you all know, today, we’re joined by my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who’s here to discuss the United States’ continued response to the ongoing and escalating attacks by the Houthis in the Red Sea. 

And with that, all — I think it’s all fixed for you now, Admiral.  It’s all fixed. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.  That was kind of weird. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That was very weird.  Sounds like a gremlin was attacking.

MR. KIRBY:  Good afternoon, everybody. 

Look, as you all saw, United States today designated the Houthis as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Group.  We took this action because of their continued reckless and indiscriminate attacks on ships transiting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.  These attacks are a clear example of terrorism, violation of international law, and a major threat to innocent lives and to global commerce. 

Now, just a couple of points.  First, today’s designation targets the Houthis, not the Yemeni people.  The United States remains the world’s leading donor of humanitarian assistance for Yemen.  We recognize that more than 15 million people in Yemen are still in desperate need of food, water, and medicine.  And we are taking a range of steps to ensure that these sanctions preserve the ability of aid organizations to be able to deliver all those much-needed supplies. 

Second, this designation takes effect 30 days from now.  And the reason for that is it’ll give us time to work closely with those aid organizations to make sure that they understand all the ramifications of this designation, answer all their questions, and be able to provide enough context for them to have a measure of assurance as they continue to provide that humanitarian assistance. 

Now, look, if the Houthis cease the attacks, we can certainly reconsider this designation.  If they don’t, as the President said, we will not hesitate to take further actions to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce.

With that —

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

Q    Thanks.  John, can you talk a little bit about why the President decided not to redesignate the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, which obviously would have restricted some of that aid?  Is it purely because of that humanitarian assistance piece?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, you sort of answered the question.  This particular designation gives us — it actually gives us more flexibility, but it also gives aid organizations a higher level of comfort that they’ll be able to provide this assistance without running afoul of sanctions.

You’ve — we’ve already — in designating them, already issued a number of licenses.  The license, as you know, is basically like a waiver.  It’s a carveout — when you have a sanctions regime that — that allows for certain goods to continue to flow despite the sanction regime. 

And so, yes, that’s the big reason here. 

Q    And then, (inaudible) the President could reconsider that designation should the Houthis stop these attacks?  Are you essentially using this as a bargaining chip in negotiations or — in public negotiations with the Houthis?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I mean, that would suggest there’s negotiations going on, and we’re — there’s no negotiations here.  It’s not a bargaining chip; it’s a way of holding the Hou- — the Houthis accountable — additional ways to hold them accountable. 

I think, you know, if you look at the — the levers of national power — you know, there’s an acronym for it: DIME — right? — diplomacy, information, military, economic.  We’re using all of those levers of national power and, frankly, international power to try to convince the Houthis to stop these attacks and, if they don’t — and they clearly haven’t — to make sure that we’re holding them accountable for that.

Q    And just, lastly, on a different topic: the meeting that’s taking place in a few — in a few minutes with congressional leaders.  We understand this is going to be focused mostly on situation in Ukraine.  Is there a version you can provide publicly?  What are they going — what are lawmakers going to hear from the national security staff — 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah —

Q    — that you’ve not already telegraphed publicly about what’s happening on the ground?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, I don’t want to get ahold — ahead of the discussion.  And I suspect that in that discussion there could be some classified content that they’ll discuss.

But in the main, this will be an opportunity for the President and for the national security team to make sure that members of Congress fully understand the desperate, urgent need for weapons and capabilities for Ukraine to continue to flow. 

As you know, the last security assistance package was December 27th.  There hasn’t been one since.  There won’t be one unless or until we can get some funding. 

And it’s not as if the war stopped just because our aid stopped.  The Ukrainians continue to get attacked.  They’re moving into some defensive positions along that line, in the east in particular, and they continue to come under artillery shell, air attacks, ballistic and cruise missile, as well as drone attacks from the Russians. 

And they are expending what they have.  And I won’t get into their inventory lists, but there are some weapons systems for which they are in more need than others right now.  And the — and they have to expend them, given ongoing combat.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  Last week, the President said it was “irrelevant” whether or not the Houthis were designated as a terrorist organization.  Now, five days later, this announcement.  Did he need to be convinced that this was the right step? 

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    And looking back, was it a mistake to take them off of the terrorist list back in 2021 — just, like, consideration over these years?

     MR. KIRBY:  No.  No, again, the previous designation was FTO — Foreign Terrorist Organization — which doesn’t have quite the measure of flexibility in terms of humanitarian assistance.  And so, a big reason why we delisted them — literally, on day one — was to address a dire, dire humanitarian situation on the ground.  And, as I said today, it remains dire in many cases.

     The Houthis are more concerned about getting weapons and capabilities and attacking ships in the Red Sea than they are about helping to look after the Yemeni people.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

     Q    Thank you, Karine.  The President said last week that a private message had been delivered to Iran about the Houthi attacks.  Could you talk a little bit about that message?

     MR. KIRBY:  No, I cannot.

     Q    What can you tell us about what was communicated to the Houthis?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s the same question you just asked.  (Laughter.)  I’m not going to get into that.  The — as the President said, there was a private message delivered to Iran, and I need to leave it at that.

Q    Has that been effective?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m just going to leave it right there.  A message was delivered.  And, of course, publicly, we have made clear our — our concerns about what the Houthis are doing.  We’ve made clear the support that — that we know they’re getting from Iran.  And we’re going to continue to take actions.

I would remind — it doesn’t get mentioned a lot in the context of the Red Sea attacks — but this administration alone has issued some 500 sanctions — or 500 entities have been sanctioned under this administration in just the last three years.

Q    And — and a quick question on —

MR. KIRBY:  Iranian entities.

Q    And a quick question on Iran’s foreign minister, who spoke at Davos earlier today.  He said , “The security of the Red Sea is tied to the developments in Gaza, and everyone will suffer if Israel’s crimes in Gaza do not stop.”  He basically warned that all fronts will remain active until then.  Do you have a response to that?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, let’s — to take it at — just in a couple of pieces there.  If you look at the — it’s 32-some-odd attacks that the Houthis have conducted now — for the ones that were targeted at ships that were identifiable, because sometimes they launch a barrage and there’s multiple ships and you’re not really sure what ship is being targeted.  But let’s just take a look at the majority of the 32 where you can identify the ship that’s being targeted.  Not a single one was destined for Israel, and they were all destined for other ports with others — other bits of commerce.

So, the whole argument that this is about the war in Gaza — I mean, they’re just driving a stake through a straw man.  There’s nothing there.

And as for the, quote, unquote, “resistance continuing,” I — I’ve said it many times; I’m happy to repeat it: We have national security interests in the region — significant interests.  And we have moved additional military resources, at the President’s order, into the region to make sure we can protect those interests.

And we mean what we say.  And if you doubt it, take a look at what happened just a few nights ago.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    In — in his statement on the Houthis’ designation, Jake Sullivan said that there would be an immediate reevaluation of the designation were they to stop the attacks.  Can you just help us understand why that reevaluation would happen immediately?  You know, would that sort of risk the potential of them starting up the attacks again if that designation were to be taken away pretty quickly?

MR. KIRBY:  The — the thing about sanctions designations that — they are a pliable form of economic pressure.  You can scale them up.  You can scale them down.  You can lay them on.  You can take them off in a fairly simple way.  So, Jake is right. 

As I said in my opening statement, if they — if they choose to stop these attacks, then we certainly have the option at our disposal to remove this designation that we just — that we just issued.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    (Inaudible.)  Thank you so much.  I wanted to give you a chance to respond to Speaker Johnson, who said earlier today — about the meeting on Ukraine, he said   , “Before we even talk about Ukraine, I’m going to tell the President what I’m telling you, which is border, border, border.”  Do you think that’s a legitimate position to say that even before you can have conversations about Ukraine, you have to settle the situation with the border?

MR. KIRBY:  Today’s meeting is about Ukraine.  That’s what we’re going to focus on in this discussion.  And, as the Speaker knows quite well, we continue to negotiate in good faith in a bipartisan way with the Senate — with Republicans and Democrats up there on Capitol Hill — about the national security supplemental and — and about — which obviously includes money for border security.

Q    And the Speaker also said that he has been asking the administration for more details about the spending, what has already been spent in Ukraine and also the endgame in Ukraine.  What kind of message can the President deliver to the Speaker?  He says that he hasn’t gotten the answers that he’s looking for in terms of how Ukraine should not become another situation like what we’ve seen in the Middle East?

MR. KIRBY:  He’ll get an opportunity to ask all those questions today at the meeting, and I’m sure our national security team  would be happy to help give him the context that he says — he says he’s not getting. 

I would remind that, since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine in February of ‘22, we have provided multiple classified and unclassified briefings to members of Congress.  And this whole idea of a blank check also is not true.  Every single aid package that we provided Ukraine we have done the  consultations with Congress.  So, there have been and will continue to be a lot of outreach from the administration with members of Congress about Ukraine.

Right now, though, you can’t have those consultations because there’s no aid going to Ukraine because we don’t have the funding.  And that’s what the meeting about — today is really all about, stressing the urgent need for that additional funding.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thank you, Kirby.  So, with regard to national security and Ukraine, has the threat level changed since the President last spoke from the Oval Office, spoke to congressional leaders about the urgency for this funding?

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    I just wonder —

MR. KIRBY:  Not at all.

Q    So, what — what can he say that hasn’t already been said to convince them to all get on board and take action?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, without getting ahead of the President and the conversation that he hasn’t had yet, one of the reasons our National Security Advisor and our Deputy National Security Advisor will be in this meeting is to bring members of Congress up to speed on what we’re seeing right now on the battlefield and what the Ukrainian forces are facing now as winter is full upon them and the war hasn’t stopped and aid hasn’t continued to flow from the United States.

I mean, I think we’re at — we’re in a bit of a different situation now in that regard than we were when the President gave his speech.  Not that the national security implications are not all still valid; they are just as valid, in terms of the threat that Putin face- — poses to the, quote, unquote, “world order” and to European st- — stability and security.

But the situation now is different in terms of the — the stoppage now of assistance going to Ukraine.

Q    And then on the southern border.  Could the President use the Insurrection Act to federalize the Texas National Guard?

MR. KIRBY:  I am not a legal expert on that.  I’ll have to take that question and — and get back to you.  I know of no — just to — just to make clear, I know of  no intention by the President to do that.

     Q    Thank you.

     Q    John, I understand that the last provision of aid to Ukraine was December 27th.  Right now, is Ukraine fighting with 100 percent of its capabilities?  Do they have everything that at this moment they require?

     MR. KIRBY:  Without getting into their operational security and — and — and letting the Russians know what they have in their inventory, Peter, we’ll — what I can tell you is that, as I said earlier, there are certain types of munitions, certain types of weapons that they are expending at greater rates than others. 

     Q    So, you can’t communicate —

     MR. KIRBY:  Given that —

     Q    — that they’ve run out —

     MR. KIRBY:  Given the threat —

     Q    — of anything because you don’t want to give away —

     MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to give —

     Q    — disadvantages?

     MR. KIRBY:  — away their inventory list.  But I’m not going to — I mean, I’m not going to pull any punches here.  They are still going through artillery shells and HIMARS rockets and air defense capabilities at a pretty advanced clip, depending on what they’re facing on the battlefield.  And so, their inventories are running lower, without question.

     Q    Shalanda Young said in — I think it was December 5th — in her letter, she said that we are running out of money and out of time .  Should this be measured by Americans understanding the urgency as an issue of days, weeks, or months?

     MR. KIRBY:  It would depend really on the kind of system we’re talking about, Peter.  I mean, the — there are — there are some — there are some munitions that — that they have ample stores — enough to get them into, you know, the next couple — two, three months.

     There are others where they don’t have that kind of time.  And a lot of that depends on what Russia does and how — what they have to defend against.  One of the key capabilities right now for them is air defense, because the drones and the missiles keep flying from the Russian side, and they’re not stopping.  So, air defense is definitely one of those critical capabilities.

     Q    And then just a quick follow-up on the conversation that started here.  Yesterday, we’ve been asking about the Houthis.  Now, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin fortunately is now recovering; he’s no longer in the hospital. 

     He and the President last spoke one-on-one December  6th.  The last it was publicly read out, they shared a conversation that took place on December 9th.  There have been at least three separate strikes — the 11th, the 12th, and the 16th — against the Houthis in that time, a time during which the two haven’t spoken.

     So, our understanding is they haven’t shared a call — at least dating back to the 9th — for more than a week.  Is that normal that he wouldn’t speak to the Defense Secretary —

     MR. KIRBY:  I think they  —

     Q    — with three separate operations in the course of that time?

     MR. KIRBY:  My dates are messed up, but the — the — I know the last time they spoke was Friday — last Friday. 

     Q    Was last Friday?

     MR. KIRBY:  Just this past Friday —

     Q    So just a few —

     MR. KIRBY:  — whatever that date is.

     Q    Whatever days ago that was. 

     MR. KIRBY:  Yes.

     Q    Okay. So more recent than we had —

     MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

     Q    — publicly heard.  Fine.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead. 

     Q    Thanks, Admiral Kirby.  On Turkey.  The outgoing Turkish ambassador told VOA that he expects to see some positive developments in a month or so with regard to the sale of F-16s to Turkey.  So, can you give us an update on this?  And once Turkey completes the ratification process for Sweden’s NATO membership, can we assume that the road for the F-16s will be cleared?

     MR. KIRBY:  The President has been pretty consistent: We continue to support the additional sale of F-16s and the modernization of the current F-16 fleet for — for Turkey.  That’s a — that’s a consistent policy position that would — that we’ve had since coming into office.  That hasn’t changed.

     I don’t have an update for you on dates and the calendar items in terms of what that looks like.  But — but our policy with respect to F-16s for Turkey has not changed.

     Q    And, if I may, on Ukraine.  So, there is — there is still $4 billion in the PDA and — for Ukraine.  And I was wondering if, given the fact that the negotiations on the border are not moving, is it possible to use that authority now and replenish American stocks later when the Congress approves the supplemental budget?

     MR. KIRBY:  First of all, I — I would disagree with the notion that talks are not moving.  As I just said, the — we believe those conversations with the Senate, in a bipartisan way, are making some progress.

     And on your — the — the real central idea of your question is — is this punishment authority?  And, yes, there’s additional funds authorized under PDA, but there’s no replenishment authority funds to go with them, to back them up.  And that’s why we — we don’t have any additional ability to provide security assistance for Ukraine, because there’s no replenishment authority built in.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A couple more.  Go ahead, Aurelia.

     Q    Thank you so much.  On Ukraine, I had a follow-up to Peter’s question.  Are you saying that the stoppage of U.S. aid already has an impact on the battlefield, in the sense that Ukrainians are refraining from certain moves or are on the — doing stuff that they would do if they were, you know, assured of — of continuing assistance? 

     And maybe another one, more specific.  While he’s trying to secure additional funding, does the President wish that European countries would do more themselves to support Ukraine?  And more specifically, has he asked Germany to supply long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine?

     MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let Germany speak for what they will or won’t provide Ukraine.  We are grateful for the support that more than 50 nations continue to provide Ukraine.  And each nation gets to decide for itself what that looks like, as appropriate.  I mean, these are sovereign decisions.  And there has been tremendous international support for Ukraine.

     But, look, they’re going to look at us, too.  They’re going to see how the United States reacts here.  And I think we can expect that some nations may take cues from the United States.  If we just pack it in and can’t get the funding and decide, “That’s it, we’re not going to provide anything more for Ukraine,” you can certainly see where there might be other nations who might feel like they want to follow suit here without our leadership.  American leadership matters here.

     On your first question, I certainly won’t speak for Ukrainian military commanders and what they are deciding to expend on the battlefield or not.  But you can ex- — I would — I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if they aren’t making battlefield decisions right now that are affected — those decisions are affected — or I should say informed by the uncertainty as they look to the West, as they look to the United States for additional support.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

     Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  John, the air campaign by the U.S. has not had a noticeable impact in terms of defer- –deterrence with the Houthi rebels.  What makes you think that this terror designation will change that in any way?

     MR. KIRBY:  It’s part of a — as I said, a suite of — of — of tools at our disposal to hold them accountable.

     Q    Will —

     MR. KIRBY:  And — and I just want to remind: The attacks last week — the large attacks that we conducted were designed to disrupt and degrade Houthi offensive capabilities.  And we believe we did that.

     That doesn’t mean that we eliminated every single missile they own or every drone they can fly or every radar system that they operate.  But we believe it had good effect on degrading their capabilities to conduct attacks.

     And as I said at the end of my opening statement, we will take further action if we feel like we need to.  They have a choice to make.  They continue to have a choice to make.  The right choice is to stop these attacks.  If they don’t, we’ll continue to — to act appropriately.

     Q    Do you happen to know if the EU is going to take similar action to designate the Houthi rebels a terrorist organization in the way the U.S. has?

     MR. KIRBY:  I do not.

     Q    No coordination with them on this front?

     MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any prior coordination with the EU specifically on this, and you’ll have to talk to EU officials about whether they’re willing to take a similar approach.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Going to wrap it up. 

Go ahead.

     Q    Yeah.  When was the last time President Biden spoke on the phone with Netanyahu?

     MR. KIRBY:  There has not been another call since the last one we read out.  I don’t have the exact date in front of me.  It’s been more than 20 days, I think.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead.  Last question.

     Q    Thanks, John.  Over the weekend, the NSC issued a statement in response to a HuffPost report on the administration’s post-war plans in Gaza stating that the quotes attributed to U.S. officials in the story were, quote, unquote, “made up.”  HuffPost has been seeking an apology and a retraction at the insinuation that their reporter made up or fabricated quotes in the story.  Can you tell us on what basis did the NSC issue that statement?  Why is the NSC suggesting that a reporter made up quotes?

     MR. KIRBY:  The — the issue, as I understand it, Sabrina, was related to a document that was purported to exist that was — in this article, and the — the quotes from the purported document that were not accurate.  And that was the issue.  The issue was that the — whoever was reading out this document was reading things that — that there’s not a record of a document that — that says those things.

     Q    Because the NSC said, “We stand by our original statement,” which seemed to just generally imply that the quotes attributed to U.S. officials broadly in the story were made up.  Obviously, as I said, HuffPost is seeking an apology and a retraction.  Do you have any reaction? 

     MR. KIRBY:  This wasn’t an attempt to — to question the journalism or to cast aspersions on journalistic ethics.  This was a reaction to quotes attributed to a document that — for which we don’t — we don’t have — we don’t have a document that says those things.  And that’s — and that’s why the — that’s why the response was — was drafted and written the way that it was. 

I — I have read it — I can see where some people might see that reaction and — and think we were trying to, again, cast aspersions on journalistic ethics and procedure, and that was not the intent. 

Okay?  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral.  Appreciate that.

Q    Admiral, any update on the missing SEALs?

Q    Thanks, John.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Zeke, you want to reset us?

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the meeting this afternoon.  Can you talk about what the President hopes to accom- — hopes to accomplish?  Is he — is he trying to get a deal here, walking out of this meeting today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as the Admiral said, the focus on the meeting today is going to be on Ukraine and making sure that Congress — the congressional members who attend understand that we need to continue the support for Ukraine.

It’s — he’s going to particularly underscore that if we abandon Ukraine, there will be — there will be consequences — right? — to Ukraine, to the people of Ukraine, to the people who have been fighting for their democracy for so long.  And let’s not forget, they’re fighting against — they’re fighting against the aggression from Putin. 

So, we have to be really clear here.  A failure to — a failure to act will — certainly means that it will — it will, you know, not be helpful to our national security.  So — and history has taught us — history has taught us that if we do not, you know, get involved and — and we’re not — and stop a dictator, we see what could happen.  It could — it could actually put our national security at risk.

So, that’s going to be the focus today.  It’s going to be on Ukraine and really laying out why it’s important to continue that support that we’ve been providing them.

Q    But if it’s going to, you know — the negotiations right now on immigration are taking place in the Senate.  Does the — you know, the President has the Speaker here.  Will he discuss immigration with the Speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’ll say this.  The President obviously wel- — is welcoming congressional members here.  He’s open to hearing whatever conversations that they want to have, right?  And so, it is important, you know, to have these conversations, obviously, in a bipartisan way.

So, that may come up.  I certainly don’t want to get ahead of those conversation.  But the purpose — the purpose of this meeting is about Ukraine.  That is the purpose of this meeting, and that’s what the President wants to really lay out and — the urgency to continue to support Ukraine and why that’s needed now and how that affects our own national security. 

So, that is the purpose.  But, of course, members of Congress are going to come, and they’re going to have things that they want to talk to with the President.  We certainly welcome that.

Q    But why hasn’t the President engaged in negotiations with the House?  The White House (inaudible) on — on border security, on — on immigration — this negotiation today was in the Senate, but obviously, you know, the House has a say here, and they are not happy with what’s happening on the Senate side of things.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the House went home in mid-December — right? — while — while the negotiations were occurring and happening in the Senate in a bipartisan way.  Obviously, Republicans and Democrats and here at the White House, we were having those conversations, trying to find a bipartisan agreement.

We were — we were having those conversations, even through — even through the holiday weekend — I mean, sorry, the holiday break.  And they decided to go home.  Literally, they decided to go home. 

And so, those conversations are going to continue.  This meeting does not stop those conversations from continuing.  We think it’s headed in the right direction.  So, that’s important as we’re talking about the border security and what we can do to make sure that we’re dealing with that issue.

And so, we appreciate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate operating with us in good faith.  And we think it’s headed in the right direction.

Q    And, finally, do you think that, like — that criticizing the House for going home improves your odds of getting whatever deals, should there be a deal with Senate, through the House?  I mean —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean — well, part —

Q    — I’m just curious what strategy is here.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s the thing — and I appreciate the question, and I get the question, but Republicans in the House have been incredibly — they’ve gotten in the way.  They have gotten in the way when it comes to border security.  They have gotten in the way and voted — and actually voted on pieces of legislation to take away some of the law enforcement, the CBP — right? — at the border.   That’s what they voted on in — back in May.

So, we want to work with them.  But they’ve been very clear where they stand.  So, look, we’re going to have — the President is — is looking forward to having a conversation with members of Congress, obviously, here with his own national security team, with other members of his team here.  They’re going to talk at 3:15. 

And he wants to really lay out the importance of Ukraine.  He is — he’s willing — always willing to hear out members of Congress on what they want to discuss. 

But we’ve been very clear, the Senate has been — Republicans in the Senate have wanted to work with us.  They’re talking through us with — negotiating, trying to find a bipartisan agreement, and that’s the way to move forward.

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  To follow up on Tolu’s question to Kirby —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Speaker Johnson has made clear that they’re not even going to talk about Ukraine until the border is addressed.  And he’s made clear that it’s H.R.2 or bust.  So, how is the President going to navigate that in today’s meeting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s not the only congress- — congressperson in the room today.  He’s not.  He’s not the only person that’s going to be in the room.  There will be other congressional members.  The President has been really clear: He wants to talk about Ukraine, the urgency of making sure we continue that assistance to Ukraine; what that means not just for the broader world national security but also for us.

And so, Speaker Johnson is not going to be the only person in the room.  And so, look — but obviously, the President is going to bring people together.  He wants to hear from — from folks.  And so, he’s willing to hear what — what these congressional members want to talk about.  But the purpose of this meeting is to talk about Ukraine.

Q    But what can you get done without Speaker Johnson and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not saying we can’t —

Q    — Republican support?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m not saying that.  I’m saying he’s not — you’re saying if — if he wants to talk about — about something else, like border security, how can he — how can the President manage the conversation.  There will be other people in — in the room. 

And I think folks understand that U- — that there is a national security importance of having this meeting.  That’s why the President is bringing folks together.  And not only that — let’s not forget, they’re going to hear, also, from the national security — his national security team as well.

     Q    Some people who won’t be in the room are members of the press.  And in the past, meetings with congressional leaders have been open.  Is there a reason why today’s is closed?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we had a similar meeting back in October, as you know.  And so, that was an important meeting about national security, the supplemental as well.  And so, that occurred.
    
     Look, not all meetings are — are public or have a — a press component.  The President, as you know, has a long track record in Washington, D.C., of — of, you know, bringing folks together, getting a bipartisan deal.  And so, we want to — he wants to make sure we get straight to work.  He wants to make sure that we have this really important conversation.  He wants to get straight to it.

     We expect some members of these — members of — of Congress to go to the sticks after — after their meeting.  So, you certainly will hear directly from them.  And we will have a readout, as well, of the meeting.

     So, there will be an opportunity to ask questions of the members.  They’ll be at the sticks.  And then you’ll hear directly from us as well.

     Q    Thank you, Karine.

     Q    To follow up somewhat on Weijia.  Also, House Speaker Johnson said today — I mean, he seemed to throw cold water on the Senate border negotiations when he said, “I don’t think now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform because we know how complicated that is.  You can’t do that quickly.”

     How will the President receive that message today if Johnson says this is too complicated to do right now?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Making sure that we take care of our border is not too complicated.  It’s not.  It’s not.  If people come together in good faith, as they’ve been doing in the Senate, we can get this done.  We can get this done. 

     And let’s not forget, the President actually put forth a comprehensive immigration proposal almost three years ago.  Very — almost three years ago.  We had three years — three years to work on something.  If that was what the — Speaker Johnson is concerned about, we had three years to work on it.

     And so, look — and if he — and if he was really — really concerned about it, then when these negotiations started before — before the holiday break, they would have stayed.  They would have stayed and — and actually, you know, tried to be part of the solution.

     Look, we want to have a bipartisan agreement.  That’s what we want.  We want a bipartisan agreement because the President understands that’s how we’re going to fix the problem.  That is it.

     And — and so, look, it’s continuing.  We’re going to see what happens in — with the Senate negotiations.  We’re going to see what — where they land.  Certainly not going to get ahead of that from here.
    
     But it is important.  It is important to get this done.  And the President is not going to stop from — from negotiating with the senators.

     Q    And just a quick one.  Beyond the congressional leaders, who exactly is going to be in this meeting?  How did the White House come up with this list?  Why this group?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I can say, as you all know and been mentioning, Speaker Johnson will be there, Leader Schumer, McConnell, and Jeffries, and the chairs and ranking members of the House and the Senate Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Appropriations, and Intelligence.  So, that’s incredibly important as we’re talking about Ukraine, obviously, and that — that part of our national security supplemental. 

     And also from the White House, so you all know, the Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients, will be there; National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan; Counselor Steve Ricchetti; Legislative Affairs Director Shuwanza Goff; Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines; OMB Director Shalanda Young; and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer.

     Again, this is going to be about Ukraine.  Some of this will be classified — will have classified content.  And so, that is why it’s important for all of those folks to be in the room as we’re having these conversations.

     Q    Thank you.  I understand you’re saying the meeting is about Ukraine.  If and when bo- — the issue of border security comes up, which we know it will and is — is expected to, what specific concessions is the President willing to make on the issue of border security?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to negotiate from here.  I’m not.  There’s been negotiations happening as it relates to the border security in the Senate for some months now between Republicans and Democrats.  We’re going to let that process continue.  We’re going to let that — that — that doesn’t stop.  Those negotiations, those conversations is not going to stop because the President is meeting with congressional members today.

     Again, our focus today, the President’s focus today is going to be about Ukraine and the importance of continuing to support Ukraine as they fight against tyranny, as they fight against President Putin’s aggression.  That’s going to be the focus.

     And I said the President is — you know, he brings people together.  Obviously, is — is willing to — to listen to what folks have to say.  But that is the purpose — is Ukraine.  And those negotiations on the Hill, on the Senate side, is going to continue.

     Q    And a quick one on the Vice President’s abortion tour that is expected to start on Monday.  She’s headed to Wisconsin.  She’s kickstarting the — the tour in Wisconsin.  Can you share more details on that trip?  And where else is she planning to go?  What is the White House planning to achieve with this?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, more broadly, on Monday is the 51st anniversary of the landmark decision Roe v. Wade.  So, both — both the President and the Vice Pre- — President is going to be marking that landmark decision, that anniversary.

     It’s an important anniversary, as the administration works to defend reproductive rights for women across the country, while Republican elected officials pu- — push extreme abortion bans that deny women the care that they need, force families to travel out of state for healthcare, and threaten healthcare providers with prosecution for providing the care that they are trained to provide. 

     So, obviously, it’s an important day.  We’re going to — we’re going to mark that 51st anniversary.  And you’ll hear more from the Vice President’s office as to what her kickoff tour is going to look like.  So, I’d certainly refer you to her office.  And then we will have more on what the President — how the President is going to mark that day.

     Q    Is — is the President planning to join her at any point during this tour?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I don’t have any — I don’t have anything to — to lay out on any — of the President joining the Vice President on this particular tour.  But what I can say is both the Vice President and the President are going to be marking this day on Monday.  We will have more to share on what that will look like.

     Go ahead, M.J.

     Q    Karine, does the White House believe that Democrats have already made significant concessions on the border?  And does it believe that Democrats, you know, have more room for additional concessions?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be really careful.  There are negotiations happening.  If I speak t- — from — from here about it, I don’t want to get in the way of what they’re trying to make happen, which is come up with a bipartisan agreement to deal with border security.

     Look, what the President understands — and he’s been around for some time, right?  He’s been in Washington for some time.  He’s been a senator, as you all know.  He’s been Vice President, as you all know.  And he understands that it takes both sides to come together to deal with — to deal with an issue. 

     And when you deal with a bipartisan situation, you put a — put forth an agreement, you know, there are going to be concessions that are going to be made.  I don’t want to speak to them from here.  I’m going to let the negotiators have those conversations.  They will decide what works, what kind of deal that they can put forth.

     But obviously, a bipartisan agreement — that means both sides have to give up a little something.  That’s how bipartisan agreements work, obviously.

     Q    And on a separate matter.  Yesterday, in response to Governor Hutchinson suspending his presidential campaign, a DNC spokesperson said in a statement, “This news comes as a shock to those of us who could have sworn he had already dropped out.”

     Seems rather gratuitous, you know, not to mention not serious.  I just wonder if the tone of that statement reflects how President Biden views the governor and views his now-suspended campaign?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I appreciate the question.  This is something that we definitely want to address. 

President Biden has deep respect for Governor Hutchinson and admires the race that he ran.  The President knows him to be a man of principle who cares about our country and has a strong record of public service. 

This morning, the Chief of Staff here, Jeff Zients, called the governor to convey this and apologized for the statement that did not — that did not represent the President’s views.

So, again, as — as I just stated, Jeff Zients called the governor to apologize on behalf of the President and it did not — it did not reflect his views.

Q    So, there was an apology that was conveyed to the governor.  Was any action taken?  Or was anything communicated to the decision by the DNC to put this statement out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I can’t speak to — I can’t speak to how the communication — communication with the DNC.  Obviously, it is a — it is a — the Democratic political arm, so I can’t — I don’t want to speak to that.  You would have to reach out to the DNC directly. 

But what I can say is how the President felt.  It did not represent his views.  We apologized to the governor.  He has — he respects the governor’s public service.  And we just wanted to make that very clear.

Go ahead, sir.

Q    Yeah, another question on the border.  Why hasn’t the Vice President’s Root Causes Strategy made a bigger difference in lowering the number of people who have been apprehended at the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, the Pres- — the Vice President’s — what she’s been able to do is meet with leaders in the region and talk about how do we — to your point, the root causes — how do we deal with what’s happening in — in those said countries and — and offer up any — any support that we could — could offer up.

But, look, it’s not just the Vice President here or this President or this administration.  When it comes to immigration, it has been a problem that has existed for decades — for decades.  This sa- — this system has been broken way before this administration stepped in. 

So, the President took this very seriously.  The first day of his administration, he put forth a po- — he put forth policy ideas, a legislation in a comprehensive way to deal with this issue. 

And so, now, I think what’s really important — and we can’t miss this — right? — now there is an actual conversation, negotiations happening in the Senate, in Congress in a bipartisan way to figure out how to deal with border security.  And I think that is the most important thing here.  And we’re — we feel like it’s going in the di- — right direction. 

Q    Is that — is that particular strategy, though — did it — was it too narrow?  Did it fail to anticipate the poss- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What strategy?

Q    The — the Root Causes Strategy.  Targeting those —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all.  Not at all.

Q    — three countries —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but the —

Q    — when we know now that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, but hold —

Q    — the migration is coming —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on.  There’s — there’s root causes.  There’s dealing with a broken system, which is why we put forth a — a immigration — immigration proposal that deals with policy and funding. 

And so, now we’re having those conversation in Congress, and I think that’s really important.  And that’s what we’re hoping — we’re hoping that we can get to — to a place where we come into a bipartisan agreement.  And that’s going to be the focus.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Another question on the border.  Can you, sort of, talk about how the President views humanitarian parole for asylum seekers?  Does he believe that asylum seekers should be able to stay in this country until their cases are heard?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I want to be — and I get the question.  I just want to be super careful here, because I don’t want to get into what’s being discussed in Congress.  So, I’m going to, you know, not say anything beyond what I have said — is, like, there’s negotiations happening.  There’s going to be different policy components that are going to come up, obviously.  They’re going to come up with a — an agreement here that both Republicans and Democrats agree on on the Senate side.  And then we hope that we can really deal with this issue.  I just want to be super, super mindful and not get into specifics on policies.

Q    But even on the basic principle of someone seeking asylum, does the President believe they should be able to if they have legitimate concerns?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, obviously.  We’ve been very clear about that.  But I just want to be super careful.  I don’t want to go into a rabbit hole about each policy and what the President supports or believes in because there is a there con- — there — there are negotiations happening.

Q    Yeah.  And my last question.  Just — Speaker Johnson says that he wants the border to be completed as one of his stipulations in this deal — or the border wall — I’m sorry — the border wall to be completed as one of his stipulations.  What’s the White House’s response to that (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re having a — a bipartisan conversation in the Senate about how we deal with border security.  Going to leave it there and let the Republicans and Democrats who are actually coming to the table in good faith and have been doing that for months, which we appreciate — and we think it’s headed in the right direction — we’re going to let them have that conversation.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Why are you repeating this false claim that Republicans voted to reduce the number of Border Patrol agents, even though the Washington Post gave the administration three “Pinocchios” for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we don’t believe it’s a false claim.  Our statements were very direct here. 

Last year, House GOP voted — voted — and not only did they vote for it, but they touted — they touted their Limit, Save, Grow Act.  That’s the act.

Q    But there’s no appropriations in that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, let me —

Q    And they vowed —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They — they limit —

Q    — that it would never affect Border Patrol.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They — they — they voted for and touted it.  Right?  This is an act.  And this would have forced the elimination of 2,000 Border Patrol agents.  That’s what this act that they touted, that they voted for in the House.  So, that was their proposal. 

Q    It wasn’t their proposal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And — and that was what they —

Q    They clearly —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — voted for back in — in May.

Q    They — they clearly stated at that time that Border Patrol — also veterans’ benefits and entitlements — would never be impacted by any of the reductions.  The — and also, the bill never had any appropriations in it. 

So, this claim that you guys are rolling out — you know, it’s the White House applying White House math to a bill that never had any appropriations.  And moreover, the administra- — or the members in Congress who, you know, put this together vowed that it wouldn’t affect these things.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  If you —

Q    So, the reason I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — I ask is because it’s just — you know, to voters, don’t you think they know the difference between, you know, what is a truthful statement and what is spin?  And is it insulting to them at all to keep saying it when it was — it’s just not true?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  One thing that the President does not do is insult vot- — insult voters or American people, to be more exact, because I want to be careful about — about this — what I can say about this upcoming election.

What I will say is, if you look at the bill — this act that they touted, that they voted for — House Republicans — back in May, they were — it was very clear that it would have forced — it would have forced the emil- — elim- —  elimination of 2,000 Border Patrol agents.  That’s what that act would have done. 

We were very direct about that.  We were very clear about that.  This is what they touted.  This is what they put out there.  This is what House Republicans voted for.  I mean, that’s where they are. 

They have gotten in the way.  Every time we are trying to deal with the border, House Republicans have gotten in the way. 

So, we appreciate the bipartisan conversation that we’re having with Republicans — let’s not forget — with Republicans in the Senate — that’s why it’s bipartisan — and Democrats on dealing with the border — the border. 

House Republicans get in the way.  They wanted to literally eliminate 2,000 Border Patrol agents in this particular act that they touted, that they voted for back in May.

Q    So, notwithstanding all of the factchecks on that, if you’re saying that, you know, the White House, the President doesn’t want to, you know, insult the American people, will the administration, then, amend its separate statement that implied that Texas officials were responsible for the deaths of three migrants, when, in fact, they had nothing to do with it?  They had already been dead for an hour by the time Mexico told anyone in the U.S. about it.  And the administration admitted as much in their court filing.  They — they acknowledged that in their court filing. 

But the statement from the White House implies that Texas was responsible.  And a number of outlets were forced to issue corrections and editor’s notes because of that White House statement.  So, will the White House amend that statement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s be sensitive here.  Three people died.  Three migrants died: two children and a woman.  That was devastating — devastating situation, heartbreaking situation.  So, let’s be really mindful of what we’re talking about here.

Q    Of course.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I want to take a step back and — and just, as you’re talking about our statement — look, as I — as I mentioned, a woman and two children died.  They drowned near Eagle Pass — which is, as I said, devastating — and that Texas officials blocked Border Patrol from access- — accessing the area.  That’s what was happening at that time.

Our statement is consistent with DOJ’s filing.  As the DOJ filing said, there was an ongoing emergency situation that Border Patrol was blocked from accessing.  There were other migrants in the — in the water as well.

Q    That was separate, though.  The ongoing emergency situation —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But I’m just saying there was —

Q    — was separate.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — there was an ongoing —

Q    And the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But —

Q    The White House statement implied — it says — the White House statement says that Texas officials blocked U.S. Border Patrol from attempting to provide emergency assistance.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  To — there were other — there were other migrants in the water as well.

Q    Then why wasn’t that included in the statement —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There were other migrants in the water. 

Q    — that that — that that’s what you were referring to?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Our — our statement is the — is ver- –very much consistent with DOJ filing.  Anything else specific you want to know about that, I would certainly refer you to DOJ.

AIDE:  Time for a couple more.

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

Q    Three college students — Palestinian college students — were shot in Vermont in November.  I know you’re aware of that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Nearly two months have passed since that time.  They’re speaking out publicly now for the first time.  Has President Biden or this White House spoken to those individuals or their families in the period since?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  First of all, obviously, we — we offered up our — you know, our — our sympathies and, obviously, were devastated to hear about this.  And it’s — glad to hear that they have — they are recovering.

We don’t have any — any readouts to give you on any conversation that we’ve had with these three students.

Q    I guess the question would be: The President, obviously, and other members of the White House have spoken with regularity with those who have been held hostage in Gaza.  Recognizing the circumstances are very different, nonetheless, the White House does reach out to individuals of all sorts of communities, certainly marginalized communities, in circumstances not too dissimilar from this.  So, why wouldn’t the White House reach out to these individuals?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s — it’s a very good question.  I just don’t have — it could have happened.  I just don’t have a readout to share with you at this time.

Q    Even without a readout, can you just confirm to the press corps at some point if it did happen so we can be accurate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.

Q    And if it didn’t, just let us know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.  Happy to let you know.  But I — it’s hard for me to say — to confirm or not —

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — if they — if they read it out —

Q    We’ll wait for your confirmation either way.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.  Thanks, Peter.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate that. 

Okay.  I think I have one more that I can go to.

Q    Afghanistan, please.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Owen.  I haven’t called on you in a while.  Way in the back.

Q    Karine, good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon.

Q    Is the — by any chance, is the White House following the trial in Hong Kong of pro-democracy advocate Jimmy Lai?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the U.S. strongly condemns the prosecution of pro-democracy advocate and media owner Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong under the PRC-imposed National Security Law.  The U.S. renews our call for the immediate and unconditional release of Jimmy Lai, who has been in prison under Hong Kong’s National Security Law. 

The United States will continue to closely monitor developments with this and other prosecutions under the National Security Law. 

Q    If he’s convicted — many call this a sham trial and, you know, that his conviction will — is virtually guaranteed from the outset.  And he’s still got weeks to go in this trial.  But if he’s — if he’s convicted — I know you’re — I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but what will the President do in that likelihood? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t want to get into hypotheticals from here.  We just condemned — I just very forcefully, strongly condemned the prosecution of — of Jimmy Lai.  And so, we’re going to continue to do that.  And obviously, we’re going to monitor the situation closely.

I just don’t want to get it — ahead and getting into hypotheticals or — or how this is going to turn out.  But obviously, we strongly condemn.

Go ahead, Ed. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I want to ask you about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is the last one.

Q    — ships being redirected around the Red Sea.  Freightos tracked shipping costs and found that the ships going to Europe — the weekly cost for containers going to Europe are up 386 percent from a yea- — last October; costs going to North America are up 99 percent.  So, when does the White House feel like this could start putting pressure on prices and pass on to the consumer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, obviously, our national security team here and our economic teams are — are closely monitoring the — the evolving situation in the Red Sea.  It’s something that we’re keeping a close — close eye on.

But what we’ve seen so far is that the impact of the ongoing conflict has had limited impact on the U.S. supply chains and energy prices.  Diversions of vessels from the Suez Canal and to the Cape — Cape of — Cape of Good Hope has not had major impact on availability of products in the U.S. or capacity at the West Coast ports. 

Again, our teams are going to closely monitor this.  This is our national security team and also economic team.  We’re going to monitor this, but we haven’t seen an impact at this time.

Q    And one last one.  Last Friday, the President was at a coffee shop in Pennsylvania, and he seemed to be surprised that the smoothie was $6 and how expensive it was.  I’m curious, is — so, is the President now realizing the costs that Americans are bearing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, when he went over to you all to — to — to the — to the press corps, he was having a good time, right?  Offered up to — as you know, offered up to — to buy them coffee.  There was a big group there, and he made sure everyone got coffee and pastries.  So, I just want to make that really clear.

Q    But his comment was $6, and “I’ll — I’ll do it anyway.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I hear you, and that — let’s not forget what the trip was about.  The trip was about small businesses, right?  There have been 6 — 16 million small businesses that have tried — that have started and filled out for applications.  That’s a big deal.  That is really important.

What that means is that they have the confidence — small businesses, folks who are starting them, have the confidence in the economy to start a business.  And that is — I think that’s also really important too. And the President was able to do this or — we’ve seen Americans able to start — file for applications to start small businesses because of the American Rescue Plan.  By the way, no Republican voted for that.  And so, it’s gotten the — it’s gotten the economy back on its feet and also given the confidence for small-business owners to start — right? — for people to start a small business.  Sixteen million applications that we have seen.

     And so, I think that’s important.  And look, you know, Republicans don’t want to do that, right?  They don’t — they’re — they’re not interested in that at all.  They’re not interested in fighting Big Pharma.  They’re not interested in making sure that we’re lowering — lowering healthcare costs for the Americans. 

     They’re not interested in that.  That’s why they didn’t vote for the Inflation Reduction Act.  That’s why they didn’t vote for the American Rescue Plan.  And so, that was the — that was the — the point and the important part of the President going there to — to Allentown.  And I think it was a good trip.  And you all saw that.

     Q    But he still seemed surprised that the cost was so expensive.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was joking around.  He was certainly joking around with the press corps.  He — you — you know that.  He offered to buy coffee — that’s what he did — and pastries. 

     But I think the most important thing about that trip is that he was able to visit a small business.  He was able to talk about how this administration, because of Bidenomics, because of the economic policies that we put forward — that we are seeing now a historic number of small-business applications.  And I think that’s important.  They have the confidence now — they have the confidence now to start their small business.

     Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you out on the road in North Carolina tomorrow.  Thanks, everybody.

     Q    Thanks, Karine.

###

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator For Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

1:42 P.M. EST

OPERATOR: Please note at this time all audience members are in “listen only” mode to minimize background noise. There will be Q&A during this call. If you would like to ask a question, please press “#2” on your telephone keypad to be placed in the question queue.

I would now like to formally begin today’s call and introduce Karine Johnson [Jean-Pierre], the White House Press Secretary. Please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: My name is Karine Jean-Pierre, but thank you so much for the intro.

I just want to say one thing at the top really quickly is just to thank the team here for putting this — my team here for putting this together. As you all know, it gets — technology can be a little glitchy, so I appreciate the team for turning this around.

And with that, I just also want to say please be patient with us. We are going to try to make this — the White House press briefing as — as smooth as possible. So, really appreciate all of your patience.

I have a couple of updates on the President’s week ahead. So, tomorrow, the President — President Biden will host congressional leaders from the Senate and the House, along with key committee leaders and ranking members at the White House to discuss the critical importance of his national security supplemental request. So, we’ll — we will certainly have more to say about that meeting tomorrow. So, please stay tuned.

And this Thursday, the President will travel to Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina, known as the “Research Triangle,” to discuss how his Bidenomics and Investing in America agenda are repairing and rebuilding infrastructure, lowering costs for families, supporting a small-business boom, and creating good-paying jobs.

Under the Biden administration, companies have announced $31 billion in private-sector clean energy and manufacturing investments in North Carolina alone.

And in North Carolina, President Biden’s Investing in America agenda has so far helped more than 4,300 childcare programs continue operating during the pandemic to provide critical childcare for over 380,000 children, helped more than 2,500 restaurants weather the pandemic and keep employees on the payroll, helped 880,000 households across the state save money on Internet bills, and provided 2.1 million Medicare beneficiaries with access to prescription drug cost savings.

On Thursday, the President will talk about how we continue to build on this and delivering for families, workers, and businesses across North Carolina.

And with that, I will turn it over to my NSC colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who will discuss the latest in the Middle East.

Admiral, the floor is yours.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine. Lots to go over here since the last time we all talked.

I just wanted — a couple of things — first, on the schedule — to talk to you: The President spoke today with Chancellor Scholz of Germany as part of our close coordination, of course, with Germany on a range of important issues. And that includes, of course, supporting Ukraine and the importance of that support ongoing.

Now, you may know that Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor, is in Davos today. He delivered a public address, and he’s had the chance to meet with some foreign leaders.

Both he and Secretary Blinken met together with President Zelenskyy again to keep talking about the importance of continued global assistance for Ukraine.

But individually, Jake had a chance to meet with the Prime Minister of Qatar about our urgent efforts to release the remaining hostages that Hamas is holding, as well as meeting separately with the Prime Minister of Iraq and the Prime Minister of Iraq’s Kurdistan region. We’ll, of course, have more readouts available on those meetings shortly.

On the Middle East specifically, as you know, we’re now over 100 days since those terrorist attacks on the 7th of October. And over the weekend, the President wrote — spoke to this, including a heartfelt statement on the grief and suffering that the families of those hostages have now felt every single day since the 7th of October.

And we have not stopped our efforts to try to bring them home. In fact, Brett McGurk was in Doha this [last] week, focused specifically on the hostage situation and on trying to move forward new proposals to bring them home. This will remain a top priority for us.

Meanwhile, this weekend, Hamas released videos of three hostages, including one young woman who was supposed to be released in the original deal, but, at the last minute, Hamas refused to do so, saying that it would hold young women hostage in direct violation of the deal that they had negotiated. And then, they later released a video showing the remains of two other hostages as a reminder of their cruelty and barbarism.

Now, on the military front, I would just like to point — point you, if you haven’t seen it, to important statements from Israeli’s Defense Minister yesterday that Israel will now shift to a low — or, I’m sorry, has now shifted to a low-intensity phase in North Gaza, and it will soon do so in southern Gaza as well.

They announced the withdrawal of a division — an army division from Gaza as part of the shift to lower-intensity ops. And as they undergo this transition, we are preparing to increase the humanitarian assistance in to those people who need it, as well as to help set the conditions for the population to return to North Gaza, where the U.N. hopes to be able to conduct assessment missions over the coming week.

So, we’re making these preparations because we believe that these lower-intensity operations inside Gaza should be able to not only allow for a reduction in civilian casualties but a more reliable distribution of aid over the coming period.

As a matter of fact, our envoy, David Satterfield, and our ambassador, Jack Lew, are meeting today with Israeli senior leadership and senior military commanders at their Southern Command to discuss all these issues.

And then, just lastly, again, on the humanitarian crisis. The images coming out of Gaza continue to be heartbreaking and painful. As the President has said, every innocent life lost is one too many. We don’t want to see any more civilian casualties.

Now, Israel, of course, has a right to defend itself. But Hamas also continues to be an active threat to Israel, and its leaders have vowed to repeat the attacks of the 7th of October again and again and again. Just yesterday, Hamas took credit for the brutal murder of an Israeli grandmother who was stabbed to death in her car.

But again, we’ve encouraged Israel, particularly now as it shifts to this new phase, to do so, in terms of their operations, as surgically and as precisely as possible to minimize those casualties.

And we’re also, at the same time, focused on increasing the flow of trucks into Gaza.

I’ll end with this. And that’s that, just today, we were able to get 228 trucks into Gaza over those two crossings. Again, not enough. But we’re trying to keep the level at above 200, if we can.

Now, a big hindrance to that, of course, is the — is the fighting itself, which is why the Israel Defense Minister’s comments about switching to lower-intensity operations could — could have a dramatic effect on our ability to do that.

And, with that, I’ll turn it back over.

AIDE: Host, I think we’re ready to go to questions.

OPERATOR: All right. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press “#2” on your phone to be placed in the question queue. You will share your notification when your line is unmuted. Please then state your name and question. If your question is answered before your turn, pressing the “#2” a second time will take you out of the queue.

Moving on to our first question.

Caller, please go ahead.

Q Hey, guys. It’s — it’s Justin from Bloomberg. I had one for Karine and — and one for Kirby.

Karine, on the meeting tomorrow, is that a signal that — that the President has and negotiators have gotten close on a deal for Ukraine aid and immigration changes? Or is this, kind of, a chance to them — for them to work out final details? Or are we just not there yet at all?

And then, Kirby, I was wondering if you could talk about, kind of, the state of the situation with the Houthis. Obviously, we saw more attacks in the last couple of days and a response today by the U.S. Is this a signal that the first round of — of strikes by the U.S. and the UK didn’t achieve their desired effects? Are you looking at all at, kind of, expanding our effort to a new target set using special forces at all — any sort of expansion? Or do you still, kind of, see this as headed in the direction that you’d hoped for?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Kirby, you want to take that question — your question?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, sure. I just wanted to defer to you since the first one was to you, but I’m happy to do that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I appreciate it. And, Justin, I’ll — we’re just going to let Kirby go. And then I’ll — certainly will — I’ll answer that question once Kirby is done with the Middle East pieces. Thanks.

Q Sure.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. So, look, Justin, you’re right. We — we have seen some additional lower- — lower-scale retaliatory strikes by the Houthis in the last few days — much smaller than
— than what we had seen before and none of them effective.

And I will tell you, you know, we fully anticipated, when we launched the — that salvo on Friday night, that — that the Houthis would probably conduct some retaliatory strikes.

So, I — I think it’s — it’s too soon to call this some sort of a trend that would lead us to believe that we didn’t have the — a good effect with those strikes. We believe that we did have a good effect with those strikes in terms of disrupting and degrading their capability to conduct military offensive operations.

As for what the next turn is here, I simp- — I won’t get ahead of potential military operations one way or the other.

As you saw today, we took additional strikes knocking out four ballistic missiles that we believe were prepped and ready to be launched from Yemen, took them out before they could do that. So, we have said before, we’ll say it again: We stand ready to defend our interests, our sailors, our ships, and that of merchant shipping as required.

We’re not looking for a war. We’re not looking to expand this. The Houthis have a choice to make, and they still have time to make the right choice, which is to stop these reckless attacks.

AIDE: Host, we’re going to go to the next question. We’ll come back around to questions for Karine after Kirby’s portion.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next caller in queue. Steve Holland with Reuters, please go ahead.

Q Hey, John. You mentioned the — Brett McGurk in Doha on hostages. What — could you give us any details on that? Is he seeking a pause in the fighting in exchange for hostages? How close are they to a deal? What — what’s going to happen?

And you mentioned that the Israelis have shifted to a low phase in Northern Gaza. What are the prospects for that taking place across all of Gaza?

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Steve. So, on the — a new hostage deal, what I can tell you is that we’re working on this very, very diligently. That is why Brett was in Doha this past week.

I don’t want to get ahead of where we are. But we are having, I would say, very seri- — serious and intensive discussions in Qatar about the possibility for another deal.

Obviously, I want to be careful I don’t say too much publicly here as we have these — these talks. But we’re hopeful that it can bear fruit and bear fruit soon, because there’s still, you know, over 100 — about 140 hostages still being held.

As for the — the — yo- — your question about whether their shift to lower-intensity operations can — you know, how fast that will spread across Gaza, that’s really not a question I’m qualified to answer. The Israeli Defense Forces are — are much better to speak to that.

They just announced yesterday, as I said in my opening statement, the removal of a division — a full — a full division of army troops from — from Gaza. We think that’s a positive step forward, in terms of getting to lower-intensity ops. We hope that it will allow for the movement back into North Gaza, because, really, the bulk of the — of the operations are being conducted in the — in the south right now.

So, we hope that this removal of these troops and this announced transition that they’ve made, that it will allow for people to flow back into North Gaza, alleviate some of that pressure in the south, particularly around Khan Younis. And we’ll see where it goes from there. But again, I — I wouldn’t want to get ahead of Israeli military planning.

Q Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, sir.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Weijia Jiang with CBS, please go ahead.

Q Hi, there. Thank you, guys, for doing this. And thank you, Kirby. I have a question about the continued attacks in the Red Sea. So, you said today that you’ve seen that they are smaller in scale. Today, obviously, the strike on the Maltese carrier did not result in any injuries.

Can you verify how many injuries have been reported in these now 30-some attacks on commercial vessels? And if it’s none, can you help me understand, if these are missiles, why, how there haven’t been more injuries? I imagine the crew sizes are small. But when I hear “missile strikes,” I expect there to be more injuries. So, if you could just help me process that.

MR. KIRBY: Weijia, what I’ll do is I’ll take your question and see if we can get a better answer, maybe from Central Command. I don’t have a list of casualties from these merchant ships. That’s not the kind of thing — I don’t think we’re centrally tracking that. But don’t take that to the bank.
Let me talk to CENTCOM and see if they’ve got some sort of figures for you.

You’re right. I mean, I — I would — a couple of things here. Number one, most of these missile attacks and drone attacks have been ineffective. You’re right. There was a hit today, but no injuries caused. No real significant damage to the ship, by the way.

Most of the attacks are — are knocked out of the sky before they can get to — to the targets. And a good many of these missile and drone attacks have simply missed. Particularly, the ballistic missiles have just fallen harmlessly into the water without hitting a ship. So, that’s one reason why I think that the numbers haven’t been dramatic.

Number two, you named it. I think you’re — you know, it’s a — it’s a fair point. I mean, a lot of merchant ships today don’t have large crews. It’s not like a Navy ship where you — you know, you’d have hundreds of sailors aboard a destroyer or thousands aboard an aircraft carrier. These large merchant ships, there’s a lot of automation, and they simply don’t have big crews. That’s probably one reason as well.

And then they’re also — they’re very big ships. And so, even if one were to take a hit, like the one today, depending on where it is struck may have little to no impact or certainly a — not a significant impact on that ship’s ability to continue to — to transit safely.

So, again, they’re — they’re very big ships. A lot of their freeboard — what we call the — the space between the water level and the top of the side of the ship, that’s called freeboard — can be very, very high, depending on what — how much freight they’re holding.

So, there’s probably a lot of reasons for that. But let me — let me take it back and see if we can give you a better figure on the — on the data.

Q Okay. So, given what you just said, Kirby, and given the fears of escalation that the conflict will expand, can you explain why the retaliatory strikes are still worth it?

MR. KIRBY: Our retaliatory strikes or theirs?

Q The U.S.’s and our allies’. Essentially, if it’s —

MR. KIRBY: Because —

Q — if their strikes aren’t really having that much of an impact and they’re not causing injuries and there is a concern that, you know, retaliatory strikes will widen the war, just, you know, why is it still —

MR. KIRBY: Because —

Q — worth it?

MR. KIRBY: Because we believe by taking away some of their capability, degrading that capability, which we think we did on Friday, can have an impact on — on the effectiveness of future strikes. By taking away — degrading some of their capability, certainly makes it harder for them to conduct these strikes.

And just because there hasn’t been a catastrophically successful one yet, thanks to a lot of great work by the U.S. Navy and — and allied and partner navies, doesn’t mean that — that we can just turn a blind eye and sit back and — and do nothing. We want these attacks to stop.

We warned the Houthis not to conduct them. They continued to conduct them. So, we took action on Friday night to — to — to more significantly degrade their capability to do that.

And as we’ve said before, Weijia, we — we — while we won’t telegra- — telegraph future punches, we’re — we’re not going to — we’re not going to hesitate to take further action if — if needed.

Q Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Zeke Miller with AP, please go ahead.

Q Thanks for doing this. On Friday, the President said that he believed the Houthis were a terrorist organization. And I was wondering, John, can you give us an update on the — if there will be an FTO redesignation.

And then, separately, do you have anything on these reported Iranian strikes inside Pakistan? Does the U.S. believe that — that those increases the risk for a broader regional escalation? Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Zeke, nothing to update you on the FTO designation. As I said earlier, we’re still reviewing that process — or we’re still in the process of reviewing it, no decisions made. So, no updates for you.

Are you — I’m not aware of Iranian strikes into Pakistan. Are you — are you talking about their strikes in the — in and near Erbil in Iraq?

Q Sorry. Yeah. It’s — there’s a report that Iran says that it launched attacks today into mili- — what it calls militant bases in Pakistan. I’m going to skip the pronunciation on it. It’s Jaish al-Adl that — it follows the attacks, obviously, in — in Iraq and Syria.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. Gotcha. Let me get back to you on that one, Zeke. I was not tracking strikes into Pakistan today. But we’ll — we owe you an answer. We’ll get back to you.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Anita Powell with Voice of America, please go ahead.

Q Thank you so much, John. I hope you’re keeping warm today. I have two Red Sea questions.

First of all, on this deal between Ethiopia and the breakaway Somali province of Somaliland. Does the White House see this as a threat to U.S. national security, especially in light of recent troubles in the Red Sea? And what can or will Washington do to calm the situation?

And then just going back to something you said about the Houthis, how we’re not looking to expand this conflict. How do you square that with the mission of degrading their capabilities? I mean, how is that not expanding this conflict?

MR. KIRBY: Well, on — on the second question, I mean, by — by — it’s — it’s a very simple equation: By — by removing military capability from the Houthis, we are making it harder for them to conduct these attacks. These attacks have been escalatory. These attacks have been dangerous. These attacks have affected merchant shipping in the Red Sea, one of the most important international waterways around the world.

So, the very act of taking these strikes, knocking out their capability — in some cases before they could use it — that is, by definition, taking the tensions down. You’re taking — you’re taking the ability for them to conduct these attacks off the table.

And, again, we reserve the right to continue to do that as appropriate to prevent them from causing more mayhem and — and more danger to — to merchant ships and merchant sailors.

On Ethiopia and Somaliland, we’re certainly troubled now by what reportedly included in a memorandum of understanding between Ethiopia and Somaliland. As we’ve said many, many times we support Somali’s — Somalia’s sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and it’s got to be respected.

So, we’re engaging with partners in the region. We certainly welcome efforts by the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, otherwise known as IGAD, to help lessen tens- — lessen the tensions.

What we’re particularly concerned about is that this MOU recently now inked between Ethiopia and Somaliland threatens to disrupt the fight that Somalis, Africans, and regional international partners, including us, are waging against al-Shabaab. And al-Shabaab remains a viable terrorist threat in the region, without question.

So, look, the — we don’t believe that the region can afford any more conflict. We don’t think this MOU is moving this in the right direction. And we’ll keep raising that, not only with partners there in the Horn of Africa but — but also elsewhere.

Q So, just to press you on. Is that a threat to U.S. national security, then, this — this possibility that Shabaab may — may rise?

MR. KIRBY: It certainly — it certainly could directly impact national security interests in the region, without question, because we — we hold al-Shabaab as a continued foreign terrorist organization, continued dangerous threat to our interests and the interests of our partners.

So, there — there could be a U.S. national security threat posed by the language in this MOU, which is why we’re deeply concerned about it.

Q Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Yep.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in the queue. Aurelia End with AFP, please go ahead.

Q Hi. Thanks so much for taking my question. I have two questions about Ukraine. The first one is a pretty simple one. Can you say that, as of now, there is no U.S. assistance anymore going to Ukraine, that it’s de facto over? And second question: Can you give us a sense of the conversation Jake Sullivan had with President Zelenskyy in Davos? What were the concerns he raised, what was the message, et cetera? Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY: On your first question, our last security assistance package was authorized on the 27th of December. Now, I would have to refer you to the Pentagon to talk to you about each of the items in that package and — and where they are in the shipment process. I don’t know if every single thing in that package has actually arrived in Ukraine.

As you know, sometimes it takes as little as a few days. Sometimes it takes a couple of weeks or more for — for material to get to Ukraine.

But that was the last one. There isn’t another one in the works right now or being scheduled for announcement or delivery. We meant it when we said it at the time, that that was the last one for which we had replenishment authority. And there’s — there’s not another one in the — in the — in the works right now.

And that is why it’s so, so important for us to get this national security supplemental funding for Ukraine so that we can keep that aid going, as it’s clear that the Russians continue to want to strike civilian infrastructure and continue to carry on the war inside Ukraine.

I — I don’t have anything more on the specific discussion with President Zelenskyy. I think the State Department put out a readout of that discussion since it was Secretary Blinken who — who had that meeting with President Zelenskyy. Jake was — was certainly in attendance.

But they did talk about the importance of, you know, continuing the global assistance to support Ukraine and, of course, the — the — they also talked about what’s going on on the battlefield, how Zelenskyy sees the — the effort.

And, as you know, he was also in Davos — Zelenskyy — talking about this peace formula of his. So, that — that too came up, the idea of — of trying to help operationalize and internationalize the — the peace formula that President Zelenskyy put forward.

But, again, I’d point you to the State Department readout for more.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Selina Wang with ABC News, please go ahead.

Q Thank you, Admiral. Just going back to the question on the strikes. Has the battle damage assessment of the first airstrikes been completed when it comes to the strikes last week against the Houthis? Just how much has the U.S. degraded the military capabilities, and what does it say about the degradation given that the retaliatory attacks from the Houthis have continued? Does it show that it only made a small dent in capacity?

MR. KIRBY: I’d refer you to the Pentagon to speak to the battle damage assessment, Selina. They’re really the right ones to go to for that. And I don’t know the final status of that.

As I said earlier, even before we conducted these strikes, we had every expectation that the Houthis would still maintain some capability and would probably retaliate in some form or fashion. The — the strikes were designed to degrade and disrupt their military activity: their ability to store, launch, and to guide these missiles to their targets, as well as the drones that they have launched against these targets.

We believe that we had good effects. But the specifics of the BDA — battle damage assessment — is really something for the — the Pentagon to speak to. But at no time, even that night, did we say that all of the Houthis’ offensive capability were going to be eliminated by those strikes.

Again, the Houthis have a choice to make. We know they still have some capability. They have a choice to make about what they do with that capability. If they choose to keep conducting these attacks, we will continue to defend against them and counter them as appropriate, even as we did today, hitting four ballistic missiles on launchers before they could be sent — sent on — sent on their way.

Q Just to follow up on that. As the retaliation continues from the Houthis, just how far is the U.S. willing to go? And on a secondary topic, is there any update on the search for the U.S. Navy SEALs?

MR. KIRBY: Well, again, with the caveat that I’m not going to telegraph punches or speak about potential military operations, I would point you to that last sentence in the President’s statement Friday night. We will not hesitate to take further actions to defend ourselves, our interests, those of our allies and partners, certainly not our ships and our sailors. So, as we’ve proven again today, we will not hesitate to take action as appropriate.

Again, the Houthis have a choice here to make, and the right choice is to stop these attacks.

I don’t have an update for you on the — the search efforts for those — those two Navy sailors that are in the water. As I understand it this morning — and I did check in with the Pentagon on this — that search is ongoing. But what that looks like, how much longer, I — I — really, that’s a question better put to the — to the Defense Department.

Our thoughts and prayers are with those two sailors and their families, who are waiting anxiously for word. And obviously, we’ll — we’ll monitor as closely as we can.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our last question.
M.J. Lee with CNN, please go ahead.

Q Hey, Admiral. Thank you. Just given that Hamas has released these new hostage videos, which you referenced before, and the IDF is continuing to attempt hostage rescue operations, I wondered whether the U.S. has received any new intelligence on the six American hostages in recent days and, at this point, whether the U.S. believes that they are alive.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, M.J. I — I don’t know of any additional tactile information that we have received about those six Americans that we still believe are being held hostage. We’re obviously working and continue to work very hard to get them released. But I’m not aware of any additional information that we have. And — and I think you can understand that — that even if I — I did have additional context to provide, we’d o- — we’d obviously be very careful about what we shared publicly as we’re trying to get those folks home to their families.

I — I just — your — your question does give me a good punctuation point before I sign off today, and that’s that, just as I mentioned at the top, with Brett being in the region just last week in Doha, we continue to work this very, very hard.

I — I know it doesn’t always rise to the — to the level of the headlines of the day. And — and we don’t talk about it a lot, nor should we. But I don’t want to leave anybody with the impression that we aren’t working this very, very hard to try to get those folks home with their family — all of them — all the hostages, but with a particular key focus for us on those — on those half a dozen Americans that we believe are still being held.

Thanks.

Q Sorry, before you go, can I just ask one more follow-up? I know you’ve gotten a couple of questions about the situation in the Red Sea, but I wondered whether the administration, at this point, would still, sort of, characterize the phase that we are in now as the administration wanting to contain the conflict in the region. Or rather, would you say that the conflict in the region has now officially widened? I mean, given that there — there have now been additional U.S. strikes, additional Houthi attacks, so this does seem like now a prolonged conflict.

MR. KIRBY: Well, the — let’s — let’s — I mean, I think it’s important to — to categorize what’s happening here.

First of all, the strike that we took Friday, no matter what the Houthis might say, has nothing to do with the fight in Gaza. It has to do with defending shipping in the Red Sea, no matter what the Houthis say. They’re not going after ships that are tied to Israel. You know, they hit — just the other day, they hit a ship carrying Russian oil. It was Panamanian flag, nothing to do with Israel.

So, I — I don’t — I think we need to not buy into the Houthi propaganda. That’s one.

We still have an interest in not seeing this conflict widen or escalate. In fact, that’s why we took those strikes on Friday to degrade Houthi capability so that it — so that it can’t widen and escalate. We still have that interest. We’re still working to that end, even as we work to continue to make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself.

OPERATOR: All right. I would like to hand this back over to Karine. But before I do, if you would like to ask a question, please press “#2” to be placed in the question queue. If your question is answered before your turn, pressing “#2” a second time will take you out of the queue.

Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Fantastic. Thank you so much. And, Admiral, thank you for your time. Appreciate you being on the call with us today.

And also, guys, I — I know this is not the best, but we wanted to make sure folks didn’t have to come in today with this weather. And hopefully, folks are — are safe at home — or, wherever you are, being safe today with this weather.

I do want to start off by going to Justin’s question that he asked of me — and I just wanted to make sure I did that — as it relates to the meeting that the President is having tomorrow here at the White House with congressional ranking members and leaders to talk about the very important supplemental request that this president made, as you know, a couple — couple months ago, at this point.

Look, that supplemental request is obviously — continues to be a top priority, including — right? — to secure our border, including to — to help Ukraine defend itself against Putin’s ty- — tyranny, as we all know, as we — you all have covered for almost two years now.

And I will say that while the President is having this really important meeting tomorrow, negotiations on a bipartisan agreement on the border — as it includes funding and policy — are still ongoing. So, that is — we believe is headed in the right direction, the right track. And so — and we’re going to continue to say — right? — Congress should act. They should act quickly. You know, this is about securing our border. This is about our national security. And the consequences of congressional inaction would be severe.

So, the President, yes, is going to have this all-important conversation, he believes, on the supplemental requests.

Obviously, as it relates to our national security, the negotiations continue. And so, that is also really important. A bipartisan agreement is needed, and — and so, we’re doing those negotiation on the Senate level, as you — as you all know.

I think I’m just going to go to AP.

I don’t know if that’s Zeke or somebody else.

Q Thanks, Karine. It’s Zeke. I was hoping — you just called the meeting tomorrow an “all-important meeting.” (Inaudible) to why tomorrow? You know, obv- — you know, it’s January 16th. Why hasn’t the President asked the congressional leaders and the community leaders over to the White House sooner?

Secondly, is the meeting focused on negotiations — to piggyback off of Justin’s question — or is it about the stakes should this funding not be approved? You know, will it be a classified meeting or will it be, you know, in the Sit Room or will it be in the Oval? Any color you can offer.

And then on a different topic —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — entirely, I was hoping you could address the situation in Texas over the weekend. And that — right now, do you do you believe — or does the federal government control the southern border or does the state of Texas?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Both very, very good questions. Look, to — as it relates to what the meeting is going to look like, where it’s going to be, we’re going to have more information about the meeting tomorrow later today. So, just stay tuned. Don’t have the specifics on that.

And, look, as I said at the top, this is going to be about discussing criti- — critical importance of — of the President’s national security supplemental request, and so it is going to be about the supplemental request.

And I’ll just say this. Look, I’ve said a couple of times at the briefing room and to all of you how the President’s team, obviously the Office of Leg Affairs, and other members of his White House team have been in direct contact and communi- — regular communications with members of Congress and their staff.

And the President has had conversations with congressional members. As you know, we don’t read out every — every call or every meeting that he has. He’s had a very longstanding relationship with many members on the Hill as VP, as senator, obviously.

So, yeah, there’s — he’s had conversations with them. I think he wanted to bring folks together because — yeah, we talk about the supplemental. They’re urgency requests — the national security requests are urgent. And so, the President wanted to bring everybody together to have that conversation.

But negotiations are still happening. The border security negotiations are still happening. And the President certainly has entrusted his team to have those conversations, as he’s done many, many times before. So, we’ll certainly have more to share about tomorrow, about what that’s going to look like.

Look, as it relates to — to Texas, let me just say a couple of things at the top, because I think it’s important. And you all have heard me say this about what Governor Abbott continues to do. All of his — you know, what he’s doing at the border, his policies, how he’s getting involved, it’s extreme — right? — it’s extreme political stunts.

And I’ve said this over and over again, we have said this: It demonizes and dehumanizes people, and — but it also makes the job of the Border Patrol harder. And it also is — it’s more dangerous. That’s what we’re seeing.

And there’s been multiple actions that this governor has taken, right? Blocking Border Patrol from accessing the border, that’s a problem. When he’s — when he’s ac- — when he’s blocking them and putting Texas officials, then he’s taking away the duties of what the Border Patrol are supposed to do.

And so, it is a problem. Leaving migrants on the side of the road during winter — you’ve heard me say that; installing razor wire to make Border Patrol’s job more dangerous; promoting extreme and unconstitutional laws, like SB4.

So, he could — he continues to prove that he’s not interested — he’s not really interested in solutions, only seeking to politicize the border.

So, you know, to answer your question, Zeke, look, right now, Texas — the Texas officials are preventing Border Patrol agents from doing their job in that particular area by the border. So, that is a problem. That is a problem.

Just waiting for the next question then.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Steve Holland with Reuters, please go ahead.

Q Hey there, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Steve. Hey, hey.

Q The President — the — hey, hey. The President told us on the South Lawn on Friday that he was in favor of significant alterations on the border. Could you fill out that out? What is he talking about there? And — and are they going to get into this level of detail in their talks tomorrow?

And then I just had a second thing. Did the President watch any of the Iowa coverage last night? Did he make any observations about it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. So, a couple of things. I’ll start with your first question first. Look, you know, the President has — had said and we’ve been saying that we need a bipartisan agreement. Right? We need a bipartisan agreement to deal with what’s happening at the border.

There’s been detailed, specific conversation happening in the Senate with both Republicans and Democrats for the past several weeks through the holiday, obviously, and that continues. We think they’re going in the right direction.

And those — those conversations are focused on funding and also on policy.

Yes, the President believes that we’re going to have — to really — in order to have a bipartisan agreement, you have to make, you know, changes. I’m not going to get into what those changes are, how severe or specific or however — however we what to — we want to describe it are at this time.

But those conversations are happening. We believe it’s going well. And we want to see a bipartisan agreement.

Look, we understand, the President understands that this — this — what we see at the border, the immigration system more broadly, has been broken for decades — for decades. That’s why he took it very seriously on day one with the legislation that he put forward.

Now we have to have serious conversations, which we have been, with both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to see what we can do to — to address this — the issue at the border.

And so, tomorrow, I’m — I’m not going to get ahead of — of the meeting. I don’t really know how specific it’s going to get. I can tell you the — on the agenda is to talk about the President’s supplemental — the national security portion, obviously, of the supplemental, and how important it is to get moving on that.

But, no, I’m not going to get into details or specifics of — of what — how — how granular they’re going to get at all in that meeting. But it is going to be important. And we’ll have more for all of you to share on that.

As it relates to the caucuses — the Iowa caucus, I want to be really careful, as all you know, is that I’m a federal employee — employee, obviously. So, I’m not going to comment on the upcoming election — 2024 election.

What I can say — I know folks had this question. You know, the President was here last night at the White House. As it relates to if he’s seen it or not, of course, I’m sure he’s — he’s seen the coverage of the Iowa caucus. I don’t have anything specific to share on that.

And I — I also want to lift this up too. Yesterday, you saw the President — some of you traveled with us. We were in Philly. We went to Philabundance.

And I think it’s important to — to lay out what’s — what’s important to this President. Right? He went to a not-for-profit food bank that serves the Philly — the Philadelphia and also the Delaware Valley regions of Pennsylvania — and the work that they do to drive hunger — to drive hunger from our community — right? — to get — to get that out. We’re talking about food insecurity today and to end — end hunger for — for good.

So, look, he distributed food. You all saw that. That was really important. That was his main focus for tomorrow — for today — pardon me — for yesterday.

And he’s going to continue to focus on the American people. That’s what he’s going to do. He’s going to continue to focus on others — to helping hardworking, middle-class families build an economy from the bottom up and — from the bottom up, middle out. That’s what he’s going to do: protecting Americans’ freedom; bringing the country together around, you know, optimism, vision for — for the future.

So, that’s going to be the President’s focus.

And I will go to the next questioner.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. M.J. Lee with CNN, please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, M.J.

Q Hey, Karine. Just on the Iowa caucuses last night. What, if anything — I know that you’re not going to get into details, but just, generally speaking, what, if anything, did the President make of the results that showed that the majority of caucus-goers said they don’t believe that his win in 2020 was legitimate? And if you can’t speak to the President’s reaction to that, can you speak to the reaction to that from, I mean, yourself or other White House officials?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again — so, here’s — here’s what I’ll say, because we’ve talked about this before from the briefing room, so it’s not — this is something that deals with 2020, so I can — I can actually speak to this.

Look, you know, the President is going to continue to stand against conspiracy theories, right? And we know what — what you just laid out to me about how people feel has been debunked — right? — it has been debunked by federal judges, who are — who are Republican judges. Other — other officials have debunked that.

You know, we had a very fa- — free and fair election. That’s what we know. That is a fact. And, you know — and it’s important to state that. It’s important to — to be clear — very, very clear about that.

Look, I can say this. You know, I can say that the President, you know, is going to — as — as it relates to how he’s moving forward, not focused on the 2024 election, he’s going to continue to stand against dangerous personal revenge schemes and conspiracy theories that have cost — let’s not forget, these dangerous conspiracy theories have cost law enforcement officers their lives. You know, and it is — that is what we saw on January 6th in 2021.

It was an attack on our democracy. And it was because people believed — the insurrectionists, the mob — more than 2,000 people who showed up at — at the — at the Capitol believed — believed the conspiracy theories that they were told about this election, and it cost officers their lives. And that is incredibly dangerous.

Our democracy was under attack. Again, a very scary moment in our history, a dark time in our history. You heard the President talk about this very recently when he was in Valley Forge.

And so, look, we have to speak out about that. We have to be very clear — clear — clear — clear-spoken about those types of conspiracy theories. We have to speak against them. And so, I’ll just leave it there.

OPERATOR: Moving on to our next question in queue. Annie Linskey with Wall Street Journal, please go ahead.

Q Hi there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, Annie.

Q Oh, hi. Hi there, Karine. I wanted to ask about the news over the weekend that John Kerry is departing his post. Can you tell me whether or not the President plans on — on replacing him and, you know, what you believe he accomplished in that role and then anything about — anything more about why the President agreed for him to leave now at this particular moment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, a couple of things, because I’ve gotten to know the Special Envoy Kerry and Secre- — obviously, former Secretary of State Kerry. And I know that — I know the President appreciated everything that he was able to do in the past three years.

So, just — I can just put it on the record. I can confirm that, in the upcoming months — month that Special Envoy Kerry will leave the administration, as I just stated, after three years of service.

And let’s just — just to talk about his tenure for a second. You know, he was able to deliver — with the leadership, obviously, of this President — the most ambitious climate agenda in history — when you think about restoring America’s leadership on climate around the world, implementing the largest investment in climate ever, putting us on track to cut emissions in half by 2030.

I can’t speak to — I know folks have — have been wondering what the — what Secretary Kerry is going to do next. I certainly can’t speak to that. But certainly we’ll — we’ll be sure to keep you posted.

Look, you know, as far who’s going to — to be next, I certainly don’t have any personnel announcement to make at this time. But our work, the work that he started, the work is going to continue. The work to address the climate crisis will continue.

Let’s not forget what we’re able to do just last month. We announced a rule that — that’s going to cut methane emissions from oil and gas operations by nearly 80 percent, I believe. And that’s a huge announcement. That’s incredibly important.

But the President is incredibly thankful to — to Secretary Kerry. It is his personal decision to leave. So, certainly going — not going to speak to that. But, look, we got a lot done. He got a lot done in the three years. The President — when it comes to climate change, the President has had the most aggressive agenda than any other president before — before him on getting things done and getting to a place where we’re dealing with the climate.

Thanks — thanks for your question, Annie.

Q Thanks.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in the queue. Selina Wang with ABC News, please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Selina.

Q Hey, Karine. Thanks for doing this. I know you can’t speak too much about it, but is there anything else you can say about the President’s view about Trump’s resounding win in Iowa? He was asked yesterday about why he felt compelled to seek a second term, and he said, quote, the things that Trump is saying, “he means them,” “he’s running to get revenge.” Just wondering if you can elaborate on what the President’s thoughts are.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — and you — I think you’re speaking to the interview that the President did on — on — yesterday, obviously, on Dr. Martin Luther King Day with Reverend Al Sharpton. He called in to his radio show. And I know it’s been previewed on one of the cable networks, what the President said.

And so, the President, you know, appreciated that conversation. Had a really, I think, thoughtful conversation about what he’s thinking moving forward. Obviously, I can’t get into specifics on — on that. But I would certainly — I would, you know, refer folks to what the President laid out as it relates to why he’s running and why he’s de- — you know, he’s decided to run and how he — he views this next several months.

So, I’m not going to get into that. His — he — you could — you could hear it for yourself in his own words.

But, look, I’ll say this. And I kind of said this before — right? — which is what the President is going to stand against. He’s going to stand against dangerous personal revenge schemes. Right? The President is going to stand against conspiracy theories. Right? The President is going to continue to fight for the freedoms of Americans across this country.

We see what they’re trying to do — what Republican-elected officials are trying to do as it relates to abortion bans and how dangerous that is to women and — and their health.

And the President — in the meantime, the President is going to continue to — to lead with the — with the — obviously, with leadership and putting American people first and bringing people together in a way that benefits everyone. That is what the President is going to continue to do.

And not putting — putting yourself first or putting yourself above every — every — everyone else or fomenting hate or selling out working people to rich special interests or taking away freedoms, as I just laid out, that’s not what the President is going to do.

He’s going to be completely the opposite of that, as he’s been doing for the last almost three years. And that’s the President’s goal.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Joey Garrison with USA Today, please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Joey. Go ahead, Joey.

Q Hey, Karine. Doing well. How about yourself?

Has President Biden spoken to Secretary Austin since his release from the hospital yesterday? And are there any plans for the two to meet in person now that he is out of the hospital? Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, good question. Thank you for the question. Look, we’re happy to hear of his discharge, obviously. Look, the President is looking forward — and I said this last week; we said this last week — to the Secretary getting back to the Pentagon, obviously.

And — and so, don’t have anything to share on — on when — when they’re going to either see each other or speak. Obviously, they spoke last week. The — the Secretary was very much — has very much been engaged and involved in what we’re seeing in the Middle East right now.

And more broadly, on his schedule — on the Secretary’s schedule, that’s something that the Pentagon can speak to. Can’t speak — can’t speak to that from here.

But obviously, we are — we are very happy to see that — to hear of his discharge and — and looking back — and looking forward to him to get — getting back to the Pentagon.

Q Thanks.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Tommy Christopher with Meditate [Mediaite], please go ahead.

Q Yeah. Hey, Karine. It’s Tommy. How you doing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Tommy. Good to hear your voice. How are you?

Q Good, good. By the way, I know you know this, but it’s “Mediaite.” We get that a lot, though — “Meditate.” So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.)

Q — good to talk to you, and good to be staying warm too. So, I — I was wondering if you could tell me what you make of — of how much former President Trump leaned into this lie that January 6th was justified while he was campaigning in Iowa and, like, demanding the release of the, quote, unquote, “hostages.” And what would you say to right-wing media that — that sort of helped him in that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Look, I want to be — always want to be very, very careful on speaking about candidate Trump, especially in the — the upcoming 2024 election.

What I’ll say more broadly about the January 6th comments — look, you know, it — you know, it’s — it’s basically what the President said in Valley Forge. Right? The President said this over and over again about January 6th and how dangerous it was — right? — and how — how we had to — we had to watch, you know, an insurrec- — an insurrection, essentially — 2,000 angry mob — because they believed what the former President said and thought that they can turn over an election. This is what they were doing. That’s what they were doing at the Capitol on that day.

And so, I’ve been — I said this a couple of times. You know, I’ve said that the President has been very clear: He’s going to stand against these types of conspiracy theories.

Let’s not forget, officers died. Right? Police officers died on that — because of the injuries that they sustained on that day. They were attacked on that day by these — by these — by these folks who — who were trying to take over the Capitol.

And so, we have to be very clear about what happened on that day. We cannot forget about what happened on that day. And the President said this: Our democracy — we have to continue our democracy.

And I’ll just repeat a little bit of what he said in his remarks — right? — there is a choice to be made. There is a choice that we have to make — right? — in — in our country. We have to make a choice, and that choice should be standing — standing up for our democracy, which is what the President is going to continue — continue to do.

As far as this comment on hostages, you know, want to — want to be really careful there as well — as well. Don’t want to comment on — on any DOJ investigation or legal process.

But as you’ve — you’ve seen American veterans note, it’s — it’s grotesque and offensive. It is offensive to c- — to compare those convicted of assaulting cops and attempting to overthrow the American government that veterans have died — have died defending to — for — innocent Americans — for — to — you know, innocent Americans that — in Israel — Israelis and people of other nationalities who were abducted. Right? They were abducted by Hamas on October 7th.

And so, it is — you know, I’ll just keep it there. It is — it is something that — again, I want to be mindful to speaking to, but that is — it is incredibly grotesque and offensive.

Q And anything for right-wing media —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, say that —

Q — who shall remain nameless.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Look, it is our responsibility — and I know you all know this — as it relates to reporting and, you know, to — to — I don’t know, like —

Okay. Separate from — from the election — right? — if you think about what we saw on January 7th, 2021, on the front page — right? — the front-page coverage that so many brave reporters — right? — if you think about it — risked their lives to give — to give the country the information that they needed. And that hard-won coverage exposed the brutal, unprecedented assault on our Constitution, on the law enforcement, on American democracy itself.

And so, I think it’s really important that, you know, we — we — we lift up what these brave journalists and reporters are doing. And it is — I would say this: It is an insult to those who lost their lives and to, you know, the selfless reporters who put everything on the line to show us the true stakes of that moment and who are — tirelessly investigated afterward to help anyone — anyone who were putting out grotesque lies about the attack on the Capitol.

And so, I’ll say that and — and just kind of lift up the work of reporters who literally risked their lives on that day to make sure the American people had the truth.

Q Thank you, Karine. We should do this again sometime. (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Definitely. Thanks, Tommy.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Lynn Sweet with Chicago Sun-Times, please go ahead.

Q Right. Hi, Karine. Thank you for doing this. Bear with me, as my question is narrow in scope because you’ve talked about some of the broader issues with the situation on the Texas border. Governor Pritzker of Illinois and Chicago Mayor Johnson are pleading with the federal government for more interior coordination at the border. Governor Abbott — dealing with the migrants, who Governor Abbott wants out of Texas.

So, (inaudible)in this question that he is going to continue to send migrants out of Texas. So, my question is: Why can’t the federal — or why isn’t there more federal action regarding interior coordination among where the migrants go at the border? Because right now, it’s not left to the federal government; it’s left up to Governor Abbott to send migrants to the cities, and they’re to the cities of his choosing. Why does Abbott —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Q — and not the federal government get to decide?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just say a couple of things. What Governor Abbott is doing — and I said this earlier when I was asked this question, I believe, by Zeke from the AP — that what he’s doing are — is a political stunt. And it’s — all it’s doing is not — it’s not making communities safer, for certain. And it’s also dem- — it’s demonizing and certainly dehumanizing people. And we’ve called that out. We’ve been calling that out what his actions are doing.

And — and, as you know, we — I talked — I was asked earlier about the — unfortunately, the three migrants that died — that drowned recently. And so, it is unfortunate that we’re seeing that.

And that’s also — I mean, there’s so many — there’s so many parts of this question. That’s also why you’re seeing a bipartisan conversation happening in the Senate. It’s been happening for some time with Republicans and Democrats. We think it’s heading in a di- — right direction. We believe we need a bipartisan agreement to deal with the policy components, and also the funding components, obviously, of — of immigration. That’s been broken for some time — for decades now.

So, that — those are actions that the President has taken, obviously, with his team to get something done, to get border security, you know, changes or — or deal, I should say, done. And so, that’s really important.

As it relates to the cities, look, a couple of things that I can say that — that I can say there is last year, in 2023, this administration, in collaboration with the states and cities just across the country — what they were able to do is launch a one-stop — one-stop shop clinics so that they can help eligible noncitizens get work permits and decompress the respective shelter systems, which is incredibly important. And that’s what, you know, you all have been reporting — some of you have reporting about — around. And to date, these clinics have served more than 10,000 people.

And in addition to that, our administration — the President’s administration was able to provide more than $1 billion in grant funding for jurisdictions who are hosting these — these migrants that are — that are arriving.

So, obviously — obviously, we want to do more. We do want to do more. But it requires Congress to give us the additional funding, which is why we’re having this conversation, which is why we’re doing the — this bipartisan conversation, as it relates, certainly, to the supplemental. That’s why the President is going to certainly meet with congressional members tomorrow to continue those conversations.

So, we want to — we want to continue to collaborate with these cities and states, obviously, across the country. But, you know, we have to have — we have to have Congress act as well.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Weijia Jiang with CBS News, please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Weijia.

Q Thank you. Hi, Karine. Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, hi.

Q Thank you for doing this. I just had a quick question on Eagle Pass, because what we’ve heard so far as possible recourse from the administration has all been legal in nature. And I just wonder, is there anything else you can do to gain access to the border? Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No — no, it’s a good question. And I appreciate all these questions, but there’s — about the border in particular, because they’re very important. Look, the Border Patrol, they have to have access to the border. They have to in order to enforce our laws. And — and DHS has sent Texas a cease and des- — and desist letter regarding their clearly, clearly unconstitutional actions.

And here’s the thing. If — if Texas does not stop blocking what Border Patrol agents should be doing — right? — which is enforcing the laws — but if they don’t stop blocking their access, we’re going to refer the matter to Department of Justice for appropriate action.

But obviously, DHS has taken action. They asked for a cease and desist in their letter. And we — Border Patrol agents need to have access in order to enforce the law. That’s what they need. They need the governor of Texas to stop playing political games and to stop doing these political stunts. It is putting people’s lives at risk. And that is — and that is what we’re seeing.

Q So, I hear you. But given the fact that people’s lives are at risk, you know, to go to DOJ, the Supreme Court — these things take time to play out. So, I’m wondering if there’s anything immediate that the counterpart to the Texas National Guard, which is blocking the border, is there anything you can do at the border physically to gain access? Or is the only thing you can do is let’s — let it play out in the justice system?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. I mean —

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — I wouldn’t say we’re just — yeah, look, here’s — and that’s the problem, Weijia, right? It’s like — it is unfortunate that you have a governor, Governor Abbott, that’s watching this happen — right? — that’s watching people be put in harm’s way — law enforcement also be put into harm’s way, because it is — it does make a situation dangerous for the Border Patrol agents and dangerous for the migrants, obviously.

And allowing this to happen — like, that is actually a question for Governor Abbott. He is — he is — he is doing these political stunts, and it is causing harm. It is not fixing the problem. The Border Patrol agents are not allowed — are not able to — to really, you know, move forward with enforcing our laws.

I mean, this is what a elected official is doing. And so, you know, I get the question to us. We are going to take legal — you know, we’re ta- — we have taken legal action. That is the process. That’s the way that we have to move forward.

And we also have to call it out. That’s — when you all ask me questions about it or you ask any — any members of the administration about this, we say very loud and clear: These are political stunts. They are dangerous. They dehumanize people. They — they demonize people. They put people’s lives in danger — in danger — not — not just the migrants but also the Border Patrol agents. It’s a problem.

And so, we have to continue to call it out. I mean, you guys help — you know, help — are helpful in that way in calling this out. And so, we’re going to continue to do that.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue, and this will be our last question. Kelly O’Donnell with NBC, please go ahead.

Q Oh, to be last. I have been waiting patiently, so I’m so glad to get —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q Love this in-queue process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Last but not the least.

Q Yes, yes. So, many questions have been asked. So, I’m just going to tick off two couple of quick things.

Can you give us a sense of your reaction and any White House changes in position or posture related to the swatting incident that happened on Monday, recognizing that there are a lot of ways in which you have response built into the campus here, but in the larger sense of how the White House could now be drawn into this new technique?

And, secondly, when Joey asked about Secretary Austin and you referenced them speaking, you know, a week or so ago, what’s the typical cadence for the President and the SecDef to — to speak on the phone, given all the areas of their obvious, you know, priorities on national security matters of late? Thanks so much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, thank you so much, Kelly O. Two — two important questions.

Look, as it relates to the swatting, I would have to refer you to Secret Service and D.C. Fire, which responded, ob- — as you know, to — to the incident. Can’t say more from here.

Look, the President and the — and the Secretary speak often, speak regularly. I don’t have a regular cadence to speak to. Obviously, he’s the Secretary of Defense, so that is the — they do — they do speak regularly. I just don’t have a particular, as I said, cadence to speak to on how — how regularly that happens.

And I — I would also say that, you know, from — from senior levels of the — of the Department of Defense and also at the NSC and, obviously, at the State Department, there’s — they are in constant communication with their counterparts or the folks that they deal with on a regular basis.

And so, as — as it relates to the President, they do speak regularly. I just don’t have the specifics on — on the — on how often.

Q And briefly on the swatting. Not the specifics of what happened yesterday, but could you speak to the larger issue that this technique of — whether it’s harassment or a prank or whatever it might be that has popped up and has affected now the White House but, in addition, members of the judicial branch, other types of officials? Do you have a broader sense of how this is now creating a risk or a danger in our society?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, look, I think what you just stated is — is correct, right? It is creating a danger and a risk to our society. There are things that we’re going to monitor. This is something, obviously, the Secret Service is going to monitor very closely as it relates to us specifically at the White House or this administration.

And so, I’m just going to be really mindful and leave it there. But how you stated the question is — is tr- — is obviously a concern to us.

All right, everybody. I think that’s it —

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, go ahead. Oh —

I don’t know what just happened. I think — if you guys can still hear me, thank you so much for your time. And we will see you all tomorrow in the briefing room.

All right. Be safe. Bye.

2:51 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Allentown, Pennsylvania

12:57 P.M. EST

MR. BATES: Good morning.

Q Good morning.

MR. BATES: I have a few things at the top. And then Admiral Kirby is going to take questions.

We are on our way to Pennsylvania, where the President will visit several small businesses in Lehigh Valley and the Allentown area.

Allentown, a historic steel town, was hollowed out by failed trickle-down economics. But thanks to Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda, Allentown and communities nationwide are experiencing an economic comeback.

As we saw yesterday, the President’s economic agenda is working, with applications for new businesses reaching record heights.

Sixteen million new business applications have been filed in the last three years. That’s more new business applications in — than the four years of the prior administration combined.

As the President has said, every time someone starts a new small business, it’s an act of hope and confidence in our economy, and we’ve seen 16 million acts of hope since President Biden took office in that regard.

This is the same hope and confidence the President will highlight on the ground today.

Entrepreneurs who have hope and confidence in this economy, supported by the President’s investments, were able to take on the risk of starting a business.

And as a result, in Allentown and beyond, we are seeing a small business boom, more good-paying jobs with rising wages, record-low unemployment, and lower costs for hardworking families.

Similarly, Bidenomics has accomplished the decades-long goal of bringing manufacturing back to America. We have created 26,000 new manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania under President Biden. Pennsylvania lost 23,000 manufacturing jobs under Donald Trump.

Also, today, we announced that we are implementing one of the most impactful provisions of the President’s SAVE plan, which is the most affordable repayment plan in U.S. history.

Starting next month, borrowers enrolled in SAVE who took out less than $12,000 in loans and have been in repayment for 10 years will get their remaining student debt cancelled.

This action will particularly help community college borrowers, low-income borrowers, and those struggling to repay their loans, and it’s part of our ongoing efforts to act as quickly as possible to give more borrowers breathing room.

We encourage all borrowers who may be eligible for early debt cancellation to sign up for the SAVE plan at StudentAid.gov.

Already, 6.9 million borrowers are enrolled in the plan; 3.9 million have a monthly payment of $0.

The President will continue using every tool at his disposal to get student loan borrowers the relief they need to reach their dreams.

And I’ll underline that proponents of MAGAnomics have consistently opposed the relief that he is delivering for hardworking borrowers.

And then, finally, next week, on Monday, the President will travel to Philadelphia for a service event in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
And with that, Admiral Kirby will take questions.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks.

Hey, guys. I don’t have an opening statement.

Q All right.

MR. KIRBY: Fire away.

Q Can you give any new assessments this morning about how much the Houthi capabilities had been degraded and how significant the damage was to the targets with the strikes last night?

MR. KIRBY: We’re still doing that assessment right now. That’s what we call a battle damage assessment. That’s ongoing. And it could take some hours before we can have a better sense — a clearer sense of what — the actual damage done.

I would just remind that these were all valid, legitimate military targets — all really aimed at going after the Houthis’ ability to store, launch, and guide drones and missiles.
Q Is the President ready for a war in Yemen if it were to come to that? And would he be willing to send in ground troops?

MR. KIRBY: We’re not interested in a war with Yemen. We’re not interested in a conflict of any kind here. In fact, everything the President has been doing has been trying to prevent any escalation of conflict, including the strikes last night.

Q Have you seen the bipartisan group of members of Congress say that the President violated the War Powers Resolution? What’s your response to that?

MR. KIRBY: We’re very comfortable and confident in the legal authorities that the President exercised to conduct these strikes.

Q Are you expecting an attack in the Red Sea today? Do you see that as being ineffective or not really showing that they were degraded after your strikes last night?

MR. KIRBY: Look, I think there was — going into this, certainly, no- — nobody was Pollyannaish about the possibility that the Houthis might conduct some sort of retaliation. So, I don’t have the operational reports on this.

But again, they’ve got choices to make here, and the right choice is to stop these reckless attacks.

As the President said — I’ll point you to the last sentence in his statement last night — he reserves the right and he won’t hesitate to take further action to protect our troops and our facilities and international commerce.

Q Do you know who was in the Situation Room last night when he decided to make those airstrikes — that decision?

MR. KIRBY: He made that dec- — he made the decision to approve these options after the attack on Tuesday — the big attack that was, like, 18 drones, some cruise missiles, a ballistic missile. And he was kept up to speed as that attack was unfolding. It took some time.

When he was briefed that it had been accurately and effectively defended, he called his national security team together — this is Tuesday afternoon — was presented with the response options and approved those options at that time.

Q John, can you talk about the calculation (inaudible) now as opposed to earlier? This has been going on for a while. Some Republicans would say it should have been done earlier; this is overdue. So, what made now the right time to do it?

MR. KIRBY: I think you have to keep it in context for everything they’ve been doing since late November, Peter. And repeatedly since that time — you all have seen the tick-tock. We — on the diplomatic front, we’ve worked with the U.N. We worked with coalition partners to condemn those attacks; work on that U.N. Security Council resolution; put together Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is really about defending international shipping in the Red Sea, boosting our military presence in the Red Sea.

I mean, everything the President has been doing since these attacks really started in late November has been designed to disrupt their ability to do that but also to send a strong signal to the Houthis that they need to stop.

And on Tuesday, we had this very large attack on multiple ships in the Red Sea using, again, a large number of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

And — and right before that, you might remember, the — we issued what can only be understood as a final warning to the Houthis. They violated that, obviously, in this attack on Tuesday. And so, it led to these strikes.

Q On Soleimani. There was — when we had the strike on Suleimani back during the last administration, there was communication with the Iranians through the Swiss, I believe, that was meant to keep it from escalating beyond a certain, you know, level. Is there anything like that going on right now with Iran or anybody else in the region?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any diplomatic conversations to speak to in that regard. Again, this was really focused on disrupting Houthi capabilities to conduct these attacks.

Q And — but the Houthis had an opportunity, they knew that this was coming, so they were able to move some of their resources. So, was this meant more as a signal to the Houthis not to try anything further? Or was this meant to actually destroy their capabilities?

MR. KIRBY: This wasn’t some signaling exercise. This was this was — this was designed to disrupt and to degrade Houthi military capabilities.

And as I said in the first answer, while we are still assessing the actual impact of those strikes, we know that each and every target was militarily significant to the Houthis’ ability. So, we’ll — we’ll see where that goes.

Q And just to follow up on Peter’s questions, what is the President’s strategy to keep Iran out of this war?

MR. KIRBY: Well, first of all, there’s no war with the Houthis. We don’t seek a war in Yemen with the Houthis. We want to — we want to see these attacks stop. We know that Iran backs the Houthis just like they back Hezbollah and they — and they back Hamas. We have in the past and we will certainly continue to hold Iran accountable for their destabilizing activities.

I mean, in this administration alone, we’ve issued some 500 sanctions again- — I mean, against 500 entities, 50 sanction regimes. We’ll continue to work with our partners, you know, to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to dissuade these destabili- — these destabilizing behaviors by Iran.

Q (Inaudible) sanctions against Iran?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t want to get ahead of where we are. We have in the past looked at economic sanctions as a tool. They certainly remain on the table. But I don’t — I won’t prejudge any decisions that haven’t been made yet.

Q John, can you tell us about Secretary Austin’s participation in this decision-making process?

MR. KIRBY: It was seamless. It was as if — it was no — no different. His participation was no different than it would be on any other given day, except that he was briefing the President on options and engaged in the discussions from the hospital. But he was fully engaged as he would be in any other event.

Q And on Taiwan elections this weekend. Are you guys following what’s happening? And are you concerned about any implications so soon after the San Francisco meeting?

MR. KIRBY: We are — obviously, we’ll be watching and monitoring the — the elections in Taiwan. Taiwan has strong democratic institutions that we want to see exercised, of course. We want to see free, fair, transparent elections. Obviously, we’re not taking a stake one way or the other in the — in the result. That’s up to the people of Taiwan.

And just like we would say anywhere in the world, it would be unacceptable for any other actor — nation-state or otherwise — to interfere with the — with that — with that exercise of democracy. But we’ll be watching it closely, of course.

Q Back on the Houthis. I don’t know if this is your swim lane or if it’s — if it’s Bates’s. But are you seeing an — is the administration seeing any sort of economic impacts as a result of the strikes as of this morning?

MR. KIRBY: No, not — not at this time. No.

Q Does the President believe the Houthis are a terrorist group?

MR. KIRBY: As we’ve talked about, we are reviewing the FTO — Foreign Terrorist Organization — finding on the Houthis. As you know, we — we delisted them. And we have announced that we’re reviewing that — that decision right now. No decisions have been made yet.

Q How soon can we expect one?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t — I don’t think I can give you an exact timeline or a date on the calendar. I mean, that work is ongoing, largely at the State Department. But — but it’s — it’s an ongoing review.

Q And if the attacks against these vessels don’t stop, is the President willing to do this all over again?

MR. KIRBY: Well, with the caveat that — (Air Force One experiences turbulence) — you okay? (Laughter.)

With the caveat —

Q Sorry, it’s —

MR. KIRBY: No, I know, I know.

Q Yeah. The — it’s — yeah.

MR. KIRBY: I’m reaching for the bulkhead too. (Laughter.)

With the caveat that, you know, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals, and I certainly am not going to talk about potential future military operations one way or the other, I would, again, point you to that last statement in his statement yesterday: He will not hesitate to take further action if it’s required to protect our sailors, our ships, or the — the ships and sailors of merchant traffic in the Red Sea.

Again, I want to come back to the — the Houthis are the ones that escalated here — and, in particular, escalation on Tuesday. And they have a choice to make. And the right choice would be to stop these reckless attacks.

Q And what about Tuesday was so much different? Like, was it the scale? What was it about Tuesday that was significantly different?

MR. KIRBY: It was a — it was —

Q The scale (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY: It was a significant scale. I mean, almost 20 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles all — sort of all targeted —

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY: — towards a fairly significant cluster of ships, both naval ships — not just U.S. but a British destroyer, as well as international — I’m sorry, as well as commercial vessels. Some of them the U.S. flagged.

Q Let me ask you: Do you ask the French to participate, and do they refuse?

MR. KIRBY: I won’t get into the diplomatic conversations we’ve had. I mean, you’ve seen the list of people that participated in — you know, you’ve also seen that internationally, even those who weren’t actively involved in the dropping of bombs, many of our coalition partners have signed up to the — the support — nonoperational support but also just, you know, rhetorical support for what we did.

Q Kirby, could you just briefly reflect on this moment in foreign policy for the Biden administration? We have Gaza going on, this, Ukraine. How are you all staying above water and navigating?

MR. KIRBY: You know, the President describes this time that we’re living in as an inflection point, and he’s right. I mean, you look all around the world, and one of the things that’s a common thread is democracy under threat. And it’s in threat in many different ways.

And it’s — the President believes in a foreign policy that — that bolsters our allies and partners, that builds on alliances and partnerships, that recognizes that the United States can’t do it all alone, but that our leadership is vital and important to solving some of these problems.

And I think what you’re going to see going forward this — this coming year is what you’ve seen from the — in the last three years from President Biden, and that is a very active foreign policy built on relationships — improving relationships that need it, shoring up the relationships that we know are strong and solid, and trying to solve these problems in a collateral — in a collaborative but also a multilateral way.

MR. BATES: Thank you, Admiral.

Q And just very briefly —

MR. BATES: We’re about to land, so we’ll take other questions.

Q Just a quick one on oil. Oil prices topped $80 a barrel. What kind of supply disruptions and changes in pricing here in America is the White House tracking?

MR. BATES: We are monitoring conditions. We will remain in touch with our international partners to determine any long-term impact surprises.

But let me be very clear: It’s the Houthis who have been endangering the freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways. And they should stop with their reckless behavior, which is costing many countries unjustly, including ours.

Q The Justice Department announced this morning that they will seek the death penalty for the Buffalo supermarket shooter. Obviously, the President campaigned on abolishing the federal death penalty. And this is the first time that Attorney General Garland’s department is pursuing the death penalty. So, what are the President’s thoughts about that course of action?

MR. BATES: What happened in Buffalo was grotesque and a heartbreaking tragedy.

In 2022, in the wake of the shooting, President Biden traveled to Buffalo to meet with the families of the victims impacted by this senseless violence. And as he said there, “hate will not prevail,” because hate has no place in America. Period.

We res- — with respect to the death penalty, the President has long talked about his views on this issue broadly. We will leave it to the appropriate authorities to speak to individual cases and sentencing decisions. And I would refer you to the Department of Justice for anything more.

Q And Speaker Johnson agreed to topline numbers, again, doubling down on his agreement with Schumer. Does the White House see that as potentially averting a government shutdown?

MR. BATES: Listen, House Republicans voted for an agreement in May. Speaker Johnson reaffirmed it on Sunday. And again, this morning, we have an agreement. (Air Force One experiences turbulence.) (Laughter.) And Republicans need to keep their word and stop trying to shut down the government.

Q Are you —

MR. BATES: I’m impressed by everybody’s balance. (Laughter.)

Q Are you in touch with agencies —

Q We’re impressed by your balance.

Q Are you in touch with agencies to potentially plan for that at all?

MR. BATES: Just — sorry, just one moment. As Speaker Johnson and Democratic leaders said on Sunday, we do have a bipartisan funding framework that reflects the funding levels in last year’s bipartisan budget agreement. Republicans need to keep their word.

Of course, we do prepare for every contingency. OMB and agencies are making preparations for every program. But, again, that is — that is out of caution.

This could all be prevented if House Republicans keep their word and do their jobs.

Q What is the President’s message to progressives who do not want to be dragged into another war in the Middle East?

MR. BATES: You — you heard Admiral Kirby directly a moment ago that we are not looking for any kind of war. This was a proportionate action justified by the circumstances, an act of self-defense with bipartisan support.

And, again, we — we have sent strong warnings to the Houthis about how reckless and unjustified this behavior is.

AIDE: Thank you, everybody.

Q Donald Trump says he wants to make tax cuts permanent if he’s elected in 2025. Does the White House have a reaction to at all?

MR. BATES: With the — with the caveat that we do not comment on the 2024 elections, yesterday’s news that, in 2023, inflation dropped by almost two thirds from its peak builds on the progress we’ve been achieving for American families. And that news highlights why there’s every reason to continue the economic growth and momentum of Bidenomics, not decimate the middle class with the hi- — the — the cost-hiking MAGAnomics agenda that Republican officials are proposing.

Americans are now wealthier than during the Trump administration. Americans are earning more than during the Trump administration. More Americans are working than during the Trump administration.

As we’re talking about today, more small businesses are being created than at any point in American history. And a record-breaking number of Americans have gained healthcare coverage.

MAGAnomics would threaten to reverse all those gains by selling middle-class families out to rich special interests, including by demanding in — deficit-hiking tax giveaways for the wealthy and big corporations. And we oppose those kinds of proposals.

Rather than tax welfare for the rich, like MAGAnomics calls for, Bidenomics will continue to power the strongest economy in the world by growing the middle class.

AIDE: Thank you, everybody.

MR. BATES: Thank you, all.

1:14 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby En Route Allentown, PA appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

8:15 P.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Hello, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining us tonight for the call.  As a reminder, this call is on background.
 
Joining us tonight we have [senior administration official], who will be referred to as a senior administration official, as well as [senior military official], who will be referred to as a senior military official.
 
We’ll have our speakers deliver some remarks at the top, and then we’ll take some of your questions.  This call is not under any embargo but it is on background.
 
So with that, I’ll turn it over to [senior administration official].
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great, thanks.  And thanks, everybody, for being here.
 
Today, in response to ongoing and escalating Iranian-enabled Houthi attacks against commercial shipping transiting the Red Sea, the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands, conducted joint strikes against Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen.
 
This action is aimed specifically to disrupt and degrade Houthi capabilities to threaten global trade and freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical waterways.
 
The target selected focused specifically on Houthi missile, radar, and UAV capabilities, the capabilities that are essential to the Houthis’ campaign against commercial shipping in international waters.
 
This collective response follows one of the largest Houthi attacks in the Red Sea to date earlier this week.  On Tuesday, January 9th, nearly 20 drones and multiple missiles were launched in multiple salvos directly against U.S. ships.  This attack was defeated by the U.S. and UK naval forces working jointly as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian, the defensive coalition established last month in response to these attacks.
 
If not for this defensive mission, we have no doubt that ships would have been struck, perhaps even sunk, including, in one case, a commercial ship full of jet fuel.
 
These reckless attacks have directly affected the citizens and cargo and commercial interests of more than 50 countries.  Over a dozen shipping companies have now rerouted vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, increasing shipping and insurance costs and impacting the global economy.  That is why we have seen broad consensus from countries around the world condemning these attacks as an unprecedented threat to global commerce.
 
As you saw this week, the U.N. Security Council issued a resolution condemning “in the strongest terms” — and that’s in quotes, “in the strongest terms” — the now more than two dozen attacks against commercial vessels since November 19th, as well as condemning those who would provide arms and assistance to the Houthis in these attacks, with the primary supplier being Iran.
 
This resolution also took note of the right of states to act to defend their vessels in accordance with international law.
 
So today’s collective action comes against a broad diplomatic backdrop and global condemnation of these ongoing attacks, including, as I mentioned, the largest attack to date just three days ago, specifically targeting U.S. vessels.
 
As I said at the top, the Houthis, with Iranian support, have targeted over 20 merchant vessels since November 19th, launching dozens of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles across the Red Sea.  At least three ships have been hit.  And we’ve been — we’ve had extremely close calls, such as a ship, as I had mentioned, carrying U.S.-owned jet fuel that the Houthis targeted last month.
 
I’ll run through briefly some key moments from this period.
 
On December 1st, the U.N. Security Council condemned Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and underscored the importance of the freedom of navigation.  That statement called on the immediate end to attacks. 
 
On December 18th, Secretary Austin announced the establishment of Operation Prosperity Guardian, the 22-country defensive coalition, organized under the umbrella of the Combined Maritime Forces and the leadership of Coalition Task Force 153, to help defend against Houthi threats in the Red Sea.
 
On December 19th, 44 countries issued a multilateral statement condemning Houthi interference with navigational rights and freedoms in the Red Sea.
 
The President, President Biden, has been deeply engaged in these developments throughout this period on a near-daily basis through Jake Sullivan and our national security team.  He directed the initial diplomatic response and then the formation of Operation Prosperity Guardian as a defensive measure.  The President spoke to the issue with leaders around the world, including our partners in Europe and in the region. 
 
On the morning of New Year’s Day, following attacks on a Denmark-owned ship called the Maersk Hangzhou, and the direct engagements by U.S. forces to repel that attack, the President convened his national security team to discuss options and the way forward.

The President directed his team to accelerate the pace of work at the U.N. in New York, to keep building out the multilateral coalition — multinational coalition for potential military action, and to refine the possible targets of such action.

At that meeting, the President directed his team to further develop military options should they be required, but to first issue a final warning statement together with close partners and allies.

Two days later, on January 3rd, the United States and 13 other countries that represent some of the world’s largest shippers issued a multilateral statement, warning that the Houthis will bear the full consequences of any further attacks against commercial vessels in the Red Sea.

That brings us to Tuesday, January 9th, where, again, we saw one of the largest Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, with nearly 20 drones and three missiles shot down by the U.S. and UK naval forces in an attack that was directly targeting a U.S. commercial vessel with U.S. military vessels alongside it.

As soon as that attack was defeated, the President again convened his national security team and was presented with military options for a collective response together with close partners. 

At the end of that meeting, the President directed Secretary Austin to carry out this response, which led to the strikes that took place this evening.

Again, this collective action was conducted by the United States and the United Kingdom, with Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and Bahrain providing additional support.  It has also been endorsed by countries that joined the warning statement of January 3rd, including Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea.  And we expect more supportive statements to come in overnight.

I’ll close with a word on how this action relates to the broader tensions in the Middle East region.

As yesterday’s U.N. Security Council resolution outlined, as well as the broad consensus that I mentioned earlier in this briefing makes clear, this is an issue about global commerce, the freedom of navigation, and threats to commercial vessels and international waterways.

The United States has carried a special and historic obligation to help protect and defend these arteries of global trade and commerce.  And this action falls directly in line with that tradition.  That is clearly reflected in both our National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy.  It is a key conviction of the President.  And it is a commitment that we are prepared to uphold, acting together with partners and allies as we have done today.

The Houthis claim that their attacks on military and civilian vessels are somehow tied to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.  That is completely baseless and illegitimate.  The Houthis also claim to be targeting specifically Israeli-owned ships or ships bound for Israel.  That is simply not true.  They are firing indiscriminately on vessels with global ties.  Most of the ships that have come under attack have nothing whatsoever to do with Israel.  And even if they were — even if that were not the case, it is no justification for these illegal attacks in international waterways.

At bottom, these actions present a threat to us and to the entire world.  And our actions are focused on the dangers posed to the lives and crews of these vessels and the stability and security of global commerce throughout international waters.

The targets we selected were focused specifically on Houthi capabilities, as my DOD colleague can brief in fuller detail, and there is no intent to escalate the situation.  The aim is to degrade the ability of the Houthis to continue carrying out these reckless attacks.

Thank you.

MODERATOR:  We’ll now turn it over to our next speaker.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  Thank you.  Thank you, [senior administration official].  I will keep my remarks brief — I imagine there’s a high number of folks here on the phone — so that we can get into questions.
As [senior administration official] mentioned, this was a joint strike conducted by the militaries of the United States and the United Kingdom, with non-operational support from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and Bahrain, targeting Houthi-controlled facilities in Yemen.

The strikes were launched from air, surface, and subsurface platforms, and destroyed multiple targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.  We conducted the strikes with a variety of manned aircraft from the United States Navy, United States Air Force, and the UK.

Precision-guided munitions were used to destroy the targets and also to minimize collateral damage.  Let’s emphasize that these strikes have no association and are complete and separate from Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is a defensive coalition currently comprised of 22 countries operating in the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb, and the Gulf of Aden.

The U.S. and UK forces that participated in these strikes remain well prepared to defend themselves as well as to continue to contribute to the defense of maritime traffic and other military vessels as part of the coalition in the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb, and Gulf of Aden.

And with that, I think we can move to questions.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you so much.  Our first question will go to Aamer Madhani with the Associated Press.  Aamer, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hello.  To what extent has this degraded the Houthis’ capability to continue to carry out these strikes? 
And then secondly, the President’s statement notes that the strikes were carried out with the support of Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands.  Can you detail what support those other countries provided?
And finally, were other countries asked to actually help carry out the strikes, and did only the UK agree?
Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So I’ll address the very last part of the question and I’ll turn the rest to my Pentagon colleague.

We’re not going to get into all of our consultations operationally that we’ve conducted with a range of partners and allies.  The list of countries that were involved and participated in the strikes has been made public.  Beyond that, I’m not going to speak to other countries that were consulted.

But you will see, and I think already have seen, broad support for the actions taken by countries around the world.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  Thank you, [senior administration official]. 

With regard to the first question and to the extent to which we’ve degraded Houthi capability, due to operational security and, you know, the vulnerability of revealing any intelligence sources, I can’t give you an exact percentage aside to say that the aim of these strikes was very clear from the start and from the President, and it was to remove capability for the Houthis to target maritime vessels, whether they be commercial or military, in the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb, and Gulf of Aden. 

So I would characterize it as significant.  And, unfortunately, due to operational security, I can’t give you an exact percentage.

With regard to the contributions of our coalition partners, I can tell you clearly that the UK participated materially with fighter aircraft that actually participated in the strikes. 

As to our other partners, I would refer you to them and allow them to reveal what their level of support was.
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Natasha Bertrand with CNN.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi there.  Thanks for doing this.  So a couple of questions.  First, the Houthis are now claiming that they have already launched retaliatory attacks on U.S. and UK warships in the Red Sea.  Have you seen signs of that?  Is that happening right now?

Secondly, can you just go back to what you said about the attack on Tuesday, where you said that these missile and drone strikes were specifically targeting a U.S. vessel and other U.S., I guess, Navy assets were in the vicinity?  How do you know that this was a U.S. vessel being targeted specifically?  And what vessel was it?  Was it a commercial ship?

Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  Maybe I’ll start, and then I’ll turn it over to my colleague again.

On the Houthi response, I will let the Pentagon speak to what they have seen as they’ve observed the situation since the strikes took place.  But what I would say is that while we fully expect this action to diminish the Houthis’ capability and degrade it, and certainly over time to reduce their capacity and propensity to conduct these attacks, we would not be surprised to see some sort of response.  I’ll let my colleague describe, again, what we’ve seen up till this point.

When it comes to the attack that took place the other day, there were U.S. vessels, both naval vessels and commercial vessels, operating in the same rough area.  The attack came in directly in the direction of those ships.  So I will let, again, my Pentagon colleague speak to exactly what we think was being targeted.  But again, those attacks were defeated and defeated at some distance from those ships — both drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  Thank you, [senior administration official]. 

To the first question on the Houthi response, as of right now, we have not seen any direct retaliatory action directed towards our U.S. or other coalition members in the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb, or Gulf of Aden.  We remain prepared, of course, to defend ourselves.  But we have not seen a response from the Houthis at this time.

With regard to the second question on determining which vessels are being targeted, again, you’re talking about extremely professional crews with their — with exquisite equipment.  They’re able to detect, track, and determine nearly precisely, you know, where these weapons are headed. 

In the cases where they are not, then they still pose a threat based on the capability of the particular weapon.  They fall certainly within an obligation to defend themselves and those around them.  So they’re more than able to determine that they’re being targeted.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jennifer Rubin.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thanks very much for doing this.  Two questions.  One, although Iran obviously supplies and provides intelligence to the Houthis, do you have any evidence to suggest that they were alerted before or gave any kind of approval? 

And secondly, is there any economic, diplomatic, or other action contemplated directly against Iran, who is the Houthi sponsor?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So I’ll speak to the first part within the limits of what I can say, you know, given sources, methods, and the fact that we’re speaking obviously publicly on this.

We have been quite clear about the fact that Iran is a primary, if not the primary, enabler or supporter, sponsor of the Houthis and that Iran has been involved operationally in the conduct of these attacks.  They provided information and intelligence to the Houthis.  They provided the Houthis the very capabilities that they have used to conduct these attacks.  So we believe that they have been certainly involved in every phase of this.

And in terms of consequences on Iran, we have a longstanding and deep pressure campaign that the United States has conducted against Iran over a number of years, including related to their activities in Yemen and their sponsorship of other proxies around the region, other proxies who have conducted attacks on U.S. forces. 

And I’m not going to telegraph any additional future actions, but suffice it to say we do hold Iran responsible for the role that they have played with the Houthis and with the other groups in the region that have conducted attacks against U.S. forces, and have made them aware of that.

MODERATOR:  All right, next question will go to Jennifer Jacobs with Bloomberg.

Q    Thanks, guys.  Couple things.  There was a report that an embassy in Iraq was hit.  Can you say if you know if that’s true or false?

And then on Israel, can you say what the assessment is on whether Iran will react by calling for renewed attacks on Israel?

And then third thing, on the target list, can you say how many days or how many weeks it took CENTCOM to drop the target list?

Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll leave the last question to my Pentagon colleague.

On Iraq, I’ve seen nothing to indicate any activity along the lines that you just described in Iraq.  Obviously, things unfolded in real time, and I’m now in a room talking to you all.  But when I walked out of my office 15 minutes ago, I had no such information.  So I guess I’ll leave it at that.

In terms of attacks against Israel, I guess suffice it to say Iran sponsors a number of groups that conduct attacks on Israel on a daily basis, obviously starting with and including Hamas, with whom Israel is engaged in an armed conflict right now in real time in Gaza, but also including Hezbollah, including Shia militia groups in Iraq and Syria, and obviously including the Houthis. 

So we have no reason to believe that there is anything related to this that we’re seeing that is imminent, but nor would we be surprised if the sorts of attacks that Iran has sponsored, to the condemnation of much of the world, continue.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  With regard to targets, clearly, each of our combatant commanders across the globe is responsible for maintaining a wide variety of response options.  Some of those response options would include the kinetic targeting of particular locations and capabilities.  It’s no different for the Houthi threat in Yemen.  So the commander of Central Command has routinely maintained a series of response options.
For these particular targets, due to operational security, I cannot reveal the exact amount of time that it took to develop.  I can only confirm that as a course of action, each of our combatant commanders maintain response options to include kinetic operations on a variety of targets as necessary.

MODERATOR:  All right, last question.  We’ll go to Nick Schifrin.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thanks very much, guys, for doing this.  To the senior military official, basic questions.  Can you give us any more sense of how many targets there were across how many cities?  And do you have an early assessment on whether the strike was successful or caused any collateral damage?

And for the senior administration official, a Western official tells me this was on the menu of options for strikes, this was around the higher end.  Wondering if you’d be willing to agree with that.

And given what you said about expecting more attacks, do you have confidence you can degrade Houthi capabilities but less confidence you can deter future attacks?

Thanks.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  Thanks, [senior administration official].  Yeah, I’ll talk to the first question.
As far as the number of targets and the assessment of the success of the strikes, as well as any collateral damage, those specifics will be forthcoming.  So I refer you to Central Command for those as they come out here in the coming hours and days.  But I don’t have those exactly right now.

I can reemphasize to you that these targets were very specifically selected for minimizing the risk of collateral damage.  We were absolutely not targeting civilian population centers.  We were going after very specific capability in very specific locations with precision munitions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  So, in terms of where this falls on the menu of potential options, what I will say is what my Pentagon colleague said: This was a significant action and conducted with every objective and every expectation that will degrade in a significant way the Houthis’ capability to launch exactly the sorts of attacks that they have conducted over the period of recent weeks.

You know, as to whether this will merely degrade or also deter, I guess I can’t do better than what the President has said, which is that he will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary. 

So this may well not be the last word on the topic.  And when we have more to say and more to do, you will hear from us. 

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we had.  As a reminder, this call was on background, attributable to a senior military official and a senior administration official.  There’s no embargo on the call so you’re free to report.  Thanks so much.

8:36 P.M. EST
 
 
 

The post Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials and Senior Military Official on Developments in the Middle East appeared first on The White House.