Feed aggregator

Oval Office

11:48 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Got everybody?

Well, Mr. Prime Minister, welcome to the White House. We were just talking very briefly that I spent a little time in Slovenia early on, and it’s a beautiful, beautiful country.

Twenty years ago, when I was a United States senator, I pushed very hard for your country’s admission to NATO, as you know, because I knew then what I know now: We’re stronger and a safer world when we stand together with good partners like you.

We’ve seen it in support for the brave people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia’s brutal aggression. And we see it in — in our work to support democracy and prosperity across the W- — the Western Balkans. And we see it — and we saw it earlier this past summer when we secured the release of 16 people, including four Americans, unjustly held in Russia. And I want to thank you. It was a feat of diplomacy. I want to thank your country for your support and your leadership and partnership that made it possible. And that’s not hyperbole. You made it possible. Thank you.

We made it clear to anyone who questions whether our allies matter — well, they just look at what you did. And they — you matter a great deal.

And so, Mr. Prime Minister, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And we look forward to our discussion today.

The floor is yours.

PRIME MINISTER GOLOB: Mr. President, dear Joe, just couple of words, and that is that, with a little help of true friends, nothing is impossible. And I think that’s really what our joint effort with the prisoner swap demonstrated to all of the world. And let’s continue to work in a true fr- — friendship and with a lot of trust.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, there’s a lot we agree on. So, welcome. Good to have you here.

PRIME MINISTER GOLOB: Glad to be here.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And we got to get our — get moving.

Thank you all.

11:50 A.M. EDT

The post Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Robert Golob of the Republic of Slovenia Before Bilateral Meeting appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. met today with Prime Minister Robert Golob of the Republic of Slovenia at the White House.  The leaders had an in-depth discussion on a range of foreign policy issues of mutual interest.  President Biden expressed his gratitude for Slovenia’s role in the historic deal that secured the release of three Americans unjustly detained by Russia, as well as an American green card holder who won a Pulitzer Prize while in Russian detention, and 12 other human rights defenders and political dissidents.  They discussed U.S.-Slovenian cooperation on clean energy and advanced technologies, and a joint approach to Western Balkans – an area of strategic interest for both  the United States and the Republic of Slovenia.  They reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine as it continues to defend against Russia’s aggression.  They discussed the latest developments in the Middle East, the need to reach a diplomatic resolution to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah that allows civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to safely return to their homes, to ensure civilians – including humanitarians and journalists – are protected, and to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and to achieve a ceasefire deal that secures the release of the hostages.  President Biden underscored the need for increased defense investments to ensure NATO is properly resourced to face tomorrow’s challenges.

###

The post Readout of President Joe Biden’s Meeting with Prime Minister Robert Golob of the Republic of Slovenia appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. met today with Prime Minister Robert Golob of the Republic of Slovenia at the White House.  The leaders had an in-depth discussion on a range of foreign policy issues of mutual interest.  President Biden expressed his gratitude for Slovenia’s role in the historic deal that secured the release of three Americans unjustly detained by Russia, as well as an American green card holder who won a Pulitzer Prize while in Russian detention, and 12 other human rights defenders and political dissidents.  They discussed U.S.-Slovenian cooperation on clean energy and advanced technologies, and a joint approach to Western Balkans – an area of strategic interest for both  the United States and the Republic of Slovenia.  They reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine as it continues to defend against Russia’s aggression.  They discussed the latest developments in the Middle East, the need to reach a diplomatic resolution to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah that allows civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to safely return to their homes, to ensure civilians – including humanitarians and journalists – are protected, and to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and to achieve a ceasefire deal that secures the release of the hostages.  President Biden underscored the need for increased defense investments to ensure NATO is properly resourced to face tomorrow’s challenges.

###

The post Readout of President Joe Biden’s Meeting with Prime Minister Robert Golob of the Republic of Slovenia appeared first on The White House.

All Americans should be able to access the health care they need – no matter their income. That is why our Administration fought to lower health care costs with the Inflation Reduction Act, legislation that I was proud to cast the tie-breaking vote on in the Senate. During the first half of this year alone, we now know that nearly 1.5 million people with Medicare have already saved nearly $1 billion because of our law’s cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. 
 
Additionally, we have been able to cut prescription drug costs, cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors, and lower premiums for those on Medicare. Our Administration has also reached unprecedented agreements with pharmaceutical companies to lower prices for the first 10 drugs selected for the Medicare price negotiation program – ten of the most widely used and expensive drugs that treat conditions ranging from cancer to diabetes. And there is still much more to come.
 
I have seen the impact of fighting to protect patients up close. As Attorney General, I held Big Pharma accountable for their deceptive and illegal practices – winning settlements that amounted to more than $7 billion against pharmaceutical companies for their unsafe and unfair tactics. I will never stop fighting for the health, wellbeing, and financial stability of the American people.

# # #

The post Statement by Vice President Kamala Harris on Americans Saving Nearly $1 Billion on Prescription Drugs Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act appeared first on The White House.

All Americans should be able to access the health care they need – no matter their income. That is why our Administration fought to lower health care costs with the Inflation Reduction Act, legislation that I was proud to cast the tie-breaking vote on in the Senate. During the first half of this year alone, we now know that nearly 1.5 million people with Medicare have already saved nearly $1 billion because of our law’s cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. 
 
Additionally, we have been able to cut prescription drug costs, cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors, and lower premiums for those on Medicare. Our Administration has also reached unprecedented agreements with pharmaceutical companies to lower prices for the first 10 drugs selected for the Medicare price negotiation program – ten of the most widely used and expensive drugs that treat conditions ranging from cancer to diabetes. And there is still much more to come.
 
I have seen the impact of fighting to protect patients up close. As Attorney General, I held Big Pharma accountable for their deceptive and illegal practices – winning settlements that amounted to more than $7 billion against pharmaceutical companies for their unsafe and unfair tactics. I will never stop fighting for the health, wellbeing, and financial stability of the American people.

# # #

The post Statement by Vice President Kamala Harris on Americans Saving Nearly $1 Billion on Prescription Drugs Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act appeared first on The White House.

Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts
Brookfield, Wisconsin

7:09 P.M. CDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good evening, everyone.  Good evening.

MR. SYKES:  And, Vice President, wel- — welcome back to Wisconsin.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:   It is good to be back.  You — you know, I — so, Tony Evers.

MR. SYKES:  (Laughs.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  That’s funny about his playlist.  Is it really that long?  (Laughter.)

MR. SYKES:  No.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Okay.

Every time I — I land in Wisconsin — almost every time, Tony Evers, the governor, will meet me on the tarmac.  And because I did live in Wisconsin when I was five years old, every — (applause) — he will say, “Welcome home.”  So, I do feel and have a connection to Wisconsin and feel a sense of connection.

MR. SYKES:  Actually, we all have connections to Wisconsin, which — which makes this event, I think, so important, with 15 days to go. 

So, let’s just dive right into all of this.  There are actually undecided voters out there.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  And there are undecided voters here.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  People who have never voted for a Democrat.  Moderates, conservatives who voted for people named Bush and Cheney and Ford and Reagan —

MS. CHENEY:  Yay.  (Claps.)  (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  And — and Bob Dole.  Wow, that’s a — that’s throwback, isn’t it?

But I guess the question is: What is your pitch to them?  Why should they do something they’ve never done before?  Why should they cross over party lines and vote for you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, I start from the belief, based on the lived experience, that the vast majority of us have more in common than what separates us. 

I also know that you all are here spending time that you could be spending doing a number of other things, with all of the obligations you each have, and you are here because we, together, love our country.  We love our country, and we believe in the foundational principles that are at stake in this election. 

I believe that when we think about who we are as the American people, there is more we have in common than what separates us when we think about what is at stake in terms of our democracy, rule of law, the Constitution of the United States, national security, the standing of our country in the context of the world.  All of that is at stake. 

And I will share with you, Charlie, when I was in the Senate for — for those four years that I was there, my favorite committee was the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I’m going to tell you why.  We would walk into that meeting in a SCIF, which is a — a secure room.  We’d have to leave our cell phones outside.  The press, with all due respect, were not allowed in.  No cameras. 

People would walk in, Democrats and Republicans, take off their suit jacket, roll up their sleeves, and we’d dispense with who was a Republican and who was a Democrat.  We were all Americans.  We were all in that room with one singular purpose: to concern ourselves as our highest priority with the security and well-being of the United States of America. 

I think those things are at stake in this election.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  Congresswoman Cheney, you know how hard this is, though.  You know how hard it is to break away from tribal loyalty to do something you haven’t done before.  So, I’d like you to address that as well. 

Lindsey Graham was on television yesterday saying, “What do you ‘Never Trump’ Republicans — you know, what — what are you thinking of?  How could you possibly do all of this?”

There are a lot of people who are listening to us who may be disillusioned with what’s happening with the Republican Party, but they w- — they don’t they — they — they’re afraid of paying the price, because there is a cost to all of that. 

So, what do you say to those Americans?

MS. CHENEY:  Well, don’t listen to Lindsey Graham.  Number one.  (Laughter and applause.)  It’s good life advice, actually. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)

MS. CHENEY:  But what I say is that, at the — what undergirds everything that we are as a nation — everything that we are as a nation is the rule of law and it’s our Constitution. 

And when you — when you look at what Donald Trump did after the last election, when you look at the cruelty that’s involved in someone who watches an attack on the United States Capitol, an attack conducted by people in his name, and refuses for over three hours to tell the mob to leave — I mean, I really — people just need to think about what that — that — that’s — that’s depravity.  He watched the attack happen, and people kept asking him, “Please tell the people to leave.”  And law enforcement officers were being brutally beaten and the Capitol was being assaulted, and he would not tell people to leave for over three hours. 

That cruelty is the same cruelty that we see when he lies about the federal government’s disaster response, when he puts people’s lives at risk because he won’t tell the truth.  He’s a man who’s unfit to be the president of this good and honorable and great nation. 

And so, I’ve spent a lot of time working — before I was elected to Congress — in countries around the world that — that weren’t free or where people were trying to achieve their freedom, and I know how fragile — how fragile this — this can be, how fragile democracy can be. 

And so, in — in this election, we have a choice.  We have the choice of somebody, in Vice President Harris, who you know is going to uphold the rule of law.  You know that she’s going to lead this country with a sincere heart.  You know that she is going to always be thinking about what is best for this nation.  We might not agree on every issue, but — but she is somebody that you can trust and someone that our children can look up to.  And I think it’s so important for us to cast the vote for Vice President Harris this time around.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  You know, Vice — Vice President, I w- — I was thinking about one of your social media posts recently where you go through all the things that Donald Trump has bailed out of: that he won’t debate you, that he won’t — that he won’t do interviews, that he’s refusing to release certain information.  And — and you asked an interesting question: What is he hiding?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  So, what, in fact, is he hiding?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, I — I wonder what is he hiding.  I also wonder what his staff is trying to hide by — by preventing or suggesting he not debate me again, not do these interviews.  It is the norm, as you know, that presidential nominees will do a “60 Minutes” interview.  He has refused to do that.  He is pulling out of interviews left, right, and center. 

And I think that we — what we see about him in public, whether it be his rallies or, as you said, the — the — would it — would it be called a — just a solo dance?  I — I don’t — I — (laughter).

MR. SYKES:  I don’t know that is has a — I don’t even know if it has a name to it.

MS. CHENEY:  “Dance” is really generous.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  What — (laughs).  Yes.

MR. SYKES:  Yeah, the word “dance” would be generous.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  What — what that was.

I — I think it does lead us and it should lead us to observe that he is increasingly unstable. 

But you don’t have to take my word for it.  Listen to the people who know him best, the people who worked with him in the White House, in the Oval Office, in the Situation Room: his former chief of staff; two former secretaries of Defense, his secretaries of Defense; his former national security advisor; and, of course, his former vice president.  And they have each talked about the — the chief of staff — that Donald Trump has contempt for the Constitution of the United States. 

Not only has that been said by a former chief of staff of the former president, but we know he has openly talked about his intention to terminate the Constitution of the United States. 

I have taken that oath six times: as district attorney twice — elected and reelected; as attorney general of the largest state, in California, twice; as a United States senator; and actually now as vice president.  And the congresswoman and I have talked about that.  That is an oath one must take seriously.  It is a duty to defend and honor and uphold the Constitution of the United States. 

He has said he would terminate it.  Anyone who wants to be president of the United States should never again be able to stand behind the seal of the president of the United States, having said they would terminate the Constitution of the United States.  (Applause.)

And, again, most recently, the report is that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a decorated general, said of Donald Trump that he is “fascist to the core.”  These are the people who know him best, people who worked with him. 

And so, yes, we can talk about that moment on stage of the music and all that, but I think it’s very important that we acknowledge, and I have said publicly, Donald Trump is an unserious man, and the consequences of him ever being president of the United States again are brutally serious — brutally serious.

I — to — to the congresswoman’s point, I have now, as vice president of the United States, met over 150 world leaders — presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and kings — many of them, multiple times; we are on a first-name basis — most of them allies in connection with NATO, and — and I’ve met with them in connection with our standing, rightly, with Ukraine.  The world is watching this election, and our allies are worried, because the reality is that when we, as the United States of America, walk in these rooms around the world, we walk in chin up, shoulders back, with the earned and self-appointed authority to talk about the importance of democracy and rule of law.

And being a role model — this is a room of role models — we know, as a role model, people watch what you do to see if it matches up to what you say. 

One of my very real fears, Charlie, to be candid, is I hope that we, as the American people, fully understand how important America is to the world.  I hope we really, really understand that — (applause) — because this is about what will happen to and — and with us as Americans, but it will impact people around the world.

MR. SYKES:  Let me follow up on that, Congresswoman, because I was on a podcast recently with — with another pundit who was saying that she was afraid that America was sleepwalking into authoritarianism, that American voters were not sufficiently alarmed.  And as the vice president just said, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just said that Donald Trump was the most dangerous threat facing the country. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  Do Americans — in this last 15 days, do they understand that?  And what has to happen in the next two weeks for them to really understand the danger?

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, I — I think that they — I think they do.  And, you know, one of the things I — I remind people is that although not every Republican who is casting a vote for Vice President Harris will say publicly that they are — there’s clearly, you know, a threat associated with that in some instances — but — but millions will.  And — and they will do that for a whole range of reasons, but — but what you mentioned is so important. 

I mean, when I think about — you know, I — the first time I ever voted was for Ronald Reagan.  I’ve known presidents well.  Obviously, particularly, I know a vice president well — (laughter) — in addition to Vice President Harris.  And — and I watch how our presidents have operated.  And even when there have been presidents that we have potentially disagreed with on issues, they’ve respected the Constitution.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah. 

MS. CHENEY:  I mean, think about the 2000 election and how close that was and what Vice President Gore did in — in his concession speech and in ensuring that we had the peaceful transfer of power. 

And so, I — I would just urge people — again, you don’t have to — to take my word for it, but — but look at what the people closest to Donald Trump are saying about him.  Look at the testimony of the leaders of his Justice department, the leaders of his campaign, the most senior officials in his White House.  Look at their testimony in front of the Select Committee.  You know, they’re the ones that — that told us everything that we know about his plan to overturn the last election, about what he did watching the attack from his dining room. 

We’ve never faced a threat like this before, and I — I think it’s so important for people to realize this republic only survives if we protect it, and that means putting partisan politics aside and standing up for the Constitution and for what’s right and loving our country more.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  Do — do you — do you think we’ll be hearing more from some of those folks in the next 15 days — the generals, the chiefs of staff, the people who really understand exactly how unfit Donald Trump is?

MS. CHENEY:  I do.  I also think that — you know, that they have been very clear so far. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  I mean, you’ve had — you’ve had hundreds of national security officials who served in Republican administrations endorse the vice president —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Publicly, yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah.  And all of the things that — that — you know, the fact that these people aren’t endorsing — the fact that Vice President Pence, who was the most loyal person there was to Donald Trump — he won’t endorse him because he knows Donald Trump asked him to violate his oath of office. 

Now, that should also give you a lot of pause about J.D. Vance.  J.D. Vance is there because he will do what Donald Trump wants, and that makes him a particular danger to the republic as well.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And — and I’ll add to that point: Understand also what happened in the last few months when the Supreme Court essentially told the former president he will be immune from anything he does in office.  So, whereas, before, there was at least some threat of consequence and accountability, that no longer exists. 

And to the congresswoman’s point, imagine Donald Trump — based on everything we know about him and everything we see now and before — imagine him with no guardrails, because all of those folks who worked with him before, they’re not — those who held him back, who attempted to ensure that he would follow the law are no longer there.  And — and we have the Supreme Court decision, so the stakes are very high.

MR. SYKES:  Okay.  Let’s go to the audience for some questions.  We — we have some undecided voters who have some questions for you, Madam Vice President.

Let’s go to Lisa Brockman from Madison.  Lisa is a small-business owner. 

Q    Hi.

MR. SYKES:  Good evening. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hi.

Q    Thanks for taking my question.  I have a question on reproductive freedom.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

Q    And I am — come from a conservative, Christian, pro-life family, and I was a Republican until Donald Trump’s presidency.  (Laughs.)  Like most Americans, I believe in a woman’s right to choose.  And with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, my 21-year-old daughter now has fewer rights than her mother or her grandmothers.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

Q    I no longer recognize the Republican Party.  They have introduced bills for everything from restricting birth control to bringing homicide charges for abortion.  It is such an extreme, radical agenda by any standards, and it seems less about the unborn and more about controlling women. 

So, my question is: What are your thoughts on this extremism, and how can we restore those fundamental human rights that have been taken away from the American women?

MR. SYKES:  Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, to your point, when Donald Trump was president, he hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe, and they did as he intended.  And now there are at least 20 states in our country that have criminalized health care providers, to your point. 

I mean, in Texas, the — the law provides for prison for life for a doctor, nurse, health care provider for doing what they believe is health care and in the best interest of their patient. 

Punishing women.  I was actually just this week, just a few days ago, in the state of Georgia with the mother of a young woman who died because of Georgia’s abortion ban, and she had to go to another state.  And it’s a long and very tragic story that did not have to be.

And here’s how I think about this issue.  One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree that the government — these folks in a state capitol, much less Donald Trump — should not be making this decision for her.  If she chooses, she will talk with her priest, her pastor, her rabbi, her imam, but not the government. 

And — and I also have found, though, since the two years that the Dobbs decision came down, that this happened, I have had conversations with a number of people who were opposed to abortion and remain opposed to it but did not intend for the harm that we are seeing to happen.  And I think as this has — this decision came down and we are seeing the harm, there are more and more people who are agreeing that this should not be the government making this decision for women and their families.

And the way that we will address this is, eventually, Congress needs to pass a law restoring those protections, and we need to agree that, in our society, you know, we should not have laws that are treating people in a way that is causing such harm. 

I’ll give you another example of the harm that is going on.  I started my career as a prosecutor.  I have prosecuted everything from low-level offenses to homicides.  But one of the reasons I became a prosecutor is because, when I was in high school, I learned that my best friend was being molested by her stepfather.  And so, I said to her, “You have to come live with us.”  I called my mother.  My mother said, “Of course,” and she did.  And I made a decision early in my life that I wanted to do the work that was about protecting vulnerable people. 

There are some of these bans that include no exception for rape or incest.  I have specialized in those kinds of cases.  And the — the notion that we would tell a survivor of a crime that is a violation to their body that they have no right to make a decision about what happens to their body next — I mean, I think that’s just unconscionable.  I think it’s immoral. 

And so, this is one of the issues that is at play.  And when this issue has been on the ballot, since the Dobbs decision came down, in so-called red states and so-called blue states, the American people have voted for freedom.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  Congresswoman Cheney, I’d like to get your thoughts on this as well. 

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah.  You know, I am — I’m pro-life, and I have been very troubled, deeply troubled by what I have watched happen in so many states since Dobbs.  And I have been troubled by the extent to which you have women who, as the vice president said, in some cases, have died, who can’t get medical treatment that they need because providers are worried about criminal liability. 

You know, we’re facing a situation today where I think that it’s an untenable one.  And I think that as we deal with issues like this one, having a president who understands how important compassion is, who understands that these shouldn’t be political issues, that we ought to be able to have these discussions and say: You know what?  Even if you are pro-life, as I am, I do not believe, for example, that the state of Texas ought to have the right, as they’re currently suing to do, to get access to women’s medical records. 

I mean, there are some very fundamental and fundamentally dangerous things that have happened.  And — and so, I think that it’s crucially important for us to find ways to have the federal government play a role and protect women from some of the worst harms that we’re seeing. 

But — but, again, I just think that if you look at the difference in — in the way that Donald Trump is handling this issue — you know, Donald Trump, at one point, called for criminal penalties for women.  Now, you know, he — he’s been now trying to — to, you know, sort of be all over the place on this issue, although he expresses great pride for what’s happened.

And — and I think the — the bottom line on this, as on so many other issues, is, you know, you just can’t count on him.  You cannot trust him.  We’ve seen the man that he is.  We’ve seen the cruelty.  And America deserves much better.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  Thank you.  Thank you, Lisa.

So, we — we have another question.  Carolyn Mitchell from Wauwatosa has a question for the vice president as well. 

Q    Hi.  I have concerns about the strength and the health of the Medicare and the Social Security system.  There have been a lot of suggestions for improving or protecting it, some of them raising the age for full acceptance of Social Security.  There’s also the idea that we would end the cap on — on the Social Security tax.  There is also the suggestion that we raise the tax rate on both Medicare and Social Security.  And, of course, the last one is to reduce the benefits. 

So, my question for you is: How can we protect the health of both Social Security and Medicare without reducing the benefits?

MR. SYKES:  Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, first of all, thank you for your question.  Actually, just today, I believe it was — within the last 24 hours or so — an independent review of Donald Trump’s policy on Social Security has indicated that, under his policy, Social Security would become insolvent in six years. 

And what I and you and, I think, most of us know is that we have many, many seniors in our country where their Social Security check is their only form of income.  It’s everything and the only thing they have to live on, to pay rent, groceries, all of that.  And so, we must protect Social Security. 

     If you look at Donald Trump’s Project 2025, the — the plan that they have if he is elected — or reelected president, it — it would attack Social Security.  It would attack Medicare. 

     And back to the point about just what is in the interest of dignity.  The president of the United States should have as one of their highest concerns the dignity of the American people and, in particular, those who have lived a productive life, who deserve to be able to retire and go into their senior years with the dignity of not worrying about whether they’re going to have a roof over their head or be able to eat. 

     So, my plan includes what we need to do to strengthen the solvency of Social Security.  It includes what we’re going to need to do and work with Congress to make sure we’re putting more into it.  And it cannot be about cutting benefits, because right now, those benefits are barely adequate as it is. 

     What we must also do is continue to strengthen Medicare around what we’ve been working on, which is to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription medication costs for our seniors. 

     So, in the last four years, we have now capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors.  This is a huge issue for so many who have otherwise either taken a bus trip to Canada to try and get their prescription medication — you’re smiling; you know what I’m talking about — or — not that you have; I’m not suggesting that.  (Laughter.)  I’m not suggesting that.  And we’ve also capped the cost of — of prescription medication at $2,000 a year for our seniors, understanding, again, that this is a related issue, which is what is causing our seniors to be on the verge of bankruptcy and — and homelessness, by the way.

     The other work that we have to do is to deal with home health care and how Medicare is covering that. 

     So, part of my plan is — right now, the only way that there will be coverage for home health care is, generally speaking, Medicaid, which means that the family or the individual would have to spend down all of their savings to be able to be eligible for Medicaid.  And, frankly, I think it’s just — that’s — that’s wrong, and it’s — it’s just wrong.

     You know, I took care of my mother when she was sick, and the work that needs to happen to support our seniors to be able to stay in their home, to be able to live a life with dignity should include that we will pay attention to the fact that not everybody can afford that help, not everyone has a family member who can do it. 

And so, my plan includes having Medicare cover home health care work for seniors — (applause) — so that you can stay in your home, for example, and have someone who can prepare a meal and help you put on a sweater.  But the — the core point being dignity and understanding that we should not have a society that allows or requires our seniors to — to go into poverty in order to qualify for the care that they may need that, I think, we — most would agree — should provide.  (Applause.)

     Thank you.
    
     MR. SYKES:  And we have another question from the audience, from Dan — Dan Voboril, who is a retired school teacher, taught at MPS, and now lives in Waukesha.  Again, a genuinely undecided voter, I understand.

     Q    Thank you.  Good evening.

     MS. CHENEY:  Come on, Dan.  (Laughter.) 

     Q    What did you say?

     I was told I was going to be an alternate, so I was a little worried about getting my question.  But —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Take your time.  Take your time.

     Q    This is a question that — I actually retired from MPS, but I currently teach, and I teach at a private Catholic school.  I’m a Catholic, but I’ve also been pro-life, pro-choice depending.  But I have five daughters, and I think it’s my duty to continue — with the children I teach as well — to see that we need to respect women, and I’ve really come to the conclusion that this toxicity that exists is just rather embarrassing.  And as a lifelong Republican, who I thought your father would be a great president —

     MS. CHENEY:  Thank you.

     Q    — not to say George wasn’t, but — (laughter) — but I’ve come to this realization, and it’s — it’s been very difficult.  So, I’m just — my big question was, for the future of my children and also students that I encounter and try to show that we have to have some kind of civility like we did back in the — the ‘80s, when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, of course, could talk about things and solve problems, and now it’s trying to get one better than the other. 

     And so, I’m just wondering, in your position now, how to convince people like me, who some of my siblings might be questioning what I’m doing here, but — (laughter) — I — I think, like you said, we have to be courageous, and that’s what I’m trying to be.  And so, what do you think we can do in the last 15 days — or you can, Madam Vice President — what you can do to try to get some of these people to cross over?  I know you already said that some of them probably won’t say who they’re voting for, but — or something I could take with me to say, “This sounds very good,” or, “We got to at least listen to this.”

     MR. SYKES:  To reduce the toxicity?  Is that —

     Q    Yes.

     MR. SYKES:  Okay.

     MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, I — I think that — that, you know, you’ve really put your finger on something that’s so important, and you see it as a teacher.  You know, any of us who are around young children — I see it as a mom.  My kids aren’t so young anymore, but — but, you know, the — when they look at how elected officials and, in particular, how Donald Trump is conducting himself now, that’s — that’s not — that’s not a lesson that anybody would look up to. 

     And — and I think about it often from the perspective of the men and women who’ve worn the uniform of our country and who have sacrificed so much for our freedom, all of us have an obligation to be worthy of that sacrifice. 

And in this — (applause) — you know, in this moment, there — there are millions of good and honorable people who Donald Trump has just fundamentally betrayed.  And — and I think it’s so important for — for people to think about this from the perspective of, you know, the decision to give somebody the power of the presidency means that you’re handing someone the most awesome and significant power of any office anywhere in the world, and — and you have to choose people who have character, choose people of good faith. 

     You know, the — the framers knew this.  The framers knew that — that it was so important that, you know, we take an oath but that also, fundamentally, you had to have people of character.  And Donald Trump has proven he’s not one of those people by his actions. 

     So, you know, what I — what I say to people is, look, for us to get back to a time where we are actually having policy debates and discussions and disagreements, we have to protect what undergirds all of this, and — and what undergirds all of it is the Constitution.  And we have to be willing to say, as a nation, “We’re better than partisanship.” 

     We know — and I say this as someone who spent a lot of years engaged in partisan battles and — and there are important debates we have to have.  But if — if we allow someone again — if we give him the power again to, you know, do all of the things he tells us he’s going to do — he says he’ll terminate the Constitution; he says he’ll deploy the military against the “enemy within” — that — that is a risk that we just simply can’t take as a nation.  And — and I think that, you know, this vote, this election cycle, this time around has to be about so much more than partisanship. 

And I will just end this by saying: And I also know because I have spent time with Vice President Harris, because I have come to understand what she believes about how she will govern, that she will be a president for all Americans, that she’s committed to listening and committed to having viewpoints, some of which, you know, come from different ends of the political spectrum. 

     And — and if you think about how you conduct, you know, your life outside of politics, how we all conduct our everyday lives, those are the kinds of people that you trust.  Those are the kinds of people you can work with.  Like, if you wouldn’t — if you wouldn’t hire somebody to babysit your kids, like, you shouldn’t make that guy the president of the United States.  (Laughter and applause.)  I mean, that’s, like, pretty basic.

     MR. SYKES:  So — so —
    
     MS. CHENEY:  Thank you.  Thank you.

     MR. SYKES:  Madam Vice President, that — this question goes to the heart of our discussion tonight, because it’s almost — it is not about politics.  It’s not about left versus right.  We’re talking about the culture and the impact, the coarsening of the culture, the way in which we have been taught to fear and hate one another, and how our —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     MR. SYKES:  — debates have just devolved into sort of trolling one another.  How do we get back from that?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, I think that Dan raised — and, Charlie, your point is — is really also hitting on we have to tap into and — and rejoice, frankly, in the spirit of who we are as Americans.  And we are an ambitious people.  We have aspirations.  We have dreams.  We are optimistic by nature.  And we, I think, value certain qualities in our leaders. 

     To your point as — being a teacher, all of — those of us who are parents or parent in any form, the — the notion over the last several years coming from Trump and those who follow him, meaning people like who he’s running with — not his voters, but just others — the notion that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down is just wrongheaded. 

     I think most of us would agree that the — that the real measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.  I think most of us would agree — (applause) — and most of us would agree that it is — when we talk about character, it is the sign of strong character to have empathy, to have some level of concern and care about the well-being of other people and then to do something about that.

     And I think there’s so much about this election that calls into question whether we are on a track with a Donald Trump as president to actually teach and to — and to show our children our definition of a leader, and is that it.

     One of the issues that I think has resulted in the kind of toxicity that you have been describing is that he tends to encourage us as Americans to point our fingers at each other.  That’s not in our best interest.  The vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us. 

     We are stronger as a nation when we are working toward a common goal, at least on the most basic, fundamental priorities. 

     And I think in this election, you can look at, for example, how he presents in his — in his events to know that he really does not have a plan for America that is about investing in our future, investing in our children, investing in — in our economies and new industries, investing in our relationships around the world.  It’s all about himself and his personal grievances.  And do we want a president of the United States who spends full time plotting revenge while they sit in the Oval Office or a president who is actually focused on the American people?

     I would also say, as a — as a point that I think the congresswoman exemplifies in so many ways, the strength of our democracy requires a strong two-party system.  It really does.  (Applause.)  It requires that we have healthy debate — that we have healthy debate based on — you know, based in logic and fact and that we — we debate it out — have good, vigorous debates — have a good fight over policy.  That’s good for democracy.  But not to point our fingers and call each other names over trivial, petty grievances. 

     So, I think all of that is at stake in this election, and — and tapping into the commonalities that we have around some of these fundamental principles, I think, is going to be key.

     MR. SYKES:  Well, that’s why the stakes are so high, right?  Because the presidency is a role model, but America is a role model to the rest of the world. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

     MR. SYKES:  So, in the very short amount of time we have left, Congresswoman Cheney, just talk a little bit more about the — the stakes for the world.  We haven’t talked about the stakes for the future of Ukraine, NATO, of all the other democracies who are looking to us.

     MS. CHENEY:  They’re so, so high, Charlie.  And, you know, America’s safety and security depends upon America leading, and it depends upon allies. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  And when you have someone who is erratic and chaotic and unstable, that puts all of us at risk.

     I — I tell people often — you know, I spend a lot of time working on national security issues.  And when people that I know in the — in the Republican Party tell me they might be considering voting for Trump from a national security perspective, I ask them: Go look at his national security policies.  Please, go look at them, because what he’s proposing in terms of withdrawing from NATO; welcoming Vladimir Putin to attack our NATO Allies; praising — he — he praises Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, and President Xi of China and Putin of Russia.  And if you listen to him, he doesn’t just praise those people generally.  He praises them for their cruelty —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yep.

     MS. CHENEY:  — for their tyranny.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yep.

     MS. CHENEY:  That’s not who we are as a nation.  It’s not who we are. 

And the world needs us to be better.  And our own security and our own freedom requires that we have a president who understands America has to lead and that our strength comes both from our greatness and also from our goodness.  And that’s Vice President Harris.  (Applause.)

     MR. SYKES:  And you have the last word.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And — and just to — thank you.  Thank you.

MR. SYKES:  You get the last word.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  But — but just as a point of emphasis on this important point: Understand that this is an individual, Donald Trump, who is easily manipulated by flattery, and we’ve seen that.  We’ve — don’t forget he — he dared to even consider vi- — inviting the Taliban to Camp David.  Remember all this.  The love letters with Kim Jong Un.

     Let’s remember what we just most recently — what was reported.  During the height of COVID, Americans were dying by the hundreds a day.  Nobody could get their hands on COVID tests.  You remember what that was.  During that time, he secretly sent COVID tests to Vladimir Putin for his personal use.

     On the issue of Ukraine, he says, “Oh, well, I’d solve that in a day.”  Well, I don’t think we as Americans think that the president of the United States should solve an issue like that through surrender, and understand that’s what would happen.  (Applause.)  Understand that’s what would happen.  Vladimir Putin would be sitting in Kyiv if Donald Trump were president. 

     And understand what that means as — so much that our allies understand, and that’s why they’re concerned about this election.  If — if Putin were to get away with invading the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine because America, the leader in bringing the allies together in standing for fundamental international rules and norms, like sovereignty and territorial integrity — if Vladimir Putin got away with that, you think he wouldn’t march next right into Poland and the rest of Europe?  Because Donald Trump wants to please somebody that he considers to be a strongman, who he admires?

     So, on this and so many issues, the stakes are extremely high. 

     But I — I would say this as — as a final point for now.  This is not as much an issue of what we are against as what we are for.  And I’ll end my point where I started: We love our country, and our country is worth fighting for.  (Applause.)  And that’s how I think of this. 

     We — our — our democracy will only be as strong as our willingness to fight for it.  And you all are taking your time out of your lives to be here because we, I think, agree on that among the most fundamental principles at stake. 

     And I thank you for the time you’ve taken, and I hope to earn your vote, by the way.  (Laughs.)  (Applause.)
    
     Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.

     MR. SYKES:  And we have 15 days to make a decision. 

     Thank you all for coming here to (inaudible).  Thank you, Congresswoman Liz Cheney.  Vice President Kamala Harris, thank you so much.  (Applause.)

                             END                7:54 P.M. CDT

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris and Liz Cheney at a Campaign Event | Brookfield, WI appeared first on The White House.

Royal Oak Music Theatre
Royal Oak, Michigan

4:31 P.M. EDT

MS. SHRIVER:  Okay.  Here we go.  Sit back.  We’ve got 40 — 40 minutes, and we’re going to move quick.  Okay?

So, I want this to be like a kitchen table.  Like, just think that we’re sitting around the kitchen table and we’re jamming about all kinds of stuff.  That’s the feeling I want to have at this —

     MS. CHENEY:  This is like a Kennedy family kitchen table.

     MS. SHRIVER:  It — yeah.  (Laughter.)

     MS. CHENEY:  Most people don’t have this many, you know?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  That’s good.  That’s good.

MS. SHRIVER:  That’s right.  It’s raucous.  It’s — it’s hot, but it’s fun.  That’s what it’s going to be like. 

So, this is — I was saying before both of you walked out, this is historic — so I hope everybody takes this in for a minute — to have a leader of the Republican Party and the vice president of the United States.  (Applause.) 

So, let me begin with you, Madam Vice President.  Did you ever think in your wildest dreams that you would be running for president alongside Liz Cheney, who would be advocating for you, campaigning for you — a member of a opposing party putting herself on the line for you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, let me just start by thanking everyone.  Thank you all for taking time out of your busy lives to be here and have this conversation. 

And I think we are all here together because we have many things in common.  First and foremost, we love our country.  We love our country.  (Applause.) 

You know, so, Maria, perhaps not, but — (laughter).

MS. SHRIVER:  Perhaps.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Perhaps not. 

But let me say this.  So, you mentioned, you know, my background.  So, I started my career as a prosecutor, and most of my career has been spent outside of Washington, D.C., not in Washington, D.C.  And for most of my career, let me just tell you, I never once asked a victim of crime, a witness, “Are you a Democrat, or are you a Republican?”  Never.  It never would have even occurred to me to ask that.  What I did ask everyone: “Are you okay?” 

And when I think, then, about what is at stake in this election, I think that’s the biggest question.  And it is a moment where, born out of our love of our country, born out of, for me, having taken the oath of office to the Constitution of the United ta- — States at least six times, I believe what is at stake in this election is so fundamental for us as Americans.  And it is about: Do we take seriously the importance of a president who obeys the oath to be loyal to the Constitution of the United States?  Do we prioritize a president of the United States who cares about rule of law, much less the spirit with which they approach this most powerful position? 

There’s so much about this last era — when I talk about “turn the page,” that’s what I’m referring to, like the last decade — that has been about some powerful forces suggesting that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down instead of what I think most of us believe, regardless of your party affiliation, that the real measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.

And — (applause) — and so, for that reason, I’m not surprised that Liz Cheney and I are on the same stage 15 days before the election.  (Applause.)  You know?

MS. SHRIVER:  Okay.  Well, maybe you’re not surprised, but I’m surprised.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)

MS. SHRIVER:  And I think a lot of people are surprised.  So, I want to know: Are you surprised?  Are you surprised that you’re out here campaigning for a Democrat, campaigning for Kamala Harris, against the party that you’ve been a part of your entire life?

MS. CHENEY:  You know, what I would say, first of all, is we all know — everyone who watched January 6th knows, you know, what Donald Trump is willing to do.  He lost the election, he tried to overturn it and seize power, and then he sat in his dining room and he watched the attack on television.  He watched it.  People pleaded with him to tell the mob to leave, and he wouldn’t.  And he watched law enforcement officers be brutally beaten.  He watched it. 

That’s a depravity that, to me and — and, you know, I think to anyone who’s taken the oath of office, makes someone absolutely unfit ever to be president again.

Now — (applause) — I — I could have just said, you know, I’m going to do everything I can to work against Donald Trump, and there are a lot of Republicans who have said that.

MS. SHRIVER:  Yes.

MS. CHENEY:  I have decided — and I am very proud and I’m honored to have made the decision — to endorse Vice President Harris.  (Applause.) 

And — and I have gotten to spend time with Vice President Harris.  I have had the chance to talk with her about how important it is that we have two strong parties in our country, about the kind of president that I know she’ll be. 

And I think all of us — it doesn’t matter what party you’re in — we all know this is a good and an honorable and a great nation, and we have to have leaders — you might say, “I’m not going to agree on every issue” — but we have to have leaders who take that seriously.  We have to have leaders who are going to be sincere. 

And — and as a mother, I want my children to know that there is someone sitting in the Oval Office that they can look up to, someone who can be a role model.  And I’m incredibly proud and I know that Vice President Harris will be that.  (Applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  Right.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And — and, Maria, let me just add one thing also, because it bears repeating.  I have seen a lot of Republicans go up to Liz Cheney and thank her.  And they may not be doing it publicly — they may not be doing it publicly, because I think she has shown, to your point, extraordinary courage, especially in this environment, post January 6th, where there’s something — an undercurrent that is violent in terms of the language and the tenor. 

And for her to show the courage she has shown is extraordinary.  But she’s — I’ve seen Republicans come up to her and — and I — from my vantage point, she’s actually not alone.  (Applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  And so, I want to talk about that, because there are a lot of people who are scared.  Scared to vote —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. SHRIVER:  — for you.  Scared about the environment.  Scared to talk about politics. 

How scary was it for you, personally, to make this decision?  What has been the personal cost for you to do so?

MS. CHENEY:  It — it was not — it wasn’t scary at all, in terms of making this decision, because when I look at the — the nature of the threat that Donald Trump poses and — and, look, Donald Trump is doing everything he can to try to get people to forget about what he did — what he did on January 6th. 

And — and when you think about that level of instability, the level of erratic decision-making, the misogyny, that’s not someone that you can entrust with the power of the Oval Office. 

And so, I — I think that we are facing a — a choice in this election.  It’s not about party; it’s about right and wrong. 

And — and I certainly have many Republicans who will say to me, “I can’t be public.”  They do worry about a whole range of things —

MS. SHRIVER:  Right.

MS. CHENEY:  — including violence.  But — but they’ll do the right thing. 

And I would just remind people: If you’re at all concerned, you can vote your conscience and not ever have to say a word to anybody.  (Applause.)  And there will be millions of Republicans who do that on November 5th — vote for Vice President Harris.

MS. SHRIVER:  Yes.

I — I love that you said you weren’t scared at all, because most people will talk today about “I’m afraid to say anything on social media.”  “I’m afraid to speak in my place of worship.”  “I’m aprai- — afraid to speak where I work.”  “I’m afraid.” 

How are you not afraid?

MS. CHENEY:  Well, I think that — that the point you’re making is a really important one.  Think about what’s happened in our country, the level of vicious, vitriolic attack. 

You know, when — when Donald Trump says that his political opponents are the enemy within and when he contemplates deploying force against them, the response that we all have should not be to be so afraid we don’t act.  It should be: Vote him out.  Defeat him.  Defeat him.  Vote for Vice President Harris.  (Applause.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And, Maria, I’m going to add to that.

MS. SHRIVER:  Yeah.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I — I would add to that an additional point, which is — and don’t think it’s a sick sense of humor and relegate it to simply being that.  You know, I’ve said many times, I do believe Donald Trump to be an unserious man, but the consequences of him ever being in the White House again are brutally serious.

And — and take it from the people who know him best: his former chief of staff when he was president; two former Defense secretaries; his national security advisor; and, of course, his vice president, who have all in one way or another used the word that he is “unfit” to be president again and is dangerous. 

Listen to the report that — what his former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a general, said about him: that he is “fascist to the core.” 

And these are people who were in his administration, who worked closely with him in the Oval Office and the Situation Room. 

And so, I would caution us also — you know, because some people find it humorous what he says and — and think it’s just silly.  But understand how brutally serious it is.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Lock him up!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, the courts will take care of that.  We’ll take care of November, yes.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)  We’ll take care of November. 

But it is brutally serious, because to — to the congresswoman’s point, anyone has — who has openly said, as he has, that he would terminate the Constitution of the United States should never again stand behind the seal of the president of the United States — never again.  (Applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  So, Madam Vice President, I wanted to ask you — several people that I talked to in preparation for this — when I asked them, they said, “Well, I — I want to vote for the vice president, but I just don’t feel like I know her.  I don’t know enough about her.  I see the ads, but I don’t have a feel for her.”  What are three things you can tell this audience about you that aren’t in your ads, that people aren’t telling people on the robocalls, that perhaps they just wouldn’t know that might give them a feeling for who you are as a woman?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  How much time do we have?  (Laughter.)

MS. SHRIVER:  We’re at the kitchen table. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I — I have lived a full life.  (Laughter.)

I am a wife.  I am a mother.  I am a sister.  I am a godmother.  I love to cook. 

I started my career as a prosecutor, in large part — there are many reasons but one very fundamental is, when I was young, one of my best friends in high school, I learned, was being molested by her stepfather.  And I told her, when I learned, she had to come live with us.  I talked to my mother about it.  “Of course, she has to come live with us,” and she did.  And I decided I wanted to take on a career and a life that was about protecting the most vulnerable. 

I served as attorney general of California two terms.  I was the — the top law enforcement officer of the biggest state in the country.  And doing that work, it included prosecuting transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.  I did the work of taking on the big banks during the foreclosure crisis and delivered $20 billion for homeowners who had been targeted with predatory lending practices.  (Applause.)  I took on the big pharmaceutical companies on behalf of consumers.

As vice president of the United States, my priorities have been many, including, to your point, the work that you and I have done over the years focusing on women’s health.  One of my priorities is — has been maternal mortality. 

But I — I have only had one client in my career: the people.  And my belief is that there is great nobility in public service if one understands that they hold the office in the public trust.  It is not about personal power.  It is about what you can do that lifts up the condition of people. 

And there is so much about how I think about my responsibility, and I am here to ask for your vote — is that I do — I intend to be a president for all Americans, understanding that the vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us. 

And this era that was kind of initiated by Donald Trump has not only been exhausting, it has been harmful to us as a nation.  The notion that a president of the United States would encourage Americans to point fingers at each other, that — that there would be a suggestion that we are a divided country, that — instead of knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us.

I have, as vice president, met over 150 world leaders: presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and kings.  My most recent overseas trips as vice president — which were relatively close to, then, the election — our allies have expressed real concern. 

I’ve shared this before, but, you know, when we walk in a room representing the United States of America, we should walk in that room, especially leaders, chin up, shoulders back, knowing that we have the self-appointed and earned authority to talk about the importance of democracy and rule of law. 

But the thing about being a role model — it’s all role models who are here — people watch what you do to see if it matches up to what you say.  People around the world are watching this election, I promise you.  And my — one fear I have is I hope and I pray that we, the American people, understand not only what is at stake for us in this election but how much we mean to the rest of the world. 

     There is so much at stake in this election.

     MS. SHRIVER:  Liz Cheney, tell us real quick — I want to get to our first question.  But you’ve been traveling with the vice president.  You’ve been working with her.  You’ve been spending human time with her.  Tell the audience what you see that perhaps, you know, the camera doesn’t get or the ads don’t get so that they can get a sense of her that you have. 

     MS. CHENEY:  Well, I — I think that what I can tell you is that what the vice president is saying about wanting to be a president for all Americans, caring deeply about this country, those are things that — that come across very, very clearly and very directly. 

     And — and, look, I — I’m a conservative.  The very first campaign I ever volunteered in was for President Gerald Ford in 1976, and — and ever since then, I have been voting for Republicans.  I’ve never voted for a Democrat.  And —

     MS. SHRIVER:  Wow.

     MS. CHENEY:  And so, the — the fact that — that I — I believe so strongly that in this election — in this election, we need to elect the person who is the responsible adult — (laughter and applause) — and — and we need —

     And — and there is a lot — both parties do it.  There is a lot of vilification that goes on.

     MS. SHRIVER:  Yeah.

     MS. CHENEY:  And — and I think it’s really important for people to — to think very carefully about the power that we’re going to invest in the president of the United States and what it would mean to — to give that power to Donald Trump. 

     Don’t take my word for who he is.  Listen to him every day.  Look at what he did.  Remember that the people, as the vice president said, who are opposing him are the people who know him best, the people who worked most closely with him. 

     And so, I would just say I — I know that the vice president has had the range of experience, has — as vice president, as senator, as attorney general of California.  She is supremely qualified to be president of the United States.  I think there — there — sometimes there are some men who suggest that she’s not.  But if you look at her qualifications, there’s no question.  And that she’s somebody that I know I can count on who will put the good of this country first, there’s just no question.  (Applause.)

     MS. SHRIVER:  Okay.  I want to go — I want to go over here to Cecelia.  Cecelia Borland, can you stand up?  You have a question.

     Cecelia grew up in Birmingham, Michigan, which was a Republican stronghold as she grew up.  She now lives with her husband.  They’re raising two children in Berkley, Michigan, and she’s here with a question for the vice president.

     Q    Thank you both for coming to Michigan today for this important event.  I’d like to start by saying, personally, thank you, Representative Cheney, for — to you and your father for exemplifying putting country over party.  (Applause.) 

     And, Madam Vice President, I hope you had a wonderful birthday yesterday. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  (Laughter.)  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

     Q    From the shootings at Oxford High School to my alma mater, Michigan State University, to an attack at a kid’s splash pad this summer just a few miles away from here, the issue of gun violence hits very close to home for our community. 

     Just yesterday, I learned from our school district that my preschooler will be going through his first active shooter drill.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     Q    As a gun violence survivor and mother of two young children, the issue of gun violence and the safety of my children in their schools and in our community is my top priority.

     Madam Vice President, if you are elected president and there is a Republican majority in Congress, how will you work with them to make impactful and immediate progress around gun violence, especially in our children’s schools?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Right.  Thank you —

     MS. SHRIVER:  Thank you.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — Cecelia.  And thank you and — for your courage to speak up about this.

     So — well, we have done it, actually, in the last four years.  We had a bipartisan group of — of folks in Congress who came together for the Safer Communities Act, which is the first meaningful piece of gun safety legislation in 30 years.  And so, it’s a good step, and it really does tell us that we have a will within the United States Congress to work in a bipartisan way.  And — and then-Congresswoman Cheney was one of those Republicans that actually voted for it. 

     I — this is how I think of the issue.  And it is through the — the lens of many experiences, including act- — I’m so sorry about your kids going through active shooter drills.  It’s — our kids did.  It’s traumatic that our children — you know, growing up, I’ll speak for myself, we had fire drills.  Right?

     Our children are now learning how to keep themselves safe if there’s an active shooter at their school. 

     I did a tour last year of — of colleges — with college-aged kids, so I also did some trade schools.  And I would ask the room — the auditorium would be packed — college-age kids — and I’d ask them, “Raise your hand if at any point between kindergarten and 12th grade you had to endure an active shooter drill.”  Almost every hand went up. 

     Our kids are growing up where they are learning that they may be unsafe in the classroom where they should be absorbing the wonders of the world. 

     One kid said to me, “Yeah” — we were talking about this — and said to me, “Yeah, that’s why I don’t like going to fifth period.”  I said, “Why, sweetheart?  Why don’t you like going to fifth period?”  “Because in that classroom, there’s no closet,” in which to hide. 

     So, we — when we think of this issue, we must also consider the trauma that is the trauma of — the direct trauma for those who have been directly affected by gun violence, including that to our kids who are in schools across our country doing this — not to mention their teachers, who want to teach and not also have to worry about will they be able to physically protect a child from a bullet.

     Here’s how I think about it in terms of the macro point.  We have been pushing, as a country, I think, a false choice that suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.  And that’s a false choice. 

     I’m in favor of the Second Amendment.  I have talked about the fact both Tim Walz and I are gun owners.  I also believe we need reasonable gun safety laws, assault weapons bans, red flag laws, universal background checks.  (Applause.)  And — and reports say that the majority of NRA members agree on, for example, universal background checks. 

     What is a universal background check?  It’s just common sense.  Here’s what it is: You just might want to know before someone can buy a lethal weapon whether they’ve been found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others.  You just might want to know.  It’s common sense.  (Applause.)  We need commonsense gun safety laws. 

     And I will continue — I’ve done it throughout my career — work with all of our colleagues across the aisle.  And I know that we can make progress. 

     But this is not — I’m not trying to take anybody’s guns away from them.  But we need reasonable gun safety laws.

     MS. SHRIVER:  Okay.  I want to come back to the issue of public safety in a minute.  But first we want to go to Martin.  Thank you, Cecelia, very much.  Martin Howrylak.  He’s a former Republican member of the Michigan House of Representatives, and he’s here with a question about national security.

     Q    Well, thank both of you for being here this afternoon.  I really appreciate your coming to the state of Michigan to — to be here.  I would like to ask: What can the U.S. do politically, economically, or militarily to deter Russia from continuing its war on the independent nation of Ukraine while simultaneously strengthening our own U.S. security interests?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Martin. 

     MS. SHRIVER:  Go ahead.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, I was actually in Munich at the Munich Security Conference delivering a speech when I first met with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and it was just days before Russia invaded. 

     I’ve now met with President Zelenskyy, I think, seven times, because the United States has rightly taken a position as a leader — a global leader on international rules and norms — that we must stand in support of one of the most important international rules and norms, which is the importance of protecting sovereignty and territorial integrity, the importance of standing strong in opposition to the notion that, in this case, Russia would attempt to change borders by force, to invade another nation — a sovereign nation by force. 

     And sadly, there is a huge difference between my opponent and me on this very fundamental issue. 

     Back to the conversation about — there was a time when we used to — there was a phrase that I’ll paraphrase that, basically, politics ends at the — at the sea line, at the — at the — you know, at the — the boundaries of our country, that there are certain things — in particular, the matters of national security — where it’s not about partisanship; it’s about where should America stand in terms of supporting our allies and standing for certain principles.

     I’ll — I’ll give you, as a — as a point of reference for me in terms of how I feel about this, on the partisan issue.  

     I — for the four years that I was in the United States Senate, my favorite committee was the Senate Intelligence Committee.  And I served on that committee, and we would meet in a room that’s called a SCIF.  And it’s — it’s basically a — (laughs) — it’s a very secure room.  No press, with all due respect, is allowed in.  No cameras.  Everyone has to leave their cell phone outside. 

     It’s a bipartisan committee, and we would go in that room and receive classified information from America’s intelligence community, sometimes our military leaders, about hot spots around the world and threats to our national security.  And when we went in that room — and this is why it was my favorite committee — people would take off their suit jacket, roll up their sleeves, have a cup of coffee on the table.  And we weren’t Democrats or Republicans; we were Americans. 

     And that is so important on a number of issues we are discussing this afternoon but, in particular, on national security. 

     My opponent, however, has made it a thing of his to admire dictators and autocrats around the world.  He exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un.  Remember that?  He has openly praised the president of Russia. 

     Most recently, the report is, in the height of COVID — remember everyone was scrambling to get their hands on COVID tests?  Remember when Americans were dying by the hundreds every day?  And Donald Trump secretly sent COVID tests to the president of Russia for his personal use. 

     He has said — Donald Trump — “I will solve the matter of Ukraine and Russia in a day.”  Read through and understand what he is saying.  He would surrender.  He would have Ukraine surrender its fight against an aggressor violating its sovereignty. 

     If Donald Trump were president, Vladimir Putin will be sitting in Kyiv.  And understand what that would mean for America and our standing around the world. 

     But thankfully, there has been bipartisan support — and to your point of what — where you stand — on this very fundamental issue.  But this is a — this is a very vivid example of what is at stake in this election.  Because Donald Trump has been very clear: He would give away the shop.  He has been manipulated and is so clearly able to be manipulated by favor and flattery, including from dictators and autocrats around the world. 

     And America knows that that is not how we stand.  That is not how we fight.  We fight in favor of our strength and our role as a leader in bringing the Allies together and standing for foundational and fundamental principles.

     MS. SHRIVER:  Congressman Cheney — (applause) — I know, kind of, the issue of national security is one of the big reasons you’re here and supporting the vice president.  Can you expand on that answer and add your thoughts to it?

     MS. CHENEY:  Yeah.  You know, I think that if — if you look at where the Republican Party is today, there’s been a really dangerous embrace of isolationism, a dangerous embrace of tyrants. 

     The president, you know, even just today, he heaps praise on the world’s most evil people while he attacks, you know, with venom, his political opponents here at home. 

     And, you know, the — the reality is that since the end of World War II, America has led.  And we’ve led — and that has been necessary to defend our freedom.  And we can’t do it by ourselves, though.  We need our allies. 

     And when Donald Trump says that he’s going to withdraw from NATO, when he invites Vladimir Putin to invade NATO, when he suggests that it is Zelenskyy’s fault that Ukraine was invaded, I mean that is — that i- —

     For anybody who is a Republican who is thinking that, you know, they might vote for Donald Trump because of national security policy, I ask you, please, please study his national security policy.  Not only is it not Republican, it’s dangerous.  And without allies, America will find our very freedom and security challenged and threatened. 

     And one final point on this: Don’t think that Congress can stop him. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     MS. CHENEY:  People say, “Well, you know what, he can’t really do the worst, you know, because Congress will step in.”  All he has to do is what he’s doing — is say, “I won’t fulfill our NATO treaty obligations,” and — and NATO begins to unravel. 

     So, it is — it is an incredibly dangerous thing to think about a foreign policy, a national security policy led by somebody who is — is as unstable as Donald Trump is.  And it’s a risk we just simply can’t take as a nation. 

     MS. SHRIVER:  Thank you.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And I’m going to add for emphasis that — let’s also be clear about on the subject, specifically of Ukraine, Donald Trump’s approach would be to surrender.  Understand what that would mean.  That is signaling to the president of Russia he can get away with what he has done. 

Understand — look at the map — Poland would be next.  NATO, our Allies, are — the reason that they have been so thankful for the position of strength we have taken in bringing the Allies together is because they are fully aware of and remember — to the congresswoman’s point — World War II.  Remember, this — this concept of isolation — we were once there as a nation, and then Pearl Harbor happened. 

Let’s remember recent history.  Europe remembers it well.  We — then when we got attacked, Pearl Harbor, we jumped in, and it is because America jumped in that we were ultimately able to win that war, and it should be a constant reminder to us — we have to remember history — that isolationism, which is exactly what Donald Trump is pushing — pull out of NATO, abandon our friends — isolationism is not insulation.  It is not insulation.  It will not insulate us from harm in terms of our national security. 

So, I say that to emphasize a point that the congresswoman made, and the other point I’d make is also check out where he’s been on how he thinks about America’s military and service members.  One of the great, great American heroes, a prisoner of war, John McCain.  Remember how he talked about John McCain?  He said he didn’t like him because he got caught. 

You look — he’s called members of our military “suckers” and “losers.”  And then look at how some of the highest-ranking members of our military, including what I mentioned earlier, the chairman — the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a dedicated member, leader in our mil- — in America’s military, how he has assessed Donald Trump — fascism “to his core.”

So, there we are.

MS. SHRIVER:  There are your talking points for the kitchen table.  (Applause.)

Our final question is from Courtney.  Courtney, can you stand?  Courtney is — Courtney Gabbara Agrusa is a wife, a mom, an attorney, and she’s a proud Chaldean, and she is here with a question.  Courtney.

Q    Thank you so much.  Good evening, Madam Vice President Harris and Representative Cheney.  My name is Courtney Gabbara Agrusa, and I am a first-generation Chaldean American.  Chaldeans are Indigenous Iraqis who are Catholic, and we are predominantly in the metro Detroit area.  Chaldeans are a very close-knit community, but the recent political climate has really begun to divide us. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

Q    While I know that you have discussed several bipartisan proposals over the course of your campaign, what would you say to people like myself who are part of these traditionally conservative communities who want to move forward, but are feeling the pref- — the pressures of the political divide?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  And I’ve actually met with — with members and leaders in the Chaldean community, and thank you for being here. 

You know, I think that there is something at stake that is about core values, as well as what is at stake in terms of the risk and the danger.  And I would offer you an example of what I think would be an important issue that would affect the Chaldean community and all Americans, for example, the issue of — of how we think about health care in America. 

So, I know enough about the culture and to know that it is reflective of who we are as Americans in general.  We respect our elders; we take care of them.  So, I will share with you a specific proposal that is an extension of how I think about things. 

I — actually a personal story, I took care of my mother when she was sick.  And for anyone taking care of or who has taken care of an elder relative, you know what that is.  It’s about trying to cook something they feel like eating.  It is trying to find clothes that don’t irritate their skin or help them put on a sweater.  It’s about trying to figure out something you can say that will bring a smile to their face or make them laugh.  It’s about dignity. 

And we now have, in particular in our country, a lot of people doing that and also raising young kids.  We call them the sandwich generation, right in the middle.  It’s a lot.  And the way the system currently works — well, God willing, you may have enough resources, you can hire somebody to come in and help. 

If not, you may have to spend down all of your savings to be able to qualify for Medicaid or you may have to quit your job to be able to do what you need to do to take care of your children and take care of your relative — your older relative.  That’s just not right, and it’s not fair. 

So, part of my proposal and the plan is that we’re going to now reconfigure so that Medicare covers home health care for our seniors, right?  It’s about dignity.  (Applause.)

So, in addition to everything that we’ve discussed already about national security, what is at stake — something like this, because I absolutely do believe America is ready for a new generation of leadership that is taking on issues clear-eyed about what is going on that affects everybody — it doesn’t matter their political party; issues that are fundamentally about dignity, also about economic issues; and taking it on in a way that we relieve the American people of the burdens that get in the way of productivity and a certain quality of life.  And this is one example of that. 

I believe we need to have an economy that I call an opportunity economy, where everyone has the opportunity to thrive — not just get by but get ahead. 

And this is one example I would offer under the broader point, which is about, let’s move forward, taking on problems from a commonsense approach that is about just practical work. 

Look, I am a capitalist.  I am a pragmatic capitalist.  I will work as I have with the private sector.  I believe we have to invest in America’s economy and in America’s industry and America’s entrepreneurs, and we can, at the same time, take care of those that are the most in need of just a little support to be able to not just get by but get ahead.

MS. SHRIVER:  Thank you, Courtney. 

Liz, I just want to — we have two minutes left — (applause) — and when you hear the phrase a “new way forward,” when you hear “country over party,” what does that mean to you? 

We’re two weeks out, what does a new way forward mean for families like everybody here, for your children, my children, everybody’s children, young men?

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, I —

MS. SHRIVER:  What is it like?

MS. CHENEY:  I think that, you know, we’re — we’re at a moment now where, when you think about America and — and the beacon of hope that we have been for so many years for so many communities, also how tremendously enriched we have been by communities — immigrants who want to come here and build a life, all of that depends upon fundamentally defending the rule of law, fundamentally defending our Constitution.  That’s — that’s what makes all of our opportunity and our freedom possible.

And — and at the same time that we’re that beacon for the world, you know, it’s also because — because we’re a good nation —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  — and because you know when — when you — when you look at who our leader is going to be, what — what Donald Trump represents is — is, in many ways, just cruel and — and not — not the kind of dignity and — and the kind of person that we all want to be able to look up to. 

But — but what I would say is that if people are uncertain, if people are thinking, “Well, you know, I’m a conservative, I don’t know that I can support Vice President Harris,” I would say I don’t know if anybody is more conservative than I am.  (Laughter.)  And — and I understand the most conservative value there is is to defend the Constitution.  And if we don’t come together to do that then — (applause) —

And so, just to — to finish that, I would say, to me, a new way forward is this: It’s what you’re seeing up here.  It’s having a president who will listen, having a president who will say, “I’m not, you know, necessarily sure I agree with you on this issue or that issue, but let’s talk about it.”

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  “Why do you want, you know, that policy?  Why do you believe that?”  Someone who is willing to honor and respect all perspectives and points of views.  And there’s only one candidate in this race who does that, and that’s Vice President Harris.  (Applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  In fact, a lot of polling of undecided voters who call themselves “the exhausted majority” said, I just want leaders who listen —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. SHRIVER:  — to one another.  I just want leaders who speak respectfully to one another.  I want to see decency.  I want to see people I can look up to.  And, unfortunately, that’s considered a new way forward as the — as Representative Cheney —

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, let’s do that.  Let’s do that. 

MS. SHRIVER:  Yeah, let’s do that.

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, let’s do that. 

MS. SHRIVER:  Let’s make that a way forward. 

The final word, Madam Vice President.  You know, everybody I talked to says, you know, “I have to turn off the news.  I can’t read anything.  I’m meditating.  I’m doing yoga.  I’m doing — I’m so anxious.  I just don’t even know.  I’m eating gummies.”  All kinds of things, you know?  (Laughter.) 

What are you doing?  What are you doing —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Not eating gummies.  (Laughter and applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  Okay, we got that clear.  But how do you — I mean, how do you handle this — the anxiety, the stress, the turmoil?  Everybody is freaked out.  I — I talked to the gentleman up there, and he’s like, “I’m so scared.” 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. SHRIVER:  A woman was like, “I’m so anxious.  I can’t sleep.”  Do you sleep?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  You know, I wake up in the middle of the night usually these days, to be honest with you, but I work out every morning.  I — I think that’s really important to just kind of — you know, mind, body, and spirit. 

But let me — let me just say this —

MS. SHRIVER:  No, say more about that.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — we — but I —

MS. SHRIVER:  Say more.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — but — I will.  I work out.  I try to eat well.  You know, I love my family, and I make sure that I talk to the kids and my husband every day.  We’ve been — Doug and I’ve been kind of tr- — you know, traveling.  We’re trying to cover a lot of ground, so we’re not with each other every day these days, but my family grounds me in every way. 

But let me, if I can just speak to the — what people are feeling.  You — we cannot despair.  We cannot despair.  You know, the nature of a democracy is such that I think there’s a duality. 

On the one hand, there’s an incredible strength when our democracy is intact, an incredible strength in what it does to protect the freedoms and rights of its people.  Oh, there’s great strength in that.  And it is very fragile.  It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it.  And so, that’s the moment we’re in. 

And I say, do not despair, because in a democracy, as long as we can keep it — in our democracy, the people, every individual has the power to make a decision about what this will be, and that’s — and so let’s not feel powerless.  Let’s not let the som- — and I get it — overwhelming nature of this all make us feel powerless, because then we have been defeated, and that’s not our character as the American people. 

We are not one to be defeated.  We rise to a moment, and we stand on broad shoulders of people who have fought this fight before for our country.  And in many ways, let us look at the challenge then that we are being presented and not be overwhelmed by it.  The baton is now in our hands to fight for — not against, but for — this country we love. 

That’s what we have the power to do.  So, let’s own that — dare I say, be joyful in what we will do in the process of owning that, which is knowing that we can and will build community and coalitions and remind people that we’re all in this together.  Let’s not let the overwhelming nature of this strip us of our strength. 

That’s how I feel about this.  (Applause.)  You know, that’s how I feel about this.  You know?  Yeah.  

MS. SHRIVER:  So, I want to — I want to thank everybody here.  You heard from the vice president, from Congresswoman Cheney, do not despair.  I think you got a great glimpse into who this woman is, who this woman is, what brings them together, why they’re here, why they want to earn your vote, why they wanted to speak with you today. 

And I want to leave you with this quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson that I think speaks to this moment.  It says,

“Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you’re wrong.  There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right.  To map out a course of action and follow it to the end requires great courage.” 

So, I leave you with that.  All of you are courageous people.  Do not despair. 

Thank you so much for spending your time.  Brava.  (Applause.)

                             END                5:18 P.M. EDT

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris and Liz Cheney at a Campaign Event | Royal Oak, MI appeared first on The White House.

Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts
Brookfield, Wisconsin

7:09 P.M. CDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good evening, everyone.  Good evening.

MR. SYKES:  And, Vice President, wel- — welcome back to Wisconsin.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:   It is good to be back.  You — you know, I — so, Tony Evers.

MR. SYKES:  (Laughs.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  That’s funny about his playlist.  Is it really that long?  (Laughter.)

MR. SYKES:  No.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Okay.

Every time I — I land in Wisconsin — almost every time, Tony Evers, the governor, will meet me on the tarmac.  And because I did live in Wisconsin when I was five years old, every — (applause) — he will say, “Welcome home.”  So, I do feel and have a connection to Wisconsin and feel a sense of connection.

MR. SYKES:  Actually, we all have connections to Wisconsin, which — which makes this event, I think, so important, with 15 days to go. 

So, let’s just dive right into all of this.  There are actually undecided voters out there.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  And there are undecided voters here.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  People who have never voted for a Democrat.  Moderates, conservatives who voted for people named Bush and Cheney and Ford and Reagan —

MS. CHENEY:  Yay.  (Claps.)  (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  And — and Bob Dole.  Wow, that’s a — that’s throwback, isn’t it?

But I guess the question is: What is your pitch to them?  Why should they do something they’ve never done before?  Why should they cross over party lines and vote for you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, I start from the belief, based on the lived experience, that the vast majority of us have more in common than what separates us. 

I also know that you all are here spending time that you could be spending doing a number of other things, with all of the obligations you each have, and you are here because we, together, love our country.  We love our country, and we believe in the foundational principles that are at stake in this election. 

I believe that when we think about who we are as the American people, there is more we have in common than what separates us when we think about what is at stake in terms of our democracy, rule of law, the Constitution of the United States, national security, the standing of our country in the context of the world.  All of that is at stake. 

And I will share with you, Charlie, when I was in the Senate for — for those four years that I was there, my favorite committee was the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I’m going to tell you why.  We would walk into that meeting in a SCIF, which is a — a secure room.  We’d have to leave our cell phones outside.  The press, with all due respect, were not allowed in.  No cameras. 

People would walk in, Democrats and Republicans, take off their suit jacket, roll up their sleeves, and we’d dispense with who was a Republican and who was a Democrat.  We were all Americans.  We were all in that room with one singular purpose: to concern ourselves as our highest priority with the security and well-being of the United States of America. 

I think those things are at stake in this election.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  Congresswoman Cheney, you know how hard this is, though.  You know how hard it is to break away from tribal loyalty to do something you haven’t done before.  So, I’d like you to address that as well. 

Lindsey Graham was on television yesterday saying, “What do you ‘Never Trump’ Republicans — you know, what — what are you thinking of?  How could you possibly do all of this?”

There are a lot of people who are listening to us who may be disillusioned with what’s happening with the Republican Party, but they w- — they don’t they — they — they’re afraid of paying the price, because there is a cost to all of that. 

So, what do you say to those Americans?

MS. CHENEY:  Well, don’t listen to Lindsey Graham.  Number one.  (Laughter and applause.)  It’s good life advice, actually. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)

MS. CHENEY:  But what I say is that, at the — what undergirds everything that we are as a nation — everything that we are as a nation is the rule of law and it’s our Constitution. 

And when you — when you look at what Donald Trump did after the last election, when you look at the cruelty that’s involved in someone who watches an attack on the United States Capitol, an attack conducted by people in his name, and refuses for over three hours to tell the mob to leave — I mean, I really — people just need to think about what that — that — that’s — that’s depravity.  He watched the attack happen, and people kept asking him, “Please tell the people to leave.”  And law enforcement officers were being brutally beaten and the Capitol was being assaulted, and he would not tell people to leave for over three hours. 

That cruelty is the same cruelty that we see when he lies about the federal government’s disaster response, when he puts people’s lives at risk because he won’t tell the truth.  He’s a man who’s unfit to be the president of this good and honorable and great nation. 

And so, I’ve spent a lot of time working — before I was elected to Congress — in countries around the world that — that weren’t free or where people were trying to achieve their freedom, and I know how fragile — how fragile this — this can be, how fragile democracy can be. 

And so, in — in this election, we have a choice.  We have the choice of somebody, in Vice President Harris, who you know is going to uphold the rule of law.  You know that she’s going to lead this country with a sincere heart.  You know that she is going to always be thinking about what is best for this nation.  We might not agree on every issue, but — but she is somebody that you can trust and someone that our children can look up to.  And I think it’s so important for us to cast the vote for Vice President Harris this time around.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  You know, Vice — Vice President, I w- — I was thinking about one of your social media posts recently where you go through all the things that Donald Trump has bailed out of: that he won’t debate you, that he won’t — that he won’t do interviews, that he’s refusing to release certain information.  And — and you asked an interesting question: What is he hiding?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  So, what, in fact, is he hiding?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, I — I wonder what is he hiding.  I also wonder what his staff is trying to hide by — by preventing or suggesting he not debate me again, not do these interviews.  It is the norm, as you know, that presidential nominees will do a “60 Minutes” interview.  He has refused to do that.  He is pulling out of interviews left, right, and center. 

And I think that we — what we see about him in public, whether it be his rallies or, as you said, the — the — would it — would it be called a — just a solo dance?  I — I don’t — I — (laughter).

MR. SYKES:  I don’t know that is has a — I don’t even know if it has a name to it.

MS. CHENEY:  “Dance” is really generous.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  What — (laughs).  Yes.

MR. SYKES:  Yeah, the word “dance” would be generous.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  What — what that was.

I — I think it does lead us and it should lead us to observe that he is increasingly unstable. 

But you don’t have to take my word for it.  Listen to the people who know him best, the people who worked with him in the White House, in the Oval Office, in the Situation Room: his former chief of staff; two former secretaries of Defense, his secretaries of Defense; his former national security advisor; and, of course, his former vice president.  And they have each talked about the — the chief of staff — that Donald Trump has contempt for the Constitution of the United States. 

Not only has that been said by a former chief of staff of the former president, but we know he has openly talked about his intention to terminate the Constitution of the United States. 

I have taken that oath six times: as district attorney twice — elected and reelected; as attorney general of the largest state, in California, twice; as a United States senator; and actually now as vice president.  And the congresswoman and I have talked about that.  That is an oath one must take seriously.  It is a duty to defend and honor and uphold the Constitution of the United States. 

He has said he would terminate it.  Anyone who wants to be president of the United States should never again be able to stand behind the seal of the president of the United States, having said they would terminate the Constitution of the United States.  (Applause.)

And, again, most recently, the report is that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a decorated general, said of Donald Trump that he is “fascist to the core.”  These are the people who know him best, people who worked with him. 

And so, yes, we can talk about that moment on stage of the music and all that, but I think it’s very important that we acknowledge, and I have said publicly, Donald Trump is an unserious man, and the consequences of him ever being president of the United States again are brutally serious — brutally serious.

I — to — to the congresswoman’s point, I have now, as vice president of the United States, met over 150 world leaders — presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and kings — many of them, multiple times; we are on a first-name basis — most of them allies in connection with NATO, and — and I’ve met with them in connection with our standing, rightly, with Ukraine.  The world is watching this election, and our allies are worried, because the reality is that when we, as the United States of America, walk in these rooms around the world, we walk in chin up, shoulders back, with the earned and self-appointed authority to talk about the importance of democracy and rule of law.

And being a role model — this is a room of role models — we know, as a role model, people watch what you do to see if it matches up to what you say. 

One of my very real fears, Charlie, to be candid, is I hope that we, as the American people, fully understand how important America is to the world.  I hope we really, really understand that — (applause) — because this is about what will happen to and — and with us as Americans, but it will impact people around the world.

MR. SYKES:  Let me follow up on that, Congresswoman, because I was on a podcast recently with — with another pundit who was saying that she was afraid that America was sleepwalking into authoritarianism, that American voters were not sufficiently alarmed.  And as the vice president just said, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just said that Donald Trump was the most dangerous threat facing the country. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. SYKES:  Do Americans — in this last 15 days, do they understand that?  And what has to happen in the next two weeks for them to really understand the danger?

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, I — I think that they — I think they do.  And, you know, one of the things I — I remind people is that although not every Republican who is casting a vote for Vice President Harris will say publicly that they are — there’s clearly, you know, a threat associated with that in some instances — but — but millions will.  And — and they will do that for a whole range of reasons, but — but what you mentioned is so important. 

I mean, when I think about — you know, I — the first time I ever voted was for Ronald Reagan.  I’ve known presidents well.  Obviously, particularly, I know a vice president well — (laughter) — in addition to Vice President Harris.  And — and I watch how our presidents have operated.  And even when there have been presidents that we have potentially disagreed with on issues, they’ve respected the Constitution.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah. 

MS. CHENEY:  I mean, think about the 2000 election and how close that was and what Vice President Gore did in — in his concession speech and in ensuring that we had the peaceful transfer of power. 

And so, I — I would just urge people — again, you don’t have to — to take my word for it, but — but look at what the people closest to Donald Trump are saying about him.  Look at the testimony of the leaders of his Justice department, the leaders of his campaign, the most senior officials in his White House.  Look at their testimony in front of the Select Committee.  You know, they’re the ones that — that told us everything that we know about his plan to overturn the last election, about what he did watching the attack from his dining room. 

We’ve never faced a threat like this before, and I — I think it’s so important for people to realize this republic only survives if we protect it, and that means putting partisan politics aside and standing up for the Constitution and for what’s right and loving our country more.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  Do — do you — do you think we’ll be hearing more from some of those folks in the next 15 days — the generals, the chiefs of staff, the people who really understand exactly how unfit Donald Trump is?

MS. CHENEY:  I do.  I also think that — you know, that they have been very clear so far. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  I mean, you’ve had — you’ve had hundreds of national security officials who served in Republican administrations endorse the vice president —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Publicly, yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah.  And all of the things that — that — you know, the fact that these people aren’t endorsing — the fact that Vice President Pence, who was the most loyal person there was to Donald Trump — he won’t endorse him because he knows Donald Trump asked him to violate his oath of office. 

Now, that should also give you a lot of pause about J.D. Vance.  J.D. Vance is there because he will do what Donald Trump wants, and that makes him a particular danger to the republic as well.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And — and I’ll add to that point: Understand also what happened in the last few months when the Supreme Court essentially told the former president he will be immune from anything he does in office.  So, whereas, before, there was at least some threat of consequence and accountability, that no longer exists. 

And to the congresswoman’s point, imagine Donald Trump — based on everything we know about him and everything we see now and before — imagine him with no guardrails, because all of those folks who worked with him before, they’re not — those who held him back, who attempted to ensure that he would follow the law are no longer there.  And — and we have the Supreme Court decision, so the stakes are very high.

MR. SYKES:  Okay.  Let’s go to the audience for some questions.  We — we have some undecided voters who have some questions for you, Madam Vice President.

Let’s go to Lisa Brockman from Madison.  Lisa is a small-business owner. 

Q    Hi.

MR. SYKES:  Good evening. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hi.

Q    Thanks for taking my question.  I have a question on reproductive freedom.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

Q    And I am — come from a conservative, Christian, pro-life family, and I was a Republican until Donald Trump’s presidency.  (Laughs.)  Like most Americans, I believe in a woman’s right to choose.  And with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, my 21-year-old daughter now has fewer rights than her mother or her grandmothers.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

Q    I no longer recognize the Republican Party.  They have introduced bills for everything from restricting birth control to bringing homicide charges for abortion.  It is such an extreme, radical agenda by any standards, and it seems less about the unborn and more about controlling women. 

So, my question is: What are your thoughts on this extremism, and how can we restore those fundamental human rights that have been taken away from the American women?

MR. SYKES:  Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, to your point, when Donald Trump was president, he hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe, and they did as he intended.  And now there are at least 20 states in our country that have criminalized health care providers, to your point. 

I mean, in Texas, the — the law provides for prison for life for a doctor, nurse, health care provider for doing what they believe is health care and in the best interest of their patient. 

Punishing women.  I was actually just this week, just a few days ago, in the state of Georgia with the mother of a young woman who died because of Georgia’s abortion ban, and she had to go to another state.  And it’s a long and very tragic story that did not have to be.

And here’s how I think about this issue.  One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree that the government — these folks in a state capitol, much less Donald Trump — should not be making this decision for her.  If she chooses, she will talk with her priest, her pastor, her rabbi, her imam, but not the government. 

And — and I also have found, though, since the two years that the Dobbs decision came down, that this happened, I have had conversations with a number of people who were opposed to abortion and remain opposed to it but did not intend for the harm that we are seeing to happen.  And I think as this has — this decision came down and we are seeing the harm, there are more and more people who are agreeing that this should not be the government making this decision for women and their families.

And the way that we will address this is, eventually, Congress needs to pass a law restoring those protections, and we need to agree that, in our society, you know, we should not have laws that are treating people in a way that is causing such harm. 

I’ll give you another example of the harm that is going on.  I started my career as a prosecutor.  I have prosecuted everything from low-level offenses to homicides.  But one of the reasons I became a prosecutor is because, when I was in high school, I learned that my best friend was being molested by her stepfather.  And so, I said to her, “You have to come live with us.”  I called my mother.  My mother said, “Of course,” and she did.  And I made a decision early in my life that I wanted to do the work that was about protecting vulnerable people. 

There are some of these bans that include no exception for rape or incest.  I have specialized in those kinds of cases.  And the — the notion that we would tell a survivor of a crime that is a violation to their body that they have no right to make a decision about what happens to their body next — I mean, I think that’s just unconscionable.  I think it’s immoral. 

And so, this is one of the issues that is at play.  And when this issue has been on the ballot, since the Dobbs decision came down, in so-called red states and so-called blue states, the American people have voted for freedom.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  Congresswoman Cheney, I’d like to get your thoughts on this as well. 

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah.  You know, I am — I’m pro-life, and I have been very troubled, deeply troubled by what I have watched happen in so many states since Dobbs.  And I have been troubled by the extent to which you have women who, as the vice president said, in some cases, have died, who can’t get medical treatment that they need because providers are worried about criminal liability. 

You know, we’re facing a situation today where I think that it’s an untenable one.  And I think that as we deal with issues like this one, having a president who understands how important compassion is, who understands that these shouldn’t be political issues, that we ought to be able to have these discussions and say: You know what?  Even if you are pro-life, as I am, I do not believe, for example, that the state of Texas ought to have the right, as they’re currently suing to do, to get access to women’s medical records. 

I mean, there are some very fundamental and fundamentally dangerous things that have happened.  And — and so, I think that it’s crucially important for us to find ways to have the federal government play a role and protect women from some of the worst harms that we’re seeing. 

But — but, again, I just think that if you look at the difference in — in the way that Donald Trump is handling this issue — you know, Donald Trump, at one point, called for criminal penalties for women.  Now, you know, he — he’s been now trying to — to, you know, sort of be all over the place on this issue, although he expresses great pride for what’s happened.

And — and I think the — the bottom line on this, as on so many other issues, is, you know, you just can’t count on him.  You cannot trust him.  We’ve seen the man that he is.  We’ve seen the cruelty.  And America deserves much better.  (Applause.)

MR. SYKES:  Thank you.  Thank you, Lisa.

So, we — we have another question.  Carolyn Mitchell from Wauwatosa has a question for the vice president as well. 

Q    Hi.  I have concerns about the strength and the health of the Medicare and the Social Security system.  There have been a lot of suggestions for improving or protecting it, some of them raising the age for full acceptance of Social Security.  There’s also the idea that we would end the cap on — on the Social Security tax.  There is also the suggestion that we raise the tax rate on both Medicare and Social Security.  And, of course, the last one is to reduce the benefits. 

So, my question for you is: How can we protect the health of both Social Security and Medicare without reducing the benefits?

MR. SYKES:  Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, first of all, thank you for your question.  Actually, just today, I believe it was — within the last 24 hours or so — an independent review of Donald Trump’s policy on Social Security has indicated that, under his policy, Social Security would become insolvent in six years. 

And what I and you and, I think, most of us know is that we have many, many seniors in our country where their Social Security check is their only form of income.  It’s everything and the only thing they have to live on, to pay rent, groceries, all of that.  And so, we must protect Social Security. 

     If you look at Donald Trump’s Project 2025, the — the plan that they have if he is elected — or reelected president, it — it would attack Social Security.  It would attack Medicare. 

     And back to the point about just what is in the interest of dignity.  The president of the United States should have as one of their highest concerns the dignity of the American people and, in particular, those who have lived a productive life, who deserve to be able to retire and go into their senior years with the dignity of not worrying about whether they’re going to have a roof over their head or be able to eat. 

     So, my plan includes what we need to do to strengthen the solvency of Social Security.  It includes what we’re going to need to do and work with Congress to make sure we’re putting more into it.  And it cannot be about cutting benefits, because right now, those benefits are barely adequate as it is. 

     What we must also do is continue to strengthen Medicare around what we’ve been working on, which is to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription medication costs for our seniors. 

     So, in the last four years, we have now capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors.  This is a huge issue for so many who have otherwise either taken a bus trip to Canada to try and get their prescription medication — you’re smiling; you know what I’m talking about — or — not that you have; I’m not suggesting that.  (Laughter.)  I’m not suggesting that.  And we’ve also capped the cost of — of prescription medication at $2,000 a year for our seniors, understanding, again, that this is a related issue, which is what is causing our seniors to be on the verge of bankruptcy and — and homelessness, by the way.

     The other work that we have to do is to deal with home health care and how Medicare is covering that. 

     So, part of my plan is — right now, the only way that there will be coverage for home health care is, generally speaking, Medicaid, which means that the family or the individual would have to spend down all of their savings to be able to be eligible for Medicaid.  And, frankly, I think it’s just — that’s — that’s wrong, and it’s — it’s just wrong.

     You know, I took care of my mother when she was sick, and the work that needs to happen to support our seniors to be able to stay in their home, to be able to live a life with dignity should include that we will pay attention to the fact that not everybody can afford that help, not everyone has a family member who can do it. 

And so, my plan includes having Medicare cover home health care work for seniors — (applause) — so that you can stay in your home, for example, and have someone who can prepare a meal and help you put on a sweater.  But the — the core point being dignity and understanding that we should not have a society that allows or requires our seniors to — to go into poverty in order to qualify for the care that they may need that, I think, we — most would agree — should provide.  (Applause.)

     Thank you.
    
     MR. SYKES:  And we have another question from the audience, from Dan — Dan Voboril, who is a retired school teacher, taught at MPS, and now lives in Waukesha.  Again, a genuinely undecided voter, I understand.

     Q    Thank you.  Good evening.

     MS. CHENEY:  Come on, Dan.  (Laughter.) 

     Q    What did you say?

     I was told I was going to be an alternate, so I was a little worried about getting my question.  But —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Take your time.  Take your time.

     Q    This is a question that — I actually retired from MPS, but I currently teach, and I teach at a private Catholic school.  I’m a Catholic, but I’ve also been pro-life, pro-choice depending.  But I have five daughters, and I think it’s my duty to continue — with the children I teach as well — to see that we need to respect women, and I’ve really come to the conclusion that this toxicity that exists is just rather embarrassing.  And as a lifelong Republican, who I thought your father would be a great president —

     MS. CHENEY:  Thank you.

     Q    — not to say George wasn’t, but — (laughter) — but I’ve come to this realization, and it’s — it’s been very difficult.  So, I’m just — my big question was, for the future of my children and also students that I encounter and try to show that we have to have some kind of civility like we did back in the — the ‘80s, when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, of course, could talk about things and solve problems, and now it’s trying to get one better than the other. 

     And so, I’m just wondering, in your position now, how to convince people like me, who some of my siblings might be questioning what I’m doing here, but — (laughter) — I — I think, like you said, we have to be courageous, and that’s what I’m trying to be.  And so, what do you think we can do in the last 15 days — or you can, Madam Vice President — what you can do to try to get some of these people to cross over?  I know you already said that some of them probably won’t say who they’re voting for, but — or something I could take with me to say, “This sounds very good,” or, “We got to at least listen to this.”

     MR. SYKES:  To reduce the toxicity?  Is that —

     Q    Yes.

     MR. SYKES:  Okay.

     MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, I — I think that — that, you know, you’ve really put your finger on something that’s so important, and you see it as a teacher.  You know, any of us who are around young children — I see it as a mom.  My kids aren’t so young anymore, but — but, you know, the — when they look at how elected officials and, in particular, how Donald Trump is conducting himself now, that’s — that’s not — that’s not a lesson that anybody would look up to. 

     And — and I think about it often from the perspective of the men and women who’ve worn the uniform of our country and who have sacrificed so much for our freedom, all of us have an obligation to be worthy of that sacrifice. 

And in this — (applause) — you know, in this moment, there — there are millions of good and honorable people who Donald Trump has just fundamentally betrayed.  And — and I think it’s so important for — for people to think about this from the perspective of, you know, the decision to give somebody the power of the presidency means that you’re handing someone the most awesome and significant power of any office anywhere in the world, and — and you have to choose people who have character, choose people of good faith. 

     You know, the — the framers knew this.  The framers knew that — that it was so important that, you know, we take an oath but that also, fundamentally, you had to have people of character.  And Donald Trump has proven he’s not one of those people by his actions. 

     So, you know, what I — what I say to people is, look, for us to get back to a time where we are actually having policy debates and discussions and disagreements, we have to protect what undergirds all of this, and — and what undergirds all of it is the Constitution.  And we have to be willing to say, as a nation, “We’re better than partisanship.” 

     We know — and I say this as someone who spent a lot of years engaged in partisan battles and — and there are important debates we have to have.  But if — if we allow someone again — if we give him the power again to, you know, do all of the things he tells us he’s going to do — he says he’ll terminate the Constitution; he says he’ll deploy the military against the “enemy within” — that — that is a risk that we just simply can’t take as a nation.  And — and I think that, you know, this vote, this election cycle, this time around has to be about so much more than partisanship. 

And I will just end this by saying: And I also know because I have spent time with Vice President Harris, because I have come to understand what she believes about how she will govern, that she will be a president for all Americans, that she’s committed to listening and committed to having viewpoints, some of which, you know, come from different ends of the political spectrum. 

     And — and if you think about how you conduct, you know, your life outside of politics, how we all conduct our everyday lives, those are the kinds of people that you trust.  Those are the kinds of people you can work with.  Like, if you wouldn’t — if you wouldn’t hire somebody to babysit your kids, like, you shouldn’t make that guy the president of the United States.  (Laughter and applause.)  I mean, that’s, like, pretty basic.

     MR. SYKES:  So — so —
    
     MS. CHENEY:  Thank you.  Thank you.

     MR. SYKES:  Madam Vice President, that — this question goes to the heart of our discussion tonight, because it’s almost — it is not about politics.  It’s not about left versus right.  We’re talking about the culture and the impact, the coarsening of the culture, the way in which we have been taught to fear and hate one another, and how our —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     MR. SYKES:  — debates have just devolved into sort of trolling one another.  How do we get back from that?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, I think that Dan raised — and, Charlie, your point is — is really also hitting on we have to tap into and — and rejoice, frankly, in the spirit of who we are as Americans.  And we are an ambitious people.  We have aspirations.  We have dreams.  We are optimistic by nature.  And we, I think, value certain qualities in our leaders. 

     To your point as — being a teacher, all of — those of us who are parents or parent in any form, the — the notion over the last several years coming from Trump and those who follow him, meaning people like who he’s running with — not his voters, but just others — the notion that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down is just wrongheaded. 

     I think most of us would agree that the — that the real measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.  I think most of us would agree — (applause) — and most of us would agree that it is — when we talk about character, it is the sign of strong character to have empathy, to have some level of concern and care about the well-being of other people and then to do something about that.

     And I think there’s so much about this election that calls into question whether we are on a track with a Donald Trump as president to actually teach and to — and to show our children our definition of a leader, and is that it.

     One of the issues that I think has resulted in the kind of toxicity that you have been describing is that he tends to encourage us as Americans to point our fingers at each other.  That’s not in our best interest.  The vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us. 

     We are stronger as a nation when we are working toward a common goal, at least on the most basic, fundamental priorities. 

     And I think in this election, you can look at, for example, how he presents in his — in his events to know that he really does not have a plan for America that is about investing in our future, investing in our children, investing in — in our economies and new industries, investing in our relationships around the world.  It’s all about himself and his personal grievances.  And do we want a president of the United States who spends full time plotting revenge while they sit in the Oval Office or a president who is actually focused on the American people?

     I would also say, as a — as a point that I think the congresswoman exemplifies in so many ways, the strength of our democracy requires a strong two-party system.  It really does.  (Applause.)  It requires that we have healthy debate — that we have healthy debate based on — you know, based in logic and fact and that we — we debate it out — have good, vigorous debates — have a good fight over policy.  That’s good for democracy.  But not to point our fingers and call each other names over trivial, petty grievances. 

     So, I think all of that is at stake in this election, and — and tapping into the commonalities that we have around some of these fundamental principles, I think, is going to be key.

     MR. SYKES:  Well, that’s why the stakes are so high, right?  Because the presidency is a role model, but America is a role model to the rest of the world. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

     MR. SYKES:  So, in the very short amount of time we have left, Congresswoman Cheney, just talk a little bit more about the — the stakes for the world.  We haven’t talked about the stakes for the future of Ukraine, NATO, of all the other democracies who are looking to us.

     MS. CHENEY:  They’re so, so high, Charlie.  And, you know, America’s safety and security depends upon America leading, and it depends upon allies. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  And when you have someone who is erratic and chaotic and unstable, that puts all of us at risk.

     I — I tell people often — you know, I spend a lot of time working on national security issues.  And when people that I know in the — in the Republican Party tell me they might be considering voting for Trump from a national security perspective, I ask them: Go look at his national security policies.  Please, go look at them, because what he’s proposing in terms of withdrawing from NATO; welcoming Vladimir Putin to attack our NATO Allies; praising — he — he praises Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, and President Xi of China and Putin of Russia.  And if you listen to him, he doesn’t just praise those people generally.  He praises them for their cruelty —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yep.

     MS. CHENEY:  — for their tyranny.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yep.

     MS. CHENEY:  That’s not who we are as a nation.  It’s not who we are. 

And the world needs us to be better.  And our own security and our own freedom requires that we have a president who understands America has to lead and that our strength comes both from our greatness and also from our goodness.  And that’s Vice President Harris.  (Applause.)

     MR. SYKES:  And you have the last word.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And — and just to — thank you.  Thank you.

MR. SYKES:  You get the last word.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  But — but just as a point of emphasis on this important point: Understand that this is an individual, Donald Trump, who is easily manipulated by flattery, and we’ve seen that.  We’ve — don’t forget he — he dared to even consider vi- — inviting the Taliban to Camp David.  Remember all this.  The love letters with Kim Jong Un.

     Let’s remember what we just most recently — what was reported.  During the height of COVID, Americans were dying by the hundreds a day.  Nobody could get their hands on COVID tests.  You remember what that was.  During that time, he secretly sent COVID tests to Vladimir Putin for his personal use.

     On the issue of Ukraine, he says, “Oh, well, I’d solve that in a day.”  Well, I don’t think we as Americans think that the president of the United States should solve an issue like that through surrender, and understand that’s what would happen.  (Applause.)  Understand that’s what would happen.  Vladimir Putin would be sitting in Kyiv if Donald Trump were president. 

     And understand what that means as — so much that our allies understand, and that’s why they’re concerned about this election.  If — if Putin were to get away with invading the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine because America, the leader in bringing the allies together in standing for fundamental international rules and norms, like sovereignty and territorial integrity — if Vladimir Putin got away with that, you think he wouldn’t march next right into Poland and the rest of Europe?  Because Donald Trump wants to please somebody that he considers to be a strongman, who he admires?

     So, on this and so many issues, the stakes are extremely high. 

     But I — I would say this as — as a final point for now.  This is not as much an issue of what we are against as what we are for.  And I’ll end my point where I started: We love our country, and our country is worth fighting for.  (Applause.)  And that’s how I think of this. 

     We — our — our democracy will only be as strong as our willingness to fight for it.  And you all are taking your time out of your lives to be here because we, I think, agree on that among the most fundamental principles at stake. 

     And I thank you for the time you’ve taken, and I hope to earn your vote, by the way.  (Laughs.)  (Applause.)
    
     Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.

     MR. SYKES:  And we have 15 days to make a decision. 

     Thank you all for coming here to (inaudible).  Thank you, Congresswoman Liz Cheney.  Vice President Kamala Harris, thank you so much.  (Applause.)

                             END                7:54 P.M. CDT

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris and Liz Cheney at a Campaign Event | Brookfield, WI appeared first on The White House.

Royal Oak Music Theatre
Royal Oak, Michigan

4:31 P.M. EDT

MS. SHRIVER:  Okay.  Here we go.  Sit back.  We’ve got 40 — 40 minutes, and we’re going to move quick.  Okay?

So, I want this to be like a kitchen table.  Like, just think that we’re sitting around the kitchen table and we’re jamming about all kinds of stuff.  That’s the feeling I want to have at this —

     MS. CHENEY:  This is like a Kennedy family kitchen table.

     MS. SHRIVER:  It — yeah.  (Laughter.)

     MS. CHENEY:  Most people don’t have this many, you know?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  That’s good.  That’s good.

MS. SHRIVER:  That’s right.  It’s raucous.  It’s — it’s hot, but it’s fun.  That’s what it’s going to be like. 

So, this is — I was saying before both of you walked out, this is historic — so I hope everybody takes this in for a minute — to have a leader of the Republican Party and the vice president of the United States.  (Applause.) 

So, let me begin with you, Madam Vice President.  Did you ever think in your wildest dreams that you would be running for president alongside Liz Cheney, who would be advocating for you, campaigning for you — a member of a opposing party putting herself on the line for you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, let me just start by thanking everyone.  Thank you all for taking time out of your busy lives to be here and have this conversation. 

And I think we are all here together because we have many things in common.  First and foremost, we love our country.  We love our country.  (Applause.) 

You know, so, Maria, perhaps not, but — (laughter).

MS. SHRIVER:  Perhaps.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Perhaps not. 

But let me say this.  So, you mentioned, you know, my background.  So, I started my career as a prosecutor, and most of my career has been spent outside of Washington, D.C., not in Washington, D.C.  And for most of my career, let me just tell you, I never once asked a victim of crime, a witness, “Are you a Democrat, or are you a Republican?”  Never.  It never would have even occurred to me to ask that.  What I did ask everyone: “Are you okay?” 

And when I think, then, about what is at stake in this election, I think that’s the biggest question.  And it is a moment where, born out of our love of our country, born out of, for me, having taken the oath of office to the Constitution of the United ta- — States at least six times, I believe what is at stake in this election is so fundamental for us as Americans.  And it is about: Do we take seriously the importance of a president who obeys the oath to be loyal to the Constitution of the United States?  Do we prioritize a president of the United States who cares about rule of law, much less the spirit with which they approach this most powerful position? 

There’s so much about this last era — when I talk about “turn the page,” that’s what I’m referring to, like the last decade — that has been about some powerful forces suggesting that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down instead of what I think most of us believe, regardless of your party affiliation, that the real measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.

And — (applause) — and so, for that reason, I’m not surprised that Liz Cheney and I are on the same stage 15 days before the election.  (Applause.)  You know?

MS. SHRIVER:  Okay.  Well, maybe you’re not surprised, but I’m surprised.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)

MS. SHRIVER:  And I think a lot of people are surprised.  So, I want to know: Are you surprised?  Are you surprised that you’re out here campaigning for a Democrat, campaigning for Kamala Harris, against the party that you’ve been a part of your entire life?

MS. CHENEY:  You know, what I would say, first of all, is we all know — everyone who watched January 6th knows, you know, what Donald Trump is willing to do.  He lost the election, he tried to overturn it and seize power, and then he sat in his dining room and he watched the attack on television.  He watched it.  People pleaded with him to tell the mob to leave, and he wouldn’t.  And he watched law enforcement officers be brutally beaten.  He watched it. 

That’s a depravity that, to me and — and, you know, I think to anyone who’s taken the oath of office, makes someone absolutely unfit ever to be president again.

Now — (applause) — I — I could have just said, you know, I’m going to do everything I can to work against Donald Trump, and there are a lot of Republicans who have said that.

MS. SHRIVER:  Yes.

MS. CHENEY:  I have decided — and I am very proud and I’m honored to have made the decision — to endorse Vice President Harris.  (Applause.) 

And — and I have gotten to spend time with Vice President Harris.  I have had the chance to talk with her about how important it is that we have two strong parties in our country, about the kind of president that I know she’ll be. 

And I think all of us — it doesn’t matter what party you’re in — we all know this is a good and an honorable and a great nation, and we have to have leaders — you might say, “I’m not going to agree on every issue” — but we have to have leaders who take that seriously.  We have to have leaders who are going to be sincere. 

And — and as a mother, I want my children to know that there is someone sitting in the Oval Office that they can look up to, someone who can be a role model.  And I’m incredibly proud and I know that Vice President Harris will be that.  (Applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  Right.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And — and, Maria, let me just add one thing also, because it bears repeating.  I have seen a lot of Republicans go up to Liz Cheney and thank her.  And they may not be doing it publicly — they may not be doing it publicly, because I think she has shown, to your point, extraordinary courage, especially in this environment, post January 6th, where there’s something — an undercurrent that is violent in terms of the language and the tenor. 

And for her to show the courage she has shown is extraordinary.  But she’s — I’ve seen Republicans come up to her and — and I — from my vantage point, she’s actually not alone.  (Applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  And so, I want to talk about that, because there are a lot of people who are scared.  Scared to vote —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. SHRIVER:  — for you.  Scared about the environment.  Scared to talk about politics. 

How scary was it for you, personally, to make this decision?  What has been the personal cost for you to do so?

MS. CHENEY:  It — it was not — it wasn’t scary at all, in terms of making this decision, because when I look at the — the nature of the threat that Donald Trump poses and — and, look, Donald Trump is doing everything he can to try to get people to forget about what he did — what he did on January 6th. 

And — and when you think about that level of instability, the level of erratic decision-making, the misogyny, that’s not someone that you can entrust with the power of the Oval Office. 

And so, I — I think that we are facing a — a choice in this election.  It’s not about party; it’s about right and wrong. 

And — and I certainly have many Republicans who will say to me, “I can’t be public.”  They do worry about a whole range of things —

MS. SHRIVER:  Right.

MS. CHENEY:  — including violence.  But — but they’ll do the right thing. 

And I would just remind people: If you’re at all concerned, you can vote your conscience and not ever have to say a word to anybody.  (Applause.)  And there will be millions of Republicans who do that on November 5th — vote for Vice President Harris.

MS. SHRIVER:  Yes.

I — I love that you said you weren’t scared at all, because most people will talk today about “I’m afraid to say anything on social media.”  “I’m afraid to speak in my place of worship.”  “I’m aprai- — afraid to speak where I work.”  “I’m afraid.” 

How are you not afraid?

MS. CHENEY:  Well, I think that — that the point you’re making is a really important one.  Think about what’s happened in our country, the level of vicious, vitriolic attack. 

You know, when — when Donald Trump says that his political opponents are the enemy within and when he contemplates deploying force against them, the response that we all have should not be to be so afraid we don’t act.  It should be: Vote him out.  Defeat him.  Defeat him.  Vote for Vice President Harris.  (Applause.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And, Maria, I’m going to add to that.

MS. SHRIVER:  Yeah.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I — I would add to that an additional point, which is — and don’t think it’s a sick sense of humor and relegate it to simply being that.  You know, I’ve said many times, I do believe Donald Trump to be an unserious man, but the consequences of him ever being in the White House again are brutally serious.

And — and take it from the people who know him best: his former chief of staff when he was president; two former Defense secretaries; his national security advisor; and, of course, his vice president, who have all in one way or another used the word that he is “unfit” to be president again and is dangerous. 

Listen to the report that — what his former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a general, said about him: that he is “fascist to the core.” 

And these are people who were in his administration, who worked closely with him in the Oval Office and the Situation Room. 

And so, I would caution us also — you know, because some people find it humorous what he says and — and think it’s just silly.  But understand how brutally serious it is.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Lock him up!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, the courts will take care of that.  We’ll take care of November, yes.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)  We’ll take care of November. 

But it is brutally serious, because to — to the congresswoman’s point, anyone has — who has openly said, as he has, that he would terminate the Constitution of the United States should never again stand behind the seal of the president of the United States — never again.  (Applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  So, Madam Vice President, I wanted to ask you — several people that I talked to in preparation for this — when I asked them, they said, “Well, I — I want to vote for the vice president, but I just don’t feel like I know her.  I don’t know enough about her.  I see the ads, but I don’t have a feel for her.”  What are three things you can tell this audience about you that aren’t in your ads, that people aren’t telling people on the robocalls, that perhaps they just wouldn’t know that might give them a feeling for who you are as a woman?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  How much time do we have?  (Laughter.)

MS. SHRIVER:  We’re at the kitchen table. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I — I have lived a full life.  (Laughter.)

I am a wife.  I am a mother.  I am a sister.  I am a godmother.  I love to cook. 

I started my career as a prosecutor, in large part — there are many reasons but one very fundamental is, when I was young, one of my best friends in high school, I learned, was being molested by her stepfather.  And I told her, when I learned, she had to come live with us.  I talked to my mother about it.  “Of course, she has to come live with us,” and she did.  And I decided I wanted to take on a career and a life that was about protecting the most vulnerable. 

I served as attorney general of California two terms.  I was the — the top law enforcement officer of the biggest state in the country.  And doing that work, it included prosecuting transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.  I did the work of taking on the big banks during the foreclosure crisis and delivered $20 billion for homeowners who had been targeted with predatory lending practices.  (Applause.)  I took on the big pharmaceutical companies on behalf of consumers.

As vice president of the United States, my priorities have been many, including, to your point, the work that you and I have done over the years focusing on women’s health.  One of my priorities is — has been maternal mortality. 

But I — I have only had one client in my career: the people.  And my belief is that there is great nobility in public service if one understands that they hold the office in the public trust.  It is not about personal power.  It is about what you can do that lifts up the condition of people. 

And there is so much about how I think about my responsibility, and I am here to ask for your vote — is that I do — I intend to be a president for all Americans, understanding that the vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us. 

And this era that was kind of initiated by Donald Trump has not only been exhausting, it has been harmful to us as a nation.  The notion that a president of the United States would encourage Americans to point fingers at each other, that — that there would be a suggestion that we are a divided country, that — instead of knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us.

I have, as vice president, met over 150 world leaders: presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and kings.  My most recent overseas trips as vice president — which were relatively close to, then, the election — our allies have expressed real concern. 

I’ve shared this before, but, you know, when we walk in a room representing the United States of America, we should walk in that room, especially leaders, chin up, shoulders back, knowing that we have the self-appointed and earned authority to talk about the importance of democracy and rule of law. 

But the thing about being a role model — it’s all role models who are here — people watch what you do to see if it matches up to what you say.  People around the world are watching this election, I promise you.  And my — one fear I have is I hope and I pray that we, the American people, understand not only what is at stake for us in this election but how much we mean to the rest of the world. 

     There is so much at stake in this election.

     MS. SHRIVER:  Liz Cheney, tell us real quick — I want to get to our first question.  But you’ve been traveling with the vice president.  You’ve been working with her.  You’ve been spending human time with her.  Tell the audience what you see that perhaps, you know, the camera doesn’t get or the ads don’t get so that they can get a sense of her that you have. 

     MS. CHENEY:  Well, I — I think that what I can tell you is that what the vice president is saying about wanting to be a president for all Americans, caring deeply about this country, those are things that — that come across very, very clearly and very directly. 

     And — and, look, I — I’m a conservative.  The very first campaign I ever volunteered in was for President Gerald Ford in 1976, and — and ever since then, I have been voting for Republicans.  I’ve never voted for a Democrat.  And —

     MS. SHRIVER:  Wow.

     MS. CHENEY:  And so, the — the fact that — that I — I believe so strongly that in this election — in this election, we need to elect the person who is the responsible adult — (laughter and applause) — and — and we need —

     And — and there is a lot — both parties do it.  There is a lot of vilification that goes on.

     MS. SHRIVER:  Yeah.

     MS. CHENEY:  And — and I think it’s really important for people to — to think very carefully about the power that we’re going to invest in the president of the United States and what it would mean to — to give that power to Donald Trump. 

     Don’t take my word for who he is.  Listen to him every day.  Look at what he did.  Remember that the people, as the vice president said, who are opposing him are the people who know him best, the people who worked most closely with him. 

     And so, I would just say I — I know that the vice president has had the range of experience, has — as vice president, as senator, as attorney general of California.  She is supremely qualified to be president of the United States.  I think there — there — sometimes there are some men who suggest that she’s not.  But if you look at her qualifications, there’s no question.  And that she’s somebody that I know I can count on who will put the good of this country first, there’s just no question.  (Applause.)

     MS. SHRIVER:  Okay.  I want to go — I want to go over here to Cecelia.  Cecelia Borland, can you stand up?  You have a question.

     Cecelia grew up in Birmingham, Michigan, which was a Republican stronghold as she grew up.  She now lives with her husband.  They’re raising two children in Berkley, Michigan, and she’s here with a question for the vice president.

     Q    Thank you both for coming to Michigan today for this important event.  I’d like to start by saying, personally, thank you, Representative Cheney, for — to you and your father for exemplifying putting country over party.  (Applause.) 

     And, Madam Vice President, I hope you had a wonderful birthday yesterday. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  (Laughter.)  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

     Q    From the shootings at Oxford High School to my alma mater, Michigan State University, to an attack at a kid’s splash pad this summer just a few miles away from here, the issue of gun violence hits very close to home for our community. 

     Just yesterday, I learned from our school district that my preschooler will be going through his first active shooter drill.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     Q    As a gun violence survivor and mother of two young children, the issue of gun violence and the safety of my children in their schools and in our community is my top priority.

     Madam Vice President, if you are elected president and there is a Republican majority in Congress, how will you work with them to make impactful and immediate progress around gun violence, especially in our children’s schools?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Right.  Thank you —

     MS. SHRIVER:  Thank you.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — Cecelia.  And thank you and — for your courage to speak up about this.

     So — well, we have done it, actually, in the last four years.  We had a bipartisan group of — of folks in Congress who came together for the Safer Communities Act, which is the first meaningful piece of gun safety legislation in 30 years.  And so, it’s a good step, and it really does tell us that we have a will within the United States Congress to work in a bipartisan way.  And — and then-Congresswoman Cheney was one of those Republicans that actually voted for it. 

     I — this is how I think of the issue.  And it is through the — the lens of many experiences, including act- — I’m so sorry about your kids going through active shooter drills.  It’s — our kids did.  It’s traumatic that our children — you know, growing up, I’ll speak for myself, we had fire drills.  Right?

     Our children are now learning how to keep themselves safe if there’s an active shooter at their school. 

     I did a tour last year of — of colleges — with college-aged kids, so I also did some trade schools.  And I would ask the room — the auditorium would be packed — college-age kids — and I’d ask them, “Raise your hand if at any point between kindergarten and 12th grade you had to endure an active shooter drill.”  Almost every hand went up. 

     Our kids are growing up where they are learning that they may be unsafe in the classroom where they should be absorbing the wonders of the world. 

     One kid said to me, “Yeah” — we were talking about this — and said to me, “Yeah, that’s why I don’t like going to fifth period.”  I said, “Why, sweetheart?  Why don’t you like going to fifth period?”  “Because in that classroom, there’s no closet,” in which to hide. 

     So, we — when we think of this issue, we must also consider the trauma that is the trauma of — the direct trauma for those who have been directly affected by gun violence, including that to our kids who are in schools across our country doing this — not to mention their teachers, who want to teach and not also have to worry about will they be able to physically protect a child from a bullet.

     Here’s how I think about it in terms of the macro point.  We have been pushing, as a country, I think, a false choice that suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.  And that’s a false choice. 

     I’m in favor of the Second Amendment.  I have talked about the fact both Tim Walz and I are gun owners.  I also believe we need reasonable gun safety laws, assault weapons bans, red flag laws, universal background checks.  (Applause.)  And — and reports say that the majority of NRA members agree on, for example, universal background checks. 

     What is a universal background check?  It’s just common sense.  Here’s what it is: You just might want to know before someone can buy a lethal weapon whether they’ve been found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others.  You just might want to know.  It’s common sense.  (Applause.)  We need commonsense gun safety laws. 

     And I will continue — I’ve done it throughout my career — work with all of our colleagues across the aisle.  And I know that we can make progress. 

     But this is not — I’m not trying to take anybody’s guns away from them.  But we need reasonable gun safety laws.

     MS. SHRIVER:  Okay.  I want to come back to the issue of public safety in a minute.  But first we want to go to Martin.  Thank you, Cecelia, very much.  Martin Howrylak.  He’s a former Republican member of the Michigan House of Representatives, and he’s here with a question about national security.

     Q    Well, thank both of you for being here this afternoon.  I really appreciate your coming to the state of Michigan to — to be here.  I would like to ask: What can the U.S. do politically, economically, or militarily to deter Russia from continuing its war on the independent nation of Ukraine while simultaneously strengthening our own U.S. security interests?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Martin. 

     MS. SHRIVER:  Go ahead.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, I was actually in Munich at the Munich Security Conference delivering a speech when I first met with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and it was just days before Russia invaded. 

     I’ve now met with President Zelenskyy, I think, seven times, because the United States has rightly taken a position as a leader — a global leader on international rules and norms — that we must stand in support of one of the most important international rules and norms, which is the importance of protecting sovereignty and territorial integrity, the importance of standing strong in opposition to the notion that, in this case, Russia would attempt to change borders by force, to invade another nation — a sovereign nation by force. 

     And sadly, there is a huge difference between my opponent and me on this very fundamental issue. 

     Back to the conversation about — there was a time when we used to — there was a phrase that I’ll paraphrase that, basically, politics ends at the — at the sea line, at the — at the — you know, at the — the boundaries of our country, that there are certain things — in particular, the matters of national security — where it’s not about partisanship; it’s about where should America stand in terms of supporting our allies and standing for certain principles.

     I’ll — I’ll give you, as a — as a point of reference for me in terms of how I feel about this, on the partisan issue.  

     I — for the four years that I was in the United States Senate, my favorite committee was the Senate Intelligence Committee.  And I served on that committee, and we would meet in a room that’s called a SCIF.  And it’s — it’s basically a — (laughs) — it’s a very secure room.  No press, with all due respect, is allowed in.  No cameras.  Everyone has to leave their cell phone outside. 

     It’s a bipartisan committee, and we would go in that room and receive classified information from America’s intelligence community, sometimes our military leaders, about hot spots around the world and threats to our national security.  And when we went in that room — and this is why it was my favorite committee — people would take off their suit jacket, roll up their sleeves, have a cup of coffee on the table.  And we weren’t Democrats or Republicans; we were Americans. 

     And that is so important on a number of issues we are discussing this afternoon but, in particular, on national security. 

     My opponent, however, has made it a thing of his to admire dictators and autocrats around the world.  He exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un.  Remember that?  He has openly praised the president of Russia. 

     Most recently, the report is, in the height of COVID — remember everyone was scrambling to get their hands on COVID tests?  Remember when Americans were dying by the hundreds every day?  And Donald Trump secretly sent COVID tests to the president of Russia for his personal use. 

     He has said — Donald Trump — “I will solve the matter of Ukraine and Russia in a day.”  Read through and understand what he is saying.  He would surrender.  He would have Ukraine surrender its fight against an aggressor violating its sovereignty. 

     If Donald Trump were president, Vladimir Putin will be sitting in Kyiv.  And understand what that would mean for America and our standing around the world. 

     But thankfully, there has been bipartisan support — and to your point of what — where you stand — on this very fundamental issue.  But this is a — this is a very vivid example of what is at stake in this election.  Because Donald Trump has been very clear: He would give away the shop.  He has been manipulated and is so clearly able to be manipulated by favor and flattery, including from dictators and autocrats around the world. 

     And America knows that that is not how we stand.  That is not how we fight.  We fight in favor of our strength and our role as a leader in bringing the Allies together and standing for foundational and fundamental principles.

     MS. SHRIVER:  Congressman Cheney — (applause) — I know, kind of, the issue of national security is one of the big reasons you’re here and supporting the vice president.  Can you expand on that answer and add your thoughts to it?

     MS. CHENEY:  Yeah.  You know, I think that if — if you look at where the Republican Party is today, there’s been a really dangerous embrace of isolationism, a dangerous embrace of tyrants. 

     The president, you know, even just today, he heaps praise on the world’s most evil people while he attacks, you know, with venom, his political opponents here at home. 

     And, you know, the — the reality is that since the end of World War II, America has led.  And we’ve led — and that has been necessary to defend our freedom.  And we can’t do it by ourselves, though.  We need our allies. 

     And when Donald Trump says that he’s going to withdraw from NATO, when he invites Vladimir Putin to invade NATO, when he suggests that it is Zelenskyy’s fault that Ukraine was invaded, I mean that is — that i- —

     For anybody who is a Republican who is thinking that, you know, they might vote for Donald Trump because of national security policy, I ask you, please, please study his national security policy.  Not only is it not Republican, it’s dangerous.  And without allies, America will find our very freedom and security challenged and threatened. 

     And one final point on this: Don’t think that Congress can stop him. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     MS. CHENEY:  People say, “Well, you know what, he can’t really do the worst, you know, because Congress will step in.”  All he has to do is what he’s doing — is say, “I won’t fulfill our NATO treaty obligations,” and — and NATO begins to unravel. 

     So, it is — it is an incredibly dangerous thing to think about a foreign policy, a national security policy led by somebody who is — is as unstable as Donald Trump is.  And it’s a risk we just simply can’t take as a nation. 

     MS. SHRIVER:  Thank you.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And I’m going to add for emphasis that — let’s also be clear about on the subject, specifically of Ukraine, Donald Trump’s approach would be to surrender.  Understand what that would mean.  That is signaling to the president of Russia he can get away with what he has done. 

Understand — look at the map — Poland would be next.  NATO, our Allies, are — the reason that they have been so thankful for the position of strength we have taken in bringing the Allies together is because they are fully aware of and remember — to the congresswoman’s point — World War II.  Remember, this — this concept of isolation — we were once there as a nation, and then Pearl Harbor happened. 

Let’s remember recent history.  Europe remembers it well.  We — then when we got attacked, Pearl Harbor, we jumped in, and it is because America jumped in that we were ultimately able to win that war, and it should be a constant reminder to us — we have to remember history — that isolationism, which is exactly what Donald Trump is pushing — pull out of NATO, abandon our friends — isolationism is not insulation.  It is not insulation.  It will not insulate us from harm in terms of our national security. 

So, I say that to emphasize a point that the congresswoman made, and the other point I’d make is also check out where he’s been on how he thinks about America’s military and service members.  One of the great, great American heroes, a prisoner of war, John McCain.  Remember how he talked about John McCain?  He said he didn’t like him because he got caught. 

You look — he’s called members of our military “suckers” and “losers.”  And then look at how some of the highest-ranking members of our military, including what I mentioned earlier, the chairman — the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a dedicated member, leader in our mil- — in America’s military, how he has assessed Donald Trump — fascism “to his core.”

So, there we are.

MS. SHRIVER:  There are your talking points for the kitchen table.  (Applause.)

Our final question is from Courtney.  Courtney, can you stand?  Courtney is — Courtney Gabbara Agrusa is a wife, a mom, an attorney, and she’s a proud Chaldean, and she is here with a question.  Courtney.

Q    Thank you so much.  Good evening, Madam Vice President Harris and Representative Cheney.  My name is Courtney Gabbara Agrusa, and I am a first-generation Chaldean American.  Chaldeans are Indigenous Iraqis who are Catholic, and we are predominantly in the metro Detroit area.  Chaldeans are a very close-knit community, but the recent political climate has really begun to divide us. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

Q    While I know that you have discussed several bipartisan proposals over the course of your campaign, what would you say to people like myself who are part of these traditionally conservative communities who want to move forward, but are feeling the pref- — the pressures of the political divide?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  And I’ve actually met with — with members and leaders in the Chaldean community, and thank you for being here. 

You know, I think that there is something at stake that is about core values, as well as what is at stake in terms of the risk and the danger.  And I would offer you an example of what I think would be an important issue that would affect the Chaldean community and all Americans, for example, the issue of — of how we think about health care in America. 

So, I know enough about the culture and to know that it is reflective of who we are as Americans in general.  We respect our elders; we take care of them.  So, I will share with you a specific proposal that is an extension of how I think about things. 

I — actually a personal story, I took care of my mother when she was sick.  And for anyone taking care of or who has taken care of an elder relative, you know what that is.  It’s about trying to cook something they feel like eating.  It is trying to find clothes that don’t irritate their skin or help them put on a sweater.  It’s about trying to figure out something you can say that will bring a smile to their face or make them laugh.  It’s about dignity. 

And we now have, in particular in our country, a lot of people doing that and also raising young kids.  We call them the sandwich generation, right in the middle.  It’s a lot.  And the way the system currently works — well, God willing, you may have enough resources, you can hire somebody to come in and help. 

If not, you may have to spend down all of your savings to be able to qualify for Medicaid or you may have to quit your job to be able to do what you need to do to take care of your children and take care of your relative — your older relative.  That’s just not right, and it’s not fair. 

So, part of my proposal and the plan is that we’re going to now reconfigure so that Medicare covers home health care for our seniors, right?  It’s about dignity.  (Applause.)

So, in addition to everything that we’ve discussed already about national security, what is at stake — something like this, because I absolutely do believe America is ready for a new generation of leadership that is taking on issues clear-eyed about what is going on that affects everybody — it doesn’t matter their political party; issues that are fundamentally about dignity, also about economic issues; and taking it on in a way that we relieve the American people of the burdens that get in the way of productivity and a certain quality of life.  And this is one example of that. 

I believe we need to have an economy that I call an opportunity economy, where everyone has the opportunity to thrive — not just get by but get ahead. 

And this is one example I would offer under the broader point, which is about, let’s move forward, taking on problems from a commonsense approach that is about just practical work. 

Look, I am a capitalist.  I am a pragmatic capitalist.  I will work as I have with the private sector.  I believe we have to invest in America’s economy and in America’s industry and America’s entrepreneurs, and we can, at the same time, take care of those that are the most in need of just a little support to be able to not just get by but get ahead.

MS. SHRIVER:  Thank you, Courtney. 

Liz, I just want to — we have two minutes left — (applause) — and when you hear the phrase a “new way forward,” when you hear “country over party,” what does that mean to you? 

We’re two weeks out, what does a new way forward mean for families like everybody here, for your children, my children, everybody’s children, young men?

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, I —

MS. SHRIVER:  What is it like?

MS. CHENEY:  I think that, you know, we’re — we’re at a moment now where, when you think about America and — and the beacon of hope that we have been for so many years for so many communities, also how tremendously enriched we have been by communities — immigrants who want to come here and build a life, all of that depends upon fundamentally defending the rule of law, fundamentally defending our Constitution.  That’s — that’s what makes all of our opportunity and our freedom possible.

And — and at the same time that we’re that beacon for the world, you know, it’s also because — because we’re a good nation —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  — and because you know when — when you — when you look at who our leader is going to be, what — what Donald Trump represents is — is, in many ways, just cruel and — and not — not the kind of dignity and — and the kind of person that we all want to be able to look up to. 

But — but what I would say is that if people are uncertain, if people are thinking, “Well, you know, I’m a conservative, I don’t know that I can support Vice President Harris,” I would say I don’t know if anybody is more conservative than I am.  (Laughter.)  And — and I understand the most conservative value there is is to defend the Constitution.  And if we don’t come together to do that then — (applause) —

And so, just to — to finish that, I would say, to me, a new way forward is this: It’s what you’re seeing up here.  It’s having a president who will listen, having a president who will say, “I’m not, you know, necessarily sure I agree with you on this issue or that issue, but let’s talk about it.”

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. CHENEY:  “Why do you want, you know, that policy?  Why do you believe that?”  Someone who is willing to honor and respect all perspectives and points of views.  And there’s only one candidate in this race who does that, and that’s Vice President Harris.  (Applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  In fact, a lot of polling of undecided voters who call themselves “the exhausted majority” said, I just want leaders who listen —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. SHRIVER:  — to one another.  I just want leaders who speak respectfully to one another.  I want to see decency.  I want to see people I can look up to.  And, unfortunately, that’s considered a new way forward as the — as Representative Cheney —

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, let’s do that.  Let’s do that. 

MS. SHRIVER:  Yeah, let’s do that.

MS. CHENEY:  Yeah, let’s do that. 

MS. SHRIVER:  Let’s make that a way forward. 

The final word, Madam Vice President.  You know, everybody I talked to says, you know, “I have to turn off the news.  I can’t read anything.  I’m meditating.  I’m doing yoga.  I’m doing — I’m so anxious.  I just don’t even know.  I’m eating gummies.”  All kinds of things, you know?  (Laughter.) 

What are you doing?  What are you doing —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Not eating gummies.  (Laughter and applause.)

MS. SHRIVER:  Okay, we got that clear.  But how do you — I mean, how do you handle this — the anxiety, the stress, the turmoil?  Everybody is freaked out.  I — I talked to the gentleman up there, and he’s like, “I’m so scared.” 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. SHRIVER:  A woman was like, “I’m so anxious.  I can’t sleep.”  Do you sleep?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  You know, I wake up in the middle of the night usually these days, to be honest with you, but I work out every morning.  I — I think that’s really important to just kind of — you know, mind, body, and spirit. 

But let me — let me just say this —

MS. SHRIVER:  No, say more about that.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — we — but I —

MS. SHRIVER:  Say more.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — but — I will.  I work out.  I try to eat well.  You know, I love my family, and I make sure that I talk to the kids and my husband every day.  We’ve been — Doug and I’ve been kind of tr- — you know, traveling.  We’re trying to cover a lot of ground, so we’re not with each other every day these days, but my family grounds me in every way. 

But let me, if I can just speak to the — what people are feeling.  You — we cannot despair.  We cannot despair.  You know, the nature of a democracy is such that I think there’s a duality. 

On the one hand, there’s an incredible strength when our democracy is intact, an incredible strength in what it does to protect the freedoms and rights of its people.  Oh, there’s great strength in that.  And it is very fragile.  It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it.  And so, that’s the moment we’re in. 

And I say, do not despair, because in a democracy, as long as we can keep it — in our democracy, the people, every individual has the power to make a decision about what this will be, and that’s — and so let’s not feel powerless.  Let’s not let the som- — and I get it — overwhelming nature of this all make us feel powerless, because then we have been defeated, and that’s not our character as the American people. 

We are not one to be defeated.  We rise to a moment, and we stand on broad shoulders of people who have fought this fight before for our country.  And in many ways, let us look at the challenge then that we are being presented and not be overwhelmed by it.  The baton is now in our hands to fight for — not against, but for — this country we love. 

That’s what we have the power to do.  So, let’s own that — dare I say, be joyful in what we will do in the process of owning that, which is knowing that we can and will build community and coalitions and remind people that we’re all in this together.  Let’s not let the overwhelming nature of this strip us of our strength. 

That’s how I feel about this.  (Applause.)  You know, that’s how I feel about this.  You know?  Yeah.  

MS. SHRIVER:  So, I want to — I want to thank everybody here.  You heard from the vice president, from Congresswoman Cheney, do not despair.  I think you got a great glimpse into who this woman is, who this woman is, what brings them together, why they’re here, why they want to earn your vote, why they wanted to speak with you today. 

And I want to leave you with this quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson that I think speaks to this moment.  It says,

“Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you’re wrong.  There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right.  To map out a course of action and follow it to the end requires great courage.” 

So, I leave you with that.  All of you are courageous people.  Do not despair. 

Thank you so much for spending your time.  Brava.  (Applause.)

                             END                5:18 P.M. EDT

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris and Liz Cheney at a Campaign Event | Royal Oak, MI appeared first on The White House.

Royal Oak Music Theatre
Royal Oak, Michigan

3:59 P.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Well, we are here in Michigan, just left Pennsylvania.  And then after Michigan, we’ll be on our way to Wisconsin. 

And I will mention a couple of things that have just recently come up — for example, that my opponent, Donald Trump, does not believe we should raise minimum wage.  And I think everyone knows that the current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which means that the person who is working a full day and working full weeks will make $15,000 a year, which is essentially poverty wages. 

So, there is a big difference between Donald Trump and me on a number of issues, including this, where I absolutely believe we must raise minimum wage and that hardworking Americans, whether they’re working at McDonald’s or anywhere else, should have at least the ability to be able to take care of their family and take care of themselves in a way that allows them to actually be able to sustain their needs.

The other issue that has come up recently has been the issue of what we are seeing, again, about Donald Trump just being, frankly, hostile to the whole notion and importance of Social Security.  There are many seniors in our country that Social Security is their only form of income.  And now an independent agency has reviewed Donald Trump’s theory about Social Security and his policies and has indicated that his policy would actually render the Social Security fund empty, essentially, in six years.

Again, if you look at it from minim- — minimum wage to Social Security, Donald Trump clearly does not understand the needs of working people.  With Social Security be- — being rendered insolvent in six years, what that would mean for the seniors of America is catastrophic. 

And then, lastly, on the issue of contraception, I’m very pleased that our administration today announced a rule that would essentially allow folks to get contraception over the counter.  And as we know, my policy is about making sure that Americans have what they need in terms of their reproductive health.  And Donald Trump, you just look at his plan 20- — his Project 2025 would actually restrict access to contraception, which would just contribute to the public health crisis he’s already created.

I’ll take any questions.

AIDE:  We’re going to start with Erica Green at the New York Times.

     Q    Madam President — Vice President, sorry.  Keeps happening.  Could you please speak to your — your messaging today —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

     Q    — particularly as you go through the suburbs?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     Q    You’re trying to reach swing voters.  Among them are women —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yep.

     Q    — white women who voted for Donald Trump in the last two elections.  Can you talk about your messaging to them and what you’re hoping will break through to them?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, today, I am spending the day with former Congresswoman Liz Cheney.  We are traveling to three states to talk with all Americans about what is at stake in this election, but doing it through the lens of a very important point, that what is at stake in this election is so fundamental that it really does cross partisan lines.

We are talking about whether you will have a president of the United States who takes seriously their duty and their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  And there is a clear distinction here, which is that I will and he will not, as evidenced by many statements he has made, including his intention to be a dictator on day one, his intention to weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies. 

And then you just look at what the people who know him best and worked with him in the Oval Office and the White House have said about him, which is he is unfit to serve and would be dangerous if he were president again.  And he, even by the former chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, has been called a “fascist to his core.”  I am quoting.

So, what we are talking with folks about today is what I’ve been talking with folks about since I’ve been on the campaign trail these last 70-odd days, which is this is a choice for the American people, and it is a choice between whether we’re going to chart a new way forward that turns the page on the division, the hate, the chaos of Donald Trump. 

But also, and maybe even more fundamentally, do we have a president of the United States who stands behind the seal of the president of the United States taking seriously their oath and their duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States and abide by the rule of law?

And so, I’m out here talking with folks to remind them of what’s at stake.  And I’m very pleased and honored that so many people are showing up to these events to have this conversation, because I think they know, regardless of who they voted for in the last election and the party with which they’re registered to vote, on some issues, we just have to all be Americans and put party aside.

AIDE:  We’re going to go to Colleen at the AP.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hi. 

Q    Hi, Madam Vice President.  Do you think that Republican voters — in specific, women voters — will be more likely to vote for you because of the fall of Roe?  And are the Republican votes key to winning the (inaudible) states?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, I look at what happened in the midterms and in special elections to guide my thinking about this issue.  And what we saw is, in so-called “red” states and so-called “blue” states, when the issue of the freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body is on the ballot, the American people vote for freedom regardless of the party with which they’re registered to vote.

And I do believe it is such a fundamental issue, which is understanding you don’t have to abandon your faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government should not be telling women what to do with their body.  So, I do believe it is a compelling issue, especially when we consider the fact that, for so many of us, our daughter is going to have fewer rights than their grandmother. 

And America’s strength — one of the attributes of our progress has been the expansion of rights, not the restriction of rights.  And that’s what we’re seeing happen, and it has happened because Donald Trump created this situation when he hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention they would undo the protections of Roe v. Wade, and they did as he intended.

AIDE:  We have time for one more.  Andrea at Reuters, are you here?

     Q    Yeah.  Hi.  So, Elon Musk is giving away a million dollars a day to voters who sign a petition.  Do you have concerns about that in ter- — in the context of law, you know, the sort of legal framework around elections? 

And secondly, a Reuters investigation has shown something like 300 cases of political violence already in the run-up to the election.  Can you just address what can be done and what the federal government can do to push back against that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, on the first point, I think people are looking into that.

On the second point —

     Q    When you say “people,” do you mean the U.S. government?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I mean I hear that folks are looking into it, just based on the stuff you all are reporting.  (Laughs.)

On the second point, there should be no place in America where we are seeing political violence.  And, sadly, we have seen, if we just look back to January 6th, when that occurred in a way that was most shocking and brought on because, of course, of Donald Trump, who incited a mob — a violent mob that attacked the United States Capitol, wherein over 140 uniformed law enforcement officers were injured and some were killed and where Donald Trump has still yet to acknowledge the travesty of that day and the political violence that occurred that day.

So, I will say and repeat what I think most people understand: In America, in a democracy, we should have no room for nor should we ever condone any form of political violence.  In a democracy, people will debate, people will disagree, but not resort to violence.  And everyone should speak out about that, including and especially anybody who’s running for president of the United States.

AIDE:  Thank you, Madam Vice President.

     Q    Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  All right.  Thank you all.

                        END                     4:07 P.M. EDT

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris in Press Gaggle | Royal Oak, MI appeared first on The White House.

Royal Oak Music Theatre
Royal Oak, Michigan

3:59 P.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Well, we are here in Michigan, just left Pennsylvania.  And then after Michigan, we’ll be on our way to Wisconsin. 

And I will mention a couple of things that have just recently come up — for example, that my opponent, Donald Trump, does not believe we should raise minimum wage.  And I think everyone knows that the current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which means that the person who is working a full day and working full weeks will make $15,000 a year, which is essentially poverty wages. 

So, there is a big difference between Donald Trump and me on a number of issues, including this, where I absolutely believe we must raise minimum wage and that hardworking Americans, whether they’re working at McDonald’s or anywhere else, should have at least the ability to be able to take care of their family and take care of themselves in a way that allows them to actually be able to sustain their needs.

The other issue that has come up recently has been the issue of what we are seeing, again, about Donald Trump just being, frankly, hostile to the whole notion and importance of Social Security.  There are many seniors in our country that Social Security is their only form of income.  And now an independent agency has reviewed Donald Trump’s theory about Social Security and his policies and has indicated that his policy would actually render the Social Security fund empty, essentially, in six years.

Again, if you look at it from minim- — minimum wage to Social Security, Donald Trump clearly does not understand the needs of working people.  With Social Security be- — being rendered insolvent in six years, what that would mean for the seniors of America is catastrophic. 

And then, lastly, on the issue of contraception, I’m very pleased that our administration today announced a rule that would essentially allow folks to get contraception over the counter.  And as we know, my policy is about making sure that Americans have what they need in terms of their reproductive health.  And Donald Trump, you just look at his plan 20- — his Project 2025 would actually restrict access to contraception, which would just contribute to the public health crisis he’s already created.

I’ll take any questions.

AIDE:  We’re going to start with Erica Green at the New York Times.

     Q    Madam President — Vice President, sorry.  Keeps happening.  Could you please speak to your — your messaging today —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

     Q    — particularly as you go through the suburbs?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     Q    You’re trying to reach swing voters.  Among them are women —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yep.

     Q    — white women who voted for Donald Trump in the last two elections.  Can you talk about your messaging to them and what you’re hoping will break through to them?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, today, I am spending the day with former Congresswoman Liz Cheney.  We are traveling to three states to talk with all Americans about what is at stake in this election, but doing it through the lens of a very important point, that what is at stake in this election is so fundamental that it really does cross partisan lines.

We are talking about whether you will have a president of the United States who takes seriously their duty and their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  And there is a clear distinction here, which is that I will and he will not, as evidenced by many statements he has made, including his intention to be a dictator on day one, his intention to weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies. 

And then you just look at what the people who know him best and worked with him in the Oval Office and the White House have said about him, which is he is unfit to serve and would be dangerous if he were president again.  And he, even by the former chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, has been called a “fascist to his core.”  I am quoting.

So, what we are talking with folks about today is what I’ve been talking with folks about since I’ve been on the campaign trail these last 70-odd days, which is this is a choice for the American people, and it is a choice between whether we’re going to chart a new way forward that turns the page on the division, the hate, the chaos of Donald Trump. 

But also, and maybe even more fundamentally, do we have a president of the United States who stands behind the seal of the president of the United States taking seriously their oath and their duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States and abide by the rule of law?

And so, I’m out here talking with folks to remind them of what’s at stake.  And I’m very pleased and honored that so many people are showing up to these events to have this conversation, because I think they know, regardless of who they voted for in the last election and the party with which they’re registered to vote, on some issues, we just have to all be Americans and put party aside.

AIDE:  We’re going to go to Colleen at the AP.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hi. 

Q    Hi, Madam Vice President.  Do you think that Republican voters — in specific, women voters — will be more likely to vote for you because of the fall of Roe?  And are the Republican votes key to winning the (inaudible) states?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, I look at what happened in the midterms and in special elections to guide my thinking about this issue.  And what we saw is, in so-called “red” states and so-called “blue” states, when the issue of the freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body is on the ballot, the American people vote for freedom regardless of the party with which they’re registered to vote.

And I do believe it is such a fundamental issue, which is understanding you don’t have to abandon your faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government should not be telling women what to do with their body.  So, I do believe it is a compelling issue, especially when we consider the fact that, for so many of us, our daughter is going to have fewer rights than their grandmother. 

And America’s strength — one of the attributes of our progress has been the expansion of rights, not the restriction of rights.  And that’s what we’re seeing happen, and it has happened because Donald Trump created this situation when he hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention they would undo the protections of Roe v. Wade, and they did as he intended.

AIDE:  We have time for one more.  Andrea at Reuters, are you here?

     Q    Yeah.  Hi.  So, Elon Musk is giving away a million dollars a day to voters who sign a petition.  Do you have concerns about that in ter- — in the context of law, you know, the sort of legal framework around elections? 

And secondly, a Reuters investigation has shown something like 300 cases of political violence already in the run-up to the election.  Can you just address what can be done and what the federal government can do to push back against that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, on the first point, I think people are looking into that.

On the second point —

     Q    When you say “people,” do you mean the U.S. government?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I mean I hear that folks are looking into it, just based on the stuff you all are reporting.  (Laughs.)

On the second point, there should be no place in America where we are seeing political violence.  And, sadly, we have seen, if we just look back to January 6th, when that occurred in a way that was most shocking and brought on because, of course, of Donald Trump, who incited a mob — a violent mob that attacked the United States Capitol, wherein over 140 uniformed law enforcement officers were injured and some were killed and where Donald Trump has still yet to acknowledge the travesty of that day and the political violence that occurred that day.

So, I will say and repeat what I think most people understand: In America, in a democracy, we should have no room for nor should we ever condone any form of political violence.  In a democracy, people will debate, people will disagree, but not resort to violence.  And everyone should speak out about that, including and especially anybody who’s running for president of the United States.

AIDE:  Thank you, Madam Vice President.

     Q    Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  All right.  Thank you all.

                        END                     4:07 P.M. EDT

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris in Press Gaggle | Royal Oak, MI appeared first on The White House.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Thank you to each of the speakers, including the survivors, who preceded me. You are each both humbling and inspiring, and I am deeply grateful to have listened to what you have shared with us.

It is an honor to be here with you at the fourth convening of the Eradicate Hate Global Summit.

Thank you, Brette for your generous words — and thank you for taking on this vital leadership role. 

The Summit has convened thousands of experts and developed multiple innovative approaches – including the “Up End Hate” campaign that empowers young people to prevent violence.  And that is just the most recent example of the impact this solutions-oriented Summit has delivered.    

Sunday, October 27th, will mark the sixth anniversary of the horrific day when a white supremacist who hated Jews and immigrants went to the Tree of Life synagogue here in Pittsburgh and attacked the innocent human beings who were worshipping during morning Shabbat services.

He murdered eleven people that day, robbing the world of their futures. 

For each of them, their loved ones still grieve, and in solidarity we each can say:  May their memories be a blessing.

The phrase is a resonant and powerful one. It invites us all not just to remember those we have lost, but to honor them by continuing to pursue justice and heal our broken world in their names.

Looking at this week’s agenda and each of you in this room, remembering them is indeed proving to be a blessing, by motivating this hard work to translate ideas into action.

In the aftermath of that terrible and tragic day, this community and this city have shown that an act of terror should and can unite us rather than divide us. In the Summit, you have shown the world how you have taken the emotions and prayers that arose and the actions you are undertaking and channeled them into meaningful deeds.

It is in that spirit of moving from hope to action that I come to you today.

I will speak to you about three topics: the threat we face now, the responses we are pursuing to address that threat, and the actions we are taking to reduce that threat in the future.

First, we unfortunately have to acknowledge that current forms of domestic terrorism and hate have fueled a dynamic threat landscape that is even more daunting following the savage Hamas attack on Israel one year ago and its ongoing aftermath.

These threats present a new set of challenges that we must do everything we can to prevent, to disrupt, and to prepare for if they cannot be stopped.  

Indeed, the Biden-Harris Administration’s response to hate and domestic terrorism is outlined in a series of innovative strategies and implementation plans that harness the full force of the Federal government of the United States. 

But critically, they depend on intensive, enduring cooperation with civic, religious, private sector and international partners like you to generate a comprehensive response.

And although it may not feel that way every day, this model is delivering results. I am the first to admit that the challenges are immense, and even growing.  But I also fervently believe that combining our full strengths, we can come together to make a difference. 

The Normalization of Hate and Violence

Let me begin with the threat landscape: As the White House Homeland Security Advisor over the past four years, I have seen firsthand that a fundamental threat to our democracy is the normalization of hate-fueled violence.

Domestic terrorist movements, including racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, continue to advocate for widespread violence on the premise that it would lead to outcomes they seek, including chaos and societal collapse among other dystopian ends.

These dark minds celebrate attacks in El Paso, Buffalo, Poway, Colorado Springs, Charleston, and yes, just east of here, in Squirrel Hill — as well as numerous attacks abroad that they ascribe to their twisted worldview.

The proliferation of these ideologies online reflects this trend, and its purveyors are reaching a growing number of people, including teenagers and even younger children.

And as this threat has evolved both in the United States and especially online, we have seen its “domestic” dimensions become increasingly global.

Let me give you one example of what I mean.  On September 9th of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice arrested and charged two leaders of the Terrorgram Collective in the United States.

These two individuals created a global community of white supremacists to communicate online with like-minded people, disseminate violent propaganda, and encourage physical attacks on minority communities and government officials.

The amplification of hate online has corresponded with a growth in antisemitism and other forms of hate, particularly in the wake of the October 7th Hamas attacks. 

By just one measure, between October 7th, 2023, and January 30th of this year, the FBI opened over three times more anti-Jewish hate crimes investigations than in the four months prior to the October 7th attacks. I will return to the meaningful outcomes from these investigations in a moment. 

And October 7th has had ramifications beyond the rise in hate. We have observed terrorist groups from across the ideological spectrum seeking to exploit the attack for their own goals. Images and messaging emerging from the conflict are expanding the pool of individuals susceptible to mobilization to violent acts, and causing terrorist groups that previously disdained each other to form common cause.

And these effects are likely to persist long after hostilities cease— and will interact with future flashpoints and activating events, which could drive terrorist attacks against the United States and Israel, as well as against Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and other communities.  

And it is not just terrorist organizations that are of high concern. The behavior of lone actors can have significant ramifications, even when they do not commit mass violence.

For example, in February 2024, a joint investigation between the FBI and Florida authorities led to the arrest of a 17-year-old for swatting—which is the practice of making false reports to 9-1-1 to induce a law enforcement response at a residence or workplace.

Over a two-year span, this particular young person targeted a Florida mosque and hundreds of high schools, historically black colleges and universities, and even the homes of FBI agents.

Swatting distracts and drains valuable law enforcement resources, exposes police to a potentially life-threatening response, and traumatizes citizens, including students and worshippers, who experience these events.

And as if this wasn’t bad enough, it emerged that the young suspect was selling swatting as a service on Telegram— which is another way in which that platform is being exploited for dangerous purposes.

Now, some look at today’s threat landscape and assume the worst, and conclude that there is little if anything that can be done to stop the growth of these threats. 

But I am here today to tell you that, like all of you, we do not see it that way.    

The Biden-Harris Administration’s Strategic Approach

Clearly what I have described is not how we wish our world had evolved. But we have come together here to affirm that we are not powerless in the face of hate and violence.

From day one, President Biden and Vice President Harris have pursued a rigorously calibrated, integrated approach to countering hate and domestic terrorism that is aligned with our values and complements our broader national security interests.

This is built on their core belief that domestic terrorism and hate strike at the very foundation of our democracy.

Indeed, President Biden decided to run for the White House back in 2017 after men with tiki torches emerged from the shadows in Charlottesville spewing the same Antisemitic bile we heard in Germany in the 1930s. 

That’s why, on his first day in office, President Biden directed me to lead a 100-day comprehensive review of U.S. Government efforts to address domestic terrorism.  This resulted in the development and release of the first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism in June of 2021.

We went to work immediately on implementing that strategy.  And to complement it, recognizing how critical our partners beyond the Federal government would be to our success, in September of 2022, President Biden hosted the United We Stand Summit to mobilize communities to work with us in advancing an inclusive and bipartisan vision for a more united America and to push back against the growing normalization of hate in our society.

In December of that year, Susan Rice – then the President’s Domestic Policy Advisor – and I launched an initiative to specifically tackle Antisemitism, Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination.

This led to our releasing, in May 2023, the first-ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. And we have been working to develop a complementary strategy to address Islamophobia. 

Importantly, our approach not only tackles the threats of today but prepares for emerging and future threats. 

So I want to focus here on three key elements of the strategy: first, our efforts to hold accountable those who engage in hate-fueled violence and hate crimes; second, our efforts to protect vulnerable communities; and third, our efforts to prevent such acts from occurring in the first place.

Accountability Measures

Our Administration has prioritized the use of our legal authorities and tools to expand investigations and prosecutions. 

As a result, from 2020 to 2022, the number of FBI domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism investigations more than doubled to over 2,700. 

In 2022, the Department of Justice also created a specific domestic terrorism unit within its National Security Division to handle these investigations and prosecutions.

And a similar dynamic is occurring in our efforts to address hate crimes. The FBI has published and widely disseminated information about what constitutes a hate crime and how to report them, and reinforced this by conducting over 70 meetings with faith-based organizations since October 7th.

These efforts, combined with the FBI’s tireless work to investigate every lead they receive, have delivered results.  Let me describe a few.  

In November of 2023, a Tampa, Florida, resident was arrested by the FBI for allegedly leaving threatening voicemails at two Jewish organizations in New York.

In January 2024, a Massachusetts man was arrested for threatening to kill members of the Jewish community and bomb places of worship.

And just last month, the Department of Justice announced criminal charges against a Pakistani national arrested in Canada who was planning to travel to New York City to attack a Jewish Community Center on the anniversary of October 7th.

Protection Measures

We have also driven efforts to enhance the safety and security of Jewish and other communities targeted for hate and violence. For example, President Biden worked with Congress to secure an additional $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Nonprofit Security Grant Program in February of this year.

This grant program funds security improvements and training for nonprofits and houses of worship, including campus organizations and community centers.

For example, the same program paid to install cameras and boost other security measures in Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas—actions that the congregation’s Rabbi credited with avoiding loss of life when a terrorist took hostages in the synagogue in January 2022. 

We have also worked in partnership with a wide range of state and local leaders and non-governmental partners to help communities and institutions protect themselves against and prevent hate.

As just one example, this past summer we provided 5,000 campus leaders all across the country with a detailed list of the federal resources available to help them establish safer and more secure learning environments for their students, faculty, and staff.  

We sent Federal experts to campuses, hosted a variety of convenings to discuss challenges and identify solutions, and released updated toolkits to enhance their preparations for the new academic year that began in August.

This effort is ongoing, and the fear and anxiety of those who feel threatened on campuses persists. But it is clear that the resources and toolkits we have shared align with the changes that many campuses have successfully implemented this Fall.  

Prevention

And this brings me to the third element of our response—the actions we are taking now to prevent hate-fueled violence and domestic terrorism in the future, before they occur. 

We know that a complex process brings an individual to pursue targeted violence or terrorism. But we also know that there are behaviors and other signs that people see that are clues that an individual might be trending toward or contemplating an act of targeted violence or terrorism.   

We have elevated the prevention of targeted violence and terrorism as a strategic priority for countering terrorism, antisemitism, and related forms of hate. 

Our goal has been to build a prevention architecture that supports nation-wide state and local efforts to intervene and “offramp” individuals who appear to be moving toward committing acts of targeted violence and terrorism.

At the Federal level, we have surged support to state and local behavioral Threat Assessment and Management, or “TAM” teams as we refer to them.

For example, the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit has embedded specifically trained agents who are called “threat management coordinators” in their field offices and is working to ensure that each of their field offices are participating in the local Threat Assessment and Management teams. Some of these coordinators are here with us today.   

Likewise, the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center recently released a six-step guide for state and local law enforcement about how they can most efficiently establish a TAM team that can assess and intervene with individuals identified as posing a risk of violence.

And there is the DHS Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, which I know is well represented here in the room.  Among their many accomplishments, I want to highlight their work creating and curating the online Prevention Resource Finder, which you can Google at that name—literally a one-stop shop that lists all Federal resources available to help state and local governments prevent acts of targeted violence and terrorism. We recently expanded the website, and it now offers nearly 150 resources.

It’s important to say again here that the Federal government cannot effectively tackle this metastatic challenge alone.

Indeed, all of the evidence shows that prevention is most effective when led by our state and local partners, who are on the ground, embedded in our communities. This is especially true for TAM teams, which often operate at the county or municipal level.

The good news is that we know state and local partners can do this quickly and successfully in partnership with Federal expertise and assistance. Let me give you an example.

In the days and weeks following the appalling May 14th, 2022, domestic terrorist attack at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, the state of New York quickly reached out to the Federal Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies to explore how to expand existing partnerships and build a statewide prevention effort.

To be clear, this was led by and implemented by the State of New York, but the Federal government offered substantial assistance to the State of New York.

And by 2023, New York had launched a statewide targeted violence prevention strategy that included placing at least one TAM team in every county.

Just two years after the Buffalo attack, New York had established TAM teams in forty-three counties and the City of New York.

In May, New York noted that their TAM teams were collectively intervening in more than one thousand two hundred cases.

And, more important, these TAM teams are saving lives, taking action with respect to certain individuals who were clearly planning acts of targeted violence.  

This is critical, painstaking, lifesaving work, and I am encouraged to see that many more states are responding to our calls to move in this direction.

This is progress, and if we persist, these efforts will reduce violence in our Homeland.  

Closing

In closing, I want to thank each of you for the work you do every day to prevent, to prepare, and to respond to this phenomenon that is tragically impacting so many of our communities and leaving families and neighborhoods devastated. 

Your partnership with us is vital to stopping the normalization of hate-fueled violence that threatens our democracy. 

Again, I want commend the work of this Summit. You are the embodiment of what I have spoken about today.  And there is a real feeling of solidarity in a group like this, and we can and must draw strength from one another.

For a moment, I will take you back to another very dark time in our Nation’s history — the days and weeks after 9/11. Then I had very young children — and to focus them on the positive in a time of terror I would say to them, “look at all the helpers — there are so many people who are helping other people.”

You are the helpers today, the doers, the healers in these times, and your work to scale up prevention efforts – and to mobilize the youth of our country to be a part of the solution to hate – are two of the numerous examples of how the agenda for the coming three days will build a stronger and safer America for all of us, and set an example for the world. 

I salute you for all your commitment, your dedication, and everything you are doing — 

And I will end where I began. While the threats are real and pernicious, we take inspiration from each other and from those we have lost.  

May each of their memories be a blessing – and may our work together light the way to a brighter and more secure future.     

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Dr. Liz Sherwood-Randall for the Eradicate Hate Global Summit | Pittsburgh, PA appeared first on The White House.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Thank you to each of the speakers, including the survivors, who preceded me. You are each both humbling and inspiring, and I am deeply grateful to have listened to what you have shared with us.

It is an honor to be here with you at the fourth convening of the Eradicate Hate Global Summit.

Thank you, Brette for your generous words — and thank you for taking on this vital leadership role. 

The Summit has convened thousands of experts and developed multiple innovative approaches – including the “Up End Hate” campaign that empowers young people to prevent violence.  And that is just the most recent example of the impact this solutions-oriented Summit has delivered.    

Sunday, October 27th, will mark the sixth anniversary of the horrific day when a white supremacist who hated Jews and immigrants went to the Tree of Life synagogue here in Pittsburgh and attacked the innocent human beings who were worshipping during morning Shabbat services.

He murdered eleven people that day, robbing the world of their futures. 

For each of them, their loved ones still grieve, and in solidarity we each can say:  May their memories be a blessing.

The phrase is a resonant and powerful one. It invites us all not just to remember those we have lost, but to honor them by continuing to pursue justice and heal our broken world in their names.

Looking at this week’s agenda and each of you in this room, remembering them is indeed proving to be a blessing, by motivating this hard work to translate ideas into action.

In the aftermath of that terrible and tragic day, this community and this city have shown that an act of terror should and can unite us rather than divide us. In the Summit, you have shown the world how you have taken the emotions and prayers that arose and the actions you are undertaking and channeled them into meaningful deeds.

It is in that spirit of moving from hope to action that I come to you today.

I will speak to you about three topics: the threat we face now, the responses we are pursuing to address that threat, and the actions we are taking to reduce that threat in the future.

First, we unfortunately have to acknowledge that current forms of domestic terrorism and hate have fueled a dynamic threat landscape that is even more daunting following the savage Hamas attack on Israel one year ago and its ongoing aftermath.

These threats present a new set of challenges that we must do everything we can to prevent, to disrupt, and to prepare for if they cannot be stopped.  

Indeed, the Biden-Harris Administration’s response to hate and domestic terrorism is outlined in a series of innovative strategies and implementation plans that harness the full force of the Federal government of the United States. 

But critically, they depend on intensive, enduring cooperation with civic, religious, private sector and international partners like you to generate a comprehensive response.

And although it may not feel that way every day, this model is delivering results. I am the first to admit that the challenges are immense, and even growing.  But I also fervently believe that combining our full strengths, we can come together to make a difference. 

The Normalization of Hate and Violence

Let me begin with the threat landscape: As the White House Homeland Security Advisor over the past four years, I have seen firsthand that a fundamental threat to our democracy is the normalization of hate-fueled violence.

Domestic terrorist movements, including racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, continue to advocate for widespread violence on the premise that it would lead to outcomes they seek, including chaos and societal collapse among other dystopian ends.

These dark minds celebrate attacks in El Paso, Buffalo, Poway, Colorado Springs, Charleston, and yes, just east of here, in Squirrel Hill — as well as numerous attacks abroad that they ascribe to their twisted worldview.

The proliferation of these ideologies online reflects this trend, and its purveyors are reaching a growing number of people, including teenagers and even younger children.

And as this threat has evolved both in the United States and especially online, we have seen its “domestic” dimensions become increasingly global.

Let me give you one example of what I mean.  On September 9th of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice arrested and charged two leaders of the Terrorgram Collective in the United States.

These two individuals created a global community of white supremacists to communicate online with like-minded people, disseminate violent propaganda, and encourage physical attacks on minority communities and government officials.

The amplification of hate online has corresponded with a growth in antisemitism and other forms of hate, particularly in the wake of the October 7th Hamas attacks. 

By just one measure, between October 7th, 2023, and January 30th of this year, the FBI opened over three times more anti-Jewish hate crimes investigations than in the four months prior to the October 7th attacks. I will return to the meaningful outcomes from these investigations in a moment. 

And October 7th has had ramifications beyond the rise in hate. We have observed terrorist groups from across the ideological spectrum seeking to exploit the attack for their own goals. Images and messaging emerging from the conflict are expanding the pool of individuals susceptible to mobilization to violent acts, and causing terrorist groups that previously disdained each other to form common cause.

And these effects are likely to persist long after hostilities cease— and will interact with future flashpoints and activating events, which could drive terrorist attacks against the United States and Israel, as well as against Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and other communities.  

And it is not just terrorist organizations that are of high concern. The behavior of lone actors can have significant ramifications, even when they do not commit mass violence.

For example, in February 2024, a joint investigation between the FBI and Florida authorities led to the arrest of a 17-year-old for swatting—which is the practice of making false reports to 9-1-1 to induce a law enforcement response at a residence or workplace.

Over a two-year span, this particular young person targeted a Florida mosque and hundreds of high schools, historically black colleges and universities, and even the homes of FBI agents.

Swatting distracts and drains valuable law enforcement resources, exposes police to a potentially life-threatening response, and traumatizes citizens, including students and worshippers, who experience these events.

And as if this wasn’t bad enough, it emerged that the young suspect was selling swatting as a service on Telegram— which is another way in which that platform is being exploited for dangerous purposes.

Now, some look at today’s threat landscape and assume the worst, and conclude that there is little if anything that can be done to stop the growth of these threats. 

But I am here today to tell you that, like all of you, we do not see it that way.    

The Biden-Harris Administration’s Strategic Approach

Clearly what I have described is not how we wish our world had evolved. But we have come together here to affirm that we are not powerless in the face of hate and violence.

From day one, President Biden and Vice President Harris have pursued a rigorously calibrated, integrated approach to countering hate and domestic terrorism that is aligned with our values and complements our broader national security interests.

This is built on their core belief that domestic terrorism and hate strike at the very foundation of our democracy.

Indeed, President Biden decided to run for the White House back in 2017 after men with tiki torches emerged from the shadows in Charlottesville spewing the same Antisemitic bile we heard in Germany in the 1930s. 

That’s why, on his first day in office, President Biden directed me to lead a 100-day comprehensive review of U.S. Government efforts to address domestic terrorism.  This resulted in the development and release of the first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism in June of 2021.

We went to work immediately on implementing that strategy.  And to complement it, recognizing how critical our partners beyond the Federal government would be to our success, in September of 2022, President Biden hosted the United We Stand Summit to mobilize communities to work with us in advancing an inclusive and bipartisan vision for a more united America and to push back against the growing normalization of hate in our society.

In December of that year, Susan Rice – then the President’s Domestic Policy Advisor – and I launched an initiative to specifically tackle Antisemitism, Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination.

This led to our releasing, in May 2023, the first-ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. And we have been working to develop a complementary strategy to address Islamophobia. 

Importantly, our approach not only tackles the threats of today but prepares for emerging and future threats. 

So I want to focus here on three key elements of the strategy: first, our efforts to hold accountable those who engage in hate-fueled violence and hate crimes; second, our efforts to protect vulnerable communities; and third, our efforts to prevent such acts from occurring in the first place.

Accountability Measures

Our Administration has prioritized the use of our legal authorities and tools to expand investigations and prosecutions. 

As a result, from 2020 to 2022, the number of FBI domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism investigations more than doubled to over 2,700. 

In 2022, the Department of Justice also created a specific domestic terrorism unit within its National Security Division to handle these investigations and prosecutions.

And a similar dynamic is occurring in our efforts to address hate crimes. The FBI has published and widely disseminated information about what constitutes a hate crime and how to report them, and reinforced this by conducting over 70 meetings with faith-based organizations since October 7th.

These efforts, combined with the FBI’s tireless work to investigate every lead they receive, have delivered results.  Let me describe a few.  

In November of 2023, a Tampa, Florida, resident was arrested by the FBI for allegedly leaving threatening voicemails at two Jewish organizations in New York.

In January 2024, a Massachusetts man was arrested for threatening to kill members of the Jewish community and bomb places of worship.

And just last month, the Department of Justice announced criminal charges against a Pakistani national arrested in Canada who was planning to travel to New York City to attack a Jewish Community Center on the anniversary of October 7th.

Protection Measures

We have also driven efforts to enhance the safety and security of Jewish and other communities targeted for hate and violence. For example, President Biden worked with Congress to secure an additional $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Nonprofit Security Grant Program in February of this year.

This grant program funds security improvements and training for nonprofits and houses of worship, including campus organizations and community centers.

For example, the same program paid to install cameras and boost other security measures in Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas—actions that the congregation’s Rabbi credited with avoiding loss of life when a terrorist took hostages in the synagogue in January 2022. 

We have also worked in partnership with a wide range of state and local leaders and non-governmental partners to help communities and institutions protect themselves against and prevent hate.

As just one example, this past summer we provided 5,000 campus leaders all across the country with a detailed list of the federal resources available to help them establish safer and more secure learning environments for their students, faculty, and staff.  

We sent Federal experts to campuses, hosted a variety of convenings to discuss challenges and identify solutions, and released updated toolkits to enhance their preparations for the new academic year that began in August.

This effort is ongoing, and the fear and anxiety of those who feel threatened on campuses persists. But it is clear that the resources and toolkits we have shared align with the changes that many campuses have successfully implemented this Fall.  

Prevention

And this brings me to the third element of our response—the actions we are taking now to prevent hate-fueled violence and domestic terrorism in the future, before they occur. 

We know that a complex process brings an individual to pursue targeted violence or terrorism. But we also know that there are behaviors and other signs that people see that are clues that an individual might be trending toward or contemplating an act of targeted violence or terrorism.   

We have elevated the prevention of targeted violence and terrorism as a strategic priority for countering terrorism, antisemitism, and related forms of hate. 

Our goal has been to build a prevention architecture that supports nation-wide state and local efforts to intervene and “offramp” individuals who appear to be moving toward committing acts of targeted violence and terrorism.

At the Federal level, we have surged support to state and local behavioral Threat Assessment and Management, or “TAM” teams as we refer to them.

For example, the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit has embedded specifically trained agents who are called “threat management coordinators” in their field offices and is working to ensure that each of their field offices are participating in the local Threat Assessment and Management teams. Some of these coordinators are here with us today.   

Likewise, the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center recently released a six-step guide for state and local law enforcement about how they can most efficiently establish a TAM team that can assess and intervene with individuals identified as posing a risk of violence.

And there is the DHS Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, which I know is well represented here in the room.  Among their many accomplishments, I want to highlight their work creating and curating the online Prevention Resource Finder, which you can Google at that name—literally a one-stop shop that lists all Federal resources available to help state and local governments prevent acts of targeted violence and terrorism. We recently expanded the website, and it now offers nearly 150 resources.

It’s important to say again here that the Federal government cannot effectively tackle this metastatic challenge alone.

Indeed, all of the evidence shows that prevention is most effective when led by our state and local partners, who are on the ground, embedded in our communities. This is especially true for TAM teams, which often operate at the county or municipal level.

The good news is that we know state and local partners can do this quickly and successfully in partnership with Federal expertise and assistance. Let me give you an example.

In the days and weeks following the appalling May 14th, 2022, domestic terrorist attack at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, the state of New York quickly reached out to the Federal Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies to explore how to expand existing partnerships and build a statewide prevention effort.

To be clear, this was led by and implemented by the State of New York, but the Federal government offered substantial assistance to the State of New York.

And by 2023, New York had launched a statewide targeted violence prevention strategy that included placing at least one TAM team in every county.

Just two years after the Buffalo attack, New York had established TAM teams in forty-three counties and the City of New York.

In May, New York noted that their TAM teams were collectively intervening in more than one thousand two hundred cases.

And, more important, these TAM teams are saving lives, taking action with respect to certain individuals who were clearly planning acts of targeted violence.  

This is critical, painstaking, lifesaving work, and I am encouraged to see that many more states are responding to our calls to move in this direction.

This is progress, and if we persist, these efforts will reduce violence in our Homeland.  

Closing

In closing, I want to thank each of you for the work you do every day to prevent, to prepare, and to respond to this phenomenon that is tragically impacting so many of our communities and leaving families and neighborhoods devastated. 

Your partnership with us is vital to stopping the normalization of hate-fueled violence that threatens our democracy. 

Again, I want commend the work of this Summit. You are the embodiment of what I have spoken about today.  And there is a real feeling of solidarity in a group like this, and we can and must draw strength from one another.

For a moment, I will take you back to another very dark time in our Nation’s history — the days and weeks after 9/11. Then I had very young children — and to focus them on the positive in a time of terror I would say to them, “look at all the helpers — there are so many people who are helping other people.”

You are the helpers today, the doers, the healers in these times, and your work to scale up prevention efforts – and to mobilize the youth of our country to be a part of the solution to hate – are two of the numerous examples of how the agenda for the coming three days will build a stronger and safer America for all of us, and set an example for the world. 

I salute you for all your commitment, your dedication, and everything you are doing — 

And I will end where I began. While the threats are real and pernicious, we take inspiration from each other and from those we have lost.  

May each of their memories be a blessing – and may our work together light the way to a brighter and more secure future.     

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Dr. Liz Sherwood-Randall for the Eradicate Hate Global Summit | Pittsburgh, PA appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

12:06 P.M. EDT

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

MR. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Hope your week is off to a good start.

Building on the President’s trip to Germany and the solid, constructive discussions he had, not only bilaterally with German leaders, the President and the Chancellor, but also with the leaders of the European Quad on Ukraine, Secretary Austin visited Ukraine today. As I’m sure you saw, he announced that the President signed a new security assistance package, which included more 155 artillery ammunition, as well as 105-millimeter ammunition, HIMARS ammunition, and additional Javelin anti-tank systems.

As the President said as recently as late last month, the United States is going to continue to surge assistance to Ukraine so that it can prevail. Today’s announcement underscores that commitment. It shows our resolve to continue getting Ukraine the support that it needs through January.

Now, yesterday, I would also add, talking about Europe, Moldova held both a presidential election and a national referendum on whether to amend its constitution to support EU membership.

The results today indicate that Moldova has voted in favor of the national referendum on EU membership, which is a historic step forward in Moldova’s European integration. As for the presidential election, President Sandu received more than 42 percent of the vote in the first round, and this will head now to a runoff on November 3rd.

As I warned about last week, Russia has been working actively to undermine Moldova’s election and their European integration. In the past several months, Moscow has dedicated millions of dollars towards these efforts. Now, Russia did not succeed. As the results demonstrate, Moldovan democracy is strong, as is the will and desire of the Moldovan people to advance toward European integration.

The U.S. remains a proud partner of Moldova, and we will continue to stand with them as they endeavor to continue to protect their democracy and, quite frankly, to reach the aspirations of the Moldovan people.

Now, lastly, tomorrow, President Biden will host Prime Minister Robe- — I’m sorry, Robert Golob of the Republic of Slovenia for a conversation in the Oval Office. This is the third Slovenian prime minister to visit the White House and the first since 2006. It comes on the heels of the historic prisoner swap that brought Americans and other human rights activists and political dissidents home from Russian prisons earlier this year.

The two leaders will discuss the full spectrum of pressing issues confronting our two countries, including, of course, ongoing support for Ukraine, energy security and cooperation, and a shared approach to the Western Balkans.

With that, we can take some questions.

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

Q Hi. Thank you both. I wanted to ask about these classified documents that went out in the ether, I guess, over — or recently, and that came to light over the weekend. One, were these docs — is it understood whether they were leaked or hacked?

And then secondly on that, how concerned does the episode make the President about the security of classified info, both at the Pentagon and within the intelligence community, particularly since we’re in this moment of the Middle East conflict, the election just weeks away, and a plethora of active foreign interference?

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Aamer. We’re not exactly sure how these documents found their way into the public domain. I know the Department of Defense is investigating this, and I’m sure that as they work through that, they’ll try to determine the manner in which they did become public. So I’m just not able to answer your question whether it was a leak or a hack at this point. We’ll let the investigation pursue its logical course there.

We’re deeply concerned, and the President remains deeply concerned, about any leakage of classified information into the public domain. That is not supposed to happen, and it’s unacceptable when it does. So he’s deeply concerned about that. And you can rest assured that he will be actively monitoring the progress of the investigative effort to figure out how this happened, and obviously he’ll be very interested in hearing any mitigation measures and recommendations that come as a result of the investigative efforts and how to prevent it from happening again.

Q Is it clear at this point — do you guys believe that — or have any reason to believe that more documents could be forthcoming showing sensitive intelligence?

MR. KIRBY: As we speak today, Aamer, the answer to that question is: No, we don’t have any indication at this point that there’s an expectation that there’ll be additional documents like this finding their way into the public domain.

But — and the “but” here is important — we’re obviously keenly focused on what happened here, learning how it happened, and preventing it from happening again. And in the course of that work, that investigative work, we’re certainly going to keep our antenna up and our eyes open for any potential future disclosures.

But let me just come back to where I started before. At this time, there’s no indication that we have a reason to suspect additional documents of this sort finding its way into the public domain.

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

Q Thank you so much. Can you guys hear me?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.

Q Okay. Thank you. Admiral, I’m wondering, just on the on the documents question, you know, if there’s been any communication between the U.S. and Israel in the wake of the release of these classified documents, and also, if there’s any expectation by the administration that their release would impact the timing or the scope of any action that Israel would end up taking.

MR. KIRBY: Well, I’ll let the Israelis speak to if, what, how, and when they decide to take additional military action in response to Iran’s October 1st attack. That’s really for them to speak to.

But on your sec- — on your first question, yes, of course, we’ve been in communication with our Israeli counterparts about this public disclosure.

Q And then, on the death of Yahya Sinwar, it’s now been several days, and both the President and Jake Sullivan said last week that that they hoped that it would be seen as an opportunity or an opening for new discussions over a diplomatic resolution. I’m wondering if you could just update us on any conversations regarding a diplomatic outcome in Gaza, and then, in parallel, what you see as the opportunity for any type of ceasefire in Lebanon.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, those are two very different questions.

On Gaza, of course in the wake of Sinwar’s killing, we have had conversations with our Israeli counterparts about what the next steps are here. And we have certainly expressed, as the President did publicly, our strong desire to see what can be done to find a diplomatic path forward here to get the hostages home. That remains a top priority of President Biden. The Israelis understand that that remains a top priority of the President. And again, we’ve had some initial conversations in the wake of Mr. Sinwar’s killing, of course.

I cannot sit here today and tell you that negotiations are about to restart in Doha or Cairo, or anywhere else for that matter. But, yes, we have started to begin to think about it here and had some initial conversations with our Israeli counterparts, as you would expect we would, in the wake of that truly historic news.

On Lebanon, we continue to engage in intensive diplomacy to see what can be done to try to find a path to a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. I think you know — at least, if you don’t know, I guess I’ll tell you — Amos Hochstein is in Beirut, as we speak, to continue those conversations to see what could be in the realm of the possible in terms of trying to find a meaningful ceasefire between those two sides.

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

Q Hey, John. Thanks so much for doing this. I just wanted to follow up on Kayla’s question a little bit. So, Biden said last Friday that he knows how Israel plans to retaliate to the Iranian attack. So, does the U.S. foresee this disrupting the Israeli operation in any way? And does the President plan to speak with Netanyahu again about this?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t have a call with Prime Minister Netanyahu to preview for you. They’ll speak, as they have and often do, at the appropriate time.

And I’m not going to get any further — I do appreciate the follow up, and I understand it, but I’m certainly not going to get into any public speculation about what an Israeli response could look like if, in fact, they decide to conduct one. That’s truly up to them to decide, and it’s absolutely up to them to speak to it one way or the other, not coming from the United States.

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

Q Hi, and thanks both. I have a question on northern Gaza. Can you update us on the amount of aid that’s going in? Are you satisfied with the steps that the Israelis have taken? Or do you, you know, expect them to take more steps to get more aid into this territory?

MR. KIRBY: Well, the short answer to your question really is: Of course, we want more done. We need to see much more aid getting into Gaza. You mentioned the north. I would note that over the last few days to a week there’s been — more than 120 trucks have made it into northern Gaza, which is a good thing. It’s not enough, but it’s a good thing. We also noted and welcomed the air drops that the UAE conducted over the last couple of days, I think over the weekend. That also was helpful. But much more needs to be done, and we’re going to continue talking to our Israeli counterparts about that.

I mean, for instance, you know, there’s armed gangs at the Kerem Shalom crossing. You know, there’s plenty of trucks that are waiting to get in there, and they’re not able to get in there because of these armed gangs and criminal groups that are stopping it. So we all have to take a turn here and see what we can do to reduce that pressure down at Kerem Shalom so that that aid can get in. More needs to be done. But, yes, we have seen an uptick over the last few days.

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

Q Thanks, John, for doing this. Two quick things for you. The first: Just to follow up on the Iran answers, you’ve said several times now it’s up to the Israelis to decide when and where and how they’re going to strike. But when the President said “yes and yes” at the end of last week to the question of did he know when they were going to strike and where they were going to strike, is it reasonable for us to interpret that statement as saying that he and Prime Minister Netanyahu have come to some agreement, after the President’s quite public statements, about not hitting nuclear and energy sites?

MR. KIRBY: I think, David, I’m going to preserve the conversations that the President has with the Prime Minister and that we’ve had with our Israeli counterparts about this particular topic.

The President was referring to his knowledge of what their intentions were. And —

Q But I shouldn’t confuse that with an approval of what their intentions were?

MR. KIRBY: Israel is a sovereign state. They get to decide for themselves what they’re going to hit and how they’re going to hit it.

Q And I didn’t ask you whether they got to decide or not. I asked you whether the President is now in agreement with them.

MR. KIRBY: I’m just not going to go beyond what the President said, David.

Q Okay. And then, on the — one quick question on Russia. We’re, what, two weeks and a day or two ahead of the election. At this point in 2018 and 2020, the U.S. had issued, through various means, specific warnings to the Russians about non-interference. You may recall at one point they used a channel; it was mostly used for nuclear communications. I think that was 2018, if I remember right. Are you aware of any significant and high-level specific warnings for Russia on election interference in recent times?

MR. KIRBY: I think I would just say two things to that. Number one, we know and we’ve made public what we know about Russia’s attempts to interfere in this election. Now, the ODNI, as you know, David, puts out regular reports out there. We make it public what we’re seeing and what we know they’re trying to do. There’s an awful lot that we do to counter those operations by the Russians. Some of that we talk about, some of that we don’t.

I can tell you that we have made it perfectly clear to the Russians, in numerous ways, how unacceptable we find these activities and how strongly and staunchly we’re going to push back on them. I do not have a specific — an additional specific, as you put it, high-level warning to the Russians, except the only thing I would add is our concerns have been made perfectly clear to Mr. Putin and to the Russian government.

Q Has that been by the President himself? Or you’re only aware of the ones that (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY: The President has had no direct communications with Vladimir Putin.

Q Great. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Robin Wright with the New Yorker.

Q Thanks so much, John. I have a three-part question. First of all, have you seen any efforts by Iran recently, after the deaths of Nasrallah and Sinwar, to help its allies regroup, rearm, refinance? What has it been doing in the background?

Secondly, there are media reports that Naim Qassem, who is Nasrallah’s deputy, has moved to Tehran. Can you confirm that?

And third, the Iranian foreign minister met over the weekend with Hamas leaders in Istanbul. Do you have thoughts on that? Do you have a sense of what the goal was? Can you give us any insights? Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: Okay, there’s a lot there.

On your third question about the Istanbul meeting, Robin, I hope you’ll let me take that question and come back to you. I don’t have any insights to share on that. That doesn’t mean that we, at the NSC, don’t. That just means me, Kirby, don’t. So we’ll take that question and try to get you a better answer.

I don’t have anything on Nasrallah’s deputy going to Tehran. Nothing like that. Again, I’ll try to take that question back to the team and have them see if we’ve got a better answer for you than that. But I wouldn’t have any insights or perspectives to share on that at this time, except to say — and this kind of gets to your first question — it wouldn’t come as a shock to any of us to see Hezbollah leadership, at whatever level, staying in communication with Iran, and that would include travel to Tehran, given the incredible support that Hezbollah continues to get from Iran.

Now, you asked, specifically in the wake of his killing, have we seen something demonstrable and tangible. Not that I have to speak to today, except we’ve seen rhetoric out of the mullahs and out of the Supreme Leader, and we certainly have seen no diminution of Iranian desire to continue to support their proxies, whether that is Hezbollah, whether it’s Hamas, whether it’s the militia groups in Iraq and Syria, or, quite frankly, whether it’s the Houthis. There’s been no indication that Iran has changed its calculus and is somehow pulling the plug on the support to these groups.

Now, whether there’s something, again, demonstrable that we’ve seen since his killing, I’d have to go back and ask the question, but I don’t believe that we’ve seen any significant change one way or the other.

Q John, can I just follow up quickly and ask you to take that question to see if Iran is doing anything with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, the PMF? Is it doing anything in the background, including, you know, urging the PMF to — or Kata’ib Hezbollah to go after Americans? I’m trying to see if there’s anything that the Iranians are doing in response to what’s happened over the last few weeks.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, no, I get the question. I’m happy to take it. I will caveat this by telling you that they’re — you know, that some of what we’re seeing — what we see may or may not be suitable for public disclosure, but I’m happy to take the question and come back to you.

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

Q Hello, John. Hope you’re well. Thank you for doing this. Okay, I have a Russia-Ukraine omnibus question, but before I get to it, I just want to check in: Any White House reaction to the death of Turkish cleric Gulen in the U.S.? Does this change anything between Washington and Ankara? Any communications, anything you want to say about that?

MR. KIRBY: Nothing at this time.

Q Okay. Let me move on to Russia-Ukraine. So, what response should we expect from the U.S. and allies amid these reports that Russia has North Korean soldiers working with them in Ukraine? Could this prompt either a surge in military assistance or an easing of the restrictions on Ukrainian use of long-range weapons?

And then, relatedly: As you know, Vladimir Putin is hosting the BRICS Summit this week. BRICS has not had a shortage of membership requests in recent years. What does this mean to you about whether trying to make, you know, Russia a pariah? Has that worked? Is that stance effective anymore? And what message is this sending to China that seems to think it can, you know, do whatever they want and not face any consequences?

MR. KIRBY: Who can do whatever they want and not face consequences? You cut out there.

Q Yeah. Sorry about that. I was asking what message this sends to China that it could continue to, you know, act however it wants but not face any consequences or lose any friends, more accurately.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think — I mean, I’ll work backward here. I don’t think the PRC has ever gotten that message. I mean, we’ve been none too shy about making our concerns known to the PRC, with respect to the fact that Chinese companies have provided components and elements to Russian weapons systems in the defense industrial base. And we’ve sanctioned them. We have had very frank conversations with Chinese leaders, including Jake with his counterpart, and the President and President Xi, about even that level of support to the Russian military. So, I think our message to the PRC has been clear and consistent and remains so.

On the BRICS, you know, I don’t think that you should look at this BRICS conference as some sort of coming-out party for Mr. Putin and for Russia. First of all, the BRICS as an organization isn’t new, and we’ve long said, you know, these countries — every country gets to make sovereign decisions about who they associate with and in what format. And, you know, we don’t view the BRICS arrangement as some sort of, you know, threat. These countries can decide for themselves who they want to associate with and especially how they want to be economically linked with one another.

Russia is increasingly isolated on the world stage. There’s no question about that. Mr. Putin is still having to take radical steps to prop up his currency and to keep his war economy going, and he continues to have to take drastic steps to try to keep an army in the field and to try to achieve even a modicum of success on the battlefield. That includes continuing to get drones and drone technology from Iran, artillery rounds from North Korea, and now these reports about North Korean soldiers deploying to Russia.

So, that’s your first question, and I’ll just — I’ll end with that. We’re obviously continuing to look into those reports, and we’re talking to our allies and partners about what they’re seeing on this as well. If it’s true that the DPRK soldiers are going there to join the war against Ukraine, it would certainly mark a dangerous and highly concerning development. I talked about that last week.

And as I said, we’re consulting allies and partners, and I think we plan to lay out in coming days what we’re seeing on this and lay out a little bit more about the consultations we’re having with partners.

But I also think — and this kind of gets to your second question — we also need to look at this for what it also is, and that is another demonstration of Putin’s growing desperation and his growing isolation that he’s got to reach out to North Korea for potential — potential — as I said, we’re looking into the reports — potential infantry support to his ground operations. There’s no question about it that his forces continue to suffer an extraordinary amount of casualties on the battlefield. As I said last week, you know, the estimate we have now is more than a thousand — actually, more than 1,200 — per day. And that is a truly historic amount of soldiers killed and wounded in this fight, all to accomplish a warped and twisted idea of his about Ukraine’s ability to exist as a sovereign state.

So I come back to what you said — your second question about, you know, what does this say about Russia’s isolation. I think all of this says and proves the point that Mr. Putin is increasingly desperate and increasingly isolated on the world stage.

Q John, I just want to thank you for keeping up with that question. That was very impressive. Thank you very much.

MR. KIRBY: This time I took notes.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Laura Kelly with The Hill.

Q Hi. Thank you so much for taking my question. Speaking to Moldova’s election, you said that Russia did not succeed, although it’s not necessarily viewed as black and white. While Russia was likely pushing for a “no” vote on the referendum, the result of such a slim margin makes it harder for the Moldovan government to put resources toward EU integration, and this is likely in Russia’s favor.

So, in Russian interference efforts ahead of the runoff election are likely to continue, you know, what lessons is the U.S. learning about Russia’s power to sway elections? And is the U.S. doing anything more or different to help the Moldovan government combat Russia election interference?

MR. KIRBY: We’re in touch with the Moldovans every single day, and that includes this day, about the vibrancy, the vitality of their democratic institutions and their electoral process.

And, yes, we know there’s a runoff coming, and we have every expectation that the Russians are going to want to try to affect that runoff. So we’re going to continue to work with the Moldovans in ways, public and non-public, about how they can improve their resiliency to that kind of influence.

And I think I stand by what I said before: Russia was not successful. They did not want to see the Moldovan people strive for or get a referendum that approved EU integration. And that’s what happened. I get that it was a slim margin. I have no doubt in my mind, and none of us here do, that the Russians tried to contribute to the “no” vote. Now, to what degree, I couldn’t quantify how successful they were in terms of the overall percentage of the “no” vote, but we know they were pushing really, really hard to affect it.

Bottom line is it didn’t pass. And what did succeed was a “yes” vote on EU integration, and we think that’s an important step forward, and we think that that absolutely reflects the aspirations of the majority of the Moldovan people.

But nobody is sitting back crowing on this. Nobody is doing touchdown dances here. There’s a runoff coming, and we got to make sure we continue to work with the Moldovans to ensure that that runoff is done in a way that respects and is appropriate to the aspirations of the electorate in Moldova.

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

Q Hi. Thank you so much, Sam. And thank you, Kirby, for doing that. I wanted to ask — you talked about talking to the Israelis about a possible solution for Gaza the day after Sinwar. Do you think — does the White House consider an international force controlling Gaza for a while until things would settle down?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of where we are right now, except to say Secretary Blinken has been working on day-after options for months and months now. And I don’t — you know, we haven’t reached any, you know, final options on what a security footprint could look like in Gaza, how it would be comprised, where it would be deployed, who would run it. We just haven’t come to conclusion on those kinds of options.

But clearly, the people of Gaza, when this war is over, should have every right to seek peace and security and a way to go about their lives where they don’t have to worry about those lives being shattered by violence.

And so, there’s going to have to be a security footprint here and a security component to whatever the day after looks like. It’s just that we’re still working our way through that with not only the Israelis, but with our Arab partners. And I would go so far as to say we’re also working that through with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority as well.

Q Great. Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And unfortunately, that’s all the time we have today. As always, if we weren’t able to get to your questions, reach out to the press distro, and we’ll get back as soon as we can. Thanks.

12:36 P.M. EDT

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

1:56 P.M. EDT

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

Q Good afternoon.

Q Hi, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It feels like there’s an echo.

Q Yes, there is.

Q There is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t know if you guys want to hear me twice. I don’t know if they’re fixing it or not.

Okay. Let’s get going.

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. It does.

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Okay. Today, the Biden-Harris administration is taking a major step to expand contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Republican elected officials have made clear they want to ban or restrict birth control, defund federal programs that help women excess — access contraception, and repeal the ACA. Congressional Republicans have also repeatedly blocked federal legislation to safeguard the fundamental right to birth control for women in every state. It’s dangerous, and it’s unacceptable.

This new action under our administration would help ensure that millions of women with private health insurance can access the contraception they need, including over-the-counter contraception, at no cost.

At a time when contraception access is under attack, President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive health care and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law.

Now, the president and the vice president response — their response to the recovery efforts continue to deliver for the people of North Carolina, Florida, and all communities affected by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. Over 5,500 federal personnel are deployed to North Carolina and Florida.

Today, Administra- — Administrator Deanne Criswell is in North Carolina with Governor Roy Cooper and state officials to continue surveying damage and ensure that resources continue to make it to the communities and survivors who need them.

In total, nearly $2 billion in federal assistance has been approved for those affected by recent storms. In North Carolina, the administration has approved more than $300 million in assistance. This includes over $130 million for nearly 90,000 households. Additional, FEMA — additionally, FEMA has approved more than $189 million for debris removal and reimbursement of ener- — of emergency protective measures for the state.

And the administration also announced that the government will create a brand-new program for assistant impact [to assist impacted] communities with their recovery and rebuilding efforts. Additionally, 15 disaster recovery centers are operating in the impacted areas in North Carolina and have served more than 5,700 visitors, and power has been restored to 99 percent of impacted North Carolina customers due to thousands of utility personnel working around the clock.

All of this is thanks to the leadership of the president, the vice president, FEMA, and other administration leaders and the many state and local officials who have helped ensure a robust and well-coordinated response and recovery effort. We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to help these communities respond and recover from these disasters.

And now, next, we have the first lady. First Lady Jill Biden is unveiling a new, enhanced educational White House public tour for visitors today at the White House. As a classroom teacher for 40 years, Dr. Biden knows that learning has to be engaging and interactive and that you have to meet students where they are, giving them what they need to spark their curiosity and imagination.

This is the first significant improvement to the tour in decades. And as the first lady said, and I quote, “We’ve added flex- — flexible, versatile, and dynamic tools of learning to the tour; created more pathways in the house to bring people fur- — further into the rooms; expanded the tour to now inc- — to now include the Diplomatic Reception Room; and we’ve included more educational content that visitors can touch, hear, and see up close.”

Get on that tour, folks.

The first lady hopes the tour inspires everyone who visits the White House to learn more about our shared history.

And on the week ahead, the president will be hitting the road this week to discuss the Biden-Harris administration’s work to deliver for the American people.

On Tuesday, tomorrow, the president will host a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Robert Golob t- — of the Republic of Slovenia before heading to Concord, New Hampshire, where he will join Senator Bernie Sanders to discuss the Biden-Harris administration’s work to lower cost of prescriction [prescription] drugs. During that event, the president is expected to discuss new data on savings for the first year — for the first year thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. He will also make a campaign-related stop while he is in the Granite State.

Then the president will travel to Phoenix, Arizona, on Thursday and Friday where he will deliver remarks at the Gila River Indian Community and discuss the Biden-Harris administration’s record of delivering for Tribal communities, including keeping his promise to make this historic visit to — his historic vis- — visit to Indian Country as well. This — he will be — this will be the first as president to do this — his first as president to do this.

As always, we will be sharing more information as we get closer, certainly, to Arizona and tomorrow as well.

Okay. Darlene.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And we fix —

Q Apologies. Can you clarify one thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q You just said the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q — after you were talking about New Hampshire, that he’s making a campaign-related stop.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Is that in New Hampshire, or were you talking about Arizona?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s going to be in New Hampshire.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep, the Granite State. He’ll be making a campaign-related stop, and certainly the campaign will have more to share on that.

Q And then on the leak of information — classified information about Israel’s plans toward Iran. There was a leak of classified information last year in April. A member of the National Guard had posted a bunch of documents and whatnot online.

Has the Pentagon and the intelligence community done enough since then to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —

Q — protect —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is —

Q — this material?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — certainly we are aware of — of the reporting. Certainly, we are concerned — very concerned by them. Anything about — about the process and this — and — and how it’s being investigated by the U.S. government, I would have to refer you to the IC, the DOJ, and certainly DOD. I’m not going to get into particulars or specifics from here.

But we are aware of the reports, and we are definitely, and we are definitely very concerned about them.

Q Can you speak to any changes the president might have in mind that he might want to see going forward?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to get ahead of it. As I just mentioned, the U.S. government is investigating this and — through the appropriate authorities. So, I’m going to let them d- — move through their process, see exactly what happened. I’m not going to get into it from here.

Q And speaking of classified information, what is the president’s plan for voting in the November 5th election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the president certainly looks forward —

Q That was a joke.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. (Laughter.) So ser- — I’m sorry. I’m so serious today. Very funny, Darlene. Very good joke.

Q That’s okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q We can move on.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the president is certainly looking forward to casting his ballot in the upcoming election. When we have more to share about what that looks like, where — you know, where he’s going to be, we certainly will share that.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Weijia.

Q Thank you, Karine. So, we just heard from Kirby that the White House is monitoring the progress of the investigative effort to figure out how this happened, not whether this happened. But just for the sake of clarity, can you confirm that the — the documents in question are authentic and do, in fact, include U.S. classified intelligence?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I appreciate the question. We’re — like I said, we’re certainly aware of the reports. We are very concerned. I’m not going to get into specifics. I’m not going to get into details. That’s something for DO- — DOJ, IC, and DOD to get into it, and certainly they can hopefully answer any questions that you may have on this particular matter.

But, look, as the reports are out there and what they’re — what we are hearing, certainly we are very concerned by them. They are being looked into. It’s being investigated by the appropriate authorities, by the — obviously, the U.S. government here. And so, I’m going to let them speak to it directly.

Q Kirby characterized the concern as stemming from the fact that they were in the public domain. So, I mean —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, it’s true. Any —

Q — as he talked about it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — the implication was that this was classified information. I’m just asking, yes or no, was it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, look, any time — any time there are leaks like these that end up in the public domain — I just reiterating — reiterating what he said — of course, it is concerning. We have the appropriate authorities who are looking into this on our side of things.

And I’m going to be really mindful. I am not going to get into specifics. Was this, you know, classified? Was this not class- — I can’t get into that from here. That is something IC and DOD and DOJ can get into it on those specifics.

But any time we see any type of classified information that are — that is leaked and that is out there in a public domain, of course we are concerned — of course. But they can speak to their — you know, their — their — the — how authentic, how real — any of those pieces, they can speak to that. I’m not going to speak to that from here.

Q And then just a quick follow-up on Darlene. I know you’re figuring out his Election Day plans, but given the potential for political unrest in the days that follow, will the president be here? Does he plan to be here in Washington in the days that follow the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the president is president wherever he is. The number one — obviously, the number one priority of this president is the American people. Obviously, the security of the American people is also a priority of his as well.

And I don’t have — I don’t want to get ahead of where he’s going to be, if he’s going to be here or not. We’ll have more to share as we get closer, certainly, to — to November 5th and what his schedule will — will look like.

But he is, indeed, president wherever he is. And so, his number one priority — his number one priority is the American people.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Karine. Elon Musk is pledging to give away $1 million every day up until the election to voters in battleground states. Some experts are saying this is clearly illegal vote buying. Does the White House believe what he’s doing is illegal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to have to refer you to the FEC. I’m not going to comment from it — from here.

Q Can you talk about how the president is reacting to this in terms of does he believe it’s appropriate? Does he agree with what Governor Shapiro is saying about how this needs to be investigated?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would leave it to Governor Shapiro and the legal authorities to speak to this. I’m just not going to speak to it from here and would have to leave it to FEC.

Q And if you could just talk broadly about what Trump has also said about making Musk the head of a new “government efficiency commission.” Does the White House see that as a conflict of interest, given the fact that Musk’s companies have so many contracts with government agencies —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — and it could potentially give him the power to regulate the agencies that hold sway over his own companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, since that’s a campaign-related item there, what they’re planning to do next or what it looks like under — you know, and — and their platform for his campaign, I’m just not going to respond to it from here.

Q Any reaction from the president or White House about Elon’s — Musk’s role at this moment in the political discussion?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have no response, no — no comment on that at this moment.

Go ahead, Monica.

Q On the apparent leak of classified information. How concerned is the president about the message it sends to allies about the way the U.S. handles some of the most sensitive, top-secret information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, what I can say is we take this very seriously. And as I’ve said many times already, we are very concerned. That’s — this is why the DOD, this is why IC, this is why DOJ are all looking into this. And so, I would have to refer you to them.

And as I stated many times, it’s being investigated. We need to get to the bottom of it. We need to get answers before I can give you anything further from here. But it’s being investigated by the appropriate authorities. We’re looking into it.

Are we concerned? Yes. Are we very concerned? Yes, we’re very concerned. And so, the appropriate authorities are looking into this.

Q And you just mentioned the president is going to be making a campaign-related stop —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep.

Q — tomorrow in New Hampshire. He has so far only campaigned alongside Vice President Harris in an official campaign event capacity once. We have reporting that we don’t expect to see the two of them together in these final two weeks. What is the reason for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I would remind folks that he was in Philly — Philadelphia — just last week doing a campaign event — just last week — on his own. And so, would remind folks that he was doing that.

There’s going to be a campaign-related event, as I just mentioned, tomorrow. And there will be more to come. I think they’ll — there will be more to come.

Look, we cannot forget what we have seen this past couple of weeks: two historic hurricanes. Right? Let’s not forget that. The president was able to — because of his leadership and what his administration was able to do, we avoided a port — a port strike. Right? That’s something that he was able to do. And there are just many other, obviously, pressing issues that are not just here domestically but around the world, and the president has led on those issues.

And so, the most important thing that — the president believes that his job is to continue to be there for the American people, deliver for the American people, and that’s what you have seen him do.

Now, he’s going to be out there. I would say stay tuned. There is more to come. I just mentioned New Hampshire. There’s more to come in the upcoming days, and we’ll certainly share — share that with all of you.

Q And then, just finally, former President Trump is in North Carolina today. He was talking about some of the FEMA efforts there. He called the rescue effort, quote, “non-existent.” He repeated some misleading information about where some of the funds have been directed to.

So, how concerned is the White House still about what that might do to not just people taking in this information, again, that’s misleading but to voters specifically in key states where the devastation of the hurricanes has been evident?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m glad in your question you said “misleading information,” which is true — misleading information that is being put out there. And — and it’s not just from us. You’ve heard from Republicans and Democrats — right? — in North Carolina who have said — who have — who have made it very clear by pushing these types of conspiracy theories — they are dangerous, they are unhelpful. And it is — it is not — it is not what leadership looks like. I’ll say it there — like that.

And — and it is a time, when you see something like that, these types of hurricanes that have impacted communities the way that they have — both of them, Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton — it’s time that you bring a c- — you bring a community together and stand by each other.

And so, you’ve heard from, again, the governors of all of these states — well, in partic- — in particular, certainly, as we’re talking about governor in — in New Ham- — in, sorry, North Carolina, he spoke to this today. And he said, “The Biden-Harris administration has responded quickly and positively to our request. The federal government has been responsive to all — to our call for help.” That’s coming from the governor of North Carolina. We also heard from the mayor of Asheville as well.

And so, we have seen a bipartisan reaction to this, appreciation for what the amdin — for what this administration has been able to do. And the reason we’ve been able to do this work on the ground is because we’ve had a good partnership with local and state officials on the ground. And this type of conspir- — conspiracy theory that’s out there, it is dangerous. To your point in your question, it’s dangerous, it’s unhelpful, and it gets in the way.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. Secretary Blinken is headed back to the Middle East today. Does the White House have any hope that this trip will be more successful than past trips, given that this comes after the death of Sinwar?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, a couple of things. I know the State Department — my colleagues over at the State Department spoke to this in greater detail, about the secretary’s trip, which is — starts tomorrow. He’s going to be going throughout the region. He’s going to discuss the importance of ending, certainly, the war in — in Gaza, securing the release of all hostages, alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people. And he’s going to underscore the importance of getting that food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid — it’s important to get that delivered to c- — civilians in Gaza. And he’s going to also discuss — continue to have the discussions that we’ve been having for the past several months now about the diplomatic solu- — resolution to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

And so, we’re going to reaffirm — what — what you — what you’re going to see from this trip that the secretary is — is having throughout the region is reaffirming our commitment to what I just laid out to our partners across the region. And we do want to de-escalate the tensions and — and also, obvi- — obviously, provide that lasting stability. And that is the commitment that we — that — that we continue to have.

Look, you’re asking me — I know your question. Your question was do we think this will have an effect. We believe and this president believes when — a diplomatic resolution, diplomatic conversation is certainly key to dealing with issues that we’re seeing across the — across the globe.

Q And does the president have any reaction to former President Trump using this rhetoric about the “enemy from within” and specifically tying it to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff this weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it is — that type of language is un-American. It’s dangerous. I was just asked about misinformation that we’re — that we have been seeing during — certainly before the hurricanes hit and certainly now as it — after the impact and what we’re seeing on the ground and how we’re trying to work with our partners on the ground to make sure we get relief to folks on the ground. And that is — that type of misinformation, conspiracy theories, is only hurtful, and that is not what Americans want to see as a leader. That is not what they want to see as a lea- — leader.

And it’s also disrespectful to our military to ask our military to — to react or to do something in such a political — in a — such a political way. We should respect our men and women. They should be respected. They put their lives on the line for us, and we should respect them. And it’s incredibly disrespectful to them as well.

And so, it’s un-American, it’s dangerous, and it should stop.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. Is there any latest understanding from the White House on when Israel is going to respond to Iran’s missile attacks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think we’ve been pretty consistent on that. This is something for — that decision, any military operation — operational decision has to — is up to Israel. We’ve been very clear in our commitment — in our commitment to Israel’s security. That is — continues to be ironclad. But that is something for the Israeli government to speak to.

Q And is there any word on what that re- — that response would look like? And is there sort of a red line that the U.S. would not allow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I’m just not going to preview that from here. Us previewing that from here would certainly give a heads-up to the Iranians. It’s something that we’re not going to be doing. But that is — aside from that, that certainly is something for Is- — Israel to speak to.

Go ahead, K- — Kayla.

Q Thank you, Karine. I wanted to ask about the contraception rule that the administration is putting out today. As you mentioned at the top, the president is proposing a rule that would require insurers to cover the cost of over-the-counter contraception. The Congressional Review Act allows lawmakers to overturn federal regulations that are implemented in the final stages of a presidential term. And I mu- — I’m wondering if the White House believes that this type of rule could withstand that threat or if you think that anything that happens in these last few months is potentially subject to congressional reversal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m going to be — I’m not going to — that’s getting into a hypothetical that I’m just not going to do from here.

Look, it’s going through a rulemaking process, as you know. From the moment that the president made this announcement, it’s now in a rulemaking process. We’ll hear back from the public. We feel pretty confident this is going to move forward.

And the reason why — as I stated at the top, why we’re doing this is because of the Dobbs decision. It’s because now we have women out there who don’t have the protections that they need on their own health care because Roe v. Wade, which was law of the land for almost — a constitutional right for almost 50 years were stripped away. And we have made that commitment from this administration, the Biden-Harris commi- — administration, to protect women, to do everything that we can.

Now we’re expanding ACA. Now we’re providing this potential opportunity to give the women — women oppor- — opportunity to make those difficult decisions and to have the — also the availability, obviously, of contraception.

And so, that is — that is our commitment that we have made here. I can’t get into, you know, what Congress is going to do, the hypotheticals from here. What I can — what we can focus on is keeping that commitment that we have made to women and families across the country.

Q And then tomorrow in New Hampshire. CNN is reporting that President Biden will appear with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders tomorrow. It’s an interesting contrast to Vice President Kamala Harris, who today is appearing at a campaign event with Republican Liz Cheney. I’m wondering if you can just talk about the rationale of the president’s to appear with Senator Sanders tomorrow and what message that’s meant to send to the party.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I think if you think about the commitment that both of them have had, the president and Senator Sanders, you are correct. He is going to be traveling when — to the Granite State with Senator Sanders, and they have been partners, right? They have been partners on a lot of these issues, including — including lowering cost for health care. We know that this is an issue that’s incredibly important to Senator Sanders.

So, for us, it makes sense. It makes sense to be doing this event together. They have been partners not just on this but on other important, critical needs of the American people. And this is what you’re going to see.

I’m not — I cannot speak for the vice president’s campaign. She’s doing what she needs to do. I’m going to let her campaign speak to that.

The president is going to continue to go into states and have really important conversation. And let’s not forget, the Inflation Reduction Hact [Act] was incredibly historic in lowering costs on health care, was important in one of the most — most historic pieces of legislation to deal with climate change.

There’s a lot there that we believe that the American people need to continue to hear it — hear from him. And he’s going to have Senator Sanders, which he really looks forward to being in — in the state with him on that issue.

Q So, would you say that — that it’s accurate, as some strategists have argued, that this is an effort by President Biden to embrace the more progressive flank, while Vice President Harris tacks to the center in these final days?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What the president is doing is going out there, speaking directly to the American people, and talking about how he’s delivering for them — how the — Biden-Harris is delivering for — for them, whether it’s lowering costs; climate change; pow- — powering up an economy, continuing to move that economy forward. That’s what you’re seeing from this president. And he’ll — he’s not going to shy away from it.

Go ahead.

Q Karine, thanks. Zooming out from this breach, which I know that you’re not going to discuss the specifics of. But you’ve had, over the last week, private correspondence between the secretaries of State and the Pentagon, the — to Israel; this Air National Guard leak from — from a year ago on Discord; the investigation into Rob Malley. Is there a problem safeguarding sensitive information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I will say is the president continues to have complete confidence in his — in — in the agencies — right? — whether it’s DOD, I- — IC, or DOJ. And — and he has complete confidence in them. There is a — it — this is being looked into, investigation being done by the appropriate parties. And I’m not going to get into it. I’m not going to get into it.

Q Since —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Are we concerned? We are very concerned. We are. We’ve been very clear about that. And it’s being looked into. And so, I’m not going to — going to go beyond that.

Q Since the Discord leak, has the administration — what has the administration done to further safeguard national secrets?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into — into any specifics on that. As it relates to this particular moment of what we’re seeing with the — the reports out there, it’s being looked into. We are very concerned. DOD, IEC — IC, DOJ can speak to that, this particular incident, more broadly — these reports. I just don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Q And do you know yet if it’s a leak or a hack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, this is why I’m referring you to IC, DOD, DOJ. They can speak more to this, and I would leave it to them.

Go ahead, Sara.

Q Thanks, Karine. While the president was in Germany, did the issue of authorizing Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles deeper inside Russia come up during his bilateral meetings with the Germans or his meeting with the European Quad? Particularly, given the approval that some NATO Allies have provided, did they urge him to provide support for this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into beyond what we’ve been able to share in the readouts. What I can say is that policy has not changed. And we said that. We said that going — I remember saying this at this podium before the president left to go to Berlin, Germany, just last week, and said our — our policy stance on that hasn’t changed, and it wasn’t going to change, and don’t expect any announcements.

So, it still says — stays the same. I don’t have anything to share beyond that, beyond what we’ve shared in — in readouts.

Q And then on a different topic. There’s a report that Israel gave the U.S. a document outlining its conditions for a diplomatic solution to end the war in Lebanon and allow people to return their o- — to their homes on both sides of the border. Can you confirm this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is that many times we get, certainly, views from the Israeli government. We get their views on things and certainly the back-and-forth. I’ve said many times that we have regular conversation with — with our counterparts at — in the Israeli government, but I’m not going to get into diplomatic or private conversations from here.

Go ahead.

Q So, this administration has warned Israel that it could lose access to some U.S. weapon fundings if it doesn’t produce a dramatic increase in humanitarian aid coming into Gaza. Have you seen so far any dramatic improvement in delivering of aid?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, here’s what I’ll say to that. We are working to surge humanitarian assistance into Gaza. So, just a couple of things just to update all of you. Over the weekend, we welcomed an airdrop by the UAE of food parcels into central Gaza. We also noted the re- — the resumption of deliveries last week into nor- — northern Gaza as well, including through the vital lifeline from Jordan, with 129 trucks entering northern Gaza last week after an unacceptable slowdown since October 1st, which we’ve talked about just last week.

That number must further increase over the coming week, and we are grateful for Jordan’s leadership in organizing these deliveries. We also call on all parties to wo- — cooperate in dis- — in distributing the many hundreds of truckloads now on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom crossing. The — the armed gangs threatening and looting deliveries from this platform are keeping vital supplies away from those in desperate need.

And we, here at t- — in the U.S., as the largest — are the largest contributor to the humanitarian response in Gaza and will continue to support all efforts to surge and safeguard assistance and enable its dis- — distribution into all — all areas of Gaza.

And one of the things, as I just stated earlier, is that the secretary is going to speak about — Secretary Blinken — is how do we continue to upsurge the humanitarian assistant into Gaza. So, that is going to be a priority, part of a — part of his — part of his discussions throughout the region as well.

Go ahead, Jared.

Q The task force — the House task force investigating the Butler, Pennsylvania, attempted assassination came out with an interim report today —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — pretty critical of the Secret Service, especially as it relates to the coordination and communication with local police.

One, does the White House, the president have a reaction to that? And, two, does the president still have full confidence in the current leadership at Secret Service?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the president has deep respect for the Secret Service. And he knows that they — they have an extremely difficult job. He knows that the men and women who are part of the Secret Service put their lives on the line, day in and day out.

And so, we’re going to review the report. I’m not going to comment on the report right now. We’re going to review it. As you just said, it just came out this morning.

So, you know, and — and, I would add, Secret Service has also acknowledged their own shortcomings, and they have taken several steps to enhance the former president’s protection. And so, they’re continuing to do that work.

And the president has also been clear, from his point of view as well, to the Secret Service to make sure that they provide the highest level of protection for the former president. And so, that is what — that is what he’s asked for.

We know that the Secret Service has made — has made some changes — enhancing, certainly, the — the protection of the former president.

And as it relates to the report, we are going to review it.

Q Is President Biden confident in his own protection?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. I have a question about Cuba. There have been multiple power outages on the island in recent days. So, I was wondering: Is the White House monitoring the situation, particularly for signs of unrest? Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we are closely monitoring the blackouts on the island. And so, we are concerned about the potential humanitarian impacts on the Cuban people.

(A reporter sneezes.)

And so — bless you.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And like we have seen over the past few years, Cuba’s economic condition stemming from long-term mismanagement of its economic policy and resources has certainly increased the hardship of the people in Cuba.

And so — so — and so, certainly, just want to make clear that this is not — the U.S. is not to — is not to blame for the blackouts on the island or the overall energy situation in Cuba.

So, the Cuban — the Cuban government has not requested any assistance at this time, and so we will assess the appropriate next steps if they do request any assistance.

And so, a critical tenet of the Biden-Harris administration policy as it relates to — to — towards Cuba is to always advocate for the support of the Cuban people, and we’ve been always very clear about that. And so, we’ll continue.

Q (Inaudible) a follow-up. And I know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — this is a hypothetical. But if the Cuban government were to request assistance, would the Biden-Harris administration be willing to provide it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’re going to — if that were to happen, we’re — certainly would assess the next best steps. I just — they have not. Again, it’s a hypothetical. And so, we’re going to assess what’s the next best step to do.

Oh, go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The — there’s a recent report about how a number of Senate Democrats that are running for reelection are having ads that show images of President Trump touting their own cooperation with President Trump when he was in office, people like Senator Bob Casey saying that he bucked President Biden on fracking and supported President Trump on trade and tariffs.

Does the president, as the leader of the Democratic Party, have any thoughts about members of his own party talking about how much they’ve worked with President Trump in the past?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q You all have talked about the former president as a threat to democracy, talked about how much danger he — he would be if elected once again. The fact that other Senate Democrats aren’t having that same message, is that concerning at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to speak to each individual campaign and what they’re doing in their campaign. That’s a political — certainly a political campaign and a political reaction to however they need — whatever they need to do on the ground, so I’m not going to speak to that.

The president stands by his comments, his fight for democracy. He stands by what he saw on January 6th. He stands by the threat to democracy that we saw on that day — a dark day in our democracy, when you saw 2,000 people go to the Capitol because they were told to by the former president — because they didn’t believe or were told not to believe free and fair elections; while, meanwhile, dozens of Republican judges were able to say, “Hey, yeah, no. This was a free and fair election,” and they didn’t believe that because they were told not to.

And what we saw on that day was horrific. It was horrific, and it was indeed an attack on our democracy. The president has spoken to this many, many times.

And so, that’s who I can speak to. I can speak for the — the president. I — I’m not going to speak for other senators and how they — how they decide to move forward with their campaign.

Go ahead, in the back.

Q Thank you. I wanted to ask about the upcoming presidential transition. When was the last time that Jeff Zients and the group of people working on the transition met with representatives from both campaigns? And can you provide an update on where you are in getting ready to hand off?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any specifics for you at this time. I’m happy to get more information on where they are with that particular piece. I just don’t have anything to share on that.

As you know, we’ve been — we’ve offered our — our assistance to both — to both campaigns as we — as we move forward to a — a transition at some point, but I just don’t have an update on meetings on the — from here.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Naomi, in the back.

Q Thanks. The president likes to tout his deficit-cutting measures since he’s come into office. But, last week, the Treasury Department actually reported that the deficit grew to $1.8 trillion for fiscal 2024. What’s the White House’s response to that data?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, that’s why we’re — that’s why we’ve done the work that we have done as — especially moving forward with — with his- — these historic piece of legislation that speaks about how we’re — we’re going to deal with the deficit. Right? When we signed the pro- — the president signed, for example, last year, the $1 trillion debt deal that would cut the deficit by a trillion dollars. You saw that in other pieces of legislation that he was able to sign and move — pass through. And that’s why we have shown our commitment to dealing with the deficit.

And what we’re also seeing is what the former administration did. The former administration passed tax cuts for billionaires and — and corporations that had led to where we are currently with this deficit.

And so, the president has done the work and will continue to do the work to try and deal with — with, as you just laid out, the deficit that we’re seeing. And, look, what you’re see- — what we’re trying to do here from this administration is make sure that the economy continues to grow; that jobs are available, continue to grow; that we’re lowering the unemployment rate and lowering costs. That is something that the — this president and this vice president are trying to do.

Meanwhile, Republicans are doing the opposite. They want to continue to give these tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. They want to make it harder for middle-class families. And so, there’s a difference there. There — the contrast could not be more different in what we’re trying to do and what the other side is trying to do.

Q But do you not think this data sort of plays into public perceptions that Democrats are weaker in handling the economy as opposed to Republicans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But it’s not true. And so, what we’re going to speak to is how we have done the work to turn this economy around. We cannot forget where we were when the president walked into this administration: an economy that was in a downturn, and we saw a situation with the pandemic where there was no strategy. Businesses were closing down. Schools were — majority of schools were closed.

And so, this president has been able to turn that around with the help of the vice president. And so, this is why we’re going to — we’re going to go to New Hampshire tomorrow. We’re going to speak to the Inflation Reduction Act, what the president and the vice president has been able to do to lower costs, because we understand that there’s more work to do. We understand this is — when you think about health care, this is incredibly important.

You heard the announcement that we just made on contraception, making sure that we — expanding the ACA, because that’s important to women. And everything that we’re talking about, Republicans in Congress — majority of them don’t want to see. They’re on the other side of what we’re trying to do.

And so, look, we understand there’s more work to do, and we’re going to continue to push forward.

Go ahead, Jon.

Q Thanks a lot, Karine. I wanted to ask you about the vice president and the difficult position that she’s in, in the sense that she’s running for president and she is currently vice president. And it’s difficult, we’ve seen in interview after interview, for her to separate herself in terms of public positions from President Biden. Does she have a green light that if she wanted to express a differing point of view than the administration on any topic, foreign or domestic, she could do so? Or does — is she required to be a loyal vice president to President Biden?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I disagree. I mean, the interviews that I have seen, you’ve seen a incredibly strong, very clear-eyed vice president in how she sees this country moving forward and saying that, you know, she has been, indeed, a partner with this president and in these successes that we have seen from this administration.

And I would also note — now, this is to the rest of your question — just last week, in Philadelphia, the president spoke to this — spoke to you, asking about loyalty, about her cutting — certainly, cutting her own path. He talked about that. He talked about how, you know, every president has to cut their own path. He talked about how he was loyal to Barack Obama, but then, as a president, he was able to cut his own path forward.

And so, that’s what he — Kamala is going — going to do. This is, in his own words, what he wants to see the vice president do. And she — he sees her as being someone who has been loyal, just like he was loyal to Barack Obama. But she is going to certainly cut her own path.

And so, that’s what we’re seeing from — from this vice president. And he’s very proud to have seen her move forward in — in her — in her campaign. And, you know, I think what you’re seeing is a strong leader, someone who he understood and knew that she would be able to lead on day one.

Q You say you disagree with the premise of my question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, well — well, not —

Q Can — can I just ask you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — the premise of the question —

Q — something about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — but you saying that —

Q May I — may I ask you something about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, no, you — you just said that I disagree with you.

Q No, but I — I just want to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m clear- —

Q — clarify.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, yeah.

Q Can you think of any issue, foreign policy or domestic policy, in which the vice president has a differing point of view than the president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s what —

Q Any daylight between them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: W- — well, hold on. Here’s what I will say. I will say that they have been critical partners, as I’ve said many times, and it is true. You’ve heard that from both of them. And they are partners in the way that this administration has moved forward on many issues and the issues that they’ve had to really answer to to the American people, because that’s what they both care about, is making sure that we deliver for the American people.

The question, as I heard it — not this one, not this second go-around — the first go-around, the way that you asked the question was she hasn’t been able — she has been having a difficulty, if you will, in answering that question. And I have said to — and I was saying to you, I have not seen that. I’ve seen a president — a vice president, who is running for president, obviously, who has been — who has showed strength, leadership — and that’s what this president has seen as well; he has said this — and — and cares about the American people.

That’s what we have seen. And that’s what many of the American people want to see. They want to see a fighter, and that’s who she is.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thanks, Karine. Later today, the president is doing the National Arts and Humanities reception. Can you tell us about that event: Who’s going to be honored? Who’s coming here to the White House today for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s a good question. We’ll have more to share as we get closer. Obviously, that’s about — in three hours or less. So, we’ll have more information to share about who’s being honored.

And you’re right. The president is looking forward and the — and the first lady are looking forward to honoring the attendees today.

All right. Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. So, Tuesday, the countries in BRICS are going to be going to Russia for a meeting. How concerned is the administration that this bloc of countries could undermine U.S. economic or trade strength that we have?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, what we’re focused on is on the work- — the — working with partners around the world and to build the broadcast [broadest] and deepest coalitions possible to help achieve our shared goals. That’s what we’re going to be focused on. And, you know, we’re not looking at BRICS as an — evolving into some kind of geopolitical rival. That’s not how we look at it — to the United States or anyone else.

And so, we’re going to continue to work with — with our relationships, our partnerships, whether it’s with Brazil, India, South Africa. And so, we’re going to continue to manage, certainly, those relationships. And — with China, for example. And — and so, that’s going to be our focus right now.

Q One of the newest members of BRICS is the United Arab Emirates.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q And in September — on September 23rd, the administration signed a deal with them to develop new AI technologies. How concerned, then, is the Biden administration that the — what we give to the UAE will then end up in Russia, China, or Iran’s hands through the BRICS agreements?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’ve worked extensively with UAE on — on advanced technology. That is something that we have done, and we’ve done that for the last two years. And — and so, that partnering is moving forward. And — and we believe it’s moving forward in the right direction.

So, we recognize — and this is why the president did an e- — an executive action, took an executive action on AI — we recognize the potential good — right? — of — of AI and look forward to, certainly, fur- — further- — furthering that and solidifying our collaboration in AI as we try to build the safeguards and protections. Again, that’s why we did the EO, an executive action on it.

Q But the transfer of — of technology — are you concerned about, through the BRICS agreement, that the transfer of technology will happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, again, we’ve worked extensively — really, truly extensively — with the — the UAE. And we are — we’re — I think where we’re headed, the movement, how we’re moving forward, is in a good place. And so, this is — this is a conversation that we’ve had over the last two years.

And so, we’re going to continue to have those conversation. We’re going to continue to work through this. And so, we believe it’s moving in the right direction.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, everyone.

Q Thanks, Karine.

2:40 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, October 21, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

12:06 P.M. EDT

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

MR. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Hope your week is off to a good start.

Building on the President’s trip to Germany and the solid, constructive discussions he had, not only bilaterally with German leaders, the President and the Chancellor, but also with the leaders of the European Quad on Ukraine, Secretary Austin visited Ukraine today. As I’m sure you saw, he announced that the President signed a new security assistance package, which included more 155 artillery ammunition, as well as 105-millimeter ammunition, HIMARS ammunition, and additional Javelin anti-tank systems.

As the President said as recently as late last month, the United States is going to continue to surge assistance to Ukraine so that it can prevail. Today’s announcement underscores that commitment. It shows our resolve to continue getting Ukraine the support that it needs through January.

Now, yesterday, I would also add, talking about Europe, Moldova held both a presidential election and a national referendum on whether to amend its constitution to support EU membership.

The results today indicate that Moldova has voted in favor of the national referendum on EU membership, which is a historic step forward in Moldova’s European integration. As for the presidential election, President Sandu received more than 42 percent of the vote in the first round, and this will head now to a runoff on November 3rd.

As I warned about last week, Russia has been working actively to undermine Moldova’s election and their European integration. In the past several months, Moscow has dedicated millions of dollars towards these efforts. Now, Russia did not succeed. As the results demonstrate, Moldovan democracy is strong, as is the will and desire of the Moldovan people to advance toward European integration.

The U.S. remains a proud partner of Moldova, and we will continue to stand with them as they endeavor to continue to protect their democracy and, quite frankly, to reach the aspirations of the Moldovan people.

Now, lastly, tomorrow, President Biden will host Prime Minister Robe- — I’m sorry, Robert Golob of the Republic of Slovenia for a conversation in the Oval Office. This is the third Slovenian prime minister to visit the White House and the first since 2006. It comes on the heels of the historic prisoner swap that brought Americans and other human rights activists and political dissidents home from Russian prisons earlier this year.

The two leaders will discuss the full spectrum of pressing issues confronting our two countries, including, of course, ongoing support for Ukraine, energy security and cooperation, and a shared approach to the Western Balkans.

With that, we can take some questions.

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

Q Hi. Thank you both. I wanted to ask about these classified documents that went out in the ether, I guess, over — or recently, and that came to light over the weekend. One, were these docs — is it understood whether they were leaked or hacked?

And then secondly on that, how concerned does the episode make the President about the security of classified info, both at the Pentagon and within the intelligence community, particularly since we’re in this moment of the Middle East conflict, the election just weeks away, and a plethora of active foreign interference?

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Aamer. We’re not exactly sure how these documents found their way into the public domain. I know the Department of Defense is investigating this, and I’m sure that as they work through that, they’ll try to determine the manner in which they did become public. So I’m just not able to answer your question whether it was a leak or a hack at this point. We’ll let the investigation pursue its logical course there.

We’re deeply concerned, and the President remains deeply concerned, about any leakage of classified information into the public domain. That is not supposed to happen, and it’s unacceptable when it does. So he’s deeply concerned about that. And you can rest assured that he will be actively monitoring the progress of the investigative effort to figure out how this happened, and obviously he’ll be very interested in hearing any mitigation measures and recommendations that come as a result of the investigative efforts and how to prevent it from happening again.

Q Is it clear at this point — do you guys believe that — or have any reason to believe that more documents could be forthcoming showing sensitive intelligence?

MR. KIRBY: As we speak today, Aamer, the answer to that question is: No, we don’t have any indication at this point that there’s an expectation that there’ll be additional documents like this finding their way into the public domain.

But — and the “but” here is important — we’re obviously keenly focused on what happened here, learning how it happened, and preventing it from happening again. And in the course of that work, that investigative work, we’re certainly going to keep our antenna up and our eyes open for any potential future disclosures.

But let me just come back to where I started before. At this time, there’s no indication that we have a reason to suspect additional documents of this sort finding its way into the public domain.

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

Q Thank you so much. Can you guys hear me?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.

Q Okay. Thank you. Admiral, I’m wondering, just on the on the documents question, you know, if there’s been any communication between the U.S. and Israel in the wake of the release of these classified documents, and also, if there’s any expectation by the administration that their release would impact the timing or the scope of any action that Israel would end up taking.

MR. KIRBY: Well, I’ll let the Israelis speak to if, what, how, and when they decide to take additional military action in response to Iran’s October 1st attack. That’s really for them to speak to.

But on your sec- — on your first question, yes, of course, we’ve been in communication with our Israeli counterparts about this public disclosure.

Q And then, on the death of Yahya Sinwar, it’s now been several days, and both the President and Jake Sullivan said last week that that they hoped that it would be seen as an opportunity or an opening for new discussions over a diplomatic resolution. I’m wondering if you could just update us on any conversations regarding a diplomatic outcome in Gaza, and then, in parallel, what you see as the opportunity for any type of ceasefire in Lebanon.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, those are two very different questions.

On Gaza, of course in the wake of Sinwar’s killing, we have had conversations with our Israeli counterparts about what the next steps are here. And we have certainly expressed, as the President did publicly, our strong desire to see what can be done to find a diplomatic path forward here to get the hostages home. That remains a top priority of President Biden. The Israelis understand that that remains a top priority of the President. And again, we’ve had some initial conversations in the wake of Mr. Sinwar’s killing, of course.

I cannot sit here today and tell you that negotiations are about to restart in Doha or Cairo, or anywhere else for that matter. But, yes, we have started to begin to think about it here and had some initial conversations with our Israeli counterparts, as you would expect we would, in the wake of that truly historic news.

On Lebanon, we continue to engage in intensive diplomacy to see what can be done to try to find a path to a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. I think you know — at least, if you don’t know, I guess I’ll tell you — Amos Hochstein is in Beirut, as we speak, to continue those conversations to see what could be in the realm of the possible in terms of trying to find a meaningful ceasefire between those two sides.

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

Q Hey, John. Thanks so much for doing this. I just wanted to follow up on Kayla’s question a little bit. So, Biden said last Friday that he knows how Israel plans to retaliate to the Iranian attack. So, does the U.S. foresee this disrupting the Israeli operation in any way? And does the President plan to speak with Netanyahu again about this?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t have a call with Prime Minister Netanyahu to preview for you. They’ll speak, as they have and often do, at the appropriate time.

And I’m not going to get any further — I do appreciate the follow up, and I understand it, but I’m certainly not going to get into any public speculation about what an Israeli response could look like if, in fact, they decide to conduct one. That’s truly up to them to decide, and it’s absolutely up to them to speak to it one way or the other, not coming from the United States.

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

Q Hi, and thanks both. I have a question on northern Gaza. Can you update us on the amount of aid that’s going in? Are you satisfied with the steps that the Israelis have taken? Or do you, you know, expect them to take more steps to get more aid into this territory?

MR. KIRBY: Well, the short answer to your question really is: Of course, we want more done. We need to see much more aid getting into Gaza. You mentioned the north. I would note that over the last few days to a week there’s been — more than 120 trucks have made it into northern Gaza, which is a good thing. It’s not enough, but it’s a good thing. We also noted and welcomed the air drops that the UAE conducted over the last couple of days, I think over the weekend. That also was helpful. But much more needs to be done, and we’re going to continue talking to our Israeli counterparts about that.

I mean, for instance, you know, there’s armed gangs at the Kerem Shalom crossing. You know, there’s plenty of trucks that are waiting to get in there, and they’re not able to get in there because of these armed gangs and criminal groups that are stopping it. So we all have to take a turn here and see what we can do to reduce that pressure down at Kerem Shalom so that that aid can get in. More needs to be done. But, yes, we have seen an uptick over the last few days.

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

Q Thanks, John, for doing this. Two quick things for you. The first: Just to follow up on the Iran answers, you’ve said several times now it’s up to the Israelis to decide when and where and how they’re going to strike. But when the President said “yes and yes” at the end of last week to the question of did he know when they were going to strike and where they were going to strike, is it reasonable for us to interpret that statement as saying that he and Prime Minister Netanyahu have come to some agreement, after the President’s quite public statements, about not hitting nuclear and energy sites?

MR. KIRBY: I think, David, I’m going to preserve the conversations that the President has with the Prime Minister and that we’ve had with our Israeli counterparts about this particular topic.

The President was referring to his knowledge of what their intentions were. And —

Q But I shouldn’t confuse that with an approval of what their intentions were?

MR. KIRBY: Israel is a sovereign state. They get to decide for themselves what they’re going to hit and how they’re going to hit it.

Q And I didn’t ask you whether they got to decide or not. I asked you whether the President is now in agreement with them.

MR. KIRBY: I’m just not going to go beyond what the President said, David.

Q Okay. And then, on the — one quick question on Russia. We’re, what, two weeks and a day or two ahead of the election. At this point in 2018 and 2020, the U.S. had issued, through various means, specific warnings to the Russians about non-interference. You may recall at one point they used a channel; it was mostly used for nuclear communications. I think that was 2018, if I remember right. Are you aware of any significant and high-level specific warnings for Russia on election interference in recent times?

MR. KIRBY: I think I would just say two things to that. Number one, we know and we’ve made public what we know about Russia’s attempts to interfere in this election. Now, the ODNI, as you know, David, puts out regular reports out there. We make it public what we’re seeing and what we know they’re trying to do. There’s an awful lot that we do to counter those operations by the Russians. Some of that we talk about, some of that we don’t.

I can tell you that we have made it perfectly clear to the Russians, in numerous ways, how unacceptable we find these activities and how strongly and staunchly we’re going to push back on them. I do not have a specific — an additional specific, as you put it, high-level warning to the Russians, except the only thing I would add is our concerns have been made perfectly clear to Mr. Putin and to the Russian government.

Q Has that been by the President himself? Or you’re only aware of the ones that (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY: The President has had no direct communications with Vladimir Putin.

Q Great. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Robin Wright with the New Yorker.

Q Thanks so much, John. I have a three-part question. First of all, have you seen any efforts by Iran recently, after the deaths of Nasrallah and Sinwar, to help its allies regroup, rearm, refinance? What has it been doing in the background?

Secondly, there are media reports that Naim Qassem, who is Nasrallah’s deputy, has moved to Tehran. Can you confirm that?

And third, the Iranian foreign minister met over the weekend with Hamas leaders in Istanbul. Do you have thoughts on that? Do you have a sense of what the goal was? Can you give us any insights? Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: Okay, there’s a lot there.

On your third question about the Istanbul meeting, Robin, I hope you’ll let me take that question and come back to you. I don’t have any insights to share on that. That doesn’t mean that we, at the NSC, don’t. That just means me, Kirby, don’t. So we’ll take that question and try to get you a better answer.

I don’t have anything on Nasrallah’s deputy going to Tehran. Nothing like that. Again, I’ll try to take that question back to the team and have them see if we’ve got a better answer for you than that. But I wouldn’t have any insights or perspectives to share on that at this time, except to say — and this kind of gets to your first question — it wouldn’t come as a shock to any of us to see Hezbollah leadership, at whatever level, staying in communication with Iran, and that would include travel to Tehran, given the incredible support that Hezbollah continues to get from Iran.

Now, you asked, specifically in the wake of his killing, have we seen something demonstrable and tangible. Not that I have to speak to today, except we’ve seen rhetoric out of the mullahs and out of the Supreme Leader, and we certainly have seen no diminution of Iranian desire to continue to support their proxies, whether that is Hezbollah, whether it’s Hamas, whether it’s the militia groups in Iraq and Syria, or, quite frankly, whether it’s the Houthis. There’s been no indication that Iran has changed its calculus and is somehow pulling the plug on the support to these groups.

Now, whether there’s something, again, demonstrable that we’ve seen since his killing, I’d have to go back and ask the question, but I don’t believe that we’ve seen any significant change one way or the other.

Q John, can I just follow up quickly and ask you to take that question to see if Iran is doing anything with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, the PMF? Is it doing anything in the background, including, you know, urging the PMF to — or Kata’ib Hezbollah to go after Americans? I’m trying to see if there’s anything that the Iranians are doing in response to what’s happened over the last few weeks.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, no, I get the question. I’m happy to take it. I will caveat this by telling you that they’re — you know, that some of what we’re seeing — what we see may or may not be suitable for public disclosure, but I’m happy to take the question and come back to you.

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

Q Hello, John. Hope you’re well. Thank you for doing this. Okay, I have a Russia-Ukraine omnibus question, but before I get to it, I just want to check in: Any White House reaction to the death of Turkish cleric Gulen in the U.S.? Does this change anything between Washington and Ankara? Any communications, anything you want to say about that?

MR. KIRBY: Nothing at this time.

Q Okay. Let me move on to Russia-Ukraine. So, what response should we expect from the U.S. and allies amid these reports that Russia has North Korean soldiers working with them in Ukraine? Could this prompt either a surge in military assistance or an easing of the restrictions on Ukrainian use of long-range weapons?

And then, relatedly: As you know, Vladimir Putin is hosting the BRICS Summit this week. BRICS has not had a shortage of membership requests in recent years. What does this mean to you about whether trying to make, you know, Russia a pariah? Has that worked? Is that stance effective anymore? And what message is this sending to China that seems to think it can, you know, do whatever they want and not face any consequences?

MR. KIRBY: Who can do whatever they want and not face consequences? You cut out there.

Q Yeah. Sorry about that. I was asking what message this sends to China that it could continue to, you know, act however it wants but not face any consequences or lose any friends, more accurately.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think — I mean, I’ll work backward here. I don’t think the PRC has ever gotten that message. I mean, we’ve been none too shy about making our concerns known to the PRC, with respect to the fact that Chinese companies have provided components and elements to Russian weapons systems in the defense industrial base. And we’ve sanctioned them. We have had very frank conversations with Chinese leaders, including Jake with his counterpart, and the President and President Xi, about even that level of support to the Russian military. So, I think our message to the PRC has been clear and consistent and remains so.

On the BRICS, you know, I don’t think that you should look at this BRICS conference as some sort of coming-out party for Mr. Putin and for Russia. First of all, the BRICS as an organization isn’t new, and we’ve long said, you know, these countries — every country gets to make sovereign decisions about who they associate with and in what format. And, you know, we don’t view the BRICS arrangement as some sort of, you know, threat. These countries can decide for themselves who they want to associate with and especially how they want to be economically linked with one another.

Russia is increasingly isolated on the world stage. There’s no question about that. Mr. Putin is still having to take radical steps to prop up his currency and to keep his war economy going, and he continues to have to take drastic steps to try to keep an army in the field and to try to achieve even a modicum of success on the battlefield. That includes continuing to get drones and drone technology from Iran, artillery rounds from North Korea, and now these reports about North Korean soldiers deploying to Russia.

So, that’s your first question, and I’ll just — I’ll end with that. We’re obviously continuing to look into those reports, and we’re talking to our allies and partners about what they’re seeing on this as well. If it’s true that the DPRK soldiers are going there to join the war against Ukraine, it would certainly mark a dangerous and highly concerning development. I talked about that last week.

And as I said, we’re consulting allies and partners, and I think we plan to lay out in coming days what we’re seeing on this and lay out a little bit more about the consultations we’re having with partners.

But I also think — and this kind of gets to your second question — we also need to look at this for what it also is, and that is another demonstration of Putin’s growing desperation and his growing isolation that he’s got to reach out to North Korea for potential — potential — as I said, we’re looking into the reports — potential infantry support to his ground operations. There’s no question about it that his forces continue to suffer an extraordinary amount of casualties on the battlefield. As I said last week, you know, the estimate we have now is more than a thousand — actually, more than 1,200 — per day. And that is a truly historic amount of soldiers killed and wounded in this fight, all to accomplish a warped and twisted idea of his about Ukraine’s ability to exist as a sovereign state.

So I come back to what you said — your second question about, you know, what does this say about Russia’s isolation. I think all of this says and proves the point that Mr. Putin is increasingly desperate and increasingly isolated on the world stage.

Q John, I just want to thank you for keeping up with that question. That was very impressive. Thank you very much.

MR. KIRBY: This time I took notes.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Laura Kelly with The Hill.

Q Hi. Thank you so much for taking my question. Speaking to Moldova’s election, you said that Russia did not succeed, although it’s not necessarily viewed as black and white. While Russia was likely pushing for a “no” vote on the referendum, the result of such a slim margin makes it harder for the Moldovan government to put resources toward EU integration, and this is likely in Russia’s favor.

So, in Russian interference efforts ahead of the runoff election are likely to continue, you know, what lessons is the U.S. learning about Russia’s power to sway elections? And is the U.S. doing anything more or different to help the Moldovan government combat Russia election interference?

MR. KIRBY: We’re in touch with the Moldovans every single day, and that includes this day, about the vibrancy, the vitality of their democratic institutions and their electoral process.

And, yes, we know there’s a runoff coming, and we have every expectation that the Russians are going to want to try to affect that runoff. So we’re going to continue to work with the Moldovans in ways, public and non-public, about how they can improve their resiliency to that kind of influence.

And I think I stand by what I said before: Russia was not successful. They did not want to see the Moldovan people strive for or get a referendum that approved EU integration. And that’s what happened. I get that it was a slim margin. I have no doubt in my mind, and none of us here do, that the Russians tried to contribute to the “no” vote. Now, to what degree, I couldn’t quantify how successful they were in terms of the overall percentage of the “no” vote, but we know they were pushing really, really hard to affect it.

Bottom line is it didn’t pass. And what did succeed was a “yes” vote on EU integration, and we think that’s an important step forward, and we think that that absolutely reflects the aspirations of the majority of the Moldovan people.

But nobody is sitting back crowing on this. Nobody is doing touchdown dances here. There’s a runoff coming, and we got to make sure we continue to work with the Moldovans to ensure that that runoff is done in a way that respects and is appropriate to the aspirations of the electorate in Moldova.

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

Q Hi. Thank you so much, Sam. And thank you, Kirby, for doing that. I wanted to ask — you talked about talking to the Israelis about a possible solution for Gaza the day after Sinwar. Do you think — does the White House consider an international force controlling Gaza for a while until things would settle down?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of where we are right now, except to say Secretary Blinken has been working on day-after options for months and months now. And I don’t — you know, we haven’t reached any, you know, final options on what a security footprint could look like in Gaza, how it would be comprised, where it would be deployed, who would run it. We just haven’t come to conclusion on those kinds of options.

But clearly, the people of Gaza, when this war is over, should have every right to seek peace and security and a way to go about their lives where they don’t have to worry about those lives being shattered by violence.

And so, there’s going to have to be a security footprint here and a security component to whatever the day after looks like. It’s just that we’re still working our way through that with not only the Israelis, but with our Arab partners. And I would go so far as to say we’re also working that through with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority as well.

Q Great. Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And unfortunately, that’s all the time we have today. As always, if we weren’t able to get to your questions, reach out to the press distro, and we’ll get back as soon as we can. Thanks.

12:36 P.M. EDT

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

1:56 P.M. EDT

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

Q Good afternoon.

Q Hi, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It feels like there’s an echo.

Q Yes, there is.

Q There is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t know if you guys want to hear me twice. I don’t know if they’re fixing it or not.

Okay. Let’s get going.

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. It does.

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Okay. Today, the Biden-Harris administration is taking a major step to expand contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Republican elected officials have made clear they want to ban or restrict birth control, defund federal programs that help women excess — access contraception, and repeal the ACA. Congressional Republicans have also repeatedly blocked federal legislation to safeguard the fundamental right to birth control for women in every state. It’s dangerous, and it’s unacceptable.

This new action under our administration would help ensure that millions of women with private health insurance can access the contraception they need, including over-the-counter contraception, at no cost.

At a time when contraception access is under attack, President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive health care and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law.

Now, the president and the vice president response — their response to the recovery efforts continue to deliver for the people of North Carolina, Florida, and all communities affected by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. Over 5,500 federal personnel are deployed to North Carolina and Florida.

Today, Administra- — Administrator Deanne Criswell is in North Carolina with Governor Roy Cooper and state officials to continue surveying damage and ensure that resources continue to make it to the communities and survivors who need them.

In total, nearly $2 billion in federal assistance has been approved for those affected by recent storms. In North Carolina, the administration has approved more than $300 million in assistance. This includes over $130 million for nearly 90,000 households. Additional, FEMA — additionally, FEMA has approved more than $189 million for debris removal and reimbursement of ener- — of emergency protective measures for the state.

And the administration also announced that the government will create a brand-new program for assistant impact [to assist impacted] communities with their recovery and rebuilding efforts. Additionally, 15 disaster recovery centers are operating in the impacted areas in North Carolina and have served more than 5,700 visitors, and power has been restored to 99 percent of impacted North Carolina customers due to thousands of utility personnel working around the clock.

All of this is thanks to the leadership of the president, the vice president, FEMA, and other administration leaders and the many state and local officials who have helped ensure a robust and well-coordinated response and recovery effort. We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to help these communities respond and recover from these disasters.

And now, next, we have the first lady. First Lady Jill Biden is unveiling a new, enhanced educational White House public tour for visitors today at the White House. As a classroom teacher for 40 years, Dr. Biden knows that learning has to be engaging and interactive and that you have to meet students where they are, giving them what they need to spark their curiosity and imagination.

This is the first significant improvement to the tour in decades. And as the first lady said, and I quote, “We’ve added flex- — flexible, versatile, and dynamic tools of learning to the tour; created more pathways in the house to bring people fur- — further into the rooms; expanded the tour to now inc- — to now include the Diplomatic Reception Room; and we’ve included more educational content that visitors can touch, hear, and see up close.”

Get on that tour, folks.

The first lady hopes the tour inspires everyone who visits the White House to learn more about our shared history.

And on the week ahead, the president will be hitting the road this week to discuss the Biden-Harris administration’s work to deliver for the American people.

On Tuesday, tomorrow, the president will host a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Robert Golob t- — of the Republic of Slovenia before heading to Concord, New Hampshire, where he will join Senator Bernie Sanders to discuss the Biden-Harris administration’s work to lower cost of prescriction [prescription] drugs. During that event, the president is expected to discuss new data on savings for the first year — for the first year thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. He will also make a campaign-related stop while he is in the Granite State.

Then the president will travel to Phoenix, Arizona, on Thursday and Friday where he will deliver remarks at the Gila River Indian Community and discuss the Biden-Harris administration’s record of delivering for Tribal communities, including keeping his promise to make this historic visit to — his historic vis- — visit to Indian Country as well. This — he will be — this will be the first as president to do this — his first as president to do this.

As always, we will be sharing more information as we get closer, certainly, to Arizona and tomorrow as well.

Okay. Darlene.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And we fix —

Q Apologies. Can you clarify one thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q You just said the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q — after you were talking about New Hampshire, that he’s making a campaign-related stop.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Is that in New Hampshire, or were you talking about Arizona?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s going to be in New Hampshire.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep, the Granite State. He’ll be making a campaign-related stop, and certainly the campaign will have more to share on that.

Q And then on the leak of information — classified information about Israel’s plans toward Iran. There was a leak of classified information last year in April. A member of the National Guard had posted a bunch of documents and whatnot online.

Has the Pentagon and the intelligence community done enough since then to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —

Q — protect —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is —

Q — this material?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — certainly we are aware of — of the reporting. Certainly, we are concerned — very concerned by them. Anything about — about the process and this — and — and how it’s being investigated by the U.S. government, I would have to refer you to the IC, the DOJ, and certainly DOD. I’m not going to get into particulars or specifics from here.

But we are aware of the reports, and we are definitely, and we are definitely very concerned about them.

Q Can you speak to any changes the president might have in mind that he might want to see going forward?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to get ahead of it. As I just mentioned, the U.S. government is investigating this and — through the appropriate authorities. So, I’m going to let them d- — move through their process, see exactly what happened. I’m not going to get into it from here.

Q And speaking of classified information, what is the president’s plan for voting in the November 5th election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the president certainly looks forward —

Q That was a joke.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. (Laughter.) So ser- — I’m sorry. I’m so serious today. Very funny, Darlene. Very good joke.

Q That’s okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q We can move on.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the president is certainly looking forward to casting his ballot in the upcoming election. When we have more to share about what that looks like, where — you know, where he’s going to be, we certainly will share that.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Weijia.

Q Thank you, Karine. So, we just heard from Kirby that the White House is monitoring the progress of the investigative effort to figure out how this happened, not whether this happened. But just for the sake of clarity, can you confirm that the — the documents in question are authentic and do, in fact, include U.S. classified intelligence?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I appreciate the question. We’re — like I said, we’re certainly aware of the reports. We are very concerned. I’m not going to get into specifics. I’m not going to get into details. That’s something for DO- — DOJ, IC, and DOD to get into it, and certainly they can hopefully answer any questions that you may have on this particular matter.

But, look, as the reports are out there and what they’re — what we are hearing, certainly we are very concerned by them. They are being looked into. It’s being investigated by the appropriate authorities, by the — obviously, the U.S. government here. And so, I’m going to let them speak to it directly.

Q Kirby characterized the concern as stemming from the fact that they were in the public domain. So, I mean —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, it’s true. Any —

Q — as he talked about it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — the implication was that this was classified information. I’m just asking, yes or no, was it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, look, any time — any time there are leaks like these that end up in the public domain — I just reiterating — reiterating what he said — of course, it is concerning. We have the appropriate authorities who are looking into this on our side of things.

And I’m going to be really mindful. I am not going to get into specifics. Was this, you know, classified? Was this not class- — I can’t get into that from here. That is something IC and DOD and DOJ can get into it on those specifics.

But any time we see any type of classified information that are — that is leaked and that is out there in a public domain, of course we are concerned — of course. But they can speak to their — you know, their — their — the — how authentic, how real — any of those pieces, they can speak to that. I’m not going to speak to that from here.

Q And then just a quick follow-up on Darlene. I know you’re figuring out his Election Day plans, but given the potential for political unrest in the days that follow, will the president be here? Does he plan to be here in Washington in the days that follow the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the president is president wherever he is. The number one — obviously, the number one priority of this president is the American people. Obviously, the security of the American people is also a priority of his as well.

And I don’t have — I don’t want to get ahead of where he’s going to be, if he’s going to be here or not. We’ll have more to share as we get closer, certainly, to — to November 5th and what his schedule will — will look like.

But he is, indeed, president wherever he is. And so, his number one priority — his number one priority is the American people.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Karine. Elon Musk is pledging to give away $1 million every day up until the election to voters in battleground states. Some experts are saying this is clearly illegal vote buying. Does the White House believe what he’s doing is illegal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to have to refer you to the FEC. I’m not going to comment from it — from here.

Q Can you talk about how the president is reacting to this in terms of does he believe it’s appropriate? Does he agree with what Governor Shapiro is saying about how this needs to be investigated?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would leave it to Governor Shapiro and the legal authorities to speak to this. I’m just not going to speak to it from here and would have to leave it to FEC.

Q And if you could just talk broadly about what Trump has also said about making Musk the head of a new “government efficiency commission.” Does the White House see that as a conflict of interest, given the fact that Musk’s companies have so many contracts with government agencies —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — and it could potentially give him the power to regulate the agencies that hold sway over his own companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, since that’s a campaign-related item there, what they’re planning to do next or what it looks like under — you know, and — and their platform for his campaign, I’m just not going to respond to it from here.

Q Any reaction from the president or White House about Elon’s — Musk’s role at this moment in the political discussion?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have no response, no — no comment on that at this moment.

Go ahead, Monica.

Q On the apparent leak of classified information. How concerned is the president about the message it sends to allies about the way the U.S. handles some of the most sensitive, top-secret information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, what I can say is we take this very seriously. And as I’ve said many times already, we are very concerned. That’s — this is why the DOD, this is why IC, this is why DOJ are all looking into this. And so, I would have to refer you to them.

And as I stated many times, it’s being investigated. We need to get to the bottom of it. We need to get answers before I can give you anything further from here. But it’s being investigated by the appropriate authorities. We’re looking into it.

Are we concerned? Yes. Are we very concerned? Yes, we’re very concerned. And so, the appropriate authorities are looking into this.

Q And you just mentioned the president is going to be making a campaign-related stop —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep.

Q — tomorrow in New Hampshire. He has so far only campaigned alongside Vice President Harris in an official campaign event capacity once. We have reporting that we don’t expect to see the two of them together in these final two weeks. What is the reason for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I would remind folks that he was in Philly — Philadelphia — just last week doing a campaign event — just last week — on his own. And so, would remind folks that he was doing that.

There’s going to be a campaign-related event, as I just mentioned, tomorrow. And there will be more to come. I think they’ll — there will be more to come.

Look, we cannot forget what we have seen this past couple of weeks: two historic hurricanes. Right? Let’s not forget that. The president was able to — because of his leadership and what his administration was able to do, we avoided a port — a port strike. Right? That’s something that he was able to do. And there are just many other, obviously, pressing issues that are not just here domestically but around the world, and the president has led on those issues.

And so, the most important thing that — the president believes that his job is to continue to be there for the American people, deliver for the American people, and that’s what you have seen him do.

Now, he’s going to be out there. I would say stay tuned. There is more to come. I just mentioned New Hampshire. There’s more to come in the upcoming days, and we’ll certainly share — share that with all of you.

Q And then, just finally, former President Trump is in North Carolina today. He was talking about some of the FEMA efforts there. He called the rescue effort, quote, “non-existent.” He repeated some misleading information about where some of the funds have been directed to.

So, how concerned is the White House still about what that might do to not just people taking in this information, again, that’s misleading but to voters specifically in key states where the devastation of the hurricanes has been evident?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m glad in your question you said “misleading information,” which is true — misleading information that is being put out there. And — and it’s not just from us. You’ve heard from Republicans and Democrats — right? — in North Carolina who have said — who have — who have made it very clear by pushing these types of conspiracy theories — they are dangerous, they are unhelpful. And it is — it is not — it is not what leadership looks like. I’ll say it there — like that.

And — and it is a time, when you see something like that, these types of hurricanes that have impacted communities the way that they have — both of them, Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton — it’s time that you bring a c- — you bring a community together and stand by each other.

And so, you’ve heard from, again, the governors of all of these states — well, in partic- — in particular, certainly, as we’re talking about governor in — in New Ham- — in, sorry, North Carolina, he spoke to this today. And he said, “The Biden-Harris administration has responded quickly and positively to our request. The federal government has been responsive to all — to our call for help.” That’s coming from the governor of North Carolina. We also heard from the mayor of Asheville as well.

And so, we have seen a bipartisan reaction to this, appreciation for what the amdin — for what this administration has been able to do. And the reason we’ve been able to do this work on the ground is because we’ve had a good partnership with local and state officials on the ground. And this type of conspir- — conspiracy theory that’s out there, it is dangerous. To your point in your question, it’s dangerous, it’s unhelpful, and it gets in the way.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. Secretary Blinken is headed back to the Middle East today. Does the White House have any hope that this trip will be more successful than past trips, given that this comes after the death of Sinwar?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, a couple of things. I know the State Department — my colleagues over at the State Department spoke to this in greater detail, about the secretary’s trip, which is — starts tomorrow. He’s going to be going throughout the region. He’s going to discuss the importance of ending, certainly, the war in — in Gaza, securing the release of all hostages, alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people. And he’s going to underscore the importance of getting that food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid — it’s important to get that delivered to c- — civilians in Gaza. And he’s going to also discuss — continue to have the discussions that we’ve been having for the past several months now about the diplomatic solu- — resolution to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

And so, we’re going to reaffirm — what — what you — what you’re going to see from this trip that the secretary is — is having throughout the region is reaffirming our commitment to what I just laid out to our partners across the region. And we do want to de-escalate the tensions and — and also, obvi- — obviously, provide that lasting stability. And that is the commitment that we — that — that we continue to have.

Look, you’re asking me — I know your question. Your question was do we think this will have an effect. We believe and this president believes when — a diplomatic resolution, diplomatic conversation is certainly key to dealing with issues that we’re seeing across the — across the globe.

Q And does the president have any reaction to former President Trump using this rhetoric about the “enemy from within” and specifically tying it to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff this weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it is — that type of language is un-American. It’s dangerous. I was just asked about misinformation that we’re — that we have been seeing during — certainly before the hurricanes hit and certainly now as it — after the impact and what we’re seeing on the ground and how we’re trying to work with our partners on the ground to make sure we get relief to folks on the ground. And that is — that type of misinformation, conspiracy theories, is only hurtful, and that is not what Americans want to see as a leader. That is not what they want to see as a lea- — leader.

And it’s also disrespectful to our military to ask our military to — to react or to do something in such a political — in a — such a political way. We should respect our men and women. They should be respected. They put their lives on the line for us, and we should respect them. And it’s incredibly disrespectful to them as well.

And so, it’s un-American, it’s dangerous, and it should stop.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. Is there any latest understanding from the White House on when Israel is going to respond to Iran’s missile attacks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think we’ve been pretty consistent on that. This is something for — that decision, any military operation — operational decision has to — is up to Israel. We’ve been very clear in our commitment — in our commitment to Israel’s security. That is — continues to be ironclad. But that is something for the Israeli government to speak to.

Q And is there any word on what that re- — that response would look like? And is there sort of a red line that the U.S. would not allow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I’m just not going to preview that from here. Us previewing that from here would certainly give a heads-up to the Iranians. It’s something that we’re not going to be doing. But that is — aside from that, that certainly is something for Is- — Israel to speak to.

Go ahead, K- — Kayla.

Q Thank you, Karine. I wanted to ask about the contraception rule that the administration is putting out today. As you mentioned at the top, the president is proposing a rule that would require insurers to cover the cost of over-the-counter contraception. The Congressional Review Act allows lawmakers to overturn federal regulations that are implemented in the final stages of a presidential term. And I mu- — I’m wondering if the White House believes that this type of rule could withstand that threat or if you think that anything that happens in these last few months is potentially subject to congressional reversal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m going to be — I’m not going to — that’s getting into a hypothetical that I’m just not going to do from here.

Look, it’s going through a rulemaking process, as you know. From the moment that the president made this announcement, it’s now in a rulemaking process. We’ll hear back from the public. We feel pretty confident this is going to move forward.

And the reason why — as I stated at the top, why we’re doing this is because of the Dobbs decision. It’s because now we have women out there who don’t have the protections that they need on their own health care because Roe v. Wade, which was law of the land for almost — a constitutional right for almost 50 years were stripped away. And we have made that commitment from this administration, the Biden-Harris commi- — administration, to protect women, to do everything that we can.

Now we’re expanding ACA. Now we’re providing this potential opportunity to give the women — women oppor- — opportunity to make those difficult decisions and to have the — also the availability, obviously, of contraception.

And so, that is — that is our commitment that we have made here. I can’t get into, you know, what Congress is going to do, the hypotheticals from here. What I can — what we can focus on is keeping that commitment that we have made to women and families across the country.

Q And then tomorrow in New Hampshire. CNN is reporting that President Biden will appear with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders tomorrow. It’s an interesting contrast to Vice President Kamala Harris, who today is appearing at a campaign event with Republican Liz Cheney. I’m wondering if you can just talk about the rationale of the president’s to appear with Senator Sanders tomorrow and what message that’s meant to send to the party.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I think if you think about the commitment that both of them have had, the president and Senator Sanders, you are correct. He is going to be traveling when — to the Granite State with Senator Sanders, and they have been partners, right? They have been partners on a lot of these issues, including — including lowering cost for health care. We know that this is an issue that’s incredibly important to Senator Sanders.

So, for us, it makes sense. It makes sense to be doing this event together. They have been partners not just on this but on other important, critical needs of the American people. And this is what you’re going to see.

I’m not — I cannot speak for the vice president’s campaign. She’s doing what she needs to do. I’m going to let her campaign speak to that.

The president is going to continue to go into states and have really important conversation. And let’s not forget, the Inflation Reduction Hact [Act] was incredibly historic in lowering costs on health care, was important in one of the most — most historic pieces of legislation to deal with climate change.

There’s a lot there that we believe that the American people need to continue to hear it — hear from him. And he’s going to have Senator Sanders, which he really looks forward to being in — in the state with him on that issue.

Q So, would you say that — that it’s accurate, as some strategists have argued, that this is an effort by President Biden to embrace the more progressive flank, while Vice President Harris tacks to the center in these final days?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What the president is doing is going out there, speaking directly to the American people, and talking about how he’s delivering for them — how the — Biden-Harris is delivering for — for them, whether it’s lowering costs; climate change; pow- — powering up an economy, continuing to move that economy forward. That’s what you’re seeing from this president. And he’ll — he’s not going to shy away from it.

Go ahead.

Q Karine, thanks. Zooming out from this breach, which I know that you’re not going to discuss the specifics of. But you’ve had, over the last week, private correspondence between the secretaries of State and the Pentagon, the — to Israel; this Air National Guard leak from — from a year ago on Discord; the investigation into Rob Malley. Is there a problem safeguarding sensitive information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I will say is the president continues to have complete confidence in his — in — in the agencies — right? — whether it’s DOD, I- — IC, or DOJ. And — and he has complete confidence in them. There is a — it — this is being looked into, investigation being done by the appropriate parties. And I’m not going to get into it. I’m not going to get into it.

Q Since —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Are we concerned? We are very concerned. We are. We’ve been very clear about that. And it’s being looked into. And so, I’m not going to — going to go beyond that.

Q Since the Discord leak, has the administration — what has the administration done to further safeguard national secrets?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into — into any specifics on that. As it relates to this particular moment of what we’re seeing with the — the reports out there, it’s being looked into. We are very concerned. DOD, IEC — IC, DOJ can speak to that, this particular incident, more broadly — these reports. I just don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Q And do you know yet if it’s a leak or a hack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, this is why I’m referring you to IC, DOD, DOJ. They can speak more to this, and I would leave it to them.

Go ahead, Sara.

Q Thanks, Karine. While the president was in Germany, did the issue of authorizing Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles deeper inside Russia come up during his bilateral meetings with the Germans or his meeting with the European Quad? Particularly, given the approval that some NATO Allies have provided, did they urge him to provide support for this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into beyond what we’ve been able to share in the readouts. What I can say is that policy has not changed. And we said that. We said that going — I remember saying this at this podium before the president left to go to Berlin, Germany, just last week, and said our — our policy stance on that hasn’t changed, and it wasn’t going to change, and don’t expect any announcements.

So, it still says — stays the same. I don’t have anything to share beyond that, beyond what we’ve shared in — in readouts.

Q And then on a different topic. There’s a report that Israel gave the U.S. a document outlining its conditions for a diplomatic solution to end the war in Lebanon and allow people to return their o- — to their homes on both sides of the border. Can you confirm this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is that many times we get, certainly, views from the Israeli government. We get their views on things and certainly the back-and-forth. I’ve said many times that we have regular conversation with — with our counterparts at — in the Israeli government, but I’m not going to get into diplomatic or private conversations from here.

Go ahead.

Q So, this administration has warned Israel that it could lose access to some U.S. weapon fundings if it doesn’t produce a dramatic increase in humanitarian aid coming into Gaza. Have you seen so far any dramatic improvement in delivering of aid?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, here’s what I’ll say to that. We are working to surge humanitarian assistance into Gaza. So, just a couple of things just to update all of you. Over the weekend, we welcomed an airdrop by the UAE of food parcels into central Gaza. We also noted the re- — the resumption of deliveries last week into nor- — northern Gaza as well, including through the vital lifeline from Jordan, with 129 trucks entering northern Gaza last week after an unacceptable slowdown since October 1st, which we’ve talked about just last week.

That number must further increase over the coming week, and we are grateful for Jordan’s leadership in organizing these deliveries. We also call on all parties to wo- — cooperate in dis- — in distributing the many hundreds of truckloads now on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom crossing. The — the armed gangs threatening and looting deliveries from this platform are keeping vital supplies away from those in desperate need.

And we, here at t- — in the U.S., as the largest — are the largest contributor to the humanitarian response in Gaza and will continue to support all efforts to surge and safeguard assistance and enable its dis- — distribution into all — all areas of Gaza.

And one of the things, as I just stated earlier, is that the secretary is going to speak about — Secretary Blinken — is how do we continue to upsurge the humanitarian assistant into Gaza. So, that is going to be a priority, part of a — part of his — part of his discussions throughout the region as well.

Go ahead, Jared.

Q The task force — the House task force investigating the Butler, Pennsylvania, attempted assassination came out with an interim report today —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — pretty critical of the Secret Service, especially as it relates to the coordination and communication with local police.

One, does the White House, the president have a reaction to that? And, two, does the president still have full confidence in the current leadership at Secret Service?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the president has deep respect for the Secret Service. And he knows that they — they have an extremely difficult job. He knows that the men and women who are part of the Secret Service put their lives on the line, day in and day out.

And so, we’re going to review the report. I’m not going to comment on the report right now. We’re going to review it. As you just said, it just came out this morning.

So, you know, and — and, I would add, Secret Service has also acknowledged their own shortcomings, and they have taken several steps to enhance the former president’s protection. And so, they’re continuing to do that work.

And the president has also been clear, from his point of view as well, to the Secret Service to make sure that they provide the highest level of protection for the former president. And so, that is what — that is what he’s asked for.

We know that the Secret Service has made — has made some changes — enhancing, certainly, the — the protection of the former president.

And as it relates to the report, we are going to review it.

Q Is President Biden confident in his own protection?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. I have a question about Cuba. There have been multiple power outages on the island in recent days. So, I was wondering: Is the White House monitoring the situation, particularly for signs of unrest? Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we are closely monitoring the blackouts on the island. And so, we are concerned about the potential humanitarian impacts on the Cuban people.

(A reporter sneezes.)

And so — bless you.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And like we have seen over the past few years, Cuba’s economic condition stemming from long-term mismanagement of its economic policy and resources has certainly increased the hardship of the people in Cuba.

And so — so — and so, certainly, just want to make clear that this is not — the U.S. is not to — is not to blame for the blackouts on the island or the overall energy situation in Cuba.

So, the Cuban — the Cuban government has not requested any assistance at this time, and so we will assess the appropriate next steps if they do request any assistance.

And so, a critical tenet of the Biden-Harris administration policy as it relates to — to — towards Cuba is to always advocate for the support of the Cuban people, and we’ve been always very clear about that. And so, we’ll continue.

Q (Inaudible) a follow-up. And I know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — this is a hypothetical. But if the Cuban government were to request assistance, would the Biden-Harris administration be willing to provide it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’re going to — if that were to happen, we’re — certainly would assess the next best steps. I just — they have not. Again, it’s a hypothetical. And so, we’re going to assess what’s the next best step to do.

Oh, go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The — there’s a recent report about how a number of Senate Democrats that are running for reelection are having ads that show images of President Trump touting their own cooperation with President Trump when he was in office, people like Senator Bob Casey saying that he bucked President Biden on fracking and supported President Trump on trade and tariffs.

Does the president, as the leader of the Democratic Party, have any thoughts about members of his own party talking about how much they’ve worked with President Trump in the past?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q You all have talked about the former president as a threat to democracy, talked about how much danger he — he would be if elected once again. The fact that other Senate Democrats aren’t having that same message, is that concerning at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to speak to each individual campaign and what they’re doing in their campaign. That’s a political — certainly a political campaign and a political reaction to however they need — whatever they need to do on the ground, so I’m not going to speak to that.

The president stands by his comments, his fight for democracy. He stands by what he saw on January 6th. He stands by the threat to democracy that we saw on that day — a dark day in our democracy, when you saw 2,000 people go to the Capitol because they were told to by the former president — because they didn’t believe or were told not to believe free and fair elections; while, meanwhile, dozens of Republican judges were able to say, “Hey, yeah, no. This was a free and fair election,” and they didn’t believe that because they were told not to.

And what we saw on that day was horrific. It was horrific, and it was indeed an attack on our democracy. The president has spoken to this many, many times.

And so, that’s who I can speak to. I can speak for the — the president. I — I’m not going to speak for other senators and how they — how they decide to move forward with their campaign.

Go ahead, in the back.

Q Thank you. I wanted to ask about the upcoming presidential transition. When was the last time that Jeff Zients and the group of people working on the transition met with representatives from both campaigns? And can you provide an update on where you are in getting ready to hand off?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any specifics for you at this time. I’m happy to get more information on where they are with that particular piece. I just don’t have anything to share on that.

As you know, we’ve been — we’ve offered our — our assistance to both — to both campaigns as we — as we move forward to a — a transition at some point, but I just don’t have an update on meetings on the — from here.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Naomi, in the back.

Q Thanks. The president likes to tout his deficit-cutting measures since he’s come into office. But, last week, the Treasury Department actually reported that the deficit grew to $1.8 trillion for fiscal 2024. What’s the White House’s response to that data?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, that’s why we’re — that’s why we’ve done the work that we have done as — especially moving forward with — with his- — these historic piece of legislation that speaks about how we’re — we’re going to deal with the deficit. Right? When we signed the pro- — the president signed, for example, last year, the $1 trillion debt deal that would cut the deficit by a trillion dollars. You saw that in other pieces of legislation that he was able to sign and move — pass through. And that’s why we have shown our commitment to dealing with the deficit.

And what we’re also seeing is what the former administration did. The former administration passed tax cuts for billionaires and — and corporations that had led to where we are currently with this deficit.

And so, the president has done the work and will continue to do the work to try and deal with — with, as you just laid out, the deficit that we’re seeing. And, look, what you’re see- — what we’re trying to do here from this administration is make sure that the economy continues to grow; that jobs are available, continue to grow; that we’re lowering the unemployment rate and lowering costs. That is something that the — this president and this vice president are trying to do.

Meanwhile, Republicans are doing the opposite. They want to continue to give these tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. They want to make it harder for middle-class families. And so, there’s a difference there. There — the contrast could not be more different in what we’re trying to do and what the other side is trying to do.

Q But do you not think this data sort of plays into public perceptions that Democrats are weaker in handling the economy as opposed to Republicans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But it’s not true. And so, what we’re going to speak to is how we have done the work to turn this economy around. We cannot forget where we were when the president walked into this administration: an economy that was in a downturn, and we saw a situation with the pandemic where there was no strategy. Businesses were closing down. Schools were — majority of schools were closed.

And so, this president has been able to turn that around with the help of the vice president. And so, this is why we’re going to — we’re going to go to New Hampshire tomorrow. We’re going to speak to the Inflation Reduction Act, what the president and the vice president has been able to do to lower costs, because we understand that there’s more work to do. We understand this is — when you think about health care, this is incredibly important.

You heard the announcement that we just made on contraception, making sure that we — expanding the ACA, because that’s important to women. And everything that we’re talking about, Republicans in Congress — majority of them don’t want to see. They’re on the other side of what we’re trying to do.

And so, look, we understand there’s more work to do, and we’re going to continue to push forward.

Go ahead, Jon.

Q Thanks a lot, Karine. I wanted to ask you about the vice president and the difficult position that she’s in, in the sense that she’s running for president and she is currently vice president. And it’s difficult, we’ve seen in interview after interview, for her to separate herself in terms of public positions from President Biden. Does she have a green light that if she wanted to express a differing point of view than the administration on any topic, foreign or domestic, she could do so? Or does — is she required to be a loyal vice president to President Biden?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I disagree. I mean, the interviews that I have seen, you’ve seen a incredibly strong, very clear-eyed vice president in how she sees this country moving forward and saying that, you know, she has been, indeed, a partner with this president and in these successes that we have seen from this administration.

And I would also note — now, this is to the rest of your question — just last week, in Philadelphia, the president spoke to this — spoke to you, asking about loyalty, about her cutting — certainly, cutting her own path. He talked about that. He talked about how, you know, every president has to cut their own path. He talked about how he was loyal to Barack Obama, but then, as a president, he was able to cut his own path forward.

And so, that’s what he — Kamala is going — going to do. This is, in his own words, what he wants to see the vice president do. And she — he sees her as being someone who has been loyal, just like he was loyal to Barack Obama. But she is going to certainly cut her own path.

And so, that’s what we’re seeing from — from this vice president. And he’s very proud to have seen her move forward in — in her — in her campaign. And, you know, I think what you’re seeing is a strong leader, someone who he understood and knew that she would be able to lead on day one.

Q You say you disagree with the premise of my question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, well — well, not —

Q Can — can I just ask you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — the premise of the question —

Q — something about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — but you saying that —

Q May I — may I ask you something about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, no, you — you just said that I disagree with you.

Q No, but I — I just want to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m clear- —

Q — clarify.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, yeah.

Q Can you think of any issue, foreign policy or domestic policy, in which the vice president has a differing point of view than the president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s what —

Q Any daylight between them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: W- — well, hold on. Here’s what I will say. I will say that they have been critical partners, as I’ve said many times, and it is true. You’ve heard that from both of them. And they are partners in the way that this administration has moved forward on many issues and the issues that they’ve had to really answer to to the American people, because that’s what they both care about, is making sure that we deliver for the American people.

The question, as I heard it — not this one, not this second go-around — the first go-around, the way that you asked the question was she hasn’t been able — she has been having a difficulty, if you will, in answering that question. And I have said to — and I was saying to you, I have not seen that. I’ve seen a president — a vice president, who is running for president, obviously, who has been — who has showed strength, leadership — and that’s what this president has seen as well; he has said this — and — and cares about the American people.

That’s what we have seen. And that’s what many of the American people want to see. They want to see a fighter, and that’s who she is.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thanks, Karine. Later today, the president is doing the National Arts and Humanities reception. Can you tell us about that event: Who’s going to be honored? Who’s coming here to the White House today for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s a good question. We’ll have more to share as we get closer. Obviously, that’s about — in three hours or less. So, we’ll have more information to share about who’s being honored.

And you’re right. The president is looking forward and the — and the first lady are looking forward to honoring the attendees today.

All right. Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. So, Tuesday, the countries in BRICS are going to be going to Russia for a meeting. How concerned is the administration that this bloc of countries could undermine U.S. economic or trade strength that we have?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, what we’re focused on is on the work- — the — working with partners around the world and to build the broadcast [broadest] and deepest coalitions possible to help achieve our shared goals. That’s what we’re going to be focused on. And, you know, we’re not looking at BRICS as an — evolving into some kind of geopolitical rival. That’s not how we look at it — to the United States or anyone else.

And so, we’re going to continue to work with — with our relationships, our partnerships, whether it’s with Brazil, India, South Africa. And so, we’re going to continue to manage, certainly, those relationships. And — with China, for example. And — and so, that’s going to be our focus right now.

Q One of the newest members of BRICS is the United Arab Emirates.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q And in September — on September 23rd, the administration signed a deal with them to develop new AI technologies. How concerned, then, is the Biden administration that the — what we give to the UAE will then end up in Russia, China, or Iran’s hands through the BRICS agreements?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’ve worked extensively with UAE on — on advanced technology. That is something that we have done, and we’ve done that for the last two years. And — and so, that partnering is moving forward. And — and we believe it’s moving forward in the right direction.

So, we recognize — and this is why the president did an e- — an executive action, took an executive action on AI — we recognize the potential good — right? — of — of AI and look forward to, certainly, fur- — further- — furthering that and solidifying our collaboration in AI as we try to build the safeguards and protections. Again, that’s why we did the EO, an executive action on it.

Q But the transfer of — of technology — are you concerned about, through the BRICS agreement, that the transfer of technology will happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, again, we’ve worked extensively — really, truly extensively — with the — the UAE. And we are — we’re — I think where we’re headed, the movement, how we’re moving forward, is in a good place. And so, this is — this is a conversation that we’ve had over the last two years.

And so, we’re going to continue to have those conversation. We’re going to continue to work through this. And so, we believe it’s moving in the right direction.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, everyone.

Q Thanks, Karine.

2:40 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, October 21, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared that a major disaster exists in the State of New York and ordered Federal assistance to supplement state, tribal, and local recovery efforts in the areas affected by severe storms and flooding from August 18 to August 19, 2024.

Federal funding is available to state, tribal, and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms and flooding in the counties of Lewis, Oswego, and Suffolk.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

Ms. Lai Sun Yee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been appointed to coordinate Federal recovery operations in the affected areas. 

Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT THE FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@FEMA.DHS.GOV.

###

The post President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves New York Disaster Declaration appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared that a major disaster exists in the State of New York and ordered Federal assistance to supplement state, tribal, and local recovery efforts in the areas affected by severe storms and flooding from August 18 to August 19, 2024.

Federal funding is available to state, tribal, and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms and flooding in the counties of Lewis, Oswego, and Suffolk.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

Ms. Lai Sun Yee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been appointed to coordinate Federal recovery operations in the affected areas. 

Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT THE FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@FEMA.DHS.GOV.

###

The post President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves New York Disaster Declaration appeared first on The White House.

Jill and I mourn the tragic loss of two naval aviators, Lieutenant Commander Lyndsay Evans and Lieutenant Serena Wileman, who were killed when their EA-18G Growler aircraft crashed last Tuesday near Mount Rainier, Washington during a routine training mission.  They were among our nation’s finest and had just recently returned to the United States after an extended deployment to the Middle East defending against Houthi missile and drone attacks in the Red Sea.  We thank the U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, and Yakima County Tribal and local authorities for their efforts to locate and recover these two brave and talented young aviators.  We pray for their families, loved ones and squadron-mates, and we will always honor their service and sacrifice.  

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on Loss of U.S. Naval Aviators in Washington appeared first on The White House.