Feed aggregator

Cambridge, MA

Thank you, Maria. Two weeks ago, in Atlanta, you showed me what’s possible when we bring together industry and venture capital and universities to invest in women’s health. Thank you for your work and for sharing your expertise with us.

Thank you, Secretary Becerra and Director Wegrzyn, for your leadership. Joe and I could not have asked for better partners in this work. 

Senators Warren and Markey, Congresswoman Pressley, thank you for fighting for Massachusetts and women across the country. 

Dr. Blumenthal – you’ve been doing this work for decades, thank you for joining us today. 

Mayor Simmons, I’m grateful for the warm welcome to your city. 

Somewhere in this room may be the idea that will cure cancer, cure heart disease, cure Alzheimer’s. 

Heart health, brain health, chronic diseases – you might just have the answers if only we dissolve the barriers standing in your way. 

Well today, we begin to do just that. Thank you for joining us. 

Following the death of our son, Joe and I talked with many of you about how we could advance the fight against cancer. And we heard again and again that you would discover breakthroughs, only to find out that there was no clear path to bringing those ideas to patients. 

Because of his experience in government, Joe knew there was a model for accelerating research, first developed at DARPA – the Department of Defense agency that created technology that has transformed our society: the internet, GPS, Siri. 

Joe wanted to use that same bold approach to confront the health challenges of our time. So, he created ARPA-H to launch big ideas with lightning speed, to give scientists the freedom to reach beyond the possible, to invest in the ideas that might have some financial risk, but could revolutionize our health. 

In November, President Biden launched the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research. This work is informed by years of advocacy by people like Maria Shriver, and the initiative’s chair, Carolyn Mazure.

We have a clear goal: to fundamentally change how our nation approaches and funds women’s health research. Research on women’s health has always been underfunded, many medical studies have focused on men and left women out, many of the medicine dosages, treatments, medical school textbooks, are based on men and their bodies – and that information doesn’t always apply to women. There are big gaps in research on diseases and conditions that only affect women, that disproportionately affect women, or that affect women and men differently.

We’ve heard from so many researchers and doctors and women who are excited about this project. 

However, we’ve also heard that too many exciting discoveries for women’s health never leave the lab because they’re seen as “too risky” to invest in. 

Today, I am here to announce that ARPA-H is launching its first-ever “Sprint for Women’s Health.” Over the next year, ARPA-H will invest $100 million to fund life changing research. Through this sprint, we are going to make the types of investments that you told us would change everything. 

We are going to invest in your discoveries early, when private companies may not be willing to take the risk. We are going to give women’s health researchers and startups the funding they need to grow and help them bring ideas to market – and to the women who need them most. 

Because if you ask any woman in America about her health care, she likely has a story to tell. You know her. 

She’s the woman who gets debilitating migraines, but doesn’t know why, and can’t find treatment options that work for her. 

She’s the woman whose heart attack isn’t recognized because her symptoms don’t look like a man’s heart attack, even as heart disease is the leading cause of death among women. 

She’s the woman going through menopause, who visits with her doctor and leaves with more questions than answers, even though half the country will go through menopause at some point in their lives.

Together, through our White House Initiative on Women’s Health, we will write new stories about women’s health care. We will accelerate your ideas and change these women’s lives. We will build a health care system that puts women and their lived experiences at its center. Where no woman or girl has to hear that “it’s all in your head,” or, “it’s just stress.” Where women aren’t just an after-thought, but a first-thought. Where women don’t just survive with chronic conditions, but lead long and healthy lives.

You are dreamers and visionaries.

President Biden wants to help bring those dreams into the world – quickly, and without the hurdles that are sometimes placed in your way. 

So, I thank you for joining us – for being a part of this sprint. 

Now, it’s my great pleasure to introduce Senator Warren.

###

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden to Announce the $100 Million ARPA-H Sprint for Women’s Health appeared first on The White House.

Cambridge, MA

Thank you, Maria. Two weeks ago, in Atlanta, you showed me what’s possible when we bring together industry and venture capital and universities to invest in women’s health. Thank you for your work and for sharing your expertise with us.

Thank you, Secretary Becerra and Director Wegrzyn, for your leadership. Joe and I could not have asked for better partners in this work. 

Senators Warren and Markey, Congresswoman Pressley, thank you for fighting for Massachusetts and women across the country. 

Dr. Blumenthal – you’ve been doing this work for decades, thank you for joining us today. 

Mayor Simmons, I’m grateful for the warm welcome to your city. 

Somewhere in this room may be the idea that will cure cancer, cure heart disease, cure Alzheimer’s. 

Heart health, brain health, chronic diseases – you might just have the answers if only we dissolve the barriers standing in your way. 

Well today, we begin to do just that. Thank you for joining us. 

Following the death of our son, Joe and I talked with many of you about how we could advance the fight against cancer. And we heard again and again that you would discover breakthroughs, only to find out that there was no clear path to bringing those ideas to patients. 

Because of his experience in government, Joe knew there was a model for accelerating research, first developed at DARPA – the Department of Defense agency that created technology that has transformed our society: the internet, GPS, Siri. 

Joe wanted to use that same bold approach to confront the health challenges of our time. So, he created ARPA-H to launch big ideas with lightning speed, to give scientists the freedom to reach beyond the possible, to invest in the ideas that might have some financial risk, but could revolutionize our health. 

In November, President Biden launched the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research. This work is informed by years of advocacy by people like Maria Shriver, and the initiative’s chair, Carolyn Mazure.

We have a clear goal: to fundamentally change how our nation approaches and funds women’s health research. Research on women’s health has always been underfunded, many medical studies have focused on men and left women out, many of the medicine dosages, treatments, medical school textbooks, are based on men and their bodies – and that information doesn’t always apply to women. There are big gaps in research on diseases and conditions that only affect women, that disproportionately affect women, or that affect women and men differently.

We’ve heard from so many researchers and doctors and women who are excited about this project. 

However, we’ve also heard that too many exciting discoveries for women’s health never leave the lab because they’re seen as “too risky” to invest in. 

Today, I am here to announce that ARPA-H is launching its first-ever “Sprint for Women’s Health.” Over the next year, ARPA-H will invest $100 million to fund life changing research. Through this sprint, we are going to make the types of investments that you told us would change everything. 

We are going to invest in your discoveries early, when private companies may not be willing to take the risk. We are going to give women’s health researchers and startups the funding they need to grow and help them bring ideas to market – and to the women who need them most. 

Because if you ask any woman in America about her health care, she likely has a story to tell. You know her. 

She’s the woman who gets debilitating migraines, but doesn’t know why, and can’t find treatment options that work for her. 

She’s the woman whose heart attack isn’t recognized because her symptoms don’t look like a man’s heart attack, even as heart disease is the leading cause of death among women. 

She’s the woman going through menopause, who visits with her doctor and leaves with more questions than answers, even though half the country will go through menopause at some point in their lives.

Together, through our White House Initiative on Women’s Health, we will write new stories about women’s health care. We will accelerate your ideas and change these women’s lives. We will build a health care system that puts women and their lived experiences at its center. Where no woman or girl has to hear that “it’s all in your head,” or, “it’s just stress.” Where women aren’t just an after-thought, but a first-thought. Where women don’t just survive with chronic conditions, but lead long and healthy lives.

You are dreamers and visionaries.

President Biden wants to help bring those dreams into the world – quickly, and without the hurdles that are sometimes placed in your way. 

So, I thank you for joining us – for being a part of this sprint. 

Now, it’s my great pleasure to introduce Senator Warren.

###

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden to Announce the $100 Million ARPA-H Sprint for Women’s Health appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference
(February 20, 2024)

5:38 P.M. EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

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

Our first question will go to Justin with Bloomberg.

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

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you so much, Justin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it’s a shift from requesting to requiring.

Q Got it. Thank you.

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you, Colleen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADMIRAL VANN: Alex, thanks for the question.

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

Q Okay, thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over to you, Anne.

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

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

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

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

6:02 P.M. EST

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

Via Teleconference
(February 20, 2024)

5:38 P.M. EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

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

Our first question will go to Justin with Bloomberg.

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

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you so much, Justin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it’s a shift from requesting to requiring.

Q Got it. Thank you.

MS. NEUBERGER: Thank you, Colleen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADMIRAL VANN: Alex, thanks for the question.

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

Q Okay, thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over to you, Anne.

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

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

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

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

6:02 P.M. EST

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

  By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of title II of the Act of June 15, 1917, as amended (46 U.S.C. 70051) (the “Act”), and in addition to the finding in Executive Order 10173 of October 18, 1950, and any other declaration or finding in force under section 1 of the Act, I find that the security of the United States is endangered by reason of disturbances in the international relations of the United States that exist as a result of persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns against the United States, and that such disturbances continue to endanger such relations, and hereby order that:

Section 1.  Amendments.  Part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by:

(a)  Amending section 6.01-3 to read as follows:

“6.01-3.  Captain of the Port.  Captain of the Port, as used in this part, means the officer of the Coast Guard, under the command of a District Commander, so designated by the Commandant for the purpose of giving immediate direction to Coast Guard law enforcement activities within the Captain of the Port’s assigned area.  In addition, the District Commander will be Captain of the Port with respect to the remaining areas in the District not assigned to officers designated by the Commandant as Captain of the Port.”;

     (b)  Amending section 6.01-5 to read as follows:

“6.01-5.  Security zone.  Security zone, as used in this part, means all areas of land, water, or land and water, which are so designated by the Captain of the Port for such time as the Captain of the Port deems necessary to prevent damage or injury to any vessel or waterfront facility, to safeguard ports, harbors, territories, or waters of the United States or to secure the observance of the rights and obligations of the United States.”;

     (c)  Adding after the existing section 6.01-6 the following new section:

“6.01-7.  Damage.  Damage, as used in this part in connection with any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, has the meaning ascribed to “damage” under 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(8).”;

     (d)  Adding after the new section 6.01-7 the following new section:

“6.01-8.  Cyber incident.  Cyber incident, as used in this part, has the meaning ascribed to an “incident” under 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(2).”;

     (e)  Amending section 6.04-5 to read as follows:

“6.04-5.  Preventing access of persons, articles, or things, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, to vessels, or waterfront facilities.  The Captain of the Port may prevent any person, article, or thing, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, from boarding or being taken or placed on board any vessel or entering or being taken into or upon or placed in or upon any waterfront facility whenever it appears to the Captain of the Port that such action is necessary in order to secure such vessel from damage or injury or to prevent damage or injury to any vessel, or waterfront facility, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure therein or thereon, or waters of the United States, or to secure the observances of rights and obligations of the United States.”;

     (f)  Amending section 6.04-6 to read as follows:

“6.04-6.  Establishing security zones; prohibitions with respect thereto.  The Captain of a Port may establish security zones subject to the terms and conditions specified in § 6.01–5.  No person or vessel shall enter a security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.  No person shall board or take or place any article or thing, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, on board any vessel in a security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.  No person shall take or place any article or thing upon any waterfront facility in any such zone without such permission.”;

     (g)  Amending section 6.04-7 to read as follows:

“6.04-7.  Visitation, search, and removal.  As consistent with law, the Captain of the Port may cause to be inspected and searched at any time any vessel, waterfront facility, or security zone, or any person, article, or thing, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein, within the jurisdiction of the United States, may place guards upon any such vessel, waterfront facility, or security zone and may remove therefrom any and all persons, articles, or things, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, not specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port to go or remain thereon or therein.”;

     (h)  Amending section 6.04-8 to read as follows:

“6.04-8.  Possession and control of vessels.  The Captain of the Port may supervise and control the movement of any vessel and shall take full or partial possession or control of any vessel or any part thereof, within the territorial waters of the United States under the Captain of the Port’s jurisdiction, whenever it appears to the Captain of the Port that such action is necessary in order to secure such vessel from damage or injury, including damage to any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein, or to prevent damage or injury to any vessel or waterfront facility or waters of the United States, or to secure the observance of rights and obligations of the United States.”;

     (i)  Amending section 6.10-7 to read as follows:

“6.10-7.  Identification credentials.  The identification credential to be issued by the Commandant shall be known as the Coast Guard Port Security Card, and the form of such credential, and the conditions and the manner of its issuance shall be as prescribed by the Commandant after consultation with the Secretary of Labor.  The Commandant shall not issue a Coast Guard Port Security Card unless the Commandant is satisfied that the character and habits of life of the applicant therefor are such as to authorize the belief that the presence of such individual on board a vessel or within a waterfront facility would not be inimical to the security of the United States.  The Commandant shall revoke and require the surrender of a Coast Guard Port Security Card when the Commandant is no longer satisfied that the holder is entitled thereto.  The Commandant may recognize for the same purpose such other credentials as the Commandant may designate in lieu of the Coast Guard Port Security Card.”;

     (j)  Amending section 6.14-1 to read as follows:

“6.14-1.  Safety measures.  The Commandant, in order to achieve the purposes of this part, may prescribe such conditions and restrictions relating to the safety of waterfront facilities and vessels in port as the Commandant finds to be necessary under existing circumstances.  Such conditions and restrictions may extend, but shall not be limited to, the inspection, operation, maintenance, guarding, and manning of, and fire-prevention measures for, such vessels and waterfront facilities.  Such conditions and restrictions relating to the safety of waterfront facilities and vessels in port may also extend to measures the Commandant finds to be necessary under existing circumstances to prevent, detect, assess, and remediate an actual or threatened cyber incident that could cause damage or injury to vessels, harbors, ports, or waterfront facilities.”;

     (k)  Amending section 6.14-2 to read as follows:

“6.14-2.  Condition of waterfront facility a danger to vessel.  Whenever the Captain of the Port finds that the mooring of any vessel to a wharf, dock, pier, or other waterfront structure would endanger such vessel, or any other vessel, or the harbor or any facility therein by reason of conditions existing on or about such wharf, dock, pier, or other waterfront structure, including inadequate guard service, insufficient lighting, fire hazards, inadequate fire protection, unsafe machinery, internal disturbance, damage to any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, actual or threatened cyber incident, or unsatisfactory operation, the Captain of the Port may prevent the mooring of any vessel to such wharf, dock, pier, or other waterfront structure until the unsatisfactory condition or conditions so found are corrected, and the Captain of the Port may, for the same reasons, after any vessel has been moored, compel the shifting of such vessel from any such wharf, dock, pier, or other waterfront structure.”;

     (l)  Amending section 6.16-1 to read as follows:

“6.16-1.  Reporting of sabotage, subversive activity, or an actual or threatened cyber incident.  Evidence of sabotage, subversive activity, or an actual or threatened cyber incident involving or endangering any vessel, harbor, port, or waterfront facility, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein, shall be reported immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (for any cyber incident), and the Captain of the Port, or to their respective representatives.”;

     (m)  Amending section 6.16-3 to read as follows:

“6.16-3.  Precautions against sabotage.  The master, owner, agent, or operator of a vessel or waterfront facility shall take all necessary precautions to protect the vessel, waterfront facility, and cargo, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein, from sabotage.”; and

     (n)  Amending section 6.19-1 to read as follows:

“6.19-1.  Primary responsibility.  Nothing contained in this part shall be construed as relieving the masters, owners, operators, and agents of vessels or other waterfront facilities from their primary responsibility for the protection and security of such vessels or waterfront facilities, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein.”.

     Sec. 2.  Coordination.  In enforcing regulations amended by this order, the Commandant shall coordinate with the Department of Justice and other relevant executive departments and agencies, as appropriate under applicable law or policy.

     Sec. 3.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

      (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
  February 21, 2024.

The post Executive Order on Amending Regulations Relating to the Safeguarding of Vessels, Harbors, Ports, and Waterfront Facilities of the United States appeared first on The White House.

  By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of title II of the Act of June 15, 1917, as amended (46 U.S.C. 70051) (the “Act”), and in addition to the finding in Executive Order 10173 of October 18, 1950, and any other declaration or finding in force under section 1 of the Act, I find that the security of the United States is endangered by reason of disturbances in the international relations of the United States that exist as a result of persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns against the United States, and that such disturbances continue to endanger such relations, and hereby order that:

Section 1.  Amendments.  Part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by:

(a)  Amending section 6.01-3 to read as follows:

“6.01-3.  Captain of the Port.  Captain of the Port, as used in this part, means the officer of the Coast Guard, under the command of a District Commander, so designated by the Commandant for the purpose of giving immediate direction to Coast Guard law enforcement activities within the Captain of the Port’s assigned area.  In addition, the District Commander will be Captain of the Port with respect to the remaining areas in the District not assigned to officers designated by the Commandant as Captain of the Port.”;

     (b)  Amending section 6.01-5 to read as follows:

“6.01-5.  Security zone.  Security zone, as used in this part, means all areas of land, water, or land and water, which are so designated by the Captain of the Port for such time as the Captain of the Port deems necessary to prevent damage or injury to any vessel or waterfront facility, to safeguard ports, harbors, territories, or waters of the United States or to secure the observance of the rights and obligations of the United States.”;

     (c)  Adding after the existing section 6.01-6 the following new section:

“6.01-7.  Damage.  Damage, as used in this part in connection with any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, has the meaning ascribed to “damage” under 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(8).”;

     (d)  Adding after the new section 6.01-7 the following new section:

“6.01-8.  Cyber incident.  Cyber incident, as used in this part, has the meaning ascribed to an “incident” under 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(2).”;

     (e)  Amending section 6.04-5 to read as follows:

“6.04-5.  Preventing access of persons, articles, or things, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, to vessels, or waterfront facilities.  The Captain of the Port may prevent any person, article, or thing, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, from boarding or being taken or placed on board any vessel or entering or being taken into or upon or placed in or upon any waterfront facility whenever it appears to the Captain of the Port that such action is necessary in order to secure such vessel from damage or injury or to prevent damage or injury to any vessel, or waterfront facility, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure therein or thereon, or waters of the United States, or to secure the observances of rights and obligations of the United States.”;

     (f)  Amending section 6.04-6 to read as follows:

“6.04-6.  Establishing security zones; prohibitions with respect thereto.  The Captain of a Port may establish security zones subject to the terms and conditions specified in § 6.01–5.  No person or vessel shall enter a security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.  No person shall board or take or place any article or thing, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, on board any vessel in a security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.  No person shall take or place any article or thing upon any waterfront facility in any such zone without such permission.”;

     (g)  Amending section 6.04-7 to read as follows:

“6.04-7.  Visitation, search, and removal.  As consistent with law, the Captain of the Port may cause to be inspected and searched at any time any vessel, waterfront facility, or security zone, or any person, article, or thing, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein, within the jurisdiction of the United States, may place guards upon any such vessel, waterfront facility, or security zone and may remove therefrom any and all persons, articles, or things, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, not specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port to go or remain thereon or therein.”;

     (h)  Amending section 6.04-8 to read as follows:

“6.04-8.  Possession and control of vessels.  The Captain of the Port may supervise and control the movement of any vessel and shall take full or partial possession or control of any vessel or any part thereof, within the territorial waters of the United States under the Captain of the Port’s jurisdiction, whenever it appears to the Captain of the Port that such action is necessary in order to secure such vessel from damage or injury, including damage to any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein, or to prevent damage or injury to any vessel or waterfront facility or waters of the United States, or to secure the observance of rights and obligations of the United States.”;

     (i)  Amending section 6.10-7 to read as follows:

“6.10-7.  Identification credentials.  The identification credential to be issued by the Commandant shall be known as the Coast Guard Port Security Card, and the form of such credential, and the conditions and the manner of its issuance shall be as prescribed by the Commandant after consultation with the Secretary of Labor.  The Commandant shall not issue a Coast Guard Port Security Card unless the Commandant is satisfied that the character and habits of life of the applicant therefor are such as to authorize the belief that the presence of such individual on board a vessel or within a waterfront facility would not be inimical to the security of the United States.  The Commandant shall revoke and require the surrender of a Coast Guard Port Security Card when the Commandant is no longer satisfied that the holder is entitled thereto.  The Commandant may recognize for the same purpose such other credentials as the Commandant may designate in lieu of the Coast Guard Port Security Card.”;

     (j)  Amending section 6.14-1 to read as follows:

“6.14-1.  Safety measures.  The Commandant, in order to achieve the purposes of this part, may prescribe such conditions and restrictions relating to the safety of waterfront facilities and vessels in port as the Commandant finds to be necessary under existing circumstances.  Such conditions and restrictions may extend, but shall not be limited to, the inspection, operation, maintenance, guarding, and manning of, and fire-prevention measures for, such vessels and waterfront facilities.  Such conditions and restrictions relating to the safety of waterfront facilities and vessels in port may also extend to measures the Commandant finds to be necessary under existing circumstances to prevent, detect, assess, and remediate an actual or threatened cyber incident that could cause damage or injury to vessels, harbors, ports, or waterfront facilities.”;

     (k)  Amending section 6.14-2 to read as follows:

“6.14-2.  Condition of waterfront facility a danger to vessel.  Whenever the Captain of the Port finds that the mooring of any vessel to a wharf, dock, pier, or other waterfront structure would endanger such vessel, or any other vessel, or the harbor or any facility therein by reason of conditions existing on or about such wharf, dock, pier, or other waterfront structure, including inadequate guard service, insufficient lighting, fire hazards, inadequate fire protection, unsafe machinery, internal disturbance, damage to any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure, actual or threatened cyber incident, or unsatisfactory operation, the Captain of the Port may prevent the mooring of any vessel to such wharf, dock, pier, or other waterfront structure until the unsatisfactory condition or conditions so found are corrected, and the Captain of the Port may, for the same reasons, after any vessel has been moored, compel the shifting of such vessel from any such wharf, dock, pier, or other waterfront structure.”;

     (l)  Amending section 6.16-1 to read as follows:

“6.16-1.  Reporting of sabotage, subversive activity, or an actual or threatened cyber incident.  Evidence of sabotage, subversive activity, or an actual or threatened cyber incident involving or endangering any vessel, harbor, port, or waterfront facility, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein, shall be reported immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (for any cyber incident), and the Captain of the Port, or to their respective representatives.”;

     (m)  Amending section 6.16-3 to read as follows:

“6.16-3.  Precautions against sabotage.  The master, owner, agent, or operator of a vessel or waterfront facility shall take all necessary precautions to protect the vessel, waterfront facility, and cargo, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein, from sabotage.”; and

     (n)  Amending section 6.19-1 to read as follows:

“6.19-1.  Primary responsibility.  Nothing contained in this part shall be construed as relieving the masters, owners, operators, and agents of vessels or other waterfront facilities from their primary responsibility for the protection and security of such vessels or waterfront facilities, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein.”.

     Sec. 2.  Coordination.  In enforcing regulations amended by this order, the Commandant shall coordinate with the Department of Justice and other relevant executive departments and agencies, as appropriate under applicable law or policy.

     Sec. 3.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

      (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
  February 21, 2024.

The post Executive Order on Amending Regulations Relating to the Safeguarding of Vessels, Harbors, Ports, and Waterfront Facilities of the United States appeared first on The White House.

The President is announcing his intent to nominate one individual to a federal circuit court and four individuals to federal district courts—all of whom are extraordinarily qualified, experienced, and devoted to the rule of law and our Constitution.

These choices also continue to fulfill the President’s promise to ensure that the nation’s courts reflect the diversity that is one of our greatest assets as a country—both in terms of personal and professional backgrounds.

This will be President Biden’s forty-sixth round of nominees for federal judicial positions, bringing the number of announced federal judicial nominees to 224.

The President is also announcing his intent to nominate two individuals to serve as U.S. Attorney. These are officials who will be indispensable to upholding the rule of law as top federal law enforcement officials.

These individuals were chosen for their devotion to enforcing the law, their professionalism, their experience and credentials, their dedication to pursuing equal justice for all, and their commitment to the independence of the Department of Justice.

The President has now announced 76 nominees to serve as U.S. Attorneys.

United States Circuit Court Announcement

1. Judge Nancy L. Maldonado: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Judge Nancy L. Maldonado has been a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois since 2022. Judge Maldonado was previously a partner at Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. in Chicago from 2010 to 2022 and an associate at the firm from 2003 to 2009. From 2001 to 2003, Judge Maldonado served as a law clerk for Judge Rubén Castillo on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She received her J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2001 and her A.B., cum laude, from Harvard University in 1997.

United States District Court Announcements

1. Georgia N. Alexakis: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Georgia N. Alexakis has been an Assistant United States Attorney and the Chief of Appeals for the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois since 2022. She previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office from 2013 to 2021. From 2021 to 2022, Ms. Alexakis worked as a partner at Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP in Chicago. From 2008 to 2012, she was an associate and then a partner at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, also in Chicago. Ms. Alexakis served as a law clerk for Judge Milton I. Shadur on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois from 2007 to 2008 and for Judge Marsha S. Berzon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2006 to 2007. She received her J.D., magna cum laude, from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in 2006 and her A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard University in 2000. Between college and law school, from 2000 to 2003, Ms. Alexakis worked as an associate and then as a consultant at the Boston Consulting Group in Chicago.

2. Krissa M. Lanham: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Krissa M. Lanham has been an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona since 2009. She has served as Appellate Chief in that office since 2020, after previously serving as the Deputy Appellate Chief and Human Trafficking Coordinator. Ms. Lanham served as a law clerk for Judge Barry G. Silverman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2008 to 2009 and for Judge Robert N. Chatigny on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut from 2007 to 2008. She received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2007 and her B.A., summa cum laude, from Yale University in 2002.

3. Judge Angela M. Martinez: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Judge Angela M. Martinez has been a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona since 2023. Judge Martinez was previously an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona from 2015 to 2023. From 2013 to 2015, she served as a law clerk for Judge Jennifer G. Zipps on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Prior to that, Judge Martinez was an associate at Farhang & Medcoff, P.L.L.C. from 2012 to 2013 after an earlier period serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Arizona from 2005 to 2009. Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Judge Martinez was an associate at Lewis and Roca, L.L.P. in Phoenix and Tucson from 2002 to 2004 and she served as a law clerk for Judge John M. Roll on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona from 2000 to 2002. Judge Martinez received her J.D. from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law in 2000 and her B.A. from the University of Arizona in 1995.

4. Sparkle L. Sooknanan: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Sparkle L. Sooknanan has been the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division since 2023. She previously served as a Deputy Associate Attorney General in the Department of Justice from 2021 to 2023, after first working in the Department as an appellate attorney in the Civil Division from to 2012 to 2013. From 2014 to 2021, Ms. Sooknanan worked in private practice at Jones Day, becoming a partner at the firm in 2020. Prior to that, she served as a law clerk for Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court from 2013 to 2014, for Judge Guido Calabresi on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 2011 to 2012, and for Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York from 2010 to 2011. Ms. Sooknanan received her J.D., summa cum laude, from Brooklyn Law School in 2010, her M.B.A. with distinction from Hofstra University in 2003, and her B.S., summa cum laude, from St. Francis College in 2002.

United States Attorney Announcements

1. Matthew Gannon: Nominee for United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa

Matthew Gannon served as First Assistant Attorney General in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office from 2021 to 2023. From 2007 to 2021, he served in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office as an Assistant Attorney General where he led the Office’s Tobacco Enforcement Program. Prior to that, Mr. Gannon worked in private practice as an associate with Arnold & Porter L.L.P. in Washington, D.C. from 1998 to 2007. Mr. Gannon received his J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1998 and his B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of Notre Dame in 1994.

2. David C. Waterman: Nominee for United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa

David C. Waterman has been an attorney at the law firm of Lane & Waterman L.L.P., in Davenport, Iowa, since 2020. Mr. Waterman was previously an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida from 2016 to 2020. He served as a law clerk for Judge Michael J. Melloy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from 2015 to 2016, for Judge Mark W. Bennett on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa from 2014 to 2015, and for Judge John A. Jarvey on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa from 2013 to 2014. Mr. Waterman received his J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law in 2013; his M.Phil. from the University of Cambridge in 2010; and his B.A., summa cum laude, from The George Washington University in 2009.

###

The post President Biden Names Forty-Sixth Round of Judicial Nominees and Announces Two New Nominees to Serve as U.S. Attorney appeared first on The White House.

The President is announcing his intent to nominate one individual to a federal circuit court and four individuals to federal district courts—all of whom are extraordinarily qualified, experienced, and devoted to the rule of law and our Constitution.

These choices also continue to fulfill the President’s promise to ensure that the nation’s courts reflect the diversity that is one of our greatest assets as a country—both in terms of personal and professional backgrounds.

This will be President Biden’s forty-sixth round of nominees for federal judicial positions, bringing the number of announced federal judicial nominees to 224.

The President is also announcing his intent to nominate two individuals to serve as U.S. Attorney. These are officials who will be indispensable to upholding the rule of law as top federal law enforcement officials.

These individuals were chosen for their devotion to enforcing the law, their professionalism, their experience and credentials, their dedication to pursuing equal justice for all, and their commitment to the independence of the Department of Justice.

The President has now announced 76 nominees to serve as U.S. Attorneys.

United States Circuit Court Announcement

1. Judge Nancy L. Maldonado: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Judge Nancy L. Maldonado has been a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois since 2022. Judge Maldonado was previously a partner at Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. in Chicago from 2010 to 2022 and an associate at the firm from 2003 to 2009. From 2001 to 2003, Judge Maldonado served as a law clerk for Judge Rubén Castillo on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She received her J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2001 and her A.B., cum laude, from Harvard University in 1997.

United States District Court Announcements

1. Georgia N. Alexakis: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Georgia N. Alexakis has been an Assistant United States Attorney and the Chief of Appeals for the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois since 2022. She previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office from 2013 to 2021. From 2021 to 2022, Ms. Alexakis worked as a partner at Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP in Chicago. From 2008 to 2012, she was an associate and then a partner at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, also in Chicago. Ms. Alexakis served as a law clerk for Judge Milton I. Shadur on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois from 2007 to 2008 and for Judge Marsha S. Berzon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2006 to 2007. She received her J.D., magna cum laude, from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in 2006 and her A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard University in 2000. Between college and law school, from 2000 to 2003, Ms. Alexakis worked as an associate and then as a consultant at the Boston Consulting Group in Chicago.

2. Krissa M. Lanham: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Krissa M. Lanham has been an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona since 2009. She has served as Appellate Chief in that office since 2020, after previously serving as the Deputy Appellate Chief and Human Trafficking Coordinator. Ms. Lanham served as a law clerk for Judge Barry G. Silverman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2008 to 2009 and for Judge Robert N. Chatigny on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut from 2007 to 2008. She received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2007 and her B.A., summa cum laude, from Yale University in 2002.

3. Judge Angela M. Martinez: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Judge Angela M. Martinez has been a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona since 2023. Judge Martinez was previously an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona from 2015 to 2023. From 2013 to 2015, she served as a law clerk for Judge Jennifer G. Zipps on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Prior to that, Judge Martinez was an associate at Farhang & Medcoff, P.L.L.C. from 2012 to 2013 after an earlier period serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Arizona from 2005 to 2009. Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Judge Martinez was an associate at Lewis and Roca, L.L.P. in Phoenix and Tucson from 2002 to 2004 and she served as a law clerk for Judge John M. Roll on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona from 2000 to 2002. Judge Martinez received her J.D. from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law in 2000 and her B.A. from the University of Arizona in 1995.

4. Sparkle L. Sooknanan: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Sparkle L. Sooknanan has been the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division since 2023. She previously served as a Deputy Associate Attorney General in the Department of Justice from 2021 to 2023, after first working in the Department as an appellate attorney in the Civil Division from to 2012 to 2013. From 2014 to 2021, Ms. Sooknanan worked in private practice at Jones Day, becoming a partner at the firm in 2020. Prior to that, she served as a law clerk for Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court from 2013 to 2014, for Judge Guido Calabresi on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 2011 to 2012, and for Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York from 2010 to 2011. Ms. Sooknanan received her J.D., summa cum laude, from Brooklyn Law School in 2010, her M.B.A. with distinction from Hofstra University in 2003, and her B.S., summa cum laude, from St. Francis College in 2002.

United States Attorney Announcements

1. Matthew Gannon: Nominee for United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa

Matthew Gannon served as First Assistant Attorney General in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office from 2021 to 2023. From 2007 to 2021, he served in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office as an Assistant Attorney General where he led the Office’s Tobacco Enforcement Program. Prior to that, Mr. Gannon worked in private practice as an associate with Arnold & Porter L.L.P. in Washington, D.C. from 1998 to 2007. Mr. Gannon received his J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1998 and his B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of Notre Dame in 1994.

2. David C. Waterman: Nominee for United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa

David C. Waterman has been an attorney at the law firm of Lane & Waterman L.L.P., in Davenport, Iowa, since 2020. Mr. Waterman was previously an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida from 2016 to 2020. He served as a law clerk for Judge Michael J. Melloy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from 2015 to 2016, for Judge Mark W. Bennett on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa from 2014 to 2015, and for Judge John A. Jarvey on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa from 2013 to 2014. Mr. Waterman received his J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law in 2013; his M.Phil. from the University of Cambridge in 2010; and his B.A., summa cum laude, from The George Washington University in 2009.

###

The post President Biden Names Forty-Sixth Round of Judicial Nominees and Announces Two New Nominees to Serve as U.S. Attorney appeared first on The White House.

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration will issue an Executive Order to bolster the security of the nation’s ports, alongside a series of additional actions that will strengthen maritime cybersecurity, fortify our supply chains and strengthen the United States industrial base. The Administration will also announce its intent to bring domestic onshore manufacturing capacity back to America to provide safe, secure cranes to U.S. ports – thanks to an over $20 billion investment in U.S. port infrastructure under President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda. Today’s actions are clear examples of the President’s work to invest in America, secure the country’s supply chains, and strengthen the cybersecurity of our nation’s critical infrastructure against 21st century threats – priorities his Administration has focused on relentlessly since taking office.

America’s prosperity is directly linked to maritime trade and the integrated network of ports, terminals, vessels, waterways, and land-side connections that constitute the Nation’s Marine Transportation System (MTS). This complex system supports $5.4 trillion worth of economic activity each year, contributes to the employment of more than 31 million Americans, and supports nearly 95% of cargo entering the U.S. 
The security of our critical infrastructure remains a national imperative in an increasingly complex threat environment. MTS owners and operators rely on digital systems to enable their operations, to include ship navigation, the movement of cargo, engineering, safety, and security monitoring. These systems have revolutionized the maritime shipping industry and American supply chains by enhancing the speed and efficiency of moving goods to market, but the increasing digital interconnectedness of our economy and supply chains have also introduced vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could have cascading impacts on America’s ports, the economy, and everyday hard-working Americans.

Today’s actions include:

President Biden will sign an Executive Order to bolster the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to directly address maritime cyber threats, including through cybersecurity standards to ensure that American ports’ networks and systems are secure. Now, the U.S. Coast Guard will have the express authority to respond to malicious cyber activity in the nation’s MTS by requiring vessels and waterfront facilities to mitigate cyber conditions that may endanger the safety of a vessel, facility, or harbor. The Executive Order will also institute mandatory reporting of cyber incidents – or active cyber threats – endangering any vessel, harbor, port, or waterfront facility. Additionally, the Coast Guard will now have the authority to control the movement of vessels that present a known or suspected cyber threat to U.S. maritime infrastructure, and be able to inspect those vessels and facilities that pose a threat to our cybersecurity. 

The U.S. Coast Guard will issue a Maritime Security Directive on cyber risk management actions for ship-to-shore cranes manufactured by the People’s Republic of China located at U.S. Commercial Strategic Seaports. Owners and operators of these cranes must acknowledge the directive and take a series of actions on these cranes and associated Information Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OT) systems. This action is a vital step to securing our maritime infrastructure’s digital ecosystem and addresses several vulnerabilities that have been identified in the updated U.S. Maritime Advisory, 2024-00X – Worldwide Foreign Adversarial Technological, Physical, and Cyber Influence, that was released today.

The U.S. Coast Guard has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemakingon Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System.  Every day malicious cyber actors attempt to gain unauthorized access to MTS control systems and networks throughout the nation. The Proposed Rule will strengthen these digital systems by establishing minimum cybersecurity requirements that meet international and industry-recognized standards to best manage cyber threats. These actions build on prior actions by DHS including those taken by the Transportation Security Administration, and reflect the Administration’s commitment to leverage regulatory requirements in pursuit of safeguarding critical infrastructure.

The Administration continues to deliver for the American people by rebuilding the U.S.’s industrial capacity to produce port cranes with trusted partners. The Administration will invest over $20 billion, including through grants, into U.S. port infrastructure over the next 5 years through the President’s Investing in America Agenda, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. As a result, PACECO Corp., a U.S.-based subsidiary of Mitsui E&S Co., Ltd (Japan), is planning to onshore U.S. manufacturing capacity for its crane production. PACECO has a deep history in the container shipping industry, manufacturing the first dedicated ship-to-shore container crane in 1958 as PACECO Inc., and it continued U.S.-based crane manufacturing until the late 1980s. PACECO intends to partner with other trusted manufacturing companies to bring port crane manufacturing capabilities back to the U.S. for the first time in 30 years, pending final site and partner selection. 
The announcement is part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s fourth Investing in America tour, where White House and Administration officials are traveling across the country to highlight the impacts of the President’s Investing in America agenda on communities, families, small businesses and the United States’ economic and national security. It also follows-up on the White House Council on Supply Chain Resilience’s efforts to strengthen America’s supply chains, particularly by addressing supply chain risks resulting from threats and vulnerabilities inside U.S. ports. 

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Initiative to Bolster Cybersecurity of U.S. Ports appeared first on The White House.

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration will issue an Executive Order to bolster the security of the nation’s ports, alongside a series of additional actions that will strengthen maritime cybersecurity, fortify our supply chains and strengthen the United States industrial base. The Administration will also announce its intent to bring domestic onshore manufacturing capacity back to America to provide safe, secure cranes to U.S. ports – thanks to an over $20 billion investment in U.S. port infrastructure under President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda. Today’s actions are clear examples of the President’s work to invest in America, secure the country’s supply chains, and strengthen the cybersecurity of our nation’s critical infrastructure against 21st century threats – priorities his Administration has focused on relentlessly since taking office.

America’s prosperity is directly linked to maritime trade and the integrated network of ports, terminals, vessels, waterways, and land-side connections that constitute the Nation’s Marine Transportation System (MTS). This complex system supports $5.4 trillion worth of economic activity each year, contributes to the employment of more than 31 million Americans, and supports nearly 95% of cargo entering the U.S. 
The security of our critical infrastructure remains a national imperative in an increasingly complex threat environment. MTS owners and operators rely on digital systems to enable their operations, to include ship navigation, the movement of cargo, engineering, safety, and security monitoring. These systems have revolutionized the maritime shipping industry and American supply chains by enhancing the speed and efficiency of moving goods to market, but the increasing digital interconnectedness of our economy and supply chains have also introduced vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could have cascading impacts on America’s ports, the economy, and everyday hard-working Americans.

Today’s actions include:

President Biden will sign an Executive Order to bolster the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to directly address maritime cyber threats, including through cybersecurity standards to ensure that American ports’ networks and systems are secure. Now, the U.S. Coast Guard will have the express authority to respond to malicious cyber activity in the nation’s MTS by requiring vessels and waterfront facilities to mitigate cyber conditions that may endanger the safety of a vessel, facility, or harbor. The Executive Order will also institute mandatory reporting of cyber incidents – or active cyber threats – endangering any vessel, harbor, port, or waterfront facility. Additionally, the Coast Guard will now have the authority to control the movement of vessels that present a known or suspected cyber threat to U.S. maritime infrastructure, and be able to inspect those vessels and facilities that pose a threat to our cybersecurity. 

The U.S. Coast Guard will issue a Maritime Security Directive on cyber risk management actions for ship-to-shore cranes manufactured by the People’s Republic of China located at U.S. Commercial Strategic Seaports. Owners and operators of these cranes must acknowledge the directive and take a series of actions on these cranes and associated Information Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OT) systems. This action is a vital step to securing our maritime infrastructure’s digital ecosystem and addresses several vulnerabilities that have been identified in the updated U.S. Maritime Advisory, 2024-00X – Worldwide Foreign Adversarial Technological, Physical, and Cyber Influence, that was released today.

The U.S. Coast Guard has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemakingon Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System.  Every day malicious cyber actors attempt to gain unauthorized access to MTS control systems and networks throughout the nation. The Proposed Rule will strengthen these digital systems by establishing minimum cybersecurity requirements that meet international and industry-recognized standards to best manage cyber threats. These actions build on prior actions by DHS including those taken by the Transportation Security Administration, and reflect the Administration’s commitment to leverage regulatory requirements in pursuit of safeguarding critical infrastructure.

The Administration continues to deliver for the American people by rebuilding the U.S.’s industrial capacity to produce port cranes with trusted partners. The Administration will invest over $20 billion, including through grants, into U.S. port infrastructure over the next 5 years through the President’s Investing in America Agenda, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. As a result, PACECO Corp., a U.S.-based subsidiary of Mitsui E&S Co., Ltd (Japan), is planning to onshore U.S. manufacturing capacity for its crane production. PACECO has a deep history in the container shipping industry, manufacturing the first dedicated ship-to-shore container crane in 1958 as PACECO Inc., and it continued U.S.-based crane manufacturing until the late 1980s. PACECO intends to partner with other trusted manufacturing companies to bring port crane manufacturing capabilities back to the U.S. for the first time in 30 years, pending final site and partner selection. 
The announcement is part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s fourth Investing in America tour, where White House and Administration officials are traveling across the country to highlight the impacts of the President’s Investing in America agenda on communities, families, small businesses and the United States’ economic and national security. It also follows-up on the White House Council on Supply Chain Resilience’s efforts to strengthen America’s supply chains, particularly by addressing supply chain risks resulting from threats and vulnerabilities inside U.S. ports. 

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Initiative to Bolster Cybersecurity of U.S. Ports appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Biden announced the approval of $1.2 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 153,000 borrowers currently enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan. The Biden-Harris Administration has now approved nearly $138 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 3.9 million borrowers through more than two dozen executive actions. The borrowers receiving relief are the first to benefit from a SAVE plan policy that provides debt forgiveness to borrowers who have been in repayment after as little as 10 years and took out $12,000 or less in student loans. Originally planned for July, the Biden-Harris Administration implemented this provision of SAVE and is providing relief to borrowers nearly six months ahead of schedule.

From Day One of his Administration, President Biden vowed to fix the student loan system and make sure higher education is a pathway to the middle class – not a barrier to opportunity. Already, the President has cancelled more student debt than any President in history – delivering lifechanging relief to students and families – and has created the most affordable student loan repayment plan ever: the SAVE plan. While Republicans in Congress and their allies try to block President Biden every step of the way, the Biden-Harris Administration continues to cancel student debt for millions of borrowers, and is leaving no stone unturned in the fight to give more borrowers breathing room on their student loans.

Thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration’s SAVE plan, starting today, the Administration will be cancelling debt for borrowers who are enrolled in the SAVE plan, have been in repayment for at least 10 years and took out $12,000 or less in loans for college. For every additional $1,000 a borrower initially borrowed, they will receive relief after an additional year of payments. For example, a borrower enrolled in SAVE who took out $14,000 or less in federal loans to earn an associate’s degree in biotechnology would receive full debt relief starting this week if they have been in repayment for 12 years. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) identified nearly 153,000 borrowers who are enrolled in SAVE plan who will have their debt cancelled starting this week, and those borrowers will receive an email today from President Biden informing them of their imminent relief. Next week, the Department of Education will also be reaching out directly to borrowers who are eligible for early relief but not currently enrolled in the SAVE Plan to encourage them to enroll as soon as possible.

This shortened time to forgiveness will particularly help community college and other borrowers with smaller loans and put many on track to being free of student debt faster than ever before. Under the Biden-Harris Administration’s SAVE plan, 85 percent of future community college borrowers will be debt free within 10 years. The Department will continue to regularly identify and discharge other borrowers eligible for relief under this provision on SAVE.

Over four million borrowers have a $0 monthly payment under the SAVE Plan

Last year, President Biden launched the SAVE plan – the most affordable repayment plan ever. Under the SAVE plan, monthly payments are based on a borrower’s income and family size, not their loan balance. The SAVE plan ensures that if borrowers are making their monthly payments, their balances cannot grow because of unpaid interest. And, starting in July, undergraduate loan payments will be cut in half, capping a borrower’s loan payment at 5% of their discretionary income. Already, 7.5 million borrowers are enrolled in the SAVE Plan, and 4.3 million borrowers have a $0 monthly payment.  

Today, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released an issue brief highlighting how low and middle-income borrowers enrolled in SAVE could see significant saving in terms of interest saved over time and principal forgiven as a result of SAVE’s early forgiveness provisions.

President Biden’s Administration has approved student debt relief for nearly 3.9 million Americans through various actions

Today’s announcement builds on the Biden-Harris Administration’s track record of taking historic action to cancel student debt for millions of borrowers. Since taking office, the Biden-Harris Administration has approved debt cancellation for nearly 3.9 million Americans, totaling almost $138 billion in debt relief through various actions. This relief has given borrowers critical breathing room in their daily lives, allowing them to afford other expenses, buy homes, start businesses, or pursue dreams they had to put on hold because of the burden of student loan debt. President Biden remains committed to providing debt relief to as many borrowers as possible, and won’t stop fighting to deliver relief to more Americans.

The Biden-Harris Administration has also taken historic steps to improve the student loan program and make higher education more affordable for more Americans, including:

• Achieving the largest increases in Pell Grants in over a decade to help families who earn less than $60,000 a year achieve their higher-education goals.
  
• Fixing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program so that borrowers who go into public service get the debt relief they’re entitled to under the law. Before President Biden took office, only 7,000 people ever received debt relief through PSLF. After fixing the program, the Biden-Harris Administration has now cancelled student loan debt for nearly 800,000 public service workers.
  
• Cancelling student loan debt for more than 930,000 borrowers who have been in repayment for over 20 years but never got the relief they earned because of administrative failures with Income-Driven Repayment Plans.
  
• Pursuing an alternative path to deliver student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Administration’s original debt relief plan. Last week, the Department of Education released proposed regulatory text to cancel student debt for borrowers who are experiencing hardship paying back their student loans, and late last year released proposals to cancel student debt for borrowers who: owe more than they borrowed, first entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago, attended low quality programs, and who would be eligible for loan forgiveness through income-driven repayment programs like SAVE but have not applied.
  
• Holding colleges accountable for leaving students with unaffordable debts.

It’s easy to enroll in SAVE. Borrowers should go to studentaid.gov/save to start saving.  

###

The post FACT SHEET: President Biden Cancels Student Debt for more than 150,000 Student Loan Borrowers Ahead of Schedule appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Biden announced the approval of $1.2 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 153,000 borrowers currently enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan. The Biden-Harris Administration has now approved nearly $138 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 3.9 million borrowers through more than two dozen executive actions. The borrowers receiving relief are the first to benefit from a SAVE plan policy that provides debt forgiveness to borrowers who have been in repayment after as little as 10 years and took out $12,000 or less in student loans. Originally planned for July, the Biden-Harris Administration implemented this provision of SAVE and is providing relief to borrowers nearly six months ahead of schedule.

From Day One of his Administration, President Biden vowed to fix the student loan system and make sure higher education is a pathway to the middle class – not a barrier to opportunity. Already, the President has cancelled more student debt than any President in history – delivering lifechanging relief to students and families – and has created the most affordable student loan repayment plan ever: the SAVE plan. While Republicans in Congress and their allies try to block President Biden every step of the way, the Biden-Harris Administration continues to cancel student debt for millions of borrowers, and is leaving no stone unturned in the fight to give more borrowers breathing room on their student loans.

Thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration’s SAVE plan, starting today, the Administration will be cancelling debt for borrowers who are enrolled in the SAVE plan, have been in repayment for at least 10 years and took out $12,000 or less in loans for college. For every additional $1,000 a borrower initially borrowed, they will receive relief after an additional year of payments. For example, a borrower enrolled in SAVE who took out $14,000 or less in federal loans to earn an associate’s degree in biotechnology would receive full debt relief starting this week if they have been in repayment for 12 years. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) identified nearly 153,000 borrowers who are enrolled in SAVE plan who will have their debt cancelled starting this week, and those borrowers will receive an email today from President Biden informing them of their imminent relief. Next week, the Department of Education will also be reaching out directly to borrowers who are eligible for early relief but not currently enrolled in the SAVE Plan to encourage them to enroll as soon as possible.

This shortened time to forgiveness will particularly help community college and other borrowers with smaller loans and put many on track to being free of student debt faster than ever before. Under the Biden-Harris Administration’s SAVE plan, 85 percent of future community college borrowers will be debt free within 10 years. The Department will continue to regularly identify and discharge other borrowers eligible for relief under this provision on SAVE.

Over four million borrowers have a $0 monthly payment under the SAVE Plan

Last year, President Biden launched the SAVE plan – the most affordable repayment plan ever. Under the SAVE plan, monthly payments are based on a borrower’s income and family size, not their loan balance. The SAVE plan ensures that if borrowers are making their monthly payments, their balances cannot grow because of unpaid interest. And, starting in July, undergraduate loan payments will be cut in half, capping a borrower’s loan payment at 5% of their discretionary income. Already, 7.5 million borrowers are enrolled in the SAVE Plan, and 4.3 million borrowers have a $0 monthly payment.  

Today, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released an issue brief highlighting how low and middle-income borrowers enrolled in SAVE could see significant saving in terms of interest saved over time and principal forgiven as a result of SAVE’s early forgiveness provisions.

President Biden’s Administration has approved student debt relief for nearly 3.9 million Americans through various actions

Today’s announcement builds on the Biden-Harris Administration’s track record of taking historic action to cancel student debt for millions of borrowers. Since taking office, the Biden-Harris Administration has approved debt cancellation for nearly 3.9 million Americans, totaling almost $138 billion in debt relief through various actions. This relief has given borrowers critical breathing room in their daily lives, allowing them to afford other expenses, buy homes, start businesses, or pursue dreams they had to put on hold because of the burden of student loan debt. President Biden remains committed to providing debt relief to as many borrowers as possible, and won’t stop fighting to deliver relief to more Americans.

The Biden-Harris Administration has also taken historic steps to improve the student loan program and make higher education more affordable for more Americans, including:

• Achieving the largest increases in Pell Grants in over a decade to help families who earn less than $60,000 a year achieve their higher-education goals.
  
• Fixing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program so that borrowers who go into public service get the debt relief they’re entitled to under the law. Before President Biden took office, only 7,000 people ever received debt relief through PSLF. After fixing the program, the Biden-Harris Administration has now cancelled student loan debt for nearly 800,000 public service workers.
  
• Cancelling student loan debt for more than 930,000 borrowers who have been in repayment for over 20 years but never got the relief they earned because of administrative failures with Income-Driven Repayment Plans.
  
• Pursuing an alternative path to deliver student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Administration’s original debt relief plan. Last week, the Department of Education released proposed regulatory text to cancel student debt for borrowers who are experiencing hardship paying back their student loans, and late last year released proposals to cancel student debt for borrowers who: owe more than they borrowed, first entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago, attended low quality programs, and who would be eligible for loan forgiveness through income-driven repayment programs like SAVE but have not applied.
  
• Holding colleges accountable for leaving students with unaffordable debts.

It’s easy to enroll in SAVE. Borrowers should go to studentaid.gov/save to start saving.  

###

The post FACT SHEET: President Biden Cancels Student Debt for more than 150,000 Student Loan Borrowers Ahead of Schedule appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Los Angeles, California

3:48 P.M. EST

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

Q    It’s very cold.

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

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

Q    I’m sorry.  I’ll take it off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    But he could call them back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    (Inaudible) on the —

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

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

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

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

Q    And what will the President do?

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

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

Q    So, the President sa- —

Q    Does that mean that — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s up to —

Q    How is that different than —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look —

Q    — the last conversation they had?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, where is the seriousness here?

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

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

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

Q    Was the President disappointed?

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

Q    (Inaudible.)

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

Q    No, go — it’s okay. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Just quickly on —

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

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

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

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

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

The President — this President and this Vice President will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state.

Q    The President —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, we —

Q    Where is he going?

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that last part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    No, that was related to —

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not —

Q    — tomorrow? 

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

All right.  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

Q    Thank you very much, Karine.

4:14 P.M. EST

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

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Los Angeles, California

3:48 P.M. EST

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

Q    It’s very cold.

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

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

Q    I’m sorry.  I’ll take it off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    But he could call them back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    (Inaudible) on the —

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

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

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

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

Q    And what will the President do?

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

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

Q    So, the President sa- —

Q    Does that mean that — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s up to —

Q    How is that different than —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look —

Q    — the last conversation they had?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, where is the seriousness here?

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

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

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

Q    Was the President disappointed?

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

Q    (Inaudible.)

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

Q    No, go — it’s okay. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Just quickly on —

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

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

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

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

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

The President — this President and this Vice President will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state.

Q    The President —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, we —

Q    Where is he going?

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that last part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    No, that was related to —

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not —

Q    — tomorrow? 

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

All right.  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

Q    Thank you very much, Karine.

4:14 P.M. EST

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

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to attend the State Funeral of His Excellency Hage G. Geingob, former President of the Republic of Namibia, February 24-25, 2024, in Windhoek, Namibia.
 
The Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, will lead the delegation.

Members of the Presidential Delegation:

The Honorable Randy Berry, Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Namibia
 
The Honorable Enoh T. Ebong, Director, United States Trade and Development Agency
 
The Honorable Mala Adiga, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady, The White House
 
The Honorable Paula Tufro, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Development, Global Health, and Humanitarian Response, National Security Council

###

The post President Biden Announces Presidential Delegation to the Republic of Namibia to Attend the State Funeral of His Excellency Hage G. Geingob, former President of the Republic of Namibia appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to attend the State Funeral of His Excellency Hage G. Geingob, former President of the Republic of Namibia, February 24-25, 2024, in Windhoek, Namibia.
 
The Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, will lead the delegation.

Members of the Presidential Delegation:

The Honorable Randy Berry, Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Namibia
 
The Honorable Enoh T. Ebong, Director, United States Trade and Development Agency
 
The Honorable Mala Adiga, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady, The White House
 
The Honorable Paula Tufro, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Development, Global Health, and Humanitarian Response, National Security Council

###

The post President Biden Announces Presidential Delegation to the Republic of Namibia to Attend the State Funeral of His Excellency Hage G. Geingob, former President of the Republic of Namibia appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

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

11:41 A.M. EST

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

Via Teleconference

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

11:41 A.M. EST

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

Via Teleconference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:27 P.M. EST

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

Via Teleconference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:27 P.M. EST

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