Feed aggregator

On Tuesday, Quad STEM fellows gathered at the White House for an event to welcome a successful first year of the fellowship and mark the launch of applications for the second class of Quad Fellows. The first-of-its-kind fellowship was launched by Quad Leaders to bring together exceptional masters and doctoral students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to study in the United States.

Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer gave keynote remarks, and other senior administration officials addressed the group of fellows, in addition to senior representatives from the embassies of Quad countries and supporters of the program. During the event, they discussed the Quad and geopolitical landscape; the Administration’s tech agenda for the Indo-Pacific; and the importance of public service.

The International Institute for Education (IIE), a global non-profit with decades-long experience managing international fellowship programs including the U.S. Department of State Fulbright program, is serving as the new implementing partner of the Quad Fellowship program. Today, IIE announced an expansion of eligibility for the Fellowship to include students from ASEAN countries, further demonstrating the Quad’s commitment to deliver concrete benefits for the Indo-Pacific region.

Launched at the Quad Leaders’ Summit in 2021, the Quad Fellowship provides a scholarship to STEM graduate students from Quad countries studying in the U.S. and remains a priority for the Quad leaders as we grow our ties among our next generation of innovators.

The post Readout of the Quad STEM Fellows Event at the White House appeared first on The White House.

Today the White House released visitor log records generated in October 2023. This set includes 83,315 records, bringing the total number of records posted to 1,045,432.

These records were posted pursuant to the White House’s policy to voluntarily disclose visitor log records. This release is consistent with the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to becoming the first administration to post visitor log records from its first full year in office.

To learn more about the policy, read our voluntary disclosure policy. To view visitor log records, view our disclosure page.

###

The post October 2023 Visitor Logs Records Posted appeared first on The White House.

Today the White House released visitor log records generated in October 2023. This set includes 83,315 records, bringing the total number of records posted to 1,045,432.

These records were posted pursuant to the White House’s policy to voluntarily disclose visitor log records. This release is consistent with the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to becoming the first administration to post visitor log records from its first full year in office.

To learn more about the policy, read our voluntary disclosure policy. To view visitor log records, view our disclosure page.

###

The post October 2023 Visitor Logs Records Posted appeared first on The White House.

Pelican Club
Jupiter, Florida

2:07 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Sean, thanks for that introduction. And thank you, Kelly, for — keep raising Sean. (Laughter.) And, Fred, for being such good friends. I really mean it.

And thanks to all of you for your support.

Let me start with the simplest message: From the bottom of my heart, thank you. You’re the reason. You’re the reason I’m President. I came from a background — didn’t have much time to practice, but I was a trial lawyer. Spent a little bit of time before I got into politics almost accidentally.

But it was the right decision for me. You’re the reason Kamala Harris is a historic Vice President. And you’re the reason Donald Trump is a defeated president — former president. (Applause.)

And you’re the reason we’re going to make him a loser again. (Laughter.)

Folks, look, you’re all lawyers who care deeply about the rule of law. You’re on the frontlines of fairness and justice in defending our very democracy. It matters.

In 2020, I ran because I thought everything in this country that it — it stood for, believed in was at stake. I said at the time when I ran — and initially, people looked at me like, “Are you serious?” — I said, “We’re going to — I’m running to restore the soul of America.”

You know, and they’d say, “What do you mean? What do you mean, Joe? What do you mean when you say democracy is at risk? What do you mean when you say we’re in a battle for the soul of America?”

Well, people don’t ask me that question anymore. I don’t think — I don’t think today anyone doubts democracy is at stake — was at stake in 2020.

And thank God, because of the supporters like you, we won.

Just think back to the mess Donald Trump left this country: a pandemic — a pandemic and the economy with raging — with only a couple thousand people being have — having been vaccinated; an economy that was reeling.

Look how far we’ve come. We vaccinated the vast bulk of America. We got through that pandemic with less than 200 million — with less than 2 million people being vaccinated when I came to office. Today, 720 [270] million Americans have gotten COVID vaccine.

We created a record 14 million new jobs — brand new jobs — to get the economy going strong again. And we passed the American Rescue Plan, which put $14 — $1,400 checks in people’s pockets at a time of enormous need. And on top of that, $300 checks per child per month in hardworking families in America and thousands of dollars for people’s pockets through a real crisis.

And, folks, guess what? It grows the economy. It doesn’t — it’s not — doesn’t cost the taxpayers money. It grows the economy — economic growth. And I said that at the time. You stuck with me, and it turned out to be true. We’ve demonstrated it. That money helped cut child poverty in half in America.

You know, we know we have to do more and not everyone is feeling the consequences yet of the investments in progress. But the headlines in the papers are trying to — finally breaking through here.

Inflation is now lower in America than any other country in the world — any other country in the world. (Applause.) And in recent weeks, we started seeing real evidence that the American consumer is feeling real confidence in the economy that we’re building.

Just this morning, we learned that consumer confidence surged to its highest level in over two years. The Washington Post headline this weekend said, quote, “Falling inflation and rising growth give U.S. the world’s best recovery” — “the world’s best recovery.”

Let me tell you who else is noticing this: Donald Trump. He recently said, “When there’s a crash, I hope it will be in the next 12 months.” The [former] President of the United States hopes the crash will be the next 12 months. It’s unbelievable. I think it’s close to un-American. How can anyone — especially a former President — wish for an economic crash that would devastate millions of Americans?

Here’s what he really means: Donald Trump knows our economy is really strong and getting stronger. And almost every major economist in the world is pointing to America as a success story. He knows that while it’s good for America, it’s bad for him politically if we continue to succeed.

Trump also is the one president who doesn’t want to — he said, “I don’t want to be like Herbert Hoover.” That’s what he said. But I got bad news for him. As I told him earlier, he’s already Herbert Hoover. (Laughter.) He’s the only president, other than Herbert Hoover, who has lost jobs — more jobs than he had — he had fewer jobs when he left office than when he came to office. Yes, Donald “Herbert Hoover” Trump. (Laughter.)

But, look, I promised — (applause). For the bulk of my career, I spent in the United States Senate, taking on Big Pharma. You realize you have a prescription for any drug you need from prescription — product made in America, I can take you to Toronto, to Paris, to London, to Brussels, anywhere in the world, and get you that product for somewhere between 40 and 60 percent less than it costs here.

And I tried like the devil to take on Pharma through Medicare. We spend billions of dollars a year on Medicare payments, paying Pharma for the drugs we provide for the elderly. But guess what? We didn’t make it until now. I said we’d beat them, and we finally did.

Have anybody you know — I’m not asking you to raise your hand if you’re a diabetic, but you know somebody who is a diabetic, raise your hand. It used to cost 400 bucks a month or more for that insulin. It’s now $35 a month. (Applause.)

And, by the way, they’re still making three and a half times what it cost them to make it. It costs $10 to make that insulin — $10. And the guy who invented it didn’t patent it because he wanted everybody to have access to it. If you add in the cost of making it up and packaging it, maybe as high as $12 or $13. They’re still making — you know, $35 a month.

And, by the way, initially, when I got it passed, I had got it passed for everybody, not just people on Medicare. But guess what? My Republican friends blocked it. They didn’t think people should be able to get it unless you’re on Medicare. They didn’t vote for that either.

But here’s the deal — here’s the deal. We’re saving the taxpayers billions of dollars — billions of dollars. Not only is a person paying 35 bucks a month now instead of 400 bucks a month or more — guess what? It means the taxpayer is not writing a check to the drug company from Medicare — because of Medicare for federal tax dollars to pay for that.

And by the way, when we did it, we ended up being able to cut the deficit, not raise the deficit.

But with your vote in 2024, we’re going to make sure everyone qualifies.

Out-of-pocket costs for seniors for all prescription drugs when — the first bill we passed — is going to be limited to $2,000, no matter how expensive their total prescriptions are — beginning in 2024.

The reason for that — I know this is a very sophisticated audience — unfortunately, you know people are paying 10-, 12-, 14-, 15,000 bucks a month for cancer drugs — cancer treatment. Well, no one is going to have to pay more than a total of $2,000 a month. It matters.

I promised we’d e- — we’d ease the accumulation of student debt in America, what millions of Americans carried during the economic crisis of the pandemic and (inaudible) — the mic doesn’t work — (inaudible) — (laughter) — the consequence — (laughter).

Look, the fact is that we’re making real progress —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Your mic is not working.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Now it is.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you hear me now?

AUDIENCE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we found another way to help those folks. The Supreme Court said I couldn’t forgive student debt. Well, guess what? I went back and I found a way to do it legally without them questioning anything.

We’ve now forgiven the debt of more than 3.7 million people — $130 billion in relief and counting.

I fixed what’s called the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. It said that if you were in public service — whether you’re a teacher, a firefighter, nurse, social worker, et cetera — your loan could be forgiven if you paid for 10 years in a row and never missed a payment. Well, guess what? Now that’s happening. And public services — and we’re able to forgive that debt.

It’s changing people’s lives. And by the way, it’s growing the economy. What are those kids doing? What are those young — pe- — they’re not so young anymore, many of them. They are in a situation where they can now finally have a down payment for their first home, they can begin to start that new business, they can take care of accumulated debt. It’s taken — it’s having a profound impact.

By the time I took office, the program had been in place for nearly 15 years, but because of red tape, only 7,000 people had even been helped by this program. But thanks to those reforms, instead 700,000 people have had their debt forgiven since then.

Look, and all of you lawyers know how lucky America would be when I kept the promise to appoint the first Black woman to the United States Supreme Court — and I kept it — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — (applause) — (inaudible).

And my introducer pointed out I’ve appointed judges — a lot of judges. I’ve ser- — I was Chairman of Judiciary Committee for a long time. It’s critical.

We’ve now appointed over 174 judges to the federal court. We’ve appointed more Black women to the Federal Court of Appeals than every other president in the United States history combined — combined. (Applause.)

And we put trial attorneys on the bench — trial attorneys on the bench, and we put public defenders on the bench, and, like I said, we have 171 brand new judges on the federal courts.

Folks, we have a lot more work to do. But I’ve never been more optimistic about our future. And I really mean that sincerely.

Look, for example, thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which I signed, there are now 40,000 infrastructure projects underway in America with a lot more to come.

Remember, Trump had “Infrastructure Week” every week — (laughter) — and never built a thing? Well, we’re building our roads — rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports. And we’re bringing affordable high-speed Internet to everywhere in America — everywhere.

We’re ripping out every lead pipe that’s been in place in America so every child can turn on the faucet, drink what they need to drink without worrying about brain damage.

We passed the most significant gun safety law in a decade. (Applause.) And I will not stop until I once again been able to win the assault weapons ban. I blocked it once; it came back. We’re going to ban assault weapons in America. (Applause.) There’s no need for them.

And we’re saving the planet with the most significant investment in climate change ever anywhere in the history of the world — literally anywhere. (Applause.) In my presidency, we tripled the sales of electric vehicles. We built a national network of 500,000 EV st- — charging stations. We put on the path to cut carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030. That’s the trajectory.

Now imagine the nightmare if Trump is returned to office.

The recent deadly school shooting in Perry, Iowa, where three kids — three people were killed, including one — one sixth grader and a school principal. What — what did he have to say? It’s hard to believe what — what he said. He said — when they asked him what he thought about it, he said, quote, you just got to “get over it.”

I’m not making this up. It’s almost — it’s almost un- — unbelievable. You just got to “get over it.” But we’re not going to get over it. We’re going to stop it. We’re going to stop it. (Applause.)

Trump and his MAGA friends want to repeal the historical climate legislation. Well, maybe they don’t think this climate change is real. But the rest of us know sure in hell it is real. And now, after trying and failing more than 60 times — 60 times with he and his MAGA friends in the Congress to get rid of the Affordable Care Act — guess what? He’s at it again.

And by the way, people don’t have a lot of money and need insurance. They would not be able to get any of this insurance because they have a preexisting condition but for the Affordable Care Act. That’s the only reason — the only reason people with preexisting conditions, and they want to take it away.

And seniors in Florida and all across America should know this: Trump and his MAGA friends are determined to take away the $35 a month insulin, which we just got passed in law, as well as a $2,000 cap on prescription drugs.

Instead of saving Social Security and Medicare, Trump wants once again to give another billion dollar — multibillion dollar tax cut to the super wealthy and big corporations.

I come from the corporate state of the world, Delaware. More corporations in Delaware than any other state — all — every other state in the union combined.

I’m not anti-corporation, but they should at least pay their fair share. Just pay their fair share. (Applause.)

And, by the way, you know, we now have — we now have — it’s not a bad thing, per se — we now have a thousand billionaires in America. You know what their average tax rate is — federal tax? 8.2 percent. 8.2 percent.

If they just paid 28 percent, which is less than all you are paying — if they just paid 28 percent, we’d have $40 billion to do a whole lot of things that would save a lot of money, save a lot of programs, reduce taxes overall for everybody else.

Trump and his MAGA friends are determined to take away your freedoms as well. They’ve already — doing it with voting rights. They’re under attack. You see it every day, everywhere in the country.

Trump is now bragging about having overturned Roe v. Wade — “I’m responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade” — taking away a woman’s freedom to choose.

Now, they’re planning, beyond that, a national ban. The MAGA Republicans are saying there’s going to be a national ban on abortion across every state in America — ban.

Well, guess what? I made it real clear: If the MAGA Republicans try to pass a national ban to the right to choose, I will veto it. (Applause.)

And if you elect — reelect me and Kamala with a Democratic House and a bigger Senate majority, I’m going to restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land across the board. (Applause.) I’m serious, and I believe we can do it.

Look, let me close with this. Trump and his MAGA friends are dividing us up, not uniting us; dragging us back to the past, not leading us to the future; refusing to accept the results of a legitimate election.

I mean, I sit — if you can hold a second — I just sit in my office. I walk down a little hall, and there’s a little dining room there. He sat in that dining room for hours watching what happened on January the 6th. Just watching. It’s called insurrection.

And Trump says, quote, he’s — and he’s seeking to, quote, “terminate elements of the United States Constitution,” threatening — threatening our — to embrace — and he embraces political violence.

Look, the one thing about an American democracy that’s clear: Violence is never, never, never appropriate in an elec- — in an electoral process. But he talks about it, threatening our very democracy.

Folks, the truth is there are lies and there is truth. We have to make clear where we stand — that we stand with the truth — and we’ll defeat his lies.

We have to make clear that, in America, we still believe in honesty, decency, treating people with some dignity and respect.

My dad used to have an expression, for real. My dad was a hardworking guy. He was a well-read man who didn’t get to go to college because of what happened because of World War Two. And he’d always say, “Joey…” — this is the God’s truth, my word as a Biden. He’d say, “Joey, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity. It’s about respect. It’s about being able to look your kid in the eye and say, ‘Honey, it’s going to be okay,’ and mean it.”

We believe everybody deserves a shot. Everybody deserves an even shot.

That’s why I decided, instead of trickle-down economics — the reason why it’s working and you have major, major mainstream economists agreeing with me now — that the best way to build America is from the middle out and the bottom up. Because when they do that, then the — what you have is you have the poor have a shot and the wealthy still do very well.

And, you know, let me end by saying we’re — I found the easiest way to describe where I think we are. We’re unique in all the world. And that sounds like chauvinism about America, but we are the most unique country in the world based on our founding. Every other country — every other country in the world is based on ethnicity, religion, geography.

The United States is based on an idea — the only nation in the world — and it’s: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all women and men are created equal, endowed by their creator with cer-” —

We’ve never lived up to it. We’ve never fully walked away from it.

In America, we leave nobody behind. We believe everyone deserves just a fair shot. That’s all. And we give hate no safe harbor. We believe in America.

And we know what’s at stake. We have to keep the White House. We have to keep the Senate. We have to win back the House and win up and down the ticket in local offices.

Because here in Florida, you’ve had a real dose of “Trump-ism,” and — (the President makes sign of the cross). (Laughter.) Unusual guy.

But here in Florida, we have to organize, mobilize the vote. I think we can win Florida. I think the Democrats can win in Florida. (Applause.)

And when we do that, we’ll be able to look back and say something that few generations are able to say: When American democracy was at risk, like it is now, we saved it.

We just have to remember who in God’s name we are. We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake.

There’s nothing beyond our — you know, I mean this sincerely. Nothing beyond our capacity when we work together. Nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

We’re the only — think — think about this: We’re the only nation in the world that every crisis it’s gone through we’ve come out stronger on the other end than we went in — the only nation. It’s because of you, the American people.

We stand up. We fight back. And we understand that the institutions we inherited — called the Constitution — really matter. They’re the guardrails of allowing us to do what we have to do in a fair way.

So, with your help and, as my grandfather would say, “with the grace of God, the goodwill of the neighbors, and the crick not rising,” we’re going to win in 2024. (Applause.)

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I appreciate it. I really do. Thank you, thank you, thank you. (Applause.)

2:27 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at a Campaign Reception | Jupiter, FL appeared first on The White House.

Pelican Club
Jupiter, Florida

2:07 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Sean, thanks for that introduction. And thank you, Kelly, for — keep raising Sean. (Laughter.) And, Fred, for being such good friends. I really mean it.

And thanks to all of you for your support.

Let me start with the simplest message: From the bottom of my heart, thank you. You’re the reason. You’re the reason I’m President. I came from a background — didn’t have much time to practice, but I was a trial lawyer. Spent a little bit of time before I got into politics almost accidentally.

But it was the right decision for me. You’re the reason Kamala Harris is a historic Vice President. And you’re the reason Donald Trump is a defeated president — former president. (Applause.)

And you’re the reason we’re going to make him a loser again. (Laughter.)

Folks, look, you’re all lawyers who care deeply about the rule of law. You’re on the frontlines of fairness and justice in defending our very democracy. It matters.

In 2020, I ran because I thought everything in this country that it — it stood for, believed in was at stake. I said at the time when I ran — and initially, people looked at me like, “Are you serious?” — I said, “We’re going to — I’m running to restore the soul of America.”

You know, and they’d say, “What do you mean? What do you mean, Joe? What do you mean when you say democracy is at risk? What do you mean when you say we’re in a battle for the soul of America?”

Well, people don’t ask me that question anymore. I don’t think — I don’t think today anyone doubts democracy is at stake — was at stake in 2020.

And thank God, because of the supporters like you, we won.

Just think back to the mess Donald Trump left this country: a pandemic — a pandemic and the economy with raging — with only a couple thousand people being have — having been vaccinated; an economy that was reeling.

Look how far we’ve come. We vaccinated the vast bulk of America. We got through that pandemic with less than 200 million — with less than 2 million people being vaccinated when I came to office. Today, 720 [270] million Americans have gotten COVID vaccine.

We created a record 14 million new jobs — brand new jobs — to get the economy going strong again. And we passed the American Rescue Plan, which put $14 — $1,400 checks in people’s pockets at a time of enormous need. And on top of that, $300 checks per child per month in hardworking families in America and thousands of dollars for people’s pockets through a real crisis.

And, folks, guess what? It grows the economy. It doesn’t — it’s not — doesn’t cost the taxpayers money. It grows the economy — economic growth. And I said that at the time. You stuck with me, and it turned out to be true. We’ve demonstrated it. That money helped cut child poverty in half in America.

You know, we know we have to do more and not everyone is feeling the consequences yet of the investments in progress. But the headlines in the papers are trying to — finally breaking through here.

Inflation is now lower in America than any other country in the world — any other country in the world. (Applause.) And in recent weeks, we started seeing real evidence that the American consumer is feeling real confidence in the economy that we’re building.

Just this morning, we learned that consumer confidence surged to its highest level in over two years. The Washington Post headline this weekend said, quote, “Falling inflation and rising growth give U.S. the world’s best recovery” — “the world’s best recovery.”

Let me tell you who else is noticing this: Donald Trump. He recently said, “When there’s a crash, I hope it will be in the next 12 months.” The [former] President of the United States hopes the crash will be the next 12 months. It’s unbelievable. I think it’s close to un-American. How can anyone — especially a former President — wish for an economic crash that would devastate millions of Americans?

Here’s what he really means: Donald Trump knows our economy is really strong and getting stronger. And almost every major economist in the world is pointing to America as a success story. He knows that while it’s good for America, it’s bad for him politically if we continue to succeed.

Trump also is the one president who doesn’t want to — he said, “I don’t want to be like Herbert Hoover.” That’s what he said. But I got bad news for him. As I told him earlier, he’s already Herbert Hoover. (Laughter.) He’s the only president, other than Herbert Hoover, who has lost jobs — more jobs than he had — he had fewer jobs when he left office than when he came to office. Yes, Donald “Herbert Hoover” Trump. (Laughter.)

But, look, I promised — (applause). For the bulk of my career, I spent in the United States Senate, taking on Big Pharma. You realize you have a prescription for any drug you need from prescription — product made in America, I can take you to Toronto, to Paris, to London, to Brussels, anywhere in the world, and get you that product for somewhere between 40 and 60 percent less than it costs here.

And I tried like the devil to take on Pharma through Medicare. We spend billions of dollars a year on Medicare payments, paying Pharma for the drugs we provide for the elderly. But guess what? We didn’t make it until now. I said we’d beat them, and we finally did.

Have anybody you know — I’m not asking you to raise your hand if you’re a diabetic, but you know somebody who is a diabetic, raise your hand. It used to cost 400 bucks a month or more for that insulin. It’s now $35 a month. (Applause.)

And, by the way, they’re still making three and a half times what it cost them to make it. It costs $10 to make that insulin — $10. And the guy who invented it didn’t patent it because he wanted everybody to have access to it. If you add in the cost of making it up and packaging it, maybe as high as $12 or $13. They’re still making — you know, $35 a month.

And, by the way, initially, when I got it passed, I had got it passed for everybody, not just people on Medicare. But guess what? My Republican friends blocked it. They didn’t think people should be able to get it unless you’re on Medicare. They didn’t vote for that either.

But here’s the deal — here’s the deal. We’re saving the taxpayers billions of dollars — billions of dollars. Not only is a person paying 35 bucks a month now instead of 400 bucks a month or more — guess what? It means the taxpayer is not writing a check to the drug company from Medicare — because of Medicare for federal tax dollars to pay for that.

And by the way, when we did it, we ended up being able to cut the deficit, not raise the deficit.

But with your vote in 2024, we’re going to make sure everyone qualifies.

Out-of-pocket costs for seniors for all prescription drugs when — the first bill we passed — is going to be limited to $2,000, no matter how expensive their total prescriptions are — beginning in 2024.

The reason for that — I know this is a very sophisticated audience — unfortunately, you know people are paying 10-, 12-, 14-, 15,000 bucks a month for cancer drugs — cancer treatment. Well, no one is going to have to pay more than a total of $2,000 a month. It matters.

I promised we’d e- — we’d ease the accumulation of student debt in America, what millions of Americans carried during the economic crisis of the pandemic and (inaudible) — the mic doesn’t work — (inaudible) — (laughter) — the consequence — (laughter).

Look, the fact is that we’re making real progress —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Your mic is not working.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Now it is.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you hear me now?

AUDIENCE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we found another way to help those folks. The Supreme Court said I couldn’t forgive student debt. Well, guess what? I went back and I found a way to do it legally without them questioning anything.

We’ve now forgiven the debt of more than 3.7 million people — $130 billion in relief and counting.

I fixed what’s called the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. It said that if you were in public service — whether you’re a teacher, a firefighter, nurse, social worker, et cetera — your loan could be forgiven if you paid for 10 years in a row and never missed a payment. Well, guess what? Now that’s happening. And public services — and we’re able to forgive that debt.

It’s changing people’s lives. And by the way, it’s growing the economy. What are those kids doing? What are those young — pe- — they’re not so young anymore, many of them. They are in a situation where they can now finally have a down payment for their first home, they can begin to start that new business, they can take care of accumulated debt. It’s taken — it’s having a profound impact.

By the time I took office, the program had been in place for nearly 15 years, but because of red tape, only 7,000 people had even been helped by this program. But thanks to those reforms, instead 700,000 people have had their debt forgiven since then.

Look, and all of you lawyers know how lucky America would be when I kept the promise to appoint the first Black woman to the United States Supreme Court — and I kept it — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — (applause) — (inaudible).

And my introducer pointed out I’ve appointed judges — a lot of judges. I’ve ser- — I was Chairman of Judiciary Committee for a long time. It’s critical.

We’ve now appointed over 174 judges to the federal court. We’ve appointed more Black women to the Federal Court of Appeals than every other president in the United States history combined — combined. (Applause.)

And we put trial attorneys on the bench — trial attorneys on the bench, and we put public defenders on the bench, and, like I said, we have 171 brand new judges on the federal courts.

Folks, we have a lot more work to do. But I’ve never been more optimistic about our future. And I really mean that sincerely.

Look, for example, thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which I signed, there are now 40,000 infrastructure projects underway in America with a lot more to come.

Remember, Trump had “Infrastructure Week” every week — (laughter) — and never built a thing? Well, we’re building our roads — rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports. And we’re bringing affordable high-speed Internet to everywhere in America — everywhere.

We’re ripping out every lead pipe that’s been in place in America so every child can turn on the faucet, drink what they need to drink without worrying about brain damage.

We passed the most significant gun safety law in a decade. (Applause.) And I will not stop until I once again been able to win the assault weapons ban. I blocked it once; it came back. We’re going to ban assault weapons in America. (Applause.) There’s no need for them.

And we’re saving the planet with the most significant investment in climate change ever anywhere in the history of the world — literally anywhere. (Applause.) In my presidency, we tripled the sales of electric vehicles. We built a national network of 500,000 EV st- — charging stations. We put on the path to cut carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030. That’s the trajectory.

Now imagine the nightmare if Trump is returned to office.

The recent deadly school shooting in Perry, Iowa, where three kids — three people were killed, including one — one sixth grader and a school principal. What — what did he have to say? It’s hard to believe what — what he said. He said — when they asked him what he thought about it, he said, quote, you just got to “get over it.”

I’m not making this up. It’s almost — it’s almost un- — unbelievable. You just got to “get over it.” But we’re not going to get over it. We’re going to stop it. We’re going to stop it. (Applause.)

Trump and his MAGA friends want to repeal the historical climate legislation. Well, maybe they don’t think this climate change is real. But the rest of us know sure in hell it is real. And now, after trying and failing more than 60 times — 60 times with he and his MAGA friends in the Congress to get rid of the Affordable Care Act — guess what? He’s at it again.

And by the way, people don’t have a lot of money and need insurance. They would not be able to get any of this insurance because they have a preexisting condition but for the Affordable Care Act. That’s the only reason — the only reason people with preexisting conditions, and they want to take it away.

And seniors in Florida and all across America should know this: Trump and his MAGA friends are determined to take away the $35 a month insulin, which we just got passed in law, as well as a $2,000 cap on prescription drugs.

Instead of saving Social Security and Medicare, Trump wants once again to give another billion dollar — multibillion dollar tax cut to the super wealthy and big corporations.

I come from the corporate state of the world, Delaware. More corporations in Delaware than any other state — all — every other state in the union combined.

I’m not anti-corporation, but they should at least pay their fair share. Just pay their fair share. (Applause.)

And, by the way, you know, we now have — we now have — it’s not a bad thing, per se — we now have a thousand billionaires in America. You know what their average tax rate is — federal tax? 8.2 percent. 8.2 percent.

If they just paid 28 percent, which is less than all you are paying — if they just paid 28 percent, we’d have $40 billion to do a whole lot of things that would save a lot of money, save a lot of programs, reduce taxes overall for everybody else.

Trump and his MAGA friends are determined to take away your freedoms as well. They’ve already — doing it with voting rights. They’re under attack. You see it every day, everywhere in the country.

Trump is now bragging about having overturned Roe v. Wade — “I’m responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade” — taking away a woman’s freedom to choose.

Now, they’re planning, beyond that, a national ban. The MAGA Republicans are saying there’s going to be a national ban on abortion across every state in America — ban.

Well, guess what? I made it real clear: If the MAGA Republicans try to pass a national ban to the right to choose, I will veto it. (Applause.)

And if you elect — reelect me and Kamala with a Democratic House and a bigger Senate majority, I’m going to restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land across the board. (Applause.) I’m serious, and I believe we can do it.

Look, let me close with this. Trump and his MAGA friends are dividing us up, not uniting us; dragging us back to the past, not leading us to the future; refusing to accept the results of a legitimate election.

I mean, I sit — if you can hold a second — I just sit in my office. I walk down a little hall, and there’s a little dining room there. He sat in that dining room for hours watching what happened on January the 6th. Just watching. It’s called insurrection.

And Trump says, quote, he’s — and he’s seeking to, quote, “terminate elements of the United States Constitution,” threatening — threatening our — to embrace — and he embraces political violence.

Look, the one thing about an American democracy that’s clear: Violence is never, never, never appropriate in an elec- — in an electoral process. But he talks about it, threatening our very democracy.

Folks, the truth is there are lies and there is truth. We have to make clear where we stand — that we stand with the truth — and we’ll defeat his lies.

We have to make clear that, in America, we still believe in honesty, decency, treating people with some dignity and respect.

My dad used to have an expression, for real. My dad was a hardworking guy. He was a well-read man who didn’t get to go to college because of what happened because of World War Two. And he’d always say, “Joey…” — this is the God’s truth, my word as a Biden. He’d say, “Joey, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity. It’s about respect. It’s about being able to look your kid in the eye and say, ‘Honey, it’s going to be okay,’ and mean it.”

We believe everybody deserves a shot. Everybody deserves an even shot.

That’s why I decided, instead of trickle-down economics — the reason why it’s working and you have major, major mainstream economists agreeing with me now — that the best way to build America is from the middle out and the bottom up. Because when they do that, then the — what you have is you have the poor have a shot and the wealthy still do very well.

And, you know, let me end by saying we’re — I found the easiest way to describe where I think we are. We’re unique in all the world. And that sounds like chauvinism about America, but we are the most unique country in the world based on our founding. Every other country — every other country in the world is based on ethnicity, religion, geography.

The United States is based on an idea — the only nation in the world — and it’s: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all women and men are created equal, endowed by their creator with cer-” —

We’ve never lived up to it. We’ve never fully walked away from it.

In America, we leave nobody behind. We believe everyone deserves just a fair shot. That’s all. And we give hate no safe harbor. We believe in America.

And we know what’s at stake. We have to keep the White House. We have to keep the Senate. We have to win back the House and win up and down the ticket in local offices.

Because here in Florida, you’ve had a real dose of “Trump-ism,” and — (the President makes sign of the cross). (Laughter.) Unusual guy.

But here in Florida, we have to organize, mobilize the vote. I think we can win Florida. I think the Democrats can win in Florida. (Applause.)

And when we do that, we’ll be able to look back and say something that few generations are able to say: When American democracy was at risk, like it is now, we saved it.

We just have to remember who in God’s name we are. We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake.

There’s nothing beyond our — you know, I mean this sincerely. Nothing beyond our capacity when we work together. Nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

We’re the only — think — think about this: We’re the only nation in the world that every crisis it’s gone through we’ve come out stronger on the other end than we went in — the only nation. It’s because of you, the American people.

We stand up. We fight back. And we understand that the institutions we inherited — called the Constitution — really matter. They’re the guardrails of allowing us to do what we have to do in a fair way.

So, with your help and, as my grandfather would say, “with the grace of God, the goodwill of the neighbors, and the crick not rising,” we’re going to win in 2024. (Applause.)

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I appreciate it. I really do. Thank you, thank you, thank you. (Applause.)

2:27 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at a Campaign Reception | Jupiter, FL appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route West Palm Beach, Florida

12:03 P.M. EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q But what does moving —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Can you say if it will o- —

MR. KIRBY: — over a period of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Cross-talk.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Cross-talk.)

You guys done with me?

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

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

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

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

All right. Thanks, everybody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Why not test his executive authority?

MS. DALTON: I’m sorry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. DALTON: That’s correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q And was it three separate calls?

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

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

Q And there were three separate calls?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. DALTON: (Inaudible.)

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

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

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

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

Anything else? Okay. See you, guys.

Q Is there someone from the campaign on the trip?

MS. DALTON: Sorry?

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

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

Q Okay. Great.

12:29 P.M. EST

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

Aboard Air Force One
En Route West Palm Beach, Florida

12:03 P.M. EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q But what does moving —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Can you say if it will o- —

MR. KIRBY: — over a period of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Cross-talk.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Cross-talk.)

You guys done with me?

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

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

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

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

All right. Thanks, everybody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Why not test his executive authority?

MS. DALTON: I’m sorry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. DALTON: That’s correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q And was it three separate calls?

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

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

Q And there were three separate calls?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. DALTON: (Inaudible.)

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

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

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

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

Anything else? Okay. See you, guys.

Q Is there someone from the campaign on the trip?

MS. DALTON: Sorry?

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

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

Q Okay. Great.

12:29 P.M. EST

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

On January 30, the United States and the People’s Republic of China launched their bilateral Counternarcotics Working Group – a critical mechanism going forward for coordinating bilateral efforts to counter the global manufacturing and trafficking of illicit synthetic drugs, including fentanyl. The U.S.-PRC Counternarcotics Working Group is a key outcome of President Biden’s and President Xi Jinping’s decision, announced at the Leaders’ Summit in Woodside, California in November 2023, to resume bilateral cooperation on counternarcotics.  By working to disrupt the flow of fentanyl this effort aims to save lives in the United States and around the world and halt the corruption and violence of drug traffickers.

The two sides emphasized the need to coordinate on law enforcement actions; address the misuse of precursor chemicals, pill presses, and related equipment to manufacture illicit drugs; target the illicit financing of transnational criminal organization networks; and engage in multilateral fora.  The delegations further discussed the importance of regular sharing of information to ensure a common understanding of the dynamic illicit threat posed by synthetic drugs. 

The delegation was led by Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Jennifer Daskal and included representatives from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

###

The post Readout of the U.S.-PRC Bilateral Counternarcotics Working Group Inaugural Meeting appeared first on The White House.

On January 30, the United States and the People’s Republic of China launched their bilateral Counternarcotics Working Group – a critical mechanism going forward for coordinating bilateral efforts to counter the global manufacturing and trafficking of illicit synthetic drugs, including fentanyl. The U.S.-PRC Counternarcotics Working Group is a key outcome of President Biden’s and President Xi Jinping’s decision, announced at the Leaders’ Summit in Woodside, California in November 2023, to resume bilateral cooperation on counternarcotics.  By working to disrupt the flow of fentanyl this effort aims to save lives in the United States and around the world and halt the corruption and violence of drug traffickers.

The two sides emphasized the need to coordinate on law enforcement actions; address the misuse of precursor chemicals, pill presses, and related equipment to manufacture illicit drugs; target the illicit financing of transnational criminal organization networks; and engage in multilateral fora.  The delegations further discussed the importance of regular sharing of information to ensure a common understanding of the dynamic illicit threat posed by synthetic drugs. 

The delegation was led by Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Jennifer Daskal and included representatives from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

###

The post Readout of the U.S.-PRC Bilateral Counternarcotics Working Group Inaugural Meeting appeared first on The White House.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani of Qatar today to discuss the ongoing crisis in Gaza and their efforts to secure the immediate release of all remaining hostages held by Hamas.  Mr. Sullivan thanked Sheikh Mohammed for his unwavering efforts in this regard.  He urged that all possible efforts be brought to bear on Hamas to secure the release of hostages without delay. They agreed to stay in regular contact until all hostages are reunited with their families. 

###

The post Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s Meeting with Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani of Qatar appeared first on The White House.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani of Qatar today to discuss the ongoing crisis in Gaza and their efforts to secure the immediate release of all remaining hostages held by Hamas.  Mr. Sullivan thanked Sheikh Mohammed for his unwavering efforts in this regard.  He urged that all possible efforts be brought to bear on Hamas to secure the release of hostages without delay. They agreed to stay in regular contact until all hostages are reunited with their families. 

###

The post Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s Meeting with Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani of Qatar appeared first on The White House.

South Lawn

10:34 A.M. EST

Q Mr. President, what — do you hold Iran responsible for the death of the three Americans?

Q Have you made a decision how you’ll respond to the attacks?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q And —

Q Mr. President, do you hold Iran responsible for the death of those three Americans?

THE PRESIDENT: I do hold respon- — them responsible in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.

Q But directly responsible?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ll have that discussion.

Q (Inaudible) have not deterred these attacks in the past. What will be different this time?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ll see.

Q Mr. President, (inaudible) are you worried about a regional war in the Mi- — a wider war in the Middle East? How worried are you?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think we need a wider war in the Middle East. That’s not what I’m looking for.

Q Should Donald Trump be allowed on the ballot? Should Donald Trump be allowed on the ballot?

THE PRESIDENT: As far as I’m concerned, that’s fine.

Q Why is he leading in the polls if he is a threat to democracy, as you say?

THE PRESIDENT: Because guys like you. (Laughs.)

Q What am I doing? Come on.

Q Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: I’m teasing, man. I’m teasing. It’s early.

(Cross-talk.)

Q Mr. President, on the border. Have you done everything you can do with executive authority? Or is there more you could do absent (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve done all I can do. Just give me the power. I’ve asked from the very day I got into office. Give me the Border Patrol. Give me the people — give me the people, the judges. Give me the people who can stop this and make it work right.

(Cross-talk.)

Q Are you worried about the possible escalation in the military involvement in the Middle East? What do you say to those in your party?

THE PRESIDENT: (Inaudible.) We’ll see.

10:36 A.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden Before Marine One Departure appeared first on The White House.

South Lawn

10:34 A.M. EST

Q Mr. President, what — do you hold Iran responsible for the death of the three Americans?

Q Have you made a decision how you’ll respond to the attacks?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q And —

Q Mr. President, do you hold Iran responsible for the death of those three Americans?

THE PRESIDENT: I do hold respon- — them responsible in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.

Q But directly responsible?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ll have that discussion.

Q (Inaudible) have not deterred these attacks in the past. What will be different this time?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ll see.

Q Mr. President, (inaudible) are you worried about a regional war in the Mi- — a wider war in the Middle East? How worried are you?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think we need a wider war in the Middle East. That’s not what I’m looking for.

Q Should Donald Trump be allowed on the ballot? Should Donald Trump be allowed on the ballot?

THE PRESIDENT: As far as I’m concerned, that’s fine.

Q Why is he leading in the polls if he is a threat to democracy, as you say?

THE PRESIDENT: Because guys like you. (Laughs.)

Q What am I doing? Come on.

Q Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: I’m teasing, man. I’m teasing. It’s early.

(Cross-talk.)

Q Mr. President, on the border. Have you done everything you can do with executive authority? Or is there more you could do absent (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve done all I can do. Just give me the power. I’ve asked from the very day I got into office. Give me the Border Patrol. Give me the people — give me the people, the judges. Give me the people who can stop this and make it work right.

(Cross-talk.)

Q Are you worried about the possible escalation in the military involvement in the Middle East? What do you say to those in your party?

THE PRESIDENT: (Inaudible.) We’ll see.

10:36 A.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden Before Marine One Departure appeared first on The White House.

Private Residence
Los Gatos, California

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 

Good afternoon, everyone.  Good afternoon. 

Let me first thank my husband for being such an incredible partner.  And, also, really, he’s been doing an extraordinary job of —

(Referring to a handheld microphone.)  I’m — this is — what’s happening here?  There.

— of spending time traveling the country, talking about many of the issues.  He has been particularly powerful on the issue of speaking out against hate and antisemitism.  And I’d like to just acknowledge, in front of all of the friends, the work that you are doing as an incredible — (applause) — first Second Gentleman.

So, it’s good to see everyone.  Listen, Doug said it well.  I do believe everything is at stake in this election.  I do believe — you know, many of us have talked — I’m going to just walk around.  I hate being behind a podium.  (Laughter.)

Many of us have been active for every election cycle.  And
pretty much as far back as I can remember, we have, at one moment or another, referred to those election cycles as being existential, everything being at stake.  This absolutely is existential.

When I think about what we are up against and full-on frontal attacks on hard-fought, hard-won freedoms and rights, a full-on agenda that is about taking us backward in such an unapologetic and clear way, I know that this is existential.

Doug mentioned traveling.  I have now, as Vice President, met with over 150 world leaders — presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and kings — many of whom I’ve actually hosted at our temporary public housing in D.C.  (Laughter.)  But many of whom I’ve now met and talked with a number of times so that we’ve established relationships and friendships. 

And the most recent international trips I took as Vice President, then, were at the end of last year.  I went to the UK to talk about what we are doing in terms of AI and the — our host is a — is a leading authority on that issue.  And so, I was there talking about how we are thinking, as America, about the safety issue as it relates to AI.  And then, later — two weeks later — I went to Dubai to represent our country at COP28, the global convening on climate.

To a one, the world leaders that I saw, who are now friends and we have relationships — to a one, when they came up to me, the first point they made, “Hope you guys are going to be okay.”
And be clear, that was out of self-interest.  Because what they know is what we know, which is why we are here.

And, Shannon, I cannot thank you for all that you have always done and continue to do — both of you and Kevin and Chloe and Coco.  (Applause.)  Right?

What we know is that when we are talking about this fight for our democracy, the nature of democracy is there’s a duality to it. 

On the one hand, it’s very strong.  When a democracy is intact, it is so strong in terms of what it does to empower its people through the protection and the respect of individual rights and liberties, what it does to give its people dignity.  There is such strength in a democracy when it is intact.

And it is very fragile.  It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. 

So, when I see these world leaders or travel our country — right? — I started a college tour in the fall.  And then now I’m on a — just started — second stop today on our “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” in a tour.  What I know and I see around the world and in our own country is that there are so many of us who do understand that concept and understand that the trajectory of America en- — depends entirely on her people.

This election, yes, it is about the Biden-Harris ticket and it is about winning an election.  But I would propose that what will happen in November will be a reflection of a question, which is: For us, as Americans, what kind of country do we want to live in?  What kind of country do we want to live in?

And when I think about what is at stake, then, I would offer that, in November, there’s a split screen.  Among the many big issues challenging our world and our country that are complex and not binary, November of ’24: binary.

So, just pull up the — the split screen.  On the one hand, you have a former President who openly celebrates dictators and has professed and promised he will be a dictator on “day one”; openly and unapologetically expresses his intention to weaponize the United States Department of Justice; openly, brazenly talks about what he will do to exact revenge on his political enemies.

Recently, many — recently said, when asked about the Dobbs decision, which undid Roe v. Wade, said he was “proud”
of what he did, which, of course, was to handpick three justices with the full intention that it is they who would undo the protection of an individual’s right to make decisions about their own body.  “Proud.”

Proud that right now in states like Texas — where is my friend from Texas? — right? — in states like Texas, they are providing for prison time for life for healthcare providers; punishing women; making no exception, in many cases around our country, for rape or incest.

And, you know, most of us, I think, can handle this conversation.  Look, you guys know my background.  Most of my career, I was a prosecutor.  Started out, DA of San Francisco, first woman.  I was Attorney General, reelected, first woman. 

Well, what you may not know about my background is, when I was in high school, my best friend, I learned, was being molested by her stepfather.  And when I found out, I said to her, “You have to come and stay with us.”  Called my mother, my mother said, “Absolutely, she does.”  And she did.

And I decided I wanted to do the work that was about protecting women and children from violence.  The idea that these so-called leaders would be proposing that after someone has survived a crime of violence to their body, a violation to their body, that they would have no authority or right to make a decision about what happens to their body next — that’s immoral.  And he’s proud of the suffering we’re seeing every day in our country?

Pull up the split screen.

On the other side of that screen, you see, in our President, Joe Biden, and the work we have done as an administration on some of the biggest challenges facing our world.  Be it the first time there’s a war in Europe in over 70 years and bringing NATO together and strengthening NATO so now we have two additional members.

What we have accomplished in terms of — forever, administrations of both parties saying, “Hey, let’s deal with the…” — I’m looking at (inaudible).  “Let’s deal with the fact that America’s infrastructure is over 150 years old, and it’s time we dealt with it.”  And they’d talk about “Infrastructure Week” in that last administration.  And we got it done, and now, by my estimate, looking at over a trillion dollars that’s going to American jobs to build back up our roads and bridges and sidewalks and airports.

This group of friends understands — and I say this as a proud Californian — the importance of investing in research and development and science.  And we got the CHIPS and Science Act done, which is going to mean billions of dollars in investment, in technology, in our ability to see what’s possible and then go for it and allow our country to be a leader — a global leader.  That happened under our administration.

Doing the work of understanding that, for generations, seniors have been struggling, if they have diabetes, to figure out how to either afford to fill their prescription or fill their refrigerator.  And we have now capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month. 

We now — and Joe Biden — I just — it makes me sick when people criticize our President about questioning him, when he has been so bold in terms of understanding what is an investment in the future of our country and taking on, as we have, for example, the pharmaceutical companies saying: We’re going to, for the first time, allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for seniors and cap the annual cost of medication for seniors at $2,000.  That’s a big deal.

And I could go on and on.  Like Doug says — it’s so funny when you say that — it’s the CVS — (laughter) — it’s a CVS receipt.  I could go on and on.

But the contrast.  On the one hand, we’re looking at, at the very least, chaos — but actually, chaos leading to destruction around foundational, fundamental institutions and values.  And on the other hand, competence and calm and clarity.

And I’ll — I’ll end my comments so I can come and walk around, but with a — with a basic point that I think also is something we have to acknowledge about what’s happening in our country right now. 

There’s a — there’s a kind of perverse, I think, ideology that is being pushed around that suggests that the measure of a leader’s strength is based on who you beat down, instead of what we all know: The true measure of that strength is based on who you lift up.  You know, this perverse notion that, somehow, it’s a sign of weakness to have compassion, care, when the real character trait of a real leader is someone who has some level of curiosity and concern and care for the suffering of other people and then does something about it to alleviate that suffering.

So, we got a fight in front of us.  And I’ll tell you — I was saying to a couple of the friends — over the Christmas break, Doug and I left D.C. and came home to California.  And, first of all, we slept.  (Laughter.)  We didn’t realize how tired we were.  We just slept.  And then Doug looked at me and was like, “Honey, I think we’re defrosting.”  (Laughter.)

And I was in my happy place.  I was cooking.  I — let me tell you, I love your kitchen, by the way.  I have — (laughter) — you have, like, an eight-burner stove.  I love your kitchen. 

MS. HUNT-SCOTT:  You can come anytime.  You should see the downstairs kitchen.  It’s even better.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  I want to see it.  (Laughter.)

So, I was in my happy place and I was cooking.  The kids were home.  They — just it was all good.  But because we knew, starting in January, this is no joke.  And already in the last two and half weeks, I’ve been North Carolina, South Carolina twice, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada twice, New York, California, just in the first, like, two and a half weeks of this year.

And I know we’re all prepared to do something similar, in terms of each day, starting now, understanding what is at stake and understanding it’s going to take all of us. 

We love our country.  We love our country.  We believe in our foundational principles.  And it is incumbent on each one of us to do everything we can.  And I know I’m preaching to the choir, because that’s why you guys are here. 

And I thank you very much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

     END

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at a Campaign Reception | Los Gatos, CA appeared first on The White House.

Private Residence
Los Gatos, California

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 

Good afternoon, everyone.  Good afternoon. 

Let me first thank my husband for being such an incredible partner.  And, also, really, he’s been doing an extraordinary job of —

(Referring to a handheld microphone.)  I’m — this is — what’s happening here?  There.

— of spending time traveling the country, talking about many of the issues.  He has been particularly powerful on the issue of speaking out against hate and antisemitism.  And I’d like to just acknowledge, in front of all of the friends, the work that you are doing as an incredible — (applause) — first Second Gentleman.

So, it’s good to see everyone.  Listen, Doug said it well.  I do believe everything is at stake in this election.  I do believe — you know, many of us have talked — I’m going to just walk around.  I hate being behind a podium.  (Laughter.)

Many of us have been active for every election cycle.  And
pretty much as far back as I can remember, we have, at one moment or another, referred to those election cycles as being existential, everything being at stake.  This absolutely is existential.

When I think about what we are up against and full-on frontal attacks on hard-fought, hard-won freedoms and rights, a full-on agenda that is about taking us backward in such an unapologetic and clear way, I know that this is existential.

Doug mentioned traveling.  I have now, as Vice President, met with over 150 world leaders — presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and kings — many of whom I’ve actually hosted at our temporary public housing in D.C.  (Laughter.)  But many of whom I’ve now met and talked with a number of times so that we’ve established relationships and friendships. 

And the most recent international trips I took as Vice President, then, were at the end of last year.  I went to the UK to talk about what we are doing in terms of AI and the — our host is a — is a leading authority on that issue.  And so, I was there talking about how we are thinking, as America, about the safety issue as it relates to AI.  And then, later — two weeks later — I went to Dubai to represent our country at COP28, the global convening on climate.

To a one, the world leaders that I saw, who are now friends and we have relationships — to a one, when they came up to me, the first point they made, “Hope you guys are going to be okay.”
And be clear, that was out of self-interest.  Because what they know is what we know, which is why we are here.

And, Shannon, I cannot thank you for all that you have always done and continue to do — both of you and Kevin and Chloe and Coco.  (Applause.)  Right?

What we know is that when we are talking about this fight for our democracy, the nature of democracy is there’s a duality to it. 

On the one hand, it’s very strong.  When a democracy is intact, it is so strong in terms of what it does to empower its people through the protection and the respect of individual rights and liberties, what it does to give its people dignity.  There is such strength in a democracy when it is intact.

And it is very fragile.  It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. 

So, when I see these world leaders or travel our country — right? — I started a college tour in the fall.  And then now I’m on a — just started — second stop today on our “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” in a tour.  What I know and I see around the world and in our own country is that there are so many of us who do understand that concept and understand that the trajectory of America en- — depends entirely on her people.

This election, yes, it is about the Biden-Harris ticket and it is about winning an election.  But I would propose that what will happen in November will be a reflection of a question, which is: For us, as Americans, what kind of country do we want to live in?  What kind of country do we want to live in?

And when I think about what is at stake, then, I would offer that, in November, there’s a split screen.  Among the many big issues challenging our world and our country that are complex and not binary, November of ’24: binary.

So, just pull up the — the split screen.  On the one hand, you have a former President who openly celebrates dictators and has professed and promised he will be a dictator on “day one”; openly and unapologetically expresses his intention to weaponize the United States Department of Justice; openly, brazenly talks about what he will do to exact revenge on his political enemies.

Recently, many — recently said, when asked about the Dobbs decision, which undid Roe v. Wade, said he was “proud”
of what he did, which, of course, was to handpick three justices with the full intention that it is they who would undo the protection of an individual’s right to make decisions about their own body.  “Proud.”

Proud that right now in states like Texas — where is my friend from Texas? — right? — in states like Texas, they are providing for prison time for life for healthcare providers; punishing women; making no exception, in many cases around our country, for rape or incest.

And, you know, most of us, I think, can handle this conversation.  Look, you guys know my background.  Most of my career, I was a prosecutor.  Started out, DA of San Francisco, first woman.  I was Attorney General, reelected, first woman. 

Well, what you may not know about my background is, when I was in high school, my best friend, I learned, was being molested by her stepfather.  And when I found out, I said to her, “You have to come and stay with us.”  Called my mother, my mother said, “Absolutely, she does.”  And she did.

And I decided I wanted to do the work that was about protecting women and children from violence.  The idea that these so-called leaders would be proposing that after someone has survived a crime of violence to their body, a violation to their body, that they would have no authority or right to make a decision about what happens to their body next — that’s immoral.  And he’s proud of the suffering we’re seeing every day in our country?

Pull up the split screen.

On the other side of that screen, you see, in our President, Joe Biden, and the work we have done as an administration on some of the biggest challenges facing our world.  Be it the first time there’s a war in Europe in over 70 years and bringing NATO together and strengthening NATO so now we have two additional members.

What we have accomplished in terms of — forever, administrations of both parties saying, “Hey, let’s deal with the…” — I’m looking at (inaudible).  “Let’s deal with the fact that America’s infrastructure is over 150 years old, and it’s time we dealt with it.”  And they’d talk about “Infrastructure Week” in that last administration.  And we got it done, and now, by my estimate, looking at over a trillion dollars that’s going to American jobs to build back up our roads and bridges and sidewalks and airports.

This group of friends understands — and I say this as a proud Californian — the importance of investing in research and development and science.  And we got the CHIPS and Science Act done, which is going to mean billions of dollars in investment, in technology, in our ability to see what’s possible and then go for it and allow our country to be a leader — a global leader.  That happened under our administration.

Doing the work of understanding that, for generations, seniors have been struggling, if they have diabetes, to figure out how to either afford to fill their prescription or fill their refrigerator.  And we have now capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month. 

We now — and Joe Biden — I just — it makes me sick when people criticize our President about questioning him, when he has been so bold in terms of understanding what is an investment in the future of our country and taking on, as we have, for example, the pharmaceutical companies saying: We’re going to, for the first time, allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for seniors and cap the annual cost of medication for seniors at $2,000.  That’s a big deal.

And I could go on and on.  Like Doug says — it’s so funny when you say that — it’s the CVS — (laughter) — it’s a CVS receipt.  I could go on and on.

But the contrast.  On the one hand, we’re looking at, at the very least, chaos — but actually, chaos leading to destruction around foundational, fundamental institutions and values.  And on the other hand, competence and calm and clarity.

And I’ll — I’ll end my comments so I can come and walk around, but with a — with a basic point that I think also is something we have to acknowledge about what’s happening in our country right now. 

There’s a — there’s a kind of perverse, I think, ideology that is being pushed around that suggests that the measure of a leader’s strength is based on who you beat down, instead of what we all know: The true measure of that strength is based on who you lift up.  You know, this perverse notion that, somehow, it’s a sign of weakness to have compassion, care, when the real character trait of a real leader is someone who has some level of curiosity and concern and care for the suffering of other people and then does something about it to alleviate that suffering.

So, we got a fight in front of us.  And I’ll tell you — I was saying to a couple of the friends — over the Christmas break, Doug and I left D.C. and came home to California.  And, first of all, we slept.  (Laughter.)  We didn’t realize how tired we were.  We just slept.  And then Doug looked at me and was like, “Honey, I think we’re defrosting.”  (Laughter.)

And I was in my happy place.  I was cooking.  I — let me tell you, I love your kitchen, by the way.  I have — (laughter) — you have, like, an eight-burner stove.  I love your kitchen. 

MS. HUNT-SCOTT:  You can come anytime.  You should see the downstairs kitchen.  It’s even better.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  I want to see it.  (Laughter.)

So, I was in my happy place and I was cooking.  The kids were home.  They — just it was all good.  But because we knew, starting in January, this is no joke.  And already in the last two and half weeks, I’ve been North Carolina, South Carolina twice, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada twice, New York, California, just in the first, like, two and a half weeks of this year.

And I know we’re all prepared to do something similar, in terms of each day, starting now, understanding what is at stake and understanding it’s going to take all of us. 

We love our country.  We love our country.  We believe in our foundational principles.  And it is incumbent on each one of us to do everything we can.  And I know I’m preaching to the choir, because that’s why you guys are here. 

And I thank you very much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

     END

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at a Campaign Reception | Los Gatos, CA appeared first on The White House.

Mexican Heritage Plaza
San Jose, California

12:20 P.M. PST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everyone.  (Applause.)  Hi, San Jose!

MS. BUSH:  I mean, how cool is this?  (Laughter.)

Before we get into serious business, I just personally want to extend a thank you.  We did this for the first time — having a conversation like this one — two years ago —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

MS. BUSH:  — on a college campus across the country. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. BUSH:  And day in and day out, while you are in the position to hold the issues of the world, you keep our rights a top issue in the administration and in the White House.  And on behalf of all women and potentially pregnant people everywhere, I just want to thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

MS. BUSH:  Okay.  So, we are in a moment as a nation, and I’m curious, from your vantage point, how you see it and — and why you have decided to lead this “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  Well, first of all, it’s great to be with you, Sophia.  And thank you for sharing the stage and — and for using your voice in such an important way. 

And I want to thank the senators who are here.  I know that we had Senator Padilla, Butler — who are here.  They are doing extraordinary work along with the Secretary, Xavier Becerra, and so many others.  And so, I want to just acknowledge them in front of all of the friends.  (Applause.)

As well as my husband, the first Second Gentleman of the United States.  (Laughs.)  (Applause.)

So, here we are, January of 2024, where, just over a year ago, the highest court in our land, the Court of Thurgood and RBG, took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of America, from the women of America.  And thereafter, in state after state, we have seen extremist so-called leaders propose and pass laws that would criminalize healthcare providers, some of them literally legislating prison for life; punishing women; making no exception even for rape or incest.

You know, I will tell you —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Madam Vice President, we demand a ceasefire now!  Ceasefire now!  Ceasefire now!  There is no reproductive justice without a ceasefire now!  (Inaudible.)  

AUDIENCE:  MVP!  MVP!  MVP! 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, let — let me say, in a — in a — in a real democracy, everyone has a right to have their voice heard.  (Applause.)  Everyone has a right to have their voice heard.

And I will say, we all want this conflict to end as soon as possible.  (Applause.)  And the President and I are working on that every single day.  So — (applause).

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, back to what we were discussing — back to what we’re discussing.  We are looking at a situation —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Ceasefire now!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  We’re looking at a situation in our country —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Ceasefire now (inaudible).

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — where there are people who are literally suffering, many — most, silently suffering because of what has been proposed and/or passed in states across our country. 

Part of why I’m doing this tour is because I think that more people — not the people here, but more people who may not be here and are not as attuned to what’s happening in real time — must understand — you know, for years, so many of us, we were in marches; we’ve talked; we have fought — let’s keep Roe alive.  We have to protect Roe, and we all did.  Most of us, for our entire adult lives, it was intact.  We knew it was prescion [sic], and we need to defend it — we knew it was precious.  But we kind of thought it would always be there.

And now we have seen that it has been taken.  And all over our country — Dr. Gupta started to talk about that — the number of people who are suffering — we’re all grown in here, so I’m going to just speak fact because fact must be told: Women are having miscarriages in toilets in our country.  I’ve met women who were in the midst of a miscarriage —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — who were — went to an emergency room —

AUDIENCE:  MVP!  MVP!  MVP!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — went to an emergency room to seek healthcare and were rejected by the healthcare professionals there who were afraid they would be jailed for providing women in distress healthcare. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Ceasefire now!  Ceasefire now!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I met a woman —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I met a woman who literally developed sepsis.  And it was not until she developed sepsis that she received the healthcare that she needed. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  You are complacent (inaudible).  Ceasefire now!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  We have a lot of very important issues that we all must discuss, but the topic for this discussion is what we need to do to fight back against laws that are criminalizing healthcare providers and making women suffer in our country.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes, we are going to win this election.  (Applause.)  Yes, we will.

So, there are a lot of big issues impacting our world right now which evoke, rightly, very, very strong emotions and fears and anger and tears and concerns. 

The topic for today here is the topic of what has happened in our country after the Dobbs decision, which took away the right of people to make decisions about their own body and has resulted in extreme harm.  And so, I’m going to get back to the issue, because it’s an important one, and we should not be distracted from any important issue. 

So, what we’re talking about — (applause) — what we’re looking at in these — in these states, for example, that have made no exception even for rape or incest — now, many of you, this is my — I grew up in California, in the Bay Area.  Many of you know my career, so you know that I started my career as a prosecutor.  What you may not know is one of the biggest reasons why. 

When I was in high school, one of my closest friends, one of my best friends, I learned, was being molested by her stepfather.  And when I learned, I said to her, “You have to come and stay with us.”  I called my mother, and my mother said, “Of course she does.”  And she came to stay with us.

And I decided at a very early age I wanted to do everything I could to protect women and children from harm.  And I specialized, for a long time in my career as a prosecutor, including when I was working as AG, on crimes affecting women and children.

“No exception even for rape or incest.”  Let’s understand what that means.  It means that these so-called leaders are saying to a survivor of a crime of violence to their body, a violation to their body, that they don’t have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next.  That’s immoral.

This is what’s happening around our country. 

So, when we talk about the layers of harm — be it harm to our democracy, harm to our Constitution, harm to our freedoms and our rights — and we then understand the real harm that also exists every day for individuals who are being denied the healthcare they need, it’s extraordinary. 

And for that reason, I know we all are approaching this with a sense, yes, of — of empathy and understanding but also profound commitment, with a sense of urgency, to do something about it to end the pain and the suffering that is happening right now in real time in our country. 

And so, that’s the issue as much as anything.  And the way that we are going to ultimately deal with this is to, one, have some consensus — which I do believe exists — which is that one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government should not be telling her what to do with her body.  (Applause.)

If she chooses — if she chooses, she will consult with her pastor, her priest, her rabbi, her imam, but not the government telling her what to do. 

And so, we need, this November, to elect a majority of people in the United States Congress who simply agree it’s not the government’s right to tell a woman what’s in her own best interest when she knows what’s in her own best interest and doesn’t need some person walking around with a flag pin to tell her what to do.  (Applause.)

And Joe Biden has been very clear: When Congress puts back in place the rights that the Court took away, he will sign it into law.  He will sign into law the protections of Roe v. Wade.  (Applause.)

So, that’s part of the task in front of us right now.

MS. BUSH:  I don’t think it’s lost on any of us in this moment — here or in the world — given the conversation we’re all having, that, as you said earlier, when extremism comes home to roost —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. BUSH:  — whether it’s here in America or around the world, it’s women and girls who suffer worst.  And it can feel overwhelming to try to hold all of these issues. 

I know for me, as a citizen, I look to you.  And I — I can’t imagine the pressure you feel with all of us looking to you, going, “Tell us what to do.” 

But one of the things that you often encourage us to do when we feel helpless in the face of global suffering and of the suffering of women and girls and at-risk people is to get involved locally. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

MS. BUSH:  That’s why you’re here on —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

MS. BUSH: — a local tour with us —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

MS. BUSH:  — talking about this issue, while you, daily, hold all the rest of them. 

And I’m curious, for those of us who, you know, don’t get the binders and the briefings: What should we be doing in our states?  And what can we encourage our states to do?  And what can states do across the nation to fight back and protect our reproductive freedoms?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  That’s great.  So, I’ll start with this.

Part of the environment in which this issue exists is an environment that is heavily laden with judgment, suggesting to these individuals, suggesting to these women that they’ve done something wrong and something they should be embarrassed about.  And — and understand, then, the layers that come along with that that include making her feel as though she’s alone. 

And, as we know, one of the things that can be most disempowering is when people feel they’re alone; when they feel they don’t have community, much less support; when they feel they’re being judged and outcast, as opposed to embraced. 

And so, this is the power of each of us as individuals in a community, in a society, on every level, including this one, which is to think about how you use the way that you talk with people, be it — you know, Mom, Peg, I see you here.  My mother-in-law is here.  (Laughter.)  That’s going to be by the telephone — (laughs) — or text or social media.

But the ways that we can talk with people — friends and strangers — about the issue to remind them about what’s at stake and — and the harm that is happening every day. 

I have seen — as I am traveling the country on this issue, I’ve seen the power of that communication.  I have met with people who started — especially before the Dobbs decision came down — and were vehement that they were opposed to abortion and who have not abandoned their faith and their — whatever reason it is for why they feel that way and strongly about themselves and their family, but also didn’t know and weren’t aware of the suffering that would happen as a result and, now knowing the suffering that is happening, are reconsidering their position in terms of the policy of it all — the policy being to deny other people a decision to make that very important decision for themselves and not the government telling them. 

So, the power of communication on this is very important. 

I think there’s also another thing that is at play on so many issues in our country, which is, if you will, I think a certain thing that is quite perverse that is being pushed by some so-called leaders, which is to suggest that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down instead of who you lift up.  Right?  (Applause.)

You know, there’s a — there’s a thing happening that suggests that to care about people somehow is a sign of weakness, when we all know that one of the great characteristics and character of — of real leadership is the character that has some level of concern, curiosity, and compassion about the suffering of other people and then wants to do something about alleviating that suffering. 

And so, I work with the belief that the mass ma- —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — the vast majority of people in our country have that feeling.

AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, the work that needs to be done over these next 10 months includes using our voices to really help people understand how this is affecting people in real time, because there’s nothing abstract about this issue.  There is nothing hypothetical about it.  It is — it does not require and it absolutely deserves more than some kind of intellectual political debate.  It requires action to stop the harm that is happening right now.  And that’s about organizing. 

Californians, thankfully, we have a state that has done beautiful and important work to protect rights, to put it in the Constitution.  (Applause.)  This is very important.  But we have neighboring states, not so much.  And so, think about, you know, how you travel and when you travel to do that. 

But the other point that I’d make on being a Californian right now: Let’s not — don’t get too comfortable with that, because if these folks have their way — and they’ve already articulated it’s part of their agenda — they’ll get a national ban.  So, let’s understand, none of us can afford to sit back and say, “Thank God we’re in California.”

MS. BUSH:  Right. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Because, as we know, they go for — they go for — they — and then they come for you.  Right?  And so, let’s keep that in mind as well. 

And we just got to hustle over these next 10 — 10 months.  You know, Doug and I have been very clear.  We came home for the holiday, and it was very funny.  I — a lot of friends here, so I’ll just share with you a little personal story.  We slept.  (Laughs.)  I mean, we were just tired.  We slept.  (Laughter.)  Doug looked at me, and he was like, “Honey, I think we’re defrosting.”  Right?  (Laughter.)  

And I cooked, which is my happy place — and family.  But all knowing that, starting in January, got to hit the road.  This year, already in the last two and a half weeks — I’m looking at Xavier — I’ve been North Carolina, South Carolina twice, Nevada twice, Georgia, Wisconsin, New York, California — in the first two and a half weeks.  (Applause.)  So — and Alex Padilla has been there, Laphonza Butler. 

So, we got a lot of ground to cover — all of us.  And — and we can make a difference on this issue for people that, by the way, for the most part, we may never meet; for people who, for the most part, will never know any of our names but whose lives will forever be impacted because of the work that we do in organizing and using our voices at this moment.  (Applause.)

MS. BUSH:  When — when we hold these two things to be true at the same time, the fact that we — in California, we’re lucky enough to enshrine our rights via Proposition 1 into our state laws, but we’re looking at the risk of a national ban.  We — we see the extremists on the GOP side going after mifepristone and medication abortion, which over 50 percent of pregnant people use in —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. BUSH:  — when they are in need.  We’re — we’re talking about the potential denial of care, even here, if — if the mail stops.  And when we talk about the strain that comes into our state from our surrounding states, where our friends don’t have the rights that we do here —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. BUSH:  — at this time, we’re — we’re really doing the math locally, but potentially nationally for a true healthcare crisis. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. BUSH:  This is a crisis. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  You’re absolutely right. 

MS. BUSH:  And —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  You’re absolutely right. 

MS. BUSH:  — I’m just curious: Can you walk us through who’s responsible for this?  Because this was an intentional crisis.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Indeed. 

MS. BUSH:  And you’ve mentioned that the Supreme Court overturned Roe, but can we — can we just cover how we got to that point?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I think we should.

MS. BUSH:  I think we should too.  (Laughter.)  It feels appropriate to tell some truth. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, the former President of the United States hand-picked — hand-picked three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo Roe.  Let’s be very clear about it. 

And he has been very clear that that is exactly what he intended.  Just take him at his word.  Take him at his word when he said recently he’s “proud” of what he did. 

And I asked, “Proud?”  I’m looking at Christine Pelosi.  I — I asked, “Proud?”  Proud that doctors might go to jail for giving healthcare?  Proud that women are having miscarriages without any healthcare that they need?  Proud that — that fundamental freedoms have been taken from the American people?

To understand the arrogance that is associated with the taking and then what we are up against — and so, this is why we know what is before us and the fight that is before us.  This is a fight that is fundamental.  And it is fundamentally about freedom — freedom — the freedom to make decisions about your own body. 

And understand, as we step back, there is — and I travel our country — there is afoot a full-on intent to attack hard-fought, hard-won freedoms in our country.  Just look at what is happening.  Look at what is happening with a “Don’t Say Gay” bill.  Okay?

So, now, let me — I will remind my fellow Californians: In 2004 — actually, Valentine’s weekend 2004 — so, it’ll be 20 years — I was proud to be one of the first elected officials in the country to perform same-sex marriages — (applause) — almost 20 years ago. 

A “Don’t Say Gay” bill — so, imagine this.  So, 20 years ago — so, this means that some young teacher in Florida is afraid to put up a photograph of themselves and their partner for fear they may be fired.  For doing what?  For doing the God’s gift to all of us to avow themselves to teach other people’s children?  As it is, they don’t get paid enough. 

In 2024, we’re looking at attacks on the LGBTQ community. 

In 2024, we’re looking at attacks on the freedom to vote and access to the ballot.  I was just in Georgia.  You know, they passed a law in Georgia to make it illegal to give people food and water while they stand in line to vote.  What happened to “love thy neighbor”?  I mean, the hypocrisy abounds.

The kinds of freedoms that are under attack in America right now, and — and I would offer — you know, I asked my team to create a Venn diagram for me.  I love Venn diagrams.  (Laughter.)  And, you know, whenever you’re kind of looking at something complex, a Venn diagram can usually help you out. 

And the overlap, then — right? — between where we’re seeing the attacks against voting rights, where we’re seeing the attacks against LGBTQ, where they’re seeing the attacks against reproductive freedom, and you would not be shocked to see the profound intersection between them.

So, this also — then, I say, as we organize and think about these next many months — is an opportunity to rededicate ourselves not only to community building but as an extension of that coalition building.  Let’s bring together all the folks who’ve been fighting for voting rights; all the folks who have been fighting for LGBTQ rights; all the folks who have been fighting for reproductive health rights, including maternal health rights and maternal mortality — (applause) — fighting against that.  Right?

By the way, on that issue, Sophia, so I’ve also been doing a lot of work over many years on the issue of combating maternal mortality.  It is — we have, as a so-called developed nation, one of the highest rates of maternal mortality of any nation in the world.  It’s a — it’s a crying shame. 

And so, again, the hypocrisy ob- — abounds.  In the states with the top 10 worst numbers on maternal mortality, all have bans.  I say to these so-called extremist leaders, “Okay.  So, you say that your work to — to ban abortion — ban access to reproductive healthcare is because you are so concerned about mothers and children.  Well, why you been silent on maternal mortality?”  (Applause.)  “Where you been?”

When I became Vice President, I issued a challenge to states: Extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum care from what is the standard 2 months to 12 months.  (Applause.)  When I started, 3 states were doing it; now 43 have done it.  Right?  (Applause.)  Right?

All these issues are connected.  All these issues are connected.

MS. BUSH:  That gives me hope, the coalition building —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MS. BUSH:  — the — the work that you all are succeeding on.  And we need hope in a world that feels so heavy. 

I want to know what gives you hope for the year ahead, because you’re gearing up for a big fight.  We know what we’re up against.  It can’t be easy.  What keeps you positive and ready for this?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  A number of things.  One, this audience.  I mean, and I know who’s here.  I know who’s here.  And — and each of you have so many other things you could be doing with your time, so many other obligations, and — and the individuals here have come together as a community to stand together and with each other on a very important issue that’s going to require a certain level of selflessness on behalf of us all and certainly sacrifice to speak up.

What gives me hope is an understanding that if you — we all know history.  There has never been any progress that has come about in our country, as far as I’m concerned, that came about without a fight.  (Applause.)  It requires a fight.

You know, here’s how I think about democracy, as an extension of all the points we’re making about fighting for freedoms.  The nature of democracy — there’s a duality to it.  On the one hand, it’s very strong.  When a democracy is intact, what it does to protect and preserve individual rights and freedoms and the dignity of people, the equality of people — it’s very strong, what it does for its people.

It is also very fragile.  It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it.  And so, fight we will. 

You know, we just, not long ago, celebrated Mar- — the birthday of Martin Luther King.  And when I do — and I always do — I will always also refer to the great Coretta Scott King.  (Applause.)  And — because she, too, was a great freedom fighter.  And Coretta Scott King — I’ll paraphrase — but she famously said, and I quote it all the time, “The — the fight for civil rights” — which is the fight for freedom — right? — the fight for equality — she said, “must be fought and won with each generation.” 

And by that, I think she had two points.  One, it is the nature of our fight for freedoms that whatever gains we make, the nature is they will not be permanent.  It’s just the nature of it.  Therefore, understanding that, we must always be vigilant.  We must understand how precarious and precious this all is and commit ourselves every day to stand for and fight for these rights and these freedoms.

And so, you know, understanding it’s the nature of it, I think that there’s — there’s — we know what the job is ahead of us.  We know —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)  Ceasefire now!  Ceasefire now!  Ceasefire now!

AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, let us remember, there’s a lot to fight for.  And, look, as I like to say and we all say many times: When we fight, we win.  When we fight, we win.  (Applause.)

And there are a lot of folks who need to know that the people who can be in a room like this are thinking of them, because there are a lot of folks who will never be in this room, can’t be in this room.  And I think we all know it is our duty — not just our responsibility but that we have a duty — to stand for these most essential freedoms.

And this is an era right now where we are looking at these attacks, and we’re clear-eyed about where it’s coming from.  And I think that when we show that we are going to stand in solidarity, at some point, folks are going to realize they can’t win with this stuff.

And — and that means all of us being in it together, holding each other up, taking care of each other.  In this moment, when there are people trying to divide our country and distract us from what’s important, let’s just hold on to each other.  Look at the person next to you, if you don’t know them, and just let them know we’re all in this together.  Okay?  We’re all in this together.

Thank you, all.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

MS. BUSH:  Thank you so much.

END                  12:52 P.M. PST

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris in a Moderated Conversation with Sophia Bush on the National “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” Tour | San Jose, CA appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:39 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, I have two shoutouts in the room. 

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

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

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

Admiral.

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

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sorry.

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m sorry.

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

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

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

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

And with that, I will take some questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke.

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

MR. KIRBY:  I cannot. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly O.

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Yeah.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  No —

Q    — what’s the array of options?

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  M.J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Francesca.

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yes. 

Q    What is the legal basis?

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Bless you.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — and so many Palestinians displaced.” 

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Franco.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

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

Q    Aren’t we already at war with Iran? 

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not looking —

Q    Isn’t that clear?

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    And can you —

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

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

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

Q    Okay. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Well, you —

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

Q    There’s been pretty strong criticism —

MR. KIRBY:  And we —

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we noticed it.

Q    — view on that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Oh, sorry. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Not really.

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.

Q    Not really.

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.  Ma’am.

Q    Is the —

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

Q    Let me finish my question.

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

Q    He’s not looking at —

MR. KIRBY:  — when he’s defending —

Q    — how they feel about the war on Gaza?

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

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

Q    Is he looking at the polling with respect to —

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Let’s go.

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

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

Q    Does the American public have the opportunity —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — to weigh in on whether —

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am, I —

Q    — they want “Made in America” —

MR. KIRBY:  I have answered your —

Q    — stamped on the bombs —

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

Q    — that are going to be dropped?

MR. KIRBY:  I —

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

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Thank you, John.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Zeke.

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

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

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

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

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

Q    (Inaudible.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Changes to the supplemental.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Changes to the supplemental?

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

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

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

Go ahead, Nancy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.

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

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

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

Go ahead, Michael.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no —

Q    He didn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    And just to — just to follow up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because there —

Q    How can you say you want to —

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

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

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

Q    Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Okay, fair enough.

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

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

Go ahead, M.J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Jeff.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

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

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

Go ahead, Ed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — what —

Q    Do the effects to the environment —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Does he mean he’d stop people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

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

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

Q    — for employment, for trade?

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

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

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

I think I have to go. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    (Inaudible.)

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

Q    I just want to know if he means —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right. 

Q    — what he says.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Q    I guess not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:44 P.M. EST

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:39 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, I have two shoutouts in the room. 

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

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

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

Admiral.

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

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sorry.

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m sorry.

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

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

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

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

And with that, I will take some questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke.

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

MR. KIRBY:  I cannot. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly O.

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Yeah.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  No —

Q    — what’s the array of options?

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  M.J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Francesca.

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yes. 

Q    What is the legal basis?

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Bless you.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — and so many Palestinians displaced.” 

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Franco.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

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

Q    Aren’t we already at war with Iran? 

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not looking —

Q    Isn’t that clear?

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    And can you —

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

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

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

Q    Okay. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Well, you —

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

Q    There’s been pretty strong criticism —

MR. KIRBY:  And we —

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we noticed it.

Q    — view on that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Oh, sorry. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Not really.

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.

Q    Not really.

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.  Ma’am.

Q    Is the —

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

Q    Let me finish my question.

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

Q    He’s not looking at —

MR. KIRBY:  — when he’s defending —

Q    — how they feel about the war on Gaza?

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

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

Q    Is he looking at the polling with respect to —

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am.

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Let’s go.

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

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

Q    Does the American public have the opportunity —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — to weigh in on whether —

MR. KIRBY:  Ma’am, I —

Q    — they want “Made in America” —

MR. KIRBY:  I have answered your —

Q    — stamped on the bombs —

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

Q    — that are going to be dropped?

MR. KIRBY:  I —

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

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, Jon.  We’ve got to wrap this up.

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  John, the Iranian foreign ministry has denied any involvement in this drone strike in northeast Jordan.  What’s your response to that denial?

MR. KIRBY:  They support these groups, they resource them, they provide them weapons, they train them.  They certainly aren’t discouraging these attacks.  Now, what — to what degree it was directed out of Tehran, I can’t — I can’t say.  And I wouldn’t get into intelligence assessments one way or another. 

But, clearly, they continue to support these groups.  So, clearly, there’s a — there is a responsibility that appropriately needs to be laid at the feet of leaders in Tehran.

Q    And then you also said the President is consulting with his national security advisors in terms of what steps he may take in response to what happened on Sunday.  Will the President also reach out to congressional leaders just to consult with them?  Will he reach out to, for instance, the —

MR. KIRBY:  As we have in the past, so we will in the future.  We will con- — we will do appropriate notifications with leaders of — in Congress, as we have just in the recent past.  We’ll continue to do that appropriately going forward.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Last question.  Go ahead.

Q    Yes.  Thank you.  Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, Kirby.  Two questions.  The AP is reporting that, apparently, there was a confusion between this enemy drone and another drone that has been launched out of this U.S. installation, and I guess two officials have stated that this was a confusion.  Apparently, the enemy drone was confused with an American drone that was returning back to the U.S. installation.  Do you guys have any information about that?

MR. KIRBY:  That was, I think, one of the first questions I got here in the briefing.  And, as I said then, we — we can- –I can’t corroborate those accounts by — by U.S. officials.  The Department of Defense is, as you would expect them to do, going through all the forensics here to figure out exactly what happened and how to make sure it doesn’t happen again.  And I certainly would not get ahead of them on that.

Q    Now, just one — going back to the Venezuelan subject that we’ve been discussing.  As you know, María Corina Machado is the leading opposition candidate there.  She’s been banned from running for office for 15 years by the Venezuelan Supreme Court.  Does that put things in perspective, because there is some reporting that the U.S. is expected to renew the sanctions against the Venezuelan oil —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, again, I — we’ve now dealt with it a few times.  I don’t have any additional context to — to relay to you.  Mr. Maduro and his regime have decisions they have to make.  We want to see him meet the commitments they made back in October to allow opposition parties and candidates to run appropriately and to release political prisoners. 

We have decisions to make as well if they don’t do that.  They’ve got until April.  We’ll see what they do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate it.  Thank you.

Q    Thank you, John.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Has the President called already or does he plan to speak with the families of the fallen service members?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any calls to read out.  Obviously — and as Kirby started off this briefing, obviously, the President and the First Lady sent out their deepest condolences and heartfelt thoughts to the families, to their friends, and also the units — their un- — their unit as well. 

And this is a sad day.  This — yesterday was a very, very sad day for not just their family and the units and the friends but also the American people.  And so, obviously, we continue to mourn with them.  Once we have more to share about a call or outreach, certainly we will let you all know.

Q    And the President is scheduled to travel tomorrow on some political travel to Florida.  Does he — does he plan to keep that or is he going to stay back in Washington to consult with his national security team?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the President will continue his travels tomorrow to Florida.  It’s a — it’s a political travel.  So, any specific questions you may have — I know you’re not asking me —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — I know.  You know — I know you’re going to ask me that.  Obviously, the campaign is going to — will answer those questions about the particular travel tomorrow. 

The President has been, I think — I think the Admiral started off the briefing saying that the President met with his national security team, including Secretary Austin, this morning and continues to stay focused on what’s going on, obviously, in the Middle East and continues to stay updated.  Just don’t have anything to share beyond that. 

Q    And why is he going to continue traveling — do political travel in the midst of this (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you know, and you heard — hear us say this all the time: The President is president wherever he travels, wherever he goes.  It doesn’t change in this instance.

Obviously — obviously, what we saw happen yesterday in Jordan to our service members is — it’s a sad day.  It’s deeply troubling.  And you heard the President yesterday in South Carolina.  I know you were part of the pool that was traveling with him this weekend.  He — he said, “We shall respond.”  And he means that.

Obviously, we’re not going to telegraph what that’s going to look like and, you know, the President is going to make that decision.  Just don’t have anything else to share. 

But he can be president — he was able to speak to that in South Carolina at a political event and make sure that he lifted up the three souls, as he said, who were lost yesterday. 

And so, he can certainly be able to deal with an issue like this — you know, a — a very important one, obviously — anywhere that he is. 

Q    And then lastly from me, is the administration contemplating any changes to the supplemental funding request for additional needs for security for the American troops in the region after this instance or the potential response — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — somebody was coughing, so I missed the beginning of your question.  I apologize. 

Q    Changes to the supplemental.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Changes to the supplemental?

Q    Yeah.  In light of recent events, will more funding be needed? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I see.  So, look, I — look, I don’t have any changes to the supplemental.  Obviously, the President, back in October, put forth his national security request, which is obviously an emergency request, as presidents tend to do.  I don’t have any changes to that. 

And there’s conversations — as you know, you hear us say it — say this very often — negotiations happening in the Senate with Republicans and Democrats on the border security piece, which is also part of the supplemental.  And we want to see that — obviously, the supplemental pass in its fullness in what the President put forth in October, and that’s what we’re working towards. 

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the immigration negotiations.  Over the weekend, former President Trump urged his party to reject the deal.  He said it’s “a very bad bill” and it’s okay.  He said, “Please blame it on me.”  I wonder if I can get your reaction to that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say this — is this.  You’ve heard the President — you’ve heard the President loud and clear: Congress needs to act.  It — we ne- — they must act. 

Speaker Johnson and House Republicans should — they should provide the administration with the policy changes and also the funding needed to deal with the border sec- — border security, and also immigration more broadly, as we’re talking about an immigration system that has been broken for some time. 

And let’s not forget, I mean, this is the thing — right? — what the — what the senators in — the senators of both Republican side and Democrat side have been talking about what they’re dealing with — the bipartisan agreement that they’re coming forward with are things that House Republicans have said and Republicans more broadly said they wanted. 

They have said over and over again this is what they want to see.  They want to see tough — a tough — tough changes, right?  They want to see something that’s actually going to be instrumental in — in being able to deal with what we’re seeing at the border. 

This is what is being worked on.  This is what is being worked on right now.  And so, if Republicans are serious — if they are serious about addressing the situation at the border, if they are serious about addressing the security at the border, if they are serious about really changing — changing real policies and — and coming up with — with policies that’s going to make a difference and putting forward resources, then they would be part of getting this bipartisan agreement passed. 

This is exactly what they’ve been asking for — literally what Republicans have been asking for.  And now here it is.  It’s coming to fruition.  It’s being discussed.  There’s potential bipartisan agreement. 

That’s what the American people want to see.  Seventy-five percent of the American people have said that they want this issue to be dealt with — an issue that — again, that they have been for — that they have been for for years. 

So, they should get on board.  They should get on board and help the senators get this done. 

Q    Why do you believe Republicans haven’t gotten on board?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s for House Speaker — this is for the Speaker to speak to.  He’s — he’s been very vocal about this.  The Speaker seems to want to make this a political — a political football.  Right?  It’s like a hot potato.  They don’t want to hold on to it. 

But this is exactly what — what the senators are talking about.  As it relates to the border security, coming up with a bipartisan agreement is exactly — is exactly what they’ve been talking about — coming together with a tough, fair, bipartisan agreement that deals with the issue — policy changes, funding, and resources — right? — that is needed so that we can deal with what’s happening at the border and also really deal with the immigration system more broadly. 

Q    If the deal does fall apart, are there elements of it that the White House could tackle on its own without Congress?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals.  There’s a deal happening.  If I say — if I answer that — right? — then it’s getting in the way of the negotiations.  I don’t want to do that.  I want them to have the free space to be able to have honest, good-faith conversations, as they’ve been doing for the past two months, and we appreciate what’s happening in the Senate. 

We want to let that process go.  We think it’s moving in the right direction.  Obviously, the President supports what’s happening.  Our team has been working with them for the last two months.  It is important discussion. 

And we believe, again, we can — we can get this done.  And we appreciate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate working for the past two months, through the holiday as well, to really try and work out a bipartisan agreement.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The President said the border deal that’s being negotiated in the Senate would give him the power to close the border.  Speaker Johnson, however, saying the President already has the authority to do that without congressional reaction — action on this.  What’s your response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this.  Speaker Johnson has been very clear as well, when he was pushing H.R.2, even during the Trump administration, that presidents — presidents need new — they need actual authority.  Right?  They need authority — enforcement authorities, and they have said this. 

The Speaker, when he was then Congressman Johnson, said this.  “A president needs authority to actually deal with the border sec- — border and actually deal with the security at the border.” 

And so, I don’t know what’s changed.  I don’t know why, all of a sudden, he believes that the President — the President doesn’t have — already has the authority, when he says that the President needs authority.  This is something the Trump administration said.  This is something that they agreed when the Trump administration said.

And so, what is being discussed right now in — with the Sen- — in the Senate is a new enforcement tools that do not currently exist — they do not currently exist. 

And so, that’s what we’re — that’s what — that’s what the President is speaking to.  You know, and he says the moment that he has those new enforcement tools that he will act.  The day that he signs it, he will act.

Q    This deal is angering immigration advocates.  What’s being negotiated does not include anything to address the root problems of migration, and it has nothing included to provide a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers, which is something that President Biden called for legislation he proposed on his first day.  So, why is the President okay with this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we don’t — we don’t even have the text yet to — to what’s being — you know, what the bipartisan agreement is going to be.  Right?  So, I don’t want to get ahead of that.  I’m not going to dive into what’s in it and what’s not in it.  Let’s see what the senators put forward in the text.  I think that’s important to see.

Once — once it’s out there, folks will take a look.  We believe it’s going to be — it’s going to be tough but fair and it’s going to provide new enforcement tools.  Obviously, that’s going to be important.  Policy changes.  That’s going to be important.  But also resources.  That what — that’s what we believe.

But we’re not going to get into what’s in it, what’s not in it.  Let’s let the senators continue to do their negotiations and put forward this — the text. 

Q    But we’re already seeing immigration advocates slam what’s being proposed as “callous,” —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.

Q    — as “unworkable.”  So, how does the President respond to the message from some people that he’s going back on his campaign promise?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.  But what I’m saying to you is that let’s see what the Senate bipartisan agreement is.  Let’s let them put out the text, and then we can have that discussion on whatever it is that they — they want to look through and discuss. 

But, right now, we believe this is the best way forward — a bipartisan agreement is the way forward in dealing with this immigration system.  A bipartisan agreement is what we need to deal with — what’s the challenges that we’re seeing at the border.  That’s what we want to see.  And that’s what the Senate is working towards. 

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Back in the winter of 2018 and the spring of 2019, President Trump vowed to shut down the border with Mexico, using almost the identical language that the President used on Friday.  Many — many, if not most — if not practically all Democrats called that “xenophobic” and even “racist.”  Why shouldn’t people make the same conclusion about this President’s threat to shut down the entire border with Mexico?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we believe the new enforcement tools that currently don’t exist, that will be — we believe that will be part of this bipartisan agreement — will be fair.  We believe it’ll be — yes, it’ll be tough, but it will be fair.

Q    But he didn’t say he wanted to use — excuse me.  Sorry to interrupt.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no —

Q    He didn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no —

Q    He didn’t say, “I would — on day one, I will use enhanced enforcement to improve the processing of people at the border.”  He said, “I will shut the border down,” which — which suggests a total rejection of all people attempting to cross the border without — without a visa or without — without proper authorization, which, you know, stands in contravention to decades of international and U.S. law that — that governs the — the movement of people around the globe and the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and the refugees and asylum si- — system.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, no, I under- —

Q    So, why isn’t that the same thing that Trump did?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I understand your question.  What I’m saying to you: The new enforcement tools — right? — that we believe — that do not currently exist, that will be part of this bipartisan agreement — there’s going — there are different — there are different definitions — right? — of what that looks like, of what actually shutting down the border looks like.  Right? 

So, we’re going to let them work through it.  We don’t know what that looks like exactly, right? 

What we are asking for, what the President wants to see is that we deal with the challenges at the border — right? — that we have an opportunity to deal with what’s going on, the security, and make sure that we have the funding and the resources to deal with what we’re seeing at the border. 

There are going to be different — there are different definitions to what that looks like.  And so, we’ll see what — the text comes out of the Senate.  And so, we will — we will make — we will certainly have a — I guess — a broader conversation once that happens.  But we believe it’s going to be fair.  It’ll be tough.  It’ll be fair.  They’ll have the resources available to deal with what’s going on at the border.  And also, there will be some policy changes as well. 

But to say that — to define what that looks like right now, it’s getting ahead of the process.  And we need to let Republicans as well as Democrats — there are Democrats up there, obviously, talking to Republicans.  They are both having those conversations on what it will look like — a bipartisan agreement.  And that’s what you need.  In order to really deal with this issue, you got to do it in a bipartisan way.

Q    And just to — just to follow up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You’ve said a couple of times, as you did just now, that we should wait.  You don’t want to get ahead of the process. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I think your answer to the previous question was that we don’t know what’s in it.  Yet the President and the White House have explicitly said it should pass. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    And so, how is it that, on the one hand, the President has —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — said, “Pass this thing and send it to me,” but then when asked about it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look —

Q    — you say, “I don’t want to get ahead of it.  We don’t know what’s in it.”  How could you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because there —

Q    How can you say you want to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.  No.  Both —

Q    — pass it, when you don’t know what’s in it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s the thing: Both things could be true, and I’ll explain why.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The White House team has been part of — right? — the negotiations.  Right?  And the President has been getting regular updates, right?  So, obviously —

Q    Right.  So, you do know what’s in it.  You just don’t want to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no, no, no —

Q    — tell us what’s in it?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying is, negotiations are still happening.  They’re literally still happening.  They’re still discussing this.  If I tell you this is happening today, who knows what could happen the next day? 

And also, I don’t want to get ahead of the conversations, right?  I don’t want to get in the middle of negotiations.  And that is true. 

But the White House team has been really talking to and part of this discussion for the past two months.  So, the President has been getting updates — has been getting updates, but — but at the same time, negotiations are still happening.  And that’s just the reality that we’re in. 

And talking about that from the podium, that will have an effect on negotiations.  And you know that, Michael.  It would.  It would have an effect on negotiations.

Q    Right.  Except the President has — didn’t — didn’t exhibit that kind of caution over the last few days, right?  He —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, for me, from here, I have to exhibit that type of caution. 

Q    Okay, fair enough.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And the President is the President.  Right?  And he wants to give confidence to the American people that we’re — that we — he believes this is going to be — yes, it’s going to be tough, but it’s also going to be fair, and we have to — in order to deal with this situation.  And it’ll be a historic — if it gets done, this will be a historic deal.

But, you know, we have to get this done in a bipartisan way.  We truly do.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Karine, the families of some of the American hostages are back in Washington this week.  Is the President willing to meet with them again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to read out.  As — as you know, Jake Sullivan, the President himself, Secretary Blinken have met with the family of the hostages in the past.  Just don’t have anything to read out on — on his schedule at this time.

Q    And just separately, we reported last week that the President had met with some of the ceasefire advocates backstage at the UAW conference.  I wondered whether this is a kind of conversation that the President is willing to have more of these kinds of conversations going forward, given the immense pressure that he’s facing from advocates calling for a ceasefire, calling on him to support a ceasefire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, you know, it’s hard to say if he’s going to have regular conversations.  Look, the President — it’s not the first time that the President has had conversations with protesters from whatever side of — certainly of the issue that they’re on. 

The President — he says this all the time — he’s the President for all Americans.  That’s something that he believes.  And he’s always willing to hear people out.  And he believes — and we’ve said this before — when it comes to protesters, people — Americans have the right to — for their voices to be heard, just as long as they do it peacefully.

And so, hearing that, you know, what — the President speaking to protesters, that’s who he is.  He’s going to — he’s going to listen to Americans and hear what they have to say just as long as they do it peacefully.  I just don’t have anything else to read out.

Q    Do you — do you have anything you could share, just from his end, how he spoke to these ceasefire advocates in that meeting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I don’t have anything to read out.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is the White House tracking the latest developments with Evergrande, the Chinese real estate company that Hong Kong is now ordering it to be unraveled, and the implications that that will have on the Chinese economy and potentially the global economy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ve seen those reports.  I just don’t have anything to share on the President — where the President is on being briefed about that.

Q    If his econ team is watching it and has a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — view on it, we’d love to hear it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We will — we will make sure we get back — back to you on that.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, the Department of Energy has finalized a rule for energy savings standards on appliances like refrigerators; washing machines; wine, beverage chillers; freezers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; electric, gas, and stovetops.  So, is our kitchen one of the root causes that’s killing the environment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this — let me just start from the top here because I do have a couple of things to say.  As you just stated, the Department of Energy today — they finalized a congressionally mandated energy efficiency standard for residential cooking, as you just laid out the different products.  And what it will do — it’s going to reduce household utility costs while improving appliance re- — reliability and performance, which is really important.

The standards — these standards, which reflect a joint recommendation from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and Consumer Federation of America, they are projected to save Americans approximately $1.6 billion on their utility bills over 30 years.

And so, this administration is always committed to using every tool at our disposal to lower costs.  This is certainly an option here, right?  Something that we’ve taken — an action that we’ve done and is going to be, obviously, for American families across the country.

Altogether, the energy efficiency standards advanced by this administration will provide nearly $1 trillion in consumer savings.

Q    But — but do the standards — the effects of the standards outweigh the cost of the regulations?  Do the companies that have to build these things with workers and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — what —

Q    Do the effects to the environment —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say more.

Q    Do the effects to the environment outweigh the added costs of the regulations for new manufacturing plants to be built — changing standards, redesigning equipment, that kind of thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re talking about making sure that these — these products are efficient — right? — making sure that they’re working in a way that’s not just that — obviously, they’ll still have the performance that they need, obviously, protecting the environment. 

But I think one al- — other big benefit, as I just laid out, is making sure that we’re saving Americans money.  I think that’s important.  That’s important that we’re — we — we’re able to do that.  1.6 billion dollars over 30 years, that’s what Americans want to see.  That’s an —

And let’s not forget, this is a congressionally mandated ef- — energy efficiency.  So, this is something that Congress went through.  This is something that they evaluated, and that’s how it got put forward to the Department of Energy.

So, this has had a lot of eyes on it.  Right?  This has had a lot of, kind of, research to make sure that this was the right thing to do for the American family, the American people.  And I think that’s what should matter.

Q    One more, if I might, on Iran, actually.  Could — at what point does the President, then, cut off the money to Iran by — by stopping or reducing their benefit from oil sales?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything to share on that particular thing.  I — as I — as the President said himself yesterday, after he acknowledged the three souls that were taken from us, our service members — brave — who bravely — who are — who bravely protect our national security, and obvious- — obviously, us as a country — you know, he said that we shall respond. 

So, I’m just going to not get ahead of that.

AIDE:  Karine, I think you have a couple minutes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Go ahead, Brian.  I haven’t called on you. 

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  On the border.  When the President said that he would shut down the border, does that mean that the President would temporarily sign off on shutting down border crossings at ports of entry?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into specifics and details.  The President is very clear: He wants to make sure that we deal with the border — border security, that we deal with the challenges at the border.  And he has said if these new — these new authorities — right? — these new enforcement — enforcement authorities were — were put — were made into law, obviously, he would use it.

They’re working through the text.  Right?  The Senate is working through the text on what that looks like, how that is defined.  So, I’m not going to get into specifics from here.

Q    Well, can you give us a little bit more about what the President meant when he said he would shut down the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, he — I just — I mean, it’s very clear.

Q    Does he mean he’d stop people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — from being able to cross back and forth for jobs–

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What he wants to do is —

Q    — for employment, for trade?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I hear you.  What he wants to do is make sure that we deal with the challenges at the border.  That is what he wants to make sure that we do.  He wants the — the new authorities, the new enforcement tools that is being discussed — that he believes, if it’s put into law, will help him deal with the issues at the border. 

And not just that.  We’re talking about immigration policy, actually doing meaningful changes to immigration policy so that we can deal with a broken system — a broken immigration system that has been broken for some decades now. 

And so, we’ll have some — I’m sure once they come and havw a bipartisan agreement, the text will be — will be released, and then we’ll have more to share there. 

I think I have to go. 

Q    So we should take him at his word is what you’re saying, right? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’ll say this.

Q    “Shut down the border” means “shut down the border”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll say this.  I’ll say this.  I’ll say this.  The first day of his administration, the President took this issue very seriously.  He put forth a comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with what’s happening with the —

Q    We’ve heard all that.  We want to talk about the news.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me — wait, let me — you — you don’t get to decide —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You don’t get to decide what I say and what I don’t say.  Either you — either you hear me out, or we can — you know, I’ll see you on Wednesday.  Totally up to you.  Totally up to you. 

Q    I just want to know if he means —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right. 

Q    — what he says.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Q    I guess not.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was — he means what he says.  Not going to go into his — to details here. 

Here’s — here’s the reality: The immigration system is broken.  It’s been broken for decades, even in the last administration.  The President introduced this piece of legislation three years ago.  House Republicans got in the way.  They refused to do anything about it. 

Now he’s in a — he’s in this position to have a — potentially a bipartisan agreement that the Senate has been working on with Republicans and Democrats on a real — on a real solution to move forward.  Seventy-five percent of the American people, majority of the American people want us to work on this issue. 

And they’ve been very clear.  The 2022 midterm elections, what did they say?  They want to see Congress doing — doing things in a bipartisan way to really address the issues that matter to them — that matter to them.

Here’s this President actually working with Republicans and Democrats to deal with this issue — to deal with this issue.  That’s important.  And I think that’s what the American people care about. 

I’ll see you guys on Wednesday.  Thank you so much. 

2:44 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met today with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.  They welcomed Turkiye’s recent approval of Sweden’s NATO membership and expressed a shared desire to see Sweden join the Alliance as soon as possible.  Secretary General Stoltenberg noted NATO’s Allies’ unflinching support for Ukraine as it continues to defend itself against Russian aggression.  Mr. Sullivan and the Secretary General discussed planning for the July 2024 NATO Summit in Washington and NATO’s improved military readiness as a record number of Allies are on track to meet the two percent defense spending pledge in 2024. They exchanged views on Allied progress in ramping up defense production and expressed concern over the DPRK’s export and Russia’s procurement of DPRK military equipment, as well as Russia’s use of this equipment against Ukraine.  They also underscored Allies’ shared commitment to military readiness and to defending every inch of NATO territory.

###

The post Readout of National Security Advisor Sullivan’s Meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg appeared first on The White House.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met today with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.  They welcomed Turkiye’s recent approval of Sweden’s NATO membership and expressed a shared desire to see Sweden join the Alliance as soon as possible.  Secretary General Stoltenberg noted NATO’s Allies’ unflinching support for Ukraine as it continues to defend itself against Russian aggression.  Mr. Sullivan and the Secretary General discussed planning for the July 2024 NATO Summit in Washington and NATO’s improved military readiness as a record number of Allies are on track to meet the two percent defense spending pledge in 2024. They exchanged views on Allied progress in ramping up defense production and expressed concern over the DPRK’s export and Russia’s procurement of DPRK military equipment, as well as Russia’s use of this equipment against Ukraine.  They also underscored Allies’ shared commitment to military readiness and to defending every inch of NATO territory.

###

The post Readout of National Security Advisor Sullivan’s Meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg appeared first on The White House.