Whitehouse.gov Feed

Via Teleconference

MODERATOR:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining today’s call to discuss the U.S. approach to harnessing the power of AI for U.S. national security, ahead of tomorrow’s release of the National Security Memorandum.

As a reminder of the ground rules of this call, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and it is embargoed until 6:00 a.m. Eastern on Thursday, October 24.

For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the call today we have [senior administration official] and [senior administration official]. 

Following the call, we’ll provide you all with some materials under the same embargo, so be on the lookout for those. 

Our speakers are going to have a few words at the top, and then we’ll turn it over to some of your questions.

With that, [senior administration official], I’ll turn it over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Eduardo.  And thanks to all of you for joining us this evening. 

So, we’re really pleased to report that tomorrow we’ll be releasing a National Security Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence signed by the President. 

And we want to start off just by sharing a little bit of context for this, which really begins with the fact that the United States has a very strong hand in AI today.  We design the most advanced hardware.  We host the leading AI companies that are building the most advanced AI systems, and really have a dominant market share in artificial intelligence globally.  And thanks to the President’s CHIPS Act, we are building more resilience in our chip supply chains as well. 

But as many of you know, the innovation that’s happened, particularly in this current wave of frontier artificial intelligence, has really been driven by the private sector.  And it’s critical that we continue to both foster that leadership but ensure that the government, and particularly with this National Security Memorandum, ensure that our national security agencies are adopting these technologies in ways that align with our values. 

And a failure to do this, a failure to take advantage of this leadership and adopt this technology we worry could put us at risk of a strategic surprise by our rivals, such as China.

And as you all know, there are very clear national security applications of artificial intelligence, including in areas like cybersecurity and counter-intelligence, not to mention the broad array of logistics and other activities that support military operations.

Because countries like China recognize similar opportunities to modernize and revolutionize their own military and intelligence capabilities using artificial intelligence, it’s particularly imperative that we accelerate our national security community’s adoption and use of cutting-edge AI capabilities to maintain our competitive edge. 

So, President Biden’s first-ever executive order, signed last October, on artificial intelligence was a key step forward to ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of AI. 

In that executive order, the President specifically directed the development of this National Security Memorandum to ensure that we maintain our edge over rivals seeking to leverage AI to the detriment of our national security, while also building effective safeguards to ensure that our use of AI upholds our values and preserves public trust.

So, consistent with the President’s direction, we’ve been engaged in a policy process over the last year or so to advance those aims and complete this National Security Memorandum. 

And tomorrow, the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, will deliver remarks to rising military and intelligence professionals at the National Defense University so he can speak directly to the very national security professionals and leaders who are going to be implementing the core of this strategy. 

During his remarks, Jake will talk about what led us to this moment in artificial intelligence, both in terms of its development and our views on why it is so critical for national intelligence and why, therefore, the President has issued this National Security Memorandum on AI.

Jake will also outline how the United States must strengthen our own advantages in artificial intelligence, how to harness that advantage in a responsible manner for national security, and also how the United States can do this work in lockstep with our partners around the world in ways that will protect our national security while also leveraging our advantages in AI for the benefit of countries around the world. 

So, we hope you’ll join us for those remarks as well. 

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague to provide more detail about the NSM itself.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks.  And thanks, everybody, for joining.

As many of you know, the administration’s approach to AI is rooted in the premise that capabilities generated by the transformer and large language model revolution in AI, often called frontier AI, are poised to shape geopolitical, military, and intelligence competition. 

Now, most of the NSM is unclassified and will be released publicly.  It also contains a classified annex that primarily addresses adversary threats. 

Now, the principles guiding our work in the NSM are simple.  They are that the U.S. should first lead the world’s development of safe, secure, and trustworthy AI, and establishing a stable and responsible framework to advance international AI governance.  And as a result, the NSM serves as a formal charter for the AI Safety Institute in the Department of Commerce, which we have created to be the primary port of call for U.S. AI developers.  They have already issued guidance on safe, secure, and trustworthy AI development and have secured voluntary agreements with companies to test new AI systems before they are released to the public. 

Second, another principle is that the U.S. should harness the most advanced AI systems with appropriate safeguards to achieve national security objectives.  And we are directing that the agencies gain access to the most powerful AI systems and put them to use, which often involves substantial efforts on procurement. 

And finally, all of this must be done in accordance with our values. 

So, alongside the National Security Memorandum itself, we are publishing a companion document called the Framework for AI Governance and Risk Management for National Security that provides guidance on how agencies can and cannot use AI. 

So, we also believe that we must out-compete our adversaries and mitigate the threats posed by adversary use of AI. 

So, in summary, what I’ve outlined are essentially three core principles that you’ll see throughout the documents: securing the U.S.’s lead on AI; two, harnessing AI for national security; and, crucially, building in the governance framework to ensure that we are actually accelerating adoption in a smart way, in a responsible way, by having clear rules of the road.

With that, I’ll turn it over to Eduardo.

MODERATOR:  Thank you both.  We’ll now turn to our Q&A portion.  If you’d like to ask a question, please use the “raise your hand” feature on Zoom.

First up, we’ll go to the line of Katrina Manson.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Hi there.  Thanks so much.  I would love to ask how you see the U.N. intention to have countries sign up to a ban on lethal autonomous weapons by 2026 and if any of your work foresees the U.S. signing up to that. 

Many of the harms that you try to prevent on the civil use of AI, obviously in terms of bodily harms, are very much implied with the use of AI for the military.  And in the case of Maven, AI targeting is already being used to support battlefield firing in the Middle East by the U.S.  Can you address the very serious safety concerns around the use of AI targeting and whether you will consider a ban on lethal autonomous weapons, which can use AI?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that question.  I’m happy to start with that. 

So, first point is, as I think [senior administration official] noted, we’ll be releasing tomorrow, alongside the National Security Memorandum, a framework on responsible use of artificial intelligence in a national security context.  And so, you’ll see there really a lot of detail on kind of all the steps that we’re taking to ensure these systems are used responsibly. 

Now, and the other thing I would point out is: While it’s not necessarily part of this NSM, although there’s a nod to kind of our diplomatic efforts and kind of direction to double down on those, some of you may be aware of the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy.  And that’s a declaration where the Vice President, in fact, has kind of taken a leadership role.  And we have around 60 countries that have signed up to this declaration, which is really focused squarely on how AI and autonomy should be used.  And most recently, there was a summit held on this by South Korea. 

So that’s another area where that combines both the substance that you’ll see in the framework on responsible use, but also, really, diplomatic efforts that we’ve been leading over the last few years.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And, sorry, if I can add to what was just mentioned.  The framework itself you’ll see actually references the political declaration that was just mentioned, and it also outlines the requirement for adherence to the Department of Defense’s Directive 3000.09 and successor related policies that address autonomous or semiautonomous weapons systems. 

But in addition to that, as was just mentioned, there are a number of outlined prohibited use cases, as well as high-impact use cases that are relevant.  And one theme you’ll see in both the NSM and the framework document is the fact that we need to ensure that AI is used in a manner consistent with the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief to decide when to order military operations in the nation’s defense, for instance.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Garrett (inaudible).  You should be able to mute yourself.

Q    Hello.  Can you all hear me?

MODERATOR:  We can, yes.

Q    Great.  You mentioned that some of the commitments from companies are voluntary.  And, you know, just covering the big fight around legislation here in California, companies seem, from my perspective at least, to very much want to keep those commitments to safety and that kind of thing voluntary, rather than sort of required or legislated. 

And I’m just wondering if, you know, the administration has a view, or if it’s published as part of this, about trying to sort of codify those voluntary commitments and make them more, you know, ironclad and not sort of up to the whims of these CEOs.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Garrett.  So, I think on that point, I would just say we continue to work with colleagues on the Hill.  There are a number of proposals relating to, you know, regulations on artificial intelligence.  And so, that’s really — that’s, really, ongoing. 

I think, really, the emphasis in the National Security Memorandum is really kind of making commitments ourselves as a government about how we will adopt and use artificial intelligence.  You know, as you point out, we have played a leadership role in getting some of those commitments from the companies.  We have taken those commitments and kind of — to the international stage, through the G7 and the Hiroshima process as well. 

But, really, what we’re focused on tomorrow is what commitments can the government itself make on responsible use, which we think is important, by the way, not just for its own sake, but we also think that’s important to enable us to both accelerate both the development and also accelerate the adoption of use as well.  And that’s a point that I think you’ll hear the National Security Advisor focus on as well tomorrow.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And next up, we’ll go to the line of Patrick Tucker.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi.  Thanks.  Pat Tucker from Defense One.

There’s a new paper out, actually this week, from Meredith Whittaker and a couple other folks at the AI Now Institute, actually pointing out some of the potential dangers of some of these commercially facing AI products in national security contexts. 

And they point out that some of these generative AI tools have very large — unacceptably large false positive rates.  They hallucinate, often, a lot.  And sometimes to train them, they rely on publicly available data, including data that might come from data brokers and other sources that poses a potential privacy risk, particularly to Americans, because Americans produce a lot more purchasable data than do citizens in China or Russia. 

So can you talk a little bit about how this memorandum does or does not address data vulnerability of Americans and some of the potential risks in the national security setting of adopting commercial and consumer-facing AI tools that have high hallucination rates or false positive rates?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Do you want to start with that?  You can join as well.

So, thanks for the question.  Look, I think some of these, you know, concerns I think are ones that I think colleagues in the national security community are acutely aware of.  You know, there are a few points here. 

One is, you know, we have to go through a process of accrediting systems.  And that’s not just for AI systems, but you know, national security systems generally.  And so, that’s point one, to kind of ensure that they are fit for the purpose or particular mission. 

I think the second point is: We are, you know, very — I think very aware that what we’re doing at this stage is really trying to ensure that we have pilots and some important experimentation happening, because there are going to be challenges associated with adopting any new technology. 

Third is, the framework that [senior administration official] mentioned is one that’s going to have to be continuously updated.  And we have tried to set it up in a way so that that can happen in real time as there are challenges that are inevitably encountered.

And parallel to the policy process here, we have a lawyers group that is kind of working very intensively to ensure that, obviously, all existing law is complied with, but also to ensure that novel legal issues as we encounter them are addressed in a timely way as well. 

I do want to just address the point on data that you mentioned specifically, which is, you know, we have been very concerned about the ways in which Americans’ sensitive data can be sold, really through the front door — through first collected in bulk, then sold through data brokers, and then end up in the hands of our adversaries.  And so, that’s something that the President issued an executive order on to try to restrict adversary access to some of that data.  And, in fact, just this week, we took one more step in the regulatory process through a notice of proposed rulemaking to try to get that final later this year.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And if I can just add on that. 

So, in addition to the work that the AI Safety Institute is going to do, and as [senior administration official] mentioned some of the other work, you’ll see that in the NSM itself there are very specific requirements for specific agencies and our intelligence community, and, for instance, the Department of Energy to do classified testing of different systems for different purposes for this very reason. 

And in addition to that, as [senior administration official] mentioned, there’s a strong focus on experimentation here for this very reason.  We want to see rapid adoption, but we also want to see experimentation that will tease out kind of what missions are best suited for various systems and also tease out the challenges of them.  And that’s going to require leaning forward and experimenting, adopting, and then doing all of the work that was just mentioned as well, in terms of both policy and legal review.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We have time for one more question, and we’ll go to the line of Maria Curry.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Hey.  Thanks for taking my question.  I’m wondering if export controls are part of this at all.  And if so, can you elaborate how those might be helpful? 

And then, if you could just elaborate, too, on the third point.  Could you dig in a little bit deeper into how agencies can or can’t use the technology?  Could you provide an example or two of that?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can speak to the export control piece, and, [senior administration official], maybe you can speak to some of the prohibited use cases. 

So, really, the NSM does kind of address, kind of as a matter of policy, the importance of protecting advanced AI technologies so that they’re not used against us by adversary militaries or intelligence services.  And so, at a high level, it does kind of try to emphasize the importance of maintaining those policies and making sure that we are continuously adapting to efforts to circumvent those measures. 

And as you know, those export controls cover not only GPUs, the advanced AI chips, but also the semiconductor manufacturing equipment that’s necessary to manufacture those as well.  So, that full aspect of the supply chain.

[Senior administration official] do you want to say anything about prohibited uses?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So, you’ll see in the accompanying framework document that I mentioned, it identifies both prohibited, as well as what we call high-impact AI use cases, based on the risk that they pose to national security, international norms, democratic values, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and safety.

And on the prohibited end of the spectrum, these will be — not surprising, but there are clear prohibitions on use of AI with intent or purpose, for instance, to unlawfully suppress or burden the right to free speech or the right to legal counsel. 

There’s also prohibited use cases around, for instance, removing a human in the loop for actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the President to initiate or terminate nuclear weapons employment, for example.  That runs the spectrum of kind of military-related activities, but also protecting civil liberties and tracking international norms. 

But in doing that, we actually view these restrictions — so these prohibitions, for example, as well as the high-impact cases — as being important in clarifying what the agencies can and cannot do.  That will actually accelerate experimentation and adoption.  Because one of the paradoxical outcomes we’ve seen is: With a lack of policy clarity and a lack of legal clarity about what can and cannot be done, we are likely to see less experimentation and less adoption than with a clear path for use, which is what the NSM and the framework tries to provide.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  That’s all the time we have for today.  Big thanks to our speakers, and thanks to you all for joining.

As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials.  And this call and its contents are embargoed until 6:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow. 

Thanks, all, for joining.  And be sure to tune in tomorrow to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s remarks on this topic.  Thanks again.

The post Background Press Call on the U.S. Approach to Harnessing the Power of AI for U.S. National Security appeared first on The White House.

Today, the President is issuing the first-ever National Security Memorandum (NSM) on Artificial Intelligence (AI). The fundamental premise is that AI will have significant implications for national security. The AI NSM sets out goals to enable the US Government to harness cutting-edge AI technologies, and to advance international consensus and governance around AI.

In addition, there are implications for economic policy. The AI National Security Memorandum establishes that retaining US leadership in the most advanced AI models will be vital for our national security in coming years. The US lead today on the most advanced AI models reflects several important US economic strengths: our innovative private sector, the ability to develop and source world class talent, strengths in advanced semiconductor design, dynamic capital allocation, and abundant compute power.

We should not take those strengths for granted in the future. Indeed, we are all familiar with past instances when we saw critical technologies and supply chains that were developed and commercialized here in the US migrate offshore for lack of critical public sector support. That is why we are laser focused on maintaining the strongest AI ecosystem in the world here in the United States. The NSM directs the National Economic Council to coordinate an economic assessment of the relative competitive advantage of the US private sector AI ecosystem.

Sustaining US preeminence in frontier AI into the future will require strong domestic foundations in semiconductors, infrastructure, and clean energy—including the large datacenters that provide computing resources. The private sector is already making significant investments in AI innovation, and now we’re making sure the government is moving quickly on policy changes and the support necessary to enable rapid AI infrastructure growth over the next several years. The historic Biden-Harris investment laws will be critical enablers.

Developing AI systems will require a large volume of the most advanced semiconductors. The CHIPS and Science Act is enabling major investments here in the US for the fabrication of the leading-edge semiconductors that are critical to AI frontier models, in close proximity to world-class chips designers and downstream customers.

One of the most pressing needs is the rapid growth in computational power for the training and operation of frontier AI models. AI datacenters will need to run on clean energy and in order to meet their needs we will need to accelerate the deployment of transmission and clean energy projects. We will meet these needs while keeping residential electricity costs low and meeting our climate goals. Fortunately, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the clean energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act have given us a good foundation to build on. We are committed to helping navigate permitting processes across the federal government, and working with states and localities. We took a step towards supporting these goals with the Task Force on AI Datacenter Infrastructure that we launched last month. And we have seen a number of recent announcements of companies investing in projects that will bring new clean energy online to power AI data centers.

Having the right workforce and talent will also play a key role in developing large-scale AI datacenters. This will range from AI experts to pipefitters and electrical workers. We are taking action to ensure AI infrastructure creates good jobs, while investing in our workforce to enable American workers to drive innovation.

Of course, all of these efforts must be governed by the critical guardrails established last year by the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence and commitments we secured last year from leading AI companies to manage the risks posed by AI. Today’s NSM is just the latest step in a series of actions thanks to the leadership and diplomatic engagement of the President and Vice President, and there will be additional steps taken in the coming months to further support US leadership in AI.

###

The post Statement from National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard on National Security Memorandum (NSM) on Artificial Intelligence (AI) appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Biden is issuing the first-ever National Security Memorandum (NSM) on Artificial Intelligence (AI). The NSM’s fundamental premise is that advances at the frontier of AI will have significant implications for national security and foreign policy in the near future. The NSM builds on key steps the President and Vice President have taken to drive the safe, secure, and trustworthy development of AI, including President Biden’s landmark Executive Order to ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of AI.

The NSM directs the U.S. Government to implement concrete and impactful steps to (1) ensure that the United States leads the world’s development of safe, secure, and trustworthy AI; (2) harness cutting-edge AI technologies to advance the U.S. Government’s national security mission; and (3) advance international consensus and governance around AI.

The NSM is designed to galvanize federal government adoption of AI to advance the national security mission, including by ensuring that such adoption reflects democratic values and protects human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and privacy. In addition, the NSM seeks to shape international norms around AI use to reflect those same democratic values, and directs actions to track and counter adversary development and use of AI for national security purposes.

In particular, the NSM directs critical actions to:

Ensure that the United States leads the world’s development of safe, secure, and trustworthy AI:

• Developing advanced AI systems requires large volumes of advanced chips. President Biden led the way when he signed the CHIPS Act, which made major investments in our capacity to manufacture leading-edge semiconductors. The NSM directs actions to improve the security and diversity of chip supply chains, and to ensure that, as the United States supports the development of the next generation of government supercomputers and other emerging technology, we do so with AI in mind.

• Our competitors want to upend U.S. AI leadership and have employed economic and technological espionage in efforts to steal U.S. technology. This NSM makes collection on our competitors’ operations against our AI sector a top-tier intelligence priority, and directs relevant U.S. Government entities to provide AI developers with the timely cybersecurity and counterintelligence information necessary to keep their inventions secure. 

• In order for the United States to benefit maximally from AI, Americans must know when they can trust systems to perform safely and reliably. For this reason, the NSM formally designates the AI Safety Institute asU.S. industry’s primary port of contact in the U.S. Government, one staffed by technical experts who understand this quickly evolving technology. It also lays out strengthened and streamlined mechanisms for the AI Safety Institute to partner with national security agencies, including the intelligence community, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy.

• The NSM doubles down on the National AI Research Resource, the pilot for which is already underway, to ensure that researchers at universities, from civil society, and in small businesses can conduct technically meaningful AI research. AI is moving too fast, and is too complex, for us to rely exclusively on a small cohort of large firms; we need to empower and learn from a full range of talented individuals and institutions who care about making AI safe, secure, and trustworthy.

• The NSM directs the National Economic Council to coordinate an economic assessment of the relative competitive advantage of the United States private sector AI ecosystem.

Enable the U.S. Government to harness cutting-edge AI, while protecting human rights and democratic values, to achieve national security objectives:

• The NSM does not simply demand that we use AI systems in service of the national security mission effectively; it also unequivocally states we must do so only in ways that align with democratic values. It provides the first-ever guidance for AI governance and risk management for use in national security missions, complementing previous guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget for non-national security missions.

• The NSM directs the creation of a Framework to Advance AI Governance and Risk Management in National Security, which is being published today alongside this NSM. This Framework provides further detail and guidance to implement the NSM, including requiring mechanisms for risk management, evaluations, accountability, and transparency. These requirements require agencies to monitor, assess, and mitigate AI risks related to invasions of privacy, bias and discrimination, the safety of individuals and groups, and other human rights abuses. This Framework can be updated regularly in order to keep pace with technical advances and ensure future AI applications are responsible and rights-respecting.

• The NSM directs changes across the board to make sure we are using AI systems effectively while adhering to our values. Among other actions, it directs agencies to propose streamlined procurement practices and ways to ease collaboration with non-traditional vendors.

Advance international consensus and governance around AI:

• The NSM builds on substantial international progress on AI governance over the last twelve months, thanks to the leadership and diplomatic engagement of President Biden and Vice President Harris. Alongside G7 allies, we developed the first-ever International Code of Conduct on AI in 2023. At the Bletchley and Seoul AI Safety Summits, the United States joined more than two dozen nations in outlining clear principles. 56 nations have signed up to our Political Declaration on the Military Use of AI and Autonomy, which establishes principles for military AI capabilities. And at the United Nations, the United States sponsored the first-ever UN General Assembly Resolution on AI, which passed unanimously and included the People’s Republic of China as a co-sponsor.

• The NSM directs the U.S. Government to collaborate with allies and partners to establish a stable, responsible, and rights-respecting governance framework to ensure the technology is developed and used in ways that adhere to international law while protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

The release of today’s NSM is part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s comprehensive strategy for responsible innovation, and builds on previous actions that President Biden and Vice President Harris have taken.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Outlines Coordinated Approach to Harness Power of AI for U.S. National Security appeared first on The White House.

Today’s announcement is expected to reduce the lead exposure of up to 1.2 million people every year and represents one of over 100 actions taken by the Administration in 2024 to reduce lead poisoning

President Biden and Vice President Harris have been clear that all Americans deserve to live free from fear of toxic lead exposure. Since Day One, the Biden-Harris Administration has marshalled a whole of government effort to reduce all sources of lead exposure, issuing a comprehensive Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan that guides federal action to achieve a lead-free future.

Today, as we continue to mark National Lead Poisoning Prevention Week, the Biden-Harris Administration is taking action to further reduce lead exposure by issuing a final Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to strengthen requirements for the removal of lead paint dust in pre-1978 housing and child care facilities.

Lead is a neurotoxin that can irreversibly harm brain development in children, lower IQ, cause behavioral problems, and lead to life-long health effects. There is no safe level of lead exposure. Yet, due to decades of inequitable infrastructure development and underinvestment, lead poisoning disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color.

Today’s final rule sets new standards for lead abatement activities that will better protect children and communities from the harmful effects of exposure to dust generated from lead paint. The rule will help protect people in communities across the country from these harms, and is expected to reduce the lead exposures of up to nearly 1.2 million people every year, providing public health and economic benefits up to 30 times greater than the costs. Although the United States banned lead-based paint in residences in 1978, an estimated 31 million houses built before 1978 still contain lead-based paint, and 3.8 million are home to one or more child under the age of six, putting them at risk of lead exposure.

Since the announcement of the Biden-Harris Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan, the Administration has taken hundreds of actions across more than 10 agencies to reduce the risk of lead poisoning in drinking water, paint, soil, food and household products, the workplace, and to combat lead exposure internationally – including more than 100 actions in the past year alone. Some of the actions since the latest Action Plan progress update in November 2023 include:

Reducing Exposure to Lead from Paint and Dust in the Home – Lead in household dust originates from indoor sources such as deteriorated, lead-based paint on surfaces. In the last year, the Administration has worked diligently to identify, help tackle, and eliminate these exposures in several ways:

• Earlier this month, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced more than $420 million in awards to remove lead hazards from homes, including HUD-assisted homes, ensuring the safety of children, residents, and families. This includes $2 million to remove other housing-related hazards from homes in conjunction with weatherization efforts, and nearly $10 million to facilitate research on better identifying and controlling lead and other housing-related hazards. These awards are part of President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative, which seeks to ensure that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, and other investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution. 
• In August 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a new final rule updating the Head Start Program Performance Standards. This rule requires Head Start programs to protect children from exposure to lead in water and paint through regular testing and inspection and remediate lead in Head Start facilities where lead exists.
• In 2024, EPA conducted approximately 1,400 compliance monitoring activities for lead-based paint in over 190 communities, more than a third of which were communities with environmental justice concerns. Additionally, EPA’s Federal Facilities Enforcement Office conducted compliance monitoring activities at 18 military installations in 2024. This work protects our service members and their families from exposure to lead-based paint in their homes at military bases.

Reducing Exposure to Lead from Drinking Water – Millions of buildings still receive their water through a lead pipe. The Biden-Harris Administration has taken historic steps to meet President Biden’s commitment to replace every lead pipe in the country within a decade:

• Earlier this month President Biden traveled to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to announce a final rule that requires drinking water systems nationwide to replace lead service lines within 10 years. This rule will protect children from brain damage, prevent up to 900,000 infants being born with low birth weight, and protect 1,100 adults from premature death from heart disease every year.
• President Biden secured a historic $15 billion in funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law specifically dedicated for replacing lead service lines, and provided an additional $2.6 billion from his Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for drinking water upgrades and lead pipe replacements, along with an additional $11.7 billion in general-purpose funding through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund which can also be used for lead pipe replacement. To date, EPA has announced over $18 billion of this funding across every state. Nearly half of this funding is required to flow to disadvantaged communities, in the form of grants and zero-interest loans.
• Thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration’s actions, cities across the country are already making progress in replacing lead pipes. Cities with some of the highest numbers of lead pipes, like Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, St. Paul, and Denver, have received funding from the Administration and are now on track to replace all lead pipes within 10 years or less. Under this Administration, over 367,000 lead pipes have been replaced nationwide, benefitting nearly 1 million people.
• Funding from the American Rescue Plan’s $350 billion State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund can be used by states and communities to replace lead service lines and remediate lead paint. To date, well over $20 billion nationwide has been invested in water infrastructure projects.
• During this Administration, the EPA has also used its Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to provide well over $350 million in financing to communities for lead pipe replacement.
• Since launching in November 2023, EPA’s Get the Lead Out Initiative has provided technical assistance to public water systems nationwide to identify lead pipes and accelerate their replacement. Prioritizing disadvantaged and underserved communities, the initiative is providing assistance to a growing list of public water systems, including in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois, and facilitates access to funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This initiative builds on the partnership between EPA, the Department of Labor (DOL), and 40 underserved communities to support lead pipe replacement.
• In January 2023, the White House Summit on Accelerating Lead Pipe Replacement hosted by Vice President Harris, announced new actions and progress to deliver clean drinking water, replace lead pipes, and remediate lead paint to protect children and communities across America, including the Biden-Harris Get the Lead Out Partnership comprised of state and local officials, water utilities, labor unions, and other nongovernmental organizations who committed to advance and accelerate lead pipe replacement. This White House Partnership spurred the creation of a the Great Lakes Lead Pipes Partnership, a first-of-its kind, mayor-led effort to accelerate lead pipe replacement in cities with the heaviest lead burdens.
• In August 2024, EPA announced $26 million in grant funding to protect children from lead in drinking water at schools and childcare facilities across the country. These grants will be used by 55 States and territories to reduce lead exposure where children learn and play.
• The Department of the Interior conducted more than 330 water system assessments at all Indian Affairs-owned sites, including schools, offices and detention centers, among others. Beyond service lines, assessments collected lead/copper samples to identify lead sources in water distribution systems and where lead levels affected drinking points DOI coordinated immediate remediation strategies and implemented actions including alternative water sourcing and confirmatory sampling.

Reducing Exposure to Lead from Air – Major sources of lead in the air include emissions from manufacturing, waste and metals processing, and aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. To tackle these emissions, the Biden-Harris Administration has taken the following actions:

• In January 2024, EPA released the Integrated Science Assessment for Lead as part of its review of the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This technical document, along with additional technical and policy assessments, will provide the scientific foundation for EPA’s decisions as it regulates air lead exposure.
• In October 2023, EPA issued a final determination that emissions of lead from aircraft engines that operate on leaded fuel cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. With this final determination, EPA and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have begun work to consider regulatory options to address lead emissions from aircrafts.

Reducing Exposure to Lead from Soil – Lead contamination at legacy pollution sites from past industrial operations, like lead mining and smelting, can accumulate in soil and poses a threat to human health and the environment. Reducing lead levels in soils can reduce exposure risks.

• The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law invests $5 billion to clean up legacy pollution, including lead contamination, at Superfund and Brownfields sites. In Fiscal Year 2024, EPA completed 63 Superfund cleanup projects that addressed lead contamination in soil to protect families and children from the harmful impacts of lead. In addition, lead is the environmental contaminant most commonly reported by EPA Brownfields cleanup grant recipients. In fiscal year 2024, Brownfields grant recipients completed 63 brownfields cleanups that addressed lead contamination.
• In January 2024, after years of research and advanced understanding of the latest science on lead, EPA issued new guidance to improve screenings for lead in residential soils at Superfund and other contaminated sites. This new guidance cuts in half the recommended screening levels issued 30 years ago and takes into account the potential for cumulative impacts by recommending even more stringent levels in areas where there may be additional sources of lead exposure, such as lead in drinking water or lead paint in homes.

Reducing Exposure to Lead from Food and Household Products – Lead may be present in food when it is in the environment where foods are grown, raised, or processed. To reduce the risk to children of ingesting lead in food, the Administration is working to addressed lead hazards in processed foods.

• In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a new study on dietary exposure from lead in infants and young children. This action is part of the agency’s Closer to Zero effort, which sets forth the FDA’s science-based approach to continually reduce exposure to lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and other contaminants to the lowest levels possible in foods eaten by babies and young children.

Protecting People from Lead Exposure in the Workplace – Workers can be exposed to lead as a result of the production, use, maintenance, recycling, and disposal of lead material and products. In 2024, the Administration sought to protect workers through a number of actions.

• In April 2024, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released Trends in Workplace Lead Exposure, monitoring workplace lead exposure trends through the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance program.
• In March 2024, at the direction of President Biden, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced that all veterans exposed to toxins and other hazards during military service—including lead—are now eligible for VA health care.

Accelerating Innovations to Improve Blood Lead Testing – Testing blood is the best way to determine if a person has had lead exposure, as there are often no immediate symptoms when someone is exposed to lead. Based on blood lead test results, healthcare providers can recommend follow-up actions and care.

• In March 2024, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced Phase 2 of the Lead Detect Prize on challenge.gov, inviting selected Phase 1 participants to develop their winning concepts into detailed designs. This challenge provides a $1 million prize pool to accelerate the development of next-generation point-of-care blood lead testing technology. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the FDA support the challenge, and it spotlights the urgent need to identify and foster new or existing breakthrough solutions and products for optimal lead testing in children.

Establishing Domestic Partnerships to Reduce All Lead Exposure – The Administration is engaging stakeholders in a number of ways to reduce community exposure to lead in the United States.

• In July 2024, the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children published the Progress Report on the Federal Lead Action Plan, a comprehensive update on the government’s progress since 2018 toward reducing childhood lead exposures. HUD, EPA, and HHS, as co-leading members of the Task Force’s Lead Subcommittee, are leading aggressive actions to combat lead exposure. The Federal Lead Action Plan promotes a vision that the United States will become a place where children, especially those in communities with environmental justice concerns, can live, learn and play and remain safe from lead exposure and its harmful effects.
• In June 2024, the CDC published the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention National Classroom program. This program features multiple training methods and outreach strategies, including slide presentations, training videos, webinars, podcasts, and materials posted online to engage a broad range of audiences, including public health professionals, other physicians, general audiences, and high school students, through social media platforms and many other outlets.
• In February 2024, the EPA in collaboration with HUD and CDC/ASTDR published A U.S. Lead Exposures Hotspot Analysis, which identifies states and counties with the highest potential lead exposure risk from old housing sources of lead. This analysis applied science-based methods based on available data, continuing the agencies’ commitment to advancing whole of government efforts to focus lead actions in disproportionately impacted locations.
• EPA continues to establish and lead U.S. whole-of-government partnerships to develop and apply a science-based blueprint to identify communities with high lead exposures and improve their health outcomes in support of EPA’s Lead Strategy and priority activities of the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children.

Spearheading an International Effort to Reduce Global Lead Exposure – Amidst historic actions taken domestically to combat lead exposure in the United States, the Administration has built an unprecedented global coalition to tackle lead exposure in low- and middle-income countries, where one in two children has elevated levels of lead in their blood.

• In September 2024, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) joined UNICEF and over 60 partners and 26 countries to launch the Partnership for a Lead-Free Future, the first-ever public-private partnership dedicated to tackling lead exposure in low- and middle-income countries. The Partnership committed $150 million toward this effort—at least 10 times the average estimated annual investment to combat lead exposure internationally over the past five years.
• Earlier this year, USAID, through its Enterprises for Development, Growth, and Empowerment (EDGE) Fund, provided $5 million to the Lead Exposure Elimination Project (LEEP) to accelerate the global transition to lead-free paint. Spanning over 30 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Central Asia, and Europe, the LEEP partnership will support governments in introducing lead paint regulations and demonstrate how the private sector can reduce lead exposure, saving lives and protecting communities.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Strengthens Standards to Protect Millions from Exposure to Lead Paint Dust, Announces New Actions to Address Toxic Lead Exposure appeared first on The White House.

Brookings Institution
Washington, D.C.

Good morning, everyone.  And thank you so much, David, for that introduction and for having me here today.  It’s great to be back at Brookings.

As many of you know, I was here last year to lay out President Biden’s vision for renewing American economic leadership, a vision that responded to several converging challenges our country faced: the return of intense geopolitical competition; a rise in inequality and a squeeze on the middle class; a less vibrant American industrial base; an accelerating climate crisis; vulnerable supply chains; and rapid technological change.

For the preceding three decades, the U.S. economy had enjoyed stronger topline aggregate growth than other advanced democracies, and had generated genuine innovation and technological progress, but our economic policies had not been adapted to deal effectively with these challenges.  That’s why President Biden implemented a modern industrial strategy, one premised on investing at home in ourselves and our national strength, and on shifting the energies of U.S. foreign policy to help our partners around the world do the same.

In practice, that’s meant mobilizing public investment to unlock private sector investment to deliver on big challenges like the clean energy transition and artificial intelligence, revitalizing our capacity to innovate and to build, creating diversified and resilient global supply chains, setting high standards for everything from labor to the environment to technology.  Because on that level playing field, our logic goes, America can compete and win.  Preserving open markets and also protecting our national security and doing all of these things together with allies and partners.

Since I laid this vision out in my speech at Brookings last year, I’ve listened with great interest to many thoughtful responses, because these are early days.  Meaningful shifts in policy require constant iteration and reflection.  That’s what will make our policy stronger and more sustainable. 

So, today, I’m glad to be back here at Brookings to reengage in this conversation, because I really believe that the ideas I’m here to discuss and the policies that flow from them are among the most consequential elements of the administration’s foreign as well as domestic policy, and I believe they will constitute an important legacy of Joe Biden’s presidency. 

I want to start by reflecting on some of the questions I’ve heard and then propose a few ways to consolidate our progress.

One overarching question is at the core of many others: Does our new approach mean that we’re walking away from a positive-sum view of the world, that America is just in it for itself at the expense of everyone else? 

In a word, no, it doesn’t.  In fact, we’re returning to a tradition that made American international leadership such a durable force, what Alexis de Tocqueville called “interest rightly understood.”  The notion that it’s in our own self-interest to strengthen our partners and sustain a fair economic system that helps all of us prosper.

After World War Two, we built an international economic order in the context of a divided world, an order that helped free nations recover and avoid a return to the protectionist and nationalist mistakes of the 1930s, an order that also advanced American economic and geopolitical power.

In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we took that order global, embracing the old Eastern bloc, China, India, and many developing countries.  Suddenly, the major powers were no longer adversaries or competitors.  Capital flowed freely across borders.  Global supply chains became “just in time,” without anyone contemplating potential strategic risk.

Each of these approaches was positive-sum, and each reflected the world as it was.

Now, the world of the 1990s is over, and it’s not coming back, and it’s not a coherent plan or critique just to wish it so.

We’re seeing the return of great power competition.  But unlike the Cold War era, our economies are closely intertwined.  We’re on the verge of revolutionary technological change with AI, with economic and geopolitical implications.  The pandemic laid bare the fragilities in global supply chains that have been growing for decades.  The climate crisis grows more urgent with every hurricane and heat wave. 

So we need to articulate, once again, de Tocqueville’s notion of interest rightly understood.  To us, that means pursuing a strategy that is fundamentally positive-sum, calibrated to the geopolitical realities of today and rooted in what is good for America — for American workers, American communities, American businesses, and American national security and economic strength.

We continue to believe deeply in the mutual benefits of international trade and investment, enhanced and enabled by bold public investment in key sectors; bounded in rare but essential cases by principled controls on key national security technologies; protected against harmful non-market practices, labor and environment abuses, and economic coercion; and critically coordinated with a broad range of partners. 

The challenges we face are not uniquely our own and nor can we solve them alone.  We want and need our partners to join us.  And given the demand signal we hear back from them, we think that in the next decade, American leadership will be measured by our ability to help our partners pull off similar approaches and build alignment and complementarity across our policies and our investments. 

If we get that right, we can show that international economic integration is compatible with democracy and national sovereignty.  And that is how we get out of Dani Rodrik’s trilemma.

Now, what does that mean in practice?  What does this kind of positive-sum approach mean for trade policy?  Are we walking away from trade as a core pillar of international economic policy? 

U.S. exports and imports have recovered from their dip during the pandemic, with the real value of U.S. trade well above 2019 levels in each of the last two years.  We’re also the largest outbound source of FDI in the world. 

So, we are not walking away from international trade and investment.  What we are doing is moving away from specific policies that, frankly, didn’t contemplate the urgent challenges we face: The climate crisis.  Vulnerable, concentrated, critical mineral and semiconductor supply chains.  Persistent attacks on workers’ rights.  And not just more global competition, but more competition with a country that uses pervasive non-market policies and practices to distort and dominate global markets. 

Ignoring or downplaying these realities will not help us chart a viable path forward.  Our approach to trade responds to these challenges. 

Climate is a good example.  American manufacturers are global leaders in clean steel production, yet they’ve had to compete against companies that produce steel more cheaply but with higher emissions intensity.  That’s why, earlier this year, the White House stood up a Climate and Trade Task Force, and the task force has been developing the right tools to promote decarbonization and ensure our workers and businesses engaged in cleaner production aren’t disadvantaged by firms overseas engaged in dirtier, exploitative production.

Critical minerals are another example.  That sector is marked by extreme price volatility, widespread corruption, weak labor and environmental protections, and heavy concentration in the PRC, which artificially drops prices to keep competitors out of the marketplace. 

If we and our partners fail to invest, the PRC’s domination of these and other supply chains will only grow, and that will leave us increasingly dependent on a country that has demonstrated its willingness to weaponize such dependencies.  We can’t accept that, and neither can our partners. 

That’s why we are working with them to create a high-standard, critical minerals marketplace, one that diversifies our supply chains, creates a level playing field for our producers, and promotes strong workers’ rights and environmental protections.  And we’re driving towards tangible progress on that idea in just the next few weeks.

In multiple sectors that are important to our future, not just critical minerals, but solar cells, lithium-ion batteries, electric vehicles, we see a broad pattern emerging.  The PRC is producing far more than domestic demand, dumping excess onto global markets at artificially low prices, driving manufacturers around the world out of business, and creating a chokehold on supply chains.

To prevent a second China shock, we’ve had to act. 

That’s what drove the decisions about our 301 tariffs earlier this year.

Now, we know that indiscriminate, broad-based tariffs will harm workers, consumers, and businesses, both in the United States and our partners.  The evidence on that is clear.  That’s why we chose, instead, to target tariffs at unfair practices in strategic sectors where we and our allies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild our manufacturing and our resilience. 

And crucially, we’re seeing partners in both advanced and emerging economies reach similar conclusions regarding overcapacity and take similar steps to ward off damage to their own industries, from the EU to Canada to Brazil to Thailand to Mexico to Türkiye and beyond.  That’s a big deal.

And it brings me back to my earlier point: We’re pursuing this new trade approach in concert with our partners.  They also recognize we need modern trade tools to achieve our objectives.  That means considering sector-specific trade agreements.  It means creating markets based on standards when that’s more effective.  And it also means revitalizing international institutions to address today’s challenges, including genuinely reforming the WTO to deal with the challenges I’ve outlined. 

And it means thinking more comprehensively about our economic partnerships.  That’s why we created the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity.  That’s why we also gave them such catchy names. 

Within IPEF, we finalized three agreements with 13 partners to accelerate the clean energy transition, to promote high labor standards, to fight corruption, and to shore up supply chain vulnerabilities before they become widespread disruptions.  And within APEP, we’re working to make the Western Hemisphere a globally competitive supply chain hub for semiconductors, clean energy, and more. 

And that leads to the next question I’ve often been asked in the last year and a half: Where does domestic investment fit into all of this?  How does our positive-sum approach square with our modern industrial strategy?

The truth is that smart, targeted government investment has always been a crucial part of the American formula.  It’s essential to catalyzing private investment and growth in sectors where market failures or other barriers would lead to under-investment.

Somehow, we forgot that along the way, or at least we stopped talking about it.  But there was no plausible version of answers on decarbonization or supply chain resilience without recovering this tradition.  And so we have.

We’ve made the largest investment ever to diversify and accelerate clean energy deployment through the Inflation Reduction Act.  And investments are generating hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment all across the country; rapid growth in emerging climate technologies like sustainable aviation fuels, carbon management, clean hydrogen, with investments increasing 6- to 15-fold from pre-IRA levels. 

This will help us meet our climate commitments.  This will advance our national security.  And this will ensure that American workers and communities can seize the vast economic opportunities of the clean energy transition and that those opportunities are broadly shared.  And that last part is crucial. 

The fact is that many communities hard hit in decades past still haven’t bounced back, and the two-thirds of American adults who don’t have college degrees have seen unacceptably poor outcomes in terms of real wages, health, and other outcomes over the last four decades.

For many years, people assumed that these distributional issues would be solved after the fact by domestic policies.  That has not worked. 

Advancing fairness, creating high-quality jobs, and revitalizing American communities can’t be an afterthought, which is why we’ve made them central to our approach. 

In fact, as a result of the incentives in the IRA to build in traditional energy communities, investment in those communities has doubled under President Joe Biden.

Now, initially, when we rolled this all out, our foreign partners worried that it was designed to undercut them, that we were attempting to shift all the clean energy investment and production around the world to the United States.

But that wasn’t the case, and it isn’t the case. 

We know that our partners need to invest.  In fact, we want them to invest.  The whole world benefits from the spillover effects of advances in clean energy that these investments bring. 

And we are nowhere near the saturation point of investment required to meet our clean energy deployment goals, nor will markets alone generate the resources necessary either. 

So, we’ve encouraged our partners to invest in their own industrial strength.  We’ve steered U.S. foreign policy towards being a more helpful partner in this endeavor.  And our partners have begun to join us.  Look at Japan’s green transformation policy, India’s production-linked incentives, Canada’s clean energy tax credit, the European Union’s Green Deal.

As more and more countries adopt this approach, we will continue to build out the cooperative mechanisms that we know will be necessary to ensure that we’re acting together to scale up total global investment, not competing with each other over where a fixed set of investments is located.

The same goes for investing in our high-tech manufacturing strength.  We believe that a nation that loses the capacity to build, risks losing the capacity to innovate.  So, we’re building again.

As a result of the CHIPS and Science Act, America is on track to have five leading-edge logic and memory chip manufacturers operating at scale.  No other economy has more than two.  And we’re continuing to nurture American leadership in artificial intelligence, including through actions we’re finalizing, as I speak, to ensure that the physical infrastructure needed to train the next generation of AI models is built right here in the United States. 

But all of this high-tech investment and development hasn’t come at the expense of our partners.  We’ve done it alongside them. 

We’re leveraging CHIPS Act funding to make complementary investments in the full semiconductor supply chain, from Costa Rica to Vietnam. 

We’re building a network of AI safety institutes around the world, from Canada to Singapore to Japan, to harness the power of AI responsibly. 

And we’ve launched a new Quantum Development Group to deepen cooperation in a field that will be pivotal in the decades ahead.

Simply put, we’re thinking about how to manage this in concert with our allies and partners, and that will make all of us more competitive.

Now, all this leads to another question that is frequently asked:  What about your technology protection policies?  How does that fit into a positive-sum approach?

The United States and our allies and partners have long limited the export of dual-use technologies.  This is logical and uncontroversial.  It doesn’t make sense to allow companies to sell advanced technology to countries that could use them to gain military advantage over the United States and our friends. 

Now, it would be a mistake to attempt to return to the Cold War paradigm of almost no trade, including technological trade, among geopolitical rivals.  But as I’ve noted, we’re in a fundamentally different geopolitical context, so we’ve got to meet somewhere in the middle. 

That means being targeted in what we restrict, controlling only the most sensitive technologies that will define national security and strategic competition.  This is part of what we mean when we say: de-risking, not decoupling.

To strike the right balance, to ensure we’re not imposing controls in an arbitrary or reflexive manner, we have a framework that informs our decision-making.  We ask ourselves at least four questions:

One, which sensitive technologies are or will likely become foundational to U.S. national security? 

Two, across those sensitive technologies, where do we have distinct advantages and are likely to see maximal effort by our competitors to close the gap?  Conversely, where are we behind and, therefore, most vulnerable to coercion?

Three, to what extent do our competitors have immediate substitutes for U.S.-sensitive technology, either through indigenous development or from third countries, that would undercut the controls?

Four, what is the breadth and depth of the coalition we could plausibly build and sustain around a given control?

When it comes to a narrow set of sensitive technologies, yes, the fence is high, as it should be. 

And in the context of broader commerce, the yard is small, and we’re not looking to expand it needlessly.

Now, beyond the realm of export controls and investment screening, we will also take action to protect sensitive data and our critical infrastructure, such as our recent action on connected vehicles from countries of concern.

I suspect almost no one here would argue that we should build out our telecommunications architecture or our data center infrastructure with Huawei. 

Millions of cars on the road with technology from the PRC, getting daily software updates from the PRC, sending reams of information back to the PRC, similarly doesn’t make sense, especially when we’ve already seen evidence of a PRC cyber threat to our critical infrastructure.

We have to anticipate systemic cyber and data risks in ways that, frankly, we didn’t in the past, including what that means for the future Internet of Things, and we have to take the thoughtful, targeted steps necessary in response.

This leads to a final, kind of fundamental question: Does this approach reflect some kind of pessimism about the United States and our inherent interests? 

Quite the contrary.  It reflects an abiding and ambitious optimism.  We believe deeply that we can act smartly and boldly, that we can compete and win, that we can meet the great challenges of our time, and that we can deliver for all of our people here in the United States. 

And while it’s still very early, we have some evidence of that.  This includes the strongest post-pandemic recovery of any advanced economy in the world.  There’s more work to do, but inflation has come down.  And contrary to the predictions that the PRC would overtake the U.S. in GDP either in this decade or the next, since President Biden took office, the United States has more than doubled our lead.  And last year, the United States attracted more than five times more inbound foreign direct investment than the next highest country. 

We are once again demonstrating our capacity for resilience and reinvention, and others are noticing.  The EU’s Draghi report, published last month, mirrors key aspects of our strategy. 

Now, as we continue to implement this vision, we will need to stay rigorous.  We will need, for example, to be bold enough to make the needed investments without veering into unproductive subsidies that crowd-out the private sector or unduly compete with our partners.

We’re clear-eyed that our policies will involve choices and trade-offs.  That’s the nature of policy.  But to paraphrase Sartre, not to choose is also a choice, and the trade-offs only get worse the longer we leave our challenges unchecked.

Pointing out that it’s challenging to strike the right balance is not an argument to be satisfied with the status quo.

We have tried to start making real a new positive-sum vision, and we have tried to start proving out its value.  But we still have our work cut out for us. 

So I’d actually like to end today with a few questions of my own, where our answers will determine our shared success: 

First, will we sustain the political will here at home to make the investments in our own national strength that will be required of us in the years ahead? 

Strategic investments like these need to be a bipartisan priority, and I have to believe that we’ll rise to the occasion, that we won’t needlessly give up America’s position of economic and technological leadership because we can no longer generate the political consensus to invest in ourselves.

There is more we can do now on a bipartisan basis. 

For example, Congress still hasn’t appropriated the science part of CHIPS and Science, even while the PRC is increasing its science and technology budget by 10 percent year on year.

Now, whether we’re talking about investments in fundamental research, or grants and loans for firms developing critical technologies, we also have to update our approach to risk.  Some research paths are dead ends.  Some startups won’t survive.  Our innovation base and our private sector are the envy of the world because they take risks.  The art of managing risk for the sake of innovation is critical to successful geostrategic competition. 

So, we need to nurture a national comfort with, to paraphrase FDR, bold and persistent experimentation.  And when an investment falls short, as it will, we need to maintain our bipartisan will, dust ourselves off, and keep moving forward.  To put it bluntly, our competitors hope we’re not capable of that.  We need to prove them wrong.  We need to make patient, strategic investments in our capacity to compete, and we need to ensure fiscal sustainability in order to keep making those investments over the long term.

The second question: Will we allocate sufficient resources for investments that are needed globally? 

Last year, here at Brookings, I talked about the need to go from billions to trillions in investment to help emerging and developing countries tackle modern challenges, including massively accelerating the speed and scale of the clean energy transition. 

We need a Marshall Plan-style effort, investing in partners around the world and supporting homegrown U.S. innovation in growing markets like storage, nuclear, and geothermal energy. 

Now, trillions may sound lofty and unachievable, but there is a very clear path to get there without requiring anywhere near that level of taxpayer dollars, and that path is renewed American leadership and investment in international institutions. 

For example, at the G20 this fall, we’re spearheading an effort that calls for the international financial institutions, the major creditors in the private sector, to step up their relief for countries facing high debt service burdens so they too can invest in their future. 

Or consider the World Bank and the IMF.  We’ve been leading the charge to make these institutions bigger and more effective, to fully utilize their balance sheets and be more responsive to the developing and emerging economies they serve.  That has already unlocked hundreds of billions of dollars in new lending capacity, at no cost to the United States.  And we can generate further investment on the scale required with very modest U.S. public investments and legislative fixes.  That depends on Congress taking action. 

For example, our administration requested $750 million — million — from Congress to boost the World Bank’s lending capacity by over $36 billion, which, if matched by our partners, could generate over $100 billion in new resources.  This would allow the World Bank to deploy $200 for every $1 the taxpayers provide.

We’ve asked Congress to approve investments in a new trust fund at the IMF to help developing countries build resilience and sustainability.  Through a U.S. investment in the tens of millions, we could enable tens of billions in new IMF lending.

And outside the World Bank and the IMF, we’re asking Congress to increase funding for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, which we launched at the G7 a couple of years ago. 

This partnership catalyzes and concentrates investment in key corridors, including Africa and Asia, to close the infrastructure gap in developing countries.  It strengthens countries’ economic growth.  It strengthens America’s supply chains and global trusted technology vendors.  And it strengthens our partnerships in critical regions. 

The private sector has been enthusiastic.  Together with them and our G7 partners, we’ve already mobilized tens of billions of dollars, and we can lever that up and scale that up in the years ahead with help on a bipartisan basis from the Congress.

We need to focus on the big picture.  Holding back small sums of money has the effect of pulling back large sums from the developing world — which also, by the way, effectively cedes the field to other countries like the PRC.  There are low-cost, commonsense solutions on the table, steps that should not be the ceiling of our ambitions, but the floor.  And we need Congress to provide us the authorities and the seed funding to take those steps now.

Finally, will we empower our agencies and develop new muscle to meet this moment? 

Simply put, we need to ensure that we have the resources and the capabilities in the U.S. government to implement this economic vision over the long haul.  This starts by significantly strengthening our bilateral tools, answering a critique that China has a checkbook and the U.S. has a checklist. 

Next year, the United States is going to face a critical test of whether our country is up to the task.  The DFC, the Ex-Im Bank, and AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, are all up for renewal by Congress.  This provides a once-in-a-decade chance for America to strengthen some of its most important tools of economic statecraft. 

And think about how they can work better with the high-leverage multilateral institutions I just mentioned.  The DFC, for example, is one of our most effective instruments to mobilize private sector investments in developing countries.

But the DFC is too small compared to the scope of investment needed, and it lacks tools our partners want, like the ability to deploy more equity as well as debt, and it’s often unable to capitalize on fast-moving investment opportunities.  So, we put forward a proposal to expand the DFC’s toolkit and make it bigger, faster, nimbler. 

Another gap we need to bridge is to make sure we attract, retain, and empower top-tier talent with expertise in priority areas.

We’re asking Congress to approve the resources we’ve requested for the Commerce’s Bureau of Industry Security, Treasury’s Office of Investment Security, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division. 

If Congress is serious about America competing and winning, we need to be able to draw on America’s very best.

Let me close with this:

Since the end of World War Two, the United States has stood for a fair and open international economy; for the power of global connection to fuel innovation; for the power of trade and investment done right to create good jobs; for the power, as Tocqueville put it, of interest rightly understood.

Our task ahead is to harness that power to take on the realities of today’s geopolitical moment in a way that will not only preserve America’s enduring strengths, but extend them for generations to come.  It will take more conversations like this one and iteration after iteration to forge a new consensus and perfect a new set of policies and capabilities to match the moment. 

I hope it’s a project we can all work on together.  We can’t afford not to. 

So, thank you.  And I look forward to continuing the conversation, including hearing some of your questions this morning. 

The post Remarks by APNSA Jake Sullivan at the Brookings Institution appeared first on The White House.

Fernando Valenzuela was a baseball legend.
 
For 17 seasons in the MLB, with his signature screwball, Fernando Valenzuela confounded batters and delighted fans. He remains the first and only player to win both the Rookie of the Year and Cy Young award in a single season.
 
More than anything, Fernando Valenzuela brought people together. “Fernandomania” was a feeling meant to be shared. Fernando Valenzuela united an entire generation of Dodgers fans in collective joy, excitement, and awe. And he inspired countless young baseball players—in America, Mexico, and across the world—to pursue their own greatness.  
 
Both Doug and I have fond memories of watching Fernando Valenzuela play. To see him pitch was to watch a master at work. As a player, broadcaster, and Angelino, Fernando Valenzuela left an indelible mark on our nation.
 
Today, Doug and I send our prayers to Fernando’s wife, Linda, as well as their children and grandchildren.

# # # 

The post Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris and Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff on the Passing of Fernando Valenzuela appeared first on The White House.

The President is announcing his intent to nominate two individuals to federal district courts—both of whom are extraordinarily qualified, experienced, and devoted to the rule of law and our Constitution.

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

This will be President Biden’s fifty-fifth round of nominees for federal judicial positions, bringing the number of announced federal judicial nominees to 259.

United States District Court Announcements

1. Judge Benjamin J. Cheeks: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Judge Benjamin J. Cheeks has been a United States Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California since July 2024. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Cheeks was a criminal defense lawyer in private practice at the Law Offices of Benjamin J. Cheeks, A.P.C. in San Diego from 2013 to 2024. From 2010 to 2013, Judge Cheeks served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. Earlier in his career, he served as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office from 2003 to 2010. Judge Cheeks received his J.D. from the American University, Washington College of Law in 2003 and his B.A. from the University of Miami, Florida in 2000.

2. Judge Serena Murillo: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Central District of California

Judge Serena Murillo has been a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court since 2015. She also served by appointment of the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court as an Associate Justice pro tem on the California Court of Appeal from 2018 to 2019. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Murillo served as a Deputy District Attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office from 1997 to 2014. Earlier in her career, she worked as an associate attorney at McNicholas & McNicholas in Los Angeles in 1997 and as a law clerk at Shernoff, Bidart, and Echeverria in Claremont, California in 1996. Judge Murillo received her J.D. from Loyola Law School in 1996 and her B.A. from the University of California, San Diego in 1993.

###

The post President Biden Names Fifty-Fifth Round of Judicial Nominees appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:42 P.M. EDT

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have just one thing at the top, and then I’ll hand it over.

So, today, as part of the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, First Lady Jill Biden announced $110 million in awards from the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health — for Health, ARPA-H, to accelerate transformative research and development in women’s health care.

These new ARPA-H awardees will spur innovation and advance bold solutions to diseases and conditions that affect women uniquely, disproportionately, and differently.

In less than a year since the president and the first lady launched the effort, the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research has galvanized nearly one — nearly a billion dollars in funding for women’s health research.

And now, I’m going to turn it over to my NSC colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who will talk to you more about the news of North Korea’s — Korean soldiers traveling to Russia, today’s historic announcement of the — of the use of frozen Russian sov- — sovereign assets to support Ukraine, and other foreign policy matters. 

Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you very much, Karine. 

Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  So, just before I kick off on those issues, I do want to start off by extending our thoughts to the victims of the horrible terrorist attack in Ankara, Turkey, this morning. 

Our prayers are with all of those affected and their families and, of course, also the people of Turkey during this difficult time.

Now, Turkish authorities, as they’ve said, are investigating this as a possible terrorist attack.  And while we don’t yet know the motive or who is exactly behind it, we strong — strongly condemn this — this act of violence.

Now, I think, as you have all heard earlier this morning, we have seen the public reporting indicating that North Korean soldiers are traveling to Russia to fight against Ukraine.  We’re working closely with our allies and partners to gain a full understanding of this situation, but today, I’m prepared to share what we know at this stage.

We assess that between early- to mid-October, North Korea moved at least 3,000 soldiers into eastern Russia.  We assessed that these soldiers traveled by ship from the Wonsan area in North Korea to Vladivostok, Russia.  These soldiers then traveled onward to multiple Russian military training sites in eastern Russia where they are currently undergoing training.

We do not yet know whether these soldiers will en- — enter into combat alongside the Russian military, but this is a certain — certainly a highly concerning probability.

After completing training, these soldiers could travel to western Russia and then engage in combat against the Ukrainian military.  We have briefed the Ukrainian government on our understanding of this situation, and we’re certainly consulting closely with other allies, partners, and countries in the region on the implications of such a dramatic mov- — move and on how we might respond. 

I expect to have more to share on all of that in the coming days.

For the time being, we will continue to monitor the situation closely.  But let’s be clear, if North Korean soldiers do enter into combat, this development would demonstrate Russia’s growing desperation in its war against Ukraine. 

Russia is suffering extraordinary casualties on the battlefield every single day, but President Putin appears intent on continuing this war.  If Russia is indeed forced to turn to North Korea for manpower, this would be a sign of weakness, not strength, on the part of the Kremlin. 

It would also demonstrate an unprecedented level of direct military cooperation between Russia and North Korea with security implications in Europe as well as the Indo-Pacific.

As we have said before, Russia’s cooperation with the North Korean military is in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions which prohibit the procurement of arms from North Korea and military arms training.  This move is likewise a violation.

At President Biden’s direction, the United States continues to surge security assistance to Ukraine.  In just the past week, which I think you’ve seen, the United States has announced more than $800 million in security assistance to meet Ukraine’s urgent battlefield needs.

Now, looking ahead, the United States is on track to provide Ukraine with hundreds of additional air defense interceptors, dozens of tactical air defense systems, additional artillery, significant quantities of ammunition, hundreds of armored personnel can- — carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and thousands of additional armored vehicles, all of which will help keep Ukraine effective on the battlefield.

And in coming days, the United States will announce a significant sanctions tranche targeting the enablers of Russia’s war in Ukraine located outside of Russia.

The Ukrainian military continues to fight bravely and effectively, and President Biden is determined to provide Ukraine with the support that it needs to prevail.  To that end, the president announced today that of the $50 billion that the G7 committed to loan Ukraine back in June, the United States will provide a loan of $20 mil- — $20 billion.  The other $30 billion in loans will come from a combination of our G7 partners, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan. 

Now, this is unique.  Never before has a multilateral coalition frozen the assets of an aggressor country and then harnessed the value of those assets to fund the defense of the aggrieved party, all while respecting the rule of law and maintaining solidarity. 

These loans will support the people of Ukraine as they defend and rebuild their country, and it’s another example of how Mr. Putin’s war of aggression has only unified and strengthened the resolve of G7 countries and our partners to defend shared values.

And — yep, that’s it.  Thank you.  (Laughter.)  Sorry.  I had an extra page in there, and I wasn’t sure where it was going.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aamer.  

Q    Does the pre- — is the assessment that the presence of North Korean troops can have a meaningful trajectory on thou- — the war?

And then, secondly, you’ve said earlier even that it shows a sign of desperation on the Russians, but does it also demonstrate North Korea’s commitment to this burgeoning alliance with Russia?  And is that, in of itself, a broadening and discouraging concern for America?

MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, too soon to tell, Aamer, what kind of an impact these troops can have on the battlefield, because we just don’t know enough about what the intention is in terms of using them.  So, I — I think that’s why I said at the top, we’re going to monitor this and watch it closely.

To your second question: yeah, absolutely.  As we’ve also said, yes, I’ve called this a sign of desperation and a sign of weakness.  It’s not like Mr. Putin is being very honest with the Russian people about what he doing here.  I mean, Mr. Peskov, his spokesman, just the other day dec- — denied knowing anything about it.

But — but we’ve also talked many, many times about the burgeoning and growing defense relationship between North Korea and Russia and how reckless and dangerous we think that is, not only for the people of Ukraine — and clearly we’ll watch to see what this development means for them — but also for the Indo-Pacific region.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you.  With the U.S. diplomats in the region, Mr.  Hochstein in Lebanon and the Secretary of State in Saudi Arabia now before Israel, do you be- — do you believe there is a chance now for the ceasefire to be back on the table? 

And do you believe that with the demise of Mr. Sinwar and Hassan Nasrallah, you have better chances or worse chances for somebody to negotiate with?

MR. KIRBY:  The ceasefire you’re talking about, I’m assuming, is with Gaza.

Q    Well, both.  I mean, you have Lebanon and you have Gaza —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — implementation 1701 and in Gaza.

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, look, the short answer to your question, Nadia, is — is yes.  And we wouldn’t be s- — we wouldn’t be engaged in this — these diplomatic efforts if we didn’t think there was still an opportunity here to get a ceasefire — a ceasefire for Gaza that brings the hostages home and increases humanitarian assistance, and certainly a ceasefire between Israel and — and Hezbollah. 

And as for the — the implication that the — the deaths of the two leaders, Nasrallah and Sinwar, as President Biden said last week, that does open up — we believe opens up, should open up an opportunity to try to get there. 

But I don’t want to sound too sanguine here.  I’ll let Secretary Blinken speak for his travels.  He’s still on the road.  He talked about it a little bit today that, you know, they had good, constructive conversations, specifically with respect to — to Gaza while he was in Israel.  But there’s still a lot of work before us.

Q    Okay.  And one more, quickly.  The number of civilians killed in Gaza was 779 in the last 20 days, especially in Jabalia, and the total number is 100,000 between the dead and the wounded.  Ninety percent of Gaza is destroyed.  Does the U.S. still believe that Israel’s strategy in Gaza is working, and do you still support it?

MR. KIRBY:  We still support Israel’s right and responsibility to defend itself against these threats, including the continued threat of Hamas.  And we still urge Israel to be mindful — ever mindful of civilian casualties and the damage to civilian infrastructure, and we’re going to continue to work with them to that end.

Q    Has the U.S. made an assessment about the type of weapons training or what type of training the North Korean soldiers are undergoing in Russia that could potentially be used in Ukraine? 

And does this represent a new type of an — an agreement, in terms of an information-sharing agreement between the North Koreans and the Russians?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t believe we have a very specific assessment at this time of the exact nature of all the training.  There’s — there’s three sites that we assess right now that the — this first tranche of about 3,000 are being trained. 

I — I think I could go so far as to say that, at least in general terms, it’s — it’s basic kind of combat training and familiarization.  I think I’ll go — I could go as far as that and no further. 

But, as I also said, we’re going to monitor this and watch this closely.  And obviously, if we have more information that we can share with you, we certainly will.

To your second question about information-sharing, as I’ve said before, in answer to — to Aamer, we have been watching this relationship grow and deepen now for many, many months.  And the — the question that we’re asking ourselves — and we don’t have an answer for right now — is: What does Kim Jong Un think he’s getting out of this?

And so, you talked about information-sharing.  I mean, they’re — maybe that’s part of this.  Maybe it’s technology.  Maybe it’s capabilities. 

We don’t have a good sense of that.  But that’s what’s so concerning to us, is — is not only the concern for the impact on the war in Ukraine but the impact that this could have in the Indo-Pacific, with Kim Jong Un benefiting to some degree.

Q    Can you talk about that just briefly?  Like, how significant is this for U.S. allies in the region and the U.S. as a whole?

MR. KIRBY:  It could be significant.  Again, we don’t know enough right now. 

So, when you say “region,” I think you mean Indo-Pacific.  Until we have a better sense of what the North Koreans at least believe they’re getting out of this, as opposed to what they actually get, it’s hard to know and to put a metric on exactly what the impact is in the Indo-Pacific.

But it is concerning.  It’s been concerning.  Certainly, this development — this — this willingness of — of Kim to literally put skin in the game here, soldiers in Russia for the potential deployment — and we haven’t seen them deployed, but for the potential deployment — certainly would connote an expectation that he thinks he’s getting something out of this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    You mentioned that the U.S. is discussing how we would possibly respond.  What are the possibilities for how the U.S. could respond to this?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, for one thing, we’re going to continue to surge security assistance, as I just mentioned in my — my topper.  And you’re going to continue to see — the president has made it clear that we’re going to continue to provide security assistance all the way up to the end of his administration, for sure.  So, you’re going to see that continue to flow, and we’re talking to allies and partners about what the right next steps ought to be. 

I’m not at liberty today to go through any specific options, but — but we’re going to — we’re going to have those conversations, and — and we have been.

Q    And China is a critical trading partner to North Korea.  What’s the U.S. assessment for how China is looking at all of this?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t know how President Xi and the Chinese are looking at this.  One would think that — if you take their comments at face value about desiring stability and security in the region, particularly on the Korean Peninsula, one would think that they’re also deeply concerned by this development.

But you can expect that we’ll be — we’ll be communicating with the — with the Chinese about this and certainly sharing our perspectives to the degree we can and — and gleaning theirs. 

Q    And local South Korean press is reporting that, according to intelligence, these troops — North Korean troops lack understanding of modern warfare, such as drone attacks, and it’s anticipated there will be a high number of casualties when deployed to the front lines.

MR. KIRBY:  I — too soon to know.  I mean, we — we don’t really know what they’re going to be used for or where they’re going to — if they’re going to — if they’re going to deploy, where they’re going to deploy and to what purpose. 

I can tell you one thing, though.  If they do deploy to fight against Ukraine, they’re fair game.  They’re fair targets.  And the Ukrainian military will defend themselves against North Korean soldiers the same way they’re defending themselves against Russian soldiers. 

And so, the — the possibility that there could be dead and wounded North Korean soldiers fighting against Ukraine is — is absolutely real if they get deployed. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Just to clarify something you said earlier about what Kim Jong Un possibly gets out of this.  As far as you know, has he gotten anything in return?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, from this particular move, I can’t speak to that, M.J.  I — I don’t think we have seen any specific, you know, quid — quid pro quo with respect to this provision of troops. 

But we know that — that he and Mr. Putin have, again, been growing in their defense relationship.  And we know Mr. Putin is — has been able to purchase North Korean artillery.  He’s been able to get North Korean ballistic missiles, which he has used against Ukraine.  And in return, we have seen, at the very least, some technology sharing with North Korea. 

But what this particular development means going forward, we just don’t know.  We’re going to have to watch that. 

Q    And do you know if this came about because Putin specifically first asked for help, or whether it’s that Kim Jong Un offered the help first? 

MR. KIRBY:  Don’t know.  Don’t know what precipitated it, but I think it’s important to remember that in the three-plus years that he’s been fighting in — in and around Ukraine, Mr. Putin and — and his military has suffered 530,000 casualties.  And as we’re speaking today, he’s losing, casualties alone — and that’s killed and wounded — 1,200 — 1,000 to 1,200 per day. 

Now, 530,000 is a lot.  I mean, there were — in the American Civil War, there were, like, 620,000 killed, just to put this into some perspective.  This is three years fighting in Ukraine.  Five hundred and thirty [thousand] casualties is — is a lot. 

And he hasn’t been fully transparent with the Russian people about this.  And he hasn’t been transparent at all with the Russian people about this particular move, about br- — bringing in North Korean soldiers.  So, that he has to farm out the fighting to a foreign country, I think, speaks volumes about how much his military is suffering and — and how uncertain he believes, how untenable he believes his — his situation is. 

Q    And I guess, just if you had to guess, how would the training — what would the training even look like, given the language barrier?  And once these North Korean soldiers are deployed, like, what would the command structure even look like, given —

MR. KIRBY:  It’s a great question.  I — I wish we had an answer to it.  You’re — you’re not wrong to highlight the language barrier.  I mean, these are — these aren’t even similar languages.  They’re — and they are going to have to overcome that.  It’s not like they have a long, productive history of working together as two militaries, even at all.  So, that’s going to be a challenge. 

Command and control is going to be a challenge.  And this is not a challenge that the Russians have even solved amongst themselves.  They’re still having command and control challenges: logistics and sustainment, getting things to the battlefield, keeping their troops in the field.  They haven’t solved that for their own soldiers.  So, they’re going to have to figure that out here too, if, in fact, they deploy.  We haven’t seen that. 

So, there are — there are some pretty big challenges they’re — they’re going to have to overcome. 

Q    And I have a non-Ukraine question.  Do you think that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fas- — fascist?

MR. KIRBY:  That — I’m going to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We got to move on.  (Laughs.)

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

MR. KIRBY:  — I’m not going to talk about that stuff.

Q    John, there — there’s concern among Democrats on the Hill that Donald Trump’s team has not entered into these critical transition agreements with the White House that could potentially, in their words, endanger national security.  Is that a concern of yours?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, with a caveat that I’ll — I’m going to defer to Karine on anything to do with the election and — and the transition.  That’s really for her. 

All I’ll say is that no matter how things play out in the election, the National Security Council, under Mr. Sullivan’s leadership, is and will make sure we’re ready for proper transition handover. 

Q    And there are intelligence officials who have warned that foreign adversaries might be looking to stoke violence in the next 13 days ahead of the election.

MR. KIRBY:  I saw the DNI assessment, yeah. 

Q    What are you doing in preparation?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’re working hard across the interagency, as you might expect we would, to share information not only inside the — at the federal level but working very hard to make sure we’ve got good handshakes and — and information sharing at state and local levels as well. 

That’s the last thing we want, of course, is to see any violence or protest activity that — that leads to intimidation and that kind of thing.  So, we’re working hard, again, with local and state officials.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Need to start wrapping it up.  Go ahead, sir.  Yeah.

Q    Thank you.  So, would North Korea’s possible engagement in combat in Ukraine trigger a bolder move from the White House, like decision to lift the restrictions on usage of American weapons?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, again, number one, we’re monitoring this closely, and that’s where we are right now.  I came and gave you a very honest assessment of exactly where we are, and we just don’t know if these troops are going to be deployed against Ukraine in combat and, if so, where, when, and how. 

So, number one, we’re monitoring this closely.  I don’t have any policy decisions or options to speak to today.  I can tell you the last thing I’ll say is that there’s been no change to the president’s policy when it comes to what we’re providing Ukraine and — and how they’re using it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, why not?  Why not green-light the long-range missiles for Ukraine’s use, which is Zelenskyy’s number one ask, as you’re sounding the alarm about what could have far-reaching implications if North Korean soldiers go into Ukraine? 

MR. KIRBY:  Well, for one thing, Jacqui, we don’t exactly know what these guys are going to do. 

Q    What else could they be there for?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t know what they’re going to do.  We don’t know if they’re going to deploy into combat or not.  We don’t know, if they do, in what strength.  We certainly don’t have a sense of what capability they might be able to bring to the field with them.  Now —

Q    Doesn’t this seem, though, like —

MR. KIRBY:  Hang on, now.  Just a second.

Q    — we were — a couple years ago, they were staged — you had Russian troops staged on the Ukrainian border, and this administration was saying, “We don’t know if they’re going to go in.  We don’t want to impose any sanctions.”  We didn’t do it ahead of time. 

MR. KIRBY:  No, no, no, no, no, no.

Q    Where — why is there not a consequence first?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, first of all, let’s not rewrite history, Jacqui.  We — we were the first country to go out publicly and say, “Here’s what we think the Russians are going to do.  Here’s the timeline.”

Q    But didn’t do anything about it. 

MR. KIRBY:  That is not true, Jacqui. 

Q    There was no preemptive sanction.  Nothing. 

MR. KIRBY:  Jacqui, that is not true.  It is true we didn’t levy sanctions originally because we were hoping that the threat of sanctions might deter or dissuade Mr. Putin.  You lay sanctions on before the man makes a decision, then he might as well just go ahead and do it. 

Q    Well, he did it anyway.

MR. KIRBY:  And we — and we did levy sanctions on him — heavy sanctions — not just us but around the world. 

Number two, we mobilized support for Ukraine even before Mr. Putin decided to step across that line.  And no country — no country has done more than the United States to make sure Ukraine is ready.  So —

Q    Well, why not do something —

MR. KIRBY:  — let’s not —

Q    — to prevent —

MR. KIRBY:  Wait, wait.  Jac- —

Q    — this from happening? 

MR. KIRBY:  Jacqui, let me finish the second question, and then we’ll get your third one. 

So, let’s not rewrite history.  The United States didn’t sit idly by here.  We’ve been Ukraine’s staunchest and most prolific supporter in terms of security assistance.

And as for the policy decision, the — the president remains and we all remain in direct contact with our Ukrainian counterparts.  We’re talking to them over what the — what they need.  As I said, we’ve just announced $800 million more, and there’ll be more coming in security assistance. 

I just don’t have any policy changes to —

Q    But why —

MR. KIRBY:  — to speak to today. 

Q    Why would you not u- — put a restriction on the type of target that can be hit, rather than the distance from a border that obviously Russia doesn’t recognize?  And you’ve got training happening with North Korean troops, I would assume, on the types of military installations that would be fair game if that decision was made. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’ll see —

Q    That —

MR. KIRBY:  We’ll see — we’ll see what the Russians and North Koreans decide to do here.  As I said earlier, if these North Korean soldiers decide to join the fight against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, Jacqui.  We got to go.

Aurelia.

Q    Yeah.  Thank you.  John, would you still describe the Israeli operation in Lebanon as targeted?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, I do-

Q    Yeah.  The Israeli strikes on Lebanon, would you still describe them as targeted?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to get into scorecarding each and every strike that the Israelis take.  I’ll just say a couple of things.  They have a right to defend themselves.  There are legitimate threats that Hezbollah still poses to the Israeli people.  I mean, rockets and missiles are still being fired at Israeli cities. 

So, let’s not forget what Hezbollah continues to be able to do.  That’s number one. 

Number two, we have said many, many times that we don’t support daily, you know, strikes into heavily populated areas, and that remains the case today.  We still oppose, you know, daily strikes into densely populated areas —

Q    But they still are coming — the strikes.

MR. KIRBY:  — and we have had those conversations.  Secretary Blinken has had that exact conversation when he was in Israel for the last couple of days.  We’ll continue to press the Israelis on that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Hi.  So, the interest from the frozen assets, does it apply only to the European Union or also the U.S. assets?

MR. KIRBY:  It is — it’s for all the frozen assets.

Q    Also in the U.S.?

MR. KIRBY:  I believe so.  I believe so.

Q    Because this morning, I heard Daleep Singh said just European Union, so I wasn’t sure. 

MR. KIRBY:  Okay.  You know what?  Let me take the question.  When I — I can’t even balance my checkbook at home, so — (laughter).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask about Kursk specifically with the North Korean troops in Russia.  Russia and North Korea have this mutual security pact.  If they were to use North Korean troops against Ukrainians in Kursk, would it be legitimate to try to reclaim sovereign territory, or would that be seen as an escalation in the war against Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are right now and hypothesize what these troops may or may not be doing and, if the Russians are going to deploy them, where they’re going to deploy them, whether it’ll be inside Russia or inside Ukraine. 

Let me just please go back to what I said before.  If these North Korean troops are employed against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Janne, you have the last one. 

Q    Thank you very much.  (Inaudible) questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you’re about to jump out of your seat, so —

Q    Thank — thank you, John.

MR. KIRBY:  This — this seems like a fair day for Janne.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s true.  Truly. 

Q    On same — same topic, on North Korea.  The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee recently sent a letter to President Biden requesting a briefing regarding the seriousness of North Korea’s troops deployment and the neglect of the Korean Peninsula issue.  What is the White House’s response to this?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’ll respond.  We’ll respond as — as appropriate to the chairman, and we won’t do that from the podium here in the briefing room.  We’ll do it appropriately with him and his staff.

I’ll just say — and hopefully my being here today and the — my statement at the top should reflect how seriously we’re taking this issue and how closely we’re going to monitor it.  We recognize the potential danger here, and we’re going to be talking to allies and partners, including the Ukrainians, about what the proper next steps are going to be. 

But as for our response to the chairman, I’ll let that stand in legislative channels.

Q    Last quick one.  Your colleague said at the State Department briefing that the United States does not reflect other countries’ intelligence analyses.  So, what is your assessment of intelligence cooperation with allies at this —

MR. KIRBY:  What — what did my colleague at the State Department say?

Q    Said that — at the briefing that the United States does not reflect other countries’ intelligence analyses.

MR. KIRBY:  About — about —

Q    About the —

MR. KIRBY:  — the North Korean troops?

Q    Yeah, about the North Korean troops, so —

MR. KIRBY:  I just shared with you — to- — today’s opening statement was a downgrade of U.S. intelligence of what — what we’re seeing.  And I think you can see similarities between what I said today and what our South Korean counterparts have — have said.  Ukrainian intelligence has — has released information very, very similar. 

And again, we’re — you know, today isn’t the end of this conversation.  It’s — it’s, quite frankly, the beginning of the conversation that we’re going to be having with allies and partners, including through the intelligence community. 

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

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Toluse.

Q    Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Sorry, guys.  Give me one second. 

Let’s let Toluse take — I know he’s been waiting patiently on the sides- — sideline. 

We don’t have much time because I have to be in the Oval in about 20 minutes, but go ahead.

Q    Can I ask about the McDonald’s outbreak, the E. coli outbreak? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And this follows a couple of big ones that we’ve seen over the summer, including Boar’s Head.  I think there’s another nationwide one.  Is the president tracking this?  And more importantly, how confident should Americans feel about the food supply right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I would say is the administration’s top priority — its top priority is to make sure that Americans are safe.  And so, we are taking this very seriously.  We’re monitoring the situation. 

CDC, as it relates to McDonald’s specifically, is working to determine the source of the outbreak, as we speak abou- — as you asked me about the E. cola — E. coli outbreak.  And so, what I would suggest is that families, they need to and they must follow the latest CDC guidance. 

Obviously, we’re aware.  The president is — is also aware.  And going back to this particular outbreak with McDonald’s, I understand that the company has halted sales of product to protect customers, and CDC is certainly in touch with — with local authorities to — to prevent infection. 

So, look, we’re always concerned when we hear these types of — these types of situations — right? — poten- — outbreaks.  And so — and the president wants to make sure that the American people are safe.  So, it is a — it is certainly a priority for us, and CDC is on top of this and looking into it.

Q    And then just one more.  Any reaction to Jill Stein asserting the U.S. and the UK have blocked a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not seen those reporting.  I’m not going to respond to a — a political candidate in — for this — for this —

Q    Well, it seems (inaudible) — it’s a factual thing that’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I have not even seen the — the comments that —

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — you are mentioning to me, so I — I can’t give you an honest response from here.

So, go ahead, M.J.

Q    Karine, what did the president mean when he said last night, about Donald Trump, “We got to lock him up”? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, and I — the president spoke to — about this very clearly as well in his statement, and he — and he said he meant, “lock him out” politically — politically lock him out.  That’s what he said, and that’s what we have to do.  That was the part of his quote that he said last night while he was in — in New Hampshire. 

Look, let’s not forget, this is a president that has not –never shied away from being very clear and laying down what is at stake in this election. 

I’m going to be really m- — mindful in not speaking about 2024 election that’s just a — less than two weeks away. 

But this is just speaking to what the president said last night.  He made clear — he made very clear yesterday that he was referring to defeating — to defeating Donald Trump.  That is what he was talking about.  He said, politically — politically, lock him — lock him out.  That is what he was referring to. 

Q    Well, he first said twice, “lock him up.”  So, you’re saying —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And then — and —

Q    — when he said “lock him up,” he meant, defeat Donald Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, it’s not what saying.  It’s what he said.  He said —

Q    Well, when —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to the au- —

Q    — he clarified.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wa- — wait. 

Q    But he initially said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he — right.  

Q    — “lock him up.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Exactly, he clarified himself.  He wanted to make sure that things were put into context.  He wanted to make sure that it — while we are — you know, while not just New Hampshire folks that were there were going to see it but also the Americans who are watching and pay attention to what the president is saying.  He wanted to put it into context.  And he, himself — this is not me; this is the president himself going back to explain — to explain — to say that he was talking about politically — politically locking him out. 

Q    Is the president aware of John Kelly’s assertion that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fascist and that Trump wanted the kinds of generals Hitler had?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, you have heard from this president over and over again about the threats to democracy, and the president has spoken about that.  You’ve heard from the former president himself saying that he is going to be a dictator on day one.  This is him, not us.  This is him. 

And it’s not just all — it’s not just us, the White House, saying this.  You’ve heard it from officials — former officials that worked for the former president say this as well. 

So, you know, do we agree — I know that the — the vice president just spoke about this.  Do we agree about that determination?  Yes, we do.  We do. 

Let’s not forget — I will point you to January 6th.  What we saw on January 6th: 2,000 people were told to go to the Capitol to undo a free and fair election by the former president.  It was a dark, dark day in our democracy and a dangerous one.  We have people who died because of what happened on January 6th.  And, you know, we cannot forget that.  We cannot forget that.

And so — and I will add — I will add this, that — and I can’t believe I even have to say this — but our nation’s veterans are heroes.  They are heroes.  They’re not losers or suckers; they are heroes. 

And to be praising Adolf Hitler is dangerous, and it’s also disgusting. 

Q    So, just to be clear, when you said, “we do” agree, President Biden believes that Donald Trump is a fascist?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, yes, we have said — he said himself — the former president has said he is going to be a dictator on day one.  We cannot ignore that.  We cannot.

And we cannot ignore or forget what happened on January 6th, 2021.  That is real.  Real people were affected by this — law enforcement who were trying to protect — protect the Capitol, protect law — elected officials in the Capitol, congressional members, senators, House members.  Their lives were ruined because of that day, because 2,000 people — again, 2,000 people were told by the former president to go there to find the former vice president to stop a free and fair election.  That is what — that is what happened. 

Some of you — some of your colleagues were there, reported it, and saw it for yourself. 

We cannot forget that. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, I mean, you talk about the context of the president’s comments yesterday.  I want to put them in the fuller context as well.  The president went to New Hampshire to make a policy argument against Republicans on the issue of prescription drugs, but the majority — more of his comments yesterday were really some of the most dire warnings we’ve heard from this president yet about a return to a Donald Trump presidency and what it would mean — could mean for this country.  He talked about world leaders pulling him aside, saying, “He can’t win.”  He talked about the concern — what it would mean for future generations of America. 

How concerned is the president about — at this point, about the state of the race?  Is he worried that Trump is on a path to victory at this point?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to talk about the state of the race.  You heard from the president.  You just laid out very clearly about what the president talked about yesterday in New Hampshire.  He laid out what his thoughts were.  He laid out what the stakes are for this country, and this is somebody who cares, clearly, very deeply about the future of this country.

And so, I’m not going to get into what he thinks about this — the race in this current moment.  That is not something that I’m here to do.  I am not — I am no longer a political pundit.  I am the White House press secretary.  I speak for the president, but obviously I cannot speak to the 2024 election.

And you did talk about something else — right? — when you talked about what he went to do on the official side.  And I would read you some quotes here — some headlines that we — that we saw in New Hampshire today from New Hampshire press, which I think is really important: “Biden, Sanders tout prescription drug cost-savings at New — New Hampshire event.”  Another one, “Biden and Bernie Sanders highlight lower prescription drug costs in New Hampshire stop.”  That is important. 

The president wanted to go to New Hampshire to talk about what he and the vice president have been able to do in more than three and a half years: lowering prescription drugs, beating Big Pharma.  He talked about the Inflation Reduction Act.  By the way, no Republican voted for that.  Now it is popular with Democrats and Republicans, and this is something that is going to change people’s lives. 

And so, that’s what he was there for.  He talked about — let’s not forget, what — what they’ve been — oth- — other things they’ve been able to do, whether it’s the bipartisan gun violence protection — being able to do that in a bipartisan way, and dealing with COVID that t- — put our economy in a downturn.  And this president has been able to empower — powering the economy, and we are now leading as a country in the world when it comes to the economy.

So, I think he was able to do both things.  I think he was able to speak his mind on — on the political, you know, nature of where we are right now, which he can — obviously, he spoke to.  And I think people in New Hampshire got a sense of what the president is trying to do on behalf of them in talking about lowering costs.  We saw that in — in the New Hampshire papers.  So, it broke through, and I think that’s important. 

Q    You were with the president last week in Germany —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    — when he says he had these conversations with world leaders expressing their dire concern about the election here.  What has been his response to those world leaders about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, and I will just leave it there.

Q    And then, I’ll ask you — we — NBC News is reporting that the vice president is likely to spend election night here in Washington, perhaps at her alma mater of Howard University.  Do we have an understanding yet of where the president will be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — and when — how he plans to vote?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As soon as — you all know, we certainly will share that with all of you. 

I will say is that the president is certainly looking forward to casting his ballot in Delaware.  And so, once we have the full information on what his day is going to look like or what the last couple of days leading up to November 5th will look like, we certainly will share that with all of you.

Go ahead.

Q    Since we’re talking about scheduling, it is traditional for the president to hold a press conference after —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh boy.  I knew that was coming.  (Laughter.)

Q    Can’t stop.  Won’t stop.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You were- — you weren’t here for the — the drop-by.  Were you here for the drop-by?

Q    Yes, I was. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  It was great.

Q    It was great.  We’d love to see him again.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, the — and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you know what?  He had a really good time.  He enjoyed — he enjoyed it.

Q    So, just an —

Q    Come on back.  (Laughter.)

Q    — open invitation for the president to follow tradition and do a press conference after the election, which I think —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — is standard and important.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I totally hear that, Tam, and I know it is a tradition. 

I — I don’t want to get ahead of what the schedule is going to look like.  As we know, in less than two weeks, we will have an important election.  Obviously, I’m not speaking about that election specifically, but we want to share — we will share more as we get closer.  And we — we certainly are tracking that tradition, and we’ll certainly have more to share. 

Q    Are we going to see him with the vice president much in the next couple of weeks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — I know you all have asked this question of him.  You’ve asked this question of me.  They have, as you know, campaigned together.  They’ve done official events together in the past just couple of weeks. 

They speak regularly.  And — and I would say the president — you’ve heard the president just, you know, tout how proud and how he thinks she will be a great leader on day one, which is –he also said in 2020, which is why he chose her as his running mate, and he has said as well, this was the best decision that he’s made.  And understands that she’s going to cut her own path.  Said this himself just last week when he was in — in Philadelphia. 

Don’t have anything to share, again, on the schedule.  I know this is all part of a scheduling question, and we certainly will have more to share as the days — as the days — as you know, I mean, one day is like an eternity in — in this space, as you know.  (Laughs.)  And so, less than two weeks is — feels like so far away.  So, we will have more to share, for sure.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    I just want to follow up on M.J.’s question. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, did the president actually read former Marine General Kelly’s comments or listen to them?  And did you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — do you know how he reacted after doing so?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — I mean, look, I just gave a really good — I think a good sense of the — what the president has said about our reaction here from the White House.  The president is aware of John Kelly’s comments.  And I gave you a reaction as part of the — as — as the president’s White House press secretary.  And what I’m saying to you today is something that the president has said over and over and over again and repeated. 

And let’s not forget the words that we have heard from the former president.  And it matters here, because we’re talking about our democracy.  We’re talking about what’s at stake here with our democracy.  And when you have a former president saying that they will be a dictator on day one, that is something that we cannot forget. 

And so, you know, the president has spoke- — spoken about this and given speeches on this.  And that’s why I continue to point to January 6th, 2020 — -21 — 2021, because it was — it’s something that we cannot forget, a dark day on our democracy — a dark day on our democracy, because of what was — what — what occurred — what occurred.

Q    Was the president surprised by any of the comments from Kelly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all.  I mean, again, the president has made comments and spoken about this over and over again.  So, no.  I will say no. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Elon Musk has been, you know, campaigning with former President Donald Trump, and he is offering $1 million to voters.  I just was wondering: Has the president expressed any concern to, you know, this interference by Elon Musk?  And I don’t know if he — you know, his — the administration maybe has any plans or has discussed maybe how to sort of maybe move forward with what’s El- — Elon Musk is doing with — with the $1 million.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, on — on this particular question, I’m going to have to refer you to the FEC.  I just have to be — that one, I — I — that’s a place that I’m going to have to refer you.  I can’t speak to it beyond that. 

Q    But has the president mentioned it at all, Elon Musk or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s aware of it.  He’s aware of it.  That I can tell you.  I just can’t speak to it beyond that.  I have to refer you to the FEC.

Go ahead, Jared. 

Q    You talk and you’ve taken questions today, and obviously throughout the — the presidency, President Biden has talked a lot about democratic institutions.  I’m just curious if between now and Election Day, the president is going to speak sort of more broadly about the confidence in the votes being counted accurately.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the president has talk — talked about this.  He believes in our institution.  He believes in — in — this will be a free and fair election.  He’s talked about this.  We have to give the American people, who some of them are voting right now — to make sure that they have the confidence in their vote and how important it is to cast their vote. 

I’m not going to go beyond that, but I think the president has been very clear about that. 

Q    But you don’t — should we talk about schedules or something?  (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is there, like, a big sort of — because he’s done these types of addresses on issues like this before. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I —

Q    So, I’m just curious if, like, this is a time that he would do that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, no, I hear you.  And I hear you’re talking about the moment that we’re in and if the president is going to speak about it in a more formal way — in remarks, in a speech. 

I don’t have anything to share with you, but he’s been very clear about having the confidence in our institutions, and so I’ll leave it there.

Go ahead.

Q    I just want to ask you briefly about congressional outreach for the $10 billion that would be military aid.  Has the White House started that process, reaching out to members of Congress to get their buy-in to kind of help expedite this process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we’re in regular touch with congressional members about any type of initiative that we’re trying to push through, especially if it involves Congress, obviously.

I don’t have anything to read out to you at this time, but we are in regular conversation about a myriad of things when it comes to legislation, things that we’re trying to push forward.  Again, certainly that is important to the American people.  I just don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q    Just a quick —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — 2024 question.  You said the president is going to vote.  It’s a scheduling question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Will he vote ear- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You guys are very into schedules today.

Q    Yeah, we’re — we’re into this.  We’re into this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I know.  Into th- —

Q    Will he vote early?  Early voting —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — into the POTUS schedule.

Q    Early voting starts in Delaware, obviously, this week, and will he go early, before Election Day?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — as — as soon as we have something to share, I will certainly share that.

Q    Final try.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I appreciate the effort here.  The president — I can say for sure the president is looking forward to casting his ballot.  And when we have more to share about his schedule — I mean, we’re not — we’re — the president can’t not just go vote and not tel- — for you guys not to know, right?  So, you guys follow him wherever he is, which is good —

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — which is a good thing.  (Laughs.)

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The former president described the vice president as “lazy as hell” yesterday.  She had a day when she was not on the campaign trail.  I was going to give you an opportunity to respond to that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would check the source.  Pay real close attention to who’s saying that.  That’s all I’ll say.

Q    Okay.  Another question about the vice president’s interview with NBC.  She talked — she was asked about whether there should be any concessions on the issue of abortion and the situation — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, say that one more time.

Q    She was asked whether or not there should be concessions on the issue of abortion — the scenario being a potential divided government like we have now — whether or not she would be willing to offer concessions, things like religious freedom, on the issue of abortion.  And I wanted to see if —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Meaning like on- — once she’s in office? 

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, look, I’m not going to — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  It’s not — that is something that certainly, you know, when she be — when she is in office and becomes pre- — and all of the things happen — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals — she’s going to make her own decisions and decide what’s best for the American people.  I can’t speak to that at this time.  Not going to get into hypotheticals. 

What you know and what you have seen from this president and this vice president is their commitment to continue to fight for women’s rights and continue to call on Congress to — to — you know, to reinstate Roe v. Wade, make sure that legislation is put out there, voted on.  And so, he would sign that, obviously, if that were to happen. 

And so, that is what they — he — they both have asked for.  That is what we’ve been saying during this administration.  And she has been, obviously, a passionate fighter on that issue, understanding what this means to women, understanding what this means to people’s rights and freedoms, and so has this president. 

And so that’s what we’re — you’re going to continue to see.  You just — you just heard us — I forget all the days — all the days come together — recently talk about how we’re expanding in the ACA for contraception, because understanding how that — how important that is to women and families, or — or women and Americans who are trying to make decisions on their family or how to move forward, and they should have that right — and so — and that freedom.

And so, again, that action shows you the commitment from the — and I hope the American people — from the Biden-Harris administration.

What she’s going to do next, how she’s going to govern, that’s not for me to say.

Q    Another question from the interview.  She was asked whether or not sexism would come into play in this election.  She said, “I don’t think of it that way.”  Obviously, the former president, Barack Obama, said that he did believe that sexism was coming into play in this election.  What does the president think about (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I’ll say this.  Clearly, the vice president spoke to this, and this is her campaign, and she sees — she’s going to say how she sees things. 

The president has always said and will continue to say that she is ready to lead on day one.  And you don’t have to just look at her record with him as a critical partner over the last more than three and a half years as vice president, but as senator, as attorney general, as district attorney, she is someone that has always fought for Americans, fought for people, whether it is citizens in California or more broadly, obviously. 

And I think that’s what the American people — I know that’s what the American people want to see.  They want to see a fighter.  And that’s what the president sees in her.

And, again, just look at what we’ve been able to do in the more than three and a half years when it comes to trying to beat back COVID and make sure that we all could come together in this room again without masks and make sure there was a strategy to deal with this pandemic; turn the economy around because of this pandemic; make sure that, you know, schools were open, businesses were open.  Now we have a record number of people applying to open up small businesses. 

They’re doing that because they believe that the economy is working for them.  Nobody wants to open a small business if they don’t think the economy is working — is — is working for them. 

Now, there’s always a lot more work to be done, and we’re going to continue to do that work.  You saw what the president did with Senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire — in Concord, New Hampshire, answering and lay- — and laying out what the — what the Inflation Reduction Act has been able to do, saving people a billion dollars because of that Inflation Reduction Act — which, I may add, Republicans did not vote for.  They did not vote for it. 

I know I have to get — I’m getting the pull here. 

Go ahead, Jon. 

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  What’s the level of concern that the administration has about election interference, specifically from Russia? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we spoke to that.  We’ve laid out — we made an — an announcement on what we were seeing from Russia on election interference.  We sent a very clear message on that just a couple of weeks ago.  So, obviously, that is something that continues to be a concern.  We will speak loud and clear about that, as we did just a couple of weeks ago.

But we also want Americans to know th- — to trust the institution, and that’s what the president is going to continue to say and — and — and also continue to lay out the stakes — what’s at stakes.

Okay.  Thanks, everybody.  Hopefully, see you on the road.

2:30 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Vice President’s Residence
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, D.C.

12:58 P.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, yesterday, we learned that Donald Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, a retired four-star general, confirmed that while Donald Trump was president, he said he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler had.

Donald Trump said that because he does not want a military that is loyal to the United States Constitution.  He wants a military that is loyal to him.  He wants a military who will be loyal to him personally, one that will obey his orders even when he tells them to break the law or abandon their oath to the Constitution of the United States.

In just the past week, Donald Trump has repeatedly called his fellow Americans the “enemy from within” and even said that he would use the United States military to go after American citizens.

And let’s be clear about who he considers to be the enemy from within.  Anyone who refuses to bend a knee or dares to criticize him would qualify, in his mind, as the enemy within, like judges, like journalists, like nonpartisan election officials.

It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler, the man who is responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Americans. 

All of this is further evidence for the American people of who Donald Trump really is.  This is a window into who Donald Trump really is from the people who know him best, from the people who worked with him side by side in the Oval Office and in the Situation Room.

 And it is clear from John Kelly’s words that Donald Trump is someone who, I quote, “certainly falls into the general definition of “fascist,” who, in fact, vowed to be a dictator on day one and vowed to use the military as his personal militia to carry out his personal and political vendettas.

Donald Trump is increasingly unhinged and unstable.  And in a second term, people like John Kelly would not be there to be the guardrails against his propensities and his actions.  Those who once tried to stop him from pursuing his worst impulses would no longer be there and no longer be there to rein him in.

So, the bottom line is this.  We know what Donald Trump wants.  He wants unchecked power.  The question in 13 days will be: What do the American people want?

     Thank you.

                             END                1:01 P.M. EDT                              

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at the Vice President’s Residence appeared first on The White House.

This summer, I led an effort to bring the G7 together to commit $50 billion in Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loans to Ukraine backed by the profits of immobilized Russian sovereign assets.  After Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the G7 took bold action to immobilize Russia’s sovereign assets in our jurisdictions, and committed that these assets will remain immobilized until Russia ends its aggression and pays for the damage it has caused to Ukraine—paving the way for Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loans.

As part of the G7 package, the United States is announcing today that we will provide $20 billion in loans to Ukraine that will be paid back by the interest earned from immobilized Russian sovereign assets. In other words, Ukraine can receive the assistance it needs now, without burdening taxpayers. These loans will support the people of Ukraine as they defend and rebuild their country. And our efforts make it clear: tyrants will be responsible for the damages they cause.

Make no mistake: Russia will not prevail in this conflict. The people of Ukraine will prevail. This is another reminder to Vladimir Putin that the world has rallied behind Ukraine—and the United States and our G7 partners will continue to stand with them every step of the way. 

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on Historic Decision to Leverage Russian Sovereign Assets to Support Ukraine appeared first on The White House.

Las Vegas, Nevada

Good morning.

It was an ordinary Saturday in an extraordinary life.

I was in my office in the East Wing doing what community college teachers do on weekends—especially on a weekend so late in the semester: I was grading papers.

It was late April last year. Earlier that morning, I’d read in The New York Times that the U.S. loses $1.8 billion in working time every year to the menopause symptoms that upend women’s lives.

It struck me—I’d experienced those kinds of symptoms too, so had many of my friends, but, I thought, that’s the way life is, isn’t it?

And then, that afternoon, Maria Shriver, the former First Lady of California, came in for a meeting. She wanted to talk about women’s health research.

It’s a problem that’s so simple—yet often ignored: women’s health is understudied and research is underfunded. As a result, too many of our medications, treatments, health products, and medical school textbooks are based on men.

That’s why, if you ask any woman in America about her health care, she probably has a story to tell.

You know her.

She’s the woman who gets debilitating migraines, but can’t find treatment options that work for her. She’s the woman whose heart attack isn’t detected because her symptoms don’t look like a man’s, even as heart disease is the leading cause of death among women. She’s the woman going through menopause, who visits her doctor and leaves with more questions than answers, even though half the country will go through menopause at some point in their lives.

It seems like women’s bodies are considered miracles when we’re in our child-bearing years, and mysteries as we age.

I knew this had to change.

My husband, President Joe Biden, has a deep understanding of how government works and how to get things done quickly. So when I told Joe about this research gap, he got to work.

Last November, we launched the first-ever White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research.

From an ordinary Saturday conversation, the Biden Administration has done something extraordinary and fast. All in less than a year, we used the convening power of the White House to bring together government agencies, researchers, medical experts, innovators, and investors. 

Joe signed the most comprehensive Executive Order ever, to expand and improve research and innovation in women’s health.

The NIH is investing millions of dollars in new, interdisciplinary women’s health research, like how menopause affects our hearts, brains, and bones.

The Department of Defense is committing half a billion dollars each year to women’s health research. And what helps women service members helps all women.

And just today, ARPA-H, the agency that Joe created to invest in the most cutting-edge health breakthroughs, announced $110 million for women’s health researchers and startups to bring new treatments and cures to market. 

This is government at its best.

ARPA-H received an unprecedented 1,700 submissions for this funding sprint, which shows the energy and exploration that’s possible in this field. From there, ARPA-H chose to fund 23 recipients with the best “sparks”—meaning the most promising ideas so that researchers can take their work to the next level, and the best “launchpads”—those are the teams that are ready to bring new treatments and health products to market within the next two years.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

One in 10 women suffers from a painful, debilitating condition called endometriosis. It can take as long as a decade for women to get a diagnosis. One of today’s recipients from Washington University is developing a blood test—the first of its kind—to reduce the time it takes to diagnose the disease from years to days. So, women can get the treatments they need more quickly.

We also know that women are more likely to get migraines, but we don’t know why. At UNC-Chapel Hill, a study is being funded to see how migraines are connected to the lymphatic system to help solve that mystery. And the team is working toward personalized treatments for migraines.

ARPA-H is de-risking investments in these big ideas, so that answers can get to the women who need them now.

The potential in this space is too great to ignore. In 2021, the Boston Consulting Group estimated that the size of the women’s health market would grow from $9 billion to $29 billion in just eight years, because of the growing momentum from funders and founders to address the unmet health needs of women. I know you see these opportunities in your day-to-day work.

Here’s what I also want you to know. The women of America are waiting on you.

Any time I get together with my sisters and friends, we have conversations about our health. We ask each other: should I be taking hormone therapy for symptoms related to menopause? How is it possible that my heart attack was almost missed? 

It’s time for investors, researchers, and business leaders to have those conversations too, not as an afterthought but as a first thought. Those kinds of questions belong in your research proposals, in your laboratories, in your pitch decks.

There is incredible momentum behind women’s health right now.

What are you going to do to make sure this energy is unstoppable?

So that we leave doctors’ offices with more answers than questions. And take this moment of opportunity to create something extraordinary.

You can count me in. And I hope women can count on you.

To continue this discussion, it’s my pleasure to introduce Dr. Carolyn Mazure, the chair of the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research. Dr. Renee Wegrzyn, who leads ARPA-H. Maria Shriver, a tireless advocate for advancing women’s health. And Lucy Pérez, a senior partner with McKinsey & Company.

Please help me welcome them to the stage.

###

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden at the 2024 HLTH Conference appeared first on The White House.

     Nearly 80 years ago, our forebearers gathered for the first United Nations General Assembly.  With the horrors of World War II weighing on their hearts and the hopes of humanity resting on their shoulders, they opened the General Assembly by declaring, “The whole world now waits upon our decisions… looking to us to show ourselves capable of mastering our problems.”  Today, we reflect on the history of this storied institution.  And together, we recommit to sustaining and strengthening it to master the challenges of our time.

     Under my Administration, the United States has been a leader at the United Nations — rallying global action to advance democratic values, safeguard human rights, and address the issues our world faces.  That includes standing against Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine and Hamas’ despicable terrorist attack on Israel.  At the United Nations, we have been working to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, with the release of hostages, and we have been pushing to expand humanitarian access and assistance.  The United States has also played a key role in helping bring security to the people of Haiti and addressing the conflict and dire humanitarian situation in Sudan, where millions are displaced and facing famine.

     But we know people need more than the absence of war.  They need the chance to live with dignity.  They need to be protected from the ravages of climate change, hunger, and disease.  That is why my Administration has invested over $150 billion to accelerate progress on the Sustainable Development Goals, including ending poverty, eliminating hunger, promoting health and well-being, and promoting gender equality.  We also forged a historic consensus on the first-ever General Assembly Resolution on Artificial Intelligence to help people everywhere seize the potential — and minimize the risks — of this technology.

     As we look ahead, countries need to work together to continue reforming the United Nations to be more effective.  The United States will keep pushing for a stronger, more inclusive United Nations, including a reformed and expanded United Nations Security Council.  And the Security Council, like the United Nations itself, needs to focus on making peace, brokering deals to end wars and suffering, stopping the spread of the most dangerous weapons, and stabilizing troubled regions.

     Finally, the United Nations’ work is carried out by brave and committed United Nations humanitarian workers, development professionals, peacekeepers, and members of special political missions.  And every day, they risk their own lives to save the lives of others, undertaking often dangerous work.  Like nations around the world, the United States honors their sacrifices and those of their families.

     Today and every day, let us remember that the forces holding us together are stronger than those pulling us apart.  Let us continue to work together to unleash the power of humanity and give people the opportunity to live freely, think freely, breathe freely, and love freely.  And in the face of difficult challenges, let us prove that we are capable of building a better world together.

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 24, 2024, as United Nations Day.  I urge the governors of the United States and its territories, and the officials of all other areas under the flag of the United States, to observe United Nations Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
twenty-third day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
 
 
                               JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

The post A Proclamation on United Nations Day, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

9:09 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining today’s call to discuss the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loans effort for Ukraine. 

As a reminder, this call is going to be on the record, and it is embargoed until its conclusion. 

The speaker on today’s call is Daleep Singh, who’s the White House Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics.  He’ll have a few words at the top, and then we’ll take some of your questions.

With that, Daleep, I’ll turn it over to you. 

MR. SINGH:  Thanks, Eduardo.  Thanks, everybody, for joining. 

Since Russia’s invasion began over two years ago, the United States has rallied the world to defend Ukraine’s freedom, leading a coalition of allies and partners to surge security, economic, and humanitarian assistance, while spearheading unprecedented efforts to impose costs on Russia for its senseless aggression. 

At the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Apulia this June, the United States proposed an idea to ensure Putin pays for the damage he’s caused in Ukraine by committing we issue $50 billion in loans to Ukraine, backed by the interest earned on the Russian sovereign assets we collectively immobilized just after the invasion began.  We call these Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loans. 

Today, we’re announcing that of the $50 billion G7 commitment, the United States plans to provide a loan of $20 billion.  The other $30 billion in loans will come from a combination of our G7 partners, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan. 

To be clear, nothing like this has ever been done before.  Never before has a multilateral coalition frozen the assets of an aggressor country and then harnessed the value of those assets to fund the defense of the aggrieved party, all while respecting the rule of law and maintaining solidarity.  And as a result, Ukraine will receive the assistance it needs now without burdening our taxpayers.

As we committed in June, the G7 will begin disbursing assistance for the benefit of Ukraine by the end of this year so that we can meet Ukraine’s urgent needs as we approach the winter, while sending an unmistakable signal: The United States and its G7 partners will not fatigue.  We will continue to use our creativity and collaboration to support Ukraine’s fight for independence and sovereignty.  And tyrants are responsible for the damages they cause, not U.S. taxpayers. 

It’s also a testament to this administration’s belief that multilateralism is a force multiplier.  We couldn’t have done this by ourselves.  The income used to repay these loans will be generated from frozen Russian assets held in the European Union.  This is another example of how Putin’s war of aggression has unified and strengthened the resolve of G7 countries and our partners to defend shared values.  It’s also a model for how we can rally our closest allies towards a shared purpose while ensuring that each country contributes its fair share. 

Let me give you a few more details, and then I’ll be happy to take your questions. 

So, the United States will provide at least $10 billion of our loan via economic support.  The World Bank recently established what’s called a financial intermediary fund for Ukraine, which will be the vehicle through which we will disburse U.S. loan proceeds for economic support to Ukraine. 

The financial intermediary fund, or FIF, will be subject to robust accountability and transparency measures, much like those used for existing U.S. economic assistance to Ukraine. 

The United States also hopes to provide up to $10 billion

of our loan as U.S. military support, but our ability to do that relies on Congress taking action before mid-December on certain legislative changes that allow us to make loans for military support under the contours of this broader G7 initiative. 

To be clear, either way, the U.S. will provide $20 billion in support for Ukraine through this effort, whether it’s split between economic and military support or provided entirely via economic assistance. 

In terms of next steps, the United States will now work with Ukraine to sign loan agreements in order to execute the loan and begin disbursing funds for the benefit of Ukraine before the end of this year.  More details will be available at the conclusion of the G7 finance ministers meeting later this week or early next.

Let me stop there and take your questions.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  If folks have questions, please use the “raise your hand” function on Zoom and we’ll turn to you. 

First up, we’ll go to Alan Rappeport.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi.  Thanks very much, Daleep.  A couple things.  One, can we expect a G7 statement today saying that this is fully done?  Because I know, yesterday, Secretary Yellen said it was 99 percent done. 

And then, second of all, can you explain how the U.S. has gotten around the need to appropriate any funds to account for the risk associated with the loan?  I know there were concerns about the EU needing to extend its sanctions renewal period, or something like that, to minimize the risk.

MR. SINGH:  (Inaudible.)  (Audio muted) — from partners, if we had sufficiently strong repayment assurances from the immobilized assets.  And since the Leaders’ Summit, we’ve engaged in intensive diplomacy and technical negotiations every day with our partners to secure the strongest possible repayment assurances. 

Let me just mention a few.  Number one, the EU Council released a statement at the end of June, and again in October, from all 27 EU heads of state to keep Russia’s central bank assets immobilized until there’s a just peace with a free and sovereign Ukraine and until Russia pays for the damages it’s caused.  This represents an expansion of the G7 leaders’ commitment to the entire EU, including Hungary.

Number two, equal burden sharing.  So, the EU committed to provide at least $20 billion in loans alongside the United States, which means the Europeans have equal skin in the game and, therefore, fully aligned incentives to keep the assets immobilized until we get fully repaid. 

Number three, we’ve worked with Ukraine on loan agreements under which, at the conclusion of this war, Ukraine would use settlement proceeds it receives from Russia towards repayment of these loans.

Number four, we’ve negotiated loan terms with our partners that further reduces any fiscal risks to the U.S. taxpayer. 

And number five, history.  You know, the EU has had sanctions in place against Russia for almost 10 years now.  Every six months, those sanctions need EU unanimity to get rolled over for another six months.  And, yes, there’s grandstanding and drama, but the EU has built a track record of staying the course, and that adds to our confidence that Russia’s sovereign assets will remain immobilized until Russia ends its war and pays for the damages it’s caused. 

One last point, Alan.  I’m sorry to belabor this, but it’s a really important question.  While we have found a way to move forward without legal changes to the EU sanctions regime, we will keep pushing for those changes to get made.

MODERATOR:  Alan, I think we had a little bit of trouble hearing the first part of your question, if you could ask that again.

Q    Oh, sorry.  Yeah.  I think maybe — or maybe you were muted in the first part of your response.  I was trying to understand if there was going to be a G7 statement today and if this is fully done now.  I know Secretary Yellen said it was 99 percent done yesterday.

MR. SINGH:  Oh, I’m sorry if you didn’t hear me.  You should expect further statements today, both from the United States and from the G7.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to Victoria.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.  I just had a couple of questions.  First, I was wondering if you could explain a bit the part you talked in the beginning on the Congress contribution side of things.  What needs to happen from Congress exactly for the $10 billion, the second half, to come through the military aid part?  Is it a matter of using appropriations that have happened already, different appropriations?  If you could just explain that.  And just to clarify that if that doesn’t happen, you could give the other ten through economic support.

And then, just a second question on the timing of things.  I’m just wondering if you could talk us through how frontloaded you expect this load to be, as in, you know, do you think over the next couple of months we’re going to get a big chunk of it over to Ukraine?  Just the timeline of the disbursements.  Thank you.

MR. SINGH:  Sure.  So, on the second part of your question, we expect to disburse at least half of our $20 billion loan to the World Bank Trust Fund this December, and possibly the entire amount. 

And this kind of gets to your first question: We do need authority from Congress to raise the amount of foreign military financing we can provide to Ukraine and also to make certain technical changes that would allow us to split the loan in half between economic assistance and security assistance.  And we’ll be having conversations with Congress between now and December to assess those odds.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Colby Smith.

Q    Hi.  Thank you so much.  I just wanted — a couple questions just to follow up on — in terms of assessing the odds.  Did you have, kind of, an initial assessment as it stands today?  And how do you kind of — do you expect that support to come through?

And then, just more specifically on the economic support side of things, can you just mention a couple of specifics there in terms of how you expect this money to be used?

MR. SINGH:  Sure.  Thanks, Colby.  So, I just want to be clear: The only question we’re talking about here is the split between economic assistance and security assistance.  We’re going to provide $20 billion either way.

But, you know, we’ll work with Congress over the next few months to assess whether we can get sufficient authority through foreign military financing loan guarantee authorities to provide half of our assistance through military support. 

In terms of your question, Colby, on what kinds of projects could the economic assistance support, you know, I would highlight a couple:  Energy assistance.  So, we all know Ukraine is at risk of being plunged into cold and darkness this winter.  Helping to fund the rapid repairs that will be needed to stabilize the grid and also to provide passive protection against drone attacks for substations and transformers.  That’s an urgent priority that we hope this assistance can help meet.

There are a number of other initiatives that relate to Ukraine’s infrastructure that can create the conditions for an eventual economic recovery that we expect this fund can also support through World Bank project support. 

And there are many other projects that we can assess, but those are just a couple of examples.

MODERATOR:  And our last question will go to Daniel.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi.  How are you doing?  Thank you for taking my question.  I wanted to ask about any potential Russian reprisals.  I know that was a large consideration when you guys were determining the mechanism for these loans.  Are you guys expecting any kind of retaliation?  And do you guys have any preparations for that, whether it be European assets or American?  Thank you very much.

MR. SINGH:  Well, Russia has been expropriating assets, seizing assets, really, from close to the beginning of its invasion.  So, nothing — nothing new would change on that front if they continue to do so.

I would just make clear, though, that the revenues that we are using to repay these loans, under European law, these revenues don’t belong to Russia.  It’s actually contractual law. The interest earned doesn’t belong to Russia but rather the custody in Belgium.  And so, we don’t view this as a seizure of Russia’s assets, per se.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  If there are any follow-up questions, do reach out to us, and we’ll get back to you. 

As a reminder, this call was on the record, and the person you heard from was Daleep Singh, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics.  The embargo on this call is now lifted.  Thanks again.

9:23 A.M. EDT

The post On-the-Record Press Call on the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans Effort appeared first on The White House.

NHTI Community College
Concord, New Hampshire

4:14 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everyone.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  (Applause.) 

What’s your name?

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, is that right?

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  All right.  Well, thanks for being here.

Have a seat, everyone.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thank you, Joe!

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Well, thank you. 

Look, Lauren, thanks for that introduction and for sharing your story.  Unfortunately, there are too many stories like yours all across America.  Sadly, it’s a familiar one to many Americans. 

People lay in bed at night, literally, staring at the ceiling, wondering what would happen if their spouse became seriously ill or got cancer, if their child gets sick, or if something happens to you.  Do you have enough insurance?  Can you afford the medical bills?  Will you have to sell the house?  Will you have to get a mortgage?  “How in God’s name are we going to pay for those prescriptions?  Prescription drugs are so damn high.”

And you find out a big reason why you’re lying awake at night and asking these questions is because Big Pharma is charging you exorbitant prices for the prescriptions you may badly need — literally, higher prices than anywhere in the world — and that’s not hyperbole; it’s a fact — anywhere in the world. 

I’ve been fighting, like others, Big Pharma since I was a United States senator, back in the days when we were told they couldn’t be touched.  They had an exemption basically.  Unlike other parts of the health care system, Big Pharma got a special cut- — carveout that prevented Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices with them.  They weren’t allowed to do that.   

For years, advocates, like many of you here today, have worked tirelessly to change that and to give Medicare the power to lower prescription drug prices, just like the Department of Veterans Affairs was able to do for veterans.  Same power.  And it matters.  It matters a lot.   

That’s why one of the proudest things I’ve ever done was pass the Inflation Reduction Act that allowed us to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs.  Not a single Republican voted for this — not one single Republican in the House or Senate voted.  Not one. 

But thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, we finally beat Big Pharma — in no small part because of your delegation.  Not a joke.  (Applause.)

Because of partners like Senator Jeanne Shaheen and — I tell you what, she’s got a special secret weapon, Billy — (laughter) — you want to be in a foxhole, man, you want Billy in that foxhole with you, man — and Maggie Hassan; Representative Annie — Annie Kuster; and especially Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont.   

That’s why we’re here today, to talk about a law that Democrats passed and is lowering prescription drug prices and — I might add, and I’ll explain in a moment — saving the taxpayers billions of dollars.  Not just the individual recipients of the — the benefit, the taxpayers. 

Americans pay more for prescription drugs, as has been pointed by Bernie, than any other advanced nation in the world.

I can take you to the airport and put you on Air Force One with me and take you to any pharmacy from Tor- —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I’m in!

THE PRESIDENT:  All right, man.  (Laughter.)  All right. 

I can take you to Toronto, Canada; Paris, France; Rome, Italy; Bel- — I can take you anywhere in the world, literally, and you’ll pay half or less than you’d pay in America for the exact same drug made by the exact same pharmaceutical company.  Same drug.  Same pharta- — same pharmaceutical company. 

But not anymore.  With the help of Democrats in Congress — and Kamala, by the way, pac- — cast the tiebreaking vote to make sure it passed.  (Applause.)  Don’t — don’t tell me one vote doesn’t count. 

He told us it would — I told them what I — when I wrote this bill that I couldn’t get it passed.  We had a one-vote majority, and I mean — that it wouldn’t — never happen, but we stuck together.  We finally got it done, and it was a hell of a fight. 

The pharmaceutical company — as Bernie referenced, in another way — spent nearly $400 million — $400 million to defeat this single bill — $400 million — but we beat the special interests and we delivered for the American people.  

Because of this law, not only could Medicare finally negotiate lower prices but it also capped prescription drug costs for seniors total — this year at $3,500 in 2024 and next — in the next six months —

By the way, in the first six months of this alone — year alone, on out-of-pocket spending, we saved the people enrolled in Medicare nearly $1 billion in six months — $1 billion less out of your pocket, nationwide, in just the first six months.  

That means, as of June, 1.5 million Americans who are enrolled in Medicare hit the cap and do not have to pay a dime more for drugs for the rest of the year, no matter what their costs are. 

And here — (applause) — but this is bill is so extensive people don’t fully understand it. 

And guess what?  Starting this January — this January, the total cap on prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare will be even lower.  It will go down to $2,000.  They don’t have to pay more than $2,000, no matter what the cost of their drugs are — no matter what. 

For example, as some of you unfortunately know, some of the cancer drugs can cost $10-, $12-, $15,000 a year.  That’s not hyperbole.  That’s a fact.  This change is expected to save 19 million seniors and other people on Medicare — save them — just those ones on Medicare — $7.4 billion in out-of-pocket spending starting in January. 

But here’s the deal.  It’s also going to save the American taxpayers billions of dollars.  I’ll go into this a little more detail, but the fact — the bill we passed — the extent of it is — guess what? — the American taxpayer is going to save $160 billion (inaudible) — (applause)  — $160 billion dollars.  Because they no longer have — and Medicare — have to pay $400 instead of $35 for insulin, for example.

But that’s not all.  Thanks to the law I signed for — seniors are already saving on their prescription drug costs now.  For example, take insulin to treat diabetes.  One in ten Americans — one in ten Americans has diabetes.  I’m not going to ask you if you — if you’re the one, but I bet — how many of you know someone who needs to take insulin for their diabetes?  Raise your hand.  So, a good c- — you know how much it costs to make that insulin?  Ten dollars.  T-E-N.

And you know the guy who invented it, who dis- — who discovered the prescription to do it, he made sure that he didn’t patent it, because he wanted it available for everyone — for everyone.  That’s what he did.  That’s what he did for everyone. 

But guess what?  Now they charge as much as $400 a month. 

Three years ago, I was down in Northern Virginia and doing a town hall.  And I met a 13-year-old boy named Joshua.  He and his dad both have Type 1 diabetes, which means they needed insulin every day.  I spoke with Joshua’s mom.  Imagine what it’s like to look at your child — and I mean this sincerely.  Think of this in personal terms.  Imagine what it’s like to look at your child who needs insulin and you’re looking and know you have no idea — no idea how you’re going to pay for it.  Not a joke. 

One woman in that meeting said, “I have two children that need it.  I have to cut their prescription in half.  And some- — sometimes I have to choose which one gets the — gets insulin.”

What does that do to a parent’s dignity, their sense of self-worth, your ability to look your child in the eye — and I mean this from the bottom of my heart — look your child in the eye and say, “Honey, I’m sorry.  I’m sorry.” 

Or imagine the senior having to cut your pills in half, to skip doses, or forego your prescriptions altogether because you just can’t afford them.

Folks, this is the United States of America.  So, when we had — when we got elected, we were told we’d never get anything done.  We have a one-vote majority and h- — anyway, we’d never get anything big done.  We got a hell of a lot big done.  (Applause.)  No — because of this group right here.

And thanks to one of those laws — (applause) — thanks to one of those laws, the Inflation Reduction Act, seniors with diabetes, as you’ve heard, now pay — and many of you know — $35 a month instead of $400 a month.  Thirty- — that changes someone’s life.

Growing up with the family I grew up in, my dad used to have an expression.  He’d say, “Joey, family is the” — I mean this sincerely, my word as a Biden — “family is the beginning, the middle, and the end.  And everyone — everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity.” 

What’s it do to a parent?  What’s it do to a parent when you can’t provide something you know your child and your spouse badly needs and there’s no way you can pay for it?

But Kamala and I wanted $35 insulin for everyone — not just seniors, for everybody.  (Applause.)  And she’s going to get it done.

Look, folks, they’re still going to make a profit.  They’re still making 350 percent profit.  Costs them 10 bucks to make it.  Think about that.

We’re taking on the cost of more than just insulin.  Medicare, in the same bill, which people are only beginning to find out — understandably, because this bill is a bill that’s passed, but it goes on for years.  Medicare is now able to negotiate lower prices for some of the costliest drugs that treat everything from heart disease to arthritis to cancer.  And here’s what the law has already — we’ve already passed has done.

For the first time ever, every year from this point on — every year, calendar year — Medicare will negotiate the cost of additional prescription drugs.

Earlier this year, I announced that Medicare reached an agreement with drug manufacturers on 10 new drugs that Medicare picked and said, “We’re going to negotiate.”  The most common, most expensive drugs that treat everything from kidney disease to arthritis to blood cancer and more.

These new low prices for all 10 drugs will go into effect in January 2026 and cut the prices on the — those 10 drugs by between 40 and 80 percent. 

Next year — the next year, Medicare will negotiate another price — lower price for 15 additional drugs and every year ther- — thereafter until we get after 20 — and 20 drugs, until every drug is covered that’s on the market — every one.  (Applause.)

It’s already passed.  And, folks, it isn’t just saving seniors money.  As I said, it’s also saving taxpayers billions of dollars because Medicare will no longer have to pay exorbitant prices to Pharma. 

Over the next 10 years — just so far — the newer, lower drug prices and other reforms, we’ve cut the federal deficit by $160 billion, while he raised it by $200 billion.  (Applause.)  I’m serious.  Think about it. 

Look, I’m a capitalist.  I was listed for 36 years as the poorest man in Congress, but I’m still a capitalist.  (Laughter.)  You think I’m kidding.  I got a phone call; I was campaigning for a — a colleague who was — no longer around but was up in this neck of the woods, in Vermont — not Bernie but his predecessor.  And I got a phone call from my wife.  She said, “Joe” — well, actually, I called home.  When I’m away, I’d call b- — see how the kids are doing before she goes off to teach. 

I said, “Hey, Jill, how are you?”  “Fine.”  (Laughter.)  You know you’re in trouble when you get that answer.  (Laughter.)  This is — I give you my word as a Biden — this is a true story. 

She said, “Did you read today’s paper?”  I said, “Honey, they don’t have the Wilmington News Journal up here.”  (Laughter.)  She said, “Well, headline: ‘Biden, Poorest Man in Congress.’  Is that true?”  (Laughter.)  I said, “I don’t know,” but I guess I was for 36 years.  (Laughter.)  I never thought — I didn’t have any money, but I had a good salary. 

Look, but I’m a capitalist.  (Laughs.)  And without competition, it’s not capitalism; it’s exploitation.  When Big Pharma doesn’t play by the rules, competitors can’t offer lower-priced drugs and devices that carry those drugs so prices stay artificially high. 

And, look — but we’re taking action.  For example, we called out drug companies, as Bernie mentioned, that make inhalers so the people with asthma, they — and some severe asthma — I have asthma, but it’s not severe — that they need to breathe — for charging Americans — and he was right; this was not an exaggeration — 70 times more than companies in ch- — in — in Europe charge for the same exact prescription.  It’s outrageous.  I think it borders on immoral. 

As a result, three of the largest companies, as I skillfully and very privately and peacefully called their CEOs to tell them — (laughter) — who make these inhalers are saying that instead of charging up to $600 out of pocket for — to cap the cost at $35.  And so, it’s about time. 

But, again, Bernie is a big reason why this is happening.  You don’t want to screw around with Bernie.  (Laughter.)

But we have to do more.  Bernie and I said this summer, it’s time for drug manufacturers to lower the prices on anti-obesity medications that you hear so much about these days.  And, by the way, it’s not just cosmetically.  It saves people’s lives, these obesity medicines.  It saves their lives because of — they’re so overweight and there’s so much problems associated with it. 

You just heard from Bernie about what these drug companies are doing.  The prices of these o- — anti-obesity drugs can be six times higher in America than in other countries, from Canada to Sweden.  This is cr- — where I come from, it’s called price gouging and corporate greed. 

And I know a little about corporations.  There are more corporations incorporated in Delaware than every other state in the Union combined.  So, I’m used to dealing with corporations. 

Americans don’t like to be played for suckers.  We don’t like that.  I’m — and we’re tired of it.  And it’s outrageous.  It’s got to stop. 

Look, today’s announcement follows actions we’ve already taken to reduce the health care costs for average Americans.  Because of Bernie’s leadership, we took action to reduce the cost of hearing aids for 1 million Americans by as much as $3,000.  You see them advertise on television.  You go for the prescription drug hearing aid, it’s $3,060 or some- — whatever the number — over 3,000 bucks.  And you get the same hearing aid and you get it for $3,000 less because you don’t have to go for the prescription; you can go right to the drug — you can go to the drug store for the — right to the counter. 

In addition, my administration is banning junk health insurance.  These guys are get- — they’ve been co- — coming and going.  There are plans for health insurance that will look affordable but then stick consumers with big, unexpected charges. 

You know, we ended the — those unfair surprise medical bills.  When I was — years ago, when I was in — in the Senate, and I was a — I had — I had two cranial aneurysms, and I was hospitalized for a long time.  And you have what they call surprise medical bills.  If the insurance you have doesn’t cover a particular provider and not in-network, they charge you significantly more.  And so, you get these surprise hospital bills. 

So, hospitals that are in-network can’t send you a bill for out-of-network doctors who d- — you didn’t choose and are not part of your — you didn’t n- — you never consulted them.  That’s banned.  I did that by executive order.

Kamala and I are also protecting and expanding the Affordable Care Act.  Today, there are 21 million Americans — 21 million Americans covered by the Affordable Care Act marketplace.  That’s 9 million more people, individuals, since I’ve been in office that are now covered by the Affordable Care Act. 

More Americans — (applause) — more Americans have health care today than ever in American history — today — than ever.  And it’s in part because I expanded tax credits that save an average of $800 per person per year, reducing health care premiums for millions of working families who have coverage under the Affordable Care Act. 

These enhancements expire next year, though.  And I’m calling on Congress to make the expanded health care tax credits permanent.  (Applause.)

And Trump — Trump and his MAGA Republican friends want to cut the Affordable Care Act out completely.  You know how many times they’ve tried to introdu- — they’ve introduced bills over the last three years to do that?  Fifty-one times.  Fifty-one times.  He wants to replace the Affordable Care Act.  We can’t let that happen.

Look, he calls — he wants to replace it with hi- — I love his — I love this guy.  (Laughter.)  I’m trying to be a very good fella.  (Laughter.)  I’m not letting my Irish get the best of me.  (Laughter.)

But my predecessor, the distinguished former president — (laughter) — he wants to replace the Affordable Care Act with — he calls — this is what he refers to it: a “concept of a plan.”  (Laughter.)  I’ve heard that concept of a plan now for almost eight years.  “A concept of a plan.”  What the hell is a concept of a — he has no concept of anything.  (Applause.)  No plan.

If we don’t elect Kamala and he gets elected, Trump could kick up to 45 million people off their health insurance — 45 million.  Over 100 million people could lose health care coverage because they have a preexisting condition.  The only reason they could get it is because of the Affordable Care Act. 

Trump and MAGA Republicans want to eliminate the Inflation Reduction Act, which they’re talking — the “big bill” — which made all these savings possible, raising prescription drug prices again for millions of Americans.  They’re — state it.  They’re not — and he b- — this guy means what he says — means what he says.

Look, during the last administration, my predecessor exploded the national debt more than any previous president in a single term.  This guy raised the national debt by $2 trillion because of a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefitted the very wealthy and the biggest corporations. 

Now, he’s saying, if elected — remember what he said now.  If elected, he wants another $5 trillion tax cut for the very wealthy.  That’s the tax cut he wants. 

He won’t just get rid of the Department of Education, which he wants to do, and the Affordable Care Act.  He’ll gut Social Security and Medicare, which he says he wants to do, h- — hurt hardworking people. 

I’ve got a better idea.  Let’s protect Social Security and Medicare and finally start making the very wealthy pay their fair share to keep these programs (inaudible).  (Applause.)  I mean it.

By the way, you know what the average tax rate is for a billionaire in America?  There are a thousand billionaires since COVID.  8.2 percent.  Anybody who wants to change places with a billionaire’s tax ra- — rate, raise your hand.  (Laughter.)  I’m serious.  Not a joke.  8.2 percent.

I proposed raising it to 25 percent, which isn’t even close to the highest rate.  You know how much that would raise?  Five hundred billion dollars over the next five years — (applause) — just paying 25 percent.

Look, let me repeat what I have said since day one and that Kamala has continued to c- — she’s be- — continued to commit to.  We made a commitment that no one — no one in America earning less than $400,000 a year, which is really high, will pay a single additional penny in federal taxes — not a single penny — $400 million — $400,000.  They haven’t, and they won’t.  If Kamala is president, they will continue not to.

So, th- — I don’t want to hear this stuff about “Biden going after the rich.”  I did that to make sure we understand what the superrich are paying.

And, folks, let me close with this.  Bernie and I are going to — going to — have been doing this work for a long time.  I know we both look like we’re 40, but we’re a little older — (laughter and applause) — at least I am.  I can’t even say it anymore.  Anyway.  (Laughter.)

We know we’ve made historic progress in the last three years: 35 bucks for insulin, 35 bucks for inhalers, $2,000-a-year cap, and things continue to go.

We’re showing how health care should be a right, not a privilege in America.  That’s why I’ve never been more optimistic about our future, and I mean it. 

We’re at one of those inflection points, folks.  The decisions we make in the next election are going to determine what this country looks like for the next four or five decades.  And that’s not hyperbole.  That’s a fact. 

And, folks, I’m — I’m taking too much of your time, but let me say it this way.  We just have to remember who in the hell we are.  We’re the United States of America.  We’re the United States.  There’s nothing beyond our capacity — not a damn thing beyond our capacity.  (Applause.)

We’re the only nation in history of the world that’s come out of every crisis stronger than we went in — every one.  Because when we act together, there’s nothing beyond our capacity. 

The rest of the world is looking to us.  We have the strongest economy in the world, and now we just got to make sure it’s available to every single American. 

So, I leave you by saying I can’t tell you how much I appreciate what you’re about to do in this election.  (Laughs.)  As — as a friend of mine would say, from my lips to God’s ears on that one.  But, look, you’ve got great candidates.  You got great candidates.  And I really mean — we got to get back to the days where we actually can talk to the other team. 

This is not your father’s Republican Party. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  No.

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  I mean — I mean it’s not even close. 

I came up in an era — I got elected when I was 29 years old to the United States Senate.  I had to wait 17 days to be able to be sworn in.  I got there as a young civil rights guy in the — when Strom Thurmond and all those guys were still there.  But at least (inaudible) — be — honest to God — you could talk to him.  And people change. 

After all those years serving with Strom Thurmond, on his deathbed, he — 100 years old, his wife called me from Walter Reed Hospital.  She said, “Joe?”  I said, “Yeah, Nancy.”  And sh- — she said, “Strom asked me to come out.  I’m at the nurse’s station with Doctor” — she named his doctor.  “He asked me if you’d do him a favor.”  And I said, “Sure.”  He said, “Will you do his eulogy?” 

I did Strom Thurmond’s eulogy.  I didn’t lie.  I started off and I said, “Grandpa Finnegan, please forgive me for what I’m about to do.”  (Laughter.)

But all kidding aside, even by the time he left, he had the most racially diverse staff in America.  He voted for a lot — he voted for the change in all the laws that he had voted for before.  There was headline in 1946 of Thurmond — “Thurmond: Hope of the South” — because he was against separate but equal.  Not the proposition you couldn’t separate the races but the proposition that if you had separate but e- — you had to spend the exact amount of money in a Black school as a white school. 

My generic point is: People change.  But these guys just keep getting worse.  (Laughter.)  No, I really mean it.  They mean what they say.  They mean what they say. 

I’ll conclude by saying that, you know, I — I’ll just say something that’s both revealing and self-defeating.  You know, there is — are only a few advantages of being the oldest guy around.  That is, I have more experience in foreign policy than anybody ever that had this job in American history. 

I’ve known every major world leader personally in the last 40 years.  Every international meeting I attend, including just being in Germany, as we’re walking out — whether at the G20 or the G7, whatever it is — they’ll pull me aside, one leader after another, quietly, and say, “Joe, he can’t win.  My democracy is at stake.  My democracy is at stake.”

If America walks away, who leads the world?  Who?  Name me a country.  And we’re doing it without expending American blood by having Americans at war. 

So, folks, there’s so much at stake.  So, please — I know you’ll all vote, but please call your neighbors, get your friends, get your relatives, get them to vote, because this is — the nation’s democracy, in my view, depends on it. 

God bless you all.  And may God protect our troops.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

Thank you.

Oh, there you are.

SENATOR SANDERS:  (Laughs.)

THE PRESIDENT:  We’ve been doing this a long time, pal.

SENATOR SANDERS:  I know.  (Laughs.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  (Applause.)

4:44 P.M. EDT

The post Remarks by President Biden on Lowering the Cost of Prescription Drugs | Concord, NH appeared first on The White House.

President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden created the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research to fundamentally change how our nation approaches and funds women’s health research. Despite making up more than half the population, women have historically been understudied and underrepresented in health research. Since its launch in November 2023, the Initiative has made significant investments to close gaps in research on women’s health—from menopause-related conditions to endometriosis to auto-immune conditions to cardiovascular disease—so that we can improve prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and conditions that affect women uniquely, disproportionately, and differently.

Today in Las Vegas, Nevada, the First Lady will announce $110 million in awards from the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) to accelerate transformative research and development in women’s health. President Biden established ARPA-H, a new research and development funding agency, with bipartisan Congressional support to generate high-impact biomedical and health breakthroughs. In February 2024, the First Lady launched ARPA-H’s Sprint for Women’s Health, the first major deliverable of the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research. Over the last 10 months, ARPA-H received an unprecedented response to this call for solutions for women’s health, with over 1,700 submissions across 45 states and D.C. as well as 34 countries.

In less than a year, the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research has galvanized nearly a billion dollars in funding for women’s health research, including the First Lady’s recent announcement of $500 million from the U.S. Department of Defense and $200 million from the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, in his State of the Union address, President Biden called on Congress to make a bold, transformative investment of $12 billion in new funding for women’s health research. President Biden also signed a first-of-its-kind Executive Order on Advancing Women’s Health Research and Innovation, directing the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken to expand and improve research on women’s health. Through the Initiative, federal agencies have committed to taking over 100 actions to prioritize investments in women’s health research and integrate women’s health across the federal research portfolio.

Accelerating Progress in Women’s Health Research

Today’s ARPA-H awardees will spur innovation and advance high-impact, novel approaches to diseases and conditions that affect women uniquely, disproportionately, and differently. Today’s awardees are working across a range of women’s health issues—from pursuing new ways to prevent, detect, and treat cardiovascular conditions, ovarian cancer, endometriosis, neurological diseases, and pain in women to developing next-generation approaches to menopause, migraines, obstetrics, and gynecological care.

One-quarter of today’s awardees are pursuing “launchpad” projects, meaning those projects have the potential for commercialization within two years. The remaining awardees are pursuing “spark” projects that are in the early stage of research. ARPA-H’s support for these projects will help ensure that women and their health care providers can soon benefit from the research investments being made today.

The $110 million in ARPA-H awards announced today across 23 teams fund bold and transformative women’s health solutions, including:

• Aspira Women’s Health Inc. of Shelton, Connecticut will receive $10 million to create a first-of-its-kind definitive, non-invasive blood test to diagnose endometriosis. Endometriosis is a debilitating condition that affects about 1 in 10 women and often takes years and surgery to be diagnosed. Aspira Women’s Health Inc. aims to reduce the time it takes to diagnose endometriosis from years to days while helping health care providers identify the most appropriate treatment option for each woman’s needs.

• Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts will receive $9.1 million to improve our ability to assess brain disorders in women through a novel non-invasive MRI imaging biomarker. Even though conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and multiple sclerosis disproportionately affect women, there are significant gaps in our knowledge about how to prevent, detect, and treat these conditions in women. By developing a novel and non-invasive MRI technology to measure a specific brain protein, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc. will advance our understanding of, and improve treatments for, brain disorders in women.

• Children’s Research Institute of Washington, DC—through its research arm on families—will receive $8.1 million to develop a novel way to assess chronic pain in women. Women experience pain differently than men which can lead health care providers to underestimate and undertreat this pain, resulting in prolonged suffering, delayed diagnosis and treatment, and a reluctance to seek medical care. Despite this need, there is currently no objective, quantitative indicator of chronic pain in women. Children’s Research Institute aims to fill this gap by studying how a woman’s eyes react to external stimulation, which is directly related to how she perceives pain.

• Gravidas Diagnostics, Inc. of Los Angeles, California will receive $3 million to create a first-of-its-kind at-home test to revolutionize our ability to detect early preeclampsia, a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. By making it easier to identify preeclampsia quickly, Gravidas Diagnostics Inc.’s new low-cost fingerstick test would help women and their doctors get the information they need sooner to reduce pregnancy-related complications and improve maternal and child health.

• The University of Iowa will receive $10 million to revolutionize the treatment for late-stage and metastatic ovarian cancer by using personalized nanoparticles to boost a woman’s immune system. More than half of women with ovarian cancer are diagnosed only after the cancer has metastasized, making it harder to treat and reducing survival rates. Leveraging nanotechnology, the University of Iowa will engineer personalized nanoparticles to use a woman’s own immune system to attack multiple cancers and help more women get the treatment they need to live longer.

• The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-Chapel Hill) will receive $3 million to improve our ability to treat migraines in women. Women are more likely than men to suffer from migraines, which can be extremely debilitating. UNC-Chapel Hill will study the lymphatic system to better understand why women are more susceptible to migraines than men—with the goal of treating migraines with new drugs specifically targeting the brain lymphatics and developing personalized treatments to reduce women’s debilitating migraines.

Additional information and a full list of awardees is available here.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces $110 Million in Awards from ARPA-H’s Sprint for Women’s Health to Accelerate New Discoveries and Innovation appeared first on The White House.

New Hampshire Democratic Party Office

5:23 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  This work?  Does this one work, this handheld mic?  Can we make that —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  It works. 

THE PRESIDENT:  It works?  It wor- — can you hear me?

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  All right.  Well, first of all, 14 days.  (Laughter.) 

You know, folks, I know I look like I’m only 40, but — (laughter) — I’ve been doing this a long time.  And it’s not an exaggeration to say this is the most important election any one of you have ever voted in, no matter if it’s your first election or you’ve been doing it for as long as I have.  I really mean it.

You know, I got elected to the Senate when I was 29 years old.  I come from a very modest family.  I had the dubious distinction of being listed as the poorest man in Congress for 36 years.  But I never thought that because I got a good salary as a senator. 

My generic point is this: I got there when I was a kid at 29 and — because of, basically, civil rights issues in my state.  My state was a slave state early on, with three other st- — states that fought on the side of the North.  And my state was — was divided.  Down state, the southern part of the state, talk at you like this — (pronounced in an accent) — like on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.  Upstate is more like, you know, suburban Philadelphia areas.

And when I got engaged, things were — we had real differences.  We had a lot of segregationists still left in the Senate.  We had a lot of really conservative people in the Democratic Party.  But even that wasn’t — I was a — like I said, I got deeply involved with civil rights issues, but even that didn’t separate us in a way that we’re separated today.

We were separated very badly, but we — after we would argue like hell, we’d sit down and go to lunch together in the Senate dining room.  And in the process, people changed their minds. 

Before he died, Strom Thurmond had the largest Black staff in Amer- — in the — in the state of — in the United States Senate; voted for the — for the Civil Rights Act.  Things change.

But we’re dealing with a totally different breed of cat now.  That was — the Civil Rights era was terrible, but we got a group now that is just — it is literally — and I’m not one that is prone to hyperbole, but we have a — a group running, the MAGA Republicans, who are — have a antidemocratic attitude toward the way the Constitution functions.  They have virtually no regard for the Constitution.

The first speech I made — you — no reason why you’d remember it, but when I got elected — when I got the nomination, I spoke at Independence Hall, and I said, “Our very democracy is at stake.”  It’s not hyperbole.  Our democracy is at stake.

Think about it.  Think about what happens if Donald Trump were to win this election.  Think about what it means.  He’s made it clear what he wants to do.  He’s not joking about it.  He’s deadly earnest.

He wants to change the way in which the so-called safeguards of the Constitution are honored.  He wants to disregard them. 

You saw what happened when those folks broke through the Capitol, killed police officers.  And he calls them heroes.  He wants to le- — release them from prison terms that they’ve all — they’ve all gotten. 

He won’t even commit that if he loses this election, he’ll go peacefully.  He will not make that commitment.  He talks about there being a “bloodbath” if he loses.  These are words no president has ever used — no president ever used. 

And, by the wo- — you — and if you don’t believe it now, you’re going to learn if he wins.  It’s a serious, serious problem.

So, folks, the first point I want to make to you is we must, we must, we must win.  We must win not only for ourselves but for our children and those children who aren’t even born yet.  It makes a di- — significant difference.

I — the only value of being around a long time, I have more experience than any president in the history of the United States of America.  I’ve gotten to know — literally, not figuratively — that may be good or bad — I’ve gotten to know every major world leader personally over those years because of my involvement in foreign — American foreign policy.  But the rest of the world is scared to death of what’s going to happen if he gets elected.  Not a joke.  Not a joke.

Every one of these international meetings I attend, I get pulled aside.  As we’re walking out, they say, “You got to win.  You got to win.  My democracy is at stake” — meaning their democracy. 

You hear what he talks about in terms of what happens in Europe.  I spent four years putting NATO back together with — Kamala and I.  He wants to get out of NATO.  He’s talking about how he’s good friends with Putin and how he can just talk to him. 

When we — in the middle of the crisis, when we needed all those masks and all those tests for COVID, he was giving those in short supply to Putin — to Putin.

No president has ever been like this guy.  I — I’m afraid I’m — I’ll get going and I’ll really tell you what I think in a minute, but I’m — (laughter).  But I’m serious.  He’s a genuine threat to our democracy, and that’s not hyperbole.  That is the God’s truth.

And, folks, it’s not just him.  It’s the people who are around him.  These MAGA Republicans mean what they say.  They genuinely mean what they say.

For example, Barack and I worked like hell — and Barack deserves all the credit for the — for the Affordable Care Act, making sure people who didn’t have coverage got coverage.  More people have health care today than at any time in American history.  He wants to — (applause) — but it has to be reauthorized.  It must be re- — he wants to end it, wants to take it away.  A hundred million people with preexisting condition would lose health insurance — 100 million. 

One of the things they told me we could never get done, I was able to get — deal with the Affordable Care Act, but not just that.  Look what we did with the drug companies, the — I mean, these guys are ripping — I can put you in Air Force One and take you with me now.  If you have a prescription to fill, I can take you to London, I can take you to Berlin, I can take you to any major city in the world, and I can get you that same prescription filled by the same company for anywhere between 40 and 80 percent less than it costs here.

He wants to do away with the Affordable Care Act — I mean, wi- — excuse me, with — with the whole legislation allowing that to happen.  Not one single Republican voted for it — not one single Republican.

I’m not going to go on, because I could.  But the point is, this guy wants to change it all.  He wants to rip it apart. 

All these press people know the hell what they’re talking about, and they do.  I mean, I — I really mean it.  He believes in the free press like I believe in whether I can climb Mount Everest.  (Laughter.)  But I — but I’m serious. 

They’re going to be straight with you and tell you what they think.  They don’t agree with me.  They’re not all for me, by any stretch of the imagination.  But this guy means what he says.  And I think every one of them know in their heart that this will not be our democracy.

Look, I’ll — I’m going to conclude this.  We’re in a situation where every five or six generations, there — we reach an inflection point in American history where the decisions we make in a very short span of time are going to determine what the rest of the next five, six, seven decades are going to look like.  Not a joke.  The decisions we make this election, in the last election is going to determine what this country looks like for the next five or six decades.  That is not a joke.  That’s a straight fact.

There’s not a single thing we’ve done and we’ve passed — we — you know, they told us we couldn’t get anything passed.  Well, Kamala and I got a hell of a lot passed.  We got more passed than any president has in four years.  (Applause.)

But all of it’s — all of it’s — — all of it’s on a knife’s edge.  It’s on a knife’s edge right now.  And so, this is really, really, really, really an important election.

And, folks, look, think about it.  He is talking about doing away with the entire Department of Education.  He’s talking — he means it.  Not — this is not a joke.

This is a guy also wants to replace every civil servant — every single one; thinks he has a right under the Supreme Court ruling on immunity to be able, if need be — if he — if it was the case — to actually eliminate — physically eliminate — shoot, kill — someone who is — he believes to be a threat to him. 

I mean — so, I know this sounds bizarre.  It sounds like — if I said this five years ago, you’d lock me up.  (Laughter.)  We got to lock him up — (applause) — politically lock him up.  Lock him out, that’s what we have to do.

And so, look, you all know how this works.  Every single vote counts.  And that’s, again, not hyperbole.  Think of the — think how close these elections can be.  And you’ve got one of the best delegations in the United States Senate.  I’m not joking.  (Applause.)  No, no, no.  That’s not a joke.  That’s not a joke.

They’ve got more courage than the 10 best guys I know.  (Laughter.)  No, I’m serious.  Think of the courage of the votes they’ve taken.  And you’ve changed New Hampshire.  You’ve changed New Hampshire.

I’ve been coming up to New Hampshire since 1974, as a 31-year-old — 32-year-old senator.  You’ve changed it.  It’s gotten stronger because of — what you’re dealing with here is you’re not dealing with all the actually mindless Republicans.  (Laughter.)  No, I’m serious.

Think about — think about what these guys are saying.  Listen to what they say.  They mean it.  They mean it.

And so, thank God you’ve got really quality candidates. 

We were riding up on — the governor is an old friend.  No, he really is an old friend.  He and the doc are close friends for a long, long time, so they rode up with me on Air Force One.  We talked about how much things have changed for the better here — for the better here and how many quality candidates you have.  You’ve never had a group of more qualified candidates running up and down the ticket — up and down the ticket.

And so, look, you know, there’s a — ther- — there’s a poem written by — I’m always quoting Irish poets.  They think I do it because I’m Irish.  I don’t quote — (laughter) — I don’t do that.  I do it because they’re the best poets in the world.  (Laughter and applause.) 

And there’s a poet — his wife I got to know, and I’ve got some of his material.  It says cal- — he wrote a poem called “The Cure at Troy.”  He says, “History teaches us not to hope on this side of the grave, but then, once in a lifetime, that longed-for tidal wave of justice rises up and hope and history rhyme.” 

We have a chance.  We have a chance to begin to make hope and history rhyme.  The changes you’ve made, the changes we’ve made, the changes — look at — have you ever seen a time — even if you’re as old as I am, have you ever seen any time when as many major Republicans have endorsed the Democratic candidate for president?  (Applause.)  No, no, no, I’m serious.  I’m serious.

And you ask them why.  They don’t agree with us on the specific issues, but what they do understand is this guy is a danger to the Republic. 

And so, look, I’m going to get myself in trouble here, but you see this woman here?  (Referring to Ms. Goodlander.)  She worked for me.  She worked with me for a while.  She worked also in the state.  She worked in — this woman here has more courage in her — political — no, I’m — I’m not joking; not a joke — in her little finger than most people have in their whole body — political courage.  I’m serious.  I’m deadly earnest.  And she’s smart as hell. 

She’s going to make a difference for you all.  She’s replacing a really fine congresswoman, but it’s going to make a difference. 

And, look, these two women here, we would — I’m — I’m not joking.  (Referring to Senator Hassan and Senator Shaheen.)  We wouldn’t be anywhere near where we are.  Think of all the things that would not have passed were you not in the Senate, both of you.  The consequential things make a difference to people’s lives.  (Applause.)

And, folks, I wasn’t supposed to take this long, and I apologize.  (Applause.)  But let me say one closing concept.  The biggest mistake the Democratic Party has made, and I’m part of it, is that we spent all our time on the Senate, the House, the presidency.  We didn’t do what the Republicans did.  We didn’t spend our time electing state reps.  State — (laughter) — no, no, no, no, no, not a — I’m not kidding.  State reps — the state senators and governors.  They did.  (Applause.)  They did.  They did. 

You’ve got one right here in a governor.  (Applause.)  I’m serious.  Think about what we can do. 

Look, this woman not only worked for me, she also worked for one of the guys that came to work for me — is one of my best friends: John McCain, a Republican — because he was honorable.  We disagreed like — we’d fight like hell.  When he got out of prison camp, for a long time, he came to work wi- — he came to me — work with me when he was re- — freed.  He worked in the Senate.  And we traveled over 1,200,000 miles together, going around the country. 

Matter of fact, when we were flying off to — I think we were heading to Japan, but we stopped in Hawaii, and John was with me.  And John looked at — he had been separated, divorced from his wife, and he looked at me, and he said, “You see that admiral’s daughter?  She’s beautiful.”  (Laughter.)  I said, “Why don’t you say hi to her?”  He said, “No, no, no, no.”

So, I went up and I said, “My name is Joe Biden.”  (Laughter.)  “I got someone” — (inaudible) I did — I said, “I want someone you’ll meet,” and I took her hand and I walked her over.  I said, “I want you to meet my buddy, John McCain.”  (Laughter.)  He married her.  (Laughter and applause.)

But John and I would — like brothers, we’d argue like hell — I mean shout at each other.  Then we’d sit down and have dinner together.  We disagreed, but John was a patriot. 

There’s a lot of good Republicans out there, but these guys are not that breed of cat.  They’re a different group. 

So, you got to — I wasn’t going to run, as I said, after this — for president again, and I mean that sincerely.  And my son Beau, who was the attorney general of the state of Delaware, and when he — one day I came home — I used to com- — commute home because I couldn’t afford daycare.  I couldn’t afford house care.  But my mom and our whole family was helping take care of my kids after my wife and daughter were killed. 

And so, I commuted for 36 years on the train.  And as I — I got off the train, and I said — my son Beau said to me, “Dad, what are you doing on Friday?”  This was on the previous Sunday.  And I said, “What do you mean?”  “I’d like you to pin my bars on.”  I said, “Pin your bars on?”  “Yeah, Dad.”  He said, “I joined the National Guard.” 

I said, “You’re married.  You got two kids.”  And he said, “Dad, but we have to — somebody has got to do this.”  So, he got p- — he got sent to Iraq for a year.  And you’re either state property or you’re federal property.  So, you either work for the president or you work for the governor.  So, he gave up his attorney general job temporarily when he got deployed to Iraq for a year. 

The problem was he was only about 300 yards from a burn pit, just like those guys who went in 9/11 into — those firefighters.  And he came home with stage four glioblastoma, and no one makes it.  And he died. 

But before he died, and this relates to what — how strongly I feel about this — before he died, he said, “Dad, you got to make me a pro-” — we were going home because my mom — my — my father had died, and my mom had moved in with us.  And my wife and I were coming home from Washington on a Friday.  And so, we lived, as the crow flies, just a mile from where our son Beau was but really two miles in terms of getting there. 

So, we went over to his house for dinner.  After dinner, my wife said, “I’m going home and change.”  It was a Friday afternoon.  It was in, I guess, probably — anyway.  And — and Beau turned to his wife and said, “Would you take the kids?  I want to talk to Dad.” 

And he said, “Dad” — give you my word.  He said, “Dad, look at me.”  We have this thing about Biden (inaudible) — “look at me, I’m” — meaning “I’m really serious.”  And he said, “Dad, I know when I die” — and we know — I said — he said, “We both know I’m going to die, Dad.  I’m going to be okay, though.  I’m okay with it, Dad.”

He said, “You got to make me a promise.  You got to make me a promise.”  I said, “What’s the promise, honey?”  He said, “Promise me you won’t quit.  You’ll want to quit.  You’ll want to get out of politics.”

I said, “Beau” — he said, “Dad, promise me.  Give me your word as a Biden, Dad.  Look at me, Dad.  Look at me.”  And I gave him my word. 

I had no intention of running again until then.  But even then, I didn’t think I’d ever run again.  I’d stay engaged, but I’d run — this is after being vice president. 

And then I saw those folks coming out of the fields in Charlottesville carrying Nazi swastikas and torches, accompanied by the Ku Klux Klan.  And Beau had died, and I looked at it, and I — and I knew.  I knew I had to keep my promise. 

So, that’s the only reason I ran again.  And I ran because — Beau knows, and you know in your heart, every one of you, I’ve asked you — if Trump wins, this nation changes.  There’s only two things we can do: guarantee that he doesn’t or, if he does, make sure we have a strongest Democratic majority we can get to make sure he (inaudible).  (Applause.)

And the thing I can say — and I’ve told this both to — both your senators, and I told you, your former governor, who’s my buddy — if there’s one word to describe you all, you have enormous integrity.  No, no, you have enormous integrity.  It’s the highest compliment, in my family, you can give anyone: integrity. 

So, folks, let’s be the party we — we say we are. 

Last comment I’ll make.  When I was vice president, I had gotten — I think both my colleagues would say when I left the Senate, I was thought to be someone who’d get a lot done in the Senate.  I was able to cross the aisle pretty well.  And after being vice president for six years, seven years, and, as Barack would tell you, I was the only guy who went up to the Senate and the House to deal with the Congress, because of my experience.

And I was asked — so, I decided — things were getting really kind of rough because we were starting to get this — this division was getting personal that was existing in politics.  So, I decided to go up to the Se- — since I was president of the Senate, as the Se- — as the vice president, I went up to the Senate dining room. 

There used to be a dining room.  There was a dining room in the Senate.  There were two of them.  If you could go down and the senators were — were going to take you lunch, they’ll take you to the Senate dining room.  They can take you in to a dining room where they can sit with you and you can have lunch.  There was a waiting room there.

But right across from it, there’s another dining room.  It’s private.  It’s — it had — it’s a room about the size of this one, with an archway that is about where you guys are.  There’s a great, big table that seats — what? — 10, 12, 14 people.  And there is a buffet along the left side.  And then you go through that archway, and there’s another table facing the other direc- — perpendicular.

And the Democrats sit at one table and the Republicans at another.  When there are not that many people there, you sit together.  And you get to know somebody.  You get to know them so you don’t hate them, and you find out that their wife has breast cancer or they have a son who’s — who’s in trouble or they have a daughter that’s hooked on drugs or they have some serious problem.  Even though you totally disagree them, it’s hard to dislike them. 

And then we used to have lunch all together all the time, even after bitter arguments on the floor.  And we got to know one another.  It was hard to hate the people you knew when you knew the personal side of them. 

So, I decided I was going to walk in and try to settle some things that were going on.  And I walked into the Senate dining room and there was no dining room anymore, just lounge chairs.  There’s not a place in the United States Senate where Democrats and Republicans can go and sit down and have lunch together as a group and privately, unless you have it in your office. 

We don’t talk to each other anymore.  We don’t communicate.  We don’t talk about the things that matter.  And people feel isolated, even in — in the politics. 

They don’t have the dining room back, do they?

SENATOR SHAHEEN:  No.

SENATOR HASSEN:  (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I remember, and we used to — by the way, we used to travel together.  We used to travel, and we’d bring your spouse with you — Democrat and Republican.  You get to know somebody else on a personal level, it changes — it doesn’t change your political view; it changes your attitude. 

Well, Americans are being driven apart, and that’s not who we are. 

I’ll end where I began.  We’re the only nation in the world that’s come out of every crisis we’ve faced stronger than we went in.  And it’s up to us, as the Democratic Party, not just to win but to make sure — to make sure. 

I used to teach constitutional law — talk about every generation has an obligation to extend democracy.  Well, it’s real.  I used to — even when I taught it, I thought maybe it’s an exaggeration.  We all have an obligation to strengthen our democracy.  And we’ve got that chance now.

And New Hampshire is a beacon.  Not a joke.  You’re a beacon.  You guys do it, it’ll make a — it’ll send a message that’s profound. 

So, please — please, please, please — reelect your two senators.  We need them badly.  Reelect Mag- — elect Maggie, because you’ll find she’s smarter than you, smarter than me.  (Laughter.)  And reelect the gover- — elect the governor, because we can pull the con- —

Did you ever think you’d have — I’ll end — I know the former vice president pretty well, and his daughter is a congresswoman.  And he’s a tough guy from Wyoming.  We used to argue like hell, but he’s completely, completely honorable.  And so is she.  Did you ever think you would see the congresswoman from Wyoming strongly supporting the Democratic candidate because she knows what the other guy is?

So, folks, please — please, please, please — we count your votes earlier than everybody else.  You know, you’ve got to.  You’ve got hard work to do. 

Remember, every damn vote counts you.  (Applause.)

Thank you.  (Applause.)

GOVERNOR SUNUNU:  Mr. President.  Mr. President.  Everybody sit down for one minute.

So, Mr. President, we know you love New Hampshire.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Learned to ski here.

GOVERNOR SUNUNU:  And New Hampshire loves you.  (Applause.)  So, Kathy Sullivan thought I was going to give you a lottery ticket — (laughter) — which I probably should have done.  But instead — you don’t have to put it on — New Hampshire hat.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I tell you what.  I like hats a lot the more bald I get.  (Laughter.)  Let me get this — come on, Joe.  Give me a second here.  (The president puts on a hat.)  (Applause.)

GOVERNOR SUNUNU:  And we have a New Hampshire sweatshirt, “Live free or die.”  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  That’s exactly right, man.  Make sure we all live free, okay?  (Inaudible.)  (Applause.)

Thank you.  (Applause.) 

5:48 P.M. EDT

The post Remarks by President Biden During Visit to a New Hampshire Democratic Coordinated Campaign Office | Concord, NH appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Manchester, New Hampshire

2:06 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, guys. Hi. Hi. I’m sorry. Hi, everybody. All right. Just a quick thing on New Hampshire at the top. So, as you know, the president is going to be joined by Senator Bernie Sanders to discuss the work the Biden-Harris administration has done to cut health care costs.

Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which every single congressional Republican voted against, health care is more accessible and more affordable than ever before.

You will hear directly from President Biden today, who will discuss a new report that shows that nearly 1.5 million Medicare enrollees saved $1 billion on prescription drugs in just the first half of 2024 thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act.

For years, Republican elected officials, including the previous administration, have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which gives millions of Americans accessible — acc- — pardon me, access to quality, affordable health care.

Congressional Republicans have also proposed extreme budgets that would rip aw- — rip coverage away from millions of Americans while doing Big Pharma bidding — Big Pharma’s bidding to drive up prescription drug costs, eliminate the $35 cap on insulin, and get rid of the cap on out-of-pocket drugs.

Despite these attacks, President Biden and Vice President Harris remain focused on expanding access to health care and lowering prescription drug costs for families. And you’ll hear more from this president — from the president this afternoon.

With that, go ahead.

Q On the unauthorized release of classified documents, does the fact that the FBI is investigating suggest they believe it was an internal leak and not a hack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can just say — as you just stated in your question to me, the FBI is investigating this.

I’m not going to get into details or specifics. I’m going to let the, you know, authorized personnel who are looking into it speak to this. So, again, I would refer you to those — to those specific agencies. I just don’t have anything more to add. I’m going to let the FBI do their job and do what they need to do to get to the bottom of it.

Q Another question. On the — the seniors saving a billion dollars, does that take into account some of the higher premiums that have been reported for drug plans this year as a result of drug caps and the administration pulling billions of dollars from Medicare — the Medicare Trust Fund?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sorry. I’m having a little bit of a hard time hearing you. So, you said —

Q As far as the — the billion dollars that seniors are saving —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — does that take into account the — the result of drug caps, as well as pulling from the Medicare Trust Fund?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, it’s a good question. Let me — I don’t have the specifics to that — of the billion dollars. Obviously, it’s saving Americans a lot on prescription drugs — a billion dollars, as I just stated — so I think that’s really important, and that’s what we wanted to note. The president will certainly share more.

I don’t have the specific on that particular question about caps, so I can talk to the team and get back to you. But I think the — the most important thing here to note is that because of the Inflation Reduction Act, because of the work that this administration has done to lower costs on drug — on drug pres- — on prescription drugs, you’re seeing the results of that.

Again, the Inflation Reduction Act — only Democrats voted for that; Republicans went against it. And now you have Medicare, who are — who’s able — Medicare is able to really negotiate lowering cost prices. And I think it’s a win. This is a win for Americans across the country.

This is what you’re going to hear from the president. Senator Bernie Sanders — obviously, he can speak for himself — has been a huge advocate of low- — lowering drug costs. So, I think it’s important. This report obviously shows a really critical number that matters, and I think — and connected that — connecting that to the Inflation Re- — Reduction Act. It — it’s a big deal. It’s a really big deal.

At that particular, specific question, I’m going to have to ask the team to get back to you on that.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q Karine, the president told us on Friday, I believe, that he was aware of plans by Israel to respond to Iran, but he didn’t give us any details about that. Can you — and I’m not expecting you to give details —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — although you’d be welcome to.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q But my question is: Is the fact that Secretary Blinken is in the region right now — is that delaying a response by Israel?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things, and as — you’re right, I’m not going to — to go beyond what the president said, and I said this before — I’ve said in a briefing room a couple of times: We’re not going to preview — we don’t want to preview anything for the Iranians. That’s not something that we’re going to do from here. And at the end of the day, it’s Isr- — the Israeli government. It is their — it’s their military operation; they have to respond to that.

Obviously, we have continued to show our support for Israelis’ security. That continues to be ironclad.

And they — they live in a region — as you’ve heard us say many times — in a neighborhood that’s incredibly tough, and they have to deal with threats, and they have to be able to, certainly, protect themselves and react to those threats, obviously.

As it relates to — so — so, that’s that piece, right? So, they have to speak to that — the timing. That includes the timing, what is it going to look like. They have to speak to that.

Look, you know, you’ve seen the secretary go to the region multiple times, especially since October 7th of last year. And there — it’s — it’s diplomacy, obviously. It’s an opportunity to talk to — he’s in Israel today, but also to talk to our allies and partners in the region about what can we do to de-escalate tensions. That is something that we are very focused on: what can we do to stop the war, obviously, in Gaza, to get more humanitarian aid. And we have seen an uptick in humanitarian aid over the last couple of days. And so, that’s really critical and important.

So, what he’s doing in the region is important to what we’re trying to do — right? — getting to that de-escalation, but also a long-lasting peace.

I’ll — I’ll let the State Department — which they’ve spoken to a couple times already about his trip, about the meaning of it, where he’s going, what he’s going to do. Again, obviously, he’s in Israel today.

But I — I can’t really — I can’t really dictate or speak to how Israel is going to move forward, their timing of it, their military operation. That’s something for them to speak to.

But what Blinken — Secretary Blinken is trying to do is important to, I guess, the — the long-term goal here and what we’re trying to get, but also ending the war in Gaza and getting that humanitarian aid.

Q Just on Israel as well. Donald Trump confirmed that he spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Is the White House concerned at all about them having continued communications?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m — I’m just not going to speak to that.

Look, as you know, we talk to the Israeli government on a regular basis on the — all the issues that I just laid out s- — in responding to Jeff. And we have a — a long friendship with the Israeli people, and we are committed to their security, obviously, as I’ve stated before. And I’m just not going to comment about the former president, who’s now a candidate, talking — talking to the prime minister.

I would refer you to the prime minister directly if he has something more to say about that. And to the pr- — the former president.

Q Another one on the Middle East, Karine. La- — yes- — just yesterday, more than 60 people were killed in an Israeli strike on South Beirut. In one month, more than 1,500 people have died as a result of Israeli bombardments. Is this still a targeted operation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we have certainly seen the reports, and we’re going to have co- — we’re having conversations, as you know, as I just stated, on a regular basis with the Israeli government on — on this and — and obviously other matters.

Look — and — and I’ve said this before, we’ve said this before: Israel has the right and the responsibility to respond to threats, but obviously, they also have a responsibility that — that they — they make sure that a civilian ca- — one civilian casualty is too many, right? That they make sure that they do this in a way that we’re protecting civilian lives and so — or — and so –and we’ve said this before: Israel must take every feasible precaution to prevent civilians during this — during this time, during this operation.

And so, we’re — continue to — to talk to them. We’re going to continue to have those discussion.

We do not want to see one civilian, you know, killed in this, right? We want to make sure that all lives are — innocent lives are protected here. And so, we’re going to continue to have those conversations.

Q And on today’s event, if I may. How confident are you that all the work that has been done on — on drug costs won’t be undone by a future administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so, look the Inflation Reduction Act is the law, as you know, right? And as I’ve stated many times, every single Republican voted against it. Obviously, they’re trying to repeal it. And — and, you know — and it’s something that’s — we see it as an odd thing to do because it’s — Democrats and Republicans see this as being very popular. And — and so — and what this law does: It delivers real benefits for Americans.

And like I said, today the president is going to announce that seniors have saved $1 billion — right? — in the last six months because of the Inflation Reduction Act.

And so, look, we’re going to — I think when it comes to the president and the vice president, we put the American people first. We’re focused on making sure that we deliver for them. The Inflation Reduction Act did just that, as it relates to health care costs. And obviously, the president is going to speak to this.

But it’s the law. It’s the law. And — and I think that’s important to note as well.

Q Karine, what — what’s the president’s political message today when he stops by the campaign office two weeks before Election Day?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, I can’t speak to politics from here. We do try to follow the law. But what I can speak to is his event — the official event that he’s going to be doing.

Lowering drug costs — I think that’s an important message to send to the American people. That’s an important message to send to Americans: how much the Biden-Harris administration has done everything that we can to continue to lower costs as we try to rebuild the economy.

Let’s not forget what the president and the vice president walked into. They walked into an economy that was in a downturn, and they were able to turn that around.

But we understand that people still feel it, right? Some people wake up in the morning and they’re trying to figure out how are they going to pay for a cancer drug — right? — how are they going to pay for a drug that’s going to save their lives. And here you see this president and this vice president actually take action.

We beat Big Pharma, which is something that many elected officials have tried to do. And this president and this vice president got it done.

So, that’s the message, I would say, that the president is trying to send to Americans just across the country, that we’re going to continue to fight for them. I’m not going to speak to — I would say stay tuned. You’ll hear from the president later today.

Q Is there a reason why New Hampshire today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think, as the president says all the time, he’s a president for all Americans. Doesn’t matter if it’s a red state, blue state. We have said, when you all ask me, “Well, how is the president going to get his message out,” this is part of it, right? Going to a place like New Hampshire, or, last week, he went to Wisconsin, he went to Pennsylvania.

He’s going across — across the country and making sure that the American people know what we have tried to do and — and are doing to make sure that we uplift Americans.

Anybody else?

Q There’s a report out about political fundraising targeting elderly dementia patients. Is the president concerned at all that any fundraising in his name may have done that inadvertently?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Is it from one of the camp- — it’s from the —

Q It was a CNN story today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Was it the Republican campaign?

Q I think there is multiple.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I haven’t seen that, so I can’t speak to that. Look, more broadly — speaking more broadly here and not leaning into any campaign or any political ad, we have said, like, misinformation, we understand how dangerous that could be and that type of false information — how much that could be hurtful and harmful to people. And so, we’ve always called that out in the sense of, like, people have to be — be responsible.

And I can’t speak to this particular political ad. I haven’t seen it. And also, I just want to be careful to not speak to anything that is politically related to this election cycle.

Go ahead.

Q Has President Biden given officials a timeline to complete their investigation on the leaks — on the intelligence leak?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would have to refer you to — as I just mentioned, the FBI is looking into it. I would have to refer you to them. I ca- — I don’t have a timeline to speak to.

Q Well, I mean, he’s only — you know, busy weeks ahead, you know, between the election and end of the year. There — you don’t have anything more to add on that with timing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Are you — do you mean the — the —

Q The investigation. Just for —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just can’t speak to that. That is something that the appropriate authorities can speak to. FBI is in- — looking into it. I just can’t speak to a timeline.

Yeah.

Q The president is scheduled to be in Wilmington this weekend. Is there any chance he’s going to — you know, and Harris is supposed to be in Philadelphia. Is there any chance that they’re going to appear together? Do you have anything to preview on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you know, the president and the vice president has appeared together multiple times in the past several months or weeks and — whether it’s campaign or official.

So, I don’t have anything else to add beyond that, sp- — especially if you’re asking me about a campaign event. But I will say stay tuned. Stay tuned.

All right, guys. Thank you so much.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wow, that was quick. Okay. All right.

Q Quick and dirty.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Quick and dirty.

2:20 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Manchester, NH appeared first on The White House.

Oval Office

11:48 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Got everybody?

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

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

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

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

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

The floor is yours.

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

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

PRIME MINISTER GOLOB: Glad to be here.

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

Thank you all.

11:50 A.M. EDT

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

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

###

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

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

# # #

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