Press Briefings

Via Teleconference

12:20 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  We do not have anything here at the top, so we’ll go straight into questions. 

Trevor with Reuters, if you want to start us off.

Q    Hey.  Thanks for doing this.  First, do you have any comment about this DHL plane that crashed on the way to Lithuania and if there was any suspicion about Russian involvement?

And then second, just any update on Lebanon ceasefire talks.  There’s some reporting that suggests that that’s towards the end of the process there.

MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, Trevor, what I can tell you is that the FAA and NTSB are cooperating in the investigation that the Lithuanians are just now conducting.  This is pretty fresh stuff here; it just happened.  So we’re certainly not going to get ahead of that investigation and where the facts are going to lead them, but we are contributing some expertise on these kinds of things to help them through that.  And I’m sure that the Lithuanian authorities, as appropriate, will keep people informed about what they’re learning.

On your second question, look, I’ve seen the press reporting and the comments by anonymous officials.  I think you can understand that where we’re going to be today is that this remains a top priority for the President, has for some time and certainly is today as we speak, to get this ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah so that the rockets and the missiles stop and so that people can start moving back to their homes and restarting their lives along that Blue Line.  And we are actively involved in trying to bring that about.  But nothing is negotiated until everything is negotiated. 

And as you and I are speaking here this morning, Trevor — I’m sorry, this afternoon — those conversations are ongoing.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next — sorry, some user issue here.  Our next question will go to Zeke with AP.

Q    Thanks, John, for doing this.  Just following up on your answer to Trevor there.  Can you discuss what remaining sticking points there are?  What is still being negotiated, if not everything is yet negotiated?

And then, is there anything in detail about the President’s personal involvement?  We know Amos has been in the region, but what has the President’s involvement been in these talks?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  The President has been monitoring this very, very closely.  He’s been in direct touch with Amos.  Amos is back now. 

I’m not going to get into the details.  You know, there’s still some process things that I think that they’re working through, and it just wouldn’t be wise of me to go into much detail at this particular point. 

Look, I can tell you that the discussions that Amos had were constructive, and we believe that the trajectory of this is going in a very positive direction. 

But, again, nothing is done until everything is done.  Nothing is all negotiated until everything is negotiated.  And, you know, we need to keep at the work to see it through so that we can actually get this ceasefire for which we’ve been working for so long and so hard.

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

Q    Hi, John.  A bunch of weeks ago, the U.S. had put out this Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire proposal, which was very publicly rejected by the Prime Minister.  Can you just talk to us about —

MODERATOR:  Sorry, MJ, your audio cut out.  Would you mind starting again?

Q    Yeah.  I said that a bunch of weeks ago, the U.S. had put out this ceasefire proposal, which was publicly rejected by the Prime Minister.  So I wondered if you could talk to us about the timing.  Assuming that this does come together, why now?  What’s different now versus back then, when you all, again, first put this proposal out there? 

And then secondly, Mike Waltz said that he has now met with Jake Sullivan.  Can you give us the top lines?  Who attended this meeting?  What were the issues discussed?  The Congressman also sort of leaned into this idea that the current and the incoming administrations are working hand in glove as one team.  What exactly are you all working on together at this point?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, MJ.  So, on the first question, the why now is because we are at a certain point in the discussions where, again, we believe that things are moving in a very positive way.  It’s not — I mean, your question presupposes that, you know, we sort of put an anchor on the calendar and said, “Well, you know, we got to have it by, you know, before Thanksgiving.”  And that’s not the thinking here.

You know, with all these negotiations, including the ones that we’ve been trying to get, you know, with Hamas, it’s try, try again.  Keep putting things on the table.  Keep exploring things.  Keep moving things back and forth as both sides are presenting their requirements to you.  And we are mediating this, and we are where we are today because of a lot of back and forth, a lot of discussions, a lot of work, principally by Amos, of course.  And we believe we’ve reached this point where, you know, we’re close.

But, again, I want to be careful and cautious here in how I characterize it, because until you get everything done, you don’t have a deal.  So that’s kind of where we are. 

You talked about it being rejected earlier, but there’s been back and forth with both sides now for many weeks to get us to this point.

On the Waltz meeting, I can confirm that Jake did meet with Congressman Waltz, but I’m not going to get into the private conversation, and I need to really just leave it there.

On your second question, or your third question, I guess, on transition, the President has been consistent on this that he wants to make sure across the administration, and that certainly includes us here at the National Security Council, that we are doing everything that we can to effect a professional and an orderly transition. 

And we continue to urge the incoming team to take the steps that are necessary to be able to facilitate that on their end as well.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.

Q    Hi, John.  Thank you for doing this.  Two quick questions.  First on the follow-up on Jake’s meeting with Waltz.  I was told that one of the issues they discussed is how the current administration and the incoming administration can work together to push for a Gaza hostage deal in the less than two months that are left until January 20th.  Can you confirm that?

And second thing: The U.S. is going to give Israel a letter of assurances, a letter of guarantees, whatever you want to call it, about Israel’s freedom of operation in Lebanon, if it sees any imminent threats after a ceasefire is reached.  Can you say anything about that?

MR. KIRBY:  No and no.  I’m sorry, Barak, but I really can’t be more helpful to you on either one of those ones. 

The only thing I will say is, you know —

Q    (Laughs.)  I tried.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, you did.  It was a — it was a good effort. 

(Inaudible) rumors of a letter of guarantees (inaudible) and to protect their people.  And in those efforts, they’ll continue to get support from the United States.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Danny with AFP.

Q    Hi, Admiral.  Thanks for doing this.  A couple of things.  Firstly, just for the avoidance of any doubt, when you say, you know, we believe we’ve reached this point where we’re close, you mean close to a deal.  Is that right?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s correct. 

Q    Oh, thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  That’s correct. 

Q    And secondly, there are reports in the region that President Macron of France is involved in this deal and indeed that there are plans for him and President Biden to announce it tomorrow.  Any comment on either of those aspects?

MR. KIRBY:  No, but except to say: I think you all know that the President spoke with President Macron last week, and, of course, they talked about a lot of things, including the war in Gaza and how much they both want to see this conflict end and tensions to be taken down and a ceasefire to be reached, in this case particularly between Israel and Hezbollah.  But beyond that, I won’t comment. 

Q    Thanks.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Neria with Channel 13 Israel. 

Q    Hi, Kirby.  Thank you so much for —

Hey, Admiral.  Thank you so much for doing this. 

I wanted to ask: U.S. officials approached the Lebanese today and told them that Israel is on board.  Did you get any response from the people in that — from the government in Lebanon, from Hezbollah?

And also, Netanyahu wants to know when he will be able to go back into a war, if he’d like to, if the Israeli government would think that’s necessary.  And I understand this is one of the latest things that are not completed yet.  Can you elaborate more on that, please?

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, I’m not going to be very helpful here.  This kind of gets, you know, to Barak’s question about this rumor of a letter of guarantees. 

Q    Yeah, we didn’t hear your answer there.  You muted your Zoom or something, when Barak asked the question.

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, my answer to Barak was no, and I think he acknowledged that.

But, look, I understand the great interest in this, and I really won’t go beyond what I’ve said before.  We believe we’re close.  The conversations that Amos had were very positive.  And as I said earlier, we believe the trajectory is going in the right direction here to potentially getting this ceasefire done.  But it’s not done.  And the last thing that I’m going to do publicly is speak about the details of it and what components are in there so that I don’t in any way sabotage the efforts to actually complete it. 

This remains an important priority for President Biden.  That’s why we have been working hard to mediate this deal so that people can return to their lives and their homes around the Blue Line, and the rockets and missiles can stop. 

So, again, I do understand where all the questions are coming from.  They’re all fair, they’re all right, they’re all the right questions to ask today, but I’m just not going to be able to get into too much of the details.  Actually, I’m not going to get into any of the details here unless or until we’ve got more to say.

Q    And one last question, if that’s okay, Admiral, about the new administration.  We do hear that Trump’s administration is getting messages from Israeli officials about — saying that most of the hostages are dead, maybe trying to convince them not to try to push to a deal.  Do you know anything about it?  Do you give the new administration any info about the hostages that are still alive?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know anything about those conversations.  And as I said earlier to a question about Congressman Waltz’s meeting with Jake, we continue to urge the incoming team to take the steps necessary so that we can help effect an orderly, efficient, complete, and comprehensive transition to them, which includes being able to provide them the kinds of briefings, and the context, and the material that we believe will be important to help inform their decisions as they come into office.  So that’s where we are.

Q    Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.

Q    Thank you.  Thank you for doing this.  I want to follow up on a few of the questions about Lebanon. 

Number one, John, can you just confirm once and for all that, actually, we do not expect any announcement between the President and Macron, not tomorrow, but maybe in the next few days?  Because now everybody talks about the kind — maybe there is a kind of announcement, maybe not tomorrow or the day after, but soon.

MR. KIRBY:  All I can tell you, Nadia, is what I’ve been saying here for 15, 20 minutes.  You know, we believe we’re close, and there’s been an awful lot of work done.  And when we have something we can announce and we can speak to, well, by goodness, we’ll do that, and we’ll do that as soon as it is practical to do so. 

But I couldn’t sit here and look at the calendar over the next day or two and tell you exactly when that might be.

Q    Okay.  Fair enough.  How close does Mr. Hochstein coordinate with the Trump transitional team on Lebanon, and at what level? 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the private conversations that Mr. Hochstein has been having as he’s been working to try to get this deal.  He’s been very, very focused on primarily discussing what he’s doing — or what he’s trying to do with our Israeli counterparts and, of course, his counterparts on the Lebanon side.  And I’m just going to leave it at that.

Q    Okay.  And just one last question.  I know you said you don’t want to talk about any letters of guarantees, but in general, is this any role that the U.S. playing in this mediation, beyond the facilitating both points of views, whether in execution later on or whether in some kind of guarantee to both sides, not just the Israelis?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not sure I understand your question.  I mean, as the mediator of this, we’re obviously trying to get a ceasefire over the finish line.

Q    Sure, but let me explain what I meant.  I meant there is lots of reports saying basically that the U.S. will guarantee — will give to Israel the right to monitor Lebanese airspace to make sure that Hezbollah is not going to launch rockets from there, and that will be by U.S. supervision.  While now you’re saying there is no letter, there’s nothing like this.  And vice versa — they were saying that they will make sure that during the 60 days ceasefire, that there’s no violation; the U.S. will guarantee that by monitoring what’s happening and reporting it.

MR. KIRBY:  What I said was I’m not going to confirm reports that there’s some sort of letter out there.  I’m not going to confirm any of the details that have been discussed between the two sides and the United States.  We are not there yet.  And if we’re able to get there, as soon as possible we will lay it all out for everybody.  And you’ll get to see for yourself, you know, what was negotiated. 

But the last thing I’m going to do is get into speculation from press reports about what is or what isn’t in this deal at this particular point.  I’m just not going to do it. 

Q    Okay.  Thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Marek with Polskie Radio.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  Hi, John.  I have a question on the Russia threats against Poland.  Moscow says that the new U.S. missile defense base that was just recently opened in Redzikowo in Poland is considered a priority target.  So may I ask you for a comment on that?

And my second question is: What’s your assessment on the effectiveness of the use of ATACMS by Ukraine?  In the past, you kind of downplayed potential impact of the ATACMS on the battlefield and warned that allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia could lead to escalation by the Kremlin.  How do you see it now?

MR. KIRBY:  Right now, they are able to use ATACMS to defend themselves, you know, in an immediate-need basis.  And right now, you know, understandably, that’s taking place in and around Kursk, in the Kursk Oblast.  I’d let the Ukrainians speak to their use of ATACMS and their targeting procedures, and what they’re using them for and how well they’re doing.

But nothing has changed about the — well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.

On your — what was your first question again?  I knew I was going to forget.

Q    Just about Russia’s threats against Poland, the new missile defense (inaudible) put on the target list.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’ve seen those comments, and, obviously, you know, you have to take those kinds of threats seriously, and we do.  As reckless and irresponsible as they are, we obviously take it seriously. 

President Biden has been rock-solid.  We’re going to do everything we have to do to make sure our troops on the European continent are safe and secure.  And just as importantly, you know, we take our Article Five commitments to our NATO Allies incredibly seriously.  It’s rock-solid, and that’s not going to change.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Hiba.

Q    Thanks, John.  I want to try again, John, to understand where do things stand now.  From what we’ve learned, there was an Israeli response that was then relayed to the Lebanese.  If Israel hasn’t made any amendment to it, the agreement remains as is.  Now, did you receive anything from the Lebanese?  Where is the agreement now?  On the Lebanon side?  On Israel side? 

Second, my second question: Is it an agreed ceasefire?  And within these 60 days or whatever, the negotiations will continue for a broader deal?

And my third question, please, if I may: Will this ceasefire agreement or deal, or whatever, go to the U.N. Security Council, considering that you will soon preside over it in December?  I mean, will we have a resolution?  Will we have a statement from the U.N. Security Council after this?  Because the Lebanese were opposing that.  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, Hiba, look, I’m simply not going to talk about where we are in the negotiation process.  As I said several times here on this call, we believe we’re close.  The conversations that Amos had in the region were constructive.  I’d go so far as to say we believe they were productive. 

But nothing is done until it’s all done, and it’s not done right now.  And if we can get there, as soon as possible we’ll be able to talk in more detail with all of you about the contents of this.  But I hope you understand how irresponsible it will be — irresponsible it would be for me in an on-the-record gaggle to lay out for you and confirm every single press report out there about what is in or what is not in this deal.  I’m just not going to do it. 

And I don’t have anything to talk to you today about, you know, if we get a deal, what a broader timeline (inaudible).  All that gets into the parameters of the deal itself.  So, again, I’m just not going to go there.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And unfortunately, that’s all the time we have for today.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to your questions, please reach out to our distro, our NSC press distro.  And I think Kirby has a few words here before we fully go.

MR. KIRBY:  Yep, just two things.  One, look, I know you all had lots of very detailed questions, and you’re coming away from the gaggle, I’m sure, unsatisfied, and I understand that.

I just — as I said many times, I hope you understand why.  I’m not trying to obfuscate, certainly not trying to be an obstacle or make things difficult for you.  What I was trying to do is characterize sort of where we think we are but not do anything or say anything that might torpedo our chances. 

And obviously, the most important thing here is that we try to get this ceasefire, because it will mean, literally, that lives will be saved and, hopefully over a period of time, that livelihoods will be restored.  And again, last thing any spokesman wants to do is be in the way of that.  And so, I just want you to understand where I was coming from. 

The last thing is: I don’t know if we’re going to have a chance to talk before Thanksgiving.  If not, I just want to wish everybody a happy holiday.  And if you’re traveling, please do so safely. 

And thanks for all this engagement.  I know it’s been a while since we did a gaggle.  And hopefully after the holiday is over, we can get back on to a more normal schedule. 

But anyway, Happy Thanksgiving to all of you if I don’t get a chance to talk to you before then.  Thanks. 

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.

12:44 P.M. EDT

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:58 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  Sorry, fixing — fixing the podium — or the lectern. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I know. 

Q    It matters.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It matters.  I know it does.  I know. 

Okay.  So, on Monday afternoon, President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden will travel to the U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York for a Friendsgiving dinner with the service members and military families as part of the first lady’s Joining Forces initiative to support military families. 

This year’s dinner, hosted by the Robert Irvine For- — Foundation will be prepared by Chef Robert Irvine and his team. 

The U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York is home to over 500 active-duty members and their family members, and represents the largest military presence in New York City.

During their visit, the president and the first lady will thank service members and their families and help serve Thanksgiving meal. 

This is an annual tradition that is very special to the president and the first lady.  They look forward to yet another Friendsgiving dinner with some of the men and women who serve our country and their families who sacrifice so much for our communities. 

And on a related note, as Americans prepare for Thanksgiving, there’s one more thing to be thankful for: much-needed relief at the grocery store and the gas pump. 

For the second year in a row, the average cost of a Thanksgiving meal is falling and many grocery chains are offering deals for the holiday.  According to the American Farm Bureau, the average price of the typical Thanksgiving dinner fell 5 percent, with turkey prices down 6 percent. 

And as more Americans are getting ready to travel to see family members and loved ones, the price of gas has fallen to its lowest point in more than three years.  Prices at the pump are down about 25 cents per gallon compared to this time last year and below $3 per gallon in almost 30 states. 

There’s more to do, and we’re fighting to further lower costs and grow the middle class.  President Biden will continue to use every tool available to help American families put food on the table and keep money in their pockets. 

And as you all know, the first week of December, the President will travel to Angola, where he will meet with President Lourenço, recognize Angola’s role as a regional leader, and underscore the true transformation of U.S.-Angola relationship.

Together, the United States and Angola are working to address a full spectrum of — of pressing challenges, from narrowing the infrastructure gap in Africa and growing economic opportunities and sustainable development in the region to expanding technologies and scientific cooperation, bolstering peace and security, strengthening food security, and — among others. 

While there, he will also meet with the African — with African and private-sector leaders and reaffirm U.S. partnership across a host of high-priority issues, including security, health, and the economy. 

As you all know well, President Biden has made revitalizing our international alliances and partnerships a key priority, recognizing that today’s challenges require global perspectives and collective responses.  The visit reflects his promise to visit the continent during his term, which he made at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit.  And we will have more to share in the days ahead.

With that, Colleen, it’s good to see you.  I feel like it’s been a while. 

Q    You too.  I know.

Karine, can you talk about the decision to loosen restrictions on long-range — long-range — excuse me — weapons for Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a — a couple of things there that I do want to add is —  I want to be really clear: I’m not going to get into specifics about Ukraine’s operation from the podium today.  That is not something that we’re going to do, and that’s not something we normally do. 

What — what I will say is something — I’ll just reflect on something that the national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, said earlier this week, which was the major escalation we’re seeing is that Russia has gone to another country from another part of the world.  North Korea brought in thousands of their troops to the front lines and have added them into this war. 

This is a significant change and one that we warned the Russians about before they did it.  We continue to talk to our allies and partners about this.  And when it — as it relates to any operations on the ground, this is something for the Ukrainians to speak to directly.

Q    Just staying on Ukraine for a second.  With regard to escalation, is there concern that, you know, Putin changing Russia’s nuclear rules is sort of suggesting that the president’s initial instincts on — on, you know, allowing long-range missiles in — further into Russia could amount to a deescala- — or, sorry, a dangerous escalation of the war if he’s right —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, this is —

Q    — or wasn’t right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   And just to kind of reiterate what the national security advisor said — right? — and you’ve heard this from other members of the NSC team, which is the escalation, at every turn, at every step, is coming from Russia.  They’re the ones who are escalating this.  They’re the ones who started this war.  It is because of their aggression into a sovereign territory: Ukraine. 

And this war can end today, and you hear us say this over and over again — it can — if Russia would stop, the war would stop — what they’re doing with their aggression. 

So, this is an aggression from their side, and we’ve been very clear about that.  You just heard me lay out a couple things that the national security advisor said just earlier this week — what they’re doing: thousands of troops from another country that is now part of what Russia is doing with their aggression into Ukraine. 

So, this is their aggression — not Ukraine’s, not ours.

Go ahead.

Q    Just to follow up here.  For a long time, the White House argued that using these long-range ATACMS missiles into Russia to attack targets inside Russia would escalate the war, would be — would really invite retaliation. 

So, why now?  Why change the policy now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into specifics.  I’m just not going to get into specifics about Ukraine’s operations, not something that I’m going to do today.

But I want to be really clear —

Q    But I guess I’m asking about the specifics of the — of the White House’s decision to change policy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m just telling you that I’m not going to get into specifics from here from the podium.  I’m going to be very clear about that.

And what I — I’ve said is: When you’re thinking about bringing in thousands of troops to the front lines to add to the war — right? — these are North Korean troops, as you know — that is the aggression from Russia’s part.  That’s their aggression.

And we’re going to continue to be there for Ukraine.  This is a president that has led on making sure Ukraine has what it needs on — on the battlefield.  He’s the one that rallied countries — more than 50 countries to make sure that Ukraine got what it needed. 

But when we’re talking about aggression here or we’re talking about escalation — pardon me — more so escalation — this is Russia’s — Russia is the one who’s been escalating every step of the way — every step of the way here.

Q    And so, if I’m hearing you right, it was that escalation —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — the North Korean troops —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I wouldn’t —

Q    — that was the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I’m not — I’m not — I’m not saying that.  I’m saying that I’m not going to get into specifics about Ukraine’s operations from the podium today.  You asked me about escalation, and I’m being very clear where the escalation is coming from, but I’m not going to get into specifics. 

Q    And then two more months left in this administration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Are there new goals or — or definite goals that the president has in — in how to support Ukraine in these final two months?  Realistically, what difference can he make —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — in these last two months of his term?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I think the president has made a whole lot of difference. 

Let’s not forget, as — before Russia invaded into Ukraine, the president was the one that warned about that happening.  He was the one, and we were able to share that information with Ukraine.  He’s the one that made sure that NATO was stronger, the NATO Alliance was strengthened.  He led that effort.  He is the one that helped rally more than 50 countries to get back to Ukraine. 

Let’s not forget — and you all reported this — within days, we had — we were hearing over and over again, with the day — within days, Kyiv would fall.  We were hearing that over and over again.  And today, because, yes, of this president and what he’s been able to do but also the bravery of the Ukrainians, they continue to fight.  They continue to fight on. 

And so, the president, in September, as you all know — we’ve talked about this from the podium — talked about surging — like, surging the — the security assistance.  We made an announcement yesterday about the — kind of, the next — the next assistance that we were providing.  And we’re going to continue to do that — surge that assistance, make sure that Ukrainians have what they need on the battlefield to push back against Russia’s aggression. 

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks.  A couple questions about that aggression.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Has the U.S. determined that Russia used a ballistic weapon last night in retaliation for the U.S. authorizing the use of ATACMS by the Ukrainian government?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, a couple of things.  So, obviously, we are aware of Russia’s launch of — of an intermediate-range ballistic missile against Ukraine.  Ukraine has withstood countless attacks from Russia.  We have seen that repeatedly over the past more than two years now.  We briefed Ukraine and our close allies, partners in recent days to help them prepare. 

And as the president announced earlier this year, the United States is providing Ukraine with hundreds of additional Patriot and AMRAAMs missiles to strengthen its air defense.  Many of these are — air defense missiles have been delivered already as a consequence of that — president’s decisions to divert air defense exports to Ukraine.  And deliveries of additional air defense missiles to Ukraine are ongoing.

And as I just stated, the president, in September — on September 29th, to be more exact — he talked about surging continued assistance — security assistant [assistance] to Ukraine.  And so, we’re going to continue to do that.  And that is going to — to make sure they’re strengthening their capabilities, including air defense, and put Ukraine in the best possible position on the battlefield. 

And just yesterday, as I mentioned moments ago, we were able to announce another security assistance.  And so, that’s going to continue.  And so, we will not be deterred here.  We are going to continue to make sure that the Ukrainians have what — what they need on the ground. 

Q    Now that Russia says that it is changing its nuclear doctrine to essentially lower the bar for when it can use nuclear weapons, does the U.S. need to change its nuclear posture as well?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s not forget, we said earlier this month that we were not surprised by Russia’s announcement that it would update its nuclear doctrine.  And so, Russia has been signaling its attempt to update its doctrine for several weeks.  And observing no changes to Russia’s nuclear posture, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture or doctrine in response to Russia’s statements. 

So, this is more of the same irresponsible rhetoric that we continue to hear from Russia, which we have seen for the past more than two years now — if you think about their aggression, their war against Ukraine. 

And so, look — and I talked a bit — I’ve talked about it a little bit moments ago — about the use of — of DPRK soldiers in combat operations against Ukraine.  It presents a significant escalation of its war. 

Again, they are the ones — “they” meaning Russia — are the ones that are escalating this war.  And so, we are not going to be ter- — deterred here.  We’re going to continue — we’re going to certainly continue to — to be there for U- — for the — the brave people of Ukraine.

Q    Have U.S. officials been able to determine what Russia is giving North Korea in exchange for North Korean soldiers fighting in this war?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to certainly get into specifics on that.

What I can say is what we have been very clear about is our determination to be very clear here about our — our continued support for — certainly for — for the Ukrainian people as they continue to deal with this aggression, this escalation from — from Russia. 

And so, we have said that we’re certainly concerned about Russia’s decisions.  We see it as — as it being born out of desperation, what they’re doing.  And — and it’s born out of desperation because they are — now are seeing high casualties — right? — the Russians are.  And — and so, now what they’re doing is they’re turning to DPRK to supply them soldiers to continue their brutal war against Ukraine. 

And so, look, it’s not going to deter us.  They’re the ones escalating.  We’re going to continue to provide support to the Ukrainians as they continue to push back against Russia’s aggression.  That doesn’t — that is not going to stop us from doing that.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, does the White House have any reaction to Matt Gaetz withdrawing his name for consideration to be the next attorney general?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I’ll say is — and we’ve been pretty steadfast on being consistent here — not going to comment on every personnel matter or personnel matters here that the president-elect is deciding or is nominating people for — at these respective agencies.  We really, truly want to respect the transfer of power.  We want it to be efficient.  We want it to — to happen in a way that the — the American people deserve, and that’s what we’ve been trying to do.  And we believe that is very much part of our democratic principle, and that’s what you’re seeing this president do and lead by example.

More broadly — as we talk about the Department of Justice more broadly, look, the president has said when it comes to investigation, that department should be independent.  There should be no partisanship.  There should be no loyalty to one party or the other.  The loyalty should be to the Constitution, and the loyalty should be to the rule of law.  And that is something I believe and we believe the president has led also, on that particular issue, by example.

Q    And then on that topic, our understanding is that the Trump transition team hasn’t signed the MOUs that are outstanding still.  Is there any update that you can provide on your end?  Any progress there?  Or is there concern now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — about how that may impede some of that transfer of power you’re talking to?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And so — and, look, as you know, the president, President Biden, met with the president-elect to show that transition of power and obviously offering any assistance needed to make sure that happens in a way that is peaceful, obviously, and efficient.  And so, that was one part of it.

Our teams continue to stay in touch.  As of now, to your point, the Trump-Vance transition team has not yet entered into the agreements with the White House and the General Service Administration.  And, as you know, the chief of staff, Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, here has reached out to the — the cochairs and have co- — consistently reiterated the — the wanting to work together in making sure that they have what they need.

So, we’re going to continue to engage with the Trump transition team to ensure that we do have that efficient, effective transition of power.  And in those conversation, we certainly are stressing that the White House and the administration stand ready to provide assistance and that access to services and information certainly outlined in the GSA and the White House Memorandum of Agreement — those MOUs. 

So, those conversations continue, and we want this to go smoothly, and that’s what we’re trying to get to.

Q    And just finally —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — what is the White House view on Speaker Johnson saying that he will bar transgender women from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — using Capitol bathrooms, as something that Congresswoman Nancy Mace has clearly raised in regards to Representative-elect Sarah McBride?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would — when I think about that question, I think about what the congresswoman-elect said and — who, as you know, the president has a close relationship with and is very proud of her.  And what she said is “I’m not here to fight about bathrooms.  I’m here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down costs facing families.” 

And we agree with her.  We think that’s incredibly important: to focus on the American people.  Obviously, for her, it’s Delawareans who she represents.

And so, again, the president is proud of her.  I’m not going to — I’m not going to add to that.

Q    Has he called her in recent days over this (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have — I don’t have a conversation to speak to.  As you know, they did — they had a moment to speak on the — the night of the election.  He was able to call her and congratulate her.  I don’t have anything else to add, but I think her words speak volumes.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  U.S. prosecutors charged Indian billionaire Gautam Adani over his role in an alleged bribery scheme this week.  Is the administration concerned that this will damage U.S.-India relations, especially given the recent case with a former Indian intelligence official being charged in an assassination plot aimed at a U.S. citizen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, we’re aware of these allegations, and I would have to refer you to the SEC and DOJ about the specifics of those — of those allegations against the Adani Group. 

What I will say is: On the U.S. and India relationship, we believe that it’s extremely — stands on an extremely strong foundation anchored in — in ties between our people and cooperat- — and cooperation across a full range of — of global issues.

And so, what we believe and we’re confident about is that we’ll continue to navigate this issue, as we have with other — with other issues that may have come up, as you just stated.  And so, the specifics of this — this is something that SE- — SEC and DOJ can speak to directly.

But, again, we believe that we are — this has been that — this relationship between India and the U.S. has been built on a strong foundation.

Q    I wanted to ask you also about the ICC’s issuing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — arrest warrants for several top officials, including Netanyahu, over Israel’s conduct in this war.  I know that the U.S. rejected this decision. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the administration see this ruling as a threat to Israel’s ability to defend itself? 

And also, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is calling for the Senate to sanction the ICC after this decision.  Is that a measure that the White House would support or is there —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, a couple things.  Let me just say, because this is the first time I’ve had an opportunity to speak to this at the podium, so let me just say more broadly that we fundamentally reject the court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for senior Israel officials.  We remain deeply concerned by the prosecutor’s rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process errors that led to this decision.

The United States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter.  You’ve heard us say this before.  Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no evidence — none — between Israel and Hamas.  There’s just none.

In coordination with partners, including Israel, we are discussing, certainly, those next steps, what that’s going to look like. 

And to your question about sanctions, that’s basically — kind of just answered it in that last — last part of what I said.  We are in consultation with our partners and also in- — which include Israel, about our next steps.  We fundamentally, fundamentally reject that the ICC has jurisdiction over the situation.

And so, that’s something that we’ve been pretty clear about, and we’ll continue to do so.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  At this point, with two months left in the administration, does the White House see a real value in President Biden directly engaging with members of the press?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, absolutely.  Yes.  Look, I think we have worked really hard — and I — and I hope you all have seen this — to make sure that we brought back the norms that was taken away from our — our predecessor on how we engage with the press. 

The president respects the freedom of the press, and he actually enjoys g- — engaging and going back and forth with all of you.  And that is something — and he’s done that extensively, and that is certainly something that he’s going to continue to do. 

We have — what? — less than 60 days — I think you just said two months — left.  That is plenty of time for the president conti- — to continue that engagement.  He will. 

And, you know, this — this is something that we respect: you know, bringing back the norms, working with the White House Correspondents’ Association, making sure that we have that healthy back-and-forth with — you know, with — with the press corps. 

And so, we believe it is important when the president engages with the press.  He’s done, I believe, more than 50 interviews just this year alone.  He’s t- — he’s taken hundreds of questions in his back-and-forth with all of you, and that’s going to continue.

Q    If all of that is true —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — why, on a six-day foreign trip where the president obviously had a robust American press corps traveling with him, did he not have a single engagement, whether it is a press conference or maybe just speaking on the tarmac or really anywhere, where he took questions from the press? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, as you all just st- — stated and wrote about, the G20 and APEC was his last opportunity to deal with some of these world leaders that he has built a close relationship with, has some of — some — some of them he’s known, certainly, more than his almost four years in — in this office.  And so, he truly wanted to spend time engaging and — and listening, having that one-on-one engagement that the president believes in and trusts in. 

And so, he wanted to spend time doing that.  And so, that’s what you saw the president do.  And I get it.  I — I get that you all want to hear from the president.  I — I get that.  I understand that.  And I’m not saying that you won’t.  You will.  He will certainly continue to engage with all of you. 

And it is — when I say it’s something that he actually enjoys doing, it is.  He enjoys having the back-and-forth with all of you, and that’s going to continue.

Q    Just to be clear —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    — you mean the explanation is that he, on this trip, was extra busy meeting with world leaders because this is one of his —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, what I —

Q    — you know, last big foreign —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — what I’m saying is, as you know, this was one of his last opportunities to speak to many of these leaders.  There were 20 leaders at the G20; more than 21 — or about 21 leaders at APEC.  And so, he wanted to spend that time, certainly, doing what he normally does at these conferences, obviously, but — but also, you know, speaking directly to them as one of his final times as president.

And, again, putting that aside, I think your question was do we believe that he should engage — some version of that.  If — I apologize if I’m not quoting you directly.  Yeah, we think it’s important for him to engage with the press.  He thinks it’s important to engage with the press, and that’s going to continue.  It is. 

You — the p- — you will hear from the president, have an opportunity to do those back-and-forths that you normally have done with him. 

Q    This is related but separate from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Sure.

Q    — just the trip itself.  It — it’s been t- — you know, more than two weeks since the election.  This was an election that elected a man that President Biden has repeatedly referred to as an “existential threat.”  So, why is it that the American people have not heard President Biden talk about this threat since the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because there was an election and the American people spoke.  The will of the American people were very clear, right? 

And so, the president is now in a situation where we have to deal with a peaceful transfer of power.  We have to respect the will of the American people, and that’s what you have been seeing from this president: trying to lead by example to make sure that that happens. 

And that’s what the American people deserve.  That’s what the president deserves.  And that’s what I think he was very clear about in the Rose Garden when he delivered his remarks two days after the election.  And he said — he was very honest.  He said these — you know, and, again, I’m — I’m not quoting him exactly — but these were not the results that we had wanted, right?  And that’s just being honest.  They weren’t. 

But we are now in a position where we — he believes he has to lead by example and show what a peaceful transfer of power looks like.  And so, that’s what you’re seeing from this president. 

And, you know, to the points that you made — you know, I’ve been asked about “existential threat.”  I’ve been asked about “threat to our democracy.”  The president is always going to be honest with the American people.  He feels like he is obligated.  What he said still stands, but we are now in a different place.  We are.  The American people spoke.  They deserve a peaceful transfer of power.  That’s what this president wants to do. 

Q    But does he have a message for people on what they should do about this existential threat, I — assuming that he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — still believes Donald Trump —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — is an existential threat?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  His — look, his — his thoughts and what he said — his — his thinking on that has not changed.  It has not.  And I think he was very clear about what he believes should have been done or how we should move forward.  How — you know, he was very clear during those moments that he spoke about it.

Right now — right now, he wants to lead by example and talk and show the American people what it looks like to have an efficient, effective transfer of power.  And he believes that is what the American people deserve.  And I’m just going to leave it there for now. 

Go ahead, Joey.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Karine.  President-elect Trump, this week, confirmed he intends to declare a n- — national emergency and use U.S. military to pursue mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.  Does the president believe this is an appropriate use of the military?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I’m not going to go into what the state attorney — attorney general or state elected leaders might do in the future as a response to this next administration’s policy, how they’re going to move forward.  I’m not going to do that. 

What I can speak to is our administration is certainly — is focused on arresting dangerous criminals and threats to public safety.  We do not believe — we do not believe in separating families. 

And what I can speak to is what we have been able to do and what — how — how that has worked out.  Right?  In our remaining time, we’re going to continue to — to fight to secure our border. 

Since the administration took strong actions back in June, encounters have dropped by more than 55 percent and are lower than they were four years ago.  So, what we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to enforce our laws; remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to be here, to remain in — in the U.S.; and — and we’re going to do that while making sure we’re treating people with dignity that they deserve.  We —

Q    And with that — with that said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — I mean, does the president, though, have concerns about using the military to — to carry out —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — no — 

Q    — you know, Trump has talked about these mass deportations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear — I heard your question. 

Q    Yeah.  Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re just repeating the question —

Q    That’s true.  I did.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — that you just asked me.  (Laughter.)  I hear that.

Q    I figured I’d say it again.  You know, it’s a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I hear you.  I appreciate the effort.  I — I don’t want to get into what attorney generals or other elected officials might do in the future.  What I’m going to stick to is what we’re doing right now and what we are going to continue to do in the next less than 60 days in this administration. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Yesterday, the president met with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper to talk about the ongoing disaster recovery down there, and state and local officials were there as well. 

The administration this week — the president has asked Congress for about $100 billion for disaster relief — emergency disaster relief.  How does the White House want to see that get done?  Do you want to see that done quickly as a stand-alone bill or later as tied up with the government funding that’s likely expected later in December? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what we want is Congress to act — to   — we’re going to continue to urge Congress to act quickly to pass a supplemental funding package to assist communities obviously impacted — recent hurricanes and other disasters. 

And what we have seen and what we know when we’ve seen these types of previous — previous natural disasters in the past, we’ve seen Congress come together in a bipartisan way to get that done, to help out communities in crisis. 

And so, that’s what we want to see.  That’s what we look forward to working with congressional — with our congressional partners in delivering that for — for American people, for the folks, again, who are in crisis, who need that — who need that additional funding. 

And so, obviously, you saw the — the letter from OMB, and so, certainly, they can go into more details and specifics of the breakdown of our ask.  But that’s how we want to see it move forward. 

Q    Would you say this is the top legislative priority right now for the president in this lame-duck session?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think — I think in — right after the election, I talked about four or five legislative priorities.  Obviously, this was one of them.  Getting our judicial — our — we think our very qualified judicial nominees through was a — is a prior- — the NDAA is a priority as well.  So, we have a couple of — of key priorities that we want to work with our congressional partners on getting through, and this is certainly one of them. 

And, you know — again, you know, FEMA has — has the money to — to respond to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, and that’s assuming there’s no new large, obviously, hur- — hurricanes or a natural disaster. 

But, as you know, when it comes to SBA, that funding is fully exhausted.  And w- — you have, you know, this — that type of funding is critical to businesses, homeowners, and renters.  And they really rely on that — on that funding, that SBA funding to certainly deal with recovery and rebuilding. 

So, there are — there’s a real need here, a real urgency.  And so, we’re going to work with con- — congressional members to get that done. 

Q    Did — did he hear a dire message yesterday from those North Carolina officials?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think they’re trying to recover and rebuild.  And I think that they were devastated by the hurricane, as we all know.  I think some of you were able to — to come with us on that trip, whether if it was us or with the vice president, and you saw what they — what they have to deal with here: devastated by — devastated by the hurricane.

So, I’m sh- — I don’t want to speak for North Carolina, but certainly there is an urgency.

I would refer you to, obviously, the North Carolina governor, Governor Cooper, on this particular question.  But we saw how devastated they — they were from this hurricane. 

And it is important — it is important — it doesn’t matter if you’re a — you hear it from this president: It doesn’t matter if you’re a red state, blue state, rural — if you’re a part of — a part of a rural America, urban America, all American people deserve to have the assistance that they need when — especially when a crisis like this hap- — occurs.

AIDE:  Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Okay.  Go ahead.  Go ahead. 

Q    Thank you.  Can you detail how the White House is thinking about clemency in these last two months?  Is there a process for how those pardon decisions are going to be made, and is the president expecting to make any sort of statement with the pardons he does in the next two months?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president has certainly been committed to reforming the criminal justice system and has done that through clemency authority in a manner that provides second chances, ensures equal justice under the law, and strengthens public safety.  And so, he’s going to continue to elevate clemency petitions in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. 

I’m — I’m not going to get into specifics here on that process, but he — again, he’s going to do this in a way that — that he believes is the right way to — to move forward.  But I just don’t have anything about the process and — and getting into the nitty-gritty of this, but I think you’ve seen how the president has treated this over the last almost four years. 

Go ahead. 

Q    Thank you.  I have a question about Venezuela, but first on Brazil.  The Federal Police have just indict — indicted former President Jair Bolsonaro for an attempt coup d’état after he lost the elections in 2022.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the U.S. has a react- — have — do you have a reaction from this? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And did the president discuss this when he met with President Lula da Silva in Brazil?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have not spoken to our teams about this, so I would have to connect with them.  I don’t have a response.  I — I want to make sure I give you the right response.  I don’t have a response. 

And also would — you know, we can talk about this after the briefing.  What’s your — what’s your next question?

Q    On Venezuela.  The U.S. recently called, for the first time, “president-elect” the opposition leader, Edmundo González.  And I was curious a little bit about the timing, if it has something to do with the inauguration in Venezuela.  It is January 10th.  What message is the U.S. trying to send with this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would say, since July, it has been clear to us — the United States, to democratic nations around the world, and to independent international organization that observe the July 28th elections — that opposition candidate Edmundo Urr- — Urrutia won the most votes, and we said this repeatedly.  You’ve heard me say it a couple times at the podium, and so we’ve been pretty — pretty consistent about that.  Winning the most votes makes him what?  The president-elect.  And so, that’s what we believe. 

It does not change our position at all.  We, the Uni- — United States, currently recognize the democratically elected 2015 National Assembly as the legitimate government of Venezuela, and so we do not intend to change that posture during this administration. 

And, again, the people spoke.

Q    But even though it doesn’t change the position of the United States, it has been four months since the July elections.  So, why now?  Why — what did you see that made you make this decision about why it’s happening?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it should be up to the people, and it was.  And that’s what we saw on July 28.  And we were very clear about that.  We were clear about that. 

And so — and, again, when you win the most votes, that means — in this instance, obviously, that makes him the president-elect.  But we’ve also been very — I think very consistent on saying what we saw on July 28th and that the American pe- — the — pardon me — that the people — the people in Venezuela spoke.

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just quickly following up on M.J.’s questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Have you spoke- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which one?

Q    (Laughs.)  They sort of grouped together.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There were — there were a few of them.  (Laughter.)

Q    Have you spoken to your named successor?  And if so, what advice do you have for her?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  Oh, I didn’t know that was where you were going.  (Laughter.)  “Following up.”  I didn’t see — I didn’t think it was that follow-up. 

Look, you know, I’m not — again, I’m go- — not going to speak to every — every personnel pick — specific personnel pick. 

I — I’m going to reiterate a little bit of what I just shared with M.J., which is that, you know, over the past four years, we have been — we have done the best, I think, to stick to expected norms of the office.  We’ve had over 500 briefings from this podium, with gaggles also on Air Force One and abroad.  And, you know, we hope that they will continue to answer the questions of the American people.  That’s what we hope. 

And I will just add that, you know, I’ve not — I have not spoken to my successor.  What I will say is that I certainly wish her luck.  And this was a great job, and it is an honor to speak on behalf of the president of the United States.  It is a privilege, and it is something that I am very proud to have done for almost four years. 

So, I’ll leave it there. 

Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, two questions.  One follow-up on the person who’s going to take your place.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, goodness.  (Laughter.)

Q    When Donald Trump was president the first time, there was a period of time where we had no press briefings.  In the space that you’re in, in this moment, and have been in for a while, do you believe it’s significant in this moment in time for the American public to hear from the spokesperson on a daily basis, or do you believe that the president can do it himself?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to — to speak how any admingin- — administration decides to do the business of the American people, how they decide to communicate with the American people. 

What I can speak to is what we’ve tried to do, which is bring back the norms of how this all works, how we communicate with the press, and we’ve tried to do this in a very respectful way. 

I’ve mentioned, we’ve done more than 500 briefings, proudly.  Some have been tough.  (Laughs.)  Some have been tougher than most, if you will.  But it is — it is a privilege to stand at this lectern to — it is — behind this lectern, at this podium.  It is a privilege.  It is a privilege to speak for this president.  It is a privilege to actually talk about what we’re doing, to you and to the American people.  

I can’t speak to what th- — what any administration is going to do.  I’m not going to look into the future. 

What I can say is what we have been committed to: the freedom of the press, respecting the press, having tough back-and-forths.  But this is what democracy is all about. 

Q    And lastly, on Africa. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

Q    The last Republic- — the last Republican president to travel to Africa was George W. Bush.  And since Bill Clinton, except for Donald Trump, every president has traveled there.  Is there a concern that with all of this — these last four years, having the vice president and the secretaries and now the president go to Africa to highlight the importance of the continent on so many levels, is there a concern that you will lose ground in the next couple of years because Donald Trump didn’t go last time, and he’s said some very harsh words about sub-Saharan Africa before?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to — I have no idea what the next administration is going to do — really, I — truly.  I mean, I — I don’t know what they’re ex- — going to execute.  I don’t know how they’re — what they’re going to do. 

What I can say is the president is going to Africa because he made a commitment.  You saw his commitment to the continent when he had the leaders of the — the African leaders here about almost three years ago now, I believe, maybe f- — yeah, maybe a little bit longer.  And he did that because we believe there are shared interests between the continent, the countries, obviously, and the U.S and wanted to continue to transform those relationships — right? — and work on those relationships. 

And so, that’s what you’re going to see from this president the first week of December when he goes to Angola. 

I will add that this president believes in respecting people.  Again, it doesn’t matter where you come from.  It doesn’t matter if you voted for him or not.  He respe- — he re- — he believes every American has an opportunity to be uplifted, to have opportunities to have a better life for themselves.  That’s why he believes in this country, what this country is founded on, what this country is all about: getting opportunities; being able to — you know, to — to live that American dream, whatever that — however that is defined for you. 

And so, that is something that this president will always respect, not just as president but moving forward.  And obviously, he did that as vice president and senator.  And so, that’s what I can speak to, and that’s what he’s going to continue to do. 

And there’s a lot of things that we’re going to cover in Angola — right? — whether it’s infrastructure; growing ec- — economic opportunities; tech- — expanding technology.  There’s a lot to talk about, a lot of shared interest.  And so, we’ll have more to share, certainly, on his trip to Africa.

Go ahead, Jenny.

Q    Firstly, on M.J.’s question/comment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  M.J., you’re so popular today.  (Laughs.)

Q    I was on the South America trip, and I just wanted to note —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — if your explanation was that he was engaging with leaders, there was quite a bit of downtime and, of course, opportunities on the tarmac, which he has used before the election.  So, I don’t know that re- — that really explains —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean —

Q    — why he didn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I appreciate that you don’t appreciate my explanation,  but what I’m saying to you is that the president is go- — is looking forward to engaging with you all in less than 60 days.  He’s done it extensively.  It’s not going to stop.  And he will do that — he will continue to engage with all of you and take your questions. 

He’s done, I believe, more than 600 back-and-forths with you all this year alone.  Done more than 50 interviews.  That’s not going to stop.  It’s not.  He’s going to engage.  And I’ll just — I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    One —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    One actual topic, sorry.  Does he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, actual topic?  (Laughter.)

Q    Well, this one was — I just have to, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What does that mean?

Q    I just had to get out this one comment.

Does the administration have a prevailing theory on how the undersea cables in the Baltic Sea were damaged, and do you think that China may have been responsible?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into any type of theories from here.  I will let, you know, the NSC team respond to that directly.  I’m just not going to get into speculation from here. 

Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the statement you just mentioned about the ICC issuing an arrest warrant against Mr. Netanyahu and the defense minister.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You said that you found the process troub- — has troubling errors.  What errors do you think it has?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    And second —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no.  I’m sorry.

Q    You talked about the partners — you want to discuss with partners the next step —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — on the ICC decision.  Few of your closest allies — France, Italy, Netherlands, and Canada, so far — said they’re abiding by the court decision, and they can arrest Netanyahu if he steps on their soil.  So, do they have a different inter- — interpretation of international law than you?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — here — so, a couple things.  You asked me a couple things.  So, the first thing that I will say is that obviously we reject and we certainly have different opinions on that, and we’re going to let other countries speak for themselves.  We’re speaking for ourselves, and so we’re not going to be executing any arrest warrants.  That is not something that we’re going to do from here. 

And I do have some examples on when you asked me about the process and why we think it’s essentially a flawed process.  And so, in contrast to how he has treated — this is the prosecutor — how he has treated others, including Nicolás Maduro and his associates, the prosecutor failed to provide Israel with a meaningful opportunity to engage constructively and to properly consider its domestic processes.  This calls into question the credibility of the prosecutor’s investigation and — and the decision today.

But we’ve been very clear, not just today, that, you know, we do not believe that the ICC has the jurisdiction here, and so — over — over this matter.  And so, we’ve been very clear about that, and that stance has not changed. 

But I just laid out an example of why we think that — what process the ICC did not follow.

Q    And second, on the 19 Democratic U.S. senators voted to block sending offensive weapons to Israel, and Senator Bernie Sanders said basically that we cannot criticize human rights violation while the U.S. itself is violating its own laws.  So, where is your role in that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we strongly oppose this resolution, and we have made our position clear in — to interested senators.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

We’ve been also very clear about this: We are very committed to Israel’s security.  That has been ironclad.  And — and we believe that these resolutions are counterproductive as we are working to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon and ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza. 

And so, we have strong — strong reason to believe that terrorist groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, want to see Israel in a position of weakness, and we don’t want to see that happen. 

And so, look, we appreciate that — the concerns that the senators raised.  Obviously, we respect their position.  We just do not — we strongly oppose the resolution. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  Following up on your comments on the change of nuclear posture by Russia.  And you said it’s another example of irresponsible rhetoric.  Is it a way to kind of dismiss what Russia said, to say there was no real reason to be concerned, these are only words?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that one more time.  There is no —

Q    That — that there would be no re- — that there’s no real reason to be concerned, that this is just like Putin, you know?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, you’re talking about their —

Q    Yeah, yeah.  Their —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — nuclear doctrine that —

Q    The nuclear doctrine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — they put out. 

Look, here’s what we’re saying.  We haven’t seen any indic- — indications of Russia preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.  We just have not seen that. 

And so, this is more of the same — right? — more of the irresponsible rhetoric from Russia, which we have seen the past two years.  We’ve seen this before.

But it doesn’t stop what we have been saying, that the escalation is coming from Russia here.  They’re the ones who are escalating.  This is their war.  They’re the ones who have — you know, went into a — a sovereign territory, which is Ukraine, and started this war and pushed forward with their aggression. 

And so, this is a war that they can end.  They can end it today.  And we’ve been very clear about that. 

I know I have to wrap it up.  Go ahead.

Q    I wanted to follow up on the Trump transition team not signing the MOUs.  Have they provided any reasoning as to why they have not signed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They can speak for themselves.  I’m not going to speak for the Trump transition. 

Q    Are you concerned about the implications of the delay of the transition?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into — I’m not going to speculate from here.  We are — we are continuing to have our dis- — discussion with the Trump transition team.  I’m just not going to speculate. 

All right.  Go ahead.

Q    Good afternoon.  Two topics: one on immigration and one of the unions. 

Immigration.  New York Post is reporting that ICE is quietly loosening some of the restrictions on how migrants would have to follow the asylum procedure.  Basically, they wouldn’t have to do the physical check-ins with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — you know, Customs and Border Protection.  The former head of Customs and Border Protection is calling it “obstructionist transition.”  Is there any effort by the current administration to kind of curb any of the immigration overhauls that Trump is likely to go for?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any policies — new policies to — to speak to at this time.  I just don’t have anything. 

Q    So, it’s just not happening, as far as we know?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I would refer you to DHS for any specifics on that particular question.  But if you’re asking us if we are doing any policy changes, I don’t have anything to announce. 

I — I laid out for one of your colleagues what we have been doing, especially since we moved forward with our executive actions, since — in June.  And what we have seen: Encounters have dropped more than 55 percent, and they’re lower than they were even four years ago. 

And so, that is what we’re going to continue to f- — do.  We’re going to continue to enforce our — our laws.  That’s going to be our — our focus. 

But I — I’m not going to speculate on, again, what the next administration is going to do or not do.  Anything specific about looseling — loose- — loosening of what’s happening at the border, I would have to refer you to Department of Homeland Security.

Q    And then, my second question was just on unions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The president has talked so much about being the most pro-union president ever.  This week, the DNC Staff Union put out a pretty scathing note saying that so many DNC staffers have gotten laid off, no severance.  They were shocked. 

I’m just curious, from an optics perspective.  The vice president left town to go to Hawaii on vacation.  Does the president think that’s appropriate when so many DNC staffers are literally wondering what they’re going to do for work next?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Let’s not twist this in so many knots here.  First of all, to your first part of your question, it’s not the president who called himself the most pro-union president.  It’s other unions that have called him that, and he is proud to be called the most pro-union president ever.  That is something that he — was given to him, and he is proud to own that.

And it’s not because he’s — it’s — it’s a frivolous statement.  It is because he has shown — he has not just spoken but taken action and has had the back of union members and union workers throughout his presidency.

As it relates to the DNC, I would have to refer you to the DNC and —

Q    But does it look bad for the vice president to go to Hawaii —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — while DNC staffers are just wondering —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The vice —

Q    — what they’re going to do for work?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The vice president has taken time off to go spend time with her family.  I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.  I think she deserves some time to be with her family and to have some downtime.  She has worked very hard over — for the last four years, and her taking a couple of days to be with her family, good for her.  Good for her.

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everyone.

2:48 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

MR. FINER:  (In progress.)

We expect President Biden will also engage with leaders one on one, and are working to schedule several pull-asides on the margins of the G20.  If those are able to come together, we’ll obviously read out those conversations if they happen.

The President will close out the day by attending the G20 Leaders Reception.

Of course, tomorrow, in addition to G20 programming, the President will have the opportunity to meet bilaterally with President Lula of Brazil.  President Biden will congratulate President Lula on Brazil’s G20 host year and reaffirm U.S. support for President Lula’s efforts to address hunger and poverty and their shared commitment to ensure no one is left behind, among other key topics such as their partnership (inaudible).

Now, let me just take a step back and reflect for a bit on the significance of the President’s participation in the G20 this year.

Nearly four years ago, President Biden took office amid a devastating global pandemic that had upended the global economy and set back development progress around the world.

Over the past four years, we’ve experienced significant economic growth in the United States, outpacing much of the rest of the world.  And at the heart of this has been President Biden’s modern industrial strategy premised on investing at home to grow the middle class, investing in ourselves, investing in global infrastructure to help our partners do the same. 

This has meant reinvigorating multilateral groups like the G20 to deliver bold action to address big cross-border challenges like climate change that are important to both President Biden and President Lula as well as others in attendance here.  These require, obviously, working with our partners around the world.

Going into the sessions today and tomorrow, President Biden is focused on, really, three key challenges in making progress:

First, making sure developing countries have the resources to make critical investments for strong, sustainable development.  The reality is that too many countries have the will but not the resources or the know-how to invest in their futures.  Most low-income countries spend more servicing their debt than on health, education, and social programs combined. 

That’s why you’ve seen President Biden press the G20 to offer countries a pathway to growth that will call on the international financial institutions, bilateral creditors, and the private sector to step up support for vulnerable countries. 

It’s also why President Biden has championed the global effort to equip the multilateral development banks to tackle global challenges like climate change, fragility, and conflict, as well as pandemics. 

Over the past two years, we’ve fundamentally reshaped and scaled up these institutions, including by identifying forums that can boost lending capacity by up to $360 billion over the next decade. 

Over the next couple of days, President Biden will highlight his funding request to unlock $36 billion in lending at the World Bank and call on G20 leaders to follow through on their pledges to join us to boost lending capacity by $100 billion. 

This is why President Biden is highlighting the need for an ambitious replenishment of the International Development Association, the World Bank’s arm that supports the poorest countries.

President Biden will announce a historic U.S. pledge during the Rio Summit and rally other leaders to step up their commitments. 

Second, we’re capping off the administration’s work to better prepare, prevent, and respond to pandemics — a core focus of President Biden’s since day one for obvious reasons, given what we inherited.

Two years ago, the President led the G20 to launch the Pandemic Fund, a landmark achievement and strong demonstration of how global leadership makes us safer.

In Rio, President Biden will rally support for the second replenishment of this Pandemic Fund to reach its $2 billion resource mobilization goal.  And we’ll be leading the way with a $667 million pledge. 

Third, we’re furthering the global clean energy transition, a critical complement to the President’s domestic climate agenda and a priority you’ve heard him talk about in Lima, in the Amazon, throughout the trip and throughout his presidency.  This starts with pressing G20 countries to make commitments to reduce emissions in line with a 1.5-degree target (inaudible) Paris Agreement.

Tomorrow, when President Biden sees President Lula, he will launch a bilateral Clean Energy Transition Partnership with Brazil, which is designed to position Brazil to reap economic benefits of the energy transition, including scaling and diversifying the supply chain. 

So, it’s a big, broad agenda, as is always the case at these G20 meetings.  That’s basically the plan for next couple days.

I’m happy to take questions.

Q   Thanks.  Can you go back to this position that (inaudible)?  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Sure.  So, on the communiqué, I think just taking a step back, it’s important to understand the context of what a G20 meeting is.  Unlike the G7, which is a gathering, essentially, of likeminded countries and the United States, the G20 is a grouping that includes both some of our closest partners and allies, as well as countries that fundamentally are U.S. adversaries.  And so, a communiqué that emerges from this forum is going to be different from what you get in the context of a likeminded gathering. 

I don’t want to get ahead of the negotiations that are still ongoing about the content of this particular communiqué.  Obviously, the U.S. and our partners will be pushing for the strongest possible Ukraine language, but it goes without saying Russia is a part of this grouping, and so this will all have to be negotiated and we’ll see where it lands.

Q    Can you say anything about (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Yeah, look, I obviously have seen the reports.  I don’t have anything to confirm for you here.  But what I will say is that the United States has been clear throughout this conflict that we will make our policy decisions based on circumstances we identify on the battlefield, including, in recent days and weeks, a significant Russian escalation that involves the deployment of a foreign country’s forces on its own territory.  The United States has been clear that we will respond to that, and we’ve been clear to the Russians that we will respond to that. 

I’m not going to get into reports of what exactly — what form that response might take, precisely, for operational reasons that I think you can understand.  But this has been consistent with our approach to the entire conflict.  There are circumstances that evolve and change, and we will evolve and change (inaudible) and to allow the Ukrainians to be continue to defend their territory and their sovereignty.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Sorry, I’m having trouble hearing you.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  So, the United States closely coordinates with all our allies, especially our closest allies — Germany, obviously, among them — on all issues related to Ukraine and, frankly, a whole range of other global issues as well. 

When it comes to your question about negotiations, fundamentally, that’s not a question for the United States or for Germany; it’s a question for the government of Ukraine about when and if it will decide the terms of the negotiations with Russia.

Our policy and our approach has been to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position, both throughout this administration and since the invasion took place in 2022, but particularly with the surge of assistance that President Biden announced in September through the end of the year and the end of his term.  We’re executing on that.  We’ve announced recently a drawdown package with another $450 million in assistance.  There will be more announcements like that forthcoming. 

But beyond that, decisions about negotiations will be left to the Ukrainians.  It’s their country and their people.

Q    The Kremlin said this morning that the decision of the (inaudible) weapons was throwing oil on fire in this conflict.  Can you say what the decision (inaudible)?

And, separately, can you say where President Biden discussed the long-range weapons (inaudible) with incoming President Trump (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Again, just to be super clear, I’m not confirming any decisions that have or have not been made about U.S. assistance when it comes to (inaudible). 

I will say, with regard to the comments that came out of Russia, the fire was lit by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  So, I think this notion of fuel on the fire is, frankly, a side issue to the main issue, which is Russia waging a war of aggression across a sovereign border, into Ukraine, and continuing to do so.  And we’ve seen, in addition to the North Korean forces deployment that I mentioned, a major escalation in terms of an aerial attack on infrastructure across Ukraine over the last 24 hours. 

So, I would put the question back to Russia about who’s actually putting fuel on the fire here, and I don’t think it’s the Ukrainians.

Sorry, your second question? 

Q    (Inaudible.)  Do you know if President Biden discussed (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Well, yeah — so, look, the two presidents discussed a wide range of issues, and we’ve been pretty careful not to read that conversation out in any detail.  Certainly the conversation included all of the major issues of geopolitical significance, but I’m not going to get into the details of it.

Q    Thanks.  There are reports that a text is being (inaudible) climate finance.  Is the U.S. on board with that text?  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  When we have an approved text, we will come out and say so.  When it comes to climate finance, I think the most significant development of the last 24 hours was the President’s declaration yesterday that the United States has met its $11 billion pledge for international climate financing.  That’s been an important target throughout this administration.  We not only got there but we exceeded it, as the President said in the Amazon yesterday.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Yeah, so I’m not going to get in the sort of private conversations the President has with world leaders on this topic, other than to say there’s an obvious context here of a transition that is taking place in our politics and in our governance. 

The President has been, I think, very clear that his goals through the course of his entire term have been to strengthen the position of the United States in the world.  The investments that we’ve made at home are a foundational part of that.  The relationships that we’ve enhanced and improved around the world, including, obviously, in Europe, in the Indo-Pacific, and other places, are a significant part of that. 

We think we are leaving the country on a much stronger footing than we inherited it, and it will be up to a new administration to determine what to do with that vision that we believe that we are passing on.

But we have a system that’s fundamentally predicated on one president at a time.  President Biden is that president.  He will be handing off power in January, and it’ll be up to the new administration to decide what to do with it.

Q    (Inaudible) other countries that would seek to win some sort of (inaudible) incoming administration on some of the key issues that you still have, (inaudible) hostages, conflicts in the Middle East?  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Look, I mean, countries will have to make their own decisions about how they react to, respond to, posture themselves according to our transition.  Fundamentally, I think our view is countries make decisions based on interests.  We have found an alignment of interests with a large number of countries in the world, including in particular our closest partners and allies.  I don’t think those interests change even if there is a transition from one U.S. administration to the next.  So, I don’t think we are expecting some major reorientation of how other countries look at the world or look at their relationship with us, but they will make those decisions for themselves based on their interests, in January.

Q    Just quickly back on the Scholz-Putin call, can you elaborate or explain how that fits with “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” which you guys have been sort of operating under?  And then, whether or not you got a heads up.  Are you supportive of a leader call taking place?  And is it still President Biden’s view that nobody on the leader level should engage with Putin at this point?

MR. FINER:  Look, fundamentally, this is a question for the German government, not the U.S. government.  Germany is a sovereign country and can do what it wants in terms of its international relations. 

What I will say is we’ve never said that “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” means that nobody should be talking to Russia.  We’ve had conversations with Russia in this administration.  Other countries have had conversations with Russia even since the invasion and (inaudible) more significant phase of the war broke out.

We’re not going to read out the substance of the conversation that Chancellor Scholz had with President Putin, but, you know, there’s nothing that is fundamentally at odds with “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” just because you happen to be speaking with Russia.  There are good reasons for countries to engage Russia, even as we work collectively to try to improve Ukraine’s position on the battlefield and strengthen their hand.

Q    So it didn’t do anything — any damage to your collective alliance (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Again, I think these are better questions for the Germans to answer.  But the reality is, I’m quite confident that there was nothing that took place that undermined Ukraine’s interest in these conversations, and we are closely aligned with working with the Germans and our other allies on this.  And I think all of us continue to stand foursquare behind the decision that nothing should be done to undermine Ukraine’s position.  Ukraine will make its own decisions about any potential negotiations or its own dialogue with Russia when it chooses to do so. 

Q    Thanks, Jon.  There’s (inaudible) from President Zelenskyy, as well as others in the international community, for President Biden to make (inaudible) making moves on Ukraine (inaudible), including an invitation to join NATO, for instance.  What additional steps is the President considering on Ukraine in his final days in office?  And will the administration request more money for Ukraine from Congress (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  So, for obvious reasons, we don’t tend to (inaudible) publicly about things that we are considering doing.  When we have a step that we’re ready to announce because we’ve decided on it, we come out and say so. 

So, I won’t go into options on the table or that sort of thing, other than say that we’ve been very clear that the goal — the overriding strategic role for the rest of this term on Ukraine is to make Ukraine as strong as possible.  And that means surging as much materiel and equipment as we can get into Ukraine over the course of the near term.  The President said that quite clearly in September, and we’ve reiterated it since.  It means using all of the funds that have been appropriated for the United States to provide Ukraine during the rest of this term and this administration.  We are on track to execute that.  When we have additional policy changes or policy steps to announce, we’ll come out and say so.  What we’re not going to do is talk about what’s on the whiteboard.

Q    On the money, though, could you weigh in on whether you’ll ask for more spending for Ukraine considering that the administration is pushing for additional (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Look, I guess what I would say to Ukraine is obviously going to need additional support.  No doubt about that.   What vehicle, what timing, I will not get into from the podium here, but Ukraine is going to need additional support going forward if it’s going to stay in the fight.  I think that’s (inaudible).

Q    How much of that (inaudible)?  (Inaudible) verbal commitments to Ukraine as well as (inaudible).  What is the message to allies (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Look, I guess what I would say is wholly consistent with our approach throughout this conflict when the President first talked about a surge that would get as much into Ukraine by the end of this year, by the end of this term, back in September before we knew the outcome of the election.

So this is a strategic goal; it is not political.  It’s about leaving Ukraine in the strongest possible position given the challenges it faces and the escalation that it’s facing now from Russia.

Q    President Trump (inaudible). 

MR. FINER:  So, I guess I think it’s not unusual for an incoming administration or incoming president to engage with people who will be his counterparts.  Beyond that, I don’t have much to say about it.

Q    I realize you’re not going to comment on the reports, but would the President (inaudible) accept it if France or the UK decided loosen their restrictions?

MR. FINER:  So, look, that will obviously be a meeting, a policy judgment from here that I’m not prepared to provide.  So I don’t think I have anything additional to say beyond what I’ve already said, which is that there has been significant escalation on the Russian side, and I think that should be the focus.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Sorry, I just can’t hear you.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  I don’t think that’s on.

Q    Can you hear me now?

MR. FINER:  Yeah, a little better.

Q    (Inaudible) German government (inaudible) long-range missiles (inaudible).

MR. FINER:  So that was the same question that just got asked.  That’s a significant policy question.  I understand why you’re interested in it, but I’m not — don’t have anything to announce on that here.

Q    Thank you.  Can you talk a little bit more about (inaudible)?  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Debt?  Is that what you said?

Q    Debt.  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Yeah.  So, look, this administration has taken a lot of action when it comes to these onerous, burdensome debts that countries face that, as I said, can amount to more than these countries are spending on (inaudible) or social issues and services by their population. 

President Biden and President Ruto, during the Kenya state visit, announced a sort of vision that these two countries would pursue together.  We are working hard to execute on that vision.  We’re going to be making the case, and President Biden will be making case during his G20 interventions, for other countries to embrace this approach.  He’s going to be talking about it bilaterally with President Lula as well.

But this is kind of a key area where I think the United States and other countries that are part of G20 are aligned.  There are some countries that unfortunately are trying to take advantage of this situation, and the United States has made the case that that’s not appropriate, that that’s holding key developing countries back from flourishing when they should.

Maybe one more, and then I think I got to go.

Q    Can you explain how restricting American weapons in the past has (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  That’s a question that’s phrased in a particular way that I would not (inaudible) the premise of.

What I will say, though, is: I believe the United States has been extraordinarily successful in providing Ukraine what they needed in the moment that they needed it to enable them to defend their territory, their sovereignty, and their country.  And that started at the very beginning of the war when the United States provided key inputs like air defense and anti-tank, anti-armor assistance so that Ukraine could thwart what was a full-on Russian assault intended to swallow as much as Ukraine as possible.  And the Ukrainians were able to beat that back.

When the war evolved to a more static front line in the east of the country and became much more of an artillery engagement, the United States surged the provision of artillery rounds and longer-range rounds, GMLRS, and other rounds to Ukraine so that they could hold off Russia on that fight as well. 

We’ve done this at every phase of the conflict, including the provision of ATACMS for the Ukrainians to use inside their own borders, which obviously took place earlier this year. 

So we believe that we have enabled the Ukrainians to fight effectively against an army that, frankly, is much larger — at least before the war, was much better equipped — and the Ukrainians held Russia at bay despite predictions — you know, if you go back a couple years, about the trajectory of this conflict, it would have had people believing that most of Ukraine, not all of Ukraine, would have fallen a long time ago. 

Thankfully due to the bravery, first and foremost, of the Ukrainian army, with our help, with our allies’ help, that has not been the case.  And so, what we’re talking about is a frontline that moves a kilometer or two here and there in the far east of the country, which is much better situated than I think anyone predicted early in this conflict. 

That does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that we do not need to continue to provide support for Ukraine.  They’re in a very difficult, extremely difficult situation with Russia, in egregious ways, continuing to escalate this conflict.  I just mentioned two of them: the deployment of a foreign country’s troops on their own territory to fight against Ukraine and these horrific attacks that took place on Ukrainian critical infrastructure over the last 24 hours. 

Unfortunately, that is part and parcel of what we have seen throughout this time, which is Russia’s willingness to continue to up the ante.  And we have and will continue to up the ante when necessary (inaudible) for the Ukrainian (inaudible) succeed (inaudible) will prevail. 

Thank you, guys.

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer on the President’s Engagements at the G20 Summit appeared first on The White House.

Lima, Peru

MR. SULLIVAN:  (In progress) — which will go into some detail on various issues that they covered.

And so, I’m going to be brief in my opening comments, because you all can read that scintillating Word document. 

You know, this was an opportunity for them to take stock of their relationship after four years of President Biden stewarding it along with President Xi Jinping.  And President Biden reflected on the fact that he has worked hard to responsibly manage the competition so that it doesn’t veer into conflict and so that he maintains space also for the U.S. and China to work together on matters of mutual interest.

He reflected on the fact that keeping open lines of communication is vital to the responsible management of this relationship, and that includes the leader-to-leader communication that has really anchored the relationship over the last four years, but also communication at all levels. 

And he really emphasized the importance of sustaining military-to-military communication through this transition period and beyond, because that is how we will most effectively avert any potential mistake and miscalculation of crisis.

He spoke about areas where we actually have made progress, where our interests align, from counternarcotics to climate, AI.  The two leaders took an important step forward today with respect to AI safety and risk.  They agreed, and it will be reflected in the readout, on the need to maintain human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons, which is the first time the U.S. and the PRC has made this statement.  It’s an important statement about the intersection of artificial intelligence and nuclear doctrine, and it is a reflection of how, even with competition between the U.S. and the PRC, we can work on a responsible basis to manage risk in vital areas.

The two leaders, of course, also spoke about areas of difference and areas of friction in the relationship, including U.S. concerns over the PRC’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base.  And in this context, President Biden reiterated his grave concern over the fact that the DPRK has deployed a significant number of troops to western Russia to participate in the battle against Ukraine, in the war against Ukraine. 

President Biden also spoke to President Xi about cross-Strait issues and the U.S.’s commitment to sustain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  They had the chance to go back and forth on that. 

They talked about economics and national security.  They talked about the respective concerns of both sides about the policies of the other.  But President Biden really reiterated his concern about unfair non-market economic practices that are harming American workers and businesses. 

They also covered the South China Sea, and President Biden reiterated his view that international law must be respected, along with freedom of navigation and lawful, unimpeded commerce in the South China Sea.

They touched on a number of other issues as well.  I would just sum up the meeting by saying that it was — like all of these meetings are, it was candid, it was constructive, it was wide ranging.  There was a give and take, a back and forth. 

The two leaders set aside the notes, particularly in the closing section of the meeting, for them to each be able to reflect upon the fact that they’ve known each other for quite a long time now, that they have worked together closely, that they obviously haven’t always seen eye to eye but they’ve always been straight with one another, and that they both remain committed to try to responsibly manage this relationship during this last critical transition period and, of course, over the course of the past more than 10 years that the two leaders have been dealing with each other, both as vice president and now as president. 

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

Q    Can you talk about how the President addressed North Korea’s support for Russia and the invasion of Ukraine when it came to this meeting? 

Secondly, also, China has expressed opposition to turning the Kenyan-led mission in Haiti to a U.N. peacekeeping mission.  Does the U.S. have more confidence now that they could have China’s support for a U.N.-led peacekeeping mission?

MR. SULLIVAN:  President Biden pointed out that the PRC’s publicly stated position with respect to the war in Ukraine is there should be no escalation or no broadening of the conflict, and the introduction of DPRK troops runs fourscore against that. 

And he also pointed out that the PRC does have influence and capacity and should use it to try to prevent a further escalation or further expansion of the conflict through the introduction of even more DPRK forces. 

You know, one of the points the President really registered was: Countries around the world look to the United States when the U.S. has influence, whether it’s in Asia or Europe.  And similarly, countries look to the PRC as well.  So, it’s not a sufficient answer to simply say, “Well, that’s up to these other countries.  There’s nothing we can really do about it.” 

So that is the nature of the back and forth on that.  And President Biden really underscored his view that this is a deeply dangerous development, both in the European view, the introduction of a foreign army, and on the Korean Peninsula, with deepening cooperation between Russia and the DPRK likely to enhance the possibility of provocative behavior by the DPRK, provocative behavior that we have warned about, whether it comes in the form of direct provocations against the ROK, or whether it comes in the form of something like further missile tests or even a seventh nuclear test, which is something that we remain constantly vigilant about. 

The President did touch upon Haiti in his remarks.  The PRC did not indicate a change of position on that topic in today’s meeting.  We remain convinced that for stability in Haiti, which matters to a lot of innocent people, that the U.N. needs to step up with a peacekeeping mission, the transition of this multinational security support force into a peacekeeping mission.  We’re going to keep working until we secure consensus of the Security Council (inaudible). 

Q    There was a reference that Chinese leader Xi Jinping made (inaudible) small yard, high fences, alluding to the export controls.  Can you talk a little bit more about his concerns about export controls and the degree to which that came up?

MR. SULLIVAN:  President Xi himself in his opening remarks, and the PRC at all levels, has not been shy, both publicly and privately, about raising their objections for U.S. export controls, particularly when it comes to advanced semiconductors and advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment.  Equally, we have not been shy about saying that for very high semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment with national security applications, we are going to restrict that so that it is not used against us or our allies.  And we’ve made no bones about that, and President Biden made no bones about it again today.

We have equally said that this is not a broad-based decoupling of our economic or technology trade with China.  It is high-end, high-level capabilities, a very small fraction of the overall trade that we have with China, and it is squarely focused on the national security concerns we have about these particular forms of both semiconductors and manufacturing equipment. 

So, there was nothing surprising about President Xi raising his concerns about that.  Equally, there was nothing surprising about President Biden reinforcing the rationale for why we have pursued a small yard, high fence policy, a policy we believe that has protected America’s national security and enhanced our innovation edge, and we will continue to support that until the end of this term, and we will continue to advocate to the next team that they carry forward with this policy.

Q    Can you talk a little bit more about the AI nuclear agreement and how imminent of a threat does this impose?  And, kind of, can you put a little more meat on the bone on what that agreement is going to look like?

MR. SULLIVAN:  The way that I would put this is you need to start somewhere, basic principles, and build from there when it comes to trying to develop a common basis for reducing nuclear risk.  And a good place to start is with the straightforward proposition that there should be human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons.

But the fact that the U.S. and the PRC have done this — and, you know, it will be stated as an agreement in our readout today — indicates that we are now building a foundation for being able to work on nuclear risk reduction together, the U.S. and the PRC, and work on AI safety and risk together, which is something that President Biden and President Xi agreed to do out of the Woodside Summit last year. 

I’m not saying someone was imminently going to hand over the control of nuclear weapons to artificial intelligence, so I’m not — I think your question was about whether there’s an imminent risk.  I don’t believe there is an imminent risk of that.  But there is a long-term strategic risk of two significant nuclear powers and two countries with significant AI capability not being able to reach a meeting of the minds on basically anything in those spaces, and that is a risk we are trying to address.  Today is a step in that direction. 

Q    Jake, so just hours before their meeting, President Xi presented himself as a defender of multilateralism and (inaudible).  Obviously, China is a member RCEP.  The U.S. (inaudible) about TPP — we’re not joining TPP, and (inaudible) leaders are concerned about a future U.S. administration that’s more protectionist and isolationist, particularly the fact that President-elect Trump has threatened more power, not just from China but also the rest of the world.  Can you share your response?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I’m not going to comment on a future administration’s policies that have neither been formulated nor articulated.  So, I’m not going to speculate about that. 

What I will say is that we have laid out in clear terms our concerns about non-market economic practices that the PRC has undertaken that don’t just harm American workers, but actually undermine an open Internet and fair and level playing field in the international economic order.  And it’s not just the United States that has raised those concerns.  Countries on multiple continents have begun to take countermeasures against what they perceive to be PRC overcapacity in critical sectors. 

So, we believe that we have been able to build the case effectively over time that some of the approaches that China has taken in this area are harmful to the cause of a level playing field, not helpful to the cause of a level playing field.  And we’ve tried to protect ourselves through targeted tariffs, and we’ve worked with other countries who have taken similar measures, similar steps, and not just traditional allies of the United States, but multiple countries around the world. 

So, I think the world will be able to judge for itself both the PRC’s approach to trade and the U.S.’s approach to trade over time.  What I can say is that we have been clear about both the steps we have taken and also clear about our concerns about PRC overcapacity and what it could do to distort the global economy in ways that are unhealthy.  And that was part of the conversation that the two leaders had today. 

Q    Jake, obviously both of the leaders (inaudible) public statements made reference to this moment of transition for the United States.  I’m wondering if you can characterize how much you have said privately to leaders about this.  Is there a moment, for instance, for the President to warn the Chinese about not seeking to take advantage of this moment of transition?

And I’m also wondering when President Biden met with President-elect Trump, was there an opportunity for him to convey a message (inaudible) to President Xi privately?  Did President Xi ask President Biden to convey a message to President Trump?

MR. SULLIVAN:  To your last question, the answer is no.  President Biden was not a conduit for messages going in either direction.  President Biden noted the obvious facts that there will be a new administration on January 20th, and he did reinforce the point that these next two months are a time of transition in the United States and a time where stability in the U.S.-China relationship is essential.  And he reinforced that with respect to the geopolitical backdrop — cross-Strait relations, South China Sea, et cetera — and with respect to the economic backdrop.  So that was a feature of the conversation in terms of what President Biden laid out.

I’m not going to characterize what President Xi had to say.  I’ll leave that to the Chinese side to do.  But what I would say from President Biden’s perspective: He wasn’t projecting ahead to what was going to happen after January 20th.  He was really focused on the fact that there is a transition unfolding, that President Biden is determined for that transition to be smooth and for him to pass the relationship off, and he would like to pass it off on stable terms to the new administration, and reinforce the point that the two leaders have an obligation to direct their (inaudible) to make that happen.

Q    Jake, I’m wondering if you can — if there was any discussion about the wrongfully detained Americans in China.  I know (inaudible) progress on that front.

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we’ve made important progress on that with the release of David Lin.  They discussed the issue today.  I will not go further than that. 

I don’t have any announcements to make, but they had an important discussion on the subject today, and we’ll continue working every day until our very last to try to secure the release of the unjustly detained Americans being held in China. 

Q    On the PRC’s support for Russia’s war machine, one of your colleagues told us in advance of this trip that it’s probably not going to stop and will be a task also for the new administration.  Does that mean (inaudible) sanctions that you were looking at are off the table now for the next two months?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not have any announcements with respect to further sanctions today.  No announcements of new sanctions and no categorical statements of taking things off the table.

Q    Kind of back to the AI nuclear (inaudible) in September or August, October, China refused to sign on to the deal that came out of Seoul that said no AI use in nuclear launches.  So if that (inaudible) right, has Beijing’s stance changed, and how did it get there?

And you used the specific phrase, “further work on nuclear risk reduction.”  Is that a reference to arms control (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Arms control speaks to how many weapons do you have and where they deploy.  Nuclear risk reduction is the whole family of practices around trying to avoid mistake and miscalculation.  And, by the way, I’m not projecting that there will be further steps.  What I’m suggesting is that responsible nuclear powers have an obligation to work towards further steps.  Whether the PRC chooses to do that or not will be up to them.  But this is an important step both on AI safety and on nuclear risk reduction. 

And I can’t speak to their decision-making.  You’d have to go to them on it.  What I will say is we think we’ve generated something meaningful today.  It is not the end of the line, but it’s the start of something that we hope can be carried forward.

Q    So, you obviously negotiated this ahead of time.  Has their position moved, and has the negotiation (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I guess the way that I would put it is: We did not have this agreement at Woodside.  We had this agreement today.  And I’ll leave it to you to fill in the gaps. 

Q    So, the President just met with Prime Minister Ishiba yesterday.  At the same time, Prime Minister Ishiba was trying to meet next President Trump after G20, but it’s not going to happen because Trump said no.  Do you feel like Prime Minister Ishiba —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Wait, I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand.  You say he’s —

Q    Prime Minister Ishiba was trying to meet President Trump — next President Trump after G20.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh, after.  I thought you said at the G20.  After the G20.

Q    But Trump said no.  Do you feel like Prime Minister Ishiba was (inaudible) something behind the back?  Because President Biden is the president.  What do you feel came of that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not feel that the Prime Minister seeking to engage with the President-elect is doing anything behind the back of President Biden.  I don’t.  I think we have seen multiple leaders make telephone calls to the President-elect, just like in 2020 multiple leaders called President-elect Biden when he was elected.  That’s pretty typical diplomatic practice. 

So, as far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing untoward about that.  And President Biden and the Prime Minister had a very good discussion.  Yesterday was their first in-person meeting, and we feel very good about the state of the relationship, state of the alliance, and the state of the personal dynamic between the two leaders. 

Q    Jake, you mentioned that at the end of meeting that they put notes aside and had some exchange.  Can you describe a little bit more about that exchange?  Was that a farewell message between the two of them?  Or what did they talk about there?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I won’t share too much because, you know, it was between the two of them.  And it was a reflection on having spent a lot of time together over the course of a decade, in pretty high-pressure situations managing a relationship of very high consequence.

I would just say one point the President made was to reinforce something he said publicly quite a bit, which is that what has made the relationship between the two of them function effectively is that they’re able to be very straight with one another, even when they disagree.  And that level of candor, directness, even bluntness at times, has been critical in helping see us through some choppy waters at times, and has been critical in helping us build the foundation to effectively and responsibly manage the competition. 

So it was in the nature of that kind of reflection that President Biden offered.  And I make it a habit not to share what President Xi says in response to that, but they had a bit of a back and forth along those lines, you know, that was quite descriptive, I guess. 

Q    Jake, do you guys have any assurances on — you know, obviously, you have two months left.  I mean, even the agreement on AI, like, do you have any assurances or confidence that Trump is going to implement that or any other things that were discussed today?

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, obviously not.  I mean, we don’t — the incoming administration is not in the business of providing us assurances about anything, and they’ll make their own decisions as they go forward.  But this is a feature of every transition throughout all of time, which is: It’s our job to do all that we can to set the new administration up as effectively as possible, and then they will decide how they’ll take things forward. 

I think there’s a lot that we’re doing, both with respect to the U.S.-China relationship, but also with respect to our alliances, with respect to other partners here at APEC and the G20 that will be carried forward in the natural course of things.  Everything doesn’t get thrown out.  And so, can’t make predictions or speculate.  Certainly have gotten no assurances of any kind, but we’ll keep doing our work until January 20th. 

Q    Thanks, Jake.   Why did President Biden go to President Xi’s hotel for this meeting?  (Inaudible.)

MR. SULLIVAN:  Because in the quite scientific execution of U.S.-China presidential meetings, we do this thing called “my turn, your turn.”  (Laughter.)  And the last meeting the two of them had was at Woodside, in America, where Xi came not just to President Biden’s venue, but to his country.  So it was his turn; therefore, we go to his hotel.  And the time before was Bali; the President went, et cetera.  So it’s highly sophisticated statecraft — (laughter) — that I know is hard, really, to get your head around, but it’s, basically, we go back and forth in terms of who hosts.

Q    President Biden (inaudible) hotel (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  President Xi was the host of the meeting.  So, they chose the hotel.  It was his —

Q    In Bali?

MR. SULLIVAN:  In Bali.  He was the host, yeah.  And then President Biden was the host at Woodside, and now President Xi was the host.

Q    On that note, do you think President Trump should go to the 2026 APEC Summit in Beijing?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I have no advice for the president-elect with respect to travel taking place nearly two years from now.

Q    Jake, from what we saw in the opening remarks, what was notable (inaudible) was a little bit of the tone from President Xi to make a wise choice — “make the wise choice.”  It was one of those messages that had been (inaudible).

I think a lot of us are making the analysis that he’s warning that we’re headed towards another valley in the U.S.-China relationship.  Is that a fair analysis to make?  And how do we avoid a valley when we’re talking about 60 percent tariffs?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I would have to go back and look at PRC public comments, including the President’s public comments, with formulas like that.  But he — the Chinese side makes those forms of public warnings to American officials regardless of political stripe and regardless of administration.  Now, it may take on a different meaning or valence because of the moment we’re in.  And I’m not obviously blind or deaf to that.  But I’m answering the question the way I am because I can’t, obviously, put myself in the head of President Xi, what he was intending, the extent to which it was meant in the spirit that you just described.

I would just say that, broadly speaking, the message of “choose wisely, not wrongly” is a pretty standard, fair PRC statement that they’ve made repeatedly over the course of these past four years, the four years before that, and so on.  And that’s especially been true where the relationship has taken on a more competitive dynamic. 

Look, I’m not going to speculate about 60 percent tariffs, because, as I said before, the administration has neither formulated nor articulated its policy.  So I’d be getting way ahead of you, me, and anyone else by speaking to that. 

Q    Could you characterize the overall atmosphere of the meeting?  Because (inaudible), and you guys always described it (inaudible) but this is the last one.  So could you give us a little more —

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it was similar to the last two, because this — you know, in the end, they had the chance for a more personal reflection, but they conducted a lot of business in areas both where we are making some progress and in areas where there are profound differences between the U.S. and the PRC.  And the two sides did not shy away from the more direct and difficult conversations where the two sides don’t agree. 

So I don’t think the atmosphere was markedly different from the atmosphere at either Woodside or Bali.

Yeah, last question.

Q    I’m just wondering if President Biden and President Xi have (inaudible) relationship after the past (inaudible), and how was it effective in the Biden diplomacy relationship with China?  And do you have any concerns that his personal relationship (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Those of you have interviewed me before and have asked me for anecdotes always find I come up wanting.  (Laughter.)  So, I’m terrible at examples and illustrations and stories.

What I will say is that leader-level engagement and direction is vital to the responsible management of the competition between the U.S. and China.  The tone gets set from the top.  The teams get their direction from the top.  And the execution of the day-to-day management of the relationship is derived from understandings reached between the leaders. 

And the fact that President Biden and President Xi have been able to establish a relationship of candor and directness on issues where they find a common way forward and on issues where they share deep disagreements, I think has been critical to us coming through a number of very difficult points in time in the relationship and, you know, achieving a measure of sustained, responsible management. 

Now, that doesn’t mean this is going to — this has been easy or everything is great.  We have difficulties.  We have challenges.  It is a highly competitive relationship.  It is a complex relationship.  But I think the personal dynamic has helped us manage it very effectively.  And I certainly feel that acutely as someone who’s trying to carry out President Biden’s direction working with my counterpart and with others on the Chinese side. 

So, now we got to keep going for the next two months, and then we’ll see what happens after that. 

Thank you, guys.

Q    (Inaudible) the two leaders?  (Inaudible.)

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it was (inaudible).  (Laughter.)  No.  I don’t.  I don’t.  They had a moment together at the end, of the two shaking hands on the way out.  I (inaudible).

Q    Jake, do you have any other detail on the most recent Chinese hack and how that came up?

MR. SULLIVAN:  And more detail on it?

Q    Yeah.  Like what the conversation was.

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, the issue of the hack of American telecommunications providers did come up.  I’m not going to speak publicly about what was said privately.  And the President made very clear where the U.S. stands on it. 

And as we develop further information, we will absolutely be sharing it with you guys, as we just did most recently with the CISA-FBI statement, and you can expect more of those in the weeks ahead.

Thanks, everybody.

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by APNSA Jake Sullivan on President Biden’s Meeting with President Xi Jinping appeared first on The White House.

Lima Convention Center
Lima, Peru

MODERATOR:  I figured we’d do a quick gaggle on background, attributable to an SAO, reading out the Peru meeting and answer any questions you all have.

So, [senior administration official], do you want to say anything at the top?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So, President Biden had a very warm meeting with President Dina Boluarte of Peru.  The meeting lasted for about 50 minutes — 5-0 minutes. 

In the meeting, they discussed the historic nature of the U.S.-Peru relationship.  The two countries will celebrate 200 years of diplomatic relations in 2026.

President Biden also remarked that this year, 2024, marks the 15th anniversary of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement.

They discussed cooperation between the United States and Peru on counternarcotics, and President Biden highlighted the $65 million donation of nine Black Hawk helicopters to Peru that will take place in the coming period.

They also discussed space cooperation between the United States and Peru.  NASA Administrator Bill Nelson participated in the bilat as well.

There was some discussion of regional issues, specifically Venezuela, and the need for democracies in the region, including the United States and Peru, to continue to support — for the election victory of Edmundo Gonzalez to be acknowledged by the Maduro authorities, and also discussion of migration and how the United States and Peru and other countries in the region can work together to effectively manage the challenges of migration in the region.

So those were the principal issues discussed.

One other item that was mentioned was a donation that’s been made by Caltrain of over 100 locomotives and rail cars to Peru, which will help Peru to modernize its metro system.

And President Boluarte expressed great appreciation for the U.S. contribution to Peruvian infrastructure, and really was enthusiastic about deepening that relationship on infrastructure.

MODERATOR:  Any questions?

Q    Can you talk about the counterterrorism part of it?  Sorry.  The counterterrorism part.  Why are we —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s counternarcotics.

Q    Yeah, sorry.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Counternarcotics.

Q    Why are we donating Black Hawks?  Is that like — are we going to use that to, like, eradicate coca crops or something?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, it’s to fight transnational criminal organizations that are fueling the drug trade in Peru and many other countries in Latin America.  Peru, after several years of an increase in coca production, actually saw a decrease last year for the first time in many years.  And so, the United States is working with Peruvian authorities to help them to build up the capabilities to fight the influence of transnational criminal organizations in Peru.

Q    Was there any discussion of the next administration and what to expect?  Or were they picking your guys’ brains on that aspect at all?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, it really focused on the current U.S. bilateral relationship.  President Biden did underscore the importance of respect for democracy and strengthening democratic institutions, as he does in all of his meetings with democratic counterparts around the world.

But it was a meeting that was very much focused on, frankly, the accomplishments that the Biden administration has had with Peru over the past four years.

Q    So no — Trump didn’t come up at all in any sense?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not explicitly, no.

Q    Any talks of the kind of hub on — that Xi is going to inaugurate, the megaport?  Like, how are leaders feeling about that?  And do they have any sense of what they’re expecting from the U.S. in terms of development financing?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, President Boluarte did mention the port but in reference to the fact that she also saw greater U.S. support and investment in infrastructure in Peru.  Infrastructure is one of her principal priorities.

President Biden did caution that it’s important for countries to maintain very high standards of transparency in their dealings with other partners around the world, including China.

Q    One last one.  What’s the U.S.’s plan at the G20 to regain momentum about Venezuela?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t have any comment on the G20 at this time.

The post Background Press Gaggle on the U.S.-Peru Bilateral Meeting appeared first on The White House.

Lima Convention Center
Lima, Peru

MODERATOR:  We’ll do this on background, attributed to a senior administration official.  Just a couple minutes to read out the trilat meeting.

Do you want to kick us off and provide —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  Maybe just a few comments.

Just finished the trilateral leaders-level meeting between President Biden, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, and the Japanese Prime Minister, Ishiba Shigeru.  The meeting lasted probably just over 40 minutes, simultaneous interpretation.  So they covered a lot of ground.

I was struck by the fact that every leader commented on how extraordinary this — and how extraordinarily important this trilateral cooperation has become.  They all noted that since Camp David, there’s been an incredible acceleration in our work together, and also the areas in which we’re working has really broadened significantly, from security to economics to economic security, technology, really across the board.

They did do a tour d’horizon of sorts across the region and across the world.  They talked about the importance of maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait.  They talked about how closely we’re working, all three of us, in Southeast Asia and in the Pacific Islands.

But the issue that they probably discussed most in depth was the growing threat posed by the DPRK, both the DPRK’s growing missile and nuclear capabilities and also, of course, the really escalatory and destabilizing nature of Russia-DPRK cooperation, particularly, of course, the deployment of North Korean troops into the Kursk region.

So those were the issues that were covered.  And, again, the one that was addressed most in depth was the DPRK-Russia issue.

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

Q    Sure.  The one person you didn’t mention was Donald Trump.  Did his name come up in any of the discussions?  Did the Asian leaders express any concern or seek any insight (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.  As a matter of fact, the President-elect’s name did not come up.  I think you saw in the pool spray the President did note we’re in a time of transition.  He noted, of course, we have a newly elected Japanese Prime Minister, Ishiba.  You know, we’ll have a transition in the United States.

But the focus of the conversation was entirely on, I’d say, two things.  It was the here and now of the challenges and the common interests that we share, and then the recognition that both our shared interests and the shared challenges are enduring.  And that was the nature of the conversation.

Q    Did they talk about consequences for the DPRK, for the Russian (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the way I would term it is all three leaders said we need to continue to follow very closely these concerning developments, and, most importantly, we need to coordinate more closely than ever before on how we’re going to respond.  And of course, our teams are talking every day about the best ways to do that.

Q    So, did any of the leaders talk about the future of burden sharing under the new administration?  I understand that South Korea and the U.S. have just signed sort of like a new agreement that will hold for a few years ahead, which is an increase of the previous agreement on burden sharing.  Did they talk about that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, the Special Measures Agreement issue, you — I think you’ve described accurately.  That was not discussed today.  Again, what we discussed today: Every leader noted how incredibly important this trilateral cooperation has been and will continue to be going forward.  And then we talked about all the different areas in which we’re currently cooperating.

Q    Was the sense on the growing DPRK-Russia relationship that there is something that can be done to sort of break this up?  Or are you all looking at this as a threat going forward that might intensify?  I guess, whatever you’re doing, is that going to —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think, one, there’s an increasing recognition that, more than ever before, security matters between Europe and Asia are indivisible and more interlinked than they’ve ever been before.

But we talked about a number of steps, both diplomatic in terms of our respective military postures and sanctions measures and the like.  All of those things, I think, are options before us, and we’ll have to consider, I think collaboratively, how best to engage going forward.

But there was tremendous convergence on just how destabilizing this growing nexus between Moscow and Pyongyang is for the region.

And, look, I think there was also a recognition that China has a role to play here as well.  And I think there’s a sense that one would think it should not be in Beijing’s interest to have this kind of destabilizing cooperation take place in the region as well. 

Q    There was no discussion of Trump in terms of his relationship with Kim and how that has sort of changed during his years and then into the Biden administration?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  None whatsoever.

Q    Do you think it’s hard to have these conversations in a meaningful way without acknowledging this change in administration that’s going to be coming up?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What we’re focused on is the here and now.  And I know that, of course, as I said at the top, even in front of the press, there was a recognition that we’re in a period of transition.  But as we often say, there’s one president at a time, and the focus of this meeting was what are we going to do together, especially over the next couple of months, to deter particularly these growing threats that I’ve

addressed.

Q    I know there was a pull-aside with the Japanese Prime Minister.  Did Nippon Steel come up?  Was that a discussion today?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t know.  I wasn’t there, so I do not know.

Q    It didn’t come up in the trilat, I assume?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, it did not.

Q    What is the current understanding of how the North Korean troops are being used?  How many are actually in the fight versus, you now, sort of —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t have anything new to report to that.  I think you’ve seen Admiral Kirby and others have spoken extensively from the podium.

But as we’ve talked about, the 10,000-plus North Korean troops that are in Russia, we believe are now all or predominantly in the Kursk region.  We presume they have gone there to engage in combat, but I don’t have anything beyond those top lines that you’ve seen already.

Q    Is there anything new in terms of missile warning systems, the trilateral part?  Or is that just a continuation of what has already been set up?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think you’ll see the three of us will have a statement coming out soon, and we’ll speak to — perhaps it’s already out.  You’ll see there’s an agreement to continue to share in real time missile data.  I think that’s really important.

And even though I’ve emphasized just how broad and deep our cooperation is, I think there was a recognition among the three leaders that, in particular, our security cooperation has probably increased most dramatically, and that’s probably most impactful and most needed at this time, given the growing threats that we talked about.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And the strong recognition by the three leaders that that cooperation, on real-time sharing, needs to be enhanced further in order to respond to these growing threats.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And, look, maybe just reinforcing that, as well, the trilateral military exercise, Freedom Edge, has either — has wrapped or is just wrapping up.

Again, I think this is, really, a tangible manifestation of what we’re doing together in real time.

Q    But can I ask just on the missile warning system: On the increase of that, I think Jake mentioned yesterday that, in particular, a period of transition is a time where the DPRK might try to act provocatively.  So is there urgency during this transition period to make this statement?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What we’re doing is we’re following President Biden’s direction.  We’re going to have the most orderly, peaceful, and effective transition possible, and we’re going to do so in a way that ensures that we do everything to ensure America’s security and prosperity.

And I have to say it would be very unwise for any of our adversaries to think that this is a period of time in which they could try to seek advantage.  That would be a great miscalculation.

MODERATOR:  All right, I think we got to wrap here.

Q    Do you see alignment with the two countries on potential actions you would take in response to the DPRK’s troop deployment?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think — well, look, again, we agree that we’re going to follow — continue following these developments closely, continue our intensive conversations about how to go forward. 

But the word that I would use to describe the conversation would be “convergence.”  Tremendous convergence in our views, our outlook, and our determination to respond collectively to these challenges.  And as for how we’ll do that in detail, I think you’ll see more about that in the coming days and weeks.

The post Background Press Gaggle on the U.S.-ROK-Japan Trilateral Meeting appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One En Route Lima, Peru

3:40 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hey, guys.  Oh, it smells like crab cake back here.

Q    Yes.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have a quick thing at the top, and then I’ll hand it over to Jake. 

So, earlier today, the president announced that Americans have filed more than 20 million new business applications since he and the vice president took office.

Under their leadership, we have had the first-, second-, and third-strongest years of new business applications on — on record and are on track for a fourth.

Business ownership has doubled among Black households and hit a 30-year high for Hispanic households.  New business creation rates hit a 30-year high for Asian Americans.  And the share of women businesses owners is on the rise.

As the president has said, every new small business is an act of hope, and these new business applications represent 20 million acts of hope by the American people.

The Biden-Harris administration will continue to use every tool available to support the small businesses and entrepreneurs that are powering our economic recovery and his nationwide small-business boom.

With that, as you can see, we have the national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, joining us for the gaggle.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

MR. SULLIVAN:  And thanks for joining us here on Air Force One en route to Lima, Peru, for the APEC Summit. 

I’m sure you all studied very carefully my comments yesterday at the podium, so I’m not going to repeat in great detail all the various pieces of business that we intend to get done here over the next few days at both APEC and the G20, with a stop in the Amazon in between.

I’ll just make a few quick points and then open it up for your questions.

First, President Biden enters this APEC Summit with the U.S. in a very strong strategic position in the Asia-Pacific — strong alliances; a strong competitive economic and technological edge; new initiatives in terms of investment, supply chains, trade that are already bearing fruit; the Quad, AUKUS, the Camp David Trilateral, as points on the board that he has put over the course of the past four years.

And so, we’re very much looking forward to the opportunity to engage with leaders from across the region as President Biden wraps up his tenure.

Tomorrow, he’ll have the opportunity to engage with all of the APEC leaders in a larger plenary session, and then he’ll do a trilateral meeting with the president of Korea and the prime minister of Japan.  That trilateral will mark the progress that we’ve made since the Camp David summit, including in the security, technology, supply chain, and other realms.

And also, critically, we’ll focus on making sure that we’ve institutionalized the trilateral so that it will be an enduring feature of American policy in the Indo-Pacific going forward.  And given the bipartisan support for it, we fully expect that it would continue under the next administration — though, of course, they’ll make their own decisions.

Tomorrow, the president will also have the chance to have a brief meeting with Prime Minister Ishiba of Japan — a bilateral meeting — because the two of them, of course, have not had the chance to meet in person since he became prime minister.

And he will have a meeting with President Boluarte of Peru.  And at that meeting, we’ll have deliverables in terms of counternarcotics, rail, and space, as well as, you know, the opportunity to mark nearly 200 years of strong bilateral ties between our two countries.

Then we’ll roll into the next day: the meeting with President Xi, further meetings at a plenary level with the other APEC leaders.  And we’ll have more to share on that on the ground when we do further gaggles with you all and with the traveling press corps. 

Obviously, that meeting with Xi Jinping will be his final meeting with President Xi as president.  It’s an important opportunity to mark the progress that we’ve made in the relationship and also to manage it through this delicate period of transition where we want to maintain a degree of stability, even as we continue to compete vigorously with the PRC.  We need to manage that competition so it doesn’t veer into conflict.

So, with that, let me open it up for your questions.

Q    Just — thanks, Jake — zero in a little bit more on the trilateral tomorrow.  Obviously, (inaudible) as you talked about, you’re trying to institutionalize this trilateral, but it’s also a very tense time with North Korea’s ballistic missile testing and also Kursk. 

How are you guys look — going into looking at this moment?  And is this also now maybe a period, hopefully, of a little bit of quiet with North Korea going past the election?  Or — or is the administration still feeling a bit on edge of where we’re at?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not think we can count on a period of quiet with the DPRK.  Obviously, they’ve continued their ballistic missile testing just in recent days and weeks.  The possibility of a seventh nuclear test remains ever present.  It’s something we’re vigilant for. 

Transitions have historically been time periods when the DPRK has taken provocative actions, both before and after the transition from one president to a new president.  So, that’s something we are watching very carefully and will be watching every day between now and January 20th.

And obviously, it’s a real opportunity for us to consult at the leaders’ level both to be prepared for any provocation that may come, whether it be with respect to missile testing or a nuclear test or other provocations.  It also will be an opportunity for the three to get a coordinated response to the introduction of DPRK soldiers onto the — or into western Russia. 

And obviously, we’ve consulted at multiple levels of government.  I’ve spoken with my counterpart; Secretary Blinken, Secretary Austin have spoken with theirs.  The ROK and Japan have both expressed grave concern about this, just as we have and our European partners have. 

But in terms of the tangible coordination and the policy steps that we can take, this will be an opportunity for the three leaders to talk, make sure we’re on the same page, and that we’re moving out in a coordinated way. 

This is a significant development, and we’re going to treat it with the seriousness with which it deserves to be treated. 

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Can I just — can I just hone in — sorry.  Can I just hone in on — on that trilat?  So, what is the deliverables in terms of actual statements or agreements that will come out of this?  Is there anything that involves nuclear deterrence in the region?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We obviously have bilateral extended deterrence dialogues with both Japan and Korea, and they have both been elevated to new levels under President Biden, and I would say they’re at as robust and intense a level as we’ve seen in recent decades.  So, extended deterrence remains a strong feature of our bilateral relationship. 

There will not be any specific announcement on extended deterrence at a trilateral level, but this will be an opportunity for us to ensure that each of these two bilateral dialogues are working to reinforce one another and that there aren’t gaps and seams between them.  So, it will be part of the agenda tomorrow.

In terms of the deliverables, one of the main things that will come out of tomorrow is the establishment of the secretariat for the trilateral on a going-forward basis so that there is an institutional framework and this isn’t just a series of leaders’ meetings.  It is, in fact, something that has a home in all three governments, and the three governments can cooperate at every level on trilateral collaboration. 

So, for example, on trilateral exercises, we’ve had our first significant trilateral exercise — Freedom’s Edge — and now, at this meeting, they’ll talk about how to step up trilateral exercises. 

We’ve made progress on technology protection, on supply chain diversification, on missile warning and the sharing of data with respect to missile warning.  In all of those areas, we expect to take further steps tomorrow.

Q    Jake, can —

Q    On the introduction of DPRK troops into Russia.  How quickly should we expect to see a response, if you’re using tomorrow to coordinate once again?  And then, I assume also broaden this to other allies who also have expressed concern? 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it’s important to see this not in terms of a single action or day where you would be able to point to it and say, “Aha, that is the response.”  This is a significant development.  It is going to require us to work with our allies and partners to deal with it on an ongoing basis.  There will be multiple elements to how we deal with it that will unfold over time. 

So, I wouldn’t expect to wake up one day and say, “Okay, now we’ve seen it.  We’ve seen what they’re ‘doing’ — quote, unquote — in response to that.” 

I think, rather, there will be a coordinated set of policy decisions that we take — diplomatic, in terms of the material provided to Ukraine, and otherwise — that we will work with our allies and partners on.  That includes our allies and partners in Europe, and it includes Japan and ROK.

Q    And on the — sorry — on the China meeting.  Yesterday, you talked about how the new administration, regardless of what they do, obviously, have to manage this relationship.  What do you see as the biggest China risk for the incoming administration that they face in 2025?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I’ve talked multiple times about how the most significant risk for the United States and for the world is somehow peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is disturbed and we end up in conflict there.  That would be catastrophic for everyone involved: for Taiwan, for Beijing, for us, for the world. 

I wouldn’t necessarily say, given how we have managed cross-strait relations, that that should be something that is at, you know, heightened risk in 2025.  But because of the size of the risk, even if it’s not that likely, it’s something that has to be at the top of the agenda. 

There are more immediate issues that — where the stakes are high but not quite as high as that.  For example, China’s continued aggressive activity and behavior in the South China Sea, its coercion and pressure on countries like the Philippines — the incoming administration is going to have to focus on that right out of the gate, just as we’ve had to focus on that all along. 

And then, of course, there’s the continuing economic and technology relationship, where the United States is going to have to take steps on an ongoing basis to maintain our competitive edge.  Of course, we in the Biden administration have taken a number of those steps, and we’re — you know, there are more things that we can do before we leave, but also the new administration is going to have to carry that agenda forward. 

Q    So, Jake, can I just ask — you’ve talked a little bit about institutionalizing things, making sure that — at the levels below the two leaders, that things are — are going to continue or you hope they will continue.  That’s what is normally done in administration — from one administration to the next. 

You’ve got an incoming administration where people like, you know, Elon Musk say they want to cut $2 trillion.  You have Pete Hegseth at DOD.  You have Matt Gaetz at FBI, saying he’s — just want to get rid of the FBI and the ATF. 

Like, what — forget about the, you know, presidential level.  Do you have any confidence that even, you know, deep down in the bureaucracy, that some of these things that you’re putting into place are actually going to continue?  Or do you — do you feel like even those things that you’re trying to institutionalize are at risk?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Let me try to answer that question with an example.  My example is the Quad, which was first conceived of in the Bush — the George W. Bush administration.  It was then taken forward modestly in the Obama administration, taken forward a bit more in the Trump administration, and then elevated to leaders’ level and institutionalized in the Biden administration.  So, Obama to Trump to Biden, you see continuity and then acceleration of a critical institutional initiative in the Indo-Pacific. 

I use that example because I would put the Camp David Trilateral in a similar category.  It’s the kind of thing that has strong bipartisan support, that has obvious benefits to the United States, that doesn’t involve some massive incremental resource commitment. 

So, I do have some measure of confidence that that kind of initiative, properly institutionalized, can endure and be sustained through the next administration and the one beyond that and the one beyond that.

With respect to the wider suite of policy questions that your — your question raised, I can’t speak to that.  All I can do is look at areas where we believe that we are passing off a strong hand for the United States with our allies and partners and where we want to do everything possible to set them up for success should they choose to carry it forward.

The choice to carry it forward will ultimately be theirs to make.

Q    My question was — was really a kind of tricky way to get you to comment on the president — the next president’s nominees. 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh.

Q    Don’t — you don’t want to do that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not want to do that.  No.  No, I do not want to do that.  

Q    Can I ask a — can I ask a China question, Jake?  So, Xi Jinping in Peru will also be inaugurating this $1.3 billion megaport that’s kind of like a hub for trade connectivity to South America. 

We know that, three years ago, President Biden tried to offer his counter to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.  And since then, it has been scaled down — or maybe you would call it “refocused” — to the two corridors: Luzon and Lobito. 

My question is: In these past years, what has the administration learned in terms of what it can and cannot do in terms of competing with China and offering a viable and more healthy development financing?

MR. SULLIVAN:  First of all, I think it’s just totally wrong to say that the Partnership for Global Infrastructure — PGI — has been scaled down to two corridors.  I don’t know where you got that from.  It’s just not–

Q    Well, you would say “as a refocus.”  But, I mean, in terms of actual —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh, no, no.  Or — or refocused.  I mean, we’ve mobilized more than $60 billion, just the U.S.  And that’s a part of the larger G7.  And that’s not just been for two corridors.  That’s been for investments across Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

So, I — I couldn’t more emphatically reject the notion that PGI is now just focused on two corridors.  I — I’m not sure why you’re proceeding from that premise.

In fact, a lot of that investment is in Latin America, and we will be making announcements when we go to Brazil connected to PGI.  And in Peru alone, you mentioned a $1.3 billion port project that China is inaugurating.  We’ve got more than $6 billion in American foreign direct investment in Peru.

So, I think there’s an interesting dynamic where every time we fly to South America or Africa, the press writes the story: “China is doing a lot; America is doing a little.” 

And then you look at the numbers behind it — the total stock of American investment in Latin America and the Caribbean — and you compare that to what China is doing.  We are, across our private sector and now backed up by tools like the Development Finance Corporation, investing in a wide range of technology, infrastructure, energy, health, and other projects and are an incredibly important player.

And the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Peru has been a significant job creator in the U.S. and a significant job creator in Peru and will — that will continue to be the case as we go forward.

Q    Jake, any progress on Ukraine or Middle East, particularly at the G20, since you’ve got so many allies and also adversaries there?  Or is basically everything on hold until January the 20th with those?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think you’ll see continued activity on both of those accounts.  Nothing is on hold between now and January 20th. 

For example, we’re continuing to work on diplomacy relative to Lebanon.  We’re continuing to seek a hostage deal, even if it’s, you know, the first step in a hostage deal.  And the president just met with the hostage families yesterday.

You know, obviously, we’re continuing to coordinate closely with Israel with respect to the threat posed by Iran and potential response by Iran to Israel’s actions from a few weeks ago.

So, on the Middle East, every single day is going to bring continued action, diplomacy, and work on our part right up until the last minute that President Biden is president. 

I don’t anticipate the G20 is going to be a particularly fruitful venue for that kind of work, at least not at the plenary level.  But obviously, in the side conversations with European counterparts, Middle Eastern counterparts, and others, we’ll continue to try to drive diplomacy forward.

Similarly, on Ukraine, he will have the chance to see his European colleagues, and he will be talking about next steps on Ukraine, including what we’re trying to do to surge military equipment, to allocate all of the resources that Congress has given us, and also to find other ways to strengthen Ukraine so that we hand that account off in the best possible shape to the next administration.

Q    Would that include Eur- —

Q    (Inaudible.)

Q    Would that include Europe doing more for Ukraine?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, we have watched, over the course of the past two and a half years, Europe stepping up to the plate and sharing the burden in relatively unprecedented ways in modern times, in terms of the amount of resources allocated and the types of contributions — military assistance contributions that they have made.

So, we’re going to argue that should continue and that should intensify, because the goal should be to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position on the battlefield so that they have the most possible leverage going into negotiations.

Q    The hostage families were at the White House yesterday.  Is the overall message to those families that there will be a deal that gets done in the next 60 days, or is it better for them to pivot to working with the Trump administration to getting their loved ones home?

MR. SULLIVAN:  What they asked of us and then what they asked publicly is that we start work now with the incoming administration on a coordinated approach so we make maximum use of these 60-plus days so we don’t just wait it out or so that we don’t work at cross purposes.  We’ve indicated we’re prepared to do that.

Q    And then —

Q    Jake —

Q    Sorry, just real quick.  The — there’s a lot of new leaders that are going to be at APEC, at G20.  Biden is an outgoing president.  I mean, what do- — how does he plan to really speak with those leaders that he’s — he could be meeting for the first time?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, in some cases, it will be an opportunity to make sure that he’s taking stock of the health of the relationship. 

So, Prime Minister Ishiba is a good example of this.  They’ve spoken on the phone.  They haven’t met in person.  They’ll meet for the first time.  President Biden will be able to review with Prime Minister Ishiba, really, the historic heights that the U.S.-Japan alliance has reached and then basically say, “This is what I plan to hand off to my successor when he comes in.”

With others, you know, it will obviously be an opportunity for him to convey long-standing American positions that don’t change much from administration to administration, that didn’t change much from the last Trump administration to this one. 

And then, in some cases, he’ll say, “I don’t speak for the incoming administration, so I’m not sure what they’re going to do.  I can only tell you what I believe in.”  So, it’ll be different kinds of conversations with different folks. 

There are a lot of people, though, that he has worked closely with over the last four years at both of these summits, and it will be an opportunity for him to say thank you for great partnership and work together. 

And in cases like President Xi Jinping, it will be an opportunity for him to have a capstone on a relationship dating back more than a decade.

Q    Jake, response to the explosions in Brazil.  Any reaction to that, and has that changed the plans at all for — for this trip?

MR. SULLIVAN:  It hasn’t changed our plans.  Obviously, we are — have expressed our concern and condemnation for any kind of violence.  And we’ve been in touch with Brazilian authorities.  They’re dealing with the situation.  And we look forward to our visit. 

Q    Jake —

Q    Jake — one more, Jake.  Human rights — sorry.

Q    On — on the hostages and the appointment yesterday — or the nomination — announcement of the nomination of Governor Huckabee, who has said some pretty controversial things about Palestinian people.  Does that help the case for you guys to be able to work together with the Trump administration?  And does it just generally help the case for releasing hostages when someone like that is being put forward as the next ambassador to Israel?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I didn’t see the exact comments that you’re referring to, so I can’t quite comment on it.

But what I will say is we’ve expressed our willingness to try to come up with a coordinated approach.  I would hope that President Trump is committed to getting the hostages out.  President Biden certainly is.  And so, we ought to be able to work together on it. 

But I can’t speak to Senator — Governor Huckabee’s comments.

Q    If I could stay on the Middle East, Jake.  So, Human Rights Watch just released a report saying that Israeli officials who have repeatedly displaced and relocated civilians are — and I quote — “committing the war crime of forcible transfer.”  What is the administration’s position on this, considering Israel is well documented to be displacing people over and over again?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I have not seen that report, so I can’t comment on it.

Q    Jake, but what —

Q    Do you have any concerns, from a national security perspective, that Elon Musk is joining President-elect Trump’s foreign leader calls and is weighing in on foreign policy on behalf of leaders like Putin and Xi Jinping?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I don’t have any comment about that.  I’ve just seen the reports.  But they’ll make their own decisions about how they want to engage with foreign leaders.

Q    But can I just come back —

Q    Do you have any concerns about —

Q    Can I just come back on that issue, Jake, about — about forcible transfer, about displacement of Palestinians over and over?  What is just the broad administration’s view on that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  The secretary of state and secretary of defense sent a letter to the Israeli government requesting a series of steps to alleviate the dramatic and terrible human suffering that is unfolding in Gaza as the war continues.  They have now received a response from the Israeli government, and they’re working back and forth together on that. 

The State Department has spoken at some length on the question you just posed, and I’d refer you to them.

Q    It was just about Tulsi Gabbard, if I may.  Do you have any concerns about intelligence sharing with the int- — incoming administration, given her history of comments about Putin and about Syria?  And also, do you think it might — that might be a problem for Five Eyes allies who may be planning to share intelligence and may have concerns about her positions on those things?

MR. SULLIVAN:  As far as I’m concerned, our transition is going to unfold on regular order — the regular process of people moving through the nomination process, people moving through the security clearance process.  Our intelligence community is doing the briefings. 

I am not going to get engaged in that or play a role in that because that is properly the work of the relevant intelligence agencies to do their work.  And so, I don’t — I don’t really have any comment about President’s Trump — President Trump’s nominees or — or public comments and how they relate to the — you know, to this — this issue of intelligence.

Q    Can I just — one more on China.  Part of why you guys manage the relationship the way you have is because you have a channel with your counterpart in China.  Would you — and that’s worked well, I guess you would say.  Would you advise your successor, Mike Waltz, to keep that channel going?  Or what’s sort of your unsolicited advice to the next guy?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I hope to have the opportunity, as we go through the handoff, to speak with my successor about the full range of issues on our plate, including how we went about managing the U.S.-China relationship.  He’ll have his own ideas.  The administration will have their own ideas.  I’ll share my advice, but I’ll share it with him privately rather than publicly. 

Q    Jake, there’s a — the Biden administration put a freeze on LNG exports.  That’s important to a lot of allies that — that the president is going to meet.  Will there be any update on that freeze or — or when — when those export licenses might go out (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I — that’s one you’re — you’ll have to go to the Department of Energy on because they are working through a process with the study.  It was a pause in order to understand fully the implications of continued granting of permits.  They’ve been working through that process, and they will make the determination about how — what the next step is with respect to that study.

Q    You mentioned — Jake, you mentioned work together with Peru on anti-trafficking — drug trafficking.  Can you confirm that the U.S. will be sending nine Black Hawk helicopters for this effort?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I can’t confirm that in this gaggle on this plane, but I will have more to report to you tomorrow in and around the bilat. 

Okay?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, guys.

Q    Thanks, Jake.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Jake.  Thank you.  Okay. 

Q    Can I start?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I feel like — I feel like he did — he did everything.  I don’t need to do much. 

Q    Oh, there’s more.  There’s more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s more.  Okay.  Go ahead. 

Q    Thank — thank you.  On the Matt Gaetz nomination.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the White House just have any general response?  And is the president at all concerned, considering some of the things that the congressman has said in the past?  Is there a concern that he would weaponize the Justice Department in general but also to go after members of this administration or even members of his family?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, a couple of things.  We’re going to certainly continue to respect the process, the transition, the handoff.  We’re going to continue to not — we’re not going to comment on every personnel choice or decision that is made by the president-elect and his transition team.

I will say this — and I think you saw by example from this administration the importance of the Department of Justice being independent and especially as it relates to investigations. 

And I will also add: The only loyalty we believe — and it should be believed — that the Department of Justice should have is to the Constitution and to the rule of law.  There should not be loyalty to any political party.  That is not how the Department of Justice should be run. 

And so, that is something we’ve been very, very clear about — very — and I think, also, you can see by this president leading by example and — and continuing to say the Department of Justice should be independent, especially as we talk about investigations.  Again, any personnel decision or choice, we’re just not going to — to comment on, but we can speak, obviously, as I just did, more broadly.

Q    Can I — can I ask you, then, more broadly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.  Yeah.

Q    The — the president spent so much of the last four years talking about Donald Trump being an existential threat to the — to democracy, to this country, and to everything that the — that — that he and — that he thinks the country believes in. 

Yet, since the election, we essentially haven’t heard anything from him on that subject.  And I wonder, does — is — is he — I guess, should we — should we take from that that he’s going to be comfortable leaving the White House not having expressed any thoughts about what he now fears for the country, because — because he wants to respect a — a clean transition and so, therefore —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m — I mean —

Q    — that’s it? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and he — when he spoke in the Rose Garden two days after the election —

Q    Right.  He didn’t talk at all about that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I — I know.  

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me — let me —

Q    Okay.  Sorry.  Sorry, sorry, sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Give — give me a second.  Give me a second. 

One of the things that he said, aside from, you know, your — your part about a peaceful transition of power, but which actually connects it, is that the will of the people.  The American people decided.  They made a decision on who they wanted the next president to — to be.  And we have to respect that.  The president understands that we need to respect the will of the people. 

And so, this is the time of — any time post-election — right? — especially on the presidential level, like this moment, until the transition, actually, the a- — the official part of where the — where the president — obviously, the president-elect becomes inaugurated on — on January 20th, we have to respect that process.  We do.

Q    So, just to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we do, right?  It — it is — it is — this is what the American people deserve.  They deserve to have a peaceful transfer of power, an orderly transfer of power, and that is what the president is focused on and that’s what he zeroed in on.  And — and that’s what you’re seeing.

It — it is actually — it’s — it’s quite simple.  You know, it is —

Q    (Inaudible) from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — quite direct. 

Q    — all of those people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah?

Q    — millions, tens of millions of people who believed, who were supporters of the pres- — of President Biden’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and believed him when he said that he thought this would be an existential — that — that America might not continue if Donald Trump was elected —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — they now should believe that, you know, it’s whatever, he doesn’t really need to say anything about it because —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — because it’s more important to respect —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — it — I —

Q    — the process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Hold on a second.  I —

Q    Or does he plan —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  First of all —

Q    — to talk about it —

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

Q    — after he leaves office?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, here’s the thing — here’s the thing: What the president said, and I’ve said this many times at the podium, he always believes and feels that the American people are obligated to honesty and the truth.  So, everything that he has shared during the last, you know, almost four years about his thoughts about democracy, democracy being a [under] threat still stands.  That hasn’t changed.  So, I just want to be really clear about that. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What has changed — what has changed is there was an election.  There was.

And here’s the thing: A transition — an orderly transition of power is part of our democratic principle.  It is actually part of continuing —

Q    So — so, him talking would make it — him talking about what he believes this means would make it an unorderly or a disorderly transition?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — you know, I — I’m not going to go that — I’m not going to go that far. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m going to say is that we are in a — po- — a — a position or a — a transition or a — a part of the next — I guess the next part of — you know, after an election where the president has been very clear that the American people — the American people deserve a transition of power that is orderly, that is peaceful, and something, obviously, that was not afforded to him four years ago.  He wants to lead by example, and that is part of our democratic process.  It is.  It truly, truly is. 

Q    Can I ask it —

Q    Karine, was the president reassured by the meeting?

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Whoa.  Whoa.  Okay, guys.  Okay.  (Laughs.) 

Q    Can I ask it in a different way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, if he still believes it, but right now, he is putting the country over —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Country first.

Q    Yes.  Does that mean right now he’s holding fire until the next president is inaugurated, and then we should expect to hear that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — from President Biden again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about post-January.  I — I’m not — I’m — I don’t, like — right?  I — I’m just —

Q    I’m just trying, like, make logic —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not even sure what next week is going to look like.

Q    — work with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But, Jenny, I —

Q    — why he thinks that is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Je- —

Q    –but is holding fire —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, here’s the thing.

Q    — because right now he’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t even — we — you know how this is.  I don’t even know what next week is going to look like.  It’s — we — I’m not going to get into post-January 20th.

What we’re focused on and zero — zero in on and laser focused on is making sure that we are coordinated with the transition — the Trump transition, make sure that they have what they need so we can pass over what we’ve been able to do and give advice to — to an — an incoming administration.  That’s our focus. 

I’m not going to get into what the president is going to do when he’s no longer president.  He’s president right now.

I mean, the American people deserve this.  They deserve to make sure that we do this the right way.  And you’re seeing from this president leadership, and he’s leading by actually executing.

Q    Was he reassured at all by the meeting yesterday?

Q    What was the question?

Q    Was he reassured at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Was — was he reassured by the meeting. 

Look, I — I’m not going to go into any more details than I shared yesterday.  It — as you know, it was almost — it was almost two hours.  It was gracious.  The — the president-elect was gracious.  He — it was a cordial conversation.  He came with a set of questions that I mentioned yesterday that the pr- — that he and the president went back and forth on.  Some were national security pieces, and some were domestic policy pieces.

I’m not going to go beyond that.  I think the president-elect spoke for himself on this yesterday, and so — and I think he pretty much echoed what I shared with all of you in the briefing room.  And so, I’m just going to leave it there.  I don’t have any more details to share. 

Q    Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The president will come to this summit meeting world leaders who’s looking at this on the — you know, the American people electing Donald Trump and then Joe Biden and then Donald Trump again — like some pretty extreme swings of ideology and priorities. 

Meanwhile, Xi Jinping is coming in, and he’s projecting this image of stability — right? — and his vision of China’s role in the global world order.  What would the president say to — to those leaders who are saying that, “Well, we just can’t hold U.S. commitment”?

MS.  JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I think Jake was asked this question multiple times yesterday and — and ha- — did a pretty good laydown, as the national security advisor, about how the president — about where we are and how the president engages with world leaders. 

And I think it’s just going to be a continuation of that: focusing on the moment, focusing on the — whatever 60-odd days that we have, continuing the progress that we’ve made in almost four years, continuing to talk about how we’re going to strengthen those alliances with partners and also continued shared interest. 

And so, there’s going to be a lot on the agenda.  We’ll have a lot more to share.  I know there’s going to be more gaggles at — when we’re on the ground in both countries, as we move forward with this trip.  And so, we’ll have more to share and more of a readout from different conversations, and — and certainly, you know, what came out of the — the meetings when we get there. 

I don’t want to get ahead of that.  But the president truly believes it’s important to have these leader-to-leader engagements.  You see how effective that has been over the past almost four years.  And so, he’s going to give that encouragement, give that assurance. 

And we really can’t speak to what the next administration is going to do.  We can’t.  You know, what we can do is — and Jake talked about this — is have the conversation, have the dialogue, engage with them, give our opinions and thoughts, and we’ll see what happens. 

Q    And if I can ask for an explanation.  A couple of days ago, the president was asked whether he is confident that he could reach a ceasefire before the end of his term, and he gave a somewhat flippant answer.  If you can explain what he meant by that — why did he respond the way he did?  Was he offended by the question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — I think the president — if you — if you know this president and followed this president, obviously, as many of you have — if not for the past couple of years, certainly throughout his career — you know, he’s taken this issue very seriously.  And when we say that we’ve worked on getting a ceasefire, we’ve worked on wanting to not escalate what’s happened in the Middle East, you know, having those diplomatic conversations, for example, with what’s going on in Lebanon.  He takes this all very seriously.  And —

Q    So, was he offended by the question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I — I — honestly, I can’t even speak to that — how he felt about the question — because I haven’t talked to him, so I can’t make a judgment on that. 

What I can say is this is a president who takes — it doesn’t matter if it’s diplo- — domestic issues or foreign policy issues, he takes this very seriously.  And when it comes to a ceasefire, making sure that we get the hostages home.  Remember, we have American hostages as well who are there.  We want to make sure we get them home. 

Q    So, why does — why does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re working on this 24/7.

Q    — taking it seriously lead to a joke about somebody being hit in the head by a — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean, honestly —

Q    — camera?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I mean, Michael, I just kind of answered this.  I — I didn’t talk to him about it.  So, I can’t — I — I —

Q    But, Karine, you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have eno- — I can’t speak to what the president meant about it.  What I can tell you is he is deeply committed to making sure that we get the hostages home, to making sure that we get to a ceasefire, to making sure that the Palestinian people, who are suffering in Gaza, get the ho- — get the — get the humanitarian aid that they need. 

And so, I can’t — I have not spoken to him, so I can’t speak to it directly.

Q    I know you haven’t spoken to him. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But, I mean, you know the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do.

Q    — and you know his mood.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do, but I —

Q    — was he frustrated by the lack of progress?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re — it doesn’t matter how many times you ask me this question, I’m going to give you the same answer.  The president is committed to getting a ceasefire deal, and he takes this very personally as well and takes this, obviously, very seriously.  And I’m just going to leave it there.

Q    What did —

Q    Go ahead.  Go ahead, (inaudible).

Q    Earlier you mentioned — I didn’t hear Patsy’s question; hard to hear from this corner — the — Biden wants to engage with leaders.  He is not choosing to engage with the press.  There is no press conference on either leg of this trip.  I- — he has a matter of days left.  I mean, what — what was the issue with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, not days.  What — 60 — 60-some-odd days. 

Q    Sure.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But you make it sound like we’re out of here next week.  (Laughs.)

Q    Less than a hundred.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Less — okay, that’s better.  Less than a hundred days. 

Look, the president is very much looking forward to his — this historic trip.  He often — regularly takes questions from all of you, and he is going to continue to engage with the press. 

And so, what I would say is stay tuned.  He will continue to do that.  And I just don’t have anything beyond that.

Q    (Inaudible) these press conferences — post-election press conferences in most administrations has been sort of a set piece.  Does that say something about where his head is at, that he’s not in a pl- — in a place —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, as — as your colleague said —

Q    — where he can engage with us?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — we have less than a hundred days left.  So —

Q    Right, right, right.  But we — we typically have these —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have — we have time. 

Q    There is — I — I understand that calendar, but we — it’s now — what? — 10 days now we’re past the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Hold on a second.

Q    Typically — typically presidents do engage

with the press —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It — it didn’t happen with the —

Q    With Trump. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  With Trump.  And I don’t believe it —

Q    But when — when —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t —

Q    Obama did within days with George Bush.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he held a — he held a — a — well, okay.  I’m not going to go back and forth on that.  But he continued — he will continue to engage with the press.  He respects and understands the — obviously, the importance of the work that you all do, especially as it relates to communicating and — and communicating directly with the American people. 

I just don’t have anything more to share.  And he’ll continue — he will continue to engage with the press.  I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q    But can you commit that he will speak to us during — during —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  I — I — (laughs).

Q    I mean, Karine — Karine, this is a long and expensive trip for our outlets.  We would —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I understand that.  I get that.  I’m just saying that he is going to continue to engage with the press.  I don’t have anything beyond that to say.  He will continue to engage with you.  He respects and understands the important role that you all have, and we will continue to do that. 

You’re trying to lock me into something.  I’m just not going to lock — get locked into anything.  I’m just going to tell you to — continue to say he will engage with the press, and he enjoys doing that. 

All right.

Q    Can I — did the Trump meeting accelerate some of the formal parts of the transition process?  I understand their — the MOU hasn’t been signed yet.  Has that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Has that accelerated some of the technical parts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we believe that it’s going to happen.  And I’ve said this many times before.  The co-chairs of the Trump transition said that they’re going to sign the MOUs.  I would refer you to the — to the Trump transition about that. 

We want to get this going.  We — we are — I mean, it doesn’t stop.  I know we — we’ve talked about the MOUs.  You all have asked me about that.  And obviously, that’s important to get that done.  But it doesn’t stop what has been happening.

Yesterday, a conversation between the — the two presidents.  Our teams are continuing to talk and have had, I — I think, important conversations on — as it relates to transition. 

And I would relate y- — refer you, pardon me, to — to the Trump — Trump team about the MOUs.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — on the Amazon part of the trip.  Obviously, in many areas, you can say you don’t know what the next administration will do, but on climate, they have been kind of clear.  They do- — you know, they want to dismantle basically everything you’ve done on climate.  So, how does that cloud the president’s trip down there and any deliverables that will come out of it that could literally be ripped up in 60, 70 days again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t think it clouds his trip.  He’s very much looking forward to going to the Amazon.  It’s a historic trip, obviously, for a president to make. 

We certainly will have more on the deliverables and what that’s going to look like.  I think we put out a fact sheet this morning on — on that, specifically. 

Look, we are going to do everything that we can to make this transition work in a way that it should on behalf of the American people. 

The Trump administration, when they come in on January 20th, they’re going to do what they believe is — what they believe is — is the way forward. 

And what w- — we can speak to is what we’re going to continue to do right now, in this moment, as the president is president, on behalf of the American people.  That’s our commitment.  That’s what we’re going to be focused on. 

And outside of that, I just don’t have anything else to share. 

Q    Well, you kind of know that it’s not lasting, whatever will be announced right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get ahead of what — what the Trump administration is going to do or not do.  I’m just not going to get ahead of that.

Q    Can you speak to the president’s mood at all?  G- — sorry. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s okay.  It’s okay, Danny.  Go ahead.

Q    Can you speak to the president’s mood at all going into this meeting? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You know, I mean, it’s — he was — would have hoped to go — be going down there with a, you know, Kamala Harris election victory under his belt.  Now he’s not.  A sense of sadness, regret?  What —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we have not hid this.  Right?  We’ve been very clear.  Like, we did not get the results that we wanted.  I mean, that is just an honest answer. 

And — and I know that it’s very disappointing for many people out there, and it is disappointing.  But we also are going to respect the will of the people.  I mean, that is not just a line that I’m throwing out there.  That is something that we’re actively trying to do and respect that.  That is certainly part of the democratic process — is what we’re trying to do here in this transition. 

And he’s very much looking forward — he’s very much looking forward to this trip.  It’ll be his last G20 he’s g- — obviously, in — in Brazil — and get to see some of the world leaders that he has worked with not just for the last almost four years, but some of them he has known for some time.  And there’ll be, obviously, the APEC in Peru.  And he’s going to do this historic stop — as I was going back and forth with Jenny on — in the Amazon. 

And so, I think this is going to be a — a important trip, a good trip for the president.  He and — and you guys will get to — to see him engage, as he normally does when he does these trips.  And I think it’s — I think — you know, I think there’ll be some — I think we’ll have more to share.  I’ll s- — I’ll leave it there.  We’ll have more to share on what comes out of it.

Q    Can I ask on one of the initiatives that Brazil —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, you cannot ask any more questions, Patsy.  (Laughs.)

Q    Karine — Karine, it’s the same — it’s

the same line of questioning that Jenny asked —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — in terms of commitment.  Right? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Like, one of the things that — that the president will attend is this global alliance for —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to fight hunger and poverty —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — by Brazil, which is a key, important G20 initiative.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, it is.

Q    So, what can the U.S. commit that will, you know, have durability?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ll have more to share on that.  You’re right, it is a key initiative and is important.  It’s so- — it’s a initiative that we certainly have lead on on the global stage, and we’ll have more to share.  We’ll have more to share —

Q    Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — what comes out of that. 

Thanks, guys. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

4:25 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan En Route Lima, Peru appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

10:05 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thank you so much for joining today’s call.  This is Michael Feldman with the NSC press team. 
 
I’m just going to start up top with the ground rules.  Today’s call is attributed to — on background, attributed to senior administration officials and will be held under embargo until 12:30 p.m. Eastern. 
 
Today’s call is to preview the upcoming bilateral meeting between President Biden and President Xi at the APEC Summit in Peru.
 
For awareness and not for attribution, today’s speakers are [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].  With that, I will turn it over to [senior administration official] to provide opening remarks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thank you so much.  And thanks so much for joining today.  I’m cognizant there are many news stories.  I’m glad you chose to spend a bit of time with us today.
 
On November 16, President Biden will meet with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China on the sidelines of the 2024 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Lima, Peru.  We’ve been working towards this meeting since National Security Advisor Sullivan visited Beijing in late August.  And as you’ll recall, he briefed the press at that time that we expected the two leaders to meet later this year on the margins of either APEC or G20.
 
This will be the third in-person meeting between the two leaders since President Biden entered into office.  They previously met in Bali, in 2022, on the margins of the G20, and at Woodside, in 2023, on the margins of APEC, exactly one year and one day ago from this upcoming meeting.
 
The two presidents have known each other for more than a decade, dating back to when they were both vice presidents, and have spent many hours in meetings together.  We expect this will be their last meeting as presidents. 
 
With that in mind, we expect the President will use the opportunity to take stock of efforts to responsibly manage competition over the last four years, how the two countries have advanced areas of shared interest, and, even amidst deep differences and intense competition, have worked to do so.
 
Throughout his time in office, President Biden has emphasized the importance of responsibly managing one of the world’s most consequential relationships.  And from the very beginning of this administration, four years ago, President Biden made it clear the United States would advance and protect our interests at home and abroad.  And the framework of this administration’s China policy — invest, align, and compete — has remained constant over the last four years.
 
The President has prioritized investments and sources of U.S. strength at home, strengthened our alliances abroad, and taken commonsense measures to protect U.S. technology and national security.
 
As mentioned before, at the same time, the President has demonstrated that our two countries can and must manage our differences and prevent competition from veering into conflict or confrontation by maintaining open lines of communication and advancing cooperation in areas of shared interest. 
 
I expect President Biden will want to take stock of the progress we have made in a number of areas since the Woodside Summit last year.  That cooperation can be an important stabilizing force in the relationship.  For example, over the last year, the two sides have resumed military-to-military communications at all levels.  At the senior level, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown, Secretary of Defense Austin, and the INDOPACOM commander have met or had telephone calls with their PRC counterparts over the last year.
 
The U.S. and the PRC also restarted the Defense Policy Coordination Talks in January of 2024 and have carried out agreed-upon defense engagements since, to include the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement, MMCA, which is an operator-to-operator level talks that was just held earlier this month, and Crisis Communications and Prevention Working Group that was held in late October. 
 
These discussions are important to avoid misunderstanding and miscalculation.  And for the first time this year, I should add as well, both sides pre-notified their respective ICBM launches.
 
President Biden has made clear and will continue to emphasize the importance of maintaining military-to-military communications at all times and especially during times of heightened tension.
 
On counternarcotics, another outcome of Woodside, the two sides have strengthened joint law enforcement actions and increased information sharing over the last year.  Since the resumption of counternarcotics cooperation last November, the PRC has scheduled over 55 dangerous synthetic drugs and precursor chemicals, shut down dozens of online platforms and stores, and arrested hundreds of individuals involved in the illicit chemical industry. 
 
In just the last month, the PRC has moved to arrest two different groups of individuals that were indicted in the United States, and we managed to do joint announcements on both of those.  Joint but separate.
 
All of these steps are helping us combat the global fentanyl crisis at home and contributed to the decline in overdose deaths and disruption in the supply of illicit fentanyl that we’ve seen over the last year.
 
On AI, the two sides have recognized the novel risks posed by frontier AI models and have begun to have difficult but productive conversations about AI safety and risk.  These discussions paved the way for the PRC at UNGA to co-sponsor the first-ever AI resolution proposed by the U.S. in March and, for later in the summer, the U.S. to co-sponsor the PRC’s AI resolution.
 
On climate, our countries’ envoys have also had deep and meaningful discussions over the past four years, leading to three far-ranging joint statements that have set the stage for climate commitments on greenhouse gas reductions, peak emissions, and renewable energy.  Those discussions are continuing this week, of course, at COP.
 
Equally importantly, the President intends to use this meeting to discuss areas of difference and how to manage those differences in the period ahead.  I expect the President will express deep concern over the PRC’s support for Russia’s war against Ukraine, as well as the deployment of over 10,000 DPRK troops to Russia, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces.  We are increasingly concerned about the consequences for longer-term stability in both Europe and the Indo-Pacific of this deployment.
 
I expect the President will warn that cyber pre-positioning on civilian critical infrastructure and engaging in reckless attacks against our critical networks are unacceptable.  These actions have the potential to destabilize the bilateral relationship and lead to an even broader de-risking away from PRC technology. 
 
I expect the President will also underscore the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and express his concerns that the PRC’s increased military activities around Taiwan are destabilizing and eroding the status quo. 
 
The President may also express concern over PRC actions in the South China Sea, including PRC coast guard actions against lawful maritime operations by other South China Sea claimant countries. 
 
In his many conversations with President Xi, President Biden has consistently also underscored the critical importance of respect for human rights, and I expect he will do so again. 
 
And of course, the President will also underscore his longstanding concern with the PRC’s unfair trade policies and non-market economic practices, which have over time created an unlevel playing field for American workers. 
 
Let me pause there and see if there are any questions.  Back over to you, Michael.
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you.  We will now take some questions.  Also, just a reminder, for those of you who might have joined late, this call is under embargo until 12:30 p.m. today. 
 
Our first question is going to go to Trevor.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  What will President Biden tell President Trump about managing the China relationship?  And what will President Biden tell President Xi about managing Trump?  Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question, Trevor.  I think I’ll stay far away from some specific comments on that and instead just say: Look, this is a difficult, complicated but consequential relationship.  And the President has been pretty clear that even amidst the competitive aspects of the relationship, we need to find a way to manage it responsibly. 
 
He’ll probably reflect over the last four years what we have found works in that sense.  Having leader-level channel of communications are an important way to do that.  The strategic channel between Director Wang and National Security Advisor Sullivan was also an important way to have difficult, low-profile conversations about the issues that matter.  And then, the working-level communications — military-to-military level operators, the law enforcement back-and-forth that restarted after Woodside — these have all been critical to lending an element of stability to the relationship, even amidst the deep differences.
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you.  Our next question is going to go to Aamer.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey, thank you.  How concerned is the President, going into this meeting, that the progress that’s been made in some of these areas that you’ve already enumerated are going to go to waste with the incoming administration, specifically with the promised tariffs that Trump has promised on the campaign trail?
 
And then secondly, can you speak to how broadly the President will speak to President Xi about these coming tariffs? Will he — in some sense, is he going to offer or, rather, ask President Xi to show some restraint himself?  Thanks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question.  Look, I’ll refer you to the incoming administration for any questions on what they intend to do.  We really can’t comment on that. 
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you.  Our next question is going to go to Demetri.
 
Q    Thank you.  Good morning.  Has the U.S. run out of time to impose sanctions on Chinese financial institutions to try and reduce Chinese support for Russia’s industrial or defense industrial base?  Or will President Biden warn Xi Jinping that this is his last chance to take action to avoid U.S. sanctions on financial institutions and banks?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question, Demetri.  As you know, this has been a key topic of conversation in nearly — well, in every senior leader-level engagement, as well as those at the Cabinet level, between their counterparts, this concern we have about Chinese support for the Russian defense industrial base. 
 
Over the last four years, we have rolled out hundreds of sanctions against Chinese entities.  We have had ongoing conversations about where we see activity of concern.  We have worked to ensure that we’re cutting off mechanisms where we can.  And I think you see that reflected in some of the public statements in recent meetings between Russian and Chinese counterparts, where, you know, they are highlighting the need for better or different financial mechanisms.  We are working hard to squeeze that as much as we can. 
 
It’s not going to stop.  I think that is going to be a continuing topic of conversation, not just in this bilateral meeting, but a task for the next administration as well — how we continually work to try to limit that support for the Russian defense industrial base and, by extension, the war in Ukraine.
 
Q    Can I just ask: Have you seen any evidence that China has actually reduced its support as these other measures have been taken?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, I think we look at the trade figures between the two countries, and we do not see a reduction in the trade of concern.  We have, I think, noted publicly where we have seen the PRC take actions that are more constructive public statements about no use of tactical nuclear weapons, for example, at the onset of the conflict.  The decision — public and what we have seen, as well, in conversations with our other partners — no provision of lethal assistance.  But still, you know, there is much more that we seek, and there are actions we’d like to see them to take.  So I expect that will be part of the conversation, not just in this meeting but in others as well. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question is going to go to Asma.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey.  Thank you, guys, for doing this.  I have another question as it relates to the incoming new administration, because I think there’s a lot of curiosity on our end about that.  I wanted to get a sense from you of how much continuity you see on China policy with some of the choices that the Trump administration has made in terms of sort of selections of Cabinet picks and just broad policy suggestions he has made. 
 
And this question comes from the fact that a number of outside experts have told me that China was one area of rather broad consensus and not as much differentiation between the first Trump term and President Biden.  So, I wanted to get a sense of how much continuity of policy you see.  Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question.  I’m going to stick with the line: I can’t comment on what the next administration will or won’t do and what their policy direction will be.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question is going to go to Patsy.
 
Q    Hi.  Thank you for doing this.  I’m going to try again.  I mean, I know you’ve said over and over you can’t answer specifically on the next administration, but can you just shed a little bit of light in terms of what could the President broadly say to President Xi Jinping in terms of future managing relations, particularly on Taiwan and the South China Sea?  I mean, we see, you know, the group of Trump appointees that signal some pretty hawkish positions on China.  Is there anything you can say?  Thanks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, I think the way I come at this question is: This is a tough, complicated relationship between the U.S. and China, and so whatever the next administration decides, they are going to need to find ways to manage that tough, complicated relationship. 
 
What the President will use this meeting and what I expect he will use this meeting to do is reflect on how this administration has approached it, what we see has worked, the channels of communication, the tough, private conversations, the actions that we have still taken to defend American national security.  And then, you know, the areas that I have highlighted in this conversation — Russia, cross-Strait issues, South China Sea, and cyber — are areas the next administration is going to need to think about carefully, because those are areas of deep policy difference with China, and I don’t expect that will disappear.
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you.  Our next question is going to go to Nick.
 
Q    Hey, guys.  Thanks very much.  Different topic.  As the President flies down to Lima, Xi Jinping is opening what will be the second-largest port, I believe, on this side of the Pacific Ocean, after Long Beach — a Chinese port in Peru.  This is not a new story, but the Peruvian Ambassador told me the other day that there’s not enough U.S. investment in Peru or Latin America, and the Chinese have better offers. 
 
Again, it’s not a new story, but do you believe the U.S. is already — or has already fallen behind when it comes to infrastructure development and Chinese influence in Latin America, given that’s where you’re going for this meeting?  Thanks.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Nick, thanks for the question and for the shift in topic as well, I should say.
 
Look, I think Chinese infrastructure investment overseas is not a new topic.  As you point out, we’ve, in fact, seen it reduce over the last couple of years due to the challenges they’re facing both domestically but also in some of these projects overseas. 
 
So, look, I would say this administration has focused very much on how we try to bring private investment — private sector investment to bear overseas, the important impact that can have in high standards in ensuring that the terms of agreements are such that they are contributing to host countries’ long-term stability or long-term fiscal stability.  And we’ve done this through the Quad.  We’ve done this through PGI, through IPEF, through APEC, through various other acronyms that I will not bore you with, but just to say that we recognize the value of investment overseas and what an important role that plays in encouraging economic (inaudible).
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you.  Our next question is going to go to Annie.
 
Q    Hi there.  Thanks for doing this.  The President has spoken extensively about his relationship with Xi and the amount of time that they have spent together.  Can you just reflect a little bit on what the President’s mood has been like, kind of going into this meeting, which, as you pointed out, is probably their last meeting?  I mean, are they — is he a little — just, I can’t imagine — can you talk a little bit about just his mood in this moment? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, you know, without getting into specifics, I would just say that this has been and the President said publicly that he feels this is an important, consequential relationship.  And his personal management, I should say as [redacted], has been important to any progress that we have made.
 
I think he and Xi had known each other for over a decade, have had meetings with each other for over a decade, both as vice presidents and as presidents, both in China and the United States and on the margins of these multilateral meetings.  These engagements are not easy.  The conversations are not easy.  But as the President has said, in fact, at Woodside, they speak candidly and forthrightly to each other, and there is — that frankness has been important in managing the relationship. 
 
I think as the President heads into this meeting, he’s going to be focused, as he has been in every other engagement, on delivering results for the American people.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question is going to go to Aurelia.
 
Q    Hi.  And thank you so much for taking my question.  I
wanted to know: Has the incoming administration gotten any classified briefing on the relationship with China, or have they requested any?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  You know, I think I’d refer you to the transition teams for any questions about that.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question is going to go to Phelim. 
 
Q    Hi.  Good morning, everybody.  Can you hear me?
 
MODERATOR:  Yep.
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks so much.  You’ve given a really good list of things that — the achievements of the administration vis-à-vis the relationship with China, the list of the outstanding issues that they’re concerned about. 
 
My question is this: What are, like, the one or two sort of top items that President Biden would like to get some kind of agreement on that he can bring home from this meeting in APEC?  It’s his last meeting with Xi.  What is on his list of things he wants to get done?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question, Phelim.  I think, look, these meetings are different than many of the bilateral engagements.  There’s not a long list of outcomes or deliverables.  We did work hard at Woodside to focus in on three different issue sets — the mil-mil, counternarcotics, and the AI piece — and focused in on those small steps forward to reestablish channels to ensure that we were able to deliver results in those areas. 
 
I think this meeting will reflect on the progress to date, and we’ll expect to try to continue to ensure that we’ve got those channels working, law enforcement and mil-mil in particular, which we see as critical to underpinning stability in the relationship in the period ahead.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michael Martina.
 
Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  You know, the Biden administration has made a point for a long time now that it was held in high priority the wrongfully detained.  So, given that this is likely to be their last meeting, is President Biden concerned about making progress, any kind of last-ditch effort to get some of these wrongfully detained out?  I’m not asking you whether that will actually happen, I guess, but whether or not the President is trying to make that happen before he leaves office.  Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks so much for the question, Michael.  I would — thank you, and thank you for flagging this issue.
 
As he has in all meetings with Xi, I expect that he will call for the release of U.S. citizens that are wrongfully detained or under exit bans in China.  As you all know, that has been a personal priority of the President during his time in office.
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you very much.  And thank you all today for joining.  Just as a reminder, this call is on background, attributed to senior administration officials and under embargo until 12:30 p.m.
 
If we didn’t get to your question, please feel free to reach out to myself or the NSC press team distro, and we’ll be happy to take it.  Thank you very much, and have a great rest of your day. 
 
10:26 A.M. EST      
 
 
 
 

The post Background Press Call on the President’s Meeting with President Xi Jinping in Peru appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:49 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone.

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, okay. (Laughter.) I’m excited to see you all too.

Okay. So, today, President Biden met with President-elect Trump for approximately two hours in the Oval Office. White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients and incoming Chief of Staff Susie Wiles joined the meeting.

It was substantive meeting and exchange of views.

They discussed important national security and domestic policy issues facing the nation and the world.

President Biden also raised important items on Congress’s to-do list for the lame-duck session, including funding the government and providing the disaster supplemental funding the president requested.

Finally, the president rei- — reiterated what he said to the president-elect the day after the election and to the American people in the Rose Garden just last week: We will have an orderly transition and a peaceful transition of power.

With that, as you can see, I have the national security advisor with me, Jake Sullivan, who is going to preview APEC in Peru and also G20 in Brazil. The president is going to be leaving tomorrow, as you all know.

And, Jake, the floor is yours.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thanks, Karine. And hi, everybody. I’m going to make some brief comments about the president’s trip that he leaves on tomorrow, answer a few questions, because I know the issue you are most interested in is hearing from Karine about the meeting, so I will not dally too long up here. But I think it is important to lay out the president’s trip here over the next several days.

Tomorrow, he travels to South America. His first stop will be Peru for the APEC Summit — the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit — and then he’ll go on to Brazil for the first-ever presidential trip to the Amazon and then to the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

At APEC, the president will reinforce America’s leading role in the Indo-Pacific. And over the last four years, he has markedly enhanced our strategic position in this vital region, from our treaty alliances to AUKUS to the Quad to the historic trilateral with Japan and Korea.

And with respect to that trilateral, he will meet with President Yoon of South Korea and Prime Minister Ishiba of Japan to celebrate the historic cooperation between our three nations and discuss the importance of institutionalizing the progress we’ve made so that it carries forward through the transition.

While in Lima, President Biden will also meet with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China. This will be the third in-person meeting between the two leaders since President Biden came into office and their final meeting as presidents. They previously met, as you know, in Bali in 2022 at the G20 Summit and at Woodside, California, near San Francisco in 2023 on the margins of APEC Summit, which was exactly one year and one day ago.

And throughout his time in office, President Biden and his team have worked to effectively and responsibly manage the competition between the United States and the PRC.

The president’s approach on the PRC has prioritized investments in sources of American strength at home, including growing the middle class and ensuring that America maintains its industrial capacity and its innovation edge in fields such as semiconductors and artificial intelligence.

He has strengthened our alliances around the world and especially in the Indo-Pacific, he has boosted American deterrence, and he’s ensured that America remains the partner of choice for countries both in the region and across the world.

The president has also taken commonsense measures to advance our national — national security and protect our most sensitive technologies to prevent them from being exploited or used against us by the PRC, including through significant new export control measures.

At the same time, the president has demonstrated that the U.S. and the PRC can manage our differences and prevent competition from veering into conflict or confrontation, and he has done that by ensuring the maintenance of open lines of communication at the leader level, at the military-to-military level, and at every level of our respective governments. And we’ve also worked to advance cooperation where our interests align, including on counternarcotics and climate change, which is what the people of our two countries expect and what the world expects.

And this meeting between President Biden and President Xi will be an opportunity to ensure a smooth transition and also to continue to keep those channels of communication open, including those especially critical military-to-military channels of communication.

Of course, in Lima, President Biden will also meet President Boluarte of Peru to mark the strength and durability of our bilateral relationship with Peru.

After that, the president will travel to Brazil, and he’ll start with a historic stop in the Amazon to underscore his personal commitment and America’s continuing commitment at all levels of government and across our private sector and civil society to combat climate change at home and abroad. And this has been, obviously, one of the defining causes of President Biden’s presidency.

While in Manaus, in the Amazon, President Biden will visit the rainforest, engage with local leaders who are working to preserve and protect this critical ecosystem. And as I noted, this will be the first-ever visit of a sitting U.S. president to the Amazon.

President Biden will then travel to Rio de Janeiro to par- — participate in his fourth and final G20 Leaders’ Summit.

High on the agenda there will be issues associated with debt sustainability for low- and middle-income countries; mobilizing finance for infrastructure — physical, digital, energy infrastructure around the world; and also dealing, obviously, with the major geopolitical issues of the day, from Ukraine to the Middle East.

As you all know, the G20 is a unique forum. It includes both our closest allies and partners as well as our adversaries, and pulling this group together around shared challenges is never easy, but we do expect to make some progress, particularly around debt and finance, during our time in Rio.

The president, of course, will also meet with President Lula of Brazil. The two leaders have really built a strong, productive relationship over the last four years, and they’re looking forward to have their final meeting together as presidents as well.

So, we’ve got a busy week ahead of us.

And with that, as I said, I’ll take a few questions and then turn it back over to Karine.

Yeah.

Q Thanks again for doing this, Jake. In the run-up to the election, President Biden warned that allies were worried about America’s commitment to the world. What’s his message to those allies after this election?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, he is going to have the same message that he’s had for four years as president, which is that he believes that America’s allies are vital to America’s national security. They make us stronger. They multiply our capability. They take a burden off of our shoulders. They contribute to our common causes, including the cause of standing up for freedom and territorial integrity in Ukraine.

And as I noted in my opening comments, when he goes to this Asia-Pacific summit in Peru, he’ll go with our alliances in the Indo-Pacific at a literal all-time high — Japan, Korea, Australia, the Philippines — a really remarkable record over four years. And that’s what he’s going to hand off to President Trump.

And he is going to be making the case to our allies and, frankly, to our adversaries that America is standing with its alliances, investing in its alliances. And then asking its allies to step up and do their part, which they have done these past four years, is central to American strength and capacity in the world.

That will be his message. It’s a message of principle. It’s a message of practicality. And it’s been one of the causes of President Biden’s life.

Yeah.

Q Karine said national security obviously came up in the meeting today. You’ve suggested that the president would make the case to the president-elect not to walk away from Ukraine. Was that message conveyed? How was — it was — how was it received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I’ll let Karine speak to what happened in the meeting. I will only note that President Biden reinforced his view that the United States standing with Ukraine on an ongoing basis is in our national security interest. And it’s in our national security interest because a strong Europe, a stable Europe, standing up to aggressors and dictators and pushing back against their aggression is vital to ensuring that we don’t end up getting dragged directly into a war, which has happened, obviously, twice in the 20th century on the European continent.

So, the president has made this case. He’ll continue to make this case both privately and publicly. And he will make the case that our investment in Ukraine, the — the funds that the Congress has appropriated, these aren’t just dollars that we’re picking up and shipping over to another country. They’re dollars we’re investing here in the United States in American jobs, producing American weapons that we send to Ukraine and American weapons that we are building to expand our own industrial base and our own military capacity to deter other adversaries all around the world.

So, he laid this out. He will continue to make this case as we go forward. And as we go through this transition, it will be our responsibility as the national security team to lay out for the incoming team both what we see and a — you know, in terms of the current situation — and how we believe that the United States of America, through this transition and beyond, can put Ukraine in the strongest possible position on the battlefield so that it’s in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table for an ultimate deal.

Yeah.

Q The families of the American hostages who are held in Gaza are going to meet with President Biden today. We’ve heard from the families that they would like to see the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration work together to try to secure the release of these hostages.

Do you see any room for cooperation or coordination between your team, the president’s team, and Trump’s team to try to get a deal before Biden leaves office?

MR. SULLIVAN: I met with the hostages myself yesterday, and, as you noted, President Biden will meet with the — the families of the hostages yesterday, and President Biden will meet with them very shortly. And they asked me this question, and I was very simple and emphatic with them: Yes, of course, we’re prepared to work with the incoming team in common cause on a bipartisan basis to do everything in our collective American power to secure the release of the hostages, both living and deceased.

So, we are open to have that engagement, have that collaboration, and we will continue to work in every remaining day that President Biden has in office, that we have in these jobs to try to bring those — those hostages home to their loved ones.

Yeah.

Q Just to clarify real quick, though. There’s been no discussion yet with the Trump team about doing that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I will say that this is a topic — obviously, the American hostages being held in Gaza — that President Biden and President Trump covered today, but we have not had the opportunity to engage with the incoming team yet.

I — I’m only expressing, standing here today, as I did to the hostage families yesterday, we are very much willing to do so. And we’ve sent a signal to the incoming team that we’re prepared to work with them on this issue, as with every other issue, because President Biden’s cardinal direction to us is ensure a smooth and orderly transition.

Q O- — on that, are you finding the Israelis as responsive to the Biden administration inquiries or requests, given that we know the prime minister is in pretty frequent touch with the president-elect?

MR. SULLIVAN: I had the opportunity to sit down yesterday with the Israeli minister of strategic affairs, Ron Dermer. We had a detailed discussion about every element of the current situation in the Middle East, and it was a constructive discussion. We are still actively working in support of our common efforts to push back against our common adversaries, to try to deal with the situation in Gaza, in Lebanon, and directly with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

And just to give you an example, we are working on an ongoing, daily basis to try to increase the amount of humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza, giving the suffering of the innocent civilians there who are trapped amidst the crossfire between the IDF and — and the terrorist group Hamas. We have made some progress in that regard. I — we extracted further commitments from the Israeli side over the course of the past couple of days. We want to see those commitments followed through on.

So, we believe that we can continue to work across the board on all of the relevant issues, whether it’s humanitarian assistance or it’s ensuring the defense of Israel against Iranian attacks or it’s working on ceasefire efforts and — and a hostage deal in Gaza or it’s ultimately bringing a diplomatic resolution to Lebanon, which we’re actively working on. We’ll continue to do that every day that we have remaining in office.

Yeah.

Q Jake, I know you can’t speak to what happened in this — in the meeting earlier. We’ll ask Karine about that. But eight years ago, then-President Obama explicitly warned incoming-President Donald Trump about the urgent threat posed by North Korea. He said it was the most urgent national security threat the U.S. was facing at the time.

What would you communicate to your national security advisor peer, who is going to be following you in this job? What is the most urgent national security threat facing the United States today, as Donald Trump prepares to take office?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I would say two things in answer to that question. The first is that if you look out at a strategic level, the competition with the People’s Republic of China is going to be defining for what the world looks like over the course of the next 10, 20, and 30 years, and so that has got to be a paramount priority for the incoming administration.

And the person who’s been named as my successor, the person who’s been floated as the secretary of State, these are people who have very much focused on that challenge, and we’ll look forward to talking to them about how we’ve approached it and obviously pass on the current state of play.

Then there’s the most immediate issue, which is Iran and its proxy groups continue to take actions that directly threaten Americans and American interests in the Middle East, and that has to be dealt with on an urgent basis.

Now, that’s at the macro level and the micro level. In between those two, you have an ongoing war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine representing a larger threat to European security and, therefore, global security. And you’ve got North Korea coming behind to provide troops in that war.

So, these are all issues for which we have clear approaches, working in coordination with allies and partners, and we are going to try to ensure that we pass off each of these areas to the next team in a way that is as smooth as possible.

Q Last time Donald —

MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah.

Q Last time he was going to — just to follow up quickly. Last time, in that same meeting, Obama told Trump that he had real concerns about the hiring of a national security advisor, Mike Flynn. Donald Trump ultimately hired Mike Flynn. Do you have any concerns about the names that you have heard mentioned so far and announced so far by Donald Trump to serve in his administration in a national security role?

MR. SULLIVAN: I know some of them. I’ve engaged with some of them. And — and people like, for example, Congressman Waltz, who’s been named to be my replacement, he’s somebody that I have engaged with in the past. I respect his service to this country in uniform. He’s put his life on the line. I respect his service in Congress.

He and I obviously don’t see eye to eye on every issue, but I am very much looking forward to engaging him over these next 60 days, as I said, so that we can have this smooth handoff.

There are other people that he’s named who I just don’t know, I haven’t met, and therefore can’t comment on.

Q Thank you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah.

Q So, you — you talk about wanting to engage, wanting to smooth this transition. Why hasn’t it happened yet? Is there — is the signing of the MOUs an actual issue that is preventing you from coordinating with the Trump — incoming Trump team?

MR. SULLIVAN: So, I’ll defer to Karine to kind of go into the nitty-gritty. What I’ll say at a broad level, though, is the MOU creates the opening for the landing teams to arrive at the agencies, to include the NSC.

But that doesn’t mean that we can’t reach out and get — you know, and express our willingness to engage with our counterparts — our incoming counterparts. We’ve done that. And so, I expect that in a matter of days here, we should be able to have some engagement.

Of course, that depends on whether the incoming team wants to engage, and — and that will be up to them.

But for our part, we are more than willing to do what is our responsibility as directed by the president and, frankly, as dictated by the Constitution, which is to ensure the peaceful transition of power.

Yeah.

Q I just have a China-related question as well. You know, the — the Biden administration largely left in place the Trump-era tariffs on China. The policy hasn’t been — towards China, it hasn’t been wildly divergent. Do you see the potential for bipartisan agreement on the relationship with China in the next administration or going forward?

MR. SULLIVAN: I think for us to succeed in the long-term competition with the PRC, it will require a bipartisan foundation. The best traditions of American foreign policy have always had a bipartisan element. And many aspects of the policy that we have pursued in this administration, with respect to the PRC and with respect to the Indo-Pacific, have been bipartisan.

By the way, the same thing is true with respect to Ukraine, where there has been strong bipartisan support and votes in both the House and the Senate for the resources and the strategy for Ukraine.

So, from our perspective, we would like to see that continue. Now, obviously, we don’t know what the incoming team is going to do, how divergent they will be. Those will be decisions they take. Not for me to comment on.

All I can say is that when it comes to investing in our alliances, the sources of strength at home, the protections of our advanced technologies, these are things we’re going to advocate continue because we think that they are not political issues. They’re American issues that can serve all of the people of this country.

Yeah.

Q Thanks, Jake. Will the president raise this alleged hack by a Chinese hacking group when he meets with President Xi, and are you planning any kind of consequences for that hack?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a significant issue. I expect that the FBI and CISA will have an update in terms of their investigation, which is ongoing into the hack, soon. We here at the White House have stood up at the — at the NSC what’s called the UCG, a Unified Coordinating Group, in order to coordinate the entire U.S. government to be able to deal with this hack, which is a hack of private telecommunications providers, but private telecommunications providers that provide services to U.S. government personnel, among others. So, you will hear from the FBI and CISA on that.

I do expect this will come up in the meeting in Peru.

And I’m not going to speak to consequences from this podium. I will only say that we have made clear over time that we will respond when we see actions taken, in terms of cyberattacks, cyber espionage, cyber intrusions. That has been a feature of our policy to date. It will remain a feature of our policy going forward.

I’ll take just a couple more and then let Karine take over.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Jake. Can you give us a sense of what else President Biden said to President Trump about Russia in their meeting?

And also, with regard to China, will he pass on any tips or color from his meeting with President Trump to President Xi when they meet? And what will his message be to — to President Xi?

MR. SULLIVAN: I’ve already mildly violated the not reading out the meeting proviso. (Laughter.) So, I will pass that off to —

Q Keep going.

Q Not a problem with that here.

MR. SULLIVAN: — I will pass that off to Karine. Mild — mild violations.

But with respect to his meeting with President Xi, I don’t expect him to pass messages. Obviously, President Trump, when he comes into office, will have his opportunity to engage directly with President Xi.

But I will observe that transitions are uniquely consequential moments in geopolitics. They’re a time when competitors and adversaries can see possibly opportunity, because you have this — this change in government here.

And so, part of what President Biden will communicate is that we need to maintain stability, clarity, predictability through this transition between the United States and China.

And he will also really reinforce the point that in order for us to manage this competition responsibly going forward, we have to sustain, over the long term, the channels of communication at every level, particularly the military-to-military level.

And then, of course, he will look to try to consolidate progress on areas where we can work together, for example, on counternarcotics and fentanyl coordination, and on trying to manage the safety risks associated with artificial intelligence.

So, it’s an important meeting. It will not be just a valedictory. Although there will be an element of reflecting over the course of their long relationship, there is actual work to do in this critical moment between the U.S. and China to ensure that we don’t run into any problems in the next two months in this transition of power.

Last question.

Q Can you sort of explain the strategy for the remaining drawdown authority for Ukraine, and also, if the administration is going to ask for any additional drawdown authority in like an end-of-the-year CR or spending plan?

MR. SULLIVAN: So, the president has made clear and he has directed his team to ensure that every dollar that the Congress gave to him, authorized him to spend, he will spend on behalf of Ukraine before he leaves office.

Now, again, these are not dollars he is putting on an airplane and flying across the ocean. These are dollars he is investing in the American defense industrial base. As we provide weapons to Ukraine, we make new weapons to give to the U.S. military.

All of those dollars will be spent, will be obligated by the time he leaves office on January 20th.

Therefore, it only stands to reason that in the next two months, the administration will signal to Congress that we would like to see additional funds for Ukraine for 2025 so that they can be in the best possible position, the strongest possible position to negotiate, to ensure they achieve their objectives, that they win at the negotiating table.

Now, what form will that take — CR, et cetera — I’m going to not get myself in trouble by turning into the OMB director up here. I will just say that the administration very much sees the necessity and the logic of seeking additional resources for 2025 since we are doing what Congress asked us to do, which is dispersing the funds they gave us for 2024.

And with that, I’ll turn it over to Karine.

(Cross-talk.)

Q Jake, on the Amazon trip —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Jake.

Q Congrats on becoming a congressional spouse. (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just have one more thing, and then I’ll go into your questions.

So, today, the president and the first lady welcomed nearly 200 education and workforce leaders to the White House for the Biden-Harris administration’s Classroom [to] Career Summit.

The administration’s Investing in America agenda is creating millions of good-paying jobs, many of which do not require a four-year college degree. And its investments will continue to drive job creation for years to come.

The summit highlighted the record progress to expand career pathways to these good-paying jobs in infrastructure, clean energy, ad- — advanced manufacturing, and so much more.

With that, Josh, it’s good to see you, as always.

Q Goo- — good to see you, Karine. Regarding the meeting.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. (Laughter.)

Q President Biden has given a lot of statements about his concern for the U.S. democracy. Did he share any of those concerns with President-elect Trump in their meeting about what he feels should be done or needs to be done?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to go into granular detail of what was discussed in — in the meeting.

What I can say: that it was indeed very cordial, very gracious, and substantive. And I mentioned at the top, national security was discussed. Domestic polishy — policy issues were discussed.

I had an opportunity to speak with the president in the Oval Office right before coming out to do this press briefing, because I wanted to make sure that I got what the president wanted to share with all of you, so certainly that everything that I’m saying is — is sanctioned, if you will, by the president.

He wanted you all to know that the president-elect, again, was gracious, came with a detailed set of questions. It was, again, substantive.

But I do want to take a little bit of a step back here, because it’s really important to note, and you hear — you’re going to hear me continuing to say this over and over again: the importance of having a smooth transition, an importance of having an orderly transition.

The president respects the will of the — the American people and wants to make sure that occurs. That is what he believes the American people deserve.

And so, that is as far as I can go. That is what I am sharing with you from the president directly.

And — and, look, we’re going to make sure, as Jake Sullivan was saying, that his team has what they need. Right? They want to make sure that it is indeed an efficient, effective transition so that we can — so that we hand over the people’s business so that they can continue the people’s business.

Q Can you say how President Biden answered some of those detailed questions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I will say that the president certainly looked forward to — looked forward to the meeting, appreciated the conversation, and answered any questions that the president-elect had; offered up his — his thoughts. But I’m not going to go any further than that.

Go ahead, Mary.

Q You said “gracious,” “cordial,” “substantive.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q The president obviously hit on a wide range of issues, but did he get a sense that the issues that he was impressing upon, that any advice he was giving was being well received?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think so. I think that’s why the president was saying — was wanting me to let you all know that there was a — you know, a very good back-and-forth, and it was substantive, as I mentioned before.

And I want to be mindful. It was a private conversation, so I don’t want to go into specifics or details.

But, look, they met for more than two hours. They met for a very long time — or nearly two hours, pardon me. And I think by — the length of the meeting tells you that they had an in-depth conversation on an array of issues.

And so, look, the president reached out to the president-elect, wanting to make sure that he gave an opportunity to the president-elect, afforded him that opportunity to — to have a meeting with him to talk about the different issues that matter to the American people.

But nearly two hours says — I think says a lot about how the meeting went.

Q Any plans to keep a line of communication open?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The president is always going to, obviously, keep that line of communication open to the president-elect. We’ve got to remember, this is not about the two presidents. This is not about President Biden or President-elect Trump. This is about the American people and what’s right for the American people. And, if anything, the president has led by example — right? — over the last week or — week — week now on making sure that we have this cordial transition of power.

Q Can I ask one on just one other topic?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q President-elect Trump’s nominee for Defense secretary has questioned whether or not women should serve in combat roles in the military. Wondering what the administration makes of that. Is there any concern about women’s ability to serve in certain roles going forward?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think we’ve made ourselves really clear. I’m not going to speak to this pick. That’s not — the president is g- — the — the president-elect is going to lay out his — certainly, his — his personnel and who he wants to fill these Cabinet position, who he wants to be in the White House with him. And we will give them the space to do that.

But I think we’ve been very, very clear about how we see the importance of — of gender equality, the importance of women in the workforce. I think we have been an administration that has led on that issue, and certainly we do not agree with those views. But that is for the pr- — obviously, the president-elect to — to speak to his picks, and I’m going to let them do that.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q You said the president-elect came with a detailed list of questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q That’s — that’s surprising to me. What — what was on his list?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to go into details of what was on the list. I wanted — I shared that and the president wanted you all to know that because we want to be very clear, it was a- — actually a substantive meeting — nearly two hours.

There was a lot discussed. There was a lot of back-and-forth. And I’m not going to go into specifics. I think if the president-elect wants to share his set of questions to President Biden, he certainly can and — and will, if he chooses.

But wanted to give you as much information as I could without — without, you know, going into too much specifics on a private conversation.

Q Was the list typed out on a piece of paper?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I don’t have — I appreciate the — the effort there, Jeff. I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q Did the issue of the fact that President Trump did not acknowledge Bi- — President Biden as the winner in the 2020 election come up today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What we want to do is move forward. We do. W-

Q Really?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, seriously. What we want to do is move forward. We respect the will of the people. There was an election, as you know, last week, and the American people spoke. And so, the president is going to make sure that he puts the American people first. He’s going to make sure that we move forward in this process and this transition process in a way that is respectful to the American people and to sh- — to lead by example.

And so, that’s our focus. That’s what we want to do. I think the president has shown that in the past week of — of that leadership. And so, that’s what you’re going to hear. That’s what we’re going to continue to do in the 68 days that we have left in this administration.

Q I understand that. I guess —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep.

Q — that just seems like a piece of unfinished business between them. Did it come up at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, that is something certainly that I would leave for the president-elect to speak to. What I can speak to is this president wanting to focus on the American people, wanting to focus on issues that matter — domestic policy issues, national security issues that are critical and important in how we move forward as a country. That’s what the president wanted to focus on.

Again, it was gracious. It was substantive. And I think that’s what’s important. And what we are showing the American people is how you do this — how do you have a peaceful transition of power, how it looks leading by example. And that is quintessential Joe Biden, I believe.

Go ahead.

Q Yeah. Thanks, Karine. I’m just trying to understand. I mean, besides demonstrating —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — a peaceful transfer of power, what was the big message that President Biden was trying to convey to incoming-President Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think just that, and the American people, you know. You h- — all had an — those who were able to be in the room got to see the — the two presidents sitting side by side, shaking hands. You heard what the president-elect talked about politics — politics being tough and understanding what that looks like. We get that as well. You know?

And I’ll go back to what we said last week. Did the elections turn out the way we wanted? Absolutely not. Are we disappointed? Yes, we’re disappointed.

But, again, there was an election. The American people decided. And what the president wants to focus on is what it looks like — what it looks like to — to move forward, to put the country first, put — to put the American people first and move forward in a — in a respectful way. And I think that was also the message that you saw from this president today.

Q A- — and then, does the White House have any reaction to this Department of Government Efficiency that Trump announced yesterday? He’s brought on Elon Musk and Vivek R- — Ramaswamy to lead. Says the group is — is ta- — is being tasked to find ways to cut government spending waste, regulations. Does the White House have any concerns about this effort, or do you think maybe it’s a good idea to look at these things?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — no comment.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to comment.

Go ahead.

Q You’ve talked about ensuring that the next administration has all the resources they need for this transition, but one thing that needs to happen in order for the Trump transition to have access to agencies and such are these signings of the memorandums —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — of understanding with both the GSA and the White House, including an ethics plan. Did that come up in any way in the conversation today, even if it was just between Jeff Zients and Susie Wiles?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I was just going to say that. As you know, Jeff Zients, the chief of staff, had an opportunity to speak with the incoming chief of staff. I have not spoken to Jeff on if that issue came up, but Jeff has been leading this effort of making sure that we have that smooth transition of power. We are ready. We are ready to go. We — and I’ve also mentioned that the cochairs of the — of the Trump transition have said that they are — they are — in public, have said that they are going to sign the MOUs. So, I’m going to have to leave it to them.

We are ready. And Jake, I think, put it really well when he said it doesn’t mean that we can’t still have conversations. It doesn’t mean we can’t engage with our counterparts or those who are — have been picked by the president-elect to come into this administration. Certainly, we are open to that and want that to happen.

But I would have to, you know, refer you to the Trump transition, who have — they have said they would sign those MO- — MOUs.

Q And back in 2000, then-Vice President Al Gore actually hosted George W. Bush a few days after he had conceded the election. When Bush came to meet with Clinton, he then went on to meet with Gore. Did Vice President Harris stop by the meeting at all today, and does she intend to host vice — Vance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can say the vice president did not attend the meeting between the two presidents this morning. I would have to refer you to her team on how she wishes to move forward and — and her part in all of this. But you also heard from her last week when she talked about the importance, as well, of having a peaceful transition of power. So, leave that to her to answer.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q Just to work out a few of the details.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q So, it was the four of them in that room: the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

Q — the president-elect —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

Q — the chief of staff, the chief-elect — chief of staff designee?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, sir.

Q Were the two presidents ever left alone in the room?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything beyond what I shared. What I can say is it happened for almost two — approximately two hours, and it included the two — the current chief of staff, the incoming chief of staff, and obviously the two presidents.

I can’t speak if — to if the presidents had an opp- — the — the presidents themselves, president-elect and the pr- — President Biden had an opportunity to speak privately. I — I can’t speak to that. I didn’t ask.

Q Because it started over in the Diplomatic Room, right? And then they —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right. So, to your point, you are correct. We sent out a pool note about how the — the president — President Biden and also First Lady Dr. Biden greeted President-elect Trump upon his arrival. And just to — just to add a little bit of color there, she gave — she gave the president-elect a handwritten letter to congratulate Mrs. Trump, and so — also expressed their readiness to be involved and engaged with her team — Mrs. Trump’s team. And so, that specific piece, obviously, I would — I would direct to the first lady’s office.

But, yes, they first met and greeted each other in the Diplomatic Room.

Q But Jake or nobody else came in or would —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It was just the four.

Q — have met with them at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It was just the four of them, as far as out — who — who was in the room with the president.

Q And it was in the Oval the whole time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As far — yes, it was in the Oval. The Ov- — the Oval meeting was in the Oval, as I just stated, and you flagged for — for me that they — they greeted the president — they, meaning the first lady and also the pres- — President Biden, greeted President Trump when — President-elect Trump when he arrived.

Q I had one other question about this weekend that people might wonder.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q It’s their third meeting since President Biden took office, but why bother having a meeting with Chinese President Xi if there’s only 68 days left to go on the Biden administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think — I — look, this is — you know Joe Biden. He — he understands the important of having face-to-face, one-on-one conversations with world leaders. And I think Jake did a pretty good job laying out what — what’s next, what they are thinking about — the reason for having the bilat, but it is — it is an opportunity. They’re both going to be in Peru. They’re go- — both going to be attending the APEC conference. It was an opportunity for them to meet.

I think it’s important. The issues that they’re obviously going to speak about are important to the American people — you think about national security, you think about Indo-Pacific.

And so, you know, I think it’s in — this is very much something that the president would do: have that face to face, have those in-person conversations with other world leaders on issues that matter here to — to us and, obviously, globally.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q Thanks, Karine. Did President Biden show incoming President Trump anything classified?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q No. Why not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Why would he? This is a — this was an opportunity for them to speak candidly, openly. I’ve said to you that it was gracious, it was incredibly subs- — substantive. And I’ll just leave it there.

Q The last time these two were together in the same room was at the debate. They talked a fair amount about playing golf. Do you know if a plan was made — (laughter) — for them to play golf in President Biden’s retirement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Actually, that’s not the last time they saw each other. They saw each other at September 11th.

I’m going to move on.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q Thanks, Karine. In — in the meeting, we saw a unified front related to a transition in the Oval Office meeting. But a lot was said on the campaign trail, like Trump is a dangerous “threat” to our country and our democracy. Was there an apology today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sorry?

Q Was there an apology from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Apology from whom?

Q — from President Biden for the words — some of the words he used?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you — an apology from the president — President Biden —

Q To President-elect Trump for some of the words that was used on the campaign trail.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look — and I’ve answered this a couple of times about a “threat to democracy” in the past week. The president is going to always feel obligated to be honest with the American people.

What he says still stands. And it’s not just him. You heard this from former staffers. You’ve heard that from the former chief of staff, John Kelly, and others. You’ve heard it directly from the president — president-elect, the former president about “enemy of the people” very, very clear — very clear.

What we want to be also very clear about is the importance of listening to the will of the American people. There was an election. It is important to respect our institution. It is important to respect the free and fair elections. And that’s what this president is doing: leading by example and putting — putting that aside and putting the American people first.

But what he said still stands. And it’s not just him. I don’t — we should not just put this at the president. His own people said this. So, I want to be really, really clear about that and not forget the facts. There are facts here that we should certainly also lift up as you’re asking me these questions.

Go ahead, Anita.

Q Thank you. Did the two presidents discuss transatlantic security or climate change efforts and the U.S. role in that?

And relatedly, what is President Biden’s message to G20 leaders on these two issues and on the institutions and frameworks that hold them up — talking about NATO and the G- — and the Paris Agreement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, look, obviously, they talked about national security issues. Mentioned that already.

There was a substantive, pretty detailed set of questions that the president-elect presented the — the — President Biden with. They went back and forth on that. I don’t have anything. I’m not going to get into the nitty-gritty, into the specifics of what that top- — those topics were. Not something that I’m going to do from here.

And, look, the president is looking forward to going to the G20. You heard Jake do a pretty good lay down of the importance of the president going — it will be his last G20; obviously, he’s also going to go to APEC — APEC will be first — and the importance of meeting with these world leaders on issues and matters that ma- — that are important to the American people. That’s what you’re going to see.

This is going to be a continuation of the progress that we have made in almost four years on the world stage, whether it’s talking about Ukraine and continue to support Ukraine, talking about Indo-Pacific, talking about the Middle East and how to move forward here.

And so, all of those — all of those issues and topics are certainly going to come up, and the president looks forward to — to —

Q But what is message —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — having those conversations.

Q — considering that we know that President-elect Trump does not look favorably upon NATO or upon the Paris climate change agreement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s for — something for the president-elect to — to speak to. I mean, he has.

What we have done here in the past four years is strengthen NATO. What we have done here is making sure that we strengthen our relationship with allies and partners. What we have done here is put the American people first, put our national security first, and really have conversation with lur- — world leaders on shared priorities.

And so, that’s going to continue in the next 68 days. And that’s the progress that the president wants to continue to have conversations about. And that’s what you’re going to see on this next OCONUS trip.

Go ahead.

Q To the swing counties in the back of the room, perhaps?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Thank you. I think, in this room, we’ve all watched the very, like, somber speeches that the president gave on democracy in —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — Philadelphia, at the Capitol. And today, we see these pictures of two leaders chatting around the fireplace. It’s — it — there’s a stark contrast here. And isn’t there a risk that, in the future, when voters are faced with, you know, warnings about democracy, they’re just going to dismiss them and think, “This is just campaign stuff. This is just political”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think they’re two different things here. When it comes to what the president said — in the past year, even more s- — more so — about our democracy, the importance of our democracy, let’s not forget, you know, we saw that Americans do care about democracy. They care about protecting our freedoms. That is something that the president is never going to shy away from. He’s never going to shy away talking about that. And it is important on how we move forward. Right? It is important.

But what we’re seeing right now is also a democratic principle. Right? This is d- — we’re talking about — we’re talking about transition of power. It is about our democratic principle as well. It is about continuing that transfer of power. It is about continuing that democracy. They are — I know I said these are two different things but are also connected as well.

And so, for him to do that, for him to invite the president-elect and to have important conversations on issues that matter to the American people is actually part of what democracy looks like. And the president is never going to shy away from that.

And, again, were the elections what we had hoped? Absolutely not. We’re not — we’re not hiding that. We’ve been very clear about that. But we have to move forward. We have to move forward on behalf of the American people.

And what you saw and what you’re going to see when we talk about transition is about our dema- — democratic proc- — principles.

Go ahead.

AIDE: We have time for (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Q Thank you, Karine. Going back to her question on the G20, is — Jake was saying that he is hoping for some progress. But is progress possible — possible when allies, the G20 allies are trying to understand and are expecting a change in the administration here? So, how does the — the incoming administration can undermine this progress they are trying to reach there and also progress with the Brazilian government on climate, democracy, and labor cooperation that are going to expect to discuss there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. I’m not going to get ahead of what’s going to be discussed at the G20. And I’m not going to get ahead of what the Trump administration policies are going to look like. That is certainly something for them to address in how they move forward on domestic policies, national security policies, and they will do just that.

What I can talk about is the progress that the president wants to continue to — to make and the strengthening of our alliances, strengthening of our partners — partnerships and making sure that we continue to stand up with Ukraine as they continue to fight against Russia’s aggression, and a range — range of issues of Indo-Pacific to the Middle East. You’ve ba- — talked about climate change, especially as that relates to Brazil.

So, those issues are going to be discussed. We’ve made progress on all of those policies that we’re going back and forth on.

I’m just not going to — to speak to private conversations that are going to happen, what’s going to be discussed, and just speak to what we can do, what we’re looking to do, and why it’s important. This OCONUS that the president is going to go on is — is a — is going to be a continuation of what he has been able to do for almost four years now.

Q And what does a Trump victory mean to the world?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, what I can say, and I’m going to sound like a broken record: What the president is going to do is continuing to make sure that we follow the — the election results, the will of the people majority of Americans decided. And what we can do is make sure that democracy continues here by doing this trans- — transition of power and doing it in an effective, orderly, peaceful way.

And the president is going to focus on the progress that he has made. He has relationships with these world leaders, obviously, not just for — some of them, not just the past almost four years but for some time. And, you know, he’ll have honest, direct conversations with them.

I’m just not going to get into philosophizing and getting into the bigger picture. I’m just going to focus on what’s ahead in the next 68 days.

Go ahead, Akayla. I think I have to —

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — head out.

Q Do you know if President-elect Trump has already started to receive intelligence briefings or if there’s plans to start doing those briefings again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s something for ODNI to speak to, not something for me to speak from — to from here.

Go ahead.

Q I’m going to kind of try and circle back on this.
You said that the conversation was cordial, graci- — gracious, substantive. Was there any acknowledgement about some of the harsh rhetoric that Donald Trump had issued regarding Kamala Harris, calling her, for example, a “low-IQ individual,” et cetera?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have anything to share beyond what I stated at the top and during these back-and-forths. I don’t have anything outside of that.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

Q Yeah. I — I was going to ask a similar question. Was there any acknowledgement or discussion about the election and how the vice president ran her campaign?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else beyond what I just stated. (Laughs.)

Q Afghanistan, please.

Q Row six.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Phil.

Q I might be trying the same thing again and again, but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Yeah.

Q — you talked about how this was a cordial discussion between the two of them —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — how the incoming president came with a list of questions. Were there any top-level areas of agreement or overlap between the two presidents in terms of maybe challenges that are ahead for the country or potential solutions? Any areas of — of agreement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: A lot was discussed. (Laughter.) It was detailed set of questions. The pregis- — president appreciated having a substantive conversation with the president-elect.

I’m not going to go into details. Maybe the president-elect will speak on his behalf on what he wants to share coming out of the meeting, but this is what we’re going to share from here.

Two hours is — nearly two hours is a long time to — to talk about what’s important for the American people and how to move forward. And I think that’s important. I think that’s impor- —

Q Had to try.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I appreciate the effort.

All right, everybody. Thank you so much.

Q For the —

Q Thanks, Karine.

(Cross-talk.)

Q For the record, can you just share or find out if there was any time that the two met individually so we’re all on the same page?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Q And should there be — will there be photos?

Q On Afghanistan, Karine.

2:37 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

3:17 P.M. EST
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

So, this afternoon, President Biden welcomed the president of Indonesia to the White House.  The two leaders commemorated 7- — 75 years of diplomatic relations and discussed global challenges, including Gaza and the South China Sea.

As the world’s second- and third-largest democracies, the United States and Indonesia share a commitment to addressing evolving challenges and capitalizing on emerging opportunities.

The leaders also discussed sustainable approaches to food security, clean energy, democracy and pluralism, regional peace and stability, and people-to-people ties, as well as advancing our cooperation in humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

And earlier today, President Biden also welcomed President Herzog of Israel to the Oval Office.  You heard from the president himself: His commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad, and our two countries share a deep friendship.

We will have a readout later today on their meeting.

And with that, Will, you want to kick us off?

Q    Terrific.  Thank you.  Yeah.  I have two questions.  Will President Biden meet with President Xi during APEC or the G20?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Don’t have anything to share with you at this time.  We certainly will have more to share on the details of his visit in — to Peru and also Brazil.  As you all know, we’re leaving on Thursday.  We’ll have more to share.  And as we normally do, we will have a press — press calls for all of you to get some details on — on the trip — on the — one of his final OCONUS trips, as you all know.

But I don’t have anything to share on — on a phone call with President Xi or a meeting with President Xi.

Q    Okay.  On another topic, why does President Biden feel compelled to — to invite President-elect Trump to the White House and continue a tradition that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — wasn’t followed four years ago?  Is it possible that the politics in this country have sort of evolved past the norms?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — that’s an easy question to answer, honestly, when it comes to why President Biden is doing this: because he believes in the norms, he believes in our institution, he believes in the peaceful transfer of power. 
 
You s- — you heard him speak to this directly just last week when he was in the Rose Garden two days after the American people made the — their decision on this election.  And it is important to him. 

It is important not just because it’s important to him, but it’s important to the American people.  He said the American people deserve this.  They deserve a peaceful transfer of power.  They deserve a smooth trans- — transition.  And that’s what you’re going to see.

He reached out to President-elect Trump and asked for a meeting for — for them to meet in the Oval Office.  You’re going to see that tomorrow.  That is what is the norm.  That is what is supposed to happen.  And, also, that’s what the American people deserve.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thirty days ago, the administration put a timeline on Israel to get more aid into Gaza.  Yesterday, Secretary Blinken met with Israel’s minister of strategic affairs to talk about the steps that Israel has taken to improve the situation inside Gaza. 
 
But today, there are multiple international aid agencies that say that Israel has failed to address the concerns and that the situation is even more dire than a month ago.  Does the administration think that Israel has taken enough steps, or do you agree with these aid organizations and their assessments?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  Let me just take a look back at the last 30 days.  Israel has taken steps to address the measures laid out in the — in that letter from the two secretaries — Secretaries Bli- — Blinken and — and, also, Austin — and we are in a discussion with the Israelis about both the important steps Israel has taken as a result of the United States’ intervention, as well as additional steps that needed — need to be taken.

So, those conversations continue.  Those discussions continue.  And we — the United States is indeed the largest provider of humanitarian assistant [assistance] to the Palestinian people.

And so, we wa- – – we are going to continue to do everything that we can to surge humanitarian assis- — assistance in Gaza.  We understand how important it is.  And to your — in your question, we understand how dire that is. 
 
So, ultimately, the long-term solution here to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza is bringing an end to this war.  And so, we’re going to try and work very hard to continuing — to achieving, certainly, that goal.

And so, that is certainly continuing to be a priority for us as we talk about what’s happening in the region.

Q    Is the administration, is the president satisfied with those steps, though, that Israel has taken over these past 30 days? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I —

Q    Is it enough?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I did say that they have taken steps, and those discussions continue, because we need more.  We certainly need more aid to — to be surged into — into Gaza.

So, there’s more work to be done.  But we have seen, certainly, some improvement.  And, again, we are going to do everything that we can — the United States.  We are, indeed, the largest provider of humanitarian aid, humanitarian assistance into Gaza to relieve the pain of the Palestinian people and what we’re seeing.  And you’re right, it is dire, but those discussions continue.  And we’re going to be laser focused on that.

Q    And if I could just do one more on the meeting tomorrow.  Can you just tell us: What are the top issues that the president is bringing to the agenda tomorrow, how long you anticipate the meeting lasting?  Is he having senior staff there?  Like, what — what’s this going to look like tomorrow?
    
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, President-elect Trump is coming to the White House because the president invited him as part of this transfer — peaceful transfer of power.  There’s going to be a pool spray at the top in the Oval Office before the meeting commences.  And so, you all and some of your colleagues will certainly have an opportunity to hear from — or to — to see that, to — to see the two of them sitting down together.

I don’t have anything beyond that.  I don’t have an agenda to share.  It’s a — you know, we try to keep these — certainly, these types of priv- — conversations private.  And just don’t have anything beyond that to share.

This is part of the process.  When we talk about peaceful transfer of power, this is what you’re seeing.  It’s kind of the beginning of that — when you see the current president and the president who’s coming in sitting down in the Oval Office and having a discussion. 

Don’t have any details to share at this time.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you confirm whether or not Mrs. Trump has accepted Dr. Biden’s invitation to come to the White House as well?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Don’t have any updates — or we don’t have any scheduling updates to give.  I would certainly reach out to the Trump transition team to get more clarity on that — on that question.

I just don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q    Okay.  And can you say whether President Biden is pleased with how the transition is going so far?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, what the president is committed to doing is making sure that this transition is effective, efficient.  And he’s doing that because it is the norm, yes, but also the right thing to do for the American people.  That’s what they deserve. 
 
We’re going to have a meeting tomorrow — they’re going to have a meeting tomorrow.  And certainly, that will continue.  As you know, Chief of Staff Jeff Zients has been pretty — pretty open and available to the Trump transition team and will continue to do so. 
 
We want this to go well.  We want this to — to be — to be a process that gets the job done, if you will.  And so, look, it’s — it’s certainly — we’re going to do everything that we can.  The president trusts his team to get that done and — and do it the best way possible.  And that is our commitment. 
 
Q    And then —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s what I can speak to.
 
Q    — just lastly, are there areas that this White House or — or President Biden’s administration are trying to shore up or protect from a Trump administration perhaps trying to push back or — or pull back on some of the legislative and other executive order and other gains that — that the president is proud of?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, no, I — I appreciate the question.  Certainly don’t have any policy announcements or anything like that to speak to.
 
What I can say more broadly, if you — if you will, is say that, look, more — more broadly, the president’s legislation is helping all Americans across the country.  And what we would say is that we saw what happened when Republicans in Congress tried to repeal, for example, the ACA, Affordable Care Act.  They tried to do it more than 50 times.  It was something that they were so laser-focused on. 
 
And meanwhile, the ACA — the Affordable Care Act — was incredibly popular — became more and more popular. And under this administration, we expanded the Affordable Care Act so that more — millions more Americans could get that benefit, get that care that they so much — so very much needed.
 
And so — and we can’t forget that if you think about beating Big Pharma, if you think about lowering costs, if you think about CHIPS and Science Act, those policies are overwhelmingly popular. 
 
And so, I think if they were to try to do that — Republicans in Congress would try to do that in the next Congress, the country would speak out.  They would make themselves ver- — speak out really loud and clear about taking away legislation, obviously, that are now laws that are helping the American people.
 
Whether it’s creating good-paying jobs; whether it is attacking climate change in a way that is going to be effective — the most progressive climate change legislation that the president was able to get done; making sure that Medicare is able to negotiate to lower costs — all these things matter to the American people — are incredibly popular.
 
And they’ve tried to — to repeal that and go after that.  I think the American people have something to say about it. 
 
Go ahead, M.J.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just one more on tomorrow.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.
 
Q    Do you know if President Biden has a message that he would like to convey either to the former president or the American people, just given the —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — unique setting we’re talking about? 
 
And just in terms of the choreography tomorrow —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    — do you know if the former president will go to the sticks? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    Will he be free to roam?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  So, I would leave it to — (laughs) — “free to roam.”  I would leave it, certainly, to Trump’s transition on whatever engagement that he’ll have with all of you.  I — I — you know, that’s up to — certainly up to — up to him.
 
And — and I do appreciate the question, because he has a very clear message to the American people.  And not to sound like a broken record, but this is indeed true.  He wants to show the American people that the system works — right? — to st- –to trust on the institution; to trust that the norms are — do matter here; to trust that he is showing, by leadership, what a transition — a peaceful transition looks like — an efficient — hopefully an efficient, effective transition looks like, a smooth transition looks like.  And that is the message. 
 
When you all — when — when you all come in, when the pool comes in tomorrow and does a pool spray, that’s what they’re going to see, right?  They’re going to see these two — one president-elect and the current president sitting down and doing what is the norm. 
 
And that — if you know Joe Biden — right? — if you know Joe Biden from following him in the Senate and — and as vice president, certainly the last almost four years, he cares about that.  He cares about our democracy.  And that’s the message that he hopes resonates with the American people tomorrow.
 
Q    And separately, the families of the American hostages are in town. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    Should they, at this point, have any reason to hope that their loved ones will be released before the president’s term is up? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, the president is committed to continuing to do the work to get families home, to get all of the — I’m sorry, “families” — the hostages home, including American hostages, obviously — all of the hostages.  And that is his commitment to the families.
 
As — as you just stated, the families are here.  They met with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan this afternoon.  They’ve had regular engagement and meetings with Jake Sullivan but also many other members of the team here.  And, you know, we’re going to continue to work — do the work to get the deal done.
 
And, if anything, there’s more to — there’s more of an imperative to get that done, right?  We want to make sure that we get them — get their fam- — their — get their loved ones home.  And so, that is our commitment.  It doesn’t change at all.  If — we are continuing to be eager to get that done and working around the clock, as we have for this past more than a year now — more than 400 days. 
 
And so, it doesn’t stop our commitment.  It doesn’t stop us from trying to get that done.
 
Q    And y- — you said he’s committed to doing the work and, you know —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Continuing to do the work, yeah.
 
Q    — and the White House is working around the clock. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    What does “doing the work” right now look like?  What is “working around the clock”?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Trying to find ways that we can get to a deal, right?  As you know, Qatar is very much involved.  Egypt is very much involved.  They’re doing their part of the negotiations.  And we want to pursue — and we believe there’s a number of ways, a numbers of init- — initiatives to secure that hostage deal, to release those hostages.  And we’re going to work through it.  We’re going to do that work.
 
And that’s what we can say is our commitment and will continue — has been our commitment and continue to do so.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Francesca.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  I know you don’t want to get too far ahead of the conversation, but I did want to point to something that Jake Sullivan said over the weekend. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    He said that President Biden would “have the opportunity over the next 70 days to make the case to Congress and the incoming administration that the United States should not walk away from Ukraine.”  So, is foreign policy going to be on the agenda for tomorrow?  Ukraine, specifically?  Israel’s war with Hamas?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into the details of what’s going to be discussed tomorrow.  That’s not something I’m going to get into here.  But, look, you heard from the national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, our commitment to Ukraine.  I mean, that is something that we have showed for almost — what? — three years since the — Russia’s aggression into Ukraine.
 
And you saw the president’s leadership — global leadership on this, when you think about making NATO stronger, when you think about the partners and the alliances that he’s been able to bring together.  More than 50 countries have gotten behind Ukraine.  And continuing — we talked about this on September 29th when we w- — talked about surging aid into a — security assistance aid into — for Ukraine so that they are able to beat back Russia’s aggression.

So, you’ve seen our commitment.  We’ve been very clear.  We don’t even need to say that privately because we’ve been very public about that. 

And getting to — just went back and forth about making sure that we get a hostage deal and — so that we can get hostages home — all hostages home who have been held by Hamas.

And let’s not forget Lebanon.  We want to make sure that we get to a deal there too.  And we’re negotiating there — that negotia- — those negotiations continue. 

And so, our commitment has been very clear.  And our global leadership, this president’s global leadership has also been very — very prominent, if you will, on the global stage.

Q    And does the White House have any concerns about the number of foreign leaders who have been in conversation with the incoming president, even as President Biden heads to the G20 in the next few days, as well as Lima?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s the thing, he’s the president-elect.  Every president-elect receives calls from world leaders, takes calls from world leaders, has calls from world leaders.  It is not unusual.

I don’t have a comment beyond that.  Any specifics or details, that’s something for the Trump — Trump transition
to speak to.

Go ahead, Will.

Q    Just briefly, a follow-up.  Is the president — is he receptive of what the Israelis are doing to push humanitarian aid, or is he happy with what they’re doing now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean, there’s no — I don’t have a different answer for you to what I was asked by Karen.  We are having those discussions.  We’ve seen some improvement over the last 30 days.  We want to see more, because there are dire — there is a dire situation happening in Gaza.  Also, the U.S. has been leading in getting humanitarian aid.

And so, those discussions continue.  We want to see more, and we’re going to continue to have those discussions.

Q    And just briefly, on Haiti.  With the situation there, do you have any statement or reaction to what’s going on there with the violence and those being — being targeted (inaudible)? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, look, we’re certainly — as it relates to the commercial flight very recently, the gun — the gun shots that were reported — so, we’re certainly concerned about the increase of violence in Haiti. 

And as it relates to commercial flights and what occurred there, the airport, Toussaint Louverture Airport, is — operations are temporary close until November 18th.  And so, certainly, the airlines could speak more to that.

But we are definitely certainly concerned by the increase of violence.  And we’ll continue to work with — as you know, there’s a — a new prime minister that was named and recognized by the — the TPC, the Trans- — Transitional Presidential Council.  And so — and so, we’re going to continue to — to work with them and — and, hopefully, we can get to a better place.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Did President Biden invite Vice President Harris to this meeting with Donald Trump tomorrow?
    
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is a meeting with the — with the president and the president-elect.  This is the norm — that the incoming president and the current president sit down in the Oval Office and have a discussion.  And that’s how — that’s what you’re going to see tomorrow — is the norm — what we — what we normally would see when we are talking about a peaceful transition of power.

Q    President Biden says that he’s not going to pardon his son Hunter.  Is he going to ask Donald Trump to do that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to share about that.  I’m not going to get — go down a rabbit hole on this.
Q    Okay.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ve been very clear, the president has been very clear when we’ve been asked this question.

Q    And we know that at some point during the last Trump transition, then-President Obama warned Trump that the biggest threat to the U.S. at the time was North Korea.  Is President Biden going to run through what he sees the biggest threats to the country are with Donald Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I am not going to get into a specific agenda of what they’re going to discuss.  And this is very much, too, the question that I got from M.J.: What does the president want to — what’s the message he wants to send tomorrow?  And it is to the American people — the importance — the importance of keeping the norms, the importance of having a transition that is going to be efficient.  This is what the American people deserve, and that’s the message.

And I think when, you know, you all come into the Oval Office tomorrow, you do the pool spray, you capture that moment, that is an important message to send to the American people. That’s what the president cares about.

I’m not going to get into details about any conversation or agenda.

Q    And we know that today, a week after the election, President Biden and Vice President Harris had a private lunch.  How awkward was that? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t even understand.  Why would it — why would it be awkward?

Q    Because the president got squeezed out —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Why would it be awk- — why would you —

Q    — for her and then she kept him at arm’s length and then she lost, and now she’s back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But why would — why would you characterize it as awkward?  They have regular lunches.  They meet and talk regularly.  Why would you call it awkward?

Q    So, there’s no weirdness about the way that things have unfolded since July 21st?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Did you see them — did you see them together yesterday as well, when they honored our veterans and were together during the day, making sure that we didn’t forget the brave men and women that fought for this country?  Did you see them together yesterday?  Did you see the — the show of force together?

This is — look, I’m not even going to take the premise of this — the question.  What I will say is the president and the vice president had lunch today.  They’ve had lunch many times.  They have — they communicate with each other regularly.  They had an opportunity to discuss the last 70 days or so of this administration, how important it is to get things done for the American people, and that’s their focus.  That is genuinely their focus.

Go ahead, Patsy.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On his spray with President
Prabowo, the president said that he would discuss the issue of South China Sea —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific.  Was he specifically referring to a deal that Indonesia signed a few days ago in Beijing that could be read as a de facto validation of China’s nine-dash line that marks its extensive territorial claims in the South China Sea?  And how concerned is the administration about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we continue to encourage Indonesia to work with their legal experts to make sure any agreement they make with the PRC is in a- — is in according with international law, especially the U.N. Convention on the Law of — of the Sea.

I don’t have anything beyond that.  I read out at the top, more broadly, what — what they were hoping to accomplish, what they were going to talk about. 
 
You just mentioned Indo-Pacific and China Sea.  As it relates to this particular deal that was signed with Indonesia and Beijing, we are just going to continue to encourage that — that they focu- — that they really work with their legal experts. 
 
Q    So, is that a statement that the administration believes that Indonesia is not complying, that the agreement —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything beyond that.  I don’t have any beyond that. 
 
Q    Okay.  And then — and I know that you said on your topper that there will be more briefing before the president leaves for APEC and G20.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   Yeah.  We’ll have our usual, like we normally do —
 
Q    Right.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — ahead of an OCONUS trip.  We’ll have a — a press — a press call so you all will have more details on what those few days will look like abroad.
 
Q    But just — just broadly, Karine, what would be his message, obviously, to leaders concerned about U.S. positions on various global issues? 
 
And is — is he expecting that his conversation with President-elect Trump tomorrow to inform him on how he would speak to world leaders about these various issues?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to get into details.  I understand the — the curiosity and the kind of excitement on what’s going to happen tomorrow. 
 
I don’t want to get ahead of the fact that tomorrow is also part of the process that the president wants to send out to the American people having a peaceful transition of power. 
 
Not going to get into details or even an agenda of what they’re going to speak to.
 
As it relates to the president and the global stage, that’s what you’re going to see when he is in Peru and Braz- — and Brazil: the president again on that global stage. 
 
He’s going to continue to talk about and focus on the progress we’ve made in the last three years — three years plus — on an array of important issues that matter to the people who will be there, to all the world leaders who will be there, whether that’s continuing to strengthen our alliances and partnerships, standing with Ukraine and standing up against Putin, and also, as you — as we were talking about, a range of issues when it relates to the Indo- — from Indo-Pacific to also the Middle East. 
 
That’s what the president is going to focus on.  And — and I’m going to let the two leaders, the president and the president-elect, have their private conversation.  Not going to get ahead of them.  They deserve that. 
 
But certainly, we are — we are indeed sending a message to the American people.  That’s what they deserve.  They deserve this process, and that’s what you’re going to see tomorrow.
 
Q    And just briefly on Francesca’s question, just to hone in. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    I know that you say that the president-elect can have these conversations with these world leaders who call and congratulate him. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s — it’s not unusual.  
 
Q    But —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s not unusual.
 
Q    But does the president have specific views on the president-elect potentially conducting foreign policy on these calls?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals — I’m — I’m just not — on what’s happening or being said on these calls.  I’m just not.
 
It is not unusual for a president-elect to have conversations with world leaders.  That’s what’s happening.  I’m just not going to get hypotheticals. 
 
Go ahead, Gabe. 
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  You mentioned a little bit ago that several countries were still working together to secure a ceasefire deal, and you mentioned Qatar and Egypt.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    Didn’t Qatar pull out of mediation — its mediation role over the weekend?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And I will — I appreciate that.  I will let Qatar speak to their own — their own decision.  I’m not going to — to certainly speak to that, and I’m not going to get into any other private conversation. 
 
What I said is that — what I’m trying to convey is that we’re going to continue to pursue, certainly, a number of initiatives to get the hostages home to their families.  That is an ongoing work in progress, if you will.  And that’s going to be our focus. 
 
Q    But doesn’t that change that — Qatar pulling out of that mediation role, doesn’t that signify that these hostage talks are very far off?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, look, Qatar is going to have to speak to whatever decision that they’re made — they made.  I’m not going to speak to that.  I’m not going to get into private conversation. 
 
What I’m trying to say is we’re going to continue to pursue a number of initiatives, continue those conversations on how to make sure we secure the release of hostages.  That is ongoing.  That is certainly ongoing.
 
And so, not going to — you know, we’re very careful.  We don’t negotiate from here.  Not going to negotiate from the podium.  But certainly, the work is ongoing. 
 
Q    And back to the humanitarian aid in Gaza that you discussed earlier.  That was a U.S. deadline that was a month ago. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    You said that Israel has taken some steps, but among those steps are the U.S. had asked for 350 humanitarian aid trucks a day.  We’re nowhere near that point.  Is the U.S. essentially giving Israel a pass when it comes to humanitarian aid?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, absolutely not.  I mean, we’re — that’s why the cont- — the conversations continue and the discussions continue. 
 
We have seen — we have seen Israel take some steps to address the measures of — of getting the measures laid out that were in the letter.  We have seen that.
 
Q    But is that acceptable?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   We want to see more.  That — that’s what we want to see.  That’s why those discussions continue.  The — just because we hit the 30-day mark doesn’t mean that we go home and don’t finish what we are trying to do here, which is getting and surging more aid to the Pale- — Palestinian people.  We understand how important it is.  We understand how dire the situation is, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.
 
And at the same time — and you’ve heard us say this — the best way to deal with this, the best way to — to alleviate the suffering that we’re seeing of the Palestinian people in Gaza is to get to a deal here, and we’re going to continue to be laser focused on that. 
 
Q    And finally, has J.D. Vance been issued an invitation to the White House either tomorrow or in the future?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would have to refer you to the vice president’s office, I think.  We don’t have anything for you at this time, but the vice president’s office can speak to that.
 
Go ahead.
 
AIDE:  Karine, we have time for one more.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
Q    Thank you.  You said shortly after the election that one of the priorities for the president legislatively was going to be about judges and judicial nominations. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    Can you talk about how you’re preparing for Congress to return and then these next couple weeks as you try and make your final imprint on the courts?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, I will say that’s something that we’ve been doing throughout the almost four years is push — is making sure that these qualified judges get through. 
 
And so, there’s — there’s really nothing new to the process.  It’s just a continued focus that we want to make sure — in the next 70 days or less now, that we want to make sure that happens. 
 
And it’s important to the American people.  And this is not a partisan issue.  This is bipartisan.  And we have seen this with — in other — this type of period of time, in other transition period, if you will, where — where the sitting president has been able to get some judicial judges go through, and that’s what we want to see Congress.  We want to see Republicans and Democrats come together, as they have, to get these key judges through. 
 
Let’s not forget, we’re talking about what’s right for the American people.  We don’t want to see, you know, backlogs, if you will, when it comes to getting criminal cases through.  This is the norm.  This is part of what we’ve seen in the past when we’re talking about a transition period. 

So, we’re continuing to do that work.  There’s nothing new.  We just are — we want to make sure that work continues. 

Q    Do you have a — a point when you expect to make your final nominations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have anything specific for you.  I’m sure that we can talk to the Office of Leg Affairs on anything more specific on a timeline.  But this is one of our priorities that we want to make sure that we get done for the American people. 

Go ahead, Brian.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thanks a lot.  President Trump has promised to launch the largest deportation in American history when he — he becomes president.  Are there steps that President Biden is taking in the next 70 days to try to protect certain populations in the United States from deportation?  Does he want to extend parole or take other steps that would protect people from that deportation program?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have any — any new policies to — to announce at this time.  And I want to be careful.  Like, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals on what the next administration is going to do or not do.  That’s not something that I’m going to try to address from here.  It is not something that we will be addressing from here. 

What I can speak to is what the president has done over the past almost four years in dealing with a broken system — a broken immigration system that has been broken for decades now and trying to work with Congress on doing that. 

And as you know, there was a — a bipartisan deal that came about from the Senate that Republicans and Democrat — obviously, bipartisan, as I just stated — worked on.  And, you know, we, of course, would love to see that go through.  We would love to see that happen. 

The president was ready to go, and they — Republicans were told not to move forward because it would help Joe Biden, which is really unfortunate, because it would have dealt with this broken system that we have.  It would have dealt with the challenges that the Border Patrol agents were facing at the border. 

That is something that would be great to get done.  But I — beyond that, I don’t have anything to share — beyond that.

Go ahead, Skylar. 

Q    Thanks, Karine. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to start wrapping this up.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  President-elect Trump — there’s reports that Elon Musk is having a lot of sway in terms of his decisions, in terms of who President-elect Trump is, you know, having come into his administration, sitting in on meetings with — with foreign leaders. 

And Elon Musk has said — you know, there’s reports that he wants to sort of reshape, maybe, the government.  Is President Biden concerned at all over Elon Musk’s influence —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — over President-elect Trump and potentially what that could look like for the country?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is — that is for the president-elect to ma- — to decide on.  I’m not — I’m not going to comment on personnel decision or personnel choices that the transition announces or is being reported or what’s happening in that world.  It is not for us to speak to.

The president is going to focus on the next 70 days and what’s at hand, focus on the American people, focus on making sure that we have a process — a transition process that’s orderly.  And that’s what we are — want to make sure that we keep our promise — right? — that democratic — those demo- — honoring our democratic principles.

What the president-elect does and speaks — who he speaks to and how he wants to think and envision his administration, that’s up to him. 

Q    And just one more.  Kind of quickly shifting gears here.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But President Biden — you know, is it still the plan to travel to Africa at the top of December? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is that still on the agenda?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s still on the agenda.  As I mentioned, I think from here at the podium, behind the lectern, when we had to pull that trip down and reschedule it, obviously, because of what was happening here domestically with a historic hurricane, we had said that the president would go the — the first week of December.  That still is the case.  The president is very much looking forward to visiting the continent, visiting Angola. 

When we have more to share, we certainly will share that.  We have an OCONUS coming up, so we got to do this — one OCONUS at a time, if you will.  And we certainly will have more to share. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Could you talk about what are the key goals this administration would like to achieve in terms of the U.S.-China relations, as you have invested significantly into this relationship?  So, what do you like to achieve before you’re handing over to the next administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I appreciate the question.  If you indulge me a little bit, because I think this is important — so, the president, as you know, has prioritized investments in — in sources of U.S. strength at home, strengthening our alliances abroad, and taking commonsense measures to protect U.S. technology and also national security. 

So, when he came into the office nearly four years ago, this president made it clear that the U.S. was going to advance and protect our interests here at home and also, obviously, abroad.  And the framework of this administration’s China policy — which is “invest, align, compete” — has remained constant for over those almost four years. 

And so — but at the same time, the president has also been very honest and has emphasized the importance of responsibil- — responsibly managing the U.S.-China relationship. 

So, that’s also include opening lines of — of communications, cooperations in areas of — of shared interest, hence the important bilat — right? — that he had with the Indonesian leader. 

And so, he’s going to continue to advance the U.S. interests when it comes to engagement with the PRC, just as he’s done for the last four years.  So, that continues over the next several — several weeks, couple of months. 

And so, I would say: Stay tuned.  See — see how it goes. 

Q    Does the president feel urgency or importance to meet President Xi in person before his term is over?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any- — anything to share about a meeting or a phone call.  I — I just laid out the importance of the U.S.-China relationship.  What we’ve been able to do the last four years, that’s certainly going to continue.  And — and if we have more to share on a possible meeting or, certainly, a phone call, we would certainly do that — share with that — with all of you.

Q    So, quickly, why the phone call hasn’t happened since Jake Sullivan previewed it two months ago?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, you know, things like this take some time.  I just don’t have anything to share with all of you.  But I think we’ve — we’ve been — we’ve been pretty — you’ve seen that relationship and how that’s developed, how the president approached the U.S.-China relationship. 

And that invest, that align, that compete — the three things that I mentioned to you — is certainly going to continue.  You’ve seen that the last four years.  And if we have more to share, we certainly will do that.
 
Thanks, everybody.  I’ll see you tomorrow.
 
3:53 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:07 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good to — welcome back to some of you out there who were on the trail.  Good to see you all.

Okay.  As you just heard from the president — President Biden, he spoke with President-elect Trump to congratulate him on his victory.

He also assured him that he would direct his entire administration to work with his team to ensure a peaceful and orderly transition of power.  That is what the American people deserve.

He also spoke with the vice president to congratulate her on a historic, inspiring campaign.

And for some people, this election is a time of victory, and others, it’s a time of loss.  To state the obvious, Tuesday’s night’s results were not our team’s desired outcome.

There is going to be a — a lot of post- — postmortem analysis of what happened in the coming days, in the coming weeks, even in the coming months.  And so, I’m going to leave those questions to the election experts.  That is certainly not my role today.

But what you heard from President Biden is that the struggle for the soul of America, since our very founding, crosses generations and is always ongoing and is still important today.

The president and the vice president accept the choice the country has made and — because the president has said this many time; you heard him say this moments ago in the Rose Garden: You can’t love your country only when you win, and you can’t love your neighbor only when you agree.

The president also spoke to the importance of the integrity of the American election system: It’s honest, it’s fair, and it’s transparent, and it can be trusted, whether you win or you lose.

The president and the vice president are proud to be leaving behind the strongest economy in the world.

And the president and the vice president are proud to have change America for the better.  That’s going to be their focus in the upcoming remaining days.  You heard the president say that we have 74 days left of his administration, and they are going to make every day count on behalf of the American people, regardless — regardless of who voted for them.

With that, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  First off, do you have an update on when the president-elect will come visit the president here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as we said in our statement yesterday after the vice president spoke at Howard University, our teams — the president obviously invited the president-elect to the White House for them to meet.  Our teams — their team and our team are working on that, and we’re — certainly we’ll share once we lock something in in the near future.

Q    Second, when the president spoke in the Rose Garden a little bit ago, one thing he did not do was take any accountability for his party’s defeat on Tuesday night.  Does he feel any sense of responsibility for the outcome?  Does he feel he would have — he should have done things differently through the course of this campaign?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, there’s a lot there.  And let me — if you don’t mind, give me a second to unpack all of this, because I think it’s important for the American people to hear this as well.

Look, the president has spoken to this, and he’ll — I’ll say it again here.  He was certainly inspired by the — the campaign that the vice president ran. 

And when he decided to pass the torch over to the vice president, you saw — you saw the party come right behind her, support her, right after he was able to do that.  And it’s because she was the right person for the job.

You heard him say that in 2020.  The reason why he selected her as her [his] running mate: because she — he knew she would be able to do the job on day one.

And you heard that, obviously, once he decided to pass the torch, which he didn’t think about, like, second — give it — give any second thought, right?  He thought about it and did it.  Like, it wasn’t something that he gave a second thought to, as I just said.  He knew it was the right thing to do.

And I would want to say as well — is that if you look at the four years — almost three — well, three-plus years, there are some historic accomplishments that they ha- — were able to do together, whether it’s beating Big Pharma and now Medicare is able to negotiate; whether it’s getting a bipartisan infrastructure law; whether it’s the sc- — the — the PACT Act —

Q    CHIPS.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — the Bipartisan Infrastructure; the CHIPS and Science Act — thank you so much — these are things that were able to get us out of the pandemic.

And you heard me say at the top that the president is proud to leave the strongest economy for the next person that’s coming, for the president-elect, and that’s what they’re going to inherit.

But with all of that said — and this gets to your question — despite all of the accomplishments that we were able to get done, there were global headwinds that — because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Obviously, COVID-19 led to disruptions with the supply chain.  And it had a political toll on many incumbents, if you look at what happened in 2024 globally. 

And that’s what you — that’s part of what you saw, right?  You saw that there was a political toll on incumbent parties around the world here.

Now, I’m going to be very mindful and leave the political analysis to the pundits.  They’re going to dig in.  They’re going to look under the hood.  They’re going to see exactly what happened.

But what we saw two nights ago was not unusual to what we have seen from the incumbencies around the world on the global stage.

Q    To — to restate my question —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — does the president feel any responsibility for the outcome?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The president understands that he’s going to respect the will of the people.  That’s what he understands.  He understands that the American people made a decision, and he’s going to respect that.

He believe he made the right decision.  When he stepped — stepped aside, decided that he wasn’t going to run, he automatically —

Q    Should he have done that in 2022, though?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Guys, here’s the thing — and we can’t — we can’t rewrite history.  We have to remember what happened in 2022.  2022 is a perfect example, actually, because when we came out of 2022 midterms, we saw a successful midterms from — from — for any new administration in over 60 years, and it was because of the president’s policies. 

Let’s not forget that all of the accomplishments that the president did — again, I had listed the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act — those are popular with the American people.  They are.  Those policies were indeed popular, and that’s what got us through the 2022 midterm. 

It was supposed to be a red wave.  That didn’t happen.

And so, coming out of that, we did see some historic markers there. 

And so, the president believed that he needed to do — he’s always going to put the American people first.  When he decided to step down and endorse immediately the vice president, that’s what he thought was the right thing to do in that moment, in that time.

Q    So — one last one for me.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.  Sure.

Q    I’m sure my colleagues have a few to unpack there, but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    The president entered the office, he said he went around — and traveled around the world and met with world leaders, he was always sa- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — would recount this anecdote of, you know, “I’d say ‘America is back,’ and then they would say, ‘But for how long?’”  I mean, the world now has that answer.  It was four years —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and two days.  Does the president feel like he has let down America’s allies and partners that now someone with a d- — very different world view than him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — will now be in the Oval Office?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to get into what the president-elect is going to do, not going to do.  I’m not going to do that. 

What I’m going to say is the president’s message is cont- — is going to continue to be the same.  American leadership matters.  How we conduct ourselves on the global stage matters.

You know, we are indispensable nation on the world stage.  That is what the president believes.  And that is something that he’s heard, to your point, when he was around the world.  And he appreciates the cooperation that he’s received from our partners and our allies, when it — if you think about Ukraine and how he — we were able to make NATO stronger and get 50 — more than 50 countries behind Ukraine, when you think about what’s happening in the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East.

And so, cannot speak to what the next administration is going to do.  I can only speak to what the president was proud that he was able to do over the last, you know, three-plus years, and that’s going to continue to be our focus, and that’s what we believe is the right thing to do on behalf of the American people. 

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thank you.  Does the president have any regrets about when he chose to leave the race or any regrets about deciding to run for a second term?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president is very proud of what he was able to accomplish.  He was very proud in when he made that decision to hand over the torch, pass the torch to the vice president.  He believed it was the right decision to make at that time.  He believed that she was ready — she was ready to lead on day one and has been very proud on what he’s been able to deliver. 

And as I was talking to Zeke — or answering Zeke’s question moments ago, what we saw two nights ago was certainly very much in line to what we’ve seen in other G7 countries in incumbencies, the role, the toll that the pandemic took, even though we were able to lead in the world when it comes to the economy.  We saw what happened in other G7 countries, and so that is what we believe.

Look, there’s going to be a lot of punditry, a lot of election experts who are going to have their opinions, who are going to have their thoughts, but the president is very, very proud — very proud of what he’s been able to accomplish and incredibly impressed for what the vice president was able to do. 

Q    Has the president been hearing from foreign leaders about the outcome of this election, and have they expressed any concerns to th- — to him?  What has his message been to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can’t — I don’t have any — any calls to read out about the president speaking to foreign leaders.  It’s only been two — two days, as I just mentioned, and so don’t have anything for you to — to read — to read out.

But it’s very much, you know, what I just said moments ago about his message to world leaders about how important it is to have our participation, American’s leadership on the world stage, and what that means.  And we’ve been able to see that for the last three-plus years, whether it’s Ukraine, whether it’s the Middle East, whether it’s Indo-Pacific, a lot of that — making NATO stronger was certainly the president’s leadership.  And that’s what other allies and partners — that’s what they rely on us on. 

And so, we’re going to continue to do that.  That’s going to be our focus the next 74 days.  I just don’t have anything to read out.

But our message is: America is going to continue to be there.  I can’t speak to what the administration — the next administration is going to do.

Q    And the president said today that he’s going to assist with the transition.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Has the Trump transition team been responsive?  Have they taken the steps that need to be taken so far in order to ensure an orderly transition?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, if you’re talking about the MOUs that the — the transition teams need to sign, as of now, the Trump-Vance transition team has not yet entered the agreements with the White House and the general services.

And our chief of staff — our chief of staff, Jeff Zients, reached out to the Trump-Vance cochairs, and so we’re going to leave that line of communications open.  We’re going to be helpful here.  We want to have an effective, efficient transition of power. 

And so, we are ready — ready to provide that.  As you know, the president invited the president-elect, Donald Trump, to come to the White House, and so once we lock that in, we certainly will share that with all of you. 

But we’re ready.  We’re ready to assist.  We have been.  We’ve been trying to be there and be ready to assist in any transition — with this pa- — obviously, this transition.  And so, we’re going to reach out, have those conversation.  And — and so, I’ll just leave it there. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Does President Biden believe he could have won if he stayed in this race?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  President Biden believes that he made the right decision when he decided to step aside and immediately endorse the vice president, and you saw the party come behind her, support her.  And he believed it was the right thing for the American people.  He put himself aside. 

This was not about him.  This was about what was right for the American people, and that’s what he believes.  He believes it was the right decision to make.  And he’s very, incredibly proud. 

Q    And just to follow up on the previous questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    The president said, when he stepped aside, that his number one priority was making sure that Vice President Harris would succeed him at the White House.  That, of course, is not going to happen.  So, does he have any regrets?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  In which way?  Any regrets in —

Q    How it all played out since —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean, I said this at the top.  This was not the outcome that our team had wanted.  So, are we disappointed?  Yes, we are disappointed.  It would be false for me to say that we were not.

But we also respect — we respect the outcome of the election.  We rexpect [respect] what the Americans — American people voted for, wanted.  And so, because of that, the president is also going to make sure there is a peaceful transfer of power, because that’s what the American people deserve. 

And so, you know, not going to get into analysis here of — of specifics of what happened, but what we know is the results.  And so, are we disappointed?  Of course.  Of course.  But it is important to make sure that what the American people decided on, what it is that they wanted to see, that we respect that, and we’ll do that.

Q    And what are the president’s top priorities in the next 70 or so days?  When Trump comes in, he could undo quite a bit of what President Biden has put in place through executive action. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  Again, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals here about what the president-elect is going to do or not do.  I can tell you a couple of our focus — things that we’re going to focus on in the upcoming 74 days.  And we’re going to make sure that we keep the government open.  We’re going to deliver assistance for communities devastated by Hurricanes Helene and Milton and other recent disasters.  We’re going to pass the NDAA.  That’s important.  And we’re also going to make sure that we confirm well-qua- — -qualified judicial nominees.  That’s going to be a — certainly our focus in the next 74 days.

And I’m just not going to get into the next administration, what it is that they’re going to do or not do.  I can speak to what our focus is going to be. 

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Karine, in 2020, President Trump did not invite then-President-Elect Biden to come to the White House.  President Biden has elected now President-Elect Trump to come. 

I’m curious if that was a hard decision for him, given that he didn’t have that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — offer four years ago. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you mean a — a decis- — hard decision for him to make — the president — President Biden to make right now?

Q    To invite him now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you’ve covered the president for a long time.  I think you covered him when he was vice president.  You know — you know Joe Biden, right?  You know that this is a person that cares about the American people, that respects the office.  And if anything, he’s — he has shown that not just the three-plus years; he has shown that as senator, as vice president. 

And so, it is not surprising to me that he would do the right thing on behalf of the American people.  This is not about the president-elect, right?  This is about the American people.  They deserve — they deserve a peaceful transfer of power.  That’s what this president understands and wants to make sure that we execute — the Biden-Harris administration.

And so, that is what you saw.  That’s what you’re going to see.  That’s what you heard from him.  You heard that from the vice president as well, yesterday, when she was at Howard.  And that’s what you’re going to see over the next 74 days.  

So, it is — I think it is in line with who this president is and how he sees the importance of respecting the American people and how it is important to make sure we have — we truly, truly have a peaceful transfer of p- — of power.  And him being the president, the current president, the onus is on him to make sure that happens. 

Q    There has been a lot of criticism in the last couple days directly addressed at President Biden for some of the questions that have already been asked: running in the first place or not stepping aside faster.  Some of that criticism has also been directed at his team and the advisers around him for advising him to do what he did.  Can you address that criticism?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  To — to do what he did, meaning?

Q    Running again, not stepping aside faster, and showing what some people say — quoting folks here — an “arrogance” of believing he was the only one who could beat Donald Trump. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean — well, you said something at the end that I do want to — (laughs) — just kind of reiterate and remind —

Q    Please.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — remind folks, and it was a good reminder to me, which is, like, look, the president — this is the president who has been the only person has been able to beat Donald Trump.  I mean, that is true.  In 2020, he was able to do that.  There were more than 20 candidates who tried to beat him, and they — he was the one that has been able to do that. 

I talked about what happened in the midterms, how it was historical for a new administration in more than 60 years to have been able to have that type of outcome, from the 2022 midterms, when everybody said it would be a red wave. 

What I will also say is that he’s incredibly proud of the campaign that this vice president ran — incredibly proud of her.  And when he did decide to step aside, he immediately endorsed her, and the party unified behind her.  They did. 

Q    Yeah, you said that.  My — my question is just if you can or want —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to address the criticism that’s being directed at him for this loss.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s going to be a lot of people who are going to say a lot of things.  There’s going to be election experts who are going to look under the hood in the next couple of days and weeks and months, as I’ve said already, and they’re going to have their opinion on this race. 

What I can say is that — and this is something the president says all the time — you get knocked down, you get back up.  And the president said this moments again [ago].  You know, this is a defeat, but we are not defeated.  And the president believes he made the right decision on behalf of the American people, on behalf of this country, to step aside. 

And we saw what happened in 2022 after the midterms.  We saw where we were at that time.  And this is how elections are.  This is.  It ebbs and flows.  You win.  You lose.  And this is where we are today. 

What we’re going to focus on is respecting the American people and how we move forward in the next 74 days. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  You talked about the influence that the 2022 midterms had on the president’s thinking to decide to run for reelection, but around that time in 2023, polls showed that roughly 80 percent of Americans believed at that time that the president was too old to serve another term.  Did he believe those voters were wrong?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What he believed is what 14 million voters decided in the primary: to make him and the vice president — obviously, she was on the ticket — the nominee.  That’s what happened.  Fourteen million for — for this current — past primary.  Fourteen million Americans decided that.  So, they made their decision on who they wanted.  They did.  That was decided.

Now, as we know, in July, the president made a decision to step aside, and he immediately, again, decided to, without thought — without, you know, second-guessing, endorse the vice president.  So, you had 14 million Americans who made that decision in the primary. 

Q    But around that time in 2023, the president’s team also very firmly encouraged other rising stars — luminaries in the party, people who had participated in the primaries in the 2020 cycle — to rally behind the president and not to consider their own ambitions.  Was that the wrong call?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into conversations.  I — I’m not going to get into that reporting.  It is not unusual for people to rally behind the — the leader of the party — in this case, is Do- — pardon me — in this case, is Joe — Joe Biden for the Democratic Party.  It is not unusual for that to happen. 

I’m not going to relitigate or get into what was said, not said.  I actually don’t have any information on that.  What I can say is what the president decided to do, what this — the president believed, and what the president is going to continue to do is put the American people first.  That is the most important thing for him. 

Q    And —

Q    In the back, Karine.

Q    — does the president have worries about what the country and what this office will look like after January 20th?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the president is going to certainly, again, respect what majority of Americans decided.  They decided they wanted Donald Trump to be president, and he’s going to respect that. 

I don’t want to get into hypotheticals about what’s going to happen in the next mi- — administration, not happen in — in the next administration. 

We are proud — the president is incredibly proud of what he has been able to do for the American people, and that’s going to continue to be his focus. 

I talked about the legisla- — -lative focuses that we’re going to have in the next 74 days, and he wants to continue to implement those historic legislations — now laws — that he was able to get done. 

And, you know, the next administration is going to inherit a strong economy, which he’s very proud about. 

But I think, for now, I’m going to leave it there. 

Q    And does the president hope to meet with the president-elect before leaving to go to South America, where he’ll meet with world leaders? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can tell you, it’ll be in the near future.  We have to — we’re going to work that out.  Our — certainly, his staff is going to work with the staff of the president-elect to find a time that works for both.  I can’t say the timing just yet.  Certainly, you all will know when that occurs.  But I can say for sure it will be in the near future.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, does the president believe that he could have beat Donald Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What the president believes is that he did the right thing for the American people.  I’m not — I’m just — I’m not going to get into, you know, what could have, would have.  He believe he did the right thing. 

He believe that the vice president ran a — a — really, a great campaign.  He’s incredibly proud of what she’s been able to do and how she was u- — able to unify the party and how she stepped up and was able to get — to — to get running with a — with a impressive campaign. 

And so, that’s what he believed.  He thought it was the right thing to do.  And here’s the thing: The party u- — unified behi- — behind her.  And I think that’s what is important.  He did the right — he believe he did the right thing.

Q    So, Republicans have threatened to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Mm-hmm.

Q    Does the White House have any plans to take any actions to safeguard some of the measures, such as, you know, clean energy investments, for instance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  I do want to talk about the Inflation Reduction Act.  That is a popular piece of legislation, obviously, that became law.  That is, when you think about climate change, the most comprehensive law to be passed to deal with climate change. 

I talked about beating Big Pharma.  When you think about Medicare now being able to negotiate and, not only that, you’re — obviously, to negotiate to lower cost. 

I mean, there is so much that came out — that comes out of the Inflation Reduction Act.  Only Democrats voted for i- — for it.  You have heard us warn about Congress trying to repeal that.  And it is popular.  We saw what happened when they tried to repeal the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, which became popular and helped tens of millions of people get health care. 

And so, that should be a warning for them.  That should be a warning for them not to go after something that actually helps the American people, that actually delivers on key, key priorities, and that is actually popular. 

So, I’ll — I’ll leave it there. 

Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  One of the issues debated, discussed quite a bit during the course of the campaign was the issue of reproductive rights.  Is the White House, the president concerned that with a Republican in the White House, Republicans controlling the Senate, a super conservative majority on the Supreme Court, at the very least —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — we don’t know what’s going to happen in the House — that reproductive freedoms for women will be rolled back? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that is something that we have said consistently that we are concerned about.  I believe three national bans on abortion were introduced in Congress.  This is something that Republican elected officials continue to go after — the rights for women to make decision on their own body, very difficult decision, a decision that should be kept between a woman, her family, and her doctor. 

And so, you know, it is incredibly concerning.  And we’re talking about women across the country whose health could be at risk.  And so, what I can say is the president and the vice president is going to continue to stand with majority of Americans on calling on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade.  That’s what we want to see. 

Are we concerned?  Yes, we’re concerned.  Nothing changes about our concern about that post-election. 

And they’ve — Republicans in Congress have made themselves very, very clear.  And so, we’re going to do everything that we can when — we have — we have taken steps to protect women and this decision — important, critical decisions that they have to make.  And so, that will certainly continue. 

Q    You said the vice president ran a great campaign, and yet she underperformed in every state compared with President Biden when he ran in 2020.  Why do you suppose that was?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to do punditry from here.  That is not something that I’m going to do.  I’m not going to dive into the data.  Not going to do that. 

There’s going to be plenty of time for election experts to look under the hood, to tinker around in it, figure out what happened.  I’ll leave that to de- — them to — to deal with. 

But I would say she ran an impressive campaign.  Some of you reported that.  What she was able to do, it was impressive — how she — the — with which — the amount of money she was able to raise, how she was able to put together a campaign around her — right? — a campaign that, obviously, the president built and was happy to hand that over to her, and she stepped up to the moment. 

Now there’s going to be a lot that’s being — that’s going to be discussed about what happened, the data, exactly what occurred.  And so, I’m going to leave that to them. 

But what I will say, and I think this is just a data point that I’ve been talking about, about what we’ve seen in G7 countries, what we’ve seen with incumbencies after the pandemic, because what the — the disruptions that the pandemic caused.  Even though we did what we — we did everything that we could to have policies to get us out of the pandemic and leading the world on the economic front, there were political toll.  Right?  The pandemic led to some political tolls for incumbencies. 

That’s just a data point that I’m sharing with all of you that has been consistent to what we’ve seen with G7 countries.  And so, I’ll — I’ll just leave it there. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We’ve heard the president say recently, in the summer, that the — former President Trump’s vision for America is “dark” and that it’s “not who we are.”  But given the results on Tuesday night, does he think he misjudged where the country is right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the country spoke.  They did.  Majority of the country spoke.  They were very clear on where they wanted to see the direction of this country, and we’re going to respect that.  We are.  We’re going to respect that. 

But to your question about what the president said, the president always believes it is important to be honest.  He sees it as an obligation, to be honest to the American people.  And that’s what you heard from the president tha- — said there.

But, again, American people made a decision.  We’re going to respect that.  We’re going to have a peaceful transfer of power.  That is something the president is going to lead — right? — he’s going to lead by example.  That’s what you’re going to continue to see in the next 74 days.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Picking up on that just a little bit.  Earlier, you said that the White House’s view, when it came to reproductive rights, did not change —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — from pre- and post-election.  The president repeatedly referred to Donald Trump as a “threat to democracy” over and over again.  And this morning, though, he said, “We’re all going to be okay.”  So, was that just political rhetoric?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean — I mean, if you know the president, you know that him saying, “We’re all going to be okay” — he’s an optimist, right?  He believes when you get knocked down, you get back up. 

We are — we — we — we lost, but we’re not defeated, right?  We — we suffered a defeat, but we’re not defeated.  And that is the president’s optimistic nature. 

And it’s very similar to the question that I just got from Karen.  The president believes, as — as you asked me about the threat to democracy — believes in being — an obligation to be honest to the American people. 

And we cannot forget, it wasn’t — just really quickly, it wasn’t just the president who was saying this, right?  I mean, you ha- — the former president, now the president-elect, said there wa- — talked about an “enemy within,” right?  He talked about mistreating Americans who disagree with him, about “terminating” the Constitution. 

And you heard from his former — former chief of staff, John Kelly, and, let’s not forget, the — the former Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.  We heard from them and what they had to say.  So, we weren’t the only ones saying that.

And the president does believe that he needs to be honest — has an obligation to be honest to the American people. 

Now we’re in a situation where the American people have spoken, and we’re going to respect the outcome of the election two days ago, because we have to respect the — the — our election system.  It’s important to do that.

And at the same time, he’s — he’s still a leader.  He wants to make sure that he shows optimism, right?  He wants to make sure that people understand that there is a tomorrow, right?  There is going to be another opportunity to have your voices heard. 

And so, that is very much quintessential Joe Biden, I think, if you — if you have followed him and — and really reported on him for the past several years.

Q    To be clear, does he still believe that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think that the president was very clear, what he stated, and it was very honest. 

And what we are trying to do — and I get your question.  What we are trying to do is respect what the American people decided.  We’re — we’re not trying to cause any divisions here.  We’re trying to be very respectful of what the American people —

But, again, when he spoke, he wanted to be honest with the American people and share what he believed.  And it wasn’t just him.

But right now, we want to move forward.  We want to make sure there’s a tra- — a peaceful transfer of power.  That’s what the American people deserve.

Q    On another topic, do the election results ramp up the urgency to get more aid to Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I think in September the president talked about surging aid to Ukraine.  And we talked — and you’ve been hearing us — to kind of announce aid to Uk- — to Ukraine over the past several — several weeks, if not months.  And so — and so, that’s not going to change.  We’re going to surge and get that out there to Ukraine.  We understand how important it is to make sure they have what they need. 

And so, that hasn’t changed.  That is no different.  And so, we’re going to — surging that aid to Ukraine, we’re going to continue to make sure that they have the — the strongest — everything that they need on the — on the battlefield to push back against Russia’s aggression.  So, that certainly doesn’t change.

And we have taken action to strengthen Ukraine’s air defenses and enhance their battlefield capabilities.  And so, we are committed.  We continue to be committed.  But we’ve been surging that aid for some time — like I said, when the president made an announcement back on the — September 26th.  And so, that’s going to continue, for sure.

Q    And then one last one, if I may.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.  Yeah, sure.

Q    Senator Bernie Sanders, he says that — he has suggested that party leadership abandoned the working class.  What’s the White House response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — obviously, we respect Senator Sanders.  He’s been a partner with us in all — many of the important, historic pieces of legislation that we were able to get passed.  Certainly, the senator has been a partner with us. 

Here’s what I will say to that — is the president has been called the — the most pro-union president when it comes to working class — right? — pro-union.  If you think about unions, we’re talking about the working class, right? 

And he’s done everything that he could to make sure that we created jobs where you don’t need a college degree — right?  — think about the bipartisan infrastructure act, you think about the CHIPS and Science Act — those legislation created jobs, are going to create thousands of jobs where you literally can make a — could get a six-figure salary a year and not have to have a college education. 

And the president created 16 million jobs in the past more than three-plus years.  And it is because wages went up, right? Unemployment has gone down.  And he believes everybody deserves a shot.  You hear him say that: Everybody deserves a shot.  And building an economy from the bottom up, middle out, making sure that we are continuing to grow the middle class — I think you see that in his policies. 

And so, you know, respectfully disagree with the senator.  And I think you can talk to unions; you could see the jobs that we’ve been able to create to disprove that.  And this is a president that cares, certainly, about the people who do get forgotten, the people who are not able to make ends meet.  He understands what it’s like to sit around a kitchen table, trying to figure out how you’re going to pay for a medical bill, how are you going to pay for your kids’ school, how are you going to pay for groceries.  And so does the vice president.

Go ahead, Ken.

Q    President-elect Trump has heard from a number of world leaders since the election: Xi, Macron, Zelenskyy, Netanyahu.  What is the level of concern that Trump may try to conduct foreign policy in this transition period and — and get in the way of some of the president’s foreign policy (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, it’s not unusual — right? — for a president-elect to hear from world leaders, especially after an election win.  I — I don’t have anything beyond that.  I’m not going to speculate beyond that.  And so, I’m just going to — I’m just going to leave it there. 

Q    And does the president see this election as a setback to some of the efforts he’s been making to try to get the hostages released, to try to, you know, bring peace to — to Gaza? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, since you mentioned Gaza, we’re going to continue to work to get — to advance diplomatic efforts, obviously, to end the war in Gaza, and secure the release of all the hostages.  That’s what we’re going to continue to do. 

And as well as our efforts to get to a resolution in Lebanon that ensures citizens on both sides of the blue line can safely return home. 

And so, that’s going to continue — next 74 days, that’s going to continue to be a focus, and that’s going to be — continue to be a commitment.

Q    Does this make it harder, though? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, it’s — it’s asking for speculation.  I — I’m not going to speculate.  I — all I can speak to is what we’re committed to do and — but that doesn’t change.  That certainly doesn’t change.

Go ahead, Tam.

Q    Thank you.  As you said, the Trump team hasn’t yet signed those memorandums —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — of understanding with GSA.  Does that in any way impede your ability to help there be a smooth transition?  Are there any practical implications in terms of what this White House is able to do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  A couple of things.  I’m glad you asked this.  So, there are two memoranda — memoranda of understanding under the Presidential Transition Act.  The first one is the MOU that’s with the GSA, which offers services like office space, equipment, and supplies. 

And then the second MOU is with the White House, which con- — which outlines access to agency employees, facilitates [facilities], and information. 

So, yesterday, the chief of staff here, Jeff Zients, reached out to Trump-Vance transition cochairs — that’s Howard Lutnick and also Linda McMahon — to make clear our intention to lead an orderl- — orderly transition and reiterate — reiterate the role the agreements play in — in initiating transition activities. 

Zients — Jeff acknowledged the public comments in — in mid-October by cochairs that they intend to execute on the MOUs, which both parties in the past transition have agreed to.  So, he stressed that the White House and the administration were ready — were ready to assist. 

They said that they were going to.  And so, we’ll — we’ll leave that to them. 

Q    What happens if they don’t get signed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals —

Q    Are you holding back —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — from here.

Q    — anything now? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we’re here to assist.  We want to have a peaceful transition of power.  We want to make sure they have what they need. 

I laid out — there’s a purp- — there’s a reason I wanted to lay out the two MOUs for folks to understand. 

And, look, they said they have an intent to do so.  We’re going to leave it to them.  That is really a question for them to — to answer. 

We are ready.  We are prepared.  We want this to work, and so we — we stand by that. 

Q    And we heard from the president today.  However, he did not take questions.  We’re hearing from you.  We would like to hear from the president.  It’s traditional for the president to come out.  It would be much easier to ask him, for instance, how he feels about the election. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    Are you going to make that happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He will be looking forward to talking to all of you soon.  And when that happens, we will let you know. 

You’re talking about like a actual press conference? 

Q    Like an actual press conference.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We have 74 days.  We have 74 days. 

Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

Q    How about multiple?

Q    Does — does President Biden — (laughter). 

Yeah, so, does President Biden fear for Ukraine’s future after Donald Trump’s victory, given that he’s talked, you know, about cutting aid, about pushing through a peace deal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, i- — I — and I’ve been pretty consistent the past couple of questions.  I don’t want to speculate what the administration is going to do or not do.  I’m going to focus on today.  I’m going to focus on the next 74 days.  That’s what I can speak to.

As you’ve seen, this president, our allies, and partners have rallied — have rallied behind Ukraine, stood up to Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, building a co- — coalition of more than 50 countries to make sure Ukraine had it — had what it needed on the battlefield.  And we’re going to continue to do that.  We’re going to continue to surge — surge assistance, support that they need to Ukraine so that they can — are able to defend their freedom and — and — and fight for their independence and protect themselves from Russia’s aggression. 

That is what we’re committed to.  That’s what we’re going to continue to do.  I’m just not going to stand here and speak to what the administration is going to do or not going to do — the upcoming administration. 

Q    Can I just — well, I’m going to ask you to speculate one more time —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — about something else.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Sure.

Q    On a — on a related note, I mean, Vladimir Putin said today he was ready to talk to Donald Trump.  Would that be a good idea?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m just not going to speak to that.  I mean, he — again, he’s the president-elect.  That’s what the American people decided.  I can speak to what we’re going to do the next 74 days, our continued commitment to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to — to beat back Putin’s aggression.  And that’s what I’m going to speak to.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I had two questions on pardons.  The first: Does the president intend to pardon any administration officials or people that Trump has threatened with any sort of legal actions?  He’s got 74 days, as — as you mentioned.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I know pardons is going to be a big part of the questions that I get here over the next several weeks and a couple of — couple of months that we have.  I don’t have anything to share or any thought process on pardons.  Once we have something to share, we certainly will share that. 

Q    Secondly, his son, Hunter, is also up for being sentenced next month.  Does the president have any intention of pardoning him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve been asked that question multiple times.  Our answer stands, which is no.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    You mentioned two MOUs. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Can you give us a flavor of what might be subsequent MOUs that might be coming up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was talking about the transition and how — there’s two MOUs that are related to the Transition Act —

Q    Right.  Right.  Are there any more?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — Transition Presidential Act [Presidential Transition Act], and that’s what I was speaking to.  I — I don’t have anything else beyond that.  This is part of the Transition Pre- — Presidential Act, and that’s what I was speaking of.  I just wanted to make sure that there was an understanding that there’s two MOUs.  I — I don’t have anything beyond that. 

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Is the president still planning to attend APEC and the G20 Summits next week? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  S- —

Q    And — and, if so, given there’s such little time in office, what does he aim to do there — to accomplish there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, he is planning to attend both conferences, if you will.  He’s going to be going to Peru and — and Brazil to attend those conferences, respectfully.  We will have more to share.  I don’t have anything beyond that, but I can confirm that the president will be attending.

Go ahead, Anita, in the back. 

Q    Thank you.  Two foreign policy questions.  First of all, you know, what are your top foreign p- — policy objectives in the next 74 days, especially vis-á-vis the Americans being held in Gaza and an end to the war in Ukraine?  Are you — what are you doing to work to — if you can’t solve these problems —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — in the next 74 days, to hand this one to the next administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president is going to continue — as — as more broadly, speaking of — in more general terms, speaking of the president’s focus on foreign policy, he’s going to continue to push forward with the progress that we’ve made over the three-plus years, and that’s been on an array of important issues, whether I — I’ve been talking about Ukraine — whether it’s continuing to strengthen — strengthen our alliances and partnership, standing with Ukraine, making sure they have what they need on the — on the ground to beat back against Putin’s aggression, tackling challenges we face in the range from Indo-Pacific to the Middle East.  So, that will continue to be the president’s focus on foreign policy matters certainly that are important to the American people. 

I spoke to Gaza already when I was asked a question about Gaza.  We’re going to have those diplomatic conversations.  We want to make sure that we bring the hostages home — that is, all the hostages.  That is a focus.  And let’s not forget Lebanon as well.  We want to make sure there’s a resolution there. 

And so, that’s a lot.  That is nothing new to what the president has been focused on for the past several months or — or past three-plus years.  And so, we’re going to continue to do that. 

Q    And you’re — you’re cool with the next administration maybe finalizing the deal and getting the credit for that if you line it up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, it — that’s — it’s — look, this is about what’s right for the American people.  You know?  This is ri- — I mean, I just said moments ago the president is very proud to be handing over the strongest economy.  The next administration is going to inherit a strong economy, and the president is proud about that.  He’s proud that he’s been able to do the work so that the next administration will inherit that. 

And so, look, we’re going to focus on what we can do right now in the next 74 days.  And everything that this president does, every focus that he has is on the American people, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.

Q    And then, at APEC and at the G20, what is the president’s message to China and the other 19 members of the G20, especially vis-á-vis —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — climate change, which, you know, President Trump has a very different policy on?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And we’ll have more to share on what the goals and what the message is going to be when the president travels next week.  I was able to confirm that he’ll be attending those two conferences.  We’ll have more to share for you all, but I think we’ve been very clear on our messaging when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, when it comes to China.  I think we’ve been very clear on that.  But we will certainly have more to share. 

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Considering the outcome of the election, what is the White House’s message to Black and brown communities, LGBTQ Americans who are fearful of the vulnerabilities of a Trump administration, given some policy proposals like eliminating DEI mechanisms, banning LGBTQ, bans in health care and in classrooms?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And how is the — is the president thinking about ways he can advance or preserve civil rights, his agenda —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — in these final days? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president and the vice president, as you know, have put civil rights as one of the top issues in their administration, and we have taken action to make sure that people who are — who have — who are vulnerable and did not have protections or — or needed additional protections, we made sure that we did everything that we can with this administration so that people in those vulnerable communities feel protected.  And that’s something that the president and the vice president believe in, are very proud of, and continue to do. 

And when it comes to this election, I said this.  We did not have the desired outcome.  There are some people who are celebrating and some people who are heartbroken by this moment, and we understand that.  But the reality is a majority of the American people voted, and so we’re going to respect that. 

I don’t have anything — any new policies to speak to.  But for those who are hurting, we see you.  We hear you.  We understand what you’re going through.  But don’t have anything else to — to speak to. 

Q    Just one more question. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    There are reports of racist text messages targeting Black Americans being sent across the country, particularly on college campuses — Ohio State, University of Alabama, Clemson University.  These messages are claiming to be from Trump supporters, indicating that recipients have been selected to, quote, “pick cotton” on plantations. 

These messages were quickly condemned by campus and civil rights leaders, but is the White House tracking this?  And what concern does the White House have about the outcome of the election leading to heightened hate speech?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I have not spoken to the team here about that reporting.  It — it does sound concerning, obviously.  I would have to go back and get a better sense of what is indeed happening and what, you know, the — the facts are.

You know, just going to the broader question, it is important for every community to feel safe, to feel protected.  That is something that this president has done and the vice president has done over the three and a half years.  We understand how vulnerable communities can feel, and it is important that we do that. 

And I think that’s why, in the next 74 days, the president wants to lead by example.  That’s why we keep talking about a peaceful transfer of power.  That’s why we keep talking about the importance of the election system and the results, because he believes it’s important to, again, lead by example, as president of the United States.  And that’s what we’re going to do here. 

Again, I can’t speak to the reportings directly.  If it in- — indeed is what’s happening, it is concerning.  And so, let me talk to the team and get you a fuller — a fuller answer. 

AIDE:  Karine, you have time for a couple more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  What will Kamala focus on in the next 74 days?  And will she spoke with J.D. Vance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, wait.  I’m sorry.  You’re talking about the vice president?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  So, I think we t- — I talked about what the administration, which obviously includes the vice president, what we’re going to focus on the next 74 days.  I will have more to share with you about a potential meeting with the vice president and the incoming vice president, J.D. Vance.  Don’t have anything to share with you at this time. 

Go ahead, Brian, in the back.

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  You know, Donald Trump had classified documents at Mar-a-Lago that he did not secure.  Does the president have concerns about classified information being given to Donald Trump in the next 74 days as part of the transition, that Donald Trump will not take steps to protect that — those (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to leave it to ODNI to speak to whatever information — classified information.  I’m not going to get into speculation from here and just — just leave it there for — for now. 

Q    I had one other —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh —

Q    — one other follow-up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, sure. 

Q    When Pre- — when President Biden invites Trump to the White House, will he also invite the other living presidents?  Will he invite Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to be here as well?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have anything beyond President Biden inviting the president-elect when they spoke recently.  I don’t have anything more. 

Obviously, when that meeting lands in the very near future, we will share that.  The teams are working on it.  I just don’t have anything beyond — beyond the president inviting the president-elect. 

Go ahead, Phil.

Q    Thank you.  First, a quick follow-up.  Just — does the president still stand by his description of the former president, now president-elect, as an existential threat to democracy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to share beyond what I’ve said.  The president believes — when he said it at the time, he believes he had an obligation to be honest with the American people.  I laid out what people who — former staffers of the former president said.  We’re talking about John Kelly, former chief of staff.  We’re talking about the former Defense secretary.  They were very clear. 

And we also heard words that the president-elect said: “enemy within,” going after people who disagree with him.

And so, the president is always, always going to be very honest with the American people.  I don’t have anything else to share beyond that. 

Look, we are — we are being very clear here, right?  The outcome was not what we wanted.  And the American people have made a decision, and we want to respect — we want to respect the decision that the American people have made.  And we are going to make sure that the American people get what they deserve, which is a peaceful transfer of power. 

And we’re going to focus — continue to focus on issues that matter — we believe that matter to the American people in the next 74 days.

Q    So, it sounds like his assessment hasn’t changed.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was being honest.  He has an obligation, and he was being honest with the American people.  And he will continue to do so.

Q    A question about the peaceful transition.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    What is President Biden’s message to career civil servants who will carry over into the next administration?  Does President Biden believe that they should be fully cooperative as the next president seeks to put his agenda into action?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Fully cooperative?

Q    Not slow things down. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, n- — absolutely.

Q    Republicans have —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I mean, look, we’re saying —

Q    — voiced a lot of frustration —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re saying that we want a good — a peaceful transition.  We want an ef- — effective, efficient transition.  That’s what we’re saying.  And that’s in the president’s administration.

Career, political — we want to make sure that that transition happens in an orderly way, and we’re not looking to slow down anything.  We want it to happen — to happen.  That’s what the American people deserve. 

This is not political here, folks.  This is not about politics.  This is about the right thing to do for the American people.  They’ve made a decision, and we’re respecting that. 

Q    Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  No problem. 

I don’t know how much — go ahead, sir.

Q    Yeah.  Are members of the Trump team traveling with the — the president and government officials to Lima to the APEC Summit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sorry, what’s the —

Q    Are —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What’s the —

Q    Are members of the Trump team traveling or are they going to be in Lima (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re — you’re going to have to ask the Trump — the Trump team on that.  I can only speak for the president. 

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just to follow up on the pardon question.  Is a commutation also still off the table?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  For — who are you talk- —

Q    For Hunter.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Who are you talking about? 

Q    Hunter.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  I — no.  No.  I mean, we’re not — that’s not what we’re going to do.

Q    You had said on Air Force One that the president would — would not consider a commutation of his son.  Does that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, that stands.

Q    You’re saying that still stands?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.  That stands.

Q    Okay.  Great.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.

Q    And then I heard you earlier in the briefing talking about the pandemic’s role in the outcome of this election.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And it sounds like that is being looked at internally as potentially one of the causes of this outcome. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But Ritchie Torres, the congressman, tweeted, “Donald Trump has no greater friend than the far left, which has managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like ‘Defund the Police’ or ‘From the river to the sea’ or ‘Latinx.’”

Is the — is the administration, the campaign, the Democratic Party looking at the pandemic as the cause, rather than — is that easier than —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s —

Q    — looking in the mirror?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, so, look, let’s step back here.  I think I’ve been and the president and the vice president has been pretty clear in understanding that the American people have spoken and respecting that.  I think we have tried to be incredibly respectful of what happened two nights ago, and we’re going to continue to do that. 

And I’m not going to speak to every person in the Democratic Party who has an opinion or a thought.  I’m — I’m just not.  It is not something that I’m going to do. 

I talked about the political toll on incumbent parties around the world as a data point — right? — as something that we have seen pretty consistency — pretty consistently with G7 allies in this time. 

And, obviously, one of the re- — one of the things that occurred was the pandemic.  It did.  It caused disruption.  It caused the supply chain to be disrupted and led f- — and — and caused the economy to be turned upside down. 

While we put policies — and we are, in fact, leading the world on the economy, it doesn’t stop — it doesn’t stop the fact that in- — there has been a political toll for incumbents. 

That is something that I’m telling you as a data point to share, because we know that you guys would have questions.  That’s a data point that I’m using. 

And I’m also saying that there’s going to be election experts in the next days, weeks, months, who are going to — again, looking under the hood, kick the — kick the tires, trying to figure out exactly what happened two nights ago. 

And so, they’re the pundits.  They’re going to speak to that.  They’re the experts. 

And so, we’ll have more information as they look at the data.  And so, we’ll let — we’ll — we’ll leave that to them. 

And so, I’m offering you our perspective, our thoughts, how we’re going to move forward in the next 74 days. 

And I — I think what Americans should be assured of is that this is a president that’s going to put the American people first.  That’s what people can be assured for.

Q    But is that examination happening at all inside, though?  Because as — as Gabe mentioned —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Yeah.

Q    — you know, this administration’s message to millions of Americans that they’re going to wake up the day after the election, if Trump won, and have their rights stripped away, that democracy would crumble, and the president said today, “We’re going to be okay.”  So, how do — how do you square that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I can square that.  I’m going to square that in a way that hopefully makes sense, because I’ve been answering this question multiple times. 

The American people made the decision.  There was an election two nights ago.  There was.  And it was a free and fair election, and we respect the election process.  We do.  And Americans spoke.

And so, the job of the president is to make sure we respect that.  The job of the president is to make sure that we have a peaceful transfer of power.  That is what the American people deserve, and that’s what we’re going to — it’s — it’s really — it’s not complicated.  It’s truly, truly as simple as that — as simple as that. 

The president called the president-elect, invited him to the White House.  You know why?  Because that’s customary.  That is customary.  That is what you do.  If you respect what the American people decided, that’s what you do.  And that’s what the pre- — the president is going to make sure that the Trump transition has what it needs, which — which is being led, obviously, by our chief of staff here. 

Why?  Because the president wants to lead by example.  It’s not complicated.  It really isn’t.  And, you know, that’s important.

Q    So, lead — “lead by example” is the message to people who are fearful based on what the messaging was about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — the stakes and what could happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, now you’re just twisting everything around, and that’s really unfair. 

Q    No, I’m asking you to be clear.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it is — no, no, no, Jacqui, it’s unfair, because I’ve been standing here trying to be very respectful to what happened the last two nights — two nights ago — being respectful.  I have been standing here saying that we respect the decision that the American people made.  I’ve been standing here and saying that the president is going to put the American people first.  I’ve been standing here talking about how the Ameri- — the president is going to make sure that they get what they deserve, which is a peaceful transfer of power. 

I do not appreciate having my words twisted.  That is — I have been very clear —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — very, very, very clear about what the president wants to do, and the vice president.  We want to make sure that we deliver for the American people.  They deserve — they deserve a peaceful transfer of power, and that’s what you’re going to see.

Thanks, everybody. 

3:07 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2:43 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, everybody.  Hey, everyone.

Q    Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, hi, hi.  Okay.  I know this is a short flight, but I do have a couple things at the top that’s important.

So, to start, I wanted to mention that open enrollment in the Federal Care Act marketplace, where more than 20 million Americans get health insurance, starts today.  More than a decade after passage of the law, Americans’ health care remains under threat.  Just this week, Speaker Johnson promised massive reform to the ACA.  The Republican Study Committee budget cuts a staggering $4.5 trillion from the ACA, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, consistent with every budget proposed by the former president.

Senator J.D. Vance has taken aim at the very idea of the risk pooling between healthy and sick which lies at the heart of the ACA.  And Republicans in Congress have made clear that one of their first orders of business would be raising premiums in ACA health insurance by an average of 800 bucks per person per year.

President Biden and Vice President Harris have done the po- — the opposite, bringing health insurance to more than ev- — more than ever — mor- — more people than ever before, lowering ACA premiums by 800 bucks per year, getting rid of red tape that the prior administration used to try to keep people from enrolling and expanding enrollment support.

The president and vice president will keep standing up for the affordable health insurance, and they will block any attempt to rip it away. 

Shifting gears just a second, I wanted to quickly discuss a recent ProPublica series highlighting reports of women in states like Texas and Georgia who have died after being denied the lifesaving care they need because of extreme abortion bans.  The stories are heartbreaking, scary, and sickening a- — sickening.  It’s hard to believe or accept as reality, and it’s completely unacceptable. 

This should never happen in America, but, sadly, it is, and tho- — and these abortion bans that are denying women lifesaving care are only possible because the former president appointed three Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.  The devastating and gut-wrenching consequences of these bans put in place are — enforced by Republican elected officials are very clear. 

President Biden and Vice President Harris believe that women in every state must have the right to make deeply personal decisions about their health.  They also believe that no woman should ever be denied the care she needs.  They will continue to fight back against these extreme bans and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law.

And finally, we’re en route, as you all know, to Philadelphia, where the president will announce new actions to further his administration’s historic support for unions.  While in Philadelphia, he’ll announce that his administration has protected 1.2 million pensions because of the American Rescue M- — Rescue Plan’s Butch Lewis Act.  During the visit, President Biden will announce new funding to prevent cuts to the earned pensions benefits of 29,000 UFCW workers and retirees.

As you can see to my right, I’m joined by acting secretary — Labor Se- — Labor — Labor, Julia Su, who will share more about today’s action and the historic work the President Biden — the president and the vice president have done to support unions.

ACTING SECRETARY SU:  Thank you so much, Karine.  Thank you all for being here.  And so, Karine mentioned this.  We are headed to Philadelphia to announce the restoration of the UFCW Tri-State Pension Fund.  This is part of the president’s commitment, which he has had from day one, to do right by working people.  We know that when jobs are good, when working people are protected, our economy is stronger; our nation is stronger. 

This is the third event that I’m doing like this.  The — the first one was with the carpenters in Detroit.  The second was with the Teamsters in Centralia, Illinois.  Again, you know, a situation where working people who had worked a lifetime and were expecting to be able to retire with dignity because of their pensions were seeing the end of those pensions and were going to see their — their benefits slashed dramatically.

Because of the Butch Lewis Act, because of the actions of President Biden and Vice President Harris — noting that Vice President Harris cast the deciding vote to pass the American Rescue Plan, of which the Butch Lewis Act is a part — because of that, these individuals are now going to be able to retire, to be able to live with dignity, to be able to take care of themselves and their families as they expected.

This announcement also comes, obviously, on the same day that we’ve had a jobs day, and, you know, it’s always a time to talk about good jobs, because this administration now, you know, has presided over more jobs being created than any other administration in the same time period.  It’s now over 16 million jobs.  GDP remains strong.  Inflation is still falling.  Wages are still increasing.  Wages have grown faster than inflation for now 17 months straight.  And the unemployment rate remains at 4.1 percent, so it’s been around 4 percent for the longest stretch since the 1960s.

So, labor market remains very strong, and this shows what happens when you have a president and a vice president who are fighting for workers every single day.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you.   Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Secretary.  On the jobs report, should Americans be concerned of — that the economy is cooling in this moment, and what is the administration doing at the moment to ensure that jobs continue to be generated going forward?

ACTING SECRETARY SU:  Great.  So, two questions and two answers.  No, we should not be concerned about cooling.  There were some anomalies last month that led to a much lower jobs number.  One was, of course, the devastating hurricanes — back-to-back hurricanes that hit the southeast part of the country.  You know, we saw people who lost their lives, lost their homes, lost their businesses.  The federal government was on the ground immediately, working with state and local authorities to do everything from search and rescue to clearing roads to making sure that people had water and power back.

But in terms of the jobs numbers, it meant that there were employers who, you know, would have been hiring or may have been even ramping up because of the holiday season coming up who just simply couldn’t do that.  So, the hurricanes had a really big effect.

And then, of course, there were workers on strike — over 30,000 of them.  And the — when they’re on strike, their numbers also, you know, show up as a decrease in the jobs.  Just the — the nature of the — of the numbers.

But what do we need to do to continue the incredible economy that we have had is to keep on making the investments that the Biden-Harris administration has had, you know, the — where we’ve got over 60,000 infrastructure projects going on around the country.  I’ve visited many of them.  We have apprenticeship programs bursting at the seams.  People being able to look for jobs and get jobs in communities that were shuttered, where factories were closed in the last administration, now opening up again.  And we just need to keep up that work.

Q    Can I ask about the Boeing strike situation?  It sounds like there’s a vote set for Monday, if memory serves.  Can you speak to what your view is — is on the latest on that and whe- — whether membership will accept?  Will you expect that this will pass —

ACTING SECRETARY SU:  Yes.

Q    — as opposed to the previous time when it (inaudible)?

ACTING SECRETARY SU:  Yes.  So, I was in Seattle from Monday to Wednesday.  I brought the parties together at the — at my office in Seattle.  They, you know, deserve a lot of credit.  I want to acknowledge the leadership of both the machinists and Boeing for coming to the table and doing the hard work of negotiating. 

You know, the president says this all the time; the vice president acknowledges this all the time: Collective bargaining works.  It doesn’t always look pretty from the outside, but when workers have a voice, when unions are strong and workers are able to help determine the conditions of their work, their wages, the future of their industry, it’s better for everybody. 

And so, now they have a — an unprecedented offer on the table that many people thought was impossible.  And — and they’re — they’re going to vote on it on Monday. 

Q    Sounds like you think it’ll pass. 

ACTING SECRETARY SU:  I don’t know.  You know, I — you know, we believe as — that — that it’s up to the members, of course.  You know, but these workers have not seen a wage increase like this in a very, very long time. 

In fact, the first-year wage increase is more than what they’ve had in — in the last many years combined.  So, it’s a — it’s really a sign of collective bargaining working. 

And, you know, workers exercise their right.  They — you know, i- — that they’re part of what we’re seeing in a Biden-Harris America of — of a new era of worker power, and it is resulting in not just the tremendous job growth we keep talking about but really more equity and more — more powerful working people. 

Q    You touched on this.  But just to be specific, because the president said in his statement that job growth is expected to rebound in November as the hurricane recovery and rebuilding efforts continue, can you give us a sense of what you would project that that could look like?  What could the November picture be?

ACTING SECRETARY SU:  So, obviously, the — the devastating weather-related phenomena that we have been facing, you know, has an impact — right? — has a devastating, direct, personal impact on communities that are affected.  It also has an impact on the economy. 

And so, barring something else like that, you know, that was not a sign of weakness in the economy.  That was really a — you know, a weather-related phenomena.  And so, barring that, we expect, you know, those communities to recover. 

We’re obviously not just watching it happen or hoping it happens.  We’re in there helping it to happen. 

And so, you know, again, the investments that we’re making is really the key here, right?  We would not have seen the kind of economy — the 16 million jobs created — without that.  This is not an administration that has just, you know, hoped for the best.  It’s one that inherited the economy that was still reeling from a global pandemic that the last administration had no idea how to address. 

And what we have done is, you know, really, you know, exceeded all expectations on the recovery.  We need to keep on doing that work.  We need to make sure that those infrastructure projects keep breaking ground; that the fabs that are being built, you know, are completed.  And having union workers do that is a part of that too. 

And so, you know, there’s no reason to expect that the resilient economy that we’ve seen so far will not bounce back from the anomalies of October. 

Q    Was President Biden’s transcript altered — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on — hold on a second.  Wait a minute. 

Q    Yeah.  (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait a minute.  Is — any other for the secretary?  Can I have her sit down if — if we’re done?

Q    Keep it tight, because we’re going to land soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, okay.  All right.

Q    Thank you so much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Be careful.

ACTING SECRETARY SU:  Thank you all.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Be careful.  Hold on.  I’m going to let AP go first. 

Go ahead, AP.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On AP’s reporting from last night about the potential doctored co-  — about the doctored comments in the recent transcript.  Were you aware that the Press Office — White House Press Office had done this before the stenographer had taken an approval?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I was asked this question — multiple versions of this question on Wednesday.  I don’t have anything else more to share.  What I can say is — and the president put out a statement that was tweeted out — that’s on X, obviously — ver- — being very clear what he meant, understanding that his words could have been taken out of context. 

He was talking about the comedian.  He was talking about the hateful rhetoric coming out of — from the comedian at the Sunday rally in Madison Square Garden. 

And I said this on Wednesday, and I’m going to keep saying this is that the president is always going to continue to call out hateful rhetoric. 

But of course — of course — and you see this today with the pensions announcement; you saw it this week when he went to Baltimore to an- — to announce some ports infrastructure investment, $147 million that went to Baltimore — to Maryland, specifically; 27 states, 11 of those states are red states.  I mean, these are things that the president wants to continue about, and he always will be a president for everyone, even if you did not vote for him. 

I don’t have anything else to share beyond that.  What I — what we want to make sure — we think what the most important thing for Americans to know is that this is a president that went back and wanted to clarify what he said, because he didn’t want to take it out of context.  I think that says a lot about this president.

And we’ve been pretty consistent about him wanting to be a president and continuing to be a president for all Americans.  And that’s what you’re going to see.  I don’t have anything else to add beyond that.

Q    What does the — have you all received reports about Iran potentially having a re- — a strike against — a retaliatory strike from its proxies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you said, there are reports that Israeli in- — intelligence suggests Iran is preparing to attack Israel from Iraqi territory in the coming days, possibly before the U.S. presidential election.  Is — is that the U.S. view as well?  You know, I’m not — I’m going to be really careful.  I’m not going to — to your question, I’m not going to speculate or discuss intelligence assessments on this from here.

So — but we’ve been very clear that Iran should not respond.  I said this on Wednesday.  We will continue to support Israel.  Our support for Israel’s security is ironclad.  And — and if they choose this to do so, obviously we will continue to support Israel as they continue to protect themselves and their security. 

So, I don’t have anything to share.  I’m not going to read into that.

Q    Is the president aware of former President Trump’s comments about Liz Cheney that he made last night?  And does he have a reaction to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, he’s aware.  Obviously, you all have done — have covered — covered those remarks.  Here’s what I would say to that.  It is — it is unacceptable; it is dangerous to — to — to s- — to speak to political violence, to talk about political vi- — violence, to lift up political violence. 

And what we are doing and we will continue to do is denounce that, condemn that.  There is no place, anywhere, for any type of violence, no place for political violence. 

And it — and this is a time we shouldn’t be using inflammatory language.  We should be specifically focusing on bringing the country together, and that’s what this president wants to see, and that’s what he’s going to continue to speak to. 

Q    Do you think those comments put Liz Cheney at risk?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I can’t speak to that.  I can’t get into hypotheticals.  What we know is that those type of comments tend to be dangerous, right?  They can be dangerous. 

That’s — we’re hearing violent rhetoric, and we’re going to continue to condemn that.  It is inappropriate in the political space, and — and it is inflammatory language that should not be said by anyone, certainly by — not when someone has a — a leadership — national leadership.

Q    Has there been any discussion about heightening the security preparations this week in response to what we’ve seen?  Whether it’s, you know, ahead of the election, after the election for certain members of Congress, what does that look like at this point?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  For certain members of Congress specifically?

Q    Well, just for that and then broader security preparations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I — I would have to — as it relates to Congress, obviously, that’s the — something for — the Capitol Police can speak to.  I can’t speak to that.

Look, I think that what you’ll see from this — from this president is that, you know, free and fair elections and especially peaceful election are the cornerstone of our democracy.  And election officials and poll workers are dedicated to public servants who make our democracy work, and they deserve to do their job — their job safely and freely without harassment, without threat of violence. 

So, we strongly condemn anyone who threatens or harasses them.  And so — but I also believe and we also believe that people should trust in our institutions and trust that this will be a free and fair election.

Q    What about Lebanon?  Can you give us a status report?  Are those talks dead?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  As you know, Brett and —

AIR FORCE ONE CREW MEMBER:  Going to need everyone to take their seats, please.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Well, we got to go.

AIR FORCE ONE CREW MEMBER:  There’s going to be some turbulence.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ll — we’ll have more fo- — we can share — I would reach out to the NSC team, and they’ll share more about things.  But we have to sit down.

Thanks, everybody. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Be careful.  It’s really bumpy.

2:59 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su En Route Philadelphia, PA appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:38 P.M. EDT

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

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. A couple things at the top, and then we’ll get to our guest.

Today, President Biden signed an executive order sta- –establishing the White House —

Q (Sneezes.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Bless you.

— establishing the White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions, alongside nearly two dozen champions for these institutions and Latino communities.

The president also announced that today we are investing nearly $19 million to build research infrastructure for five HSIs.

We know that these institutions make an extraordinary contribution to our nation’s higher education system and shape the future of the nation, and over half of all Hispanic and Latino students attend a Hispanic-Serving Institution.

Today’s announcements are part of the historic actions this administration has taken to expand economic opportunity for Latino communities.

Next, one year ago today, President Biden issued a landmark executive order to ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of A.I. The executive order directed sweeping actions to manage security risks, protect Americans’ privacy, advance civil rights, and stand up for consumers and workers, and promote innovation and competition.

Today, President Biden announced that federal agencies have completed on schedule each action that the executive order tasked for this past year, more than a hundred in all. As President Biden has said, A.I. is the most consequential technology of our time.

The president and the vice president will continue working to ensure that this technology is developed in a way that works for the American people.

We have chair of the Econo- — of the Council of Economic Advisers, Jared Bernstein, with us today to talk about some recent economic news. The economy has grown — has grown 12.6 percent under this administration, more than any presidential term in 25 years.

We have gone from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression to the strongest economy in the world: 16 million jobs created and the lowest unemployment of any administration in 50 years. And inflation has fallen to 2.4 percent, the same rate as right before the pandemic, with incomes up nearly $4,000.

Still, we know that there is more work to do, and we’ll keep fighting to lower costs and grow the middle class.

With that, Jared, I know you have more to share about this.

CHAIR BERSTEIN: Thank you, Karine, for inviting me back. And thanks to my CEA team for helping prepare the information I’m about to share with you. This has been a busy and quite positive data week so far, and it’s not over.

We learned today that real GDP rose 2.8 percent last quarter, largely accounted for by strong consumer spending. The quarterly PCE price index — this is the inflation measure watched most closely by the Federal Reserve — grew at an annualized rate of 1.5 percent last quarter. Consumer spending continues to come in strong, backed by the tailwind of a persistently tight labor market and easing inflation.

Real after-tax income was up a solid 1.6 percent in Q3. That’s more buying power and more breathing room for American households.

In other words, this is another in a series of GDP reports showing the U.S. economy is growing above trend and, as the slide on my left — your left, my right — shows, is — is outpacing other advanced economies. This is the U.S. and, you see, well ahead of the pack.

We also learned yesterday that consumer spending — I’m sorry, that consumer confidence — consumer confidence spiked in October, up about 10 percent for the month, its largest monthly jump in three and a half years. Relatedly, the gas price this morning was $3.14 per gallon and is below $3 per gallon in 20 states.

These data are consistent with the most important dynamics of the macroeconomy during our administration — strong GDP growth, strong job growth, accompanied by falling inflation.

In fact, as CEA has shown, real GDP is up just — just under 13 percent, as Karine said, since the president took office — and there you see that in the last bar there — since the president took office and has consistently beat forecasters’ expectation.

Case in point, if we compare real GDP, where G- — where GD- — the level of real GDP is today with the Congressional Budget’s Office — with the Congressional Budget Office’s last pre-pandemic forecast, today’s level is $9,800 higher per capita than it was expected to be.

Real wages and incomes have also consistently been on the upswing, with real incomes up almost $4,000 during this administration, boosting workers’ buying power.

Now, on Friday, we’ll get the October jobs report, which will reflect the labor market impact of several strikes, Hurricane Helene, and possibly Hurricane Milton.

The BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, strike tracker estimates that there are three strikes that will be reflected in Friday’s report, reducing national payroll employment by about 41,000 jobs — a number well above the usual monthly strike count.

Note that the East Coast port strike ended before it could have an impact or an effect on the October payrolls.

Regarding the hurricanes, outside analysts estimate that the extreme weather could lower — could — lower payroll employment by as many as 60,000 jobs; though, unlike the strike estimate, this estimate is subject to considerable uncertainty.

In other words, outside estimates suggest that strikes and weather-related events could collectively lower October payrolls by — actually, could collectively lower the change in the October payroll by as much as 100,000 jobs.

Now, while — while we’re doing all we can to help with these temporary disruptions, we remain confident in the underlying strength of the U.S. labor market. At the same time, it’s important to keep in mind that these disruptions will make interpreting this month’s jobs report harder than usual.

Despite the recent positive data flow, let me be crystal clear that there are no victory laps here. We know that prices are still too high for families, making our cost-cutting agenda as urgent as ever, and we will continue to fight to lower costs in key areas, including health care, prescription drugs, childcare, housing, and more.

But what these data do show is a strong economic foundation that we must continue building upon. We must especially maintain this progress against efforts by congressional Republicans to drive inflation up with a large national sales tax in the form of tariffs, and we will fight their efforts to repeal the very cost-cutting measures I just referenced.

With that, I’ll take your questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Aamer.

Q Thank you. There are signs that U.S. consumer durability is due to the spending by affluent households. I was wondering if you could just address how does this square with the administration’s bigger message about focusing on the middle class and the poor? Is this not just what we’re seeing, weal- — the wealthy doing better and the middle class staying at the same or even doing worse?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, first of all, one thing we know — we’ve documented this a great deal, but there have been some newspaper articles that also have this in the past week — is that when labor markets are persistently tight — and, as you heard Karine say, the unemployment rate has been at a 50-year low in terms of its average over our watch — that tends to disproportionately help the most vulnerable families.

So, one thing we can tell you with great certainty is that wages and incomes have grown most quickly for those in the bottom half of the — of the income or wage scale.

Now, you mentioned consumer balances. So, one thing that often gets looked at at this point in time is these balances and their — and their trends without reference to income. You have to really look at debt service obligations: how much people are — how — what — what is the burden on their income when they have to service their debt.

So, let me share a few numbers with you.

Consumer debt service ratios, okay? So, this is consumer debt — servicing your consumer debt as a share of your disposable income. This is a Federal Reserve number. And the most recent data is for the second quarter of this year.

In ‘24 Q2, the consumer debt service ratio was 5.6 percent — 5.6 percent of disposable personal income for consumers to service their debt.

In the quarter before the pandemic, it was 5.8 percent. So, it’s actually a tick down.

The average over the full spate of the data is just under 6 percent. So, again, that’s a measure where we’re doing pretty well relative to historical trends.

I think the key here is that when thinking about debt, we have to think about debt service as a share of income. We have to look at the debt — it’s something we track carefully; you’re right to raise it — but we also have to look at the income trends, which have actually been particularly favorable for lower-income families.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thank you so much. So, you talked about the further need to continuing to lower prices for Americans. The vice president has talked a lot about going after corporate price gouging and groceries. So, just how much is corporate price gouging to blame for inflation and the prices of groceries? And how effective would a federal ban on corporate price gouging be?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, one thing that has really struck me and our team at CEA and NEC is the extent to which profit margins remain elevated and labor share of income remains somewhat lower — that is the share of national income, you know, going to workers. Typically, in a strong economy, we like to see that tilting up. And we have seen it trending up, much in the spirit of the answer to the last question I just gave, with the particular benefits going to lower-income families.

But profits are still quite elevated, and we see that particularly in the grocery sector. So, I do think there’s a connection between elevated profits and some of the price movements we’ve seen.

In terms of the impact of legislation, look, I think where the vice president is coming from there is that there are a bunch of states that already have the authority to take action against price gouging, for example, in the — in the case of an extreme weather event. And, you know, nobody should be ripping off consumers on a bottle of water when they’re in the midst of a disaster.

Having that legislation at the federal level, I think that makes a lot of sense.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Andrea.

Q Jared, I want to ask you about — you know, we’re in the — less than a week to go before the election. I know you can’t talk about the election, but can you say a few words about what you think the impact would be of the tariffs that former President Trump has sug- — you know, has proposed, in terms of, you know, the inflationary impact? And what can you do now, over the next three months, if he were to win the election, to secure the — the changes that have been made policy wise that have, you know, allowed the kind of positive trends that you’ve — you’ve outlined here?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, on the tariffs, there have been numerous outside analysis of the impact of not just the tariffs but an agenda that has sweeping tariffs — 60 percent on China, 10 or 20 percent on all imports coming in; de- — deportations; and compromising the independence of the Federal Reserve. Outside analysts have correctly labeled that as a pretty toxic inflationary brew, and I very much agree with that.

So, the first point is that I think it’s — I think that the consensus among the, at least, economics community is that that is an agenda that pushes exactly the wrong way if we’re trying to help households deal with price pressures, with cost pressures.

But then if you th- — if you then consider repealing the — the IRA, now you’re talking about taking a direct hit on measures that are actively in place: legislative measures that are at work in the economy, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, lowering the cost of health care coverage, lowering the cost of insulin. Those are — those are action items that are in the economy, helping families as we speak. To repeal those is to raise those prices.

In terms of — your second question was — oh, how — so, look, I mean, I’m not going to get into, kind of, the politics of — of what one victory would be relative the other. As you say, I can’t talk electoral politics.

I do think it’s important and interesting to note that the investments that this president and vice president have overseen have gone to all parts of the country and have disproportionately gone to places that have been historically left behind, places that have suffered from hollowing out by the loss of factories, by the loss of manufacturing jobs. And these places are just as likely — in fact, I believe, more likely — to be red than blue.

And there are many representatives I’ve seen with all different stripes who are pretty unhappy about the idea of repealing those measures, because they see them actively at work building a factory in their district.

So, I think it would be economic malpractice to reverse such positive developments. And I think there are members on both sides of the aisle who would agree with that.

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

Did — do you have a follow-up?

Q Just a quick follow-up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Would you — would you stay on if — if Harris won and asked you to stay on?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Yeah, I’m not going to speculate about that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Go ahead, Kayla.

Q Thank you, Karine. Jared, I have two questions, if I may. The first is on the overall economic agenda. You point out that economic growth has been the best of any administration since the turn of the century. You’ve had consistently better-than-expected economic data for the last four years, but yet, Americans, by and large, don’t give the administration credit for that. And in a recent poll by the Associated Press, 7 in 10 said the economy is going in the wrong direction. Why do you think that continues to be the case?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, I said in my comments — and I’ve said every time I’ve talked, either it’s from here at the podium with Karine or out there in front of the cameras, probably in interviews with you as well, Kayla — that — that prices are s- — are still too high for — for too many people, for too many products, too many households. And that’s why our cost-cutting agenda is as urgent today as it was yesterday or before we got any of these reports.

There’s no economic report that is going to make any of us say, “Oh, well, we don’t have to worry about that anymore” in terms of cutting the cost of drugs or health care or health coverage or — or housing or childcare.

I mean, those are serious structural issues where we have an affordability shortfall in housing and childcare, and the president and vice president have robust plans to go after them. We need Congress to work with us on that. And in my view, that is nothing like a red or a blue issue. You cannot find a state in this country that doesn’t need more affordable housing and more affordable childcare.

And I think you’d be pretty hard-pressed to find plans that are more robust than the ones we’ve articulated to add to the supply of affordable housing and add to the supply of affordable childcare.

So, we just need to roll up our sleeves and work together on those issues on behalf of the American people.

At the same time, I did mention that consumer confidence spiked in October. I don’t want to over torque on one month, but we do see an — an upward trend. And I think that that upward trend, while it’s not where we want it to be, it’s moving in the right direction. That’s what I mean when I say “building on the foundation we have.”

I think that upward trend in consumer confidence, in sentiment, while not where we want it to be — our work is not done — is telling us that easing inflation, strong growth, a solid job market, and real wage and income gains are helping to reach American households. But our work isn’t done.

Q You just mentioned the difference in the ideologies and the platforms of the two candidates for office through the perspective of outside analysts. And I know that you can’t comment specifically on the election, but given that GDP is backward-looking data that goes through just the end of September and the fact that this election has been in a dead heat in recent weeks, I’m wondering in some of the more real-time data that you look at, if you’re seeing that election uncertainty play out in any consumer or business behavior.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think that — well, here’s a really arcane way of answering your question, and then I’ll try to speak English. But the arcane way is — and feel free to go ahead and test this — I believe that if you put the economic indicators that we’ve been generating in almost any election model, it would show the incumbent party winning. All right? Others have done that. You can look at those models.

So, I — I think that — that — I don’t necessarily buy the idea that these are necessarily backward-looking indicators. To be a little technical, if you look at one of the line items in the GDP report today, private domestic — private domestic spending, which is basically consumer spending plus business investment — consumer spending plus business — take out net exports, take out inventories, take out government, take out a lot of the noisy stuff, and look at the core of the private economy — again, consumer spending and private investment — it was up 3.2 percent, higher than the GDP, which was up 2.8.

The reason I reference that is that is the best predictor of where GDP is heading. “PDFP” is what we call it. We’ve written about it on our — on our website today. Please read the C- — CEA blog and follow our tweets. (Laughter.) And — and that — that’s a forward-looking measure. So, I feel pretty confident in those assertions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Ed, in the back. Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Jared and Karine. So, average hourly wages, Jared, are down 1.4 percent from the month President Biden and Vice President Harris got into office in December of 2021. Overall prices are up 20 percent in that same time. Americans have racked up a record amount of credit card debt — $1.14 trillion. So, why does this economic growth come with such hardship?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: So, we’ve had this conversation before, but let’s have it again. I think you make an analytic mistake, with respect. When — when you start measuring wage trends from — what? — I guess of January ‘21 — is that what you’re doing?

Q Yeah. January of 2021, yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: January of 2021.

Q Yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I don’t have the graphic here, but we have it all over the place, and I’ll make sure you and others get it.

Wages were spiking in that month. Now, how the heck could wages be spiking? I mean, going way up. It looks like a mountain peak. How could wages be spiking in such a lousy economic month of January ‘21? The reason is that that is the heart of pandemic employment displacement. Who gets displaced? Low-wage workers. So, if you compare to that mountain peak, you’re always going to get a decline, and so it’s a distorted measure.

What you want to do is compare to a period, say, before the pandemic to where we are now, and if you do that, you see wages are up, you see incomes are up, just like I — I stated in my — in my comments today. And we have many of these indicators that we’re happy to share with you.

I think, again, on the — on the consumer credit point, it’s important to look not just at consumer credit but at debt service relative to income. We do see incomes — as I’ve mentioned, incomes have been rising — real incomes have been rising at a good clip, and, therefore, people have been able to service their debt at levels that are historically pretty low.

So, look, it’s something we have to watch. I do thin- — one else — thing that’s happening and that — that this may — this may resonate with you a bit more, because it’s a — it’s, again, related to pandemic — pandem- — pandemic economics, which is its own weird beast.

One of the things that we saw in the pandemic was that savings rates went also through the roof. People had what economists call “excess savings,” partly because they were spending less on services — right? — they couldn’t go out — and partly because of fiscal support.

Well, those excess savings led to low-income people having more savings than they’d ever had before. Their FICO — their credit rates — their credit scores were going up because their savings were so uniquely high. And so, there’s probably also a dynamic where people are needing to adapt to a world without those excess savings. And that — that also probably takes a little bit of time.

Q But it seems — you talk about the — it’s servicing credit debt. That’s — that’s almost treading water for a lot of families, just servicing and pushing that debt along.

CHAIR BERSTEIN: As long as your income is rising relative to your debt, you can service that debt. And so, that’s why the numbers I cited —

Q But that’s not getting ahead.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, I think if you want to look at getting ahead — so, there’s — there’s a couple of parts to this. You want to be able to s- — you’re right, you want to be able to service your debt while you’re getting ahead. So, that’s why, when I cite the fact that wages are up for workers, like over the past year, I think the increa- — well, we’ll know — we’ll know more on Friday, but over the past year, real wages are up 1.5 percent for middle-wage workers.

If you look at low-wage workers over the course of this recovery — this is an article from the media this week — we saw, I think, growth rates of, you know, 7 percent over this — over this recent period.

So, you can do two things. As long as you keep your debt-service ratio in — in — around historical levels, you can pay off your debt while your paycheck expands. And I think we’ve seen some of that.

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

Q Thanks for doing this, Jared. At the top of your remarks, you — you mentioned, you know, the job numbers come out Friday. You talked about, you know, some of the strikes. Boeing, more specifically, they’re still on strike. How concerned are you with what’s going on with Boeing? And, you know, is there an urgent need, from your perspective, that workers need to get back? And can you just elaborate a little bit more on maybe how some of the strike impact and even hurricanes could be reflected in the job numbers?

CHAIR BERSTEIN: Okay. Well, starting from the last part of your question, as I said and as outside analysts have been writing this week — and you can find various articles to this effect — the expectation is that the payrolls — the report and payrolls — and the key number there is how much payrolls went up in a given mo- — in — in October. We expect payrolls to be affected by the strikes. That’s pretty much baked in. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has told us that there are 41,000-and-change workers who will not be counted on payrolls in October who were there in the previous month, due to the strikes. So, they can record that.

The hurricane is much more uncertain. If you’re someone who’s not getting paid during what we call the reference week — it’s when the survey was fielded — you’re not going to be counted in the payroll survey.

Now, I don’t want to get into dizzying weeds about this, but the unemployment rate can be different. If you’re — if you’re on strike or if you’re still at work but you haven’t been paid, but they call it — you’re — you’re surveyed in the house- — of the unemployment survey, you will — you will be recorded as — as still having a job.

So, the unemployment rate is expected to be less affected than the payroll number, but the payroll number is — is, as — as I — is, as I mentioned, expected to be affected by these distortions, though there is considerable uncertainty regarding that, particularly around the hurricanes.

In terms of the Boeing strike, look, you know that our administration puts workers at the center of our economic agenda, and the president and the vice president have focused considerable energy on jobs, wages, and on worker bargaining power.

So, I’ve worked with Joe Biden for many decades, and that has always been at the core of his model. Workers need clout in order to get a fair share of the growth that they’re helping to contribute to. In fact, my favorite definition of Bidenomics is that “If you’re helping to bake the pie, you ought to get a fair slice.” And one of wa- — one of the ways that happens is through bargaining clout, bargaining power, and that’s why we’ve generally been so supportive of unions.

Any specifics about a particular strike, it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Monica, last question.

Q Jared, you mentioned the recent wage growth, but as many Americans are going to be heading to the polls and voting based on what they’ve experienced and what they are feeling, when do you think people will feel wage growth and their wages starting to outpace inflation?

CHAIR BERSTEIN: Yeah, it’s a really important question. It’s not an easy one to answer. It has a lot to do with what C- — with — we at CEA have made up something that turns out to be a real thing. We call it your personal price vector.

This is this idea that everybody walks around with a list of prices in their head. What’s on that — what’s on that list? Gasoline, groceries, sure. But if, like my wife, you’re somebody who likes to garden, fertilizer is on that list. And you remember what things cost. You remember that you used to pay $3 for this, and now you’re paying $4 for this.

Now, one of the points that I’m making is that as your pay goes up, you know, that $4 becomes something you can afford again. So, here’s a calculation that we do that no normal person would do — (laughs) — which is that it says, if you look at how much work — how many hours of work does it take to buy a bag of groceries right now, it’s about the same, or even a little lower, than it was before the pandemic, right? Because, yes, grocery prices have gone up, but, especially recently, wages have gone up more — (laughs) — than — than grocery prices.

So, for — for whatever hours of work it took you to buy a bag of groceries before the pandemic, it’s about the same, even a little less, right now.

So, why don’t people feel better? Because they still remember what things used to cost. They still have that their — their PPV — their PPVs — their personal price vectors have yet to update completely, but they are in that process.

And so, one test of this theory is: Okay, time has to pass. Inflation has to stay low so that prices don’t get shocked again. You know, time passes — check, because that’s like a physical reality; inflation is — is low — 1.5 percent on a quarterly basis for the PCE last quarter; real pay has to go up; and we have to do all we can to help on the cost-cutting agenda.

Now, if all of that would help — in answer to your question, if all of that was truly helpful, we should see confidence and sentiment indices begin to tick up, starting around now, and that’s exactly what we’ve seen. We’re not back to pre-pandemic levels. Our work isn’t done, but the trend is our friend; we’re moving in the right direction, and we have a strong foundation to build upon, and a strong policy agenda with which to build upon that foundation.

Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate it, Jared. Appreciate it.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you for coming.

Okay, let me see if I have anything else — nope. Okay.

Go ahead, Aamer. (Inaudible.)

Q Yeah, can you just address the president’s comments yesterday referring to a Trump supporter as “garbage”? And I know he’s tried to clarify that he was —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — trying to talk about what the person said. But, one, I guess I’m — I want to know, does he think less of Americans who support Trump than he does of those who do not? And, two, why is he using that kind of rhetoric? How is that presidential?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — so, a couple of things — couple of things. So, just to clarify, he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, which is why he put out — this is why he wanted to make sure that we put out a statement that clarified what he meant and what he was trying to say. And so, just want to make that very clear for folks who are watching.

And I’ll — and I just want to read that out to folks. So, he was — regarding to the comedian, and I quote, “I referred to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump’s supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage, which is the only word I can think of to describe it. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable. That’s all I meant to say. The comments” — the comments — “at the rally don’t reflect who we are as a nation.”

And to your question — your other question that you asked, no he does not view Trump supporters or anybody who supports Trump as garbage. That is not what he views.

The president has said this for more than three years now. He has said multiple times that he is a president for all. It doesn’t matter if you live in a red state. It doesn’t matter if you live in a blue state. He has said this himself. I have said it on his behalf.

He believes that he’s a — a president for all, and it doesn’t matter who you voted for. It doesn’t matter if you voted for him or not. He’s a president for all, but hateful rhetoric — hateful rhetoric that he hears — and this is something that we’ve done many times from here — we will call that out. We will call that out. And that’s what the president said.

Q Is he — does he have any regret for not being more — his — his language was not specific. It came out — if you were listening to that video, it —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was in the room. Aamer, I was in the room.

Q I — I’m (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I —

Q — listening on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just telling you that I was in the room.

Q If you were listen- — but if you were any sort of normal person listening to that video or looking at the clips online, you could come to the conclusion that he was calling, at minimum, this one man “garbage” or not — if not all Trump supporters “garbage.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well — I —

Q Does he — should he be more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay —

Q Does he regret not being more precise with this language?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, wait —

Q And does he — does he al- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I’m waiting for the question to end, but go —

Q Well, I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — ahead. Keep going. Keep going.

Q And the second — I apologize. And the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, no, no. Go ahead.

Q — second part of that is, does he — does he any regret for how this has shadowed Vice President Harris’s campaign?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things there, because there’s — there’s a lot that you laid out.

So, look, the president wanted to clarify because he understood that what he may have said was being — he understood that what he was saying was being taken out of context, so he wanted to be very, very clear about what he was trying to say. And I just read that out mult- — once over. You all have the — have the — have the — the tweet, or, you know, the statement that’s on X. If you want to read it right now, feel free to do so.

And he was talking about hateful rhetoric. And we’ve called out hateful rhetoric from here. We have.

Obviously, this hateful rhetic — rhetoric was about a particular co- — community — a community that — the Puerto Rican community; they are Americans. They — this is somebody — this is a community that he respects, and he wanted to make sure he called that out.

And hateful rhetoric should be called out. It should be.

And — but at the same time, the president is a president for all; he will continue to do so. He will continue to serve for everyone.

I — I want to step back for a second, because I think this is really important. Yesterday, we went to Baltimore, Maryland. He announced a $3 billion project in Baltimore. That $3 billion project is going to help 27 states. Eleven of those states are — are — have Republican governors. This is what this president cares about, making sure that people who are in need, get the need — get — get the assistance that they need. Right? They — we talked about — he talked about port — port infrastructure, and we went to Baltimore. Obviously, we know what happened a couple of months ago with one of the bridges there: $147 million for — for Maryland in — in particular.

But just think about it: 27 states; 11 states are Republican governors.

And this is — we’re talking about the Inflation Reduction Act, which only Democrats voted for. Republicans didn’t vote for that. Republicans tried to repeal that. Let’s not forget what the speaker said yesterday about ACA — wanted to repeal ACA. He wanted to repeal ACA, which would hurt millions of Americans.

And so, that’s what the president wants to focus on, which is why he wanted to make sure he clarified what he said.

But if there is hateful rhetoric that is being said about communities, Americans, communities across this country, he’s going to speak out about it. It’s not the first time that he’s done so.

Q And then just briefly —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q — separately, is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk headed to — back to the Middle East this week to try to revive ceasefire negotiations? And can you tell us anything about Bill Burns’ travel as well?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. So, following Israel’s response in a self-defense against Iran, senior U.S. officials are following up on a range of matters in the region and with Israeli counterparts.

Bill Burns will be in Cairo on Thursday to engage with Egyptian counterparts on bilateral matters as well as the process to secure the release of hostages.

CENTCOM commander, General Erik Kurilla, is traveling to the region to discuss regional defense and will visit Israel to engage with counterparts and U.S. personnel.

And then you asked me about Bert — excuse me, Brett — and Amos. So, you have two White House officials. They’re going to visit Israel on Thursday to engage on a range of issues, including Gaza, Lebanon, hostages, Iran, and border [broader] regional matters as well.

In all of these engagement, you will see that the U.S. will reaffirm its iro- — ironclad commitment to Israel’s security, its warning against any further direct military attacks by Iran against Israel, and its support for de-escalation backed by deterrence in the region more broadly. And that’s the engagements that you will see from this administration over the next couple of days.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Karine. So, Did President Biden make a mistake in his comments yesterday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He clarified what he said. It was very clear what he was trying to do. He was wanting to make sure that what he was what — what he said was not taken out of context. And he clarified that.

Q This isn’t the first time the White House has had to defend or clarify the president’s comments.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s — nobody — nobody is defending. The president himself — this is the president himself wanted to clarify what he said. He wanted to make sure that it was not taken out of context. These are the president’s words. Nobody here is defending. We are laying out what the president said himself, and he wanted to clarify that.

Q So, those comments were made as the vice president was speaking about unity at the Ellipse last night. Did the president speak to the vice president before or after that speech?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — I think in a — in a gaggle that the vice president did not too long ago, she confirmed that she had a conversation with the — with the president. The president was very proud of the vice president. She gave a historic — a historic speech last night, and he certainly wanted to congratulate her.

Q So, that was after the speech.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That was after the speech.

Q And did the president make any reference to these remarks or apologize to the vice president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is I’m not going to get into private discussions here. That’s not something that we do from — from the podium. I’m not going to do that.

But the president and the vice president speak regularly. That is not uncommon. She is the vice president; he is the president. So, obviously, they have direct communications pretty — pretty often.

And he did have a conversation last night because he was proud of her — her historic speech, and he wanted to congratulate her.

And, again, they speak regularly.

Q And did you or anybody else speak to the president last night to seek clarification by what he meant —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, here’s —

Q — once realizing it was being taken —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was — and —

Q — out of context?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I was in the room when he delivered his remarks last night and during the live stream, and what I can say is he himself wanted to make sure that there was clarity in what he was trying to say.

Again, we are talking about hateful rhetoric — a hateful rhetoric that was being said, and the president wanted to be very clear. He feels — he also feels — and we’ve been doing this; this is nothing new here for the past more than three years — when hateful rhetoric is being said, the president believes it’s important to speak to it and call that out.

And that’s what the president was referring to: a comedian — a particular comedian from just Saturday night — I know you all covered this — at Madison Square Garden who was spewing hate — who was spewing hate against the Puerto Rican community. And the president felt that he needed to say something.

At the same time, he wanted to make sure that his words were not taken out of context. And so, he — he himself wanted to make sure that a statement was put out to clarify it.

Go ahead.

Q One more on this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q Was the president reading from a script? It looked like he was reading from notes. Did he — did — so, did — were those comments written out for him in —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I —

Q — some form?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, go ahead. No, I’m sorry. Go ahead, Andrea.

Q No. No, it’s okay. You —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no. Fini- — finish. I want you to finish your statement. I’m sorry.

Q I was just — I mean, you know, it would be useful to know whether there was, you know, a prepared remark that he was reading from and, if so, you know, whether that should have been changed or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —

Q — or whether he was adlibbing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple things. I — I’m not going to get into specific here. It’s not unusual for a president or the vice president or any elected official to have notes in front of them when they’re speaking to a crowd or to a group of people. That is not unusual.

What I can say is the president wanted to make sure that his words were not being taken out of contax [context]. And so, he wanted to clarify, and that’s what you heard from the president. He was very aware.

And I would say I think it’s really important that you have a president that cares about clarifying what they said, and that’s what you see from this president. He took it upon himself to clarify what he said, and I think that that says a lot about who Joe Biden is — that he wanted to make sure it was clear that he was talking about the comedian and their — the hateful rhetoric that was coming from this comedian just a couple of days ago.

Q There have been a lot of comparisons made to the Hillary Clinton remark using the word “deplorables.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Has the president indicated to you any concern that this comment — this one comment, that he has clarified now — could have similar reverberations to that previous comment? I mean, he was certainly active in politics then and was — you know, was — was aware of the impact that that had.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m not going to go back and litigate 2016. I’m just not going to do that from here.

He was not speaking about Trump supporters. He was not tre- — as a whole, he was not speaking about people who support a different candidate. That is not what he was doing, and he clarified that in his statement last night. That was not his intent. He wanted to be very clear about that, hence, again, why he said he was speaking about comments that were made by the comedian.

And let’s not forget — we can’t forget what we heard was the demonization of Latinos — that’s what we heard — of a community.

By the way, you know — and I know you all know this — Puerto Ricans are Americans.

And he wanted to make sure that, you know, we speak out against hateful rhetoric. It’s important to do that. Was he talking about Trump supporters? Absolutely not. As a whole? Absolutely not.

Q I just have one more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Q A foreign policy question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Sure.

Q So, the president of — who was — who was just here visiting President Biden said tha- — of Cyprus —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Cyprus.

Q — said that he thought that there could be some movement on a Lebanon ceasefire within one to two weeks. He said that he had discussed this matter with — with President Biden.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q I wonder if you can give us an — you know, a — sort of an indication of whether you think that is also true, that there could be a ceasefire in Lebanon within one to two weeks. And if you could just comment on Israel’s ban of UNRWA and whether you think that’s helpful for the process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we’re — o- — obviously, we’re going to remain committed to reaching a diplomatic resolution here to end the conflict along the blue line, which will allow Israelis and also Lebanese civilians on both sides to — to return to their homes, and this is something that we’ve been pretty consistent about. And we’re going to continue to have, certainly, that commitment to have a dip- — diplomatic resolution to end — to end what we’re seeing along the blue line.

Look, you know — and we’re — also been very consistent as — at — to not having — negotiating, certainly, in public. That is not something that we’re going to do from here. We’re going to certainly be optimistic, and we are committed to that. Just not going to go into any — any kind of where we are with those conversations, what’s happening. We’re not going to, certainly, negotiate out — from here.

As it relates to — I’m assuming you’re — you’re speaking about the Knesset vote on — on UNRWA.

So, look, certainly, we are deeply troubled by that, by this legislation that could shut down UNRWA operations in the West Bank, Gaza, and also East Jerusalem. So, we urge the government of Israel — we’re having this conversation with the government of Israel — to pause implement- — implementing this legislation.

We urge the government of Israel, certainly, to ensure UNRWA can effectively carry out its mission and facilitate humanitarian assistance.

But we also support steps to strengthen UNRWA as well, in part so that UNWRA’s impartially [impartiality] and neutrality, including to respond to allegations, as you have all covered, to ties to terrorism. But we are certainly deeply troubled by that, and we’re continuing to have conversations with the Israeli government.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. First, on the comments last night, was the president aware in the moment, as soon as he had made those comments, that they could potentially be misconstrued and be problematic, or was it only after conversations with aides?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m not going to get into — into a process. I think what’s important is the president put out a statement and wanted to make sure that we clar- — he clarified himself, clarified what he meant here. And this is something that he wanted to do. And that’s what you saw from this president last night. And I think that’s important to note.

I would also say, and I’ve said this already and I’ll say it again: From day one, this president has always said that he will be president for — for all Americans. It doesn’t matter if you voted for him or not. And that continues to be the case.

He was making a particular point, a specific point, about a comedian and the hateful rhetoric that was heard by all — by all of us on Sunday.

But I’m not going to get into the back-and-forth. I think what’s important to note is that the president himself wanted to clarify this.

Q There have been a few times when the president has spoken off the cuff and appeared to be off message or had comments that have needed to be walked back or cleaned up. And I’m wondering, going into this final, very high-stakes stretch of the election, if there’s going to be any changes to preparation or format for any of the final events that he’s going to be participating in.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the president looks forward to being out there, talking to the American people. You he- — you heard me talk about yesterday and how important that was — $3 billion in port infrastructure funding that’s going to make a difference in twenty- — 27 states. Eleven of them are red states. This is what the president cares about: to deliver for all Americans.

And so, that was an event that — that was a great event. We talked about the $147 million that’s going to — he talked about this — that’s going to go to the port and not just, like, dealing with infrastructure but also creating good-paying jobs — thousands of good-paying jobs.

And so, the president is going to continue to do that. I don’t have any changes to speak to from here. And, you know, you saw the president in Pittsburgh just this past weekend as well. And this is more of a campaign — that was a campaign stop, so I’m going to be really mindful. But you saw him talking to laborers and union members, and they were thrilled to see him and very thankful for the work that he has done on behalf of union workers over the past three-plus years.

And so, that’s what you’re going to continue to see from the president. It doesn’t matter if it’s — because of the election is a couple of days away. This is what he’s going to go do on the next three months. And I think the president enjoys being out there, and that’s no- — and nothing is going to stop him from doing that.

Q On foreign policy, just finally. CNN is reporting, according to a high-ranking Iranian source, that Israel’s recent attacks on Iran will be met with a “definitive and painful” response that will likely come before the election on Tuesday. What preparations does the U.S. have underway for a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s —

Q — potential response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — what I’ll say. Iran should not respond to Israel’s retaliation. They should not. If — if it chooses to do so — if they do, we will support Israel in defending itself. But they should not. They should not respond to Israel’s retaliation.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thanks. The White House had advised that the president will be heading to Pennsylvania twice at the end of this week — Philadelphia on Friday, Scranton on Saturday. Obviously, a very important battleground state.

First, can you talk about what he’s going to be doing there, at both of those stops? And second, is there any thought to not having him out on the campaign trail on a battleground state, given the criticism he’s facing for the comments from last night?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you just stated, it’s a campaign event. I’m not going to speak to the —

Q Saturday is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: On Saturday, yes. So, I’m not going to speak to the details of — of the Scranton visit. I don’t have anything else to add beyond what we shared with all of you in the Week Ahead. I don’t have any changes. I don’t have anything more to — to advise from here.

What I can say is wha- — basically what I kind of said with Kayla in answering her question, which is, the president certainly looks forward to being out there, speaking directly to the American people, talking about what we’ve been able to do and deliver in the past almost four years of this administration. And that’s where — that’s what he enjoys, right? He enjoys having that d- — those direct co- — contact, if you will, with — with Americans.

I don’t have anything to share beyond what we already announced to all of you and shared with all of you about what the next couple days are going to look like.

Q Can you give us a sense of why those two places? Did he want to go to those — I mean, they’re pretty specific locations for him that he has ties to.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m going to be super — super careful, super mindful from here. But, as you know, the president is from Scranton. He loves Scranton. We’ve been there a couple of times. And I think he always looks forward to going back there.

It is a place that he loves, a place where he spent a lot of time in his youth, growing up, and still have close friends and family there. But also, he also believes it’s important to continue to be out there to — to talk to folks directly about what we have done.

I — I’m going to be super careful and not speak to anything beyond that. Once we have more details and information, obviously, we’ll share that with all of you.

Go ahead, Michael.

Q Thanks, Karine. Where will — (clears throat) — excuse me. Where will the president be on election night?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’ll have more to share. Don’t have anything for you at this time. We’ll have more to share when we get closer.

Q Okay. And one more thing. Will he attend the inauguration in January, regardless of who wins?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, this president believes in the peaceful transfer of power, and that’s what you’re going to see this president do — committed to the peaceful transfer of power. It’s not about him. It’s not about him.

Q So, is that a yes, or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, he will.

It’s not about him. It’s about the American people. That’s what the American people need to see. Regardless — regardless of who wins, the American pe- — and he understands this — needs to see a peaceful transfer of power, and that’s what you’re going to see from the president. And that’s part of that — right? — attending the inauguration, being there, being part of a — a — what is regularly done, a historic kind of process. He certainly is going to partake in that.

Go ahead, Monica.

Q Karine, just following up on two questions from my colleagues. For the sake of clarity, was the president reading from prepared remarks last night?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the president had certainly — it’s not unusual for — for a president, vice president —

Q Sure.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — or any elected officials to have notes on what they are — what they want to say, prepared to say. I’m not going to — I’m just not going to get into specifics here.

What is — I think what’s important to note here is the president wanted to clarify what he said. That is what is important. And for a president to do that, I think, is important, and I think that shows the integrity of this president to want to make sure that, “Hey, I want to make really clear I was talking about the comedian and the hateful rhetoric that was coming out of his remarks on — on Sunday.”

I’m not going to get into — I’m not going to get into specifics here and — and just leave it as that. I think what’s important for the American people to note is that the president wanted to make sure that he clarified his statement and is going to continue to be a president for all. It doesn’t matter if you voted for him or not.

Q And then just second, the vice president is facing questions about his —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — comments today. So, does the president regret at all the distraction this is causing from her campaign in these final days?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I- — here’s what I’ll say: The — yes, the vice president spoke to this, and she said herself that the president clarified these statements. And, look, what — what I will say — and she also said, obviously, and you — you all saw this, that she believes that, you know, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, right? She — people should have their ability to — to make their decisions for themselves, which is something that this president also agrees on.

And I’m not going to — you all are covering this election. You all can speak to if this is a distraction or not. What I can speak to is the president wanted to make sure that he clarified these statement — his statement, and he did so.

Q And the vice president did say today she strongly disagrees with anybody who offers criticism of people based on who they vote for and why they vote for them.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Mm-hmm.

Q Does the president view that differently?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, he feels the same way. He feels the same way as what she stated. But that’s something that the president has been saying for some time. He has. He has been saying that it doesn’t matter if you voted for him or not; he’s your president. He’s a president for all Americans, whether you’re in a red state or a blue state. This is something that the president certainly believes and he has been saying himself. He has said this himself.

And that’s why he didn’t want what he said to be taken out of context. That’s why he wanted to make sure it was clarified because that is indeed what he believes. So, he agrees with the vice president.

Go ahead, Willie.

Q You touched on this just a little bit, about the president agreeing with the vice president. But will the president be a little bit more careful in his upcoming events? I know you can’t speak to the campaign events, but in his remarks, what is he going to do differently in terms of what he says to the American people for fear of isolating someone with his comments?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — look, here’s the thing. You have a president who wanted to make sure what he said was not taken out of context and took that extra step to clarify. I think that tells you where the president is. He took the extra step to clarify.

And, you know, you don’t see that from many elected officials. You certainly didn’t see that from the former president. And this president wanted to make sure it was not taken out of contax [context]. And so, he wanted to clarify. I think that tells you everything that you need to know.

Q Just two quick ones —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — if I — if I may. On North Carolina, I wanted to see if there’s an update —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — about resources there. Both candidates in North Carolina. I wanted to see what the hurricane response —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — ongoing response is. And on the ballot boxes and the fires that are — ballots. I- — is the White House in contact with local communities about how they can keep their ballots safe, or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — what’s the White House doing there in response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things there. I do want to speak to North Carolina, and I think that’s a — thank you for that question, because I think it’s important for folks to — folks to have an update.

So, as you know, the Biden-Harris administration, when it came to dealing with these two historic hurricanes — Hurricane Helene and — and, obviously, Hurricane Milton — we did an — a robust, whole-of-government response, provided the — provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financial assistance to survivors and to substantial debris removal and power restoration. And that is what you saw from this administration.

As it relates to specifics there, this includes over $1.3 billion in assistance for individuals and families to help pay for housing, repairs, personal property replacement, and other recovery efforts; and over $1.5 — $1.1, pardon me, billion in public assistance, including a support local — to support local and state governments as they recover and rebuild.

And specifically, what — what we provided to North Carolina: over $193 million in direct financial assistance. This is for survivors, obviously. And as the president and the vice president have said many times, their administration will be there for the people of — of North Carolina as they continue to rebuild, as they continue to deal with the loss that they’ve had to deal with from both hurricanes — a historic hurricane.

And, as you know, both — both the president and the vice president have been on the ground, and FEMA continues to assist on the ground.

As it relates to the — the ballot drop box fires, first of all, we want to be very clear about this: It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. Every eligible American has the right — has the right to make their voices heard.

And so, we are committed to making sure that Americans’ right to vote is — and — and is — occurs, right? We are committed to that, and we want to make sure that is not undermined.

And so, we’re working with state officials providing replacement ballots to those affected and are working to protect against future incidents. That’s what state officials are doing.

And FBI certainly is going to investigate these incidents, so I would refer you to them specifically about the incidents.

But we certainly will call that out, and it is unacceptable. Every eligible American has the right to exercise their — certainly their right to vo- — vote and make sure that their voice is heard.

AIDE: Karine, we have time for one more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q Thanks, Karine. A Supreme Court ruling allowed the state of Virginia to purge 1,600 voters from the registration rolls suspected of being noncitizens. Critics argue that the ruling violates the National Voter Registration Act, which bars systematic changes to voting rolls 90 days before an election. What does the White House make of this ruling?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So look, it’s — it’s very similar to how I answered Willie’s question, but I’ll start off with this, saying: It is already illegal. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and it is a federal crime that is punishable by prison and fines.

And again, as I stated to — to your colleague here, every single eligible American has the right to make sure that their voices are heard if they choose so. And so, that is something that we’re going to continue to make sure that that happens.

And I’ll just leave it as there for now.

Q Another topic.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q The mother of Shanquella Robinson, the 25-year-old North Carolina woman killed in Cabo, Mexico, in 2022, after a physical assault caught on video while vacationing with people she believed to be her friends — her mother filed a wrong- — a wrongful death lawsuit against those six individuals who — and also names the State Department and FBI, accusing the agencies of negligence in their failure to extradite those involved and failure to properly investigate that case. Given that her family did have a meeting here at the White House, I wonder what — the White House has any reaction to that lawsuit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I’m going to be mindful and careful here. It’s — it’s an ongoing case. There’s a lawsuit obviously tied into this. So, what I will do is refer you to, certainly, the State Department and just not comment from here.

Q Has the White House been in contact with the Robinson family outside of that one meeting last year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I would have to con- — connect with my colleagues here. I don’t have anything to share beyond that one — one-time connection, but I would have to connect with the — with the team here.

All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a good one.

2:36 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

2:38 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining today’s call.  As a reminder, this call will be on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and it is embargoed until 5:00 p.m. Eastern today.

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

We’ll follow up shortly after the call with embargoed materials as well, but I will turn it over to [senior administration officials] who will have a few words at the top, and then we’ll take your questions. 

Over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Eduardo, and thanks to everybody for joining us today.

Since the earliest days of the administration, President Biden has said we are at an inflection point with respect to advanced technologies.  And as he’s often said, we will see more technological change in the next 10 years than we saw in the last 50.

And that has motivated historic investments, mobilizing hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment to rebuild American manufacturing and innovation. 

The flipside of that, of course, of promoting critical technologies is, of course, protecting them.  And recognizing how transformative certain technologies can be, the President directed his national security team to ensure that where we have significant advantages, our world-leading technologies and know-how are not used against us to undermine our national security.  That’s been the guiding principle for the Biden-Harris administration’s export control policies, as well as the Outbound Investment Program that we’re glad to announce is being finalized today. 

As many of you know, we’ve been working on this approach to address certain outbound investments in sensitive technologies and critical sectors that could undermine American national security for some time.  And, in particular, we’ve been focused on the exploitation of certain intangible benefits that often accompany U.S. outbound investments and that help companies succeed through, for example, enhancing their standing and prominence, providing certain types of assistance, introducing investment and talent networks, opening up market access, and enhancing access to additional financing. 

The People’s Republic of China has a stated goal, as you know: to develop key sensitive technologies that will directly support the PRC’s military modernization and related activities, including weapons development, and it has exploited U.S. investments to develop domestic, military, and intelligence capabilities. 

So, today, the Treasury Department will issue a Final Rule to implement President Biden’s Executive Order 14105, from August of 2023, which is entitled “Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern.” 

The Final Rule provides the operative regulations and a detailed, explanatory discussion regarding its intent and application.  And as directed in the President’s executive order, the Final Rule does prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in certain transactions involving a defined set of technologies and products that pose a particularly acute national security risk to the United States. 

The Final Rule also requires U.S. persons to notify the Treasury Department of certain other transactions involving a defined set of technologies and products that may contribute to a threat to the national security of the United States. 

Covered technologies fall into three categories: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence.  This set of technologies, we believe, is core for the next generation of military, cybersecurity, surveillance, and intelligence applications, providing what we believe are force multiplier capabilities. 

The United States already prohibits and restricts the export to countries of concern of many of the technologies and products covered by the Final Rule.  This program complements the United States’ existing export control and inbound screening tools by preventing U.S. investment from advancing the development of these technologies and products in countries of concern. 

The Treasury Department, as [senior administration official] will lay out, has used feedback through the notice and comment process to help design a carefully tailored approach.  And we also want to commend Senators Casey and Cornyn, Representatives DeLauro, Fitzpatrick, and Pascrell, as well as Representatives Meeks and McCaul in particular, for their leadership on this issue. 

The overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on Senators Casey and Cornyn’s Outbound Investment Transparency Act as an amendment to the Senate NDAA demonstrates the shared will of Congress and the administration to meaningfully regulate outbound investments. 

So, with that, I’ll turn it over to [senior administration official] to provide more detail on the content of the Final Rule. 

Over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks very much.  As mentioned today, Treasury is issuing, at the direction of the President, a targeted and narrowly scoped regulation that implements a new program to address this threat to U.S. national security.  The Final Rule has clear thresholds and definitions to implement the executive order, and provides detailed, explanatory discussion regarding its intent and application to assist investors and other stakeholders to help them navigate this new program. 

The Final Rule does two things at its core, as previewed: First, it prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in certain transactions involving semiconductors, quantum, and artificial intelligence.  And second, it requires U.S. persons to notify Treasury of certain other transactions involving semiconductors and artificial intelligence. 

The rule explains in detail the scope of the program, definitions, processes, requirements, and penalties for non-compliance, among other things.  Importantly, this rule has benefited from the input of a variety of stakeholders, industry experts, and allies and partners. 

We had two rounds of formal comments on the rulemaking to implement the executive order, first with the August 2023 ANPRM that was issued alongside the ENO and on which we got 60 comments from stakeholders.  Those comments were integral in developing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we issued in June of this year and on which we received more than 40 additional comments, which further informed the development of the Final Rule.

Over two-plus years, Treasury, along with the Departments of State and Commerce, have led extensive engagements with stakeholders across the globe.  These engagements and our deliberate decision to offer two rounds of public comment have helped us receive insightful feedback that has helped inform the Final Rule to ensure to choose our national security objectives while taking into account the need to be focused, targeted, and clear. 

Now, I’ll briefly discuss a few key aspects of the rule. 

First, as [senior administration official] suggested, the rule imposes requirements on U.S. persons.  This includes prohibiting U.S. persons from engaging in certain transactions with what the rule identifies as covered foreign persons, and requires the U.S. persons to notify the Treasury Department about other transactions that involve covered foreign persons. 

Second, the Final Rule focuses on specific categories of investment transactions where the target of the investment has a nexus to the PRC and activities involving sensitive technologies and products. 

In terms of what transactions are covered, the Final Rule applies to, among other things, a U.S. person’s acquisition of an equity interest or contingent equity interest, certain debt financing, certain greenfield investments, or investments that could result in corporate expansion and joint ventures.  This would include, for example, a U.S. investment firm taking an equity stake in an advanced semiconductor manufacturer in the PRC.  It would also cover a U.S. company’s purchase of land in the PRC to develop a quantum computing research facility. 

There are exceptions for certain types of transactions that are less likely to contribute to the national security threat we’re worried about. 

For example, the Final Rule excepts or carves out certain investments by a U.S. person to publicly trade securities and certain investments made by a limited partner in a pooled investment fund, among others.

In light of our ongoing conversations with allies and partners on the importance of multilateral efforts in this area, the Final Rule also includes an exception for certain transactions involving a person of a country or territory outside the United States where the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the country or territory is addressing national security concerns posed by outbound investment. 

And third, in terms of the technologies and products in scope for the program, the Final Rule provides technical details on the subsets of semiconductors, quantum, and artificial intelligence that are relevant to the program. 

For example, a U.S. person is prohibited from acquiring equity in a PRC entity that manufactures advanced semiconductors or that is developing an AI system designed exclusively or intended for a military end use.  A U.S. person would be required to notify Treasury if they are acquiring equity in a PRC company that manufactures legacy semiconductors. 

Other examples include direct equity investments by a company or private equity fund into any PRC company that is repurposing an AI model for penetration testing or automated vulnerability detection and exploitation, which would be covered under the rule as either notifiable or prohibited, depending on the design end use and computing power used to train an AI system. 

In addition to direct investments, indirect investments through a parent of a PRC company that is using AI models to improve targeting, intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance, or autonomous weapons systems for military use would be prohibited, as would such indirect investments in a PRC company developing or scaling quantum computers or networks to undermine encryption systems.  These technologies can be used for advanced code breaking, the development of next-generation military applications, or offensive cyber operations. 

Additionally, in general, the rule is based on a U.S. person’s knowledge of the relevant facts, rendering a transaction to be covered under the rule.  Enforcement and penalties are consistent with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, the authority by which the President issued the executive order. 

The Final Rule takes effect on January 2nd, giving stakeholders time to organize internal infrastructure and processes to ensure compliance with the rule. 

The lengthy preamble to the rule summarizes the response to the comments received, as well as provides an explanation of the changes since the proposed rule issued over the summer. 

And let me make two additional and final points before concluding. 

First, this program is calibrated to help ensure our actions can be supported multilaterally, which is a critical component to maximize its effectiveness and reduce backfill from other investors.  The administration has been engaged in extensive conversations with allies and partners on the issue, and we are encouraged to see some allies and partners, including the European Commission and the United Kingdom, exploring the issue of outbound investment security in their own jurisdictions.

Second, cross-border investment flows have long contributed to U.S. economic vitality.  This targeted action is focused on national security and scope to address specific risks posed by certain U.S. outbound investment, and it maintains our longstanding commitment to open investment. 

Thanks.  And back to you, Eduardo, for questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We now have time for a few questions.  If you’d like to ask a question, please use the “Raise Your Hand” feature on Zoom, and we’ll come to you. 

First up, we’ll go to Michael Martina.

Q    Hi there.  Appreciate you doing this.  So, what you described sounds quite similar to the notice for proposed rulemaking earlier in the year.  I’m wondering if you can detail any specific or key changes that you made to the original notice you said it was used to inform this Final Rule.  So, are any changes from earlier?

And just an effort at clarification.  You know, given the exemptions for publicly traded securities, is it the White House’s contention that China has not significantly exploited publicly traded security purchases by U.S. investors to enhance their military or intelligence capabilities?  My understanding is that this is perfectly fine — you could trade public securities for Chinese defense companies under this; that’s totally within the rules.  Is that correct?  Thanks. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, maybe I’ll take the first question, Eduardo.  And then, [senior administration official], if you want to chime in on the second from a White House perspective.

So, I think while largely consistent with the NPRM in scope and structure, the Final Rule does contain some changes, including with respect to clarity of the rule and thinking forward to compliance. 

So, for example, we’ve selected clear technical thresholds for notifiable and prohibited transactions involving AI systems based on the amount of compute power to train an AI system that is open in the NPRM; refine how the rule applies to U.S. persons with investment banking authority and non-U.S. entity, such that it clearly applies only to those who actually exercise authority, for example; and clarifying with respect to compliance and enforcement with the rule. 

And so, there are a number of areas where we have honed and focused and sharpened the rule since then, and those are some examples.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question, Michael.  So, I will say we do have existing authorities to address the threat you were discussing.  So, for example, Treasury has authorities — the Chinese military industrial complex sanctions regulations that are intended to address U.S. persons from purchasing or selling publicly traded securities and companies that are involved in this sector, and there are others as well. 

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Anita Powell.

Q    Thank you so much.  As you guys are surely aware, Elon Musk is developing a data center in China to train the algorithm to work on self-driving cars.  That’s a lot simpler than I think it really is.  But anyway, is this the type of investment that might be restricted under this new rule?  Can you just kind of flesh that out for us?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  Happy to start. 

Look, I don’t think we’re going to get into hypothetical scenarios, but just reiterate some of the points that I’ve said. 

What the rule is really targeted on is capital and the intangibles that can flow from such American capital to go into the development of PRC-based — not just based, but PRC-based entities that are developing these advanced technologies.  And so, that’s sort of the scope of the rule. 

And one thing I will mention is that Treasury will provide some guidance and other documents during this interim period before the rule goes online.  That’s certainly our intent to help flesh this out.  But I think going back to the core tenets of the rule is the best way to answer that.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of (inaudible).

Q    Yeah, hi.  Thanks for doing this and for taking my question.  Could you talk a little bit more about the engagement with allies and partners in the process of finalizing this rule, specifically which allies specifically you engaged with and whether there are any allies who are going to create similar rules of their own?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  [Senior administration official], maybe you could start with engagements with allies that you’ve had, but then maybe, [senior administration official], if we could go to you, you could talk a little bit about the G7 as well.  That might be helpful.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:   Yeah, sure.  Thanks. 

So, in terms of — just to sort of put a topper before going to [senior administration official], we’ve had a number of engagements with partners and allies, which have resulted in not only sort of technical exchanges about what we are doing and why we’re doing it, but also various statements.  And [senior administration official] will allude to one of them with regard to the G7, but obviously the European Commission and the United Kingdom have made statements in support of these goals.  And so, it’s an ongoing process and one that will continue.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, and just to add on to what [senior administration official] said, this is something that, you know, even from the White House level we engage with our closest allies and partners on.  And [senior administration official] referenced, you know, a line in the G7 leaders’ statement from Apulia early this year that refers to, you know, recognizing that appropriate measures designed to address risk from outbound investments are important to complement our existing toolkit. 

So, it’s a conversation that we’re frequently having with our key partners and allies.

MODERATOR:  And we have time for one more.  We’ll go to the line of Patrick Tucker.

Q    Hey.  Thanks.  Patrick Tucker from Defense One.

So, when you say the rule prohibits people from acquiring equity in a PRC entity that manufactures semiconductors that might be used in autonomous weapons systems or that might be repurposed for AI penetration testing, is that based on an observation that there are U.S. firms that currently have investments in those areas of autonomous weaponry and penetration testing for China?  Or are you making the rule now in anticipation that firms might begin to invest in that sort of thing?  I’m trying to get a sense of the degree to which U.S. firms have exposure and have willingly made investments in these areas of the Chinese military.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So let me start, [senior administration official], and then perhaps, [senior administration official], pass it to you. 

I think what we are worried about, which I would focus on, is the kinds of scenarios that we have outlined, which is supported by data.  And one statistic that comes to mind — and I won’t get it exactly right, so I’d refer you to the Georgetown Center for — I think it’s Technology — that had a statistic that said something to the effect of: For a five-year period, I think between 2016 and 2020 or 2021, 17 percent of investment in Chinese artificial intelligence companies included U.S. participation, and of that, 91 percent was at the venture capital stage. 

I think if you think about those sets of facts and scenarios, that’s the kind of situation that when it comes to certain artificial intelligence capable of impacting our national security, from military intelligence, cyber, other related perspectives, that’s what we’re concerned about. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, I would just add to that that part of the motivation, as we were looking at some case studies to inform the development of this executive order and the regulation, actually was focused on cybersecurity, where we had a number — we saw a number of VC investments directly into firms working on cybersecurity that ended up on the entity list for working with Chinese military or intelligence services.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone, for joining.  That’s all the time we have for today.  As a reminder, this call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and the contents of the call are embargoed until 5:00 p.m. Eastern. 

We’ll follow up shortly with embargoed materials as well. but do reach out to us, to the NSC or Treasury, with any questions in the meantime.  Thanks so much.

3:00 P.M. EDT  

The post Background Press Call on U.S. Efforts to Address U.S. Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

11:15 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Good evening, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining the call, especially one on short notice and late on a Friday. 

As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to a senior administration official.  For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the call today we have [senior administration official]. 

This call is embargoed until the conclusion of the call. 

[Senior administration official] is going to have a few words at the top, and then we’ll take your questions. 

Over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, everybody, for joining here late on a Friday. 

So, I’m here to provide some brief comment and background on Israel’s response earlier this evening against Iran.  And just as you will recall, on October 1st, so a few weeks ago, Iran launched an unprecedented attack of nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel, which was a significant escalation.  Many of these missiles targeted Israel’s most populated city of Tel Aviv.  Those missiles had the potential to kill hundreds of civilians. 

Fortunately, that attack was defeated and ineffective thanks in no small part to U.S. assistance.  President Biden directed the U.S. military to help defend Israel during the attack.  And in the hours after that attack, we promised serious consequences for Iran. 

The next morning, on October 2nd, the President spoke with his G7 counterparts to coordinate a diplomatic response.  And over the course of the following week, we and our partners implemented a coordinated series of sanctions against Iran.

And just to review:

The United States, we issued new sanctions against Iran’s oil sector, including its so-called Ghost Fleet that carries illicit oil products around the world. 

The European Union for the first time sanctioned Iran’s civilian airliners, including Iran Air, rendering those airlines no longer able to access European destinations. 

The United Kingdom and Australia issued new and sweeping sanctions against Iran’s missile program. 

This is a coordinated effort across multiple jurisdictions that President Biden led, and those efforts are ongoing with allies and partners. 

Tonight, Israel carried out a direct military response against Iran.  Specifically, Israel conducted precision airstrikes against multiple military targets across Iran and outside populated areas. 

The United States was not a participant in this military operation. 

The President and his national security team, of course, worked with the Israelis over recent weeks to encourage Israel to conduct a response that was targeted and proportional with low risk of civilian harm, and that appears to have been precisely what transpired this evening. 

The President discussed the overall situation with Prime Minister Netanyahu last week.  He encouraged the Prime Minister to design a response that served to deter further attacks against Israel while reducing risk of further escalation.  And that is our objective; it’s Israel’s objective, as well, as they have stated this evening.

Should Iran choose to respond, we are fully prepared to once again defend against any attack.  We recently deployed a THAAD battery, which is a ballistic missile defense system, to Israel.  And we have worked to strengthen Israel’s air defense systems in the run-up to tonight’s response.

President Biden and Vice President Harris have demonstrated clearly that we will always help defend Israel and secure its people and territory from Iran and its proxy terrorist groups.

If Iran chooses to respond once again, we will be ready, and there will be consequences for Iran once again.  However, we do not want to see that happen.  This should be the end of this direct exchange of fire between Israel and Iran.  Israel has made clear to the world that its response is now complete. 

Accordingly, we would call on all countries of influence to press Iran to stop these attacks against Israel so that we can move beyond this direct cycle of attacks.

Over the coming days, we are prepared to lead an effort to secure an end to the war in Lebanon through an agreement that allows civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to safely return to their homes.  We are also prepared to lead an effort to finally achieve a ceasefire in Gaza together, with the return of hostages, which must happen without delay. 

The overall contours of those arrangements are in place.  Tony Blinken was in the region last week.  This week, there will be further engagements, including a meeting of hostage negotiators over the coming days.  And it’s time to bring these deals to a resolution once and for all.  

I would just note for some color on the recent hours here over the course of this evening: Of course, the President was briefed throughout the evening by Jake Sullivan, his National Security Advisor, as we are here at the White House.  Secretary Austin spoke with his Israeli counterpart, Minister Yoav Gallant, a couple of hours ago.  And we just issued a — the Defense Department just issued a readout of that call, again, affirming Israel’s full right to self-defense against Iran and our support for its actions tonight, and our commitment to help defend Israel should Iran make the mistake to respond to this attack. 

And with that, I’m happy to take a few questions. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ve got time for just a couple of questions. 

First up, we’ll go to Aamer Madhani.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Hey.  Thank you both.  Did the U.S. assist in any manner at all?  Target selection, intel, jamming?  And do you assess this action to have had significant-enough impact on Iran’s ability to continue to strike Israel directly or its ability to arm Hezbollah?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, as I said in my statement, we did not participate in this military operation, and I think that’s very clear. 

I would just say: I’ll leave it to the Israelis to describe the scope and breadth of their response this evening.  It was extensive.  It was targeted.  It was precise.  It was against military targets across Iran.  It was in multiple waves.  It was very carefully prepared.  And again, I think it was designed to be effective. 

And I think — again, I will leave it, though, to the Israelis to characterize and to provide more details, given that this was their military operation. 

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Trevor Hunnicutt.

Q    Hey.  Thanks for doing this.  Could you talk a little bit about what, if any, communications or indications you had from Iran heading into this about what level of response they’re willing to engage in?  And could you talk a little bit about the President’s — any plans for the President to follow up with Netanyahu after this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We do have multiple channels with Iran, direct and indirect.  We try to avoid any sense of miscommunication.  And they know exactly what our position is on multiple issues, including the dangers and risks of their course of conduct, particularly the launching of 200 ballistic missiles focusing primarily on densely populated areas in Israel’s most populated city, which also includes tens of thousands of Americans. 

That is totally unacceptable.  We will not accept it.  We will support Israel defending itself.  And, obviously, we’ll support Israel fully in its right to self-defense.  Iran knows our position on that is unequivocal.  And we are quite clear that there’s no misunderstanding or miscommunication between us and Iran.

In terms of communication with the Israelis, we are in constant communication with the Israelis up and down their system — military to military, intel to intel, and at the political level.  That is something that is ongoing and continuous. 

Again, Jake briefed the President multiple times throughout the evening as this was unfolding and, of course, throughout the day today as it was developing.  And I think that will obviously continue through the weekend.  But I don’t have any calls to preview or read out.

MODERATOR:  We have time for one last question.  We’ll go to the line of Kayla Tausche.

Q    Thank you, guys, so much for doing this.  We appreciate it. 

I have two questions.  The first is: You’ve described these strikes as “designed to be effective.”  Can you elaborate on what effect they were intended to have and whether they, in fact, did?

And then, you’ve suggested that this should be the end to the conflict, but does the administration believe it will be the end of the conflict?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, first of all, the effect, it’s a proportionate self-defense response to an unbelievably brazen and reckless ballistic missile attack, almost unprecedented in history, that has launched almost three weeks ago.  So, the effect is to deter future attacks and also to degrade the capabilities of Iran being able to conduct those types of activities.

As to specific targets, I will say we know them, but I would leave it to the Israelis to discuss them in any further detail. 

What was your second question?  I’m sorry.

Q    The second question was: You have suggested that this should be the end of the conflict, but does the administration actually believe that it will be?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, this should be the end of the direct military exchange between Israel and Iran.  And so, we had a direct exchange in April, and that was closed off, and we’ve now had this direct exchange.  Again, a direct — 200 ballistic missiles fired from Iran at Israel.  Israel did not attack Iran.  Iran attacked Israel, 200 ballistic missiles.  And Israel, tonight, has responded to that attack as an exercise of self-defense.  As far as we’re concerned, that should close out that direct exchange between Israel and Iran.

As to the broader conflicts in the region, obviously much more complex.  I mentioned and alluded to them in my statement.  We do have a number of initiatives ongoing with respect to those. 

But as to the direct military exchange between Israel and Iran, we do think this should complete that direct exchange.  And, again, should Iran choose to respond, we are fully prepared to defend Israel and support Israel, and there will be consequences should Iran make that unfortunate decision. 

But as far as we’re concerned, this direct exchange, this should be the end of it.  I will say we’ve heard the same thing from many across the region, including many with close ties to Iran.  So we’ll see how that unfolds. 

But that is our very strong view.  That’s been communicated to our partners throughout the region, and obviously it’s been communicated through multiple channels, indirectly and directly, to Iran. 

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for tonight.  As a reminder, this call was on background to a senior administration official, and the embargo is now lifted.  Thanks so much, and have a good night.

11:27 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call on Israel’s Targeted Strikes Against Military Targets in Iran appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

12:42 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining us on a Friday afternoon.  Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll take some questions. 

MR. KIRBY:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Sorry we’re a little bit late.  Had some technical difficulties here. 

But I just wanted to start by letting you know that, today, our National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, met with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts: the Republic of Korea’s National Security Advisor, Shin Won-sik, and the Japanese National Security Advisor, Akiba Takeo. 

They met here in Washington, D.C.  It’s the second trilateral national security advisors meeting since the leaders of all three countries met at Camp David back in August of ’23, and it’s the fifth one of this administration.

The three national security advisors reaffirmed their commitment to address common regional and global challenges and to promote security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. 

In particular, the national security advisors expressed grave concern over troop deployments by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to Russia, potentially for use on the battlefield against Ukraine.  This deployment is the latest in a series of concerning indicators of deepening military cooperation between the DPRK and Russia, including arms and ballistic missile transfers that are in direct violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. 

The national security advisors call on Russia and the DPRK to cease these actions that only serve to expand the security implications of Russia’s brutal and illegal war beyond Europe and into the Indo-Pacific. 

They also — all three national security advisors strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion in the waters of the Indo-Pacific, and they underscored their commitment to the global maritime order based on international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

National Security Advisor Sullivan, National Security Advisor Shin, and National Security Advisor Akiba resolved to institutionalize efforts to build a new era of trilateral partnership that will be a force for peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific and beyond for years to come.  They committed to work toward holding another trilateral leaders’ summit at the earliest opportunity.

And with that, we can take some questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And again, as Kirby said at the top, we’re having some tech glitches, so just bear with us while we get through questions. 

Our first question will go to Barak with Axios.

Q    Hi, John.  Thank you for doing this.  CENTCOM announced, I think an hour ago, about another squadron of F-16s that arrived in its area of responsibility in what, at least to me, seems to be as a signal of the preparation for an Israeli attack on Iran.  Anything you can tell us about that?

MR. KIRBY:  I really can’t offer you more detail than CENTCOM did, Barak.  As you know, and I think they expressed, our commitment to Israel’s security remains ironclad, and that means, as appropriate, making force posture changes that we think need to be made to help Israel defend itself.  And I don’t think I can really go beyond that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Ron Kampeas.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Yeah, can you hear me now?

MODERATOR:  Yep.

Q    Great.  Thank you for taking this call.  So, two questions, and I realize they’re a little bit out of date.  But when Yahya Sinwar was killed, of course Netanyahu gave a speech in Hebrew and in English.  I didn’t hear the English, but in Hebrew he said, “Those who said that we should not have gone into Rafah, those who said — were calling for a ceasefire, now they know they are wrong.”  And that seems to me directly — directed particularly at you guys, at the White House.  And I wondered if you had any reaction to that. 

And the second question is: There’s talk of holding Sinwar’s body in exchange for hostages.  I just wondered if you had any comment on that.

MR. KIRBY:  No comment on your second one.

And on your first one: Look, again, I don’t think it’s useful for us to, you know, get into publicly parsing everything that the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister’s office is saying.  They can speak for themselves, as they do.

I would just tell you that the Prime Minister knows very well how strongly Joe Biden supports Israel and how stridently he’s been working to make sure that they have what they need to defend themselves, including the support that went to the Israeli Defense Forces while they were operating in Rafah. 

And just to put a fine point on it, we did not tell the Israelis that they could not operate in Rafah.  So, if that’s the public narrative out there, or that’s the impression that people have, I can assure you that that’s not the case.  We did express concerns, of course, about densely populated areas and the damage that that could have and the impact on civilians, but there was no mandate by the United States that they couldn’t operate in Rafah.  And even as they did operate in Rafah, they continued to get support from the United States. 

Q    Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Akayla with Bloomberg.

Q    Hey, John.  I’m wondering if you could say what options the U.S. has to respond to North Korea sending troops to Russia.  Is there anything that you guys would have the power to do?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re in discussions with allies and partners right now, Akayla, on this development.  We are still trying to learn more about what the North Koreans and the Russians are actually up to.

And so we are, again, actively consulting allies and partners.  And I wouldn’t want to get ahead of those conversations and preview what options are being considered and talked about. 

But as I said the other day, you know, you’ll hear more from us in coming days about where we are on this and what we and our allies and partners think is the appropriate next steps.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Sara with CBS.

Q    Hey, Kirby.  Thanks for doing this.  Can you confirm reports that Elon Musk and Putin have held phone calls with each other?  Is that something the U.S. government has been tracking? If so, how many calls have they had?  And does the U.S. know what they’ve discussed?

And just in general, is the U.S. government concerned that a private citizen with a security clearance is having conversations with Putin?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’ve seen the reporting out of the Wall Street Journal.  I’m not in a position to corroborate the veracity of those reports, and we would refer you to Mr. Musk to speak to his private communications.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to David Klepper.

Q    Yes, hello.  Thank you for doing this today.  There have been reports that Russia is providing targeting data to the Houthis via Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to target ships in the Red Sea.  And I’m wondering if you can confirm those reports and tell us a little bit about what the U.S. is doing in response.

MR. KIRBY:  No, I cannot confirm those reports.  What we’re doing is operating in the Red Sea with a coalition of some 20 other nations to continue to knock down the missiles and drones that the Houthis continue to fire at commercial shipping there.  And our presence remains robust there.  Our capabilities remain significant.  And as Secretary Austin himself said earlier this week, we are and we’ll continue to do everything we can to degrade Houthi capability in that regard.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Joe Barnes.

Q    Thank you.  Joe Barnes from The Daily Telegraph newspaper.  Two questions, if I may, John.

Did Jake Sullivan’s South Korean counterpart tell him anything new today in their meeting?  If so, could you share any details about the North Korean deployments inside Russia? 

And then secondly, where are discussions with the UK and Ukraine about using U.S. enablers to fire British Storm Shadow missiles at targets inside Russia, please?  Thank you very much.

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, I certainly won’t get into intelligence assessments and discussions at a classified level that may have taken place between the national security advisors. 

I think you know very well the South Koreans have been watching this development as closely as we have been, and they have expressed, as we have expressed, deep concerns about the potential here for North Korean troops to be used in the fight against Ukraine.  Again, no surprise, I don’t think to anybody, that when I talk about discussing this with our allies and partners, the South Koreans are right at the top of the list of the allies and partners that we’re having discussions with. 

So it absolutely came up in the meeting today with the three national security advisors, no question.  But as for the exact details of what was shared between us, I will leave inside the room.

On your second question: Again, I can’t — I won’t certainly pretend to be qualified to speak for the UK in any way, shape, or form.  All I can do is tell you, from the United States’ perspective, there’s been no change to our policy about the use of long-range strike to hit targets deep inside Russia. 

We are in constant communication, not only with the UK and the Germans, as the President was in Germany on Friday of last week and had a chance to meet with other leaders of the Quad, including Prime Minister Starmer, but also our counterparts in France and Germany as well. 

We continue to talk about what Ukraine needs on the battlefield, and we continue to talk directly with the Ukrainians about what their needs are.  But I’m not in a position today to speak to any changes in the President’s policy with respect to long-range strike.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jake Epstein.

Q    Hey, thanks for having this.  President Zelenskyy said today that the first North Korean soldiers are expected to deploy by Russia to combat zones as early as Sunday.  I’m wondering if the White House can confirm this or has any additional information on the potential deployment. 

And as a second question, I’m wondering if there’s any information you can provide about the aftermath of last week’s strikes on the underground Houthi targets, the ones that involved the U.S. bombers.  Thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  On your second question, what more do you want?

Q    I mean, can we get, like, a battle damage assessment?  Is there sort of an indication of, you know, what the strikes were able to degrade, how many weapons they were able to take out? 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’d refer you to the Pentagon on that.  They do battle damage assessments.  That’s their job.  So, I’ll let them speak to that. 

The only thing I would say on that one is that, as I hope was demonstrated, not only do we have unmatched capability to target the Houthis, but that, as Secretary Austin said, we’re going to continue to do what we have to do to degrade their capability to go after commercial shipping.  And this was — those strikes were an example of how serious we’re taking that task.  But as for the battle damage assessment, I would refer you to the Pentagon.

On your first question, I’ll say this: We’re monitoring this very, very closely, and we’re continuing to consult with the intelligence community to see what more we can glean. 

I will go so far today as to say that it is possible that there are now more than 3,000 troops from North Korea that have been dispatched to Russia for outfitting and for training.  The other day, I said it was about 3,000.  We believe that it’s possible, and we’re looking into reports, that the number could be north of that. 

I can’t give you a specific estimate at this time, but as we said the other day, it was entirely possible that that number could change, and we are closely examining the reports about that, in fact, happening.

On where they’re going to go and what they’re going to be deployed to do, if they’re going to be deployed, I don’t have firm intelligence assessments that I can speak to today about that.  We’re still, again, watching closely to see what’s afoot.

That said, we believe that it is certainly possible, and I’d just go so far as to say perhaps even likely, that at least some of these North Korean troops could be deployed to the Kursk area.  But in what capacity, for what purpose, that still remains unclear. 

So, this is going to be — and, I mean, I hope it’s coming across this way — this is going to be an evolving situation.  We will share with you what we can, and we’ll give you an honest assessment of our confidence in that as we go along.  But that’s kind of where we are here on Friday afternoon.

Q    Great, thanks. 

MODERATOR:  Awesome.  Thanks, everyone.  And thanks for joining.  As always, if anything comes up, reach out to the press distro, and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.  Thank you. 

12:57 P.M. EDT

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

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Phoenix, Arizona

5:07 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, everybody. Hello, hello.

Okay. Very excited about this trip. It’s going to be a fantastic trip. As you know, we are headed to Phoenix, Arizona, where the president will visit the Gila River Indian Community. This historic visit delivers on the president’s promise to visit Indian Country and builds on actions the president and the vice president has taken to support Tribal Nations.

Under President Biden, we saw the largest direct federal investment in Tribal Nations in history, with $32 billion provided by the American Rescue Plan and $13 billion through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to build high-speed Internet, roads, bridges, public transit, clean water, and improve sanitation in Tribal communities.

In particular, the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona received $84 million to build a pipeline that will help irrigate its community’s crops while conserving water to help al- — alleviate ongoing drought conditions.

The first lady has also been a champion for Native communities, visiting Indian Country 10 times to highlight the Biden-Harris administration’s historic investments in youth mental health, Native language revitalization, and infrastructure and economic development. And she has worked tirelessly to improve access to cancer screening and cancer care for Native communities.

Tomorrow, the president will take a critical step in order to usher in the next era of the federal-Tribal relationships by fully acknowledging the harms of the past. This historic presidential apology for the Federal Indian Boarding School era will acknowledge that i- — if we truly love our country, we must remember and teach our full history, even when it is painful, and we must learn from that history so that it never repeated — it is never repeated.

With that, I will turn it over to the Interior secretary, Deb Haaland, to provide further details on this historic visit and this administration’s continued efforts to support Indian Country.

SECRETARY HAALAND: Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Secretary.

SECRETARY HAALAND: Thank you, Karine. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. It’s an honor to be here. I’m accompanied by my assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, Bryan Newland. Really happy and proud to — to be here.

Twenty years ago, I never would have believed that I would be gaggling with the White House Press Corps on Air Force One, flying with the president to his first visit to Indian Country. President Biden has been the best president for Indian Country in my lifetime. This is a president and an administration that truly sees Indigenous people and has worked tirelessly to address the issues in Indian Country that have long been underfunded or outright ignored.

From infrastructure to education to the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous peoples, Joe Biden has directed historic resources into the hands of Tribal leaders who know best how to strengthen their communities. Across the Investing in America agenda, a historic $45 billion, more than 15 years’ worth of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ annual budget, has gone into Indian Country during this administration. With that, comes transformational change.

“Once in a generation” means — means generational change for the people in those communities: electricity on the Hopi Reservation in Arizona for homes that have never had electricity; protecting cultural resources, like salmon, which Pacific Northwest Tribes have depended on for thousands of years; new transportation infrastructure for the Mescalero Apache Nation in New Mexico that will provide a safer travel route and boost their economic development, their local economy; addressing toxic legacy pollution and abandoned oil and gas infrastructure that pollutes our air and water for the Osage Nation in Oklahoma; providing clean drinking water for Fort Peck in Montana.

I could go on and on. This is a once-in-a-generation funding that is empowering Tribes and making up for significant systemic underfunding of Tribal communities for a very long time.

And, look, we know that the need is incredibly high. That’s what decades of a lack of investment looks like. But what we have done here will have lasting and enduring results.

Before we take your questions, I want to talk about the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative. For more than a century, tens of thousands of Indigenous children, as young as four years old, were taken from their families and communities and forced into boarding schools run by the U.S. government and religious institutions. This includes my own family.

For decades, this terrible chapter was hidden from our history books, but now our administration’s work will ensure that no one will ever forget. I’m happy to talk more about our investigative report; the year-long effort across Indian Country that we called the “Road to Healing,” where we went to 12 different communities and heard directly from survivors and descendants; and the work ahead.

But I just want to say that foundational to this work has been the idea, far-fetched as it might have been, that the federal government would acknowledge and apologize for the trauma and intergenerational impacts that these boarding schools — these places of horror — caused. That the president is taking that step tomorrow is so historic.

I’m not sure I could adequately put its impact into words, but I’m honored to have been on this journey with him, to have him support everything that we did with respect to the boarding schools in Indian Country, and, of course, to celebrate what I truly believe is a new era for not only Indian Country but for America.

Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you so much.

Okay. With that, Aamer, go ahead.

Q Thanks. So, one, is an apology enough? What is next? Should this be followed by some sort of reparations?

And then, second, something that the president said to our colleagues as he was leaving the White House today is, “I should have done” — “this is something I should have done a long time ago.” Why didn’t he do it a long time ago? Why is he waiting for 11 days before a big election to announce this in a big swing state?

SECRETARY HAALAND: So, first of all, of course, I can’t comment on the president’s schedule. (Laughs.) I’m sure there’s a lot of things he would have liked to have done, but th- — you know, things come up.

What I will say is that it’s almost — you know, he’s — he’s doing this apology after he’s invested — after his leadership to invest $45 billion, the generational change that I talked about in my remarks. He’s done it after he has made Tribal consultation and — and an all-of-government approach to Indian Country a priority for this administration. The day he was sworn into office, he made commitments to Indian Country, and he has followed through on every single one of those commitments.

So, the timing, I couldn’t speak to that. To me, that’s not important. To me, what’s important is that the president, as the leader of our country, is taking this step that has never been taken, that he is seeing people — or helping them to know that they are seen and heard when perhaps they never thought they have ever been seen and heard.

Q So, I’m having — and I’m sorry. Is — is the commitment that he’s already made — is that the reparations, you’re saying? Is he already —

SECRETARY HAALAND: So, I — I want to just be clear about the word “reparations.” I don’t — you will never hear me using that term because we have a government-to-government relationship with our nation’s 574 federally recognized Tribes. The — the United States, the federal government has obligations to uphold the trust and treaty obligations to those Tribes.

If the federal government does that, then that’s what — that’s the promises that they need to keep. And I will tell you that during this administration, President Biden, as I mentioned in my remarks, has been the best president in my lifetime for Indian Country.

I have been out on — on the ground for decades — right? — advocating for Indian Country. I was a Tribal administrator in New Mexico for a Tribe. I have been out there working hard to make sure that we are seen. And this president sees us.

Q Could you draw back the curtain a little on this apology? Was it requested from you, from other Tribal leaders across the nation? Or did Biden — you know, was it his initiative?

SECRETARY HAALAND: So, if you will look at the second invest- — the second volume of the investigative Boarding School Initiative report, we had a list of recommendations. I believe there are eight recommendations. And the first recommendation — there’s links to it; you’ll find it on our website — the first recommendation was an acknowledgement and an apology.

We also have asked for other things — right? — like a national monument to honor the — the kids who never came home, for example. And then we also are asking for sustained investments in Indian Country for certain things.

One of the things that we heard most in our “Road to Healing” and from Tribal leaders was that their Native languages were stolen from them. And so, the president and Dr. Biden, even, have been incredibly supportive on Native language revitalization, and — and the budget that the president has asked for shows it. It’s gone from $2 million up to $41 million that the president has request for Native language revitalization. And I think that says — that says so much.

So, I mean, I — I don’t want to get into this, you know, “You owe u- — the federal government owes us.” This is our home. We love this country. We have fought for this country, even before we were citizens, even before we could vote. And so, I want to make clear that Indian Country are proud Americans, and this apology — it means more than words can even say.

Q Can you — can you give a little bit of a preview on the event tomorrow? I know that we’re visiting the school. What — who is he going to meet? Who else is going to be there? Who is invited?

SECRETARY HAALAND: So, I — I couldn’t be specific on that, and I’m sure there’s some staff who can fill you in on all the details.

But it’s my understanding that they invited Tribal leaders. There are some Tribal leaders today on Air Force One who — who are accompanying us to the event — and, you know, peop- — survivors, descendants, people who have advocated for this for a long time. Deborah Parker, the executive director of the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition, is with us today.

And so, I — I imagine, with Governor Lewis as our host, that it will be a really lovely event.

Q (Inaudible) on why this particular community as opposed to any of the others?

SECRETARY HAALAND: Well, I mean, I — you know, I mean, it’s hard, right? It’s hard to think, “Which one of 574 tribes should we visit?” Arizona, that’s my home — my home state. I was born in Winslow. I’m always happy to go to Arizona.

Governor Lewis, as — as Karine said, has worked hard to use the funding that they have been given to uplift his community. And I think that, along with this, the president wanted to just make contact there, knowing that they have done so much with their irrigation system and so forth.

Q On — on the boarding schools and repatriation of remains. Do you have, I guess, a better idea, any clarity that you can give on the number of remains on federal land associated with the boarding schools that remain — that the DO- — DOI still needs to repatriate?

SECRETARY HAALAND: You know, I think — you know, I’m not — I’m not clear on all those numbers, but what I will say is that with respect to any remains that are repat- — repatriated, it’s up to the Tribe. It’s completely up to the Tribe. That’s what Tribal consultation is all about. If that’s what the Tribe wants, then we will find a way to help them achieve that.

But we’re not out there saying, you know, we’re demanding all these things to be done. It’s really important for the Tribes to have a voice in how they see this moving forward, and we will com- — be completely respectful of — of that.

But I couldn’t tell you the number of children who were deceased. You know, in some cases, children got sick at boarding school, and they knew they were sick, so they sent them home, and then they died at home. This happened a lot. And so, you know, it’s hard to — to essentially assess the — the number of actual children who died as a result of being in those schools.

Q I just have one question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q The election is right around the corner, and you mentioned, you know, requesting a potential monument. You talked about all of the investment from the Biden administration.

Assuming, if — if former President Trump, you know, comes back to the White House, you know, how do you see maybe some of that investment that has been done under the Biden admin- — administration maybe continuing, you know, down the road to keep building on what you’ve been working on in the administration?

SECRETARY HAALAND: Of course, I can’t comment on — on any election, but we have 90 days left in this administration. We’re going to use every minute of that 90 days to move this work forward.

I — what I will also say is that Tribal leaders are experiencing a new era. They’re at the table. They’re being consulted. In fact, we had a consultation about how they wanted to be — have consultation, right? We have — they have been at the table. I started my secretary’s advis- — advisory committee, Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Co- — we started the White House Council on Native Amer- — American Affairs. We’ve had the Tribal Nations Summit every year that the president has been here.

It’s my guess that Tribal leaders will not go back to the way things were before. So, I hope that regardless of what happens in the future, that Tribal leaders are dead set about what the relationship between the federal government and them is and that they will — they will ensure that they have a seat at the table.

Q What are those 90-day priorities for Indian Country for you?

SECRETARY HAALAND: Oh, gosh. Well — (laughter) — I mean, the — there is a whole lot — right? — that — you could look at the list of recommendations that we have. We made a visit — with respect to the monument, it’d be nice if we got that across the finish line, right? We have our oral history project that is in — in the works right now.

So — and then, I — I mean, I have Bryan Newland here, if you wanted to ask him what his priorities are for Indian Country, or you can just give him a call later on.

But I can rest assured — everyone is super tired, but for some reason, we got this, you know, energy to keep — to run across the finish line.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right.

Q More broadly, can you speak to — are you doing anything to sort of “Trump-proof,” you know, federal lands, if the election goes in that direction?

SECRETARY HAALAND: You know, I’m — I — I can’t comment on that really. All I can say is that everyone’s doing their jobs, and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, we’re not going to get into hypotheticals.

SECRETARY HAALAND: Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. But, let — are you — you have one more, or you’re done?

Q Oh, I — we’ve got some for you, I’m sure.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, I know. Are we good for the secretary?

Q Thank you, Secretary.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you so much.

Q Thank you, Secretary.

SECRETARY HAALAND: Thank you so much. Thank you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you.

SECRETARY HAALAND: — for caring about this. Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Thank you so much. We appreciate you.

Okay. What you all got? Aamer, you want to reset us?

Q Yeah. I wanted to ask about the bombings by Israel of the Hezbollah-aligned banks. Those banks are also used by regular people. There’s bank tellers that work there.
It’s been called by human rights group “war crimes.”

How does the administration see this? Usually, this administration, when it goes after terror fi- — banks that are financing terrorism, they do it with sanctions. Is this the appropriate way to go after this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — and — and my NSC colleagues spoke to — spoke — has spoken to this as well. So, look, we’re not going to comment on every — on — on every individual strike. That’s just not something that we going to — going back and forth on.

But broadly speaking — and you’ve heard us say this before. And, look, we understand that Israel is conducting operations to go after high-value targets or to destroy Hezbollah opera- — infrastructure, which is what we understand, what we — the conversations that we had. And — and let’s not forget, these are — are — when you think about the Hezbollah infrastructure, these are used to be — used to — to threaten Israeli citizens.

And so, we have told Israel directly — we’ve had direct conversations; as you know, we speak to them pretty regularly, and — that we oppose a campaign of nearly daily strikes in densely populated areas in Be- — in Beirut. And so, we’ll continue to support Israel’s — Israel’s self-defense against Hezbollah as we work towards a diplomatic resolution that sures — that ensures Israel’s security and allows it- — citizens to — on both sides to live in peace and — and — in peace.

And that’s what we want to do. That’s what we’re going to — we want to see. And so, we’ll continue to have those diplomatic conversations, but we’re not going to go back and forth on each individual strike. But more broadly speaking, we understand what they’re trying to do, and — and we’re obviously going to continue to have those dail- — those regular conversation with Israel as how — how they move forward.

Q This came up yesterday in the briefing, but I’m going to ask it again. Do we know if he’s going to vote this weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I know there’s a lot of questions on the scheduling. Obviously, we’re getting closer to an Election Day. The president certainly is looking forward to casting his ballot. I tell you he will be voting and —

Q Will he be early voting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t want to get ahead of that. We’re trying to — certainly trying to figure that out. As soon as we have that information, we will share that with all of you. But he is definitely looking forward, as he does every time — it is — he is — he has an opportunity to vote, he’s looking forward to casting th- — his ballot.

Q Karine, I wanted to ask about the Boeing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — negotiations. You know, I’m sure you saw, but they re- — the factory workers rejected the latest contract proposal. Is President Biden — has he spoken to anyone from — from the union, with anyone at Boeing? How concerned is he? They’ve been on strike now for quite a bit so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. I don’t have anything to read out for you on any conversation that the president has had. Look, he directed his team — right? — to — to make sure that — to encourage parties to continue working to achieve an agreement that works, certainly, for all parties. And so, we’re going to continue to monitor those negotiations and — and continue to make sure that we encourage that.

Look, the — the reality is — and this is something that the president understands — that ultimately, when it comes to these types of negotiation, the decisions on a contract is going to be made by the union — union themselves. And so, that is for their decision to be made. But obviously, we’re going to continue to encourage both sides to continue to have these conversations in good faith. And collective bargaining is something that this president believes in. And so, we’re going to continue to monitor.

Q And — and just one more question. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Russia provided targeting data for the assault on global shipping. And I was just wondering if this is something that, you know, the president is aware of and if — if this has been brought to his attention or is this something you all are monitoring or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I would have to take that back. I have not talked to the president about this. So, I just need to talk to the team and get a sense of what his thinking is and where we are on that particular question. I just don’t have anything for you at this time.

Q Going off of the Boeing point.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Are you able to say when the last time was that the labor secretary spoke to both parties?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I don’t have any specific timeline on when — the last time they spoke. Obviously, they’ve been in direct communication and have continued to encourage both parties to come — to come together on this. At the end of the day, this is a decision that is made by the unions, right? And we’re going to continue to encourage collective bargaining, good faith — good faith participation by all parties.

I don’t have anything specific to tell you on the last time that that conversation happened.

Q Switching a little bit. The administration struck a note of optimism when Sinwar was killed that maybe this opened the opportunity for ceasefire talks with Gaz- — in Gaza. And Secretary Blinken is in the region. Can you speak to whether or not the administration is still optimistic that there is renewed hope for —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — a ceasefire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s a good question, and I would just go back to what the secretary — Secretary Blinken said himself — said himself. We’re — they’re cont- — we’re continuing to try to find a way to get to a proposal that both sides can agree to. That is something that he said when he was in the region or is still in the region, because that’s how — or that’s how we can get — get the — the fighting to stop, we can get the hostages home, we can surge humanitarian assistance in Gaza for the people that are suffering and in such dire, dire need of it.

We do anticipate that the negotiations will be getting together in the upcoming days. That’s something that the secretary spoke about and the Qu- — Qatar prime minister when they were together.

But what real- — what — what we really have to determine is whether Hamas is prepared to engage. That’s the reality that we’re in. So, this is something that the president and his team remains — remains really steadfast on. We know in order to — again, for the — for the war to stop, we need to get to this ty- — this — this ceasefire in — in order to get this hostage deal. So, that is — continues to be our focus.

Q Karine, given that you’re — the vice president says she’s running against a candidate she considers to be a fascist. The president of the United States this week, only two weeks before an election, is doing no campaign events, at least through Friday. Is that odd? How should we interpret that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I wouldn’t interpret it as odd at all. Look, the president has been out there. He has campaigned. He’s campaigned with her. And I think if you look at what he’s doing tomorrow, it’s critical. It’s important to the American people. What you heard, I think, even the secretary lay out just moments ago was emotional, was important to the Indian Country, what they’ve been through. And what the president is going to do tomorrow is historic.

We will have more to share. I’m — I’m — I am telling you, we will have more to share on what the president is going to do, whether it’s — including casting his ballot. The president is going to continue to be out there to — to deliver for the American people, like he is tomorrow for the Indian — Indian Country to — to offer up a federal apology. That’s historic. That’s historic.

And we will have more to share on the schedule. We
will.

Q I’m not — I’m not saying that’s not a story, but I’m just wondering —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, but (inaudible) —

Q — like, is he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — we have to look at both things.

Q Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s doing things that are important to the American people. That’s actually his number one job, is to continue to deliver what’s important for the American people as president of the United States.

Q But is he leaving — is he leaving it all on the field if — if he goes two weeks before the — two weeks out before the election —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.)

Q — there’s really nothing on the calendar at all on the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I’m saying: You’re assuming there’s nothing on the calendar.

Q Up through Friday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, there’s — there’s a lot more days to go. Obviously, I don’t want to get into the politics of this, into his political schedule. But what I am saying is stay tuned. There will be more to share.

Q Karine, I’m sorry. Just to follow on Peter’s question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, yeah.

Q You guys have already advised on Saturday that he’s going to Pittsburgh, right? So, who — who is he campaigning with in Pittsburgh?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ll have more to share. We’ll have more to share.

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We will have more to share.

Q It’s my — my understanding that it’s with labor unions and that there aren’t going to be any candidates there. Wh- — what — is that suggest that he — that there aren’t Democrats that want to be seen with him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, first of all, I’m going be really careful, not talk to the campaign and politics, but we should be very clear about the importance of labor unions. And so — and not — and not take that —

Q I’m not —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, but I’m saying labor unions are so important. It’s so critical —

Q I am a member of a union myself. But I — I under- — I (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you, but you sidestep the labol [labor] unions in your question —

Q They’re not — but I’m — no, my question was, they’re not ca- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.)

Q They’re not — well, I’m sorry if you didn’t hear or if I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

Q But he’s not — he’s not going to be appearing with a candidate.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Guys, just give us a second. We will have more to share on the campaign. We will have more to share on what the president’s schedule is going to look like.

What I am saying to you: Labor unions are critical. They’re important. And I’m going to be very careful because I’m not going to get into campaign strategy from here. I’m not going to get into campaign travel from here. But there will be more to share, and stand by.

And also, I would, you know — anyway, I’ll just leave it there. I was going to say I refer you to the campaign on — on scheduling of — of surrogates and what that looks like and what their strategy is. They can speak more to that.

But we will have more to share. I just cannot get into strategy and campaign schedule from here, as I do try to follow the Hatch Act and be — and fotho- — follow the law from — from here, even if we’re — how many thousand feet we are in the air on Air Force One.

Yeah.

Q What is the president doing tonight?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we’re going to travel to Arizona. We’re going to la- —

Q Well, after we land. (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to land. (Laughter.) And he’ll be preparing for tomorrow’s event. As you know, it’s going to be historic and really important to him. He’s excited.

I mean, he went over and talked to your colleagues right before he got on Marine One, and I think that shows his excitement and also how important this is to him. And so, that’s what you’re going to be able to see tomorrow.

Q What do you expect the mood to be at the event tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The mood?

Q Yeah. I mean, wh- — wh- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I can say this. You saw, from the secretary, it’s emotional. This is emotional. You know, what we have learned from the reporting — and some of us have known this; some of us have not known what has been occurring, especially if you think about the boarding schools, what the India- — Indian Country community has had to go through and how they’re fighting and — and continuing to — to get resolution to the devastation that they’ve had to go through, family members that they’ve lost, family members that got through some difficult times and are able to tell their story.

And it’s going to be emotional. It’s going to be a — very emotional. And you’re going to hear it directly from them, from the Tribal leaders.

And — I don’t know — I think when you think about this administration, you think about the Biden-Harris administration, how the president has said and how we continue to see that we’re going to speak up for each community, fight for each community. And what we have seen over decades and decades is communities like the Indian Country that have been left behind.

And this is a president that is going to — it doesn’t matter if you’re in a red state, blue state. You hear us talk about that urbal [sic] area — rural area. He’s going to continue to fight and try to speak to the wrongs that have been made. And you’ve seen him do that over and over again with different communities.

And so, I think, tomorrow, to your question, Nikki, is going to be emotional. I think it’s going to be impactful, and I think it’s going to be incredibly his- — special and, as I’ve said many times, historical.

Q The vice president is — next week is set to speak on the National Mall, kind of in the backyard of the White House, more or — so or less. But the — do you have any insight? Do- — is this something President Biden wants to attend —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, that’s a campaign —

Q — wants —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s a campaign decision, campaign event. I can’t speak to it. What — the president has been very clear about his support for the vice president, how he sees — how he always believed from the moment that he decided that she would be a running mate back in 2020, even saying that was the best decision that he made, that she will be a leader from day one.

I will let this campaign speak to their messaging. I will let the campaign speak to the reason of doing that event on Tuesday. That is something that I can’t speak to. But I will continue to say and the president will continue to say he’s very proud of her. She has done a phenomenal job, not — obviously, as a critical partner over the last three and a half years and certainly what he has been seeing from her in the past several months. And so, we’re going to let them speak to that.

All right, guys.

Q Just fo- — follow on something Skylar asked earlier that I’m not sure I understood on the Russia providing targeting data to the Houthis. Has the U.S. confirmed that? Do the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — that’s what I was saying. I don’t have an answer for you. So, I just need to — to go back to the team. She was asking me specifically about the president. I — that’s not something that I have spoken to the president. I don’t want to give you the wrong information, so I need to just go back and talk to the team on this. Okay? Obviously —

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Obviously, it would be concerning. Let me just say that. It would be concerning if true. We know that the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas are — they are a — as we’ve seen, Iranian backed and have threatened the security of Israel. And we have always said, we have — we are — we are going to continue to do everything that we can to ha- — to support and have that ironclad support for Israel’s security. That’s what you have seen from this administration.

And so, it would be concerning. I just don’t — I cannot confirm any intelligence at this time, so I would have to go back and — and talk to the team. So, just want to be —

Q Can I ask one more question about tomorrow?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q Obviously, this formal apology — this type of formal apology is very rare coming from the sitting president of the United States, and the trauma in this community runs very deep. Can you speak, again, to the timing of why? I mean, for some people, this is coming too late.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I mean, look, you heard from — you heard from the secretary — lay out what we have done over the past several years when it comes to Indian Country. And so, I will say that this has been, indeed, a — a deliberate and intentional process throughout the years. And this is part of — you know, you g- — you all ask me a lot about the president’s legacy and what he’s going to be doing the last, you know, several months. This is part of it. But it’s a continuation of the — what we’ve done.

And so, this is a trip that he’s been wanting to make. This is something that he’s been wanting to do. Again, we have been very deliberate — deliberati- — deliberative about this process. And so, this is a continuation of the work that this president has done, that the secretary has done, her — her agency that she runs, over the past three and a half years. And so, this is part of the president’s legacy.

And you’re right: This apology is historic. It’s impactful. And, you know, the scars and the trauma that we have seen from this community does indeed run deeply, and he feels that. He feels that and understands. As someone who understands tragedy and trauma and loss, he feels that very, very personally.

Obviously, the Indian Country and what they’ve gone through is very different. It’s very unique to their experience. And so, I would say, as you all are asking me, “What’s his legacy?” I would say this is part of that.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

Q Has he been — has he been consulting with anybody in sort of drafting this speech and — and getting ready for this moment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, he’s been working with his team — his speechwriters, obviously. He’s working with representatives that he has in the Office of Public Af- — Engagement on — who focus on the Indian Country, having those conversations. They’ve been very involved.

I would say Tom Perez, who runs the Intergovernmental Affairs, obviously, has go- — has done these trips, have been very in touch — very much in touch with what’s going on the ground.

So, he’s been certainly talking to his team, including the secretary, and — and consulting with them about what — what he wants to say and how he wants to really — you know, I don’t want to get ahead of the president. I think his remarks, as you’ll hear from him directly tomorrow, are — I think are going to be pretty powerful.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

Q Thanks, Karine.

Q Thank you.

5:41 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland En Route Phoenix, AZ appeared first on The White House.

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.

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.

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.