Press Briefings

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Queens, New York

4:26 P.M. EST

MR. BATES:  How are y’all?

Q    Hi.

MR. BATES:  Happy Thanksgiving.

Q    Happy Thanksgiving.

MR. BATES:  I have a few things at the top.

We are on our way to Staten Island, where the president and the first lady will attend a Friendsgiving event at U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York. 

This event is part of the first lady’s Joining Force[s] initiative to support military families and is hosted by the Robert Irvin [Irvine] Foundation. 

While there, the president and first lady will thank service members and their families and help serve a Thanksgiving meal.  This annual tradition is very special to the president and the first lady, and they are grateful for yet another Friendsgiving dinner with some of the men and women who serve and have sacrificed so much for our country. 

Earlier today, the president took part in another time-honored White House tradition, pardoning the national Thanksgiving turkeys in a ceremony on the South Lawn. 

During the 77th anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation, the president reflected on the traditions of Thanksgiving and wished American families a safe and healthy holiday. 

And while we’re on that subject, we’re happy to share good news about turkey prices.  According to NBC News, quote, “Thanksgiving dinner is historically affordable this year.”  CNN tells us that, quote, “Cheaper turkeys are helping bring down Thanksgiving dinner costs this year.”  In fact, the price of turkey is down 6 percent, and the average price of the typical Thanksgiving dinner fell 5 percent. 

And as more Americans are getting ready to travel and see family members and loved ones, the price of gas has fallen to its lowest point in more than three years. 

There is more to do.  We will continue fighting to further reduce costs, to grow the middle class, and ensure American families can put food on the table and keep more money in pockets. 

Lastly, since we’ll be touching down in Queens, home of the New York Mets, I’ll note that my wife, Megan Apper, is thrilled that Juan Soto may soon come to New York. 

Aamer, do you want to start us off?

Q    That sounded — I don’t know about the lobbying that was going on there.  (Laughter.)  Little — maybe a little wishful thinking, but it’s interesting. 

MR. BATES:  I don’t have any private conversations to read out.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.  Any reaction to Jack Smith moving to dismiss two cases against President-elect Trump?

MR. BATES:  I’d refer you to the Department of Justice, and I would just underline that the president is proud to have restored the independence of the Department of Justice when it comes to critical matters — criminal matters.

Q    If I can just ask you one more on a separate matter.  Since celebrating the annual tradition of the pardons tod- — the turkey pardons today, on a more serious note, where — where is the president on — in just considering, sort of, as many presidents do at the end of the term, pardons and commutations?

MR. BATES:  President Biden has been committed to reforming our criminal justice system, and he has done so through his clemency authority in a manner that provides second chances, that ensures equal justice under the law, and that strengthens public safety.  He will continue to evaluate clemency petitions in a thoughtful and deliberative manner. 

And I want to emphasize that the president has granted 20 individual pardons and 122 commutations, which means he has issued more sentence commutations at this point in his presidency than any of his recent predecessors at the same moment in their terms. 

Q    So, Andrew, I have a follow-up on the commutations.  The president obviously put a moratorium on federal executions, and there’s a concern President-elect Trump will return that.  Is he thinking about commuting some of these (inaudible) sentence?  Like, we’ve talked to one man on death row, Billie Allen, who may be the first prisoner executed if the moratorium returns.  So, is this something he’s considering doing?

MR. BATES:  I don’t have more to share on future plans now, except I will restate that he’s been committed to reforming our justice system.  Using his clemency authority has been an important component of that, and he is proud that he has issued more commutations at this point in his administration than any of his recent predecessors.

Q    And since it is pardon day, is he hearing from people — we’ve heard people worried that President Trump might do retribution.  Is he hearing from people who want some sort of blanket pardon who are concerned about what the president-elect might do?

MR. BATES:  I don’t have more to share about our process. 

Q    Is he still committed to no clemency for his son Hunter?

MR. BATES:  The president has spoken to this.

Q    And his position hasn’t changed?

MR. BATES:  I don’t have anything idea to add to what he’s said already.

Q    Any updates on the president’s plan to attend President-elect Trump’s inauguration?

MR. BATES:  The president promised that he would attend the inauguration of whomever won the election.  He and the first lady are going to honor that promise and attend the inauguration. 

He views that as an important demonstration of commitment to our democratic values and to honoring the will of the people as we continue to provide an orderly and effective transition. 

Q    You’ve mentioned turkey prices and gas prices.  Why don’t you think that translated into better results for Democrats on November 5th?

MR. BATES:  The president, of course, spoke in the Rose Garden about the election, so I’m not going to relitigate that.

But I will — I will mention that there are outlets represented here who have written that the United States economy under President Biden’s leadership is, quote, “the envy of the world.” 

The president and the vice president fought the global shock waves that COVID-19 sent all over the globe better than any nation.  People still felt that disruption, which he’s clear-eyed about and he mentioned in his address to the nation. 

The Associated Press recently wrote about this, that it was a — a, quote, “super year” of elections that has been bad for incumbents.  But like we talked about today, we just saw that we have surpassed $1 trillion in private-sector investment generated by the major economic laws that this president put in place to change the game for the middle class. 

And we should keep in mind that with the smallest Senate majority mathematically possible, he was able to pass laws that are now bringing American manufacturing home at the strongest pace in generations. 

We have created 16 million new jobs.  We’ve kept the unemployment rate under 4 percent for its longest stretch in history.  New manufacturing facilities are being built at a record pace.  We’ve had record small-business creation.  Medicare is now negotiating down the price of drugs for the first time in history.  We passed the biggest climate investments in human history.  And we have more to do.  We’re going to make every single day count.

Q    What — what happens if the Israeli cabinet doesn’t approve the ceasefire deal tomorrow?

MR. BATES:  I am not going to go into detail about our diplomatic conversations, and I’m not going to speculate.  But we do continue to work toward a diplomatic resolution along the blue line that will allow civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes. 

We have made progress toward that goal.  Like Admiral Kirby said earlier today, we will not be going into specifics about the conversations because of how high a priority that objective is.  But as you all have reported, Amos Hochstein and a wide range of administration officials are closely engaged in this, as is the president. 

And Brett McGurk, who regularly travels to the Middle East, will be in Saudi Arabia tomorrow, where he will discuss using the potential of a ceasefire deal in Lebanon as a catalyst for a potential Gaza ceasefire and for a return of hostages and for increased stability in the region. 

Q    Have there been conversations with the Trump transition team on the Lebanon ceasefire?

MR. BATES:  I won’t go into our private conversations with the Trump transition team.  But as we’ve been clear about, we are committed to facilitating an orderly transition, to being a good resource for them.  The president met with the president-elect for roughly two hours.  Chief of Staff Jeff Zients has met with incoming White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles multiple times.  And like Admiral Kirby mentioned earlier today, Jake Sullivan has also met with Representative Waltz. 

Q    How do — how is there any durability to this if there isn’t — if w- — if — do the — do those two sides, again, essentially know that there is buy-in by the people who are coming in the next administration if this goes through?

MR. BATES:  Again, I will not go into private conversations with the transition, but the president is committed to working toward a ceasefire deal in Lebanon.  I’m not going to get into other details about the conversations, but that is something that leaders in this administration take very seriously and are working toward.

Q    How much can be done in terms of the transition if the president-elect hasn’t yet signed the MOUs?

MR. BATES:  As you mentioned, as of now, they have not entered into agreements with the White House or the GSA.  Jeff Zients reached out to the Trump-Vance transition cochairs, Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, the day after the election to make clear our intention to lead an orderly transition and to reiterate the role that these agreements play in initiating a range of transition activities. 

We continue to speak with them.  And in our conversations, we are stressing that the White House and administration are ready to provide access to services and information outlined in the White House and GSA memoranda once those have been signed.

Q    How much can be done if they’re not signed?

MR. BATES:  I’m not going to speculate about the process, but we are reiterating to them the importance of these agreements and that they go a long way towards allowing us to provide important resources and information.

Q    Does anybody on the Trump team have security clearance yet to discuss any intelligence matters?

MR. BATES:  DOJ is in conversations with the Trump transition team regarding their MOU.  I would refer you to DOJ for more.

Q    Talking about McGurk in Saudi Arabia.  He’s there now?  And is he meeting with MBS? 

MR. BATES:  He will be traveling there tomorrow.

Q    Tomorrow?

MR. BATES:  I don’t have more details to provide.

Q    What can you tell us about the president’s Thanksgiving plans?

MR. BATES:  Like I mentioned, this is a tradition for them, to the thank those who serve and to recognize the sacrifice that many families — military families face where they’re — they have loved ones overseas who are deployed.  They, of course, are a military family themselves.  They experienced this firsthand when Beau Biden was serving.

And it is special to them to be able to thank the men and women today of the Coast Guard for everything that they do to keep us safe and to protect our freedoms.

Q    And then, on Thanksgiving Day, they’ll be in Nantucket, as usual?

MR. BATES:  Yes, that’s correct.

Q    Can you say which family members are going with them?

MR. BATES:  I don’t know which family members will be there.

Q    There’s a group of House Republicans who wrote Secretaries Raimondo and Yellen today — or excuse me, on Friday, asking them to preserve documents related to the CFIUS review of the purchase of U.S. Steel for any potential oversight matters.  They’re alleging potential political bias in the CFIUS process.  I’m wondering if the White House wants to respond to that and if — whether you can give us an update on when the president will make a decision on that or when he expects the CFIUS file to reach his desk to enable him to make a decision.

MR. BATES:  I don’t have a comment on the process, and we are careful to follow all rules and regulations when it comes to the preservation of records.

Q    Thank you.

Q    The president doesn’t always stay in Washington for Christmas.  Should we expect any special trip around there?

MR. BATES:  I do not have any schedule announcements to make.  We are not quite yet to Thanksgiving, so we’ll turn to Christmas after that.

Q    Thanks.

Q    Thank you.

MR. BATES:  Thank you all.

Q    Thank you.

4:39 P.M. EST 

The post Press Gaggle by Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates En Route Queens, NY appeared first on The White House.

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.