Press Briefings

Via Teleconference

4:14 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get started with Q&A.

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Good afternoon.  I know many of you are interested in a readout of the bilat with President Zelenskyy, and we’ll get all of that, but I just want to just kind of put a pin in sort of where we are here on Thursday afternoon.

Really, the meeting today is the culmination of, really, a full week for the President on the foreign policy front — as you all know, hosting the leaders of the Indo-Pacific Quad in Wilmington, in his hometown, to really talk about pressing issues, not just on the security land front, but economic, diplomatic, certainly with respect to development opportunities, and climate change all across the Indo-Pacific. 

It was a really successful set of discussions, of course ending with all four gathering together to launch a global — or an international effort to get after the cancer challenge.  So, terrific few days, couple of days there. 

And then he went right to the U.N. General Assembly.  You all saw his remarks, talking about the inflection point that that we are in again and how institutions like the United Nations can work together to really tackle transnational challenges. 

He also talked about the acute nature of some of the conflicts that the United States and so many of our partners are dealing with now.  Sudan, of course — trying to get both sides to the table to do what’s right for the Sudanese people and stop the violence, and the fact that there are other countries around the world that can also be helpful in leveraging that sort of an outcome. 

Obviously, what’s going on in the Middle East.  And you saw yesterday some intense diplomacy by our team to get multiple nations to come together and call for a 21-day ceasefire to try to bring the fighting between Israel and Lebanon to a halt so that diplomacy has a little bit of breathing space to actually work. 

And then, of course, Ukraine.  He had a chance to meet with President Zelenskyy yesterday in a short pull-aside and then had a more substantive discussion today.  You saw all the announcements and the commitments that the President made to President Zelenskyy.  A real surge is the way I would describe this, in terms of security assistance and support to Ukraine as they try to continue to reclaim territory and to succeed on the battlefield here in the coming months. 

And the big thing about this — I mean, the biggest thing about that surge was drawing down the remaining funds that we have available for presidential drawdown authority, and then tasking DOD to then allocate that money over time so that all the way to the end of his term we will be spending everything we can to continue to support Ukraine.  And there were some other additional capabilities announced, as I think you all saw.

Really good couple of days with President Zelenskyy here.  He had a chance to present the broad contours of his victory plan to President Biden and to our national security team.  And the President directed our team to work with his team over the next couple of weeks to dig into it a little bit more.  And both presidents are planning to meet in Germany, when we head over there on the 12th of October.  They’ll meet to kind of further flesh it out and see what, together, we can do to help President Zelenskyy really achieve this just and lasting peace that he’s trying to achieve. 

So, again, I know there’s a lot of focus on the bilat today, and rightly so.  He is meeting now with the Vice President, as you and I are talking, and I’m sure we’ll get you a readout of that discussion when it’s over.  But it comes at the end of truly a full week of intense foreign diplomacy, a focus for the President, and real, tangible deliverables in just about every single venue, including on fentanyl, that are designed to make people’s lives better and designed, as the President said in his speech on Tuesday, to help us deal with this critical inflection point that we’re in. 

So, anyway, I’ll stop there.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Steve with Reuters. 

Q    Could you just describe the broad contours of the —

MODERATOR:  Steve, you should be able to unmute yourself. 

We hear you now.

Q    Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yep.

MR. KIRBY:  Got you, bud.

Q    I was just going to see if John could give us the broad contours of the Zelenskyy victory plan.  And is it something that sounds doable to you?

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Steve.  I think I’m going to let President Zelenskyy outline his plan.  It’s his plan, and I don’t believe they have talked publicly about it too much in detail, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to do that. 

I would just say, you know, broadly speaking, it contains a series of initiatives and steps and objectives that President Zelenskyy believes will be important, not only for helping him end the war that he’s in now, but prevent another one, and to be able to deter and defeat any future Russian aggression once the war is over. 

And if you go back and you look at the President’s opening comments in the Oval, I mean, those were sort of the two prongs that the President also talked about as well.  We got to — our immediate focus has got to be on what Ukraine needs now.  And, of course, his package of announcements today and deliverables I think get at that to a fare-thee-well.  But also, what we need to do to work for Ukraine’s long-term future and long-term security, and that would include, of course, you know, an eventual path to NATO, once they have worked through reforms that they have to make and once they have been able to put the war in the rearview mirror.  But also looking after their long-term security needs.  You know, we announced a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine, and they’ve secured several others with other countries to make sure that they have the capabilities over the long term. 

I know that’s a long-winded answer, and I’m not trying to filibuster, but I do think it’s better if President Zelenskyy outlines his victory plan. 

And as for your second — the second question you asked, you know, “Is it achievable,” well, that’s — you know, that’s what the two teams are going to be discussing here in coming days and weeks to see — to really kind of pick it apart and see where we can go together.

Q    And if I could just add quickly, John: What happens with this effort now to secure a 21-day ceasefire in Lebanon?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re having active discussions, as you might imagine, with our Israeli counterparts in particular about this.  Last night, it was, I think, a very strident call by, you know, a dozen or so nations to try to seek a 21-day ceasefire, a temporary ceasefire that is designed, as I said, to give diplomacy some time and some space, a little bit of breathing room here to work, because we still believe that that’s the best solution here. 

Where it goes from here is: Brett is still up in New York City, and he’s still having conversations with his counterparts, his Israeli counterparts, to see what the right next step is and if, how, and when that ceasefire can get moving.

I would just add one more thing, because I understand — I mean, you didn’t ask it this way, but I’m sure somebody will.  You know, you’ve seen President — sorry, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, and we’ve seen them as well.  I would just make a couple of points here. 

Number one, we still believe an all-out war is not the best way to get people back in their homes.  If that’s the goal, an all-out war we don’t believe is the right way to do that. 

Number two, there was a lot of care and effort put into that statement.  As you can see from it, it wasn’t just the United States; several other nations joined us.  That took diplomacy as well.  That took some elbow grease to work that statement with so many other countries, including talking to our interlocutors in Lebanon and in Israel.  And we wouldn’t have made that statement, we wouldn’t have worked on that if we didn’t have reason to believe that the conversations that we were having with the Israelis in particular were supportive of the goal there. 

And the last thing I’ll say, and I kind of already said it, is: The conversations continue.  The discussions are ongoing.  Even as you and I are talking, again, Brett McGurk, Amos, they’re still up there seeing what they can do to get this moving forward. 

So, again, seen his comments.  Somebody is going to ask me about it; I know that.  All I can tell you is those conversations with our Israeli friends happened yesterday, before the statement went out, and they’re happening today. 

Q    Thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, sir.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrea Mitchell.

Q    Hi.  Thank you very much.  Thanks, Hannah.  Thanks, John.  So, you’re right, I do want to ask you about the 21 days, because there’s such a fundamental disagreement.  The Prime Minister reasserted his disagreement when he landed here in the U.S. just a couple of hours ago and said that they were going to use all their force and achieve their objectives. 

So do you have a better understanding of what their objectives are militarily, beyond getting people back in their homes?  Because you have clearly made the point, as the Secretary made this morning, that to create hostilities in the area is not going to help get people back in their homes.  Is it to abide by the U.N. resolution?  Is it to create a buffer zone?  How far to push them back?  What is your goal?  And what is your best understanding with all these conversations of what their goal is?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, I would point you to what they’ve been saying themselves.  I mean, Prime Minister Netanyahu himself said that one of his principal objectives is getting people back home.  And there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of public opinion in Israel about that exact issue, about the desire to go back home, up in the north.  And —

Q    No, I meant the military objective.  What does he —

MR. KIRBY:  I know that, but —

Q    What does he think can — okay.

MR. KIRBY:  I know that, Andrea.  But he himself said that that was his objective: to get people back home, to stabilize the situation so that people would feel comfortable doing that. 

Now, he has also said, and we have no reason to doubt, that he wants to continue to eliminate the very legitimate, lethal threats that Hezbollah poses to Israel.  I mean, just yesterday they launched a ballistic missile at Tel Aviv. 

So, he and his cabinet and the Israeli people have every right to want to thwart that threat, that challenge to their peace and security, their lives and their livelihoods.  So I would suspect that from a military perspective, that’s also weighing into their calculation. 

But, you know, I can’t answer the question any better than I did with Steve.  Seen his comments, heard them, but all I can tell you is that we wouldn’t have worked on that statement the way we did, we wouldn’t have issued it when and how we did if it wasn’t supported by the conversations that we were having with top Israeli officials yesterday, and those conversations continue today. 

Q    Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Alex Marquardt.  One second.  Where did you go, Alex? 

Okay, we see — oh, he is back.

Q    Hi, you got me? 

MODERATOR:  Yes. 

Q    Thanks, guys.  John, just want to ask you a little bit more on that.  So we heard from Karine earlier that this was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side.  And last night, your colleagues said pretty definitive things like “this is an important breakthrough,” “when the governments agree.”  So it sounds like there was an expectation that this would happen, and then we see Netanyahu come out and say, “We continue to hit Hezbollah with all our might.”  That doesn’t sound like a reversal or a dismissal to you from the Israeli side?

MR. KIRBY:  I think you ought to ask that question to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  What I can tell you is: The discussions we had last night we had every reason to believe were sincere.  And I will tell you, I’ve communicated with Brett this morning, and he’s having those discussions today, and he feels, again, that the Israeli side are willing to have those talks.  So that’s where we are. 

Q    But do you think there’s a difference in — you both agree that it’ll take a diplomatic solution to get people back into their homes, but do you think there’s a disagreement about how to get there, in that they believe it’s military pressure and you guys are arguing, no, it’ll take a pause?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not going to get into our back-and-forth here in a public setting, Alex, and I’m certainly not going to speak for what they believe or don’t believe. 

I think I’ve kind of dealt with the issue of the discussions we had yesterday and the ones we’re having today.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Haley with Scripps. 

Q    Hey.  Thanks for doing this.  You know, given the strong rejection from Netanyahu on this temporary ceasefire and the indications that one of the hopes was that diplomatic space to continue the efforts for a ceasefire in Gaza, I’m curious how the recent language from the Israelis is impacting those efforts and if there has been any further movement in the past few days on that first ceasefire and hostage release.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  I wish I could tell you that we had some kind of breakthrough to speak to.  We don’t, with respect to the ceasefire in Gaza.  But I also would add that we are still very much interested in trying to see if it can’t be moved forward.  And nothing has slackened about our desire to see if there is room for another go at this. 

But the team is still focused on it.  We still want to see it put in place.  And nobody has turned the page on it and said, “Well, that’s it.  We’re done.  We’re not interested in trying to find a ceasefire that can get the hostages home.” 

So, our team here at the National Security Council, and I’m sure the State Department as well, is still trying to work this over to see if there’s a path forward.

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

Q    Hey, John.  I just want to take one more stab at this.  What changed between last night, when the senior administration officials who briefed were calling it a breakthrough, and this morning?  Were you and was the President surprised or upset by the Prime Minister’s comments this morning, rejecting that deal?  Or was that expected?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I would say a couple of things.  It’s not clear to us that, from a practical perspective, that there isn’t cause for us to continue to have these conversations with the Israelis.

If something has changed, you’d have to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu about what that something is.  What I can tell you is we’re still talking to the Israelis today, as we were yesterday.  And I’ll leave it at that.

And I’m not going to characterize the President’s reaction one way or the other.  His main goal is to make sure that we find a diplomatic path here to deescalate along that Blue Line and that we avoid an all-out war and escalation, not only there but elsewhere in the region.  And almost everything he’s been doing since the 7th of October has been designed to achieve that outcome. 

And so, that’s where his focus is, on trying to prevent this thing from escalating more than it already has.  And his tasking to the team in recent days is to keep working at that goal, keep trying to see what we can do to give diplomacy a fighting chance, and that’s what he really wants.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick with PBS.

Q    Hey, John.  One last attempt at the same topic, but also trying to move it forward.  Do you believe that Netanyahu has backtracked from anything he said before last night?  Or do you believe that — and/or do you believe that he’s balancing competing interests?  You mentioned there’s a lot of public opinion in Israel.  Both the right and some on the left actually criticized the announcement on the call for a ceasefire deal. 

And again, trying to push this forward, is there a message that you would like to hear from Netanyahu tomorrow, during the UNGA speech, that may indicate to the U.S., to the world, frankly, to Hezbollah itself, to Nasrallah that would provide some kind of (inaudible) moving forward?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, I appreciate the seventh or eighth attempt here.  I can’t speak for Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I can’t answer the question why he said what he said.  And I certainly can’t begin to speculate about what considerations went into that statement, whether they were political or operational or otherwise.  Those are questions that he needs to be asked and should be given the opportunity to answer. 

What I can tell you is: That statement we worked on last night wasn’t just drawn up in a vacuum.  It was done after careful consultation, not only with the countries that signed on to it, but Israel itself.  And we had every reason to believe that in the drafting of it and in the delivery of it, that the Israelis were fully informed and fully aware of every word in it.  And we wouldn’t have done it, as I said, if we didn’t believe that it would be received with the seriousness with which it was composed. 

And the discussions that we have had, or that we had yesterday with our Israeli counterparts, are happening still today.  So, what prompted the Prime Minister’s comments?  Only he can say.  What prompted our desire to get that statement written and out the door was an earnest desire to see diplomacy having a chance here to deescalate.

Q    And the question about the UNGA speech and message that you want to hear from Netanyahu tomorrow?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, we’re not in the habit of providing speechwriting advice to foreign leaders.  The Prime Minister will speak for himself, and he’ll speak for the Israeli people in the way he sees fit, the same way that President Biden did on Tuesday. 

So, we’ll obviously be listening to hear what he has to say, of course, with great interest, as you will.  We know that the Prime Minister knows that the people of Israel have no stronger supporter than Joe Biden, not only as President of the United States, but over the course of a long career. 

And even though he and Prime Minister Netanyahu don’t see eye-to-eye on every issue, and that is clear, they absolutely share one overarching goal, and that is the preservation and the safety and security of the State of Israel.  That will never change.  We may disagree at times on how to achieve that goal, but on the things — well, a lot of things matter, but on that very big thing that matters, they certainly see eye-to-eye.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michael with the New York Times.

Q    Hey, John.  I will avoid becoming the ninth effort to — person to press you on (inaudible), though I think you’re still (inaudible) basic question, which is: What did Netanyahu tell the United States last night?  And did he mislead you guys?

But let’s go to an easier question on Ukraine, which is: You know, is the President going — is there anybody in the United States government and the national security team that thinks that — or that doesn’t think that Ukraine and Zelenskyy will ultimately have to come to some sort of acceptance of some sort of territorial, you know, giveaway to resolve this war? 

And is the President comfortable leaving office in a few months, you know, kind of knowing that war is going to continue on in this stalemate that won’t — you know, that doesn’t have a real path towards resolution, in part because Zelenskyy doesn’t want to confront that possibility?

MR. KIRBY:  Of course the President would like to see this war ended, Michael.  I mean, he’d like to see it ended today, and we all know that it could if Putin got the hell out of Ukraine.  But of course, that doesn’t appear to be in the offing. 

So, President Biden would very much like to see the war ended as soon as possible, given the unlikelihood of that eventuality.  And that’s why we’re doing everything we can to make sure they can prevail on the battlefield so that if and when President Zelenskyy decides he wants to enter into some sort of negotiated settlement, that he can do so from a position of strength. 

And, you know, to your first question, which I may be butchering it back to you, so if I don’t get it right, you tell me if I’m wrong.  But the way I interpreted it was: Does anybody think here at the NSC that there’s no other way for this to end without him trading territory?  Is that kind of where you were — is that what you meant?

Q    Yeah, essentially.  Right.  I mean, essentially, in the question —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look — I mean, that’s going to be up to him.  And I would tell you we’re not sitting around with maps of Ukraine and markers and coming up with, you know, alternative scenarios here, or, “Gee, maybe we could convince Zelenskyy to trade this for that.”  We’re not involved in that kind of a game here.  We are — when we’re sitting there looking at the map of Ukraine, it’s about trying to understand the battlefield as it is now and trying to get ahead of where it’s going to go, and making sure that Ukraine has what it needs to be successful on that battlefield. 

But as I said many, many times, if and when and how this war ends, it’s got to be in a way that President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people can accept.  He gets to decide the conditions.  He gets to decide the circumstances.  And if there’s trade space, he gets to decide what that trade space is.  He’s not getting direction from the United States and the administration in one way or another when it comes to that. 

And I would just tell you that — I can’t speak for the innermost thoughts of every single policy analyst here at the National Security Council, but I can tell you that Jake is not putting them to task, getting them to think through what a negotiation could look like in terms of geography.  That’s just not where our heads are.  Everybody here that’s working this problem set is really trying to do the two things that the President said very clearly in his pool spray. 

And those two items, you know, I do want to draw you back to them as much as I can, because it wasn’t by accident that he listed two priorities: one, that they got what they need now and in the months ahead, and that every dollar we can spend before the end of his term, by God, we’re going to spend it.  And number two: that we are setting, as best we can, all the conditions for the future long-term security of Ukraine so that they can not only deter any future Russian aggression once the war ends, but defeat it, if they have to face it.  And that, of course, means obviously working with them on the reforms to eventually see a path to NATO, but also, more organically, make sure that they have a robust defense industrial base with the ability to manufacture and to procure the kinds of defense articles that they’ll need to defend themselves over the long term.

Q    That’s great.  Let me just follow up one really quick way.  I guess what I’m trying to get at with the question of territory is that there are places in the world where the U.S. does press — I mean, Israel is a perfect example.  The U.S. has been long on record pressing for a two-state solution that would ultimately require both sides to compromise on territory in the interest of long-term security. 

And I guess the question is: After two years of war that has largely stalemated, why isn’t the U.S. — I mean, obviously it’ll be up to Ukraine to make the final decision, but why isn’t the U.S. pressing for some sort of consideration that would bring the war to an end?

MR. KIRBY:  Because we believe, as we’ve said from the outset — we believe that, unlike the two-state solution, Mike, which is not — in my view, not an appropriate analogy, this was a sovereign nation with internationally recognized boundaries that was invaded by its neighbor aggressively, and remains invaded by its neighbor.  That is a vastly different scenario. 

And from the beginning, from the moment he stepped off and marched on to Kyiv, we were saying we want to see those internationally recognized boundaries fully respected and restored.  That is Ukraine, all of Ukraine, including Crimea.  It belongs to Ukraine.  We want to see that outcome. 

So I think quick — honestly, we have been very clear about geography, and that hasn’t changed.  Now, if there’s some trade space to be had there, that’s got to be up to President Zelenskyy.  But as far as President Biden and the United States is concerned, Ukraine is Ukraine.  All of Ukraine.  And the internationally recognized borders need to be respected by everybody, most especially Russia. 

Q    Thanks.  Appreciate it. 

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

Q    Hey, John.  Just a very short clarification.  I just want to see that I understand.  You said that you would not have published the statement about the ceasefire if you did not understand from the Israelis that they’re on board.  Did I understand this correctly?  Is this what you said?

MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say it in exactly those words, but I’m not going to disagree with your assessment of it. 

Q    Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Awesome.  Thank you, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, send a note to the distro, and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can.  Thank you. 

4:46 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

12:45 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, everybody. 

Q    Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon.  Sorry.  Somebody — we’ve been gone too long.  Somebody has been messing with this stuff.

Okay.  So, the president has been briefed on Hurricane Helene, and at his direction, administration officials are in contact with their local and state counterparts to ensure that they have everything they need. 

This week, the president approved emergency disaster declaration request from the governors of Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia, when unlocked additional federal resources to — which unlock additional federal resources to help these states respond to the storm.

And the entire Biden-Harris administration stands ready to provide further assistance to impacted states as needed. 

We continue to urge residents, especially those who have been instructed to evacuate, to heed the warnings of local officials. 

With that, I have — I have here to my right, the FEMA administrator, Criswell.  Come on up. 

Deanne, thank you so much for — for being here. 

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  Thank you, Karine.  Good afternoon, everybody. 

As you heard, I did just finish briefing President Biden on the impacts that we are expecting to see from Hurricane Helene.  And as I told him, we have been preparing for this storm for a number of days, and we began moving resources into Florida on Monday. 

I just want everybody to know that this is going to be a multi-state event with the potential for significant impacts from Florida all the way to Tennessee, and the president wants to make sure that everyone is paying attention to the potential life-threatening impacts that this storm may bring.  And he has directed me to travel there tomorrow to assess the impacts. 

The entire state of Florida is under some type of warning right now, whether that’s a hurricane warning or a tropical storm warning, and we expect life-threatening flash flooding in the state’s north as the storm continues to move north. 

And so, I need everybody to pay attention to their local officials.  They are going to have the best information on the specific risks where you are at.  We’re already seeing impacts in Florida, and the forecast indicates that we could see up to 20 feet of storm surge. 

So, just think back two years ago to Hurricane Ian.  The peak storm surge from that was 14 feet, and we saw the amount of destruction and 150 people lost their lives, the majority of them from drowning.  So, please take this threat from storm surge seriously. 

Residents that are in these areas, they can still take action.  They can take action now to move out of harm’s way.  And remember that you may only need to go 10 or 15 miles inland to get away from the threat of the storm surge itself, because water is the number one reason that we see people lose their lives in these storms.  So, please don’t underestimate what the impacts could possibly be. 

So, at the president’s direction, we have over 1,100 personnel so far across the federal government supporting the preparedness efforts for this storm.  We also have an additional 700 personnel from FEMA that are already in these states supporting other disasters that we can quickly pivot to support any of the response needs as needed. 

Some of the resources that we have already deployed include eight search and rescue teams across Florida and Georgia, as well as resources from the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense to immediately support any lifesaving operations as needed. 

Now, the Army Corps of Engineer has power restoration teams and debris specialists who are going to be able to help restore power and support debris removal operations as soon as it is safe to do so. 

We have health and medical task forces from Health and Human Services to evaluate the impacts to medical facilities. 

We have food, water, generators, and tarps that are deployed to staging locations across the region, and so they are easily accessible and movable post-storm. 

And the Red Cross is actively standing up shelters in areas that are expected to see and feel the impacts from Helene. 

My regional administrator is currently embedded in the Florida Emergency Operations Center, as well as Incident Management Assistance Teams in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, and we have one currently moving to North Carolina today so we can ensure seamless communications between the federal government and the needs of the states.

I’m very grateful, as you heard, President Biden quickly approved prelandfall declarations for Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, and this allows us to immediately provide any of that lifesaving support in the coming days. 

And I’m grateful for the rest of the federal family that is there on the ground, working with us side by side, as we pr- — prepare to support the American people for what is to come over the next several days.

I just want everybody to know that the Biden-Harris administration — we are ready for this event.  We have aggressively predeployed resources.  We are postured for whatever response might be needed. 

And so, let me just say one more time before I take any questions: Take this storm seriously.  People in Hurricane Helene’s path, you need to listen to your local officials.  If they tell you to evacuate, please do so.  And if they tell you to shelter in place, then that’s what you should do.  They’re going to give you the best information that you can do for your specific situation.  Those decisions can save lives.

And with that, Karine, I’ll take questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Deanne.  So, this is likely to be the 21st billion-dollar weather or climate disaster this year.  So, does FEMA have the resources to keep on responding to disaster after disaster like this?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we have absolutely enough resources to continue to support the lifesaving response that we need to for this event.  I think everybody is aware that we went into Immediate Needs Funding as our Disaster Relief Fund, the — the funding was running low.  But the reason we do that is to make sure we have enough money for an event just like this.

And so, I want everybody to know that we have exactly what we need, and there are no limitations to our ability to support the response for this disaster.

As we continue to go through the recovery, though, for all of these disasters, that also takes personnel, and we’re going to continue to work through with our states about what they need and how we can best adjudicate those resources.  But we are seeing an increase, and we’re seeing a strain on our staff, with more of them deployed for longer periods of time, helping to support these communities recover.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Trevor.

Q    And just also related to the — the money here.  Some pretty substantial losses projected in terms of the crop insurance, in terms of the flood insurance.  Is there — and there’s no new money in the CR as far as this is concerned.  Is there any expectation that you’re going to have to go back with a supplemental —

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we —

Q    — request?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, we did put a supplemental request in with the CR.  It does not give us a supplemental at this time, but it gives us the ability to spend the money that was put forth in the president’s budget.  But we’re already, through INF, $9 billion — close to $9 billion in projects that we have put on hold that we can’t reimburse communities for.

Once we lift INF and once the CR goes into effect, we’ll be able to pay those, but without a supplemental, we’ll — we will be back in INF probably in the January time frame.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you talk more about how widespread you think prolonged power outages will be and what those power restoration teams are doing to prepare?  Is there anything they can do proactively, you know, before the storm?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, Florida has a really robust plan, and they have really aggressive targets to try to get the majority of people — I forget what the exact percentage is; I think it was 85 or 90 percent within 48 hours — back up.  And they have several thousand resources that have been prepositioned to come in and support Florida Power & Light or the other utilities to help them get the power back on.

We expect widespread power outages from this.  When we think about Tallahassee, it’s got a lot of tree canopy, so those trees are going to come down and impact those power lines, and the debris and the ability to detangle the debris from the power lines is what could take a long time.

The power restoration teams, they do a couple of things from the Army Corps.  One, they can help us put generators in on critical facilities to help make sure that those facilities have power, but they can also make assessments on how to prioritize some of the work so we know where we need to put our efforts to help the — the private-sector pr- — utility companies get the power restored as quickly as possible.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Colleen.

Q    Could you talk a little bit about how the response has changed based on the severity of the storms?  I think we’re seeing an increasing — storms with increasing severity.  So, how does that change the response for you?  I mean, I know it’s more manpower, but what — what else?  How else does it change?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  I think the biggest thing is that we want to get things in place early.  This is why we’ve been moving resources into the area since Monday and having — we know there’s a large population that’s really vulnerable in Florida, and so that’s why we have so many search and rescue teams that are able to come in and augment the really im- — impressive amount of teams that Florida already has within the state, right?  So, this is on top of what they already have. 

And so, for us, it’s making sure that we are sending more than we think that we’ll need.  And if I don’t need them, I can send them home.  What I don’t want to do is be short.  I want to make sure that I have enough that can support whatever the states might request.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    You said that you are headed down there tomorrow.  Did you discuss with the president whether it might be possible for him to make the trip down in the coming days? 

And secondly, is there a single piece of advice or warning that you wish, in these kinds of situations, people would heed more seriously that you might want to emphasize in this setting?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, the purpose of my visit is to assess the impacts, and I’ll be briefing him on what those impacts are.  I’ll leave it to Karine to talk with him about what, you know, actions he might take. 

But I think the — the message is: Take this seriously.  I mean, we look at the cone, and the cone is the wind, but the water is what kills people.  And so, we need to really look at where this storm surge is going to be in Florida. 

But Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and those Appalachians, they’re going to have up to 20 inches of rain in an area that can have significant flash flooding.  And that is really life-threatening, and it comes so much faster than what we see from a storm surge, right?  They’re going to have less warning once the rain starts there, so they need to know what they’re going to do now, put those plans — plans in place today for where they’re going to go, how they’re going to contact their family and their friends, what they’re going to need to take with them — like medicine or power devices for medical reasons. 

Ha- — it’s not too late.  They should be able to put those plans together today so they can take the actions that their local officials tell them to do.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, in the back.

Q    Thank you.  You keep talking about the need to follow evacuation orders if local officials give them.  We know from past storms that people don’t always heed that not because they don’t want to but because they can’t afford to leave the area, don’t have anywhere to go, don’t have family members to help them.  Is FEMA doing anything to work on that particular issue, given what you’re talking about with water and the danger that can come from that if people stay in place?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, part of the prelandfall emergency declaration is specifically to reimburse states and local jurisdictions for any of the costs that they incur to do sheltering and evacuation because we want them to have the resources to put in place whatever measures that they need. 

I think the important thing on the evacuation to remember is, if you’re told to evacuate, especially from the storm surge area, it doesn’t mean you have to go to a whole other state.  And I think we — we often think of those pictures of contraflow lines and — and backed-up traffic, but you really sometimes only need to go a few miles to get out of harm’s way. 

And so, the local officials should be able to tell you where there’s local evacuation centers that you can go to until the threat of the storm has passed.  And then when we get to the point where if they are displaced, then we have the long-term sheltering concerns that we’ll have to work with.  But the initial sheltering concern is just getting out of this storm’s path for right now, then we can work on what those long-term needs are. 

And that’s why the prelandfall declaration is so incredibly important — that the president approved — is to make sure that those states have the resources to stand up those shelters and to help people get to safety. 

Q    And do you feel that the state is ready to stand up those shelters?  I mean, you’re talking about how you’re going to reimburse them, but is Florida ready to do that?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Florida has stood up many shelters, and the American Red Cross is also there supporting that.  I just need people to evacuate and go to them. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We’re going to wrap it up. 

Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  What resources are available, not only to families but also to small business, in the aftermath of this storm making landfall — resources coming not only from FEMA but also from the SBA?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  There’s a number of programs that are available.  For FEMA, we specifically made some changes into our disaster declaration — the Stafford Act — recently, which allows people that work from home to actually get compensated for some of their business losses if they work from home, like if they had a computer or other equipment that they needed to do their personal — if they’re a photographer and they lost their cameras.  So, we just made that change recently, in March, to be able to compensate small-business owners that work from home. 

SBA can speak specifically about their programs, but they’ve also made some really amazing changes this year, which increases the dollar amount that people can borrow from the SBA.  It extends the time where they’re going to delay the interest until they have to pay it — or to start to repay that loan.  And it’s a tremendous resource to really help small businesses get back on their feet. 

Q    And how do you decide where to position yourself tomorrow with the storm making landfall?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we’re looking at where we think the biggest impact is going to be, and right now, it looks like it’s a dead-on hit to Tallahassee.  And so, we’ll fly as close to Tallahassee as we can get, and then I’ll meet up with the governor and his team so I can see what the impacts are, hear what the — the team is thinking.  And then we will assess, right? 

I’ve got staff on the ground that will have the intel as to where the hardest-hit areas are.  And then, typically, we like to either get an aerial view, so I can fly over and see what some of those damages are, or on the ground, if need be. 

But I’m also prepared to move up to Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, as we start to see what those impacts are and assess that. 

And because me being on the ground helps me validate some of the damages more quickly, so we can get major declarations in place faster. 

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

Q    Thank you.  At the start of this year, you wrote out reforms to cut some of the red tape for the individual assistance program.  Now that so many people are in the path of this storm, can you give an update on how quickly you expect survivors to be able to tap into that, given those changes that were put in effect more than six months ago at this point?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  We’ve seen some really tremendous, positive impact from the changes that we have made.  In fact, one of the changes we made was we decoupled the requirement to apply for an SBA loan in order to be eligible for our programs, and it’s really saving people several days in the process.  And we’re getting a large number of people that wouldn’t have come back to us, which is great. 

We’re also seeing people get funding quicker, right?  We have Serious Needs Assistance that can get them a very small amount of money to help with some of their immediate costs but, also, the Individual and Households Program that can help them with if they’re underinsured. 

And so, it really all depends on what their specific need is.  The money that they will see the fastest typically is that initial $750.  Any damages to their home, we still have to assess and see what those damages are and then can make that determination. 

But we have teams that go right out in the field.  They can register them in the field.  And that really helps to speed up the process. 

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

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Thank you, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate it.  Thank you. 

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, thank you.

I just wanted to add, the president asked to have the administrator come to the podium today because of how serious we want to make sure that people out there are taking this.  They need to take this very seriously. 

And also, obviously, we wanted to lay out our federal response posture so that folks know that we are there for them, and we will obviously be there on the ground as the FEMA administrature — administrator just laid out. 

So, please, please take this very, very seriously and listen to your local officials.  Just want to reiterate that once more.

I have one more thing.  It’s a busy day here at the White House.  One of the other things that we’re going to be doing: As you all know, today, the president and the vice president are announcing new actions to redu- — to reduce gun violence and save lives.

From the American Rescue Plan to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to issuing more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other administration, the president and the vice president have continued to use every tool available to protect people from epidemic — from the epidemic of gun violence. 

Homicide rates are down 17 percent compared to the same — this — the same time last year, and the number of mass shootings this year is 20 percent lower.  But more must be done. 

So, President Biden is going to sign an executive order to accelerate progress on two key priorities, combating emerging — emerging firearms threats and impr- — improving school-based active shooter drills.  

Additionally, federal departments and agency will be announcing a range of additional actions to reduce gun violence, from promoting safe gun storage and red flag laws to improving the background check system. 

The Biden-Harris administration will continue to do everything it can to put an end to this senseless, senseless violence, while calling on Congress to fulfill their duty and pass commonsense gun safety legislation.

With that, Colleen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Democratic Mayor of New York City Eric Adams has been charged with bribery, wire fraud, and seeking campaign funds from a foreign government.  Does the president believe he should resign? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to comment on any ongo- — on this ongoing — particular ongoing matter.  I’m going to let the DOJ speak to this. 

Q    Okay.  And then two other quick things.  Does the president hope that Vice President Kamala Harris, should she be elected president — will she continue the Office of Gun Violence Prevention?  Is he hoping —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to speak for the vice president or get ahead of — of ourselves here. 

But what I will say is, as you know, the vice president has been a leader on this issue — she leads the Office of — of Gun Violence — and has taken this seriously, not just as a vice president but throughout her career, and has been, obviously, a key partner in all of the — all of the actions that this president has done and has taken.

So, I could assur- — I — I think it’s safe to say that she will continue to lead on making sure that we deal with this epidemic.  Gun violence is an epidemic.  We need to continue to protect our communities, protect our schools. 

And so, I could assure you that she’s going to continue to stay laser-focused on this issue.

Q    Okay.  One other quick thing.  As you know, Ukraine wants to fire long-range weapons into Russia, and some Republicans today backed the idea.  I wondered why the White House doesn’t share that same assessment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, I think we can expect that one of the conversations that the two leaders will have would be on this topic.  And so, you know, there will be also a broader discussion on the significant amount of military aid we are providing Ukraine.  You saw our announcements this morning. 

Although I’m not expecting there be any new announcements on this particular action or a decision coming out of this meeting.  I expect the leaders will discuss the weapons system the president announced, as I just stated. 

And I do want to take a little bit of a step back here.  I want to remind everyone watching the briefing how the United States, how this president has mobilized a massive — a massive amount of military equipment and capability to help Ukraine really fight back, push back against Mr. Putin and his aggression.

It’s been almost three years — almost three years, and this president has been there day one.  He has been able to bring more than 50 nations together to support Ukraine in their fight for their democracy.  And so, that’s what you can expect.

And the president is very proud of the impact of that support, what it’s had, and is proud of that coalition. 

And so — and certainly, you’ll see more of that in Germany.  As we announced, the president is going to be going to Germany. 

And so, I will leave it there and not go any further.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Mayor Eric Adams suggests that he’s being targeted by the Biden administration over his criticism of the migrant crisis.  Now, this is the kind of accusation that’s similar to what we’ve heard from former President Donald Trump.  So, what is the president’s reaction to that kind of language being used from a Democrat?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we have been always very clear.  The president was clear, even when he was running in 2020, that he was going to make sure that DOJ is independent, and the DOJ is handling this case independently.  I’m not going to go beyond that.

Q    And Adams was also at a reception last night with the president at the Met.  Did they talk?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can confirm to you that the president did not see the mayor and they did not speak.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    You just mentioned that, obviously, you expect the two leaders today to discuss the issue of the use of long-range missiles into Russia.  Do you know if the president has any openness to changing his policy stance on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I said it’s going to be one of a range of topics that they’re going to discuss.

And let’s not forget, the president and — both presidents saw each other recently, just yesterday.  They’ve had multiple bilateral engagements.  This is a continuation of that — a continuation of the — the support that you have seen from the United States and, obviously, what the president has been able to do in the past two-plus years in bringing nations together to continue to give support to — to Ukraine.

What I said is I could expect this con- — this to come up as a topic, but I wouldn’t expect any new announcements.  I’m just not going to go beyond that.  You all will see the president momentarily and President Zelenskyy in a — in — in there — in this pool spray, as you know, in the Oval.  And so, you’ll have an opportunity to hear directly from both of them.

I just don’t have anything beyond — there’s no announcement that I would expect coming out of this —

Q    Okay.  And just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — new announcement.

Q    Just separately on this Lebanon ceasefire proposal that was released last night.  I’m sure you saw the prime minister’s office said, “The news about a ceasefire is incorrect.”  What is the disconnect here?  You know, we had senior U.S. officials saying last night — suggesting really strongly that they expected the two sides to agree to this proposal.  And here we are, however many hours later, and the prime minister’s office is saying no.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  As you mentioned, the joint statement last night, you saw that.  We and our allies, partners don’t believe in an all-out war.  That’s not the answer here.  That’s not what we want to see.

And that is something that we’ve been pretty consistent about throughout the past several months.  Our joint statement was a clear call — it was a call for a temporary ceasefire to open up space — open up space for diplomacy to achieve a deal that allows civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes safely and securely.  And I would add that the statement was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side. 

There are now discussions ongoing today in New York.  Our teams are continuing to have discussions, and so you’ll probably hear more later — later in the day.  But those discussions are ongoing.

Q    If it was coordinated with the Israeli side and the expectation last night, as it was shared by senior U.S. officials, was that the two sides would agree to this imminently, why are we hearing from the prime minister’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would —

Q    — office today —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would have to refer you to the prime minister’s office. 

I — I’m just laying out the facts and what we know and what we want to avoid.  We do not believe an all-out war is the answer, and we’ve been very clear about that.  The president has been very clear about that. 

I just laid out the facts and what we’re trying to do.  This is a clear call for a temporary ceasefire.  We want to provide space.  We talk about how di- — diplomacy is — is the way to move forward.  That’s what the president believes. 

I laid out that — that the statement was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side. 

I can’t speak for them.  They will have to speak for themselves. 

I — I’m just laying out what we know, how this came together, and what we — what our end goal is — right? — is that — is what we want to see. 

Q    Do you still expect an agreement to come out imminently? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As I — as I just mentioned, we have our teams who are in New York right now.  They’re currently having those discussions, currently negotiating or discussing this further in New York.  And so, I’m — I’m sure that we will have more to share later in the day. 

Go ahead, Francesca.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The president never had a direct conversation with the Israeli prime minister about this.  Do you expect that he’ll call him today or that he’ll speak with him tomorrow about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, they have spoken many, many times — probably more than a dozen times, easily — in this past several months, almost a year now, since October 7th.  They have decades-long relationship, and so they know each other very well.  And when they have discussions, they are very honest and — and frank. 

I don’t have a conversation to read out, a call to preview at this time. 

As I stated — and I’ve said this before; we have said this before — our teams talk pretty regularly, practically on a daily basis.  And so, that certainly continues as we’re talking about this — this ceasefire, the statement that you saw from the G7 plus our key Middle East partners overnight. 

Q    So, essentially, he di- — he did not feel that he needed to talk directly with the prime minister because his team was talking to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, their teams talk regularly, as — as they’re doing right now in New York today.  And so, that is something that will continue to — continue to be the case.  But they have spoken mu- — multiple times. 

As a conversation between the prime minister and the president, I just don’t have anything to preview at this time.

Q    And one quick question on Ukraine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    His approval today of the long-range bombs, should we take that as a sign that he is more open to allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — Russian territory?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, our policy has not changed.  They’re going to talk on a range of issues today. 

What we can say and what we can commit to is that we will continue to support Ukraine as they — as they continue their fight against Mr. Putin’s aggression into Ukraine.  And so, that is our commitment.  That’s what the president is focused on.  I don’t have anything else to add.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, on the — the long-range missile issue.  Is — does the White House have a reaction to Putin’s comments that that would invite a nuclear response on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what —

Q    — on the United States?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we have — we say this all the time: Mr. Putin can end this war today.  He can.  He started this war.  He started this war.  Not the Ukrainians — he started this war.  It could end today.  It could end today if he decides to stop the aggression that he started into Ukraine. 

And so, we have been very clear about that, and we’ll continue to do so. 

Q    And there’s been no change on the administration’s policy on NATO membership for Ukraine since the — the NATO Summit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to share be- — beyond what we’ve been pretty clear on as it relates to that. 

Q    And then one more is: Was there any reaction to former President Trump’s comments that Ukraine’s cities are gone, questioning giving more aid to the country while they refuse to make a deal, or this comment that he wants them to win, kind of suggesting that Demo- — he wa- — that he — they want —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    — Zelenskyy wants Democrats to win the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I am not going to respond to everything that the former president says, especially since he’s a candidate in this election. 

The president has been very clear to his commitment — not just him but more than 50 nations that are supporting Ukraine in their efforts to fight for their democracy, to fight against Mr. Putin’s aggression. 

And let’s not forget, the president was able to make NATO stronger so that we can be able to continue to do the work that NATO is supposed to do.  And — and an example is what is happening in Ukraine.  And so, that is his focus.  That’s going to be continued. 

What he is going to — you’ll see this today in the bilat that he has with President Zelenskyy.  You saw that this week at the U.N. assembly, when he’s — he met with mult- — he saw multiple leaders, obviously.  He was with multiple leaders and had a couple of opportunities, as we read out to all of you, to — to meet with some of them. 

And so, this is what the president is going to co- — going to focus on, and that’s what we- — I’m going to speak to. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the Zelenskyy meeting, why is it that President Biden and Vice President Harris are holding these meetings separately?  Is the suggestion that one would say something different than the other and that there might be some dueling diplomacy there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s no dueling diplomacy.  It’s not unusual.  The vice president has met with President Zelenskyy separately many times.  Nothing new here. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Q    And then critics have said that Zelenskyy’s trip to Pennsylvania was a political stunt.  Did the administration communicate at all with Ukraine on who would be attending that trip or make any effort to make it a bipartisan event?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just lay this down, because I know that there’s been a lot of talk about this.  So, the Ukrainians asked to visit the facility which employs American workers, as you know, who are manufacturing critical supplies that the Ukrainian military is using every day on the front lines of freedom because of its centrality of the — of their — to their country’s continued existence. 

This came from Ukrainian, not us.  This is something that they wanted to do.

After they made that request, DOD did what it has done for years: figure out how to provide transportation for foreign leaders traveling on U.S. soil, which is common, which happens when they come to the U.S.  And the whole world knows this is someone Putin wants dead.  He’s made very clear when it comes to President Zelenskyy. 

Also, just two months ago, President Zelenskyy traveled to Utah and held an event with the Republican governor, a very similar event, and Republican officials were there at that event in Utah.  And there wasn’t a single demand — not one, not one single demand — for an investigation when that occurred a couple months ago in Utah. 

So, this was business as usual for a Ukrainian request during wartime — during wartime.  And so, I — I would encourage — we would encourage the House Republicans to drop this, these kind of — this is a political stunt.  They need to drop this.  And — and anything else, any — I think I gave a lot here, a lot of layou- — good layout of how this all occurred, but anything else specific I would for- — I would certainly refer you to DOD.

Q    Just clarifying, though, that the administration didn’t — or the campaign, I guess, didn’t play a role in determining the guest list, because they’re — they’re claiming that having no Republicans there in a battleground state made it effectively a campaign event.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — this is something that Ukrainians asked for.  They did this a couple months ago in Utah — in Utah with a Republican governor, and Republican elected officials were there as well.  We didn’t hear any type of investigation request when we went to a Republican state.  We didn’t.

Q    On the gun event today.  What kind of gun does the vice president have, and when did she buy it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something for her office to speak to. 

Q    The reason I’m asking is because you have this event today, but the VP, as district attorney, sponsored Proposition H in 2005.  It would have banned handguns within San Francisco city limits and required that residents turn in the handguns that they already owned by a certain deadline or face mandatory jail time.  But she’s out on the campaign trail now saying that she’s a proud gun owner and is not going to take away your guns.  So, can the White House get us an answer on that?  Because she hasn’t and her — her campaign officials also haven’t answered that question, even on television. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, a couple of things here.  When it comes to the VP and — and owning a gun, she can speak for herself.  The campaign could speak for that.  Her office can speak for that.  I’m not — that — that’s for — for them to speak to. 

It is not in co- — there is no conflict here when we’re saying that we want to see responsible gun ownership.  That’s what we want to see: responsible gun ownership.  I think that is what’s important here. 

At the end of the day, gun violence is an epidemic in our — in our country.  Think about our schul- — schools, our grocery stores.  It’s an epidemic. 

We have done the work.  We have seen violent crimes go down because of the work that this president and this vice president has done.  There is an office to prevent gun violence, and that is something that she leads. 

But we’re not — we’re asking for responsible gun ownership.  That’s what we want to see.  That’s what’s impartant — important here. 

And if people don’t — don’t want to — don’t understand that, I don’t know how to further even explain that to them. 

Our kids, our schools — there’s an epidemic here.  There’s an epidemic.  There are drills happening in our schools right now — that’s something that the president is going to speak to — that is traumatizing some of our kids because of this epidemic. 

And so, that should be the focus: How do we make sure that we end this epidemic?  We want to see responsible gun ownership.  That’s what we want to see. 

Q    I think the question is not about responsible gun ownership, though.  It’s about, you know, her past position, saying that — supporting a measure that would have required that non-law enforcement or military residents of a city turn in their handguns, so no gun ownership or face possible mandatory jail time, versus what she’s saying now.  And then also not answering the question of her gun ownership.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, that’s something that she’s going to have to speak to.  What I can speak at this moment in this time, what we’ve been trying to do for the last three and a half years is making sure that we are dealing with an epidemic that is existing in our communities, that we see in our schools, that we see in — in grocery stores. 

It is an epidemic here, and what we’re trying to do is prevent gun violence.  And we have seen that go down — we have — because of this work, because of the executive actions, because of a bipartisan legislation that was able to be done under this administration to deal with gun violence, something that we hadn’t seen in 30 years. 

So, there is some bipartisan support here to deal with a responsible way of having gun ownership.  We need to do more here.  We need to do more.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Back on the long-range missiles into Russia.  Our latest reporting is that President Biden has not changed his position on this in part because the Pentagon has assessed it would do very little to change the trajectory of the war.  So, does the president plan to be blunt with Zelenskyy about that assessment today and to give him a yes-or-no answer at least as far as it stands today? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, again, I’m not expecting any new announcements.  That is something that I’m going to be clear about.  What our focus here is is that we are focused on ensuring — ensuring that Ukraine has what it needs to prevail in this war.  That is the president’s focus. 

That’s what they’re going to continue to discuss about.  That’s what they’re going to — the president is going to continue to support Ukraine on — not just us, the 50-plus countries that the president was able to get together to support Ukraine, making NATO stronger. 

I’m not going to get into any reporting about this.  I’ve been very clear.  And you’re going to see both presidents momentarily in the — in the bilat.  You’ll hear directly from the president.  And so, I’ll just leave it there.

Q    Okay.  And then, following up again on the ceasefire deal in Lebanon.  You said that the statement was coordinated with Israel.  Are you saying that the U.S. has any reason to believe that, despite what we are seeing and despite the public comments, Israel agrees with the U.S.? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I am saying is that they’re g- — discussions continue in New York.  I laid out the facts as they were — as they are and wanted to be very clear about that. 

Let me just — really just read out a couple of things from the joint statement that you all saw from the G7, plus key partners — Middle East ca- — partners:

“The situation between Lebanon and Israel since October 8th, 2023 is intolerable and presents an unacceptable risk of a border — of a broader regional escalation. This is in nobody’s interest, neither of the people of Israel nor of the people of Lebanon. 

It is time to conclude a diplomatic settlement that enables civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes in safety. 

Diplomacy however cannot succeed amid an escalation of this conflict.” 

So, we want to see a ceasefire — a 20-day ceasefire.  Those discussions continue.  It was something that we laid out, right?  It was a — a plan that we laid out.  And so, we want to certainly see that move forward and those discussions continue in New York with our teams.

Q    And you’ve made that abundantly clear, but I guess my question is, Israel is not on the list of countries that came up with the proposal or has agreed to it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, you’re right.  It was a G7 —

Q    So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — G7, plus the key Middle East partners that — that put — put forward this — this joint statement last night. 

Q    So, why do you have any reason to believe that they’re going to agree to this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As I stated, and you put — pointed this out when you asked me your question: Israel was aware of this statement.  And now — what I can tell you right now, we are having continued discussions.  That is happening with our teams in New York. 

And I’m not going to get into private diplomatic engagement, but I can assure you, these conversations are continuing. 

Q    Thank you, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Just a quick follow-up on that statement that you read.  It refers to the situation as a “situation,” “a conflict,” and an “escalation.”  Do we agree at the White House that what we’re witnessing between Israel and Lebanon right now is, in fact, war?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into semantics from here.  What we know and what we are seeing is that this cannot continue, and we want this to end.  Right?  We want a peaceful solution here. 

I’m no- — I’m just not going to get into semantics from here.

Q    I guess I asked because we’ve heard the president say, as he said multiple times this week, that he wants to avoid a full-scale war —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — an all-out war.  He said it remains a “possibility.”  That’s why they’re pursuing this diplomatic solution. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But, I guess, just for our understanding of what — what that — what an all-out war looks like, versus what we’re witnessing now. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’m not going to get into — here’s — here’s what we want to see.  We want to see a 21-day ceasefire to give us the space to have that conversation so that we can have a negotiation to end this.  That’s what we want to see. 

And so, we believe this gives us an opportunity to do this by calling for a 21 ceasefire — 21-day ceasefire, to be more clear. 

And so, it’s important.  It is intolerable what’s happening.  It cannot continue.  For both sides, it cannot continue.  And so, we’re going to do everything in our power.  The president has been very clear to get to that point. 

I think it was important.  It was important to see a joint statement from the G7 and key Middle East partners.  I think it was important to see that.  It is — you see — you see countries coming together and seeing what’s happening.  The tensions need to stop.  We need to get to a ceasefire. 

And so, that is what we’re trying to get to here.  We’re going to continue to have this discussion on getting to that 21-day ceasefire.  That’s continuing in New York.  As you know, UNGA continues — right? — even though we’re back here.  And so, our teams are there.  They’re having those discussion.  They’re doing these diplomatic conversation. 

You hear us talk about it all the time: Dipl- — diplomatic resolution is key, and that’s what we’re trying to get to.  And that’s what I think you can see, the type of movement that you have seen from this president — right? — when he was at UNGA, having conversations with other leaders.  And now we’ve come to a place where we have put this forward, and this is what we believe.  We see this 21-day ceasefire — it gives us the space — it gives us the space to have that conversation. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I’m going to have another go at the ceasefire. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    So, the White House said that you don’t want to see a wider war, and you wanted to see this 21-day ceasefire.  But yesterday, a senior administration official described this proposal as a “breakthrough.”  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A — a “breakthrough”?

Q    Yeah.  So, what makes you believe that (inaudible) is listening to you when they did not listen to you over maybe 10 months and the White House failed to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas?  The — the party changes.  Now it’s Israel and Hezbollah, as opposed to Israel and Hamas.  So, where do you get this optimism?  When the president always say we are two days away from securing the ceasefire, we’re three days away — until now, you’re unable to secure a ceasefire and release U.S. hostages.  So, where is this optimism coming that both Hezbollah and Israel can listen to the White House? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s the thing.  As I stated, our teams have been in discussion.  The president certainly has been engaging our teams, in particular, with Israel and Lebanon throughout this week.  And based on those conversations — right? — we have had with Israel and Lebanon, and we have had with our partners as well, we felt comfortable in releasing this statement because of those ongoing dialogue, that diplomatic conversation — resolution that we’re trying to get to calling for a ceasefire.

And it is up to the parties to respond.  I mean, it is.  It is up to the parties to respond. 

But we felt comfortable in releasing that statement last night because we have been having those discussions with Lebanon and Israel.

And — but to your point, it is up to the parties to respond.

Now we put out the statement — the joint statement last night.  Conversations continue, discussions continue in New York, and so we’re going to continue to move that way.  But we have to do something, right?  We have to continue to act.  And diplomacy is the way to deal with what we have been seeing. 

Q    I understand.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right.

Q    But does the White House have leverage over either party so we don’t go to a wider war? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re trying to prevent a wider war.  That is what we’ve been working towards for some time, and we have had these discussions with both Israel, with Lebanon, with our — our partners, and we felt comfortable enough to release this statement.  We believe that diplomatic resolution is key here, and we — we can’t stop.  We got to continue to try, right?

But it is up to our partners to respond.  It truly is. 

But just because we released the statement, it doesn’t stop there.  It doesn’t.  So, we’re going to have diplomatic discussions as it’s happening in New York.  It doesn’t stop from last night — releasing this joint statement.  And we’ll see where we get.  We’ll see where we get to.

Q    One — one last question.

Q    Karine —

Q    The number would be in — the people who are being killed in Lebanon is over 600 now, 2,000 wounded.  Do you believe that these are legitimate target, including that the — the number of the dead also are women and children?  And do you believe that Israel still operate within international law?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what I can say.  We want to see the tensions end.  We want to see a ceasefire.  That is what we’re — it is — it is not — it’s — what we’re seeing right now — and this is in our statement — it is intolerable, what’s going on right now.  It cannot continue, and it’s not good for either side.  It is just not.  This is why we’re trying to get to a diplomatic solution here. 

And you mentioned children and women.  Nobody wants to see that.  We don’t want to see that.  And so, we’re trying to get to a diplomatic solution.  That’s why we called for — you know, we laid out a path, a call for a 21-day ceasefire, and that’s why we’re continuing to have these diplomatic solutions — right? — diplomatic conversations. 

We have to do this.  We have to.  That is the way out of this.

And I know we have to wrap pretty soon.  Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  In response to a criminal complaint filed against Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana, in a social media post, described Haitians as, quote, “gangsters” and Haiti as, quote, the “nastiest country in the western hemisphere.”  He has since deleted that post.  CBC Chairman Steven Horsford tried to censure him in the House yesterday.  It was blocked by Republicans.  But what is the White House’s reaction to Higgins’ post and the failed effort to hold him accountable?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I’m not going to speak to House actions and how they go about their business.  That is for them to decide how they’re going to deal with individual congressional members. 

What I will say more broadly — and we have been very clear from here, the president has been clear, the vice president has been clear — I think what we are seeing right now, what we have heard from national leaders about what is going on in Springfield, Ohio — the baseless, baseless lies and conspiracy theories — it’s dangerous and it is false.  And to go after immigrants in that way who have — who are — who are there legally, helping a community economically, who are welcomed in that community, and saying these baseless lies is dangerous. 

And so, what this president and this vice president believes is that we cannot pull apart our communities.  They want to bring together our communities.  That is what you have been seeing over the last three and a half years. 

And conspiracy theories like this are harmful.  And we have seen this already, how dangerous this is, how dangerous this is to go after, in this particulars instance, Haitian migrants who were welcomed in that community.  And it has not just been denounced from us — denounced from the governor of Ohio, denounced by the police department — local police department, the city manager of Springfield.  I mean, on and on, by Republicans, who have denounced this. 

And so, it’s unfortunate that we have national leaders who are playing political stunts and political games.  And so, that is what we’re going to continue to speak to.  We are about bringing our communities together, not tearing them apart. 

Q    Just one more question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    Death row inmate Marcellus Williams was executed in Missouri on Tuesday, despite concerns about evidence and jury selection process in his 1998 case.  Despite the St. Louis County prosecutor and the victim’s family requesting that he live, Missouri’s governor, attorney general, and the Supreme Court ultimately failed to intervene. 

Considering this and the president’s stance against the death penalty, what does he personally think of Williams’ execution?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, I can’t speak to this case spe- — specifically.  I can’t do that from here. 

But the president has long talked about his serious concerns about the death penalty as currently implemented and whether it is consistent with the values fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness.  He supports the at- — the attorney general’s decision to issue a moratorium on federal executions while the Department of Justice conducts a comprehensive review of policies and procedures governing the federal death penalty. 

And so, I’ll leave it there. 

I know I got to go.  Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just to follow up again on the Lebanon.  Is the administration meeting at all with Prime Minister Netanyahu while he’s in the U.S.?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any meetings to preview.

What I can tell you, as I’ve said multiple times, our teams in New York are meeting.  And so, I will just leave it there.  And — and they’re in regular conversation as it re- — as it relates to the Israeli government.  Our teams here are in regular conversations on a daily — practically daily basis.  And so, the teams are in New York having — having meetings about this particular ceasefire call that we put forward. 

Q    And you mentioned that the efforts doesn’t stop with the announcement last night. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that one more time.

Q    You mentioned that the diplomatic efforts —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it hasn’t.

Q    — has not stopped.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, it’s happening right now in New York.

Q    Right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    My question is: In order to make it different than, you know, the announcement that obviously President Biden was comfortable in announcing a few months ago on the Gaza ceasefire — in order to make that different than the announcement he made last night with other leaders, would he consider conditioning aid to Israel?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to — to lay out beyond the statement that you saw from not just us, the G- — the G7 leaders and also key Middle East partners as well.  Don’t have anything beyond that. 

That has that — we have not changed, obviously, our position on that.  We want to have a diplomatic resolution.  That is what we have been saying for some time now, and this is one of the ways that we want to go — move forward on this.

Q    Just very briefly also on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — on Afghanistan.  The Taliban have formally sought to join the upcoming BRICS Summit.  What is the administration’s stance on the Taliban’s bid to join BRICS?  And how do you assess the geopolitical implications of Taliban’s growing ties with China and Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’ll let the Taliban speak for themselves here.  But we have been very clear that we judge the Taliban by what they do, not by what they say.  We’ve been very consistent about that. 

The Taliban want international legitimacy, to be removed from sanction lists, and foreign financing to restart the Afghan economy.  These aspirations require the Taliban to live up to their commitments.  At minimum, Afghanistan cannot strengthen its economy unless women are able to participate in all aspect of society without limitations. 

So, we will continue to engage with the Taliban on matters of our interest, for example, on respect for the rights of women and girls and the return of wrongfully detained U.S. citizens.  And that’s how we’re going to move forward with them. 

All right.  We got to go?

AIDE:  Yeah.  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thanks, guys. 

Q    Thank you, Karine.

1:37 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

9:33 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Good evening, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining, especially on such short notice.  As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials.  The contents of this call are embargoed until the completion of the call.

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

We have limited time, so I’ll turn it over to [senior administration officials] for a few words at the top and then take as many questions as we can.

[Senior administration officials], I’ll turn it over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, Eduardo.  Thanks, all, for joining.  And again, I know it’s a late evening and short notice, so appreciate it. 

Over the last 48 hours or so, the President and senior advisors have been engaging with the parties in the conflict along the Israel-Lebanon Blue Line and with partners around the world — both partners in the Gulf and the Middle East, as well as with partners in Europe and Asia — to reach a consensus for a call for a ceasefire that you have seen that we are issuing tonight. 

The ceasefire will be for 21 days, along the Blue Line.  During those 21 days, the parties — we will negotiate towards a potential resolution of the conflict that has been ongoing since Hezbollah launched the attack on October 8th, and to reach a comprehensive agreement along the Blue Line that allows for residents to return to their homes in both Lebanon and Israel. 

This has been an all-out effort by the administration to reach this moment.  We are grateful to both the Israelis and Lebanese government in working tirelessly to get to this moment. 

This is a call for a ceasefire in Lebanon.  During those 21 days, while we’re negotiating in Lebanon and Israel, we will also work with our partners on seeing what we have done over the last several months consistently.  And I’ll let [senior administration official] talk about the negotiations in Gaza. 

But the 21-day ceasefire, I want to stress, is for a ceasefire in Lebanon and across the Blue Line only.  The discussions towards a potential full agreement along the Blue Line will be accompanied also by negotiations in Gaza. 

And I’ll turn it over to [senior administration official] for comment on that. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thank you.  Just briefly to reemphasize, I think this is a very important statement joined by — together with the G7 and together with three of our very close Arab partners with important interests in Lebanon.

As you will see, there is a reference in the joint statement to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2735, which relates to Gaza.  That resolution, just for awareness and reminder, is the three-phase hostage deal that the President laid out in May.  That is what that Security Council resolution emphasized. 

And of course we recognize, and the statement says explicitly, that opening up diplomatic space for these 21 days to pursue the agreement in Lebanon, of course we hope that it might also open up diplomatic space as well to galvanize efforts on the very important primary effort we have to bring the hostages home. 

So that references the three-phase deal that we’ve been working on.  But this is an important breakthrough on the Lebanon side, given all that has gone on there, particularly over the last few weeks.  But, you know, we will try to use the space that it provides wisely on all fronts.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  With that, we have time for a couple of questions.  First up, we’ll go to Zeke Miller. 

Q    Thanks so much.  You just called this a breakthrough.  What assurances do you have from the Israelis and from the Lebanese government and Hezbollah that they will actually accept this temporary ceasefire and that you can actually get a sustainable period of calm, that you can have that diplomatic space that you say you need?  I mean, are you prematurely declaring victory here?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the parties are going to respond for themselves to the call, but I can share that we have had this conversation with the parties and felt this was the right moment to issue the call based on our discussions.  They are familiar with the text.  And again, we’ll let them speak to their actions of accepting the deal in the coming hours.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of MJ Lee.

Q    Hi.  Can you talk to us a little bit about why 21 days?  And also, when you were saying before, “We will negotiate towards” a comprehensive agreement, do you expect that the U.S. will be —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Can you speak up a little bit?  It’s hard to hear you — if you don’t mind. 

Q    Yeah.  When you say “We will negotiate towards” a comprehensive agreement, do you expect that the U.S. is going to be as heavily engaged as you all have been for the duration of those three weeks as you have been in the last couple of days?

And my first question was if you could explain how you got to 21 days for the duration of this recommended ceasefire.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  We — 21 days, really, is we were looking for a period of time that would be a sustained space that was long enough to allow for negotiations in a realistic basis to be able to reach a complicated agreement during that period of time.  So that’s why 21 days.  There’s no real magic formula to it.  It was something that we felt was long enough to sustain it and one that the parties could agree to. 

Second, on the negotiations: Look, over the last several months, since October 8th, we have been engaging consistently with the parties in Lebanon and in Israel to see what we can do to articulate an outline, an agreement that would enable returning to calm and security along that line.  And it was always going to have to be more than just a ceasefire, because it would be unacceptable for Israeli residents to return to their homes in the north if there weren’t security arrangements on the Lebanese side that prevented Hezbollah from sitting on the border and ensuring that they were secure from a October 7th-like attack in the future. 

So, we have had those discussions for quite some time.  We expect to build on those — on the premise of the conversation we’ve had over the last few months, and to turn that into a comprehensive agreement. 

Again, that is the space that we’re creating with this ceasefire.  And then, no guarantees, but we’re hopeful that this will give us the time necessary to achieve it. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just emphasize: The objective is an agreement, along the lines that we’ve been working on, that would give citizens and civilians the confidence, the security arrangements to return to their homes.  That’s an objective we very much share with the Israelis.  We want to see civilians return on both sides of the border.  And the objective is to conclude that agreement within this 21-day period.

MODERATOR:  We have time for two more questions.  Next up, we’ll go to Alex Ward.

Q    Yeah, very quickly, are you now (inaudible) that Israel’s strategy of escalate to deescalate worked because it led to this moment?  And I’ll leave it that.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, we have been clear for a long time that we want to identify moments of opportunity to be able to reach a resolution here.  We have consistently said that, ultimately, a solution to bringing the residents home safely and having the security for a long period of time would only be achievable through a diplomatic solution. 

We believe, regardless of what has happened on the battlefield over the last several days, weeks, the moment we feel is now to achieve that diplomatic resolution to get there.  Military means on their own will not be able to achieve that.  That has been our publicly stated policy, and I think both sides agree with that notion, which is why we are, today, at the moment that we’re in.

MODERATOR:  Our last question will go to David Sanger.

Q    Thanks very much.  I’m trying to understand who you think is going to agree to the 21-day ceasefire.  Do we believe the Hezbollah leadership and Nasrallah is behind this?  Or do we believe, in the end, that he would not sign up for it?  And who would then — what are you hearing from the Israeli government specifically on this? 

What I’m trying to get at is how strongly we should all suggest in our stories that this is going to come to pass and why you think, if it does, it builds you some momentum for Gaza.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I’ll let [senior administration official] answer the last piece on Gaza. 

But, look, we negotiate consistently.  We negotiate and we deal with the sovereign state of Lebanon, with its leadership.  We have been doing that for months.  For the last 48 hours, we have been doing that non-stop, all day and night. 

They are responsible in speaking for the state of Lebanon and for everything that happens on that side of the border.  Who they negotiate with and deal with as far as the non-state actors in Lebanon, that is — I think they’re aware of the responsibility that they have to speak on behalf of the country, for the state. 

So I think you know how this works.  So our expectation is when the government of Lebanon and when the government of Israel both accept this, this will carry and — to be implemented as a ceasefire on both sides of the Blue Line for the period of the 21 days. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just say, David, on — again, this is a deal about Lebanon, so how could it poss- — might it impact the hostage talks?  I don’t want to speculate too much.  I will say a couple things. 

I mean, Sinwar, we know he’s a decision-maker for Hamas.  Obviously, we’ve seen throughout the hostage talks, everything has to go into him.  He also wants a regional war.  That’s something he has basically said in a statement two weeks ago, praising the Houthi ballistic missile attack.  He talked about a long-term war of attrition.  I think he’s been hoping that there’d be a broader, kind of regional conflict and all these other groups would join in.  And frankly, we’ve done an awful lot — an awful lot over the last 11 months to ensure that actually does not happen.  We’ve done that through military means, through diplomatic means, through back-channels and everything else. 

And I think buying some time and space in Lebanon, and particularly if we can conclude this very important agreement — which would benefit the people on both sides of the border, and I think we have a lot of that worked out — it would buy us some time and space to try to pursue an arrangement in Gaza along the lines of the hostage deal we’ve been discussing. 

And if Sinwar understands there is not going to be a broader regional conflict, there really is a choice here: You do the deal, release the hostages, and you get an awful lot of calm in Gaza.  That deal is on the table.  It means that the war stops in Gaza.  It means massive humanitarian relief.  Everything we talked about, that’s very much on the table, kind of ready to go, if we can work out some of the arrangements on the release of hostages and exchange of prisoners. 

So, I mean, we’ll have to see.  But I think this does — it does shake things up, and we’ll try to use the time and space — and that’s why the statement talks about diplomatic space — wisely, again, focused primarily on Lebanon, but we’ll see if it opens up some possibilities on the Gaza side, because we do need to bring the hostages home, and we remain very focused on that. 

I’d say the President, throughout the week here in New York, was focused on this constantly in almost every conversation he had with world leaders.  We had a very important pull-aside this afternoon with President Macron of France, where the President — the two presidents and our teams were able to work out some of the arrangements that we were discussing here throughout the day. 

And of course, President Biden and President Macron issued a joint statement tonight, commensurate with the broader statement by the G7, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. 

So, a lot going on.  Of course, the President remains deeply engaged in this as the days continue, including as we continue the week here in New York.  The President is back in Washington; we’re all here with Tony Blinken, the whole team, to continue to work.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  We’re glad to take your follow-up questions as they come.

As a reminder, this call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and the embargo is now lifted.  Thanks so much for joining.

9:48 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call on the Situation on the Border Between Israel and Lebanon appeared first on The White House.