Feed aggregator

SBA backed over 100,000 small business financings this year—the most in over 15 years

Today, Vice President Harris announced that the Small Business Administration (SBA) provided a record $56 billion through more than 100,000 small business financings in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024—the most in more than 15 years. The Vice President also announced new actions by the Biden-Harris Administration to cut red tape and expand access to Federal contracting opportunities.

“Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. And we know that small business owners need access to capital to hire more employees, grow their businesses, and advance innovation,” said Vice President Harris. “Today I am proud to announce that the U.S. Small Business Administration has made record lending to over 100,000 small businesses in the last year, the most by the agency in over 15 years. When small businesses thrive, our local economies thrive.”

The Biden-Harris Administration has powered a small business boom across the country. Since President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, American entrepreneurs have filed nearly 20 million applications to start new businesses. Business ownership has doubled among Black families and hit a 30-year high for Hispanic families.

While the Biden-Harris Administration doubles down on supporting this small business boom, Congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried to cut SBA’s funding by nearly a third and want to raise taxes and costs for small businesses by repealing Inflation Reduction Act investments.

Building on these efforts to support small businesses, Vice President Harris is announcing:

New Records for Lending to Small Businesses

The SBA released its 2024 Capital Impact Report, showing that the agency increased its lending to small businesses to a record high $56 billion in FY 2024—a 50% increase over FY 2020. Further, SBA provided over 100,000 small business financings last year—the most in over 15 years. Since FY 2020, SBA has increased lending to underserved businesses including a:

• 3x increase in loans to Black-owned businesses
• 2.5x increase in loans to Latino-owned businesses
• 2x increase in loans to women-owned businesses
• 2x increase in small dollar loans (loans of less than $150,000)

Increasing Access to Federal Contracting Opportunities

The SBA is proposing new regulations to increase small business participation on multiple award contracts, a popular buying tool used for over 20 percent of all contracting by the Federal Government. The proposed rule will require agencies to set aside orders made under these contracts when two or more small business contract holders are expected to submit competitive offers. Multiple award contracts allow agencies to meet mission needs in a timely, cost-effective manner by awarding task and delivery orders to contract holders using streamlined competitions.

The SBA proposed rule will require agencies to take steps that make it easier for small businesses to become contract holders on multiple-award contracts where they will then be eligible to compete for task and delivery orders through streamlined competitions. SBA projects that the new rule, if finalized as proposed, will result in up to $6 billion in additional awards to small businesses each year. This new proposed rule will further implement OMB’s January 2024 memo on “Increasing Small Business Participation on Multiple-Award Contracts.” The members of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council will also be proposing regulatory changes in the near future to implement OMB’s guidance and align with SBA’s rulemaking.

Direct Support to Meet Businesses’ Individual Needs

This summer marked the first year of the Capital Readiness Program (CRP), funded by the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)’s State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) and announced by Vice President Harris in August 2023. The CRP is a $125 million investment to help minority and underserved entrepreneurs grow and scale their businesses, the largest-ever direct Federal investment in small business incubators and accelerators of its kind. Today’s data shows the incredible impacts the 43 program awardees have already made in their communities in the first year of the program. Through September 30, 2024, following their efforts to quickly stand-up programs, the 43 awardees have already:

• Enrolled over 6,300 small businesses
• Hosted nearly 2,500 networking events
• Supported the formation of over 2,600 new businesses
• Raised over $260 million in capital for small businesses

Cutting Red Tape for Small Businesses Seeking Federal Contracts

The SBA just launched MySBA Certifications to simplify and streamline certifications for small business Federal contractors. The Biden-Harris Administration committed to using every tool at its disposal to reduce administrative burden for small businesses seeking to compete for Federal contracts. Building on this goal, MySBA Certifications is a one-stop-shop that allows small business owners to apply for multiple certifications with a single application, rather than submitting separate applications for the HUBZone, 8(a), Women Owned, and Veteran Owned Small Business Certification programs. SBA also simplified and modernized its application—using plain language, eliminating redundant questions, and reducing documentation requirements—reducing the time to apply by 40% for a single certification and over 70% for multiple certifications. SBA’s new operational efficiencies will reduce processing times across the programs—meaning firms will receive their decisions more quickly and can begin competing for sole-source and set-aside contracts. In FY 2024, SBA certified more than 17,000 small businesses—a single year record and a nearly 40 percent increase over FY 2023. The agency expects to build on this success with MySBA Certifications and significantly grow the base of certified small business government contractors—helping the Federal Government meet the President’s 15 percent small disadvantaged business goal in FY 2025.

Leveraging Public and Private Capital Through the State Small Business Credit Initiative

The Department of the Treasury plans to release the 2022-2023 SSBCI Annual Report next week, providing additional background on data first previewed in July 2024. SSBCI is a nearly $10 billion program that is providing investment and support to small businesses across the country. Through 2023, SSBCI had already enabled access to $3.1 billion in public and private financing for thousands of small businesses. The report will show that 75% of transactions supported underserved businesses and 78% supported very small business with fewer than 10 employees through the end of 2023.

In 2024, local jurisdictions have continued to leverage partnerships to catalyze SSBCI dollars. Efforts include:

• The Access Small Business program by Calvert Impact: This program leverages funds from SSBCI to bring access to capital and technical assistance to underserved small businesses in New York, New Jersey, Nevada, and Washington State, as well as access to capital markets for community lenders. Partners include the Community Reinvestment Fund, Grow America, and the Urban Investment Group at Goldman Sachs Alternatives.

• The Initiative for Inclusive Entrepreneurship (IIE): IIE is a public-private collaboration to ensure the equitable implementation of SSBCI. IIE’s initial 18-month pilot was incubated by Hyphen, a leading national public-private partnership accelerator. The initiative’s implementation partners include Aspen Institute’s Business Ownership Initiative, Founders First Capital Partners, JumpStart, Mission Driven Finance, Next Street, Nowak Metro Finance Lab, and Scale Link. Across IIE programs, the Initiative deployed over $10 million in direct funding and secured over $177 million in loans, loan matches, grants, and private capital. Additionally, Mission Driven Finance announced the Indigenous Futures Fund, combining a target of $25 million in credit and $2 million in grants to support Tribal SSBCI recipients. Starting in July 2024, the Milken Institute began serving as IIE’s new home.
• Tribal Consortia: In August 2024, SSBCI announced a consortium of 125 Alaska Tribes, the nation’s largest Tribal SSBCI consortium and part of the most expansive investment in small business financing for Tribal governments in history. In total, four Tribal consortium representing 170 Tribes have been awarded $124 million in SSBCI Capital Program funds to support investments in Tribal enterprises and small businesses. Partnerships among Tribal Nations are important to expanding the reach of SSBCI.
• Supportive Business Services: In September and October 2024, Treasury announced 14 awards to 12 states and two Tribal governments through the $75 million Investing in America Small Business Opportunity Program (SBOP). SBOP grantees will provide legal, accounting, and financial advisory services to small businesses in a wide range of industries and will engage at least 34 partners for program deployment.

Developing New Tools to Help Small Businesses Access Capital, Customers, and Technical Assistance

The Interagency Community Investment Committee (ICIC) developed fifteen state-specific small business resource guides, covering over 55 programs offered by nine federal agencies. The guides are intended to help small businesses identify federally-supported sources of capital and technical assistance available in their communities, and help direct businesses to federal contracting and tax resources. ICIC leadership has been conducting a series of virtual events in October with small business owners to talk about the Biden-Harris Administration’s small business programs and these new resource guides.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Vice President Harris Announces Record Lending to Small Businesses in 2024 and New Actions to Cut Red Tape and Expand Contracting Opportunities appeared first on The White House.

SBA backed over 100,000 small business financings this year—the most in over 15 years

Today, Vice President Harris announced that the Small Business Administration (SBA) provided a record $56 billion through more than 100,000 small business financings in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024—the most in more than 15 years. The Vice President also announced new actions by the Biden-Harris Administration to cut red tape and expand access to Federal contracting opportunities.

“Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. And we know that small business owners need access to capital to hire more employees, grow their businesses, and advance innovation,” said Vice President Harris. “Today I am proud to announce that the U.S. Small Business Administration has made record lending to over 100,000 small businesses in the last year, the most by the agency in over 15 years. When small businesses thrive, our local economies thrive.”

The Biden-Harris Administration has powered a small business boom across the country. Since President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, American entrepreneurs have filed nearly 20 million applications to start new businesses. Business ownership has doubled among Black families and hit a 30-year high for Hispanic families.

While the Biden-Harris Administration doubles down on supporting this small business boom, Congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried to cut SBA’s funding by nearly a third and want to raise taxes and costs for small businesses by repealing Inflation Reduction Act investments.

Building on these efforts to support small businesses, Vice President Harris is announcing:

New Records for Lending to Small Businesses

The SBA released its 2024 Capital Impact Report, showing that the agency increased its lending to small businesses to a record high $56 billion in FY 2024—a 50% increase over FY 2020. Further, SBA provided over 100,000 small business financings last year—the most in over 15 years. Since FY 2020, SBA has increased lending to underserved businesses including a:

• 3x increase in loans to Black-owned businesses
• 2.5x increase in loans to Latino-owned businesses
• 2x increase in loans to women-owned businesses
• 2x increase in small dollar loans (loans of less than $150,000)

Increasing Access to Federal Contracting Opportunities

The SBA is proposing new regulations to increase small business participation on multiple award contracts, a popular buying tool used for over 20 percent of all contracting by the Federal Government. The proposed rule will require agencies to set aside orders made under these contracts when two or more small business contract holders are expected to submit competitive offers. Multiple award contracts allow agencies to meet mission needs in a timely, cost-effective manner by awarding task and delivery orders to contract holders using streamlined competitions.

The SBA proposed rule will require agencies to take steps that make it easier for small businesses to become contract holders on multiple-award contracts where they will then be eligible to compete for task and delivery orders through streamlined competitions. SBA projects that the new rule, if finalized as proposed, will result in up to $6 billion in additional awards to small businesses each year. This new proposed rule will further implement OMB’s January 2024 memo on “Increasing Small Business Participation on Multiple-Award Contracts.” The members of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council will also be proposing regulatory changes in the near future to implement OMB’s guidance and align with SBA’s rulemaking.

Direct Support to Meet Businesses’ Individual Needs

This summer marked the first year of the Capital Readiness Program (CRP), funded by the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)’s State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) and announced by Vice President Harris in August 2023. The CRP is a $125 million investment to help minority and underserved entrepreneurs grow and scale their businesses, the largest-ever direct Federal investment in small business incubators and accelerators of its kind. Today’s data shows the incredible impacts the 43 program awardees have already made in their communities in the first year of the program. Through September 30, 2024, following their efforts to quickly stand-up programs, the 43 awardees have already:

• Enrolled over 6,300 small businesses
• Hosted nearly 2,500 networking events
• Supported the formation of over 2,600 new businesses
• Raised over $260 million in capital for small businesses

Cutting Red Tape for Small Businesses Seeking Federal Contracts

The SBA just launched MySBA Certifications to simplify and streamline certifications for small business Federal contractors. The Biden-Harris Administration committed to using every tool at its disposal to reduce administrative burden for small businesses seeking to compete for Federal contracts. Building on this goal, MySBA Certifications is a one-stop-shop that allows small business owners to apply for multiple certifications with a single application, rather than submitting separate applications for the HUBZone, 8(a), Women Owned, and Veteran Owned Small Business Certification programs. SBA also simplified and modernized its application—using plain language, eliminating redundant questions, and reducing documentation requirements—reducing the time to apply by 40% for a single certification and over 70% for multiple certifications. SBA’s new operational efficiencies will reduce processing times across the programs—meaning firms will receive their decisions more quickly and can begin competing for sole-source and set-aside contracts. In FY 2024, SBA certified more than 17,000 small businesses—a single year record and a nearly 40 percent increase over FY 2023. The agency expects to build on this success with MySBA Certifications and significantly grow the base of certified small business government contractors—helping the Federal Government meet the President’s 15 percent small disadvantaged business goal in FY 2025.

Leveraging Public and Private Capital Through the State Small Business Credit Initiative

The Department of the Treasury plans to release the 2022-2023 SSBCI Annual Report next week, providing additional background on data first previewed in July 2024. SSBCI is a nearly $10 billion program that is providing investment and support to small businesses across the country. Through 2023, SSBCI had already enabled access to $3.1 billion in public and private financing for thousands of small businesses. The report will show that 75% of transactions supported underserved businesses and 78% supported very small business with fewer than 10 employees through the end of 2023.

In 2024, local jurisdictions have continued to leverage partnerships to catalyze SSBCI dollars. Efforts include:

• The Access Small Business program by Calvert Impact: This program leverages funds from SSBCI to bring access to capital and technical assistance to underserved small businesses in New York, New Jersey, Nevada, and Washington State, as well as access to capital markets for community lenders. Partners include the Community Reinvestment Fund, Grow America, and the Urban Investment Group at Goldman Sachs Alternatives.

• The Initiative for Inclusive Entrepreneurship (IIE): IIE is a public-private collaboration to ensure the equitable implementation of SSBCI. IIE’s initial 18-month pilot was incubated by Hyphen, a leading national public-private partnership accelerator. The initiative’s implementation partners include Aspen Institute’s Business Ownership Initiative, Founders First Capital Partners, JumpStart, Mission Driven Finance, Next Street, Nowak Metro Finance Lab, and Scale Link. Across IIE programs, the Initiative deployed over $10 million in direct funding and secured over $177 million in loans, loan matches, grants, and private capital. Additionally, Mission Driven Finance announced the Indigenous Futures Fund, combining a target of $25 million in credit and $2 million in grants to support Tribal SSBCI recipients. Starting in July 2024, the Milken Institute began serving as IIE’s new home.
• Tribal Consortia: In August 2024, SSBCI announced a consortium of 125 Alaska Tribes, the nation’s largest Tribal SSBCI consortium and part of the most expansive investment in small business financing for Tribal governments in history. In total, four Tribal consortium representing 170 Tribes have been awarded $124 million in SSBCI Capital Program funds to support investments in Tribal enterprises and small businesses. Partnerships among Tribal Nations are important to expanding the reach of SSBCI.
• Supportive Business Services: In September and October 2024, Treasury announced 14 awards to 12 states and two Tribal governments through the $75 million Investing in America Small Business Opportunity Program (SBOP). SBOP grantees will provide legal, accounting, and financial advisory services to small businesses in a wide range of industries and will engage at least 34 partners for program deployment.

Developing New Tools to Help Small Businesses Access Capital, Customers, and Technical Assistance

The Interagency Community Investment Committee (ICIC) developed fifteen state-specific small business resource guides, covering over 55 programs offered by nine federal agencies. The guides are intended to help small businesses identify federally-supported sources of capital and technical assistance available in their communities, and help direct businesses to federal contracting and tax resources. ICIC leadership has been conducting a series of virtual events in October with small business owners to talk about the Biden-Harris Administration’s small business programs and these new resource guides.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Vice President Harris Announces Record Lending to Small Businesses in 2024 and New Actions to Cut Red Tape and Expand Contracting Opportunities appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Hello.  Can you all hear me?

MODERATOR:  We can, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Hi.  Thanks.  Pat Tucker from Defense One.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Teleconference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Hello.  Can you all hear me?

MODERATOR:  We can, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Hi.  Thanks.  Pat Tucker from Defense One.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

In particular, the NSM directs critical actions to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advance international consensus and governance around AI:

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

In particular, the NSM directs critical actions to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advance international consensus and governance around AI:

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Sun Center Studios
Chester Township, Pennsylvania

9:00 P.M. EDT

MR. COOPER:  Good evening.  Only 13 days to go in one of the most momentous and unusual presidential races in American history. 

Tonight, Kamala Harris faces voters in the biggest battleground prize: Pennsylvania.  CNN Presidential Town Hall begins right now. 

And welcome.  We are live from Chester Township, Pennsylvania, Delaware County, one of the critical counties around Philadelphia that will help determine who wins the White House. 

Welcome to CNN’s Presidential Town Hall with the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris.  I’m Anderson Cooper. 

Now, in this room, we have assembled a group of 32 Pennsylvania voters who say they are still undecided or persuadable.  All of them are registered to vote.  Some cast votes for Joe Biden in 2020, others for Donald Trump.  Some didn’t vote at all.  And for some, this is their first election.  Many are leaning right now to one candidate or another, but they all say they have yet to make their final choice. 

Now we found these voters working with a nonpartisan research firm as well as business and religious groups, universities, and other civic organizations.  These voters are asking their own questions tonight, selected by CNN to cover a variety of topics. 

You may see them holding a piece of paper when they’re asking their question.  It has their question on it.  That is a question they have come up with.  It has not been edited in any way by CNN. 

We also invited former President Donald Trump to participate in a town hall or a debate.  He declined. 

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Vice President Kamala Harris.  (Applause.)

(The Vice President enters the stage.)

Madam Vice President, thank you.  Appreciate it.  Thanks.  You have a mic right here. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 

     MR. COOPER:  Thank you so much —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good evening, everyone.  Good evening. 

MR. COOPER:  Thank you so much for being with us.  We’re going to get to the audience in just a second. 

I want to start by asking you, though — for weeks, you have been calling Donald Trump “unstable,” “unhinged.”  You’ve called him “dangerous.”  You quoted General Milley recently, who called him a “fascist.”

Today, you quoted General Kelly, who said that Trump repeatedly praised Hitler.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MR. COOPER:  But there are tens of millions of Americans right now who have heard all those things, and they don’t buy it or, even if they do, they’re still going to vote for Donald Trump. 

He’s arguably more popular now than ever.  You have 13 days to go.  What do you say to those voters to convince them? Because some of them are in this room.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Sure, and I — I thank you all for taking the time to be here.  And you could be doing a number of other things with your time, so this really is proof that we love our country.  People are engaged, Anderson, and really want to talk about the issues. 

And so, the issue that you raise — yes, I do believe that Donald Trump is unstable — increasingly unstable and unfit to serve. 

And I don’t necessarily think that everyone has heard what you and I have heard repeatedly, which is the people who know Donald Trump best, the people who worked with him in the White House, in the Situation Room, in the Oval Office — all Republicans, by the way, who served in his administration — his former chief of staff, his national security advisor, former secretaries of Defense, and his vice president have all called him unfit and dangerous. 

They have said, explicitly, he has contempt for the Constitution of the United States.  They have said he should never again serve as president of the United States.  We know that is why Mike Pence is not running with him again, why the job was empty. 

And then, today, we learned that John Kelly, a four-star Marine general, who was his longest-serving chief of staff, gave an interview recently, in the last two weeks of this election, talking about how dangerous Donald Trump is. 

And I think one has to think about: Why would someone who served with him, who is not political — a four-star Marine general — why is he telling the American people now?  And frankly, I think of it as — as he’s just putting out a 911 call to the American people. 

Understand what could happen if Donald Trump were back in the White House.  And this time, we must take very seriously those folks who knew him best and who were career people are not going to be there to hold him back.  At least, before, there were folks who — we know what he would say, but they would restrain him. 

Imagine now Donald Trump in the Oval Office, in the Situation Room — he who has openly admired dictators, said he would be a dictator on day one.  The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said he is a “fascist to the core.”

 So, I think that when the American people reflect, especially those who are undecided, on who you should listen to, don’t take my word for it.  In fact, go online and listen to John Kelly — his voice — talking about what he thinks of Donald Trump two weeks before the election. 

Because I think we all know — to your point, Anderson — it is close, but there are undecided voters who clearly, by being here, have an open mind, want to talk in a way that is abou- — grounded in issues and fact. 

And when they hear these facts, I think it compels a lot of people to be concerned about the future of our country with Donald Trump at the lead.

You’ve quoted General Milley calling Donald Trump a “fascist.”  You yourself have not used that word to describe him. 

Let me ask you tonight: Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I do.  Yes, I do.

And I — and I also believe that the people who know him best on this subject should be trusted.  Again, look at their careers.  These are not people — with the exception, I think, of only Mike Pence, these were not politicians. 

These are career people who have served in — in the highest roles in national security, who have served as generals in our military, who are highly respected, talking about the person who would be commander in chief, not to mention what we know and what they’ve told us about he talks — how he talks about the military, servicemen and women, referring to them as “suckers” and “losers.”  How he — he demeans people who have taken an oath to sacrifice their life for our country. 

And I do believe, Anderson, that part of this is why, even just this week, I traveled this state and others with Liz Cheney, former congressmember who was very a high-ranking Republican.  She has endorsed me.  Her father, the former vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, is voting for me.  Over 400 members of — previous members of the administration — from Ronald Reagan to both Presidents Bush to Donald Trump — even have endorsed my candidacy.

And the reason why, among them, is a legitimate fear, based on Donald Trump’s words and actions, that he will not obey an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  He himself has said he would terminate the Constitution of the United States and wants to earn your vote to stand again behind the seal of the president of the United States.

No one standing behind the seal of the president of the United States of America should be in that position saying they want to terminate the Constitution of the United States. 

MR. COOPER:  Let’s get to some of our voters. 

This is a — I want you to meet a registered Republican who’s very concerned about Trump’s views on democracy and January 6th.  She told us she’s looking for a reason to vote for you, but is yet to make her final decision. 

Her name is Natasha Kwiatkowski.  She’s a student at Bryn Mawr College. 

What’s your question, Natasha?

     Q    Awesome.  Thank you for being here and thank you for taking my question.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Natasha. 

     Q    And as someone who hasn’t fully committed to either party, how do you plan to address the concerns of independent voters and anti-Trump Republicans like myself who feel left out of the polarized political landscape?  And what specific actions would you take to bridge the political divide and create more unity?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  That’s a wonderful question.  I pledge to you to be a president for all Americans.  And I think, to the point and the spirit of your question, that people are frankly exhausted with what has been happening over the last several years, which is this environment that is suggesting that Americans should be pointing fingers at one another, that we are divided as a nation, instead of what I think you and I — I will speak for us, I think — who believe and know the vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us. 

And I think that the American people deserve to have a president who is grounded in what is common sense, what is practical, and what is in the best interest of the people, not themselves. 

 I started my career as a prosecutor.  And I will tell you, I never in my career — and most of my career was outside of Washington, D.C., by the way.  Only four years, when I was in the Senate, were in Washington, other than being vice president. 

I have never, in my career as a prosecutor, asked a victim or a witness of a crime, “Are you a Democrat or Republican?”  The only thing I have ever asked is “Are you okay?”

And I do believe that is what the American people deserve in their president and not someone who makes decisions based on who voted for them or what is in their personal interest. 

And I reference that because, as we know, it has been revealed that Donald Trump, when he was president, during extreme disasters, when it came time to determine how those areas — those people who had been traumatized by extreme weather would get relief, he asked the question: Did they vote for him?

I believe the American people deserve better, and they deserve a president who is focused on solutions, not sitting in the Oval Office plotting their revenge and retribution. 

MR. COOPER:  Let me introduce you to Erik Svendsen.  He runs a service desk for an IT company in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.  He’s registered as a libertarian, describes himself as an independent.  He says he’s undecided. 

     Erik.

     Q    Thank you, Anderson.  Thank you both for being here. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Erik. 

     Q    So, my question is concerning groceries. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

Q    Grocery prices have gone up quite a bit in the last four years, and some people blame former President Trump.  Some people blame President Biden.  Who would you say is correct?  And what would you do to bring prices down for Americans?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Erik.  And you’re absolutely right.  You know it.  I know it.  I think most Americans know it.  The price of groceries is still too high, and we need to address it in a number of ways. 

One of my aspects of doing what we need to do to bring down the cost of living for working people and the middle class in America is to address the issue of grocery prices. 

Part of my background and how I come to it is probably a new approach, grounded in a lot of my experiences as a former attorney general, where I took on price gouging.  And part of my plan is to create a new approach that is the first time that we will have a national ban on price gouging, which is companies taking advantage of the desperation and need of the American consumer and jacking up prices without any consequence or accountability. 

So, that is one way.  But to your point, Erik, there — you know, there are a number of issues that we need to address in terms of bringing down the cost of living.  It includes what we need as a — really, a new approach that I bring to the — the issue of affordable housing, including, for example, rent. 

And again, I bring to it my experience, knowing what has been happening in terms of how corporations have been buying up blocks of property to diminish competition, and then rents get jacked up, and addressing that both in terms of making sure that there is a consequence and accountability for that but also investing in people’s dreams of homeownership, you know, knowing that for too long, frankly, both administrations — I mean both administrations and both parties, Democrats and Republicans — haven’t done enough to deal with the issue of housing. 

And we need a new approach that includes working with the private sector — I say that as a — as a devout public servant — working with the private sector to cut through the red tape, working with homebuilders, working with developers to create tax incentives so that we can create more housing supply and bring down the price. 

MR. COOPER:  Let me just ask you about price gouging.  I looked at your plan.  You talked about going after price gougers — and I’m quoting from the plan — “on essential goods during emergencies or times of crisis.”

I get that.  How does that help, though, someone like Erik with prices that, for years, the groceries prices have just been high?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, Anderson, as you know — and obviously CNN has been covering extensively what has been happening in the state of Georgia, North Carolina, Florida — it’s a real issue. 

I — I was attorney general of California.  I was the top law enforcement officer of the biggest state in the country.  I took this issue on because it affects a lot of people.  And I’m not going to apologize for the fact that we need to actually deal with accountability when these — not all — in fact, most don’t — but when companies are taking advantage of the desperation and the need of the American people.

We saw it actually during the pandemic as well, where, because of supply chain issues, we — there was a reduction of supply and then they would inflate the price of everyday necessities — not to mention, by the way, again, Donald Trump should be here tonight to talk with you and answer your questions.  He’s not.  He refused to come. 

But understand that part of his plan is to put in place a national sales tax of at least 20 percent on everyday goods and necessities.  And that, by economists’ estimates — independent economists — would cost you, as the American consumer and taxpayer, an additional $4,000 a year. 

MR. COOPER:  I want you to meet Carol Nackenoff, a political science professor at Swarthmore College.  She’s a registered Democrat who says she’s leaning toward voting for you, has yet to make her final decision. 

     Carol.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hi, Carol.  Thank you.

     Q    Good evening. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good evening.

     Q    Thank you for visiting us in Delaware County —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Of course.

     Q    — Vice President Harris.

My question is this.  If you could accomplish only one major policy goal that required congressional action, what would it be and why?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, there’s not just one.  I have to be honest with you, Carol.  There’s a lot of work that needs to happen.

But let’s — let’s — I think that maybe part of this point that I — how I think about it is we’ve got to get past this era of politics and partisan politics slowing down what we need to do in terms of progress in our country.  And that means working across the aisle. 

 I’ve done that before.  We did it around — whether it be what we were able to accomplish with the bipartisan infrastructure deal or some of the work that we have done in terms of dealing with gun safety.

But we’ve got to work across the aisle, and it is my commitment to work with Democrats, with Republicans, with independents to deal with a number of issues, whether it be what we need to do in terms of housing and creating legislation that creates incentives for that; what we need to do to reinstate the freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do; whether it be what we need to do to actually invest in a substantial way in the industries of the future, in American-based manufacturing, in American-based industries where American workers and union workers have those jobs in a way that is good-paying jobs that gives people the dignity they deserve. 

All of those areas, I plan on working across the aisle and with Congress, including the issue of immigration, which we’ve got to fix. 

MR. COOPER:  Let me ask you.  You’ve talked about codifying Roe v. Wade.  That would obviously require 60 votes in — in the Senate, a majority of the House.  That’s a big — that’s a big leap.  You don’t — we don’t have that yet.  If that’s not possible, to codify it in the House, what do you do?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I think we need to take a look at the filibuster, to be honest with you.

But the — the reality of it is this.  Let’s talk about how we got here.  When Donald Trump was president, he hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe v. Wade, and they did as he intended.  And now, in 20 states, we have Trump abortion bans that include punishing health care providers, doctors, and nurses. 

In Texas, you know, they provide for prison for life for a health care provider for doing the job that they believe is in the best interest of their patient. 

 J- — laws — Trump abortion bans, some that make no exception even for rape or incest. 

One of the areas I special in as a pro- — specialized in as a prosecutor was crimes against women and children.  The idea you would tell a survivor of a violation to their body that they have no right to make a decision about what happens to their body next?  This is what’s happening in our country. 

You all may have heard the stories.  Women have died.  Women have died because of these laws. 

And the suffering — I have to say, Anderson, traveling — for example, again, I was with Liz Cheney this week.  She is unapologetically pro-life and will also tell you that she doesn’t agree with what’s been happening. 

I find that many people I’ve met who are pro-life have said to me, “You know, I didn’t intend that this would happen.  I would — I didn’t intend that women who are suffering a miscarriage would develop sepsis,” as has happened many times.  “I didn’t intend that women would die.  I didn’t intend that there would now be restrictions on access to in vitro fertilization.  I didn’t intend that there would be an effort to limit access to contraception.”

So, you know, this is probably one of the most fundamental freedoms that we as Americans could imagine, which is the freedom to literally make decisions about your own body. 

And on some issues, I think we’ve got to agree that partisanship should be put aside.  And I’ll close with this point: I know it is possible because when you look at the midterms, in so-called red states and so-called blue states, when this issue of freedom was on the ballot, the American people voted for freedom. 

 MR. COOPER:  This is Leanne Griffiths.  She’s registered with no party affiliation.  She’s a student at the University of Pennsylvania.  She says she’s leaning towards supporting you, has yet to make up a final decision because she isn’t sure who’s better for the economy. 

     Leanne.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     Q    Hi, Vice President.  Thank you for being here today.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Of course.

     Q    Considering you have been in the position of vice president for the past four years under the Biden administration, how can we expect you to deviate from the direction of that administration compared to your own?  How can we differentiate your policy and your beliefs from that of Biden’s?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  That’s a great question.  And thank you. 

Well, first of all, my administration will not be a continuation of the Biden administration.  I bring to this role my own ideas and my own experience.  I represent a new generation of leadership on a number of issues and believe that we have to actually take new approaches. 

For example, what we talked about in terms of housing, I — my experience that leads to that priority includes what I did to take on the big banks around the foreclosure crisis when I brought billions of dollars to homeowners that were the subject of predatory lending. 

I know what homeownership means to the American people, not to mention what it meant to my mother, who worked very hard and saved up so that by the time I was a teenager, she was able to buy our first home. 

I bring to it my experience actually taking care of my mother when she was sick, and it was — as it turned out, dying from cancer.  And so, I know what it means and have the experience of taking care of an elderly relative, and I have raised children. 

And so, I bring, too, my priorities and will, as president, a new approach and a new idea, frankly, about what we need to do to deal with the sandwich generation, which is what we call those folks who are literally in the middle, who are raising their young children and taking care of their parents, which is why my plan and approach says, “Hey, you shouldn’t have to — to wipe out all your savings to qualify for Medicaid to be able to get support, to hire somebody to help you cook for your parent or help them put on a sweater.”  I’ve done that.  I know what that requires. 

You shouldn’t have to quit your job in order to do the work that is necessary to take care of your children and your parent, because it’s overwhelming to try to do it all.  And so, my plan is to have and allow Medicare to cover the cost of home health care for our seniors. 

These are a couple of examples, including what we talked about in terms of price gouging and what we need to do in addition — and it’s a new approach that I think is well overdue — let’s invest in the small businesses of America. 

I — I — the woman who helped raise us was a small-business owner.  I know who small-business owners are.  I know what they do.  They are the backbone of America’s economy, and for too long, we’ve overlooked their value to the economy as a whole, much less to the economy of neighborhoods and communities. 

So, that’s why my plan — and it’s a new approach — is about tax cuts for our small businesses so that they can invest in themselves and grow and, in the process, invest in communities, invest in neighborhoods, and strengthen our economy overall. 

So, those are some examples.  It’s about a new approach, a new generation of leadership based on new ideas and, frankly, different experiences. 

I bring a whole set of different experiences to this job and the way I think about it —

MR. COOPER:  Some — some —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — than — than Joe Biden.

MR. COOPER:  Some voters, though, might ask: You’ve been in the White House for — for four years.  You were vice president, not the president, but why wasn’t any of that done over the last four years?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, there was a lot that was done, but there’s more to do, Anderson.  And — and I am pointing out things that need to be done that haven’t been done but need to be done.  And I’m not going to shy away from saying, “Hey, these are still problems that we need to fix.” 

MR. COOPER:  I want you to meet Jaxon Weiss.  He’s a student at Drexel University from Flourtown, Pennsylvania; registered Republican, says he’s leaning toward voting for you, but has yet to make up a final decision. 

     Jaxon.

     Q    Thank you, Anderson.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hi, Jaxon.

     Q    Thank you for taking the time to be here, too, Vice President Harris.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  You too.  Thank you.

     Q    Regarding the rapid increase in the migrant population, how will you ensure that every immigrant is integrated into American society safely?  What benefits and subsidies will you provide them with?  And how long will these benefits and subsidies last for an individual?  Most importantly, will the American citizens’ taxes pay for these benefits and subsidies?  And if so, how much mon- — how much money will be allocated?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you, Jaxon.  Let’s start with this.  America’s immigration system is broken, and it needs to be fixed, and it’s been broken for a long time.  And part of what we need to do is always prioritize what we need to do to strengthen our border. 

I will tell you, I’m the only person in this race, among the two choices that voters have — I have personally prosecuted transnational criminal organizations in the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.  I have spent a significant part of my career making sure that our border is secure and that we do not allow criminals in and we don’t allow that kind of trafficking to happen and come into our country. 

And as the — as my opponent has proven himself, he would prefer to run on the problem instead of fix the problem.  You may know, there were some of the most conservative members of the United States Congress, working with others, that came up with a border security bill that would have put 1,500 more border agents at the border.  Those boarder agents are overwhelmed.  They need the support.  They need the backup. 

It would have allowed us to have more resources to stem the flow of fentanyl.  I don’t need to tell this state and people around the country what is happening in terms of the scourge of fentanyl and how it is literally killing Americans. 

It would have put resources into stemming the flow.  It would have given more resources to prosecute — to investigate and prosecute transnational criminal organizations.  It would have done a lot of good. 

Donald Trump got wind of the bill and told them, “Don’t put it forward.”  He killed the bill because he’d prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. 

We have to have a secure border, and we have to have a comprehensive pathway for citizenship. 

MR. COOPER:  Le- — let me —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And that includes requiring people — hardworking people to earn citizenship and do it in a comprehensive, humane, and orderly manner. 

MR. COOPER:  Let me ask you about that.  I mean, you talk about the bill that Donald Trump quashed.  That was in 2024.  You talk about the bill he tried to get passed in 2021.  That wasn’t able to get passed.  2022, 2023 —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

MR. COOPER:  — there were record border crossings.  You — your administration took a number — hundreds of executive actions.  It didn’t stem the flow.  Numbers kept going up. 

Finally, in 2024, just in June, three weeks before the la- — the first presidential debate with Joe Biden, you institute executive actions that had a dramatic impact, really shut down people crossing over.  Why didn’t your administration do that in 2022, 2023?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  First of all, you’re exactly right, Anderson.  And as of today, we have cut the flow of immigration by over half.  In fact, the numbers I saw most recently, illegal immigration is low- —

     MR. COOPER:  But if it was that easy —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  But hold on.  Let me finish.  Let me —

     MR. COOPER:  — with that executive action, why not do it in —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well —

     MR. COOPER:  — 2022, 2023?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — because we were working with Congress and hoping that, actually, we could have a long-term fix to the problem instead of a short-term fix. 

MR. COOPER:  You couldn’t have done one and the — both at the same time? 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, here’s the thing.  We have to understand that ultimately this problem is going to be fixed through congressional action.  Congress has the authority and the purse — I — I hate to use D.C. terms, but, literally, they write the checks. 

Part of the issue is in order to really fix the problem at the border — I was just at the border recently talking with border agents.  You know what they talk about?  Yes, they are overwhelmed.  They’re working around the clock.  And the other thing that they talk to me about: We need more judges down there to deal with asylum claims.  We need more personnel down there to deal with processing.

A- — but, Anderson — and that’s where Congress kicks in, in terms of dedicating the resources to actually fixing the problem. 

We have dealt with it such that, to your point, we now, as of today, as of our — our visit, have lower undocumented immigrants and illegal immigration than Trump when he left office. 

MR. COOPER:  That — that’s true —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  But we need a permanent solution, and that requires —

MR. COOPER:  Do you wish you had done that —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — bipartisan work.

MR. COOPER:  Do you wish you had done those executive orders in 2022, 2023?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I think we did the right thing, and — but the best thing that can happen for the American people is that we have bipartisan work happening.  And I pledge to you that I will work across the aisle to fix this long-standing problem. 

I think the American people are demanding it —

MR. COOPER:  Yeah.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — on both sides of the aisle, and it’s time we actually put the partisan approach to this aside.  We know what can work.

MR. COOPER:  Well, let’s talk about this compromise bill you — that you want to pass if you are elected.  You said that’s going to be a priority.  It includes $650 million in funding for the border wall.  That’s something Republicans wanted.  That was part of the compromise.

Under Donald Trump, you criticized the wall more than 50 times.  You called it “stupid,” “useless,” and a “medieval vanity project.”  Is a border wall stupid? 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, let’s talk about Donald Trump and that border wall.  (Laughs.)  So, remember Donald Trump said Mexico would pay for it?  Come on.  They didn’t.  How much of that wall did he build?  I think the last number I saw was about 2 percent.  And then, when it came time for him to do a photo op, you know where he did it?  In the part of the wall that President Obama built. 

MR. COOPER:  But you’re agreeing —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, come on.  (Laughs.)

MR. COOPER:  — to a bill that would earmark $650 million to continue building that wall.

 THE VICE PRESIDENT:  We — I — I pledge that I’m going to bring forward that bipartisan bill to further strengthen and secure our border.  Yes, I am.

MR. COOPER:  But —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And I’m going to work across the aisle to pass com- — a comprehensive bill that deals with a broken immigration system. 

I think Jaxon’s question, part of it, was to acknowledge that America has always had migration, but there needs to be a legal process for it.  People have to earn it. 

     MR. COOPER:  Right.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And that’s the point that, I think, is the most important point that can be made, which is we need a president who is grounded in common sense and practical outcomes.  Like, let’s just fix this thing.  Let’s just fix it.  Why is there any ideological perspective on — let’s just fix the problem. 

MR. COOPER:  To fix the problem, you’re — you’re doing this compromise bill.  It does call for $650 million that was earmarked under Trump to actually still go to build the wall.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I am not afraid of good ideas where the occur, Anderson.

MR. COOPER:  You do- — so, you don’t think it’s “stupid” anymore? 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I think what he did and how he did it did — was — did not make much sense, because he actually didn’t do much of anything.  I just t- — talked about that wall, right?  (Laughs.)  We just talked about it.  He didn’t actually do much of anything.

MR. COOPER:  But you do want to build some wall?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I want to strengthen our border.

MR. COOPER:  This is Annalise Kean.  She’s from Philadelphia.  She works as a fundraiser for Habitat for Humanity.  She’s registered with no party affiliation.  She says she’s a Democrat.  She’s leaning toward voting for you but said she’s yet to make her final decision, in part because of the conflict in the Middle East. 

     Annalise. 

     Q    Thank you.  And good evening, Madam Vice President.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good evening.

     Q    My question is, as president, what would you do to ensure not another Palestinian dies due to bombs being funded by U.S. tax dollars?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, I will say — and I think this is to your point — far too many innocent Palestinian civilians have been killed.  It’s unconscionable.  And we are now at a place where, with Sinwar’s death, I do believe we have an opportunity to end this war, bring the hostages home, bring relief to the Palestinian people, and work toward a two-state solution where Israel and the Palestinians in equal measure have security, where the Palestinian people have dignity, self-determination, and the safety they — that they so rightly deserve. 

MR. COOPER:  What — what do you say to voters who are thinking about supporting a third-party candidate or staying on the couch, not voting at all because of this issue?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Listen, I am not going to deny the strong feelings that people have.  I don’t know that anyone who has seen the images who would not have strong feelings about what has happened, much less those who have relatives who have died and been killed.  And I — and I know people and have talked with people, so I appreciate that. 

But I also do know that, for many people who care about this issue, they also care about bringing down the price of groceries.  They also care about our democracy and not having a president of the United States who admires dictators and is a fascist. 

They also care about the fact that we need practical, commonsense solutions from a leader who is willing to work across the aisle on behalf of the American people and not themselves.

P- — they want a president who cares about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body, understanding that we’re not trying to change anyone’s belief, but let’s not have the government telling women what to do with their body. 

MR. COOPER:  I want you to meet Beth Samberg.  She’s a realtor, a mom of four from Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.  She’s a registered Democrat.  Says she’s undecided because of concerns about antisemitism. 

     Beth.

     Q    Hi.  Thank you for being here.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Beth. 

     Q    Thank you for remembering we need to bring the hostages home. 
    
     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Of course.

     Q    The rise of antisemitism and violence from — the rise of antisemitism and violence from antisemitism has risen greatly on college campuses and on our city streets in the last year.  How would you combat this growing trend and protect our young adults?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Beth.  You are right, and I will say that we have seen a rise in antisemitism.  It is something that we have to be honest about and we have to deal with. 

As attorney general, I actually published a hate crimes report on a regular basis, and antisemitism was among the highest forms of hate in our country.  And this was before October 7, and we know what we’ve seen since.

Part of what we’ve got to do is talk with people so that they understand what are the tropes, what are the — the roots of — of what we are seeing so that we can actually have people be more understanding. 

 We need to have laws in place that make those who would commit crimes on behalf of antisemitism and hate — that they pay a serious consequence. 

 We need to have the deterrent so that doesn’t happen.  We need to ensure that college students are safe in their school and feel safe to be able to go to class.

But I’m going to tell you what doesn’t help.  Again, I invite you to listen and — go online to listen to John Kelly, the former chief of staff of Donald Trump, who has told us Donald Trump said, “Why” — essentially, “Why aren’t my generals like those of Hitler’s?”  Like Hitler.  Who has referred several times — we’ve heard the reports for years.

MR. COOPER:  Do you believe Donald Trump is antisemitic?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I believe Donald Trump is a danger to the well-being and security of America.

MR. COOPER:  He has said that he — he’s casting himself as a protector of Israel.  Do you believe you would be more pro-Israel than Donald Trump?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I believe that Donald Trump is dangerous.  I believe that when you have a president of the United States who has said to his generals who work for him, because he is commander in chief — these conversations, I assume, many of them took place in the Oval Office — and if the president of the United States, the commander in chief, is saying to his generals, in essence, “Why can’t you be more like Hitler’s generals” — Anderson, come on.  This is a serious, serious issue.

And we know who he is.  He admires dictators, sending love letters back and forth with Kim Jong Un; talks about the president of Russia.  And then, most recently, the reports are that in the height of COVID, when most Americans could not get their hands on a COVID test — Americans were dying by the hundreds a day — he secretly sent COVID tests to the president of Russia for his personal use.

So, again, there — thi- — this election in 13 days is presenting the American people with a very significant decision.  And on the one side, on this issue of who is going to model what it means to use the bully pulpit of the president of the United States in a manner that in tone, word, and deed is about lifting up our discourse, fighting against hate, as opposed to fanning the flames of hate, which Donald Trump does consistently — I — I’m going to tell you, we are an incredible country, and we love our country.  You all wouldn’t be here unless we love our country.  And there are certain things where we’ve just got to come together and realize that — that we do believe in the importance of healthy debate on real issues, but there are certain standards we’ve got to have.

And, you know, another point that even John Kelly talked about, I — I believe, and many have, is January 6th, where you have the president of the United States defying the will of the people in a free and fair election and unleashing a violent mob who attacked the United States Capitol.  A hundred and forty law enforcement officers were attacked; some were killed. 

And so, I say that to say: The American people deserve to have a president who encourages healthy debate; works across the aisle; not afraid of good ideas, wherever they come from; but also maintains certain standards about how we think about the role and the responsibility; and certainly not comparing oneself, in a clearly admiring way, to Hitler.

MR. COOPER:  We’re going to take a — a quick break.  We’ll have more from the CNN Presidential Town Hall with Vice President Kamala Harris.

(Commercial break.)

And we are back with Vice President Kamala Harris. 

I want to ask you about something I read.  I read that the fir- — one of the first phone calls you made after President Biden announced that he was dropping out was to your pastor.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

MR. COOPER:  And I’m wondering, if it wasn’t a confessional, if you could say what that conversation was like.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, my pastor, Reverend Dr. Amos C. Brown of Third Baptist Church —

It was — it was an extraordinary day, that Sunday, when the president called me.  And I — I instinctively understood the gravity of the moment, the seriousness of the moment.  I didn’t predict or know exactly how that day would play out.  And obviously, now it’s been three months since I’ve been at the top of the ticket — actually, three months as of yesterday.

But I just called him.  I — I needed that spiritual kind of connection.  I needed that advice.  I needed a prayer.  And — and there’s a — there’s a part of the scripture that talks about Esther and “a time such as this.”  And — and that’s what we talked about, and it was very comforting for me.  And — and —

MR. COOPER:  Do you pray every day?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I do pray every day.  I do pray every day, sometimes twice a day.

I — you know, my — I grew up — so, we grew up — a little neighborhood church in Oakland, 23rd Avenue Church of God.  And I was raised to believe in a loving God, to believe that your faith is a verb, you know?  You — you live your faith, and — and that — that the way that one should do that is that your work and your life’s work should be to think about how you can serve in a way that is uplifting other people, that is about caring for other people.  And that guides a lot of how I think about my work and — and what is important.

MR. COOPER:  Let’s go to the voters.  I want you to meet Joe Donahue from Bucks County, Pennsylvania. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hi, Joe.

MR. COOPER:  He works in customer service for a local retailer.  He serves as a local election official.  He’s a registered Republican who says he’s undecided, doesn’t agree with your stance on abortion, but he is concerned about what he calls Trump’s demeanor and actions on January 6th.

Joe.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hi, Joe.

Q    Thank you, Madam Vice President.  And thank you, Anderson. 

Madam Vice President, everybody — as human beings, we are not perfect.  We have our flaws.  We make mistakes.  We have our weaknesses.  And the office of the presidency can sometimes bring those weaknesses out in ways that the incumbent may not expect. 

What weaknesses do you bring to the table, and how do you plan to overcome them while you’re in office?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  That’s a great question, Joe.  Well, I am certainly not perfect — (laughs) — so let’s start there. 

And I think that — I — perhaps a weakness, some would say, but I actually think it’s a strength, is I really do value having a team of very smart people around me who bring to my de- — decision-making process different perspectives.  I — my team will tell you, I am constantly saying, “Let’s hi- — kick the tire on that.  Let’s kick the tires on it.” 

Because, I — listen, I — as I mentioned earlier, I started my career as a prosecutor.  I was a courtroom prosecutor.  I’ve tried everything from low-level offenses to homicides, and I learned at a very early stage of my career and adult life that my actions have a direct impact on real people in a very fundamental way. 

When I was attorney general of California, I was attorney general of the — what is the fifth largest economy in the world and acutely aware that my words could move markets.

So, I take my role and responsibility as an elected leader very seriously, and I know the impact it has on so many people I may never meet.  And that is why I engage and bring folks around. 

So, I may not be quick to have the answer as soon as you ask it about a specific policy issue sometimes, because I’m going to want to research it.  I’m going to want to study it.  I’m kind of a nerd sometimes — (laughs) — I confess.  And some might call that a weakness, especially if you’re, you know, in an interview or just kind of, you know —

MR. COOPER:  L- — let me a- —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — being asked a certain question, and you’re expected to have the right answer right away.  But that’s how I — that’s how I work. 

MR. COOPER:  I- — you — we — I don’t think I’ve ever heard the former president admit a mistake.  A lot of politicians don’t.  Is there something you can point to in your life, political life or in your life in the last four years, that you think is a mistake that you have learned from?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I mean, I — I’ve made many mistakes, and they range from — you know, if you’ve ever parented a child, you know you make lots of mistakes too.  (Laughs.)

In my role as vice president, I mean, I’ve probably worked very hard at making sure that I am well-versed on issues, and I think that is very important.  It’s a mistake not to be well-versed on an issue and feel compelled to answer a question.  

MR. COOPER.  I want you to meet Pam Thistle.  She’s from Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania.  She’s a realtor.  She’s a widow.  Her husband, Mike, died just a year ago. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I’m sorry.

MR. COOPER:  She has two daughters in college.  She registered with no party affiliation and says she’s undecided.  She has concerns about how you would handle the economy.

Pam.

Q    Thank you.  And thank you, Anderson.  And happy belated birthday too.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

Q    I really —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And I’m sorry for your loss.  I’m sorry.

Q    Oh, thank you.  Yes.  And I’m really appreciative for you to be here and get to know you.

When you talk about rich people paying their fair share, can you be more specific?  Income taxes are already on a graduated scale, where the more you make, the higher percentage you pay in taxes.  So, the rich are paying a disproportionate amount in taxes as it is.  Over 40 percent of Americans don’t pay any income taxes.  Also, the really high earners may move their money offshore if there are disinte- — disincentives in the U.S.  This could impact the economy. 

I would like to hear more nuts and bolts about your economic plans. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Sure.  Thank you, Pam.

So, first of all, it is the case in the United States of America that billionaires, on average, pay less taxes as a percentage —

Q    Yeah.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — than teachers and firefighters and nurses. 

Q    Yeah.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And that —

Q    I’m talking about hard workers like — like pound the street, have some success.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I’m — yes.  No, no, no, I understand. 

Q    Yes.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  But I want to just — let’s set the — let —

Q    Not the really high.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Let’s set the scene, right?

Q    Yeah.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, when I say that the — the richest among us need to pay their fair share —

Q    Okay.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — I am referencing that, and I — I need to reference that because, sadly, Donald Trump, when he was president, gave tax cuts to the richest, to billionaires and big corporations, which added trillions of dollars to our deficit.  So, that, sadly, needs to be said in a way that should be obvious, to your point, but is not, given what he did.

Now, in terms of what we need to do to bring down taxes, I have pledged and have a plan for a middle-class tax cut that would affect 100 million Americans, including, for example, what we will do around small businesses in terms of tax deductions, in terms of what small businesses are now being mired in, in terms of a bureaucracy around they have to fill out and do their taxes in a way that actually holds them back. 

Part of my plan includes extending a middle-class tax cut that would include a $6,000 tax cut, essentially a child tax credit, for parents — and young parents, in particular — knowing that the vast majority of our parents have a natural desire to parent their children well but not always the resources.  So, this is going to include an extra amount of, just, money that people can use to pay for childcare, which is far too expensive for too many working pa- — families. 

And part of the issue here is this.  We cannot, and I will not, raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.

MR. COOPER:  Yeah.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  But we do need to take seriously the system that benefits the richest and does not help out working, middle-class Americans. 

I come from the middle class, and I believe that the middle class needs tax breaks to be able to actually not just get by but get ahead. 

MR. COOPER:  So, you’re saying — what — what you’re saying is anyone under $400,000 won’t have taxes raised.  Are you saying that anyone above $400,000 will have a tax raise?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I’m saying that there is going to be a parity around what the richest people pay in terms of their taxes.  Right now, Anderson, you know the document — the — it is well-documented that some of the richest people in our country have gotten away with a zero-tax rate. 

MR. COOPER:  But if you earning $500-, $600-, $700,000, under your plan, there’s a good chance your taxes will go up?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I- — this — we can’t have this conversation without knowing what thi- — it’s a very complicated situation, right?  If you’re talking about a small-business owner, I’m going to bring down — cut taxes for small businesses — right? — because I know that they need the overhead — the money that they need for overhead to actually benefit the growth of their business, which benefits our economy as a whole. 

MR. COOPER:  Let’s go to — actually, you know, I want to reference something that — that — about Pam.  Pam, w- — mentioned her husband, Steve, died a year ago.  You — you’ve talked about your mom, Shyamala Harris, who died 15 years ago.  What has grief been like for you?  Do you still grieve?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, you don’t stop grieving.  You don’t stop grieving. 

     I mean, the — I — I think that there is — you know, there are, like, two sides to a coin when you have lost somebody you love.  And — or that two sides to a coin, that phrase becomes evident, which is, if you have had the blessing of a close and — and important relationship with someone, then when you ha- — that the other side of the coin is that when you lose them, the grief becomes even deeper.

     But I also believe that, for example, anyone who has lost a family member through cancer or an illness — my mother died from cancer.  It is important to try and remember them as they lived and not as they died, because the grief can really weigh you down. 

     I think the brain has a way of, when you’re grieving, really spiraling down, and it’s important, I think, to try and remember those you have lost in a way they’d want to be remembered, as being vibrant.

     And — and I think it’s important to just — to — to grieve as one does.  I don’t think there’s any correct or proper way to grieve.  And the most important thing is, I think, that people do not suppress what they’re feeling at any moment, and the rest of us should give them grace to — to go through it as — as they will.

     MR. COOPER:  We’re going to take a — a short break.  We’ll be right back with more from the CNN Presidential Town Hall with Vice President Kamala Harris.

     (Commercial break.)

     And we are back with Vice President Kamala Harris.  I want you to meet Rob MacPherson.  He’s the chief marketing officer for a local organization.  He’s registered Republican, from Media, Pennsylvania, who told us he’s leaning towards voting for you but has concerns about what he calls “shifts” in your policy positions. 

     Rob.

     Q    Thank you.  Thank you for being here, Vice President Harris.  So, welcome to Delco.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.

     Q    Here in Delco, we — we pride ourselves on being authentic —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     Q    — and much of what we have se- — been say- — have seen much of what you’ve been saying with regard to issues like law and order and fracking reflect a more centrist view than what people are used to hearing from Kamala Harris, leaving some voters to wonder about the authenticity of your current more moderate positions.  Can you talk a little bit about how your positions have shifted and why?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Sure.  And thank you. 

     So, first of all, on fracking.  I’ve been very clear.  We kind of dispensed with this in 2020.  I am not going to ban fracking.  I did not as vice president.  In fact, as vice president, I cast the tiebreaking vote that now has opened up more fracking leases. 

     My value on the issue of what we need to do to invest in a clean energy economy and a clean energy future has not changed.  But frankly, I now have the experience and perspective of having been vice president for almost four years.  I’ve traveled the country.  I know that we can invest in a clean energy economy and still not ban fracking and still work toward what we need to do to create more jobs and create U.S.-based jobs in a way that will be globally competitive.

     On the issue of law and order, as you mentioned, I think there’s just a whole lot of misinformation, to be honest with you.  I have personally prosecuted very serious crime.  It’s how I started my career.  I spent most of my career as a prosecutor, not in Washington, D.C.

     And as my first priority had — and — and remains as a first priority to me — the safety of the American people.  So, that has not changed.  And sadly, I think that there is a bit of misinformation, if not more than a bit, but I’m glad that you raised the subject so that I can address it.

     MR. COOPER:  You — but — but —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  But I — but — but — just if you don’t mind —

     MR. COOPER:  Sure.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — just let me just finish — I — because I think the — the spirit of your question is really important, and I’m glad you raised it.

     Our country deserves to have a president of the United States who is not afraid of good ideas and does not stand on pride if a perspective needs to be informed by different points of view to build consensus and to have a commonsense approach.

     I’m never going to shy away from good ideas, and I’m not going to feel the need to have pride associated with a position that I’ve taken when the important thing is to build consensus to fix problems.  I believe in fixing problems.  I love fixing problems. 

     And so, I pledge to you to be a president who not only works for all Americans but works on getting stuff done. And that means compromise.  And it doesn’t mean compromising your values or your principles, but it does mean working to get stuff done.

     MR. COOPER:  But —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And I pledge to you I will do that.

     MR. COOPER:  Just to be clear, though, what he’s referring to — and you point out, too, when you were running for vice president in 2020, you were not talking about banning fracking.  But —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  No, Anderson, I — I pledged that I would not ban fracking.

     MR. COOPER:  Right, I know.  You said —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

     MR. COOPER:  — you would not ban fracking.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Correct.

     MR. COOPER:  You know, you had said in a 2019 town hall, “There’s no question, I’m in favor of banning fracking.”  In 2017, you talked about Medicare for All.  You talked about — in 2019, you raised a hand in a debate about if bor- — border crossings should be decriminalized. 

     Are all of those issues — which those are not your positions now — are all those issues that you’re saying, through consensus and getting stuff done, you have evolved on?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, no, let’s take, for example, the issue of Medicare.  My point has always been that access to health care should not just be a privilege of those who can afford it.  It should be a right for all people. 

     So, that is why I have worked on doing what we have done to, one, allow Medicare to negotiate against the big pharmaceutical companies to bring down the cost of prescription medication.  We’ve a- — we’ve achieved that in terms of capping the cost of insulin for seniors at $35 a month, capping the cost of — of annual prescriptions at $2,000 a year for seniors.

     But my plan moving forward, based on that very principle that I’ve always had, is, as president, to have that cap be for everyone and not just for our seniors. 

     The work that I have done that has been about recognizing the importance of dealing with border security — that has never changed.  As I said, I have prosecuted transnational criminal organizations.  That I did for years before I ever ran in 2019.

     MR. COOPER:  I mean, you did raise your hand saying in a debate when asked if border crossing should be decriminalized. But obviously, that is not your — your position.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I — I never intended, nor do I — will I ever allow America to have a border that is not secure.  I believe we need to deal with illegal immigration.  There needs to be consequences, which is why part of my plan that I have outlined — and again, please go to KamalaHarris.com; sorry to throw a website on you, but why not? — and you will see that part of my plan includes what we need to do to actually do more as it relates to putting resources in, including increasing penalties for illegal crossings.

     MR. COOPER:  And just finally, on fracking.  You said you’re clear: You would not ban it as president.  Yo- —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  No, I would not ban it as president.

     MR. COOPER:  Right.  You’re — I know — you’re clear on that.  Do you think it is bad for the environment though?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I think that we have proven that we can invest in a clean energy economy.  We can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.  We can work on a — and sustaining what we need to do to protect this beautiful earth of ours and not ban fracking.

     MR. COOPER:  Time is short, so I want to get some more voters in. 

     Taneisha Spall from Lansdowne, Pennsylvania.  She works as an education administration manager for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.  Registered Democrat who says she’s leaning towards supporting you.  Has yet to make her final decision. 

     Taneisha, welcome.

     Q    Thank you, Anderson.  Thank you, Madam Vice President —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

     Q    — for joining us this evening.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Of course.

     Q    I appreciate that you did acknowledge that we are a country that is faced with problems and issues.  With the Supreme Court being plagued with issues, would you be in favor of expanding the court to, say, 12 so each justice has only one circuit court other than chief justice to assist in making judgments more balanced?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, to your point, I — there is no question that the American people increasingly are losing confidence in the Supreme Court, and in large part because of the behavior of certain members of that court and because of certain rulings, including the Dobbs decision and taking away a precedent that had been in place for 50 years, protecting a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body.

     So, I do believe that there should be some kind of reform of the court, and we can study what that actually looks like. 

     But I do believe — but, again, let’s just — while you raise the point of the court, understand that, again, in 13 days, the American people will decide who is the next president of the United States.  In 13 days, you will decide who is sitting in the Oval Office on January 20th.

     And on one hand, you have in Donald Trump someone who has increasingly proved himself to be unstable and who — as we have established and the people close to him have established, he is unfit to serve.  Somebody who, on January 20th, you can be sure will spend full time, like we know — and we’ve seen the image mentally of him sitting in the dining room off of the Oval Office, watching for hours as people violently attack the Capitol.  You can be sure, because he has said he would weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his political enemies, that you can look at a Donald Trump in the White House after January 20th, sitting in that Oval Office, plotting his revenge. 

     He has talked about “the enemies within.”  We haven’t even raised that subject, Anderson.  “The enemies within” — he’s talking about the American people.  He’s talking about journalists, judges, nonpartisan election officials.

     He has talked about, as John Kelly has talked about, can he send the military after peaceful protesters.  And he’s going to sit there, unstable, unhinged, plotting his revenge, plotting his retribution, creating an enemies list.

     I’m going to tell you: My list will be a list of how I address and continue to address the issues that you all are raising this afternoon and evening.  It will be a to-do list about how we can impact the American people and lift up the American people and address some of the challenges that we continue to face.

     MR. COOPER:  I want to get one last questioner in.  This is Elkan Pleat.  He is a student at Temple University, registered Democrat, leaning towards voting for you, has yet to make up his final decision. 

     Elkan.

     Q    Hi.  First of all, go Birds.  (Laughter.)  And hi from — I’m from Danville, California.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Aww.  Hi, Elkan.

     Q    But my question is: What is the proudest moment of your political career thus far, including when you were the AG?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Oh, that’s a great one.  I’ve actually had a few.  One of them is I, as attorney general of California, created what I named the Bureau of Children’s Justice, fa- — and you may be familiar with that as a Californian.  And it was f- — it was because I believe that, frankly, we still have a lot to do in terms of policy that impacts children and an investment in the children of our country is an investment in all of us and our future.

     And that work has actually produced significant results. That has been a proud moment for me. 

     It was a proud moment for me to — to do the work that we’ve been doing that has addressed issues like maternal mortality.  I mean, it’s in response to an incredible tragedy, but lifting up that issue in a way that we agree that America should not have one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.

     So, I have had the good fortune of, in my life as a public servant, knowing the impact that we can have.  And I guess that is probably what motivates me most, because I know we can make a difference.  I really do.

     And I do believe that the American people deserve a president who is going to be hardworking.  And, you know, we’ll make mistakes from time to time, but it’s focused on you.  And I think that is so fundamental in this election.  So fundamental.

     You deserve a president — I believe the American people deserve a president who is saying, “Look, let’s just be practical.”  Let’s get things done.  And let’s not be afraid of having a little joy — (laughs) — to the point of, you know, what gives you — what makes you feel good about your work.  Let’s — let’s do it in a way that is grounded in optimism.

     You know, the thing that I think we all know about who we are as the American people, we are people who are ambitious.  We have aspirations.  We have dreams.  We are inherently optimistic — inherently optimistic.

     And I — I think people are exhausted with the idea that we’re just going to be divided and angry instead of working on the problems and working together.  And that’s what motivates me, and that’s what makes me proud when we’re able to do that.  So —

     MR. COOPER:  Vice President Kamala Harris, thank you very much. 

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

     MR. COOPER:  Appreciate it.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Anderson.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

     MR. COOPER:  And thanks for watching.  Thanks to all the voters here.  Be sure to join CNN on November 5th for election night in America, right here on CNN. 

     Jake Tapper and Erin Burnett pick it up right now.  (Applause.)

                              END                    10:10 P.M. EDT           

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at a CNN Town Hall | Chester Township, PA appeared first on The White House.

Brookings Institution
Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me close with this:

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

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

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

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

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

Brookings Institution
Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me close with this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # # 

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

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

# # # 

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

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

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

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

United States District Court Announcements

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

United States District Court Announcements

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

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

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

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

###

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:42 P.M. EDT

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

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you very much, Karine. 

Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aamer.  

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — implementation 1701 and in Gaza.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  That — I’m going to —

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    What are you doing in preparation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

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

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

Q    What else could they be there for?

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

Q    Doesn’t this seem, though, like —

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  No, no, no, no, no, no.

Q    Where — why is there not a consequence first?

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

Q    But didn’t do anything about it. 

MR. KIRBY:  That is not true, Jacqui. 

Q    There was no preemptive sanction.  Nothing. 

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

Q    Well, he did it anyway.

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

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

Q    Well, why not do something —

MR. KIRBY:  — let’s not —

Q    — to prevent —

MR. KIRBY:  Wait, wait.  Jac- —

Q    — this from happening? 

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

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

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

I just don’t have any policy changes to —

Q    But why —

MR. KIRBY:  — to speak to today. 

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’ll see —

Q    That —

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

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

Aurelia.

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

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, I do-

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

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

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

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

Q    But they still are coming — the strikes.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

Q    Also in the U.S.?

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

Q    Thank you very much.  (Inaudible) questions. 

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

Q    Thank — thank you, John.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  About — about —

Q    About the —

MR. KIRBY:  — the North Korean troops?

Q    Yeah, about the North Korean troops, so —

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Toluse.

Q    Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Okay.

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

So, go ahead, M.J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And then — and —

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

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

Q    Well, when —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to the au- —

Q    — he clarified.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wa- — wait. 

Q    But he initially said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he — right.  

Q    — “lock him up.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We cannot forget that. 

Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    You were with the president last week in Germany —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — and when — how he plans to vote?

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

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

Go ahead.

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

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

Q    Can’t stop.  Won’t stop.

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

Q    Yes, I was. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  It was great.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, the — and —

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

Q    So, just an —

Q    Come on back.  (Laughter.)

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — is standard and important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Selina.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Jared. 

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I —

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

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

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

Go ahead.

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

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

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

Q    Just a quick —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Will he vote ear- —

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

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

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

Q    Will he vote early?  Early voting —

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

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

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

Q    Final try.

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

Q    Thanks.

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

Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Jon. 

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

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

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

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

2:30 P.M. EDT

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:42 P.M. EDT

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

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you very much, Karine. 

Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aamer.  

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — implementation 1701 and in Gaza.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  I — too soon to know.  I mean, we — we don’t really know what they’re going to be used for or where they’re going to — if they’re going to — if they’re going to deploy, where they’re going to deploy and to what purpose. 

I can tell you one thing, though.  If they do deploy to fight against Ukraine, they’re fair game.  They’re fair targets.  And the Ukrainian military will defend themselves against North Korean soldiers the same way they’re defending themselves against Russian soldiers. 

And so, the — the possibility that there could be dead and wounded North Korean soldiers fighting against Ukraine is — is absolutely real if they get deployed. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Just to clarify something you said earlier about what Kim Jong Un possibly gets out of this.  As far as you know, has he gotten anything in return?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, from this particular move, I can’t speak to that, M.J.  I — I don’t think we have seen any specific, you know, quid — quid pro quo with respect to this provision of troops. 

But we know that — that he and Mr. Putin have, again, been growing in their defense relationship.  And we know Mr. Putin is — has been able to purchase North Korean artillery.  He’s been able to get North Korean ballistic missiles, which he has used against Ukraine.  And in return, we have seen, at the very least, some technology sharing with North Korea. 

But what this particular development means going forward, we just don’t know.  We’re going to have to watch that. 

Q    And do you know if this came about because Putin specifically first asked for help, or whether it’s that Kim Jong Un offered the help first? 

MR. KIRBY:  Don’t know.  Don’t know what precipitated it, but I think it’s important to remember that in the three-plus years that he’s been fighting in — in and around Ukraine, Mr. Putin and — and his military has suffered 530,000 casualties.  And as we’re speaking today, he’s losing, casualties alone — and that’s killed and wounded — 1,200 — 1,000 to 1,200 per day. 

Now, 530,000 is a lot.  I mean, there were — in the American Civil War, there were, like, 620,000 killed, just to put this into some perspective.  This is three years fighting in Ukraine.  Five hundred and thirty [thousand] casualties is — is a lot. 

And he hasn’t been fully transparent with the Russian people about this.  And he hasn’t been transparent at all with the Russian people about this particular move, about br- — bringing in North Korean soldiers.  So, that he has to farm out the fighting to a foreign country, I think, speaks volumes about how much his military is suffering and — and how uncertain he believes, how untenable he believes his — his situation is. 

Q    And I guess, just if you had to guess, how would the training — what would the training even look like, given the language barrier?  And once these North Korean soldiers are deployed, like, what would the command structure even look like, given —

MR. KIRBY:  It’s a great question.  I — I wish we had an answer to it.  You’re — you’re not wrong to highlight the language barrier.  I mean, these are — these aren’t even similar languages.  They’re — and they are going to have to overcome that.  It’s not like they have a long, productive history of working together as two militaries, even at all.  So, that’s going to be a challenge. 

Command and control is going to be a challenge.  And this is not a challenge that the Russians have even solved amongst themselves.  They’re still having command and control challenges: logistics and sustainment, getting things to the battlefield, keeping their troops in the field.  They haven’t solved that for their own soldiers.  So, they’re going to have to figure that out here too, if, in fact, they deploy.  We haven’t seen that. 

So, there are — there are some pretty big challenges they’re — they’re going to have to overcome. 

Q    And I have a non-Ukraine question.  Do you think that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fas- — fascist?

MR. KIRBY:  That — I’m going to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We got to move on.  (Laughs.)

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

MR. KIRBY:  — I’m not going to talk about that stuff.

Q    John, there — there’s concern among Democrats on the Hill that Donald Trump’s team has not entered into these critical transition agreements with the White House that could potentially, in their words, endanger national security.  Is that a concern of yours?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, with a caveat that I’ll — I’m going to defer to Karine on anything to do with the election and — and the transition.  That’s really for her. 

All I’ll say is that no matter how things play out in the election, the National Security Council, under Mr. Sullivan’s leadership, is and will make sure we’re ready for proper transition handover. 

Q    And there are intelligence officials who have warned that foreign adversaries might be looking to stoke violence in the next 13 days ahead of the election.

MR. KIRBY:  I saw the DNI assessment, yeah. 

Q    What are you doing in preparation?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’re working hard across the interagency, as you might expect we would, to share information not only inside the — at the federal level but working very hard to make sure we’ve got good handshakes and — and information sharing at state and local levels as well. 

That’s the last thing we want, of course, is to see any violence or protest activity that — that leads to intimidation and that kind of thing.  So, we’re working hard, again, with local and state officials.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Need to start wrapping it up.  Go ahead, sir.  Yeah.

Q    Thank you.  So, would North Korea’s possible engagement in combat in Ukraine trigger a bolder move from the White House, like decision to lift the restrictions on usage of American weapons?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, again, number one, we’re monitoring this closely, and that’s where we are right now.  I came and gave you a very honest assessment of exactly where we are, and we just don’t know if these troops are going to be deployed against Ukraine in combat and, if so, where, when, and how. 

So, number one, we’re monitoring this closely.  I don’t have any policy decisions or options to speak to today.  I can tell you the last thing I’ll say is that there’s been no change to the president’s policy when it comes to what we’re providing Ukraine and — and how they’re using it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, why not?  Why not green-light the long-range missiles for Ukraine’s use, which is Zelenskyy’s number one ask, as you’re sounding the alarm about what could have far-reaching implications if North Korean soldiers go into Ukraine? 

MR. KIRBY:  Well, for one thing, Jacqui, we don’t exactly know what these guys are going to do. 

Q    What else could they be there for?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t know what they’re going to do.  We don’t know if they’re going to deploy into combat or not.  We don’t know, if they do, in what strength.  We certainly don’t have a sense of what capability they might be able to bring to the field with them.  Now —

Q    Doesn’t this seem, though, like —

MR. KIRBY:  Hang on, now.  Just a second.

Q    — we were — a couple years ago, they were staged — you had Russian troops staged on the Ukrainian border, and this administration was saying, “We don’t know if they’re going to go in.  We don’t want to impose any sanctions.”  We didn’t do it ahead of time. 

MR. KIRBY:  No, no, no, no, no, no.

Q    Where — why is there not a consequence first?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, first of all, let’s not rewrite history, Jacqui.  We — we were the first country to go out publicly and say, “Here’s what we think the Russians are going to do.  Here’s the timeline.”

Q    But didn’t do anything about it. 

MR. KIRBY:  That is not true, Jacqui. 

Q    There was no preemptive sanction.  Nothing. 

MR. KIRBY:  Jacqui, that is not true.  It is true we didn’t levy sanctions originally because we were hoping that the threat of sanctions might deter or dissuade Mr. Putin.  You lay sanctions on before the man makes a decision, then he might as well just go ahead and do it. 

Q    Well, he did it anyway.

MR. KIRBY:  And we — and we did levy sanctions on him — heavy sanctions — not just us but around the world. 

Number two, we mobilized support for Ukraine even before Mr. Putin decided to step across that line.  And no country — no country has done more than the United States to make sure Ukraine is ready.  So —

Q    Well, why not do something —

MR. KIRBY:  — let’s not —

Q    — to prevent —

MR. KIRBY:  Wait, wait.  Jac- —

Q    — this from happening? 

MR. KIRBY:  Jacqui, let me finish the second question, and then we’ll get your third one. 

So, let’s not rewrite history.  The United States didn’t sit idly by here.  We’ve been Ukraine’s staunchest and most prolific supporter in terms of security assistance.

And as for the policy decision, the — the president remains and we all remain in direct contact with our Ukrainian counterparts.  We’re talking to them over what the — what they need.  As I said, we’ve just announced $800 million more, and there’ll be more coming in security assistance. 

I just don’t have any policy changes to —

Q    But why —

MR. KIRBY:  — to speak to today. 

Q    Why would you not u- — put a restriction on the type of target that can be hit, rather than the distance from a border that obviously Russia doesn’t recognize?  And you’ve got training happening with North Korean troops, I would assume, on the types of military installations that would be fair game if that decision was made. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’ll see —

Q    That —

MR. KIRBY:  We’ll see — we’ll see what the Russians and North Koreans decide to do here.  As I said earlier, if these North Korean soldiers decide to join the fight against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, Jacqui.  We got to go.

Aurelia.

Q    Yeah.  Thank you.  John, would you still describe the Israeli operation in Lebanon as targeted?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, I do-

Q    Yeah.  The Israeli strikes on Lebanon, would you still describe them as targeted?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to get into scorecarding each and every strike that the Israelis take.  I’ll just say a couple of things.  They have a right to defend themselves.  There are legitimate threats that Hezbollah still poses to the Israeli people.  I mean, rockets and missiles are still being fired at Israeli cities. 

So, let’s not forget what Hezbollah continues to be able to do.  That’s number one. 

Number two, we have said many, many times that we don’t support daily, you know, strikes into heavily populated areas, and that remains the case today.  We still oppose, you know, daily strikes into densely populated areas —

Q    But they still are coming — the strikes.

MR. KIRBY:  — and we have had those conversations.  Secretary Blinken has had that exact conversation when he was in Israel for the last couple of days.  We’ll continue to press the Israelis on that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Hi.  So, the interest from the frozen assets, does it apply only to the European Union or also the U.S. assets?

MR. KIRBY:  It is — it’s for all the frozen assets.

Q    Also in the U.S.?

MR. KIRBY:  I believe so.  I believe so.

Q    Because this morning, I heard Daleep Singh said just European Union, so I wasn’t sure. 

MR. KIRBY:  Okay.  You know what?  Let me take the question.  When I — I can’t even balance my checkbook at home, so — (laughter).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask about Kursk specifically with the North Korean troops in Russia.  Russia and North Korea have this mutual security pact.  If they were to use North Korean troops against Ukrainians in Kursk, would it be legitimate to try to reclaim sovereign territory, or would that be seen as an escalation in the war against Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are right now and hypothesize what these troops may or may not be doing and, if the Russians are going to deploy them, where they’re going to deploy them, whether it’ll be inside Russia or inside Ukraine. 

Let me just please go back to what I said before.  If these North Korean troops are employed against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Janne, you have the last one. 

Q    Thank you very much.  (Inaudible) questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you’re about to jump out of your seat, so —

Q    Thank — thank you, John.

MR. KIRBY:  This — this seems like a fair day for Janne.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s true.  Truly. 

Q    On same — same topic, on North Korea.  The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee recently sent a letter to President Biden requesting a briefing regarding the seriousness of North Korea’s troops deployment and the neglect of the Korean Peninsula issue.  What is the White House’s response to this?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’ll respond.  We’ll respond as — as appropriate to the chairman, and we won’t do that from the podium here in the briefing room.  We’ll do it appropriately with him and his staff.

I’ll just say — and hopefully my being here today and the — my statement at the top should reflect how seriously we’re taking this issue and how closely we’re going to monitor it.  We recognize the potential danger here, and we’re going to be talking to allies and partners, including the Ukrainians, about what the proper next steps are going to be. 

But as for our response to the chairman, I’ll let that stand in legislative channels.

Q    Last quick one.  Your colleague said at the State Department briefing that the United States does not reflect other countries’ intelligence analyses.  So, what is your assessment of intelligence cooperation with allies at this —

MR. KIRBY:  What — what did my colleague at the State Department say?

Q    Said that — at the briefing that the United States does not reflect other countries’ intelligence analyses.

MR. KIRBY:  About — about —

Q    About the —

MR. KIRBY:  — the North Korean troops?

Q    Yeah, about the North Korean troops, so —

MR. KIRBY:  I just shared with you — to- — today’s opening statement was a downgrade of U.S. intelligence of what — what we’re seeing.  And I think you can see similarities between what I said today and what our South Korean counterparts have — have said.  Ukrainian intelligence has — has released information very, very similar. 

And again, we’re — you know, today isn’t the end of this conversation.  It’s — it’s, quite frankly, the beginning of the conversation that we’re going to be having with allies and partners, including through the intelligence community. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you so much, Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Toluse.

Q    Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Sorry, guys.  Give me one second. 

Let’s let Toluse take — I know he’s been waiting patiently on the sides- — sideline. 

We don’t have much time because I have to be in the Oval in about 20 minutes, but go ahead.

Q    Can I ask about the McDonald’s outbreak, the E. coli outbreak? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And this follows a couple of big ones that we’ve seen over the summer, including Boar’s Head.  I think there’s another nationwide one.  Is the president tracking this?  And more importantly, how confident should Americans feel about the food supply right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I would say is the administration’s top priority — its top priority is to make sure that Americans are safe.  And so, we are taking this very seriously.  We’re monitoring the situation. 

CDC, as it relates to McDonald’s specifically, is working to determine the source of the outbreak, as we speak abou- — as you asked me about the E. cola — E. coli outbreak.  And so, what I would suggest is that families, they need to and they must follow the latest CDC guidance. 

Obviously, we’re aware.  The president is — is also aware.  And going back to this particular outbreak with McDonald’s, I understand that the company has halted sales of product to protect customers, and CDC is certainly in touch with — with local authorities to — to prevent infection. 

So, look, we’re always concerned when we hear these types of — these types of situations — right? — poten- — outbreaks.  And so — and the president wants to make sure that the American people are safe.  So, it is a — it is certainly a priority for us, and CDC is on top of this and looking into it.

Q    And then just one more.  Any reaction to Jill Stein asserting the U.S. and the UK have blocked a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not seen those reporting.  I’m not going to respond to a — a political candidate in — for this — for this —

Q    Well, it seems (inaudible) — it’s a factual thing that’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I have not even seen the — the comments that —

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — you are mentioning to me, so I — I can’t give you an honest response from here.

So, go ahead, M.J.

Q    Karine, what did the president mean when he said last night, about Donald Trump, “We got to lock him up”? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, and I — the president spoke to — about this very clearly as well in his statement, and he — and he said he meant, “lock him out” politically — politically lock him out.  That’s what he said, and that’s what we have to do.  That was the part of his quote that he said last night while he was in — in New Hampshire. 

Look, let’s not forget, this is a president that has not –never shied away from being very clear and laying down what is at stake in this election. 

I’m going to be really m- — mindful in not speaking about 2024 election that’s just a — less than two weeks away. 

But this is just speaking to what the president said last night.  He made clear — he made very clear yesterday that he was referring to defeating — to defeating Donald Trump.  That is what he was talking about.  He said, politically — politically, lock him — lock him out.  That is what he was referring to. 

Q    Well, he first said twice, “lock him up.”  So, you’re saying —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And then — and —

Q    — when he said “lock him up,” he meant, defeat Donald Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, it’s not what saying.  It’s what he said.  He said —

Q    Well, when —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to the au- —

Q    — he clarified.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wa- — wait. 

Q    But he initially said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he — right.  

Q    — “lock him up.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Exactly, he clarified himself.  He wanted to make sure that things were put into context.  He wanted to make sure that it — while we are — you know, while not just New Hampshire folks that were there were going to see it but also the Americans who are watching and pay attention to what the president is saying.  He wanted to put it into context.  And he, himself — this is not me; this is the president himself going back to explain — to explain — to say that he was talking about politically — politically locking him out. 

Q    Is the president aware of John Kelly’s assertion that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fascist and that Trump wanted the kinds of generals Hitler had?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, you have heard from this president over and over again about the threats to democracy, and the president has spoken about that.  You’ve heard from the former president himself saying that he is going to be a dictator on day one.  This is him, not us.  This is him. 

And it’s not just all — it’s not just us, the White House, saying this.  You’ve heard it from officials — former officials that worked for the former president say this as well. 

So, you know, do we agree — I know that the — the vice president just spoke about this.  Do we agree about that determination?  Yes, we do.  We do. 

Let’s not forget — I will point you to January 6th.  What we saw on January 6th: 2,000 people were told to go to the Capitol to undo a free and fair election by the former president.  It was a dark, dark day in our democracy and a dangerous one.  We have people who died because of what happened on January 6th.  And, you know, we cannot forget that.  We cannot forget that.

And so — and I will add — I will add this, that — and I can’t believe I even have to say this — but our nation’s veterans are heroes.  They are heroes.  They’re not losers or suckers; they are heroes. 

And to be praising Adolf Hitler is dangerous, and it’s also disgusting. 

Q    So, just to be clear, when you said, “we do” agree, President Biden believes that Donald Trump is a fascist?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, yes, we have said — he said himself — the former president has said he is going to be a dictator on day one.  We cannot ignore that.  We cannot.

And we cannot ignore or forget what happened on January 6th, 2021.  That is real.  Real people were affected by this — law enforcement who were trying to protect — protect the Capitol, protect law — elected officials in the Capitol, congressional members, senators, House members.  Their lives were ruined because of that day, because 2,000 people — again, 2,000 people were told by the former president to go there to find the former vice president to stop a free and fair election.  That is what — that is what happened. 

Some of you — some of your colleagues were there, reported it, and saw it for yourself. 

We cannot forget that. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, I mean, you talk about the context of the president’s comments yesterday.  I want to put them in the fuller context as well.  The president went to New Hampshire to make a policy argument against Republicans on the issue of prescription drugs, but the majority — more of his comments yesterday were really some of the most dire warnings we’ve heard from this president yet about a return to a Donald Trump presidency and what it would mean — could mean for this country.  He talked about world leaders pulling him aside, saying, “He can’t win.”  He talked about the concern — what it would mean for future generations of America. 

How concerned is the president about — at this point, about the state of the race?  Is he worried that Trump is on a path to victory at this point?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to talk about the state of the race.  You heard from the president.  You just laid out very clearly about what the president talked about yesterday in New Hampshire.  He laid out what his thoughts were.  He laid out what the stakes are for this country, and this is somebody who cares, clearly, very deeply about the future of this country.

And so, I’m not going to get into what he thinks about this — the race in this current moment.  That is not something that I’m here to do.  I am not — I am no longer a political pundit.  I am the White House press secretary.  I speak for the president, but obviously I cannot speak to the 2024 election.

And you did talk about something else — right? — when you talked about what he went to do on the official side.  And I would read you some quotes here — some headlines that we — that we saw in New Hampshire today from New Hampshire press, which I think is really important: “Biden, Sanders tout prescription drug cost-savings at New — New Hampshire event.”  Another one, “Biden and Bernie Sanders highlight lower prescription drug costs in New Hampshire stop.”  That is important. 

The president wanted to go to New Hampshire to talk about what he and the vice president have been able to do in more than three and a half years: lowering prescription drugs, beating Big Pharma.  He talked about the Inflation Reduction Act.  By the way, no Republican voted for that.  Now it is popular with Democrats and Republicans, and this is something that is going to change people’s lives. 

And so, that’s what he was there for.  He talked about — let’s not forget, what — what they’ve been — oth- — other things they’ve been able to do, whether it’s the bipartisan gun violence protection — being able to do that in a bipartisan way, and dealing with COVID that t- — put our economy in a downturn.  And this president has been able to empower — powering the economy, and we are now leading as a country in the world when it comes to the economy.

So, I think he was able to do both things.  I think he was able to speak his mind on — on the political, you know, nature of where we are right now, which he can — obviously, he spoke to.  And I think people in New Hampshire got a sense of what the president is trying to do on behalf of them in talking about lowering costs.  We saw that in — in the New Hampshire papers.  So, it broke through, and I think that’s important. 

Q    You were with the president last week in Germany —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    — when he says he had these conversations with world leaders expressing their dire concern about the election here.  What has been his response to those world leaders about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, and I will just leave it there.

Q    And then, I’ll ask you — we — NBC News is reporting that the vice president is likely to spend election night here in Washington, perhaps at her alma mater of Howard University.  Do we have an understanding yet of where the president will be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — and when — how he plans to vote?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As soon as — you all know, we certainly will share that with all of you. 

I will say is that the president is certainly looking forward to casting his ballot in Delaware.  And so, once we have the full information on what his day is going to look like or what the last couple of days leading up to November 5th will look like, we certainly will share that with all of you.

Go ahead.

Q    Since we’re talking about scheduling, it is traditional for the president to hold a press conference after —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh boy.  I knew that was coming.  (Laughter.)

Q    Can’t stop.  Won’t stop.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You were- — you weren’t here for the — the drop-by.  Were you here for the drop-by?

Q    Yes, I was. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  It was great.

Q    It was great.  We’d love to see him again.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, the — and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you know what?  He had a really good time.  He enjoyed — he enjoyed it.

Q    So, just an —

Q    Come on back.  (Laughter.)

Q    — open invitation for the president to follow tradition and do a press conference after the election, which I think —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — is standard and important.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I totally hear that, Tam, and I know it is a tradition. 

I — I don’t want to get ahead of what the schedule is going to look like.  As we know, in less than two weeks, we will have an important election.  Obviously, I’m not speaking about that election specifically, but we want to share — we will share more as we get closer.  And we — we certainly are tracking that tradition, and we’ll certainly have more to share. 

Q    Are we going to see him with the vice president much in the next couple of weeks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — I know you all have asked this question of him.  You’ve asked this question of me.  They have, as you know, campaigned together.  They’ve done official events together in the past just couple of weeks. 

They speak regularly.  And — and I would say the president — you’ve heard the president just, you know, tout how proud and how he thinks she will be a great leader on day one, which is –he also said in 2020, which is why he chose her as his running mate, and he has said as well, this was the best decision that he’s made.  And understands that she’s going to cut her own path.  Said this himself just last week when he was in — in Philadelphia. 

Don’t have anything to share, again, on the schedule.  I know this is all part of a scheduling question, and we certainly will have more to share as the days — as the days — as you know, I mean, one day is like an eternity in — in this space, as you know.  (Laughs.)  And so, less than two weeks is — feels like so far away.  So, we will have more to share, for sure.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    I just want to follow up on M.J.’s question. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, did the president actually read former Marine General Kelly’s comments or listen to them?  And did you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — do you know how he reacted after doing so?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — I mean, look, I just gave a really good — I think a good sense of the — what the president has said about our reaction here from the White House.  The president is aware of John Kelly’s comments.  And I gave you a reaction as part of the — as — as the president’s White House press secretary.  And what I’m saying to you today is something that the president has said over and over and over again and repeated. 

And let’s not forget the words that we have heard from the former president.  And it matters here, because we’re talking about our democracy.  We’re talking about what’s at stake here with our democracy.  And when you have a former president saying that they will be a dictator on day one, that is something that we cannot forget. 

And so, you know, the president has spoke- — spoken about this and given speeches on this.  And that’s why I continue to point to January 6th, 2020 — -21 — 2021, because it was — it’s something that we cannot forget, a dark day on our democracy — a dark day on our democracy, because of what was — what — what occurred — what occurred.

Q    Was the president surprised by any of the comments from Kelly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all.  I mean, again, the president has made comments and spoken about this over and over again.  So, no.  I will say no. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Elon Musk has been, you know, campaigning with former President Donald Trump, and he is offering $1 million to voters.  I just was wondering: Has the president expressed any concern to, you know, this interference by Elon Musk?  And I don’t know if he — you know, his — the administration maybe has any plans or has discussed maybe how to sort of maybe move forward with what’s El- — Elon Musk is doing with — with the $1 million.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, on — on this particular question, I’m going to have to refer you to the FEC.  I just have to be — that one, I — I — that’s a place that I’m going to have to refer you.  I can’t speak to it beyond that. 

Q    But has the president mentioned it at all, Elon Musk or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s aware of it.  He’s aware of it.  That I can tell you.  I just can’t speak to it beyond that.  I have to refer you to the FEC.

Go ahead, Jared. 

Q    You talk and you’ve taken questions today, and obviously throughout the — the presidency, President Biden has talked a lot about democratic institutions.  I’m just curious if between now and Election Day, the president is going to speak sort of more broadly about the confidence in the votes being counted accurately.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the president has talk — talked about this.  He believes in our institution.  He believes in — in — this will be a free and fair election.  He’s talked about this.  We have to give the American people, who some of them are voting right now — to make sure that they have the confidence in their vote and how important it is to cast their vote. 

I’m not going to go beyond that, but I think the president has been very clear about that. 

Q    But you don’t — should we talk about schedules or something?  (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is there, like, a big sort of — because he’s done these types of addresses on issues like this before. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I —

Q    So, I’m just curious if, like, this is a time that he would do that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, no, I hear you.  And I hear you’re talking about the moment that we’re in and if the president is going to speak about it in a more formal way — in remarks, in a speech. 

I don’t have anything to share with you, but he’s been very clear about having the confidence in our institutions, and so I’ll leave it there.

Go ahead.

Q    I just want to ask you briefly about congressional outreach for the $10 billion that would be military aid.  Has the White House started that process, reaching out to members of Congress to get their buy-in to kind of help expedite this process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we’re in regular touch with congressional members about any type of initiative that we’re trying to push through, especially if it involves Congress, obviously.

I don’t have anything to read out to you at this time, but we are in regular conversation about a myriad of things when it comes to legislation, things that we’re trying to push forward.  Again, certainly that is important to the American people.  I just don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q    Just a quick —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — 2024 question.  You said the president is going to vote.  It’s a scheduling question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Will he vote ear- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You guys are very into schedules today.

Q    Yeah, we’re — we’re into this.  We’re into this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I know.  Into th- —

Q    Will he vote early?  Early voting —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — into the POTUS schedule.

Q    Early voting starts in Delaware, obviously, this week, and will he go early, before Election Day?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — as — as soon as we have something to share, I will certainly share that.

Q    Final try.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I appreciate the effort here.  The president — I can say for sure the president is looking forward to casting his ballot.  And when we have more to share about his schedule — I mean, we’re not — we’re — the president can’t not just go vote and not tel- — for you guys not to know, right?  So, you guys follow him wherever he is, which is good —

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — which is a good thing.  (Laughs.)

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The former president described the vice president as “lazy as hell” yesterday.  She had a day when she was not on the campaign trail.  I was going to give you an opportunity to respond to that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would check the source.  Pay real close attention to who’s saying that.  That’s all I’ll say.

Q    Okay.  Another question about the vice president’s interview with NBC.  She talked — she was asked about whether there should be any concessions on the issue of abortion and the situation — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, say that one more time.

Q    She was asked whether or not there should be concessions on the issue of abortion — the scenario being a potential divided government like we have now — whether or not she would be willing to offer concessions, things like religious freedom, on the issue of abortion.  And I wanted to see if —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Meaning like on- — once she’s in office? 

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, look, I’m not going to — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  It’s not — that is something that certainly, you know, when she be — when she is in office and becomes pre- — and all of the things happen — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals — she’s going to make her own decisions and decide what’s best for the American people.  I can’t speak to that at this time.  Not going to get into hypotheticals. 

What you know and what you have seen from this president and this vice president is their commitment to continue to fight for women’s rights and continue to call on Congress to — to — you know, to reinstate Roe v. Wade, make sure that legislation is put out there, voted on.  And so, he would sign that, obviously, if that were to happen. 

And so, that is what they — he — they both have asked for.  That is what we’ve been saying during this administration.  And she has been, obviously, a passionate fighter on that issue, understanding what this means to women, understanding what this means to people’s rights and freedoms, and so has this president. 

And so that’s what we’re — you’re going to continue to see.  You just — you just heard us — I forget all the days — all the days come together — recently talk about how we’re expanding in the ACA for contraception, because understanding how that — how important that is to women and families, or — or women and Americans who are trying to make decisions on their family or how to move forward, and they should have that right — and so — and that freedom.

And so, again, that action shows you the commitment from the — and I hope the American people — from the Biden-Harris administration.

What she’s going to do next, how she’s going to govern, that’s not for me to say.

Q    Another question from the interview.  She was asked whether or not sexism would come into play in this election.  She said, “I don’t think of it that way.”  Obviously, the former president, Barack Obama, said that he did believe that sexism was coming into play in this election.  What does the president think about (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I’ll say this.  Clearly, the vice president spoke to this, and this is her campaign, and she sees — she’s going to say how she sees things. 

The president has always said and will continue to say that she is ready to lead on day one.  And you don’t have to just look at her record with him as a critical partner over the last more than three and a half years as vice president, but as senator, as attorney general, as district attorney, she is someone that has always fought for Americans, fought for people, whether it is citizens in California or more broadly, obviously. 

And I think that’s what the American people — I know that’s what the American people want to see.  They want to see a fighter.  And that’s what the president sees in her.

And, again, just look at what we’ve been able to do in the more than three and a half years when it comes to trying to beat back COVID and make sure that we all could come together in this room again without masks and make sure there was a strategy to deal with this pandemic; turn the economy around because of this pandemic; make sure that, you know, schools were open, businesses were open.  Now we have a record number of people applying to open up small businesses. 

They’re doing that because they believe that the economy is working for them.  Nobody wants to open a small business if they don’t think the economy is working — is — is working for them. 

Now, there’s always a lot more work to be done, and we’re going to continue to do that work.  You saw what the president did with Senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire — in Concord, New Hampshire, answering and lay- — and laying out what the — what the Inflation Reduction Act has been able to do, saving people a billion dollars because of that Inflation Reduction Act — which, I may add, Republicans did not vote for.  They did not vote for it. 

I know I have to get — I’m getting the pull here. 

Go ahead, Jon. 

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  What’s the level of concern that the administration has about election interference, specifically from Russia? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we spoke to that.  We’ve laid out — we made an — an announcement on what we were seeing from Russia on election interference.  We sent a very clear message on that just a couple of weeks ago.  So, obviously, that is something that continues to be a concern.  We will speak loud and clear about that, as we did just a couple of weeks ago.

But we also want Americans to know th- — to trust the institution, and that’s what the president is going to continue to say and — and — and also continue to lay out the stakes — what’s at stakes.

Okay.  Thanks, everybody.  Hopefully, see you on the road.

2:30 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Vice President’s Residence
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, D.C.

12:58 P.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, yesterday, we learned that Donald Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, a retired four-star general, confirmed that while Donald Trump was president, he said he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler had.

Donald Trump said that because he does not want a military that is loyal to the United States Constitution.  He wants a military that is loyal to him.  He wants a military who will be loyal to him personally, one that will obey his orders even when he tells them to break the law or abandon their oath to the Constitution of the United States.

In just the past week, Donald Trump has repeatedly called his fellow Americans the “enemy from within” and even said that he would use the United States military to go after American citizens.

And let’s be clear about who he considers to be the enemy from within.  Anyone who refuses to bend a knee or dares to criticize him would qualify, in his mind, as the enemy within, like judges, like journalists, like nonpartisan election officials.

It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler, the man who is responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Americans. 

All of this is further evidence for the American people of who Donald Trump really is.  This is a window into who Donald Trump really is from the people who know him best, from the people who worked with him side by side in the Oval Office and in the Situation Room.

 And it is clear from John Kelly’s words that Donald Trump is someone who, I quote, “certainly falls into the general definition of “fascist,” who, in fact, vowed to be a dictator on day one and vowed to use the military as his personal militia to carry out his personal and political vendettas.

Donald Trump is increasingly unhinged and unstable.  And in a second term, people like John Kelly would not be there to be the guardrails against his propensities and his actions.  Those who once tried to stop him from pursuing his worst impulses would no longer be there and no longer be there to rein him in.

So, the bottom line is this.  We know what Donald Trump wants.  He wants unchecked power.  The question in 13 days will be: What do the American people want?

     Thank you.

                             END                1:01 P.M. EDT                              

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at the Vice President’s Residence appeared first on The White House.