Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and John Kirby 5/31/23 Transcript

All right. Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon.

Oh, so nice. Okay. So a short while ago, as many of you saw for yourselves, President Biden convened cabinet members and agency heads from across his administration for a briefing on the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, a meeting he has convened each year since taking office. The President was also updated on the ongoing wildfires across the nation and federal efforts to reduce wildfire risk in the United States. During the meeting, the President and his team discuss ongoing preparations for these extreme weather events, response plans for when they occur and resources in place to help communities recover. The President thanked the brave first responders who work around the clock and put their lives on the line to keep our community safe and highlighted how the historic investments that are being made through his Investing In America agenda will make our community stronger and more resilient. With that, my colleague, Admiral Kirby is here to talk about the support that we continue to give to Ukraine, and any other foreign policy questions that you all may have. Kirby.

Afternoon everybody.

Afternoon.

I’m just not ever going to get used to that.

They don’t say good afternoon to you at the Pentagon?

No, it is not quite as enthusiastic. Maybe that’s just because of me, not because of them. I think this week, as you all have seen, Russia has continued to wage just a brutal, completely unprovoked war against Ukraine, launching yet more airstrikes and bombarding Ukrainian cities all across the country. In fact, in just this year, month of May, Russia’s launched 17 different air assaults against Kyiv, harming civilians, devastating civilian areas, hitting civilian infrastructure.

(02:07)
Now in response, the United States is going to continue to support Ukraine, help give them things that they need to better defend themselves. As part of all that effort, we’ve got an upcoming package here, which will be the 39th drawdown of equipment from the Department of Defense inventories using Presidential drawdown authorities. We will use that package that we’re announcing today to provide Ukraine with additional munitions for Patriot air defense systems, which Ukraine has been deploying quite effectively, as well as more Avenger air defense systems, Stinger anti-aircraft systems and ammunition of course for the HIMARS artillery and anti armor systems that the United States continues to provide to Ukraine. And I think, as you all saw on full display in Hiroshima, the G7, our allies and partners, stand firmly behind us in this effort and we can continue to expect to see that that support will continue going forward. That’s it. All right.

Thank you so much. Can you give us your reaction to the Chinese fighter jet that conducted what the Pentagon described as a quote, unnecessarily aggressive maneuver over the South China Sea? What are the implications? What are the potential ramifications and what could the fallout be for the US Chinese relationship?

Well, it was unsafe and it was unprofessional. You heard the Pentagon speak to that and you all saw the video for yourselves. You can see that they forced that RC-135 to go through the jet wash of the Chinese fighter, which just tells you how close it was, several hundred feet. That’s dangerous. And one of the reasons we want to keep the lines of communication open, in fact, one of the reasons why we want to make sure we can get that military to military channel back open is so that we have a way to talk to the Chinese about incidents like this one that could lead to miscalculation and misunderstanding and maybe getting somebody hurt.

What is the status of trying to reopen those talks, particularly in the wake of a dust-up defense?

Right now, unfortunately the military to military vehicle is just not open to us. It’s one of the reasons why Secretary Blinken is so eager to get back over to Beijing. We want to get back to that spirit of Bali. There are lines of communication open and certainly we have used the diplomatic channel to convey our concerns over this particular intercept, but that’s not the same as having mil to mil comms and having that available to you, especially when tensions are so high and the risk of miscalculations are also high.

If I could just ask one on Ukraine. There are obviously the drone strikes in Moscow, Ukraine has denied that they’re responsible for that. What is the latest US assessment and could this be a sign that Ukraine’s spring counteroffensive has begun?

Well, we’ve seen the Ukrainian denial that they had anything to do with it. You’re talking about the drone strike on the apartment building in Moscow, so we’d refer you to the Ukrainian government to speak to that. We don’t have any specific information that tells us who is responsible and it’s not like we’re going to go out and investigate this. That wouldn’t be appropriate for us to do. And then your second question on the counteroffensive. Again, we would let President Zelensky speak to this. Wherever, whenever the Ukrainian military is ready to step off here and get started, that’s really going to be up to them to talk about and to explain. I would just tell you that over just the last few weeks alone, there has been a lot of fighting and a lot of back and forth here, and I think I need to leave it at that.

Thank you.

Hi, John. I just want to follow up on China. I think from our conversations with administration officials including Jake Sullivan, there was a clear message that both the US and the Chinese want to move forward beyond the spy balloon incident. My question is what about the investigation? Where are we? When can we expect the result of the balloon investigation? Will it be made public? And then I have a follow-up on North Korea.

So just to be clear, there’s not an investigation going on. There was forensic analysis done on the material that we recovered from the payload of the spy balloon. That was done by the FBI in Quantico, largely, and I don’t know the status. I don’t know whether they’re complete or they still have things they’re looking at. But I wouldn’t expect, and I’ve said this before, that we’re going to lay all that out for the public. This was a espionage piece of equipment and we want to get a better handle on it, understand it for our own national security purposes. So I would not expect that we would lay some sort of public summary of everything we’ve learned. This was a capability, a surveillance capability that we certainly knew and we’re tracking that the Chinese were trying to develop and to improve, and we exploited it when it was in the air and we exploited the material that we recovered.

And on North Korea, in the context of the spy satellite that they just launched, can you give us an update on where we are in terms of the US, South Korea nuclear consultative group that the President Biden and President Yoon agreed on under the Washington Declaration? Is that all set up? Is it operational? And did the spy satellite incident kick off any elements of that?

The answer to your second question, as far as I know, no, that the spy balloon didn’t have an effect on us. You’re talking about the Washington Declaration and the consultative group with South Korea. I don’t believe that the spy balloon had anything to do with that. I’ll go back if I’m-

Spy satellite, sorry.

Oh, I’m sorry.

Spy satellite that North Korea-

That North Korea launched.

Yes.

I think my answer still would be no. I mean this was put in place before they decided to try this launch over the weekend. That said, the declaration and the consultative group was certainly established as a result of the continued provocations by the DPRK over so many, many months here, if not years. And it’s a way to help improve our ability to be responsive to whatever threats there might be. Now, as for the status of the group, I’m going to take the question for you. I don’t know exactly where they are in the process. I mean, it was announced when President Yoon was here and the teams have been working on it. Where they are in the timeline, I just don’t know.

Just really quickly, on the diplomatic side of it, I mean, we know that there’s this whole extended deterrence push for both South Korea and then also Japan. And on the diplomatic side of it, you mentioned, and other officials have mentioned that the invitation is open for North Korea anytime, but has there been any kind of specific push on the diplomatic side to entice them to come back to the negotiation table?

We have been clear and consistent, since the beginning of this administration that we’re willing to sit down with the DPRK without pre-conditions to talk about the denuclearization of the peninsula. We make that case all the time. I don’t have the last conversation to read out to you, but it’s been a consistent message that we have delivered in various ways to the DPRK and today they’ve yet to take us up on that.

So just following up on some of the President’s remarks regarding Turkey, he said that there would be another call or another engagement with Erdogan within in the next week. Do you have any finer detail on when exactly that call is going to happen, and is it fair to say that the main agenda item on that call is a deal where the US will provide F-16s in exchange for Turkey agreeing to let Sweden in to NATO?

I don’t have an update for you on when that conversation will occur. Certainly as we get closer to another conversation with President Erdogan, we’ll keep you informed. And the President has been long supportive of providing F-16s to Turkey and to helping their air force modernization. That’s something that he’s talked to many, many times. That has not changed, and that is not linked to whether or not Turkey accedes to Sweden’s membership in the NATO alliance. We also want to see Sweden as a NATO ally, very capable military. We’re used to operating with them. They’ll lend terrific capabilities to the Alliance. We want to see that happen and the President express those concerns as well when he talked to President Erdogan over the weekend, congratulating him on his win, but to suggest that there’s some sort of linkage there, would be erroneous. We want to see him get F-16s.

On Ukraine. Can you clarify for us again, the US policy here, because it says that as a general matter, Ukraine shouldn’t strike inside Russia. What exactly does that mean, general matter? And does Ukraine, a country that’s been under attack for more than a year, not have a legitimate right to attack its aggressor back on its own territory?

We don’t tell them where to strike. We don’t tell them where not to strike. We don’t tell them how to conduct their operations. We give them equipment, we give them training, we give them advice and counsel. Heck, we even do tabletop exercises with them to help them plan out what they’re going to do. But ultimately, President Zelensky and his military commanders decide what they’re going to do from a military perspective, and they decide what they’re going to do with the equipment that has been provided to them and that they now own. All that said, we have been very clear with the Ukrainians, privately, we’ve certainly been clear publicly, that we do not support attacks inside Russia and we do not enable, and we do not encourage attacks inside Russia. We certainly don’t want to see attacks inside Russia that are being propagated, that are being conducted using US supplied equipment.

And the President said recently that he has a flat assurance from Zelensky not to use the F-16s that we’re providing in Russian territory. Are you confident that that assurance still stands?

Yes, and we have got that assurances at various levels, not just from President Zelensky, but from other senior military and defense leaders in Ukraine.

Thanks John. Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon were among several US business executives who’ve recently traveled to China. They’ve met with some high level officials there. Is the administration going to reach out to them to glean what they said, given your difficulty in communicating with senior officials there? And also, is there any hope that this business level engagement with Chinese government officials might help a thaw in the current state of US, China relations?

I don’t know of any plans to reach out overtly, proactively, to these business leaders specifically about their trip. Certainly if they choose to share some insights and perspectives, we’d obviously be willing to hear what they learned, but it would be really up to them to decide whether they want to do that. We’re not, there’s no plans, that I’m aware of anyway, to reach out actively to pull that from them.

(13:29)
We’ve long said that we know our two economies are interconnected and linked, and we have to figure out how best to manage that, so that that interconnectedness doesn’t put our own national security at risk. One of the outcomes of the G7 in Hiroshima was a discussion about outbound investments and whether and to what degree, certainly the United States is going to take a look at how much is being privately invested in China that could have national security implications for the United States. So that’s something that we’re going to have to continue to work through. Whether or not this visit is going to help us along in managing that economic competition, I think that remains to be seen.

[inaudible 00:14:18].

Yes. Thanks Kate. John, are you in talks currently with the Iranians? Did you send any message through the [inaudible 00:14:24]?

I’m sorry, can you repeat the first part?

Are you in talks with the Iranians, with the Iranians, with Iran? Did you send message through [inaudible 00:14:32]?

We have multiple ways of communicating with the Iranians. I’m not really sure I understand what you’re getting at.

About that nuclear deal.

Look, the JCPOA is just not on the agenda right now. We’re not focused on that. Now, nothing’s changed about the fact that we want to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapons capability. President still believes that a diplomatic solution to that would be highly preferable, but the Iranians were not negotiating in good faith. They’ve shown no inclination to move in that direction. And given all the other domestic strife inside Iran and the support that Iran’s given to Russia in Ukraine, then we haven’t prioritized talks on the JCPOA.

And also then the army walked away from the negotiations taking place in Jeddah. What implications-

You’re talking about the Sudanese armed forces?

Yes.

Yeah. Look, that’s unfortunate. We want to see the fighting stop. We want to see the aid get in, and it’s hard for that aid to get in to people in Khartoum and around the country that desperately need it, food, water, and medicine. So it’s highly unfortunate that they chose to walk away. We want them to take the opportunity for peace seriously. We’re certainly serious about it. We’re helping represent and facilitate these conversations. We want to see them act accordingly.

Thank you, John. Tara Reade, who was an aide to then Senator Biden back in the 90s, and then in 2020, accused him of sexual assault. She announced yesterday she’s seeking citizenship in Russia and she feels safer there. Does the White House have any reaction to that announcement given the accusations that she’s made against President Biden?

We’d be loath to comment on the musings of a potential Russian citizen. That’s really up for her to speak to.

Does the White House believe that her allegations may have been motivated by her allegiance to affinity for Russia?

Difficult to say. I mean, I can’t get inside her head and speak for her motivations and intentions. That’s really for her to speak to. The one thing I will say is that the allegations that her life was at risk by the United States government, absolutely false, baseless,

Plus, there’s nothing to that.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday about these discussions among European leaders and the Ukrainians about the potential for a Ukraine peace summit ahead of the NATO summit in Lithuania this summer. Is the White House involved in any of those talks, and is that something that President Biden would potentially attend?

Well, we’ve been talking to the Ukrainians for many, many months now about President Zelenskyy’s ten-point proposal for what he calls a just peace, and we’re trying to work with his team to help actualize that, operationalize that, see if we can’t get that moving. Obviously, we support moves towards peace, but in order for any proposal, no matter who it’s nominated by or put forward by, in order for it to be credible and sustainable, it’s got to have the support of President Zelenskyy. So what we’re focused on is working with our Ukrainian counterparts on operationalizing their ten-point proposal for a just peace, and we’ll see where that goes.

Would there be any value in holding that kind of peace summit if Russia wasn’t invited and wasn’t involved?

I think you’ve got to work with the Ukrainians. As the president said, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, to make sure that there’s a credible proposal that can be moved forward. But where and when or even if the Russians can be brought to a table, that’s got to be President Zelenskyy’s decision. That’s not something that United States is going to litigate on him. He has to be ready to sit down and talk, and the conditions have to be amenable to him. Then you can move forward with seeing whether the Russians can be a part of that.

(18:38)
I would remind here that Mr. Putin has shown absolutely zero inclination. It’s a great academic question. Shouldn’t the Russians be at the table? Yeah, eventually, if there’s going to be a negotiated peace, of course. But again, President Zelenskyy gets to determine that, and the Russians have shown no inclination of being interested at all in a negotiated settlement. In my opening statement, just this month of May, 17 strikes on Kyiv alone, let alone other places throughout the country. So this is not the act of a leader. This is not the act of a nation that has any serious design on diplomacy right now.

Go ahead, Michael, and then we’ll go to [inaudible 00:19:16].

Could you give us an update, John, on efforts that the United States is making to get Evan Gershkovich back and any other prisoners? There’s US prisoners in Iran. There’s folks elsewhere that have been the potential subjects of potential prisoner swaps. Are any of those efforts coming to fruition or advancing in ways that make you all optimistic?

All I can tell you, Michael, is that we’re working on all these cases very, very hard. I know that’s an unsatisfying answer to you, but I hope you can understand why we wouldn’t publicly negotiate here and publicly disclose the conversations that we’re having. Certainly, Evan, Mr. Whelan, and you are right to say there are wrongfully detained Americans elsewhere around the world. We’re working on that very, very hard. Each and every case is important. Each and every one is a priority, and we’re doing what we can. Each case is also unique and different and has to be handled differently. What you put forth is going to be obviously different in each case in terms of its palatability to the other side. So we are working on them all hard.

Is there anything that makes you optimistic on any of those cases?

I would just say that we’re working each one very, very hard. I don’t know that I could stand here and give you a grade level in terms of optimism. What I am confident about, what we are confident about is that we’re putting a good faith effort in on each and every case, because each and every one is important.

Thanks, John.

Quick question about Kosovo. As you know, there’s been quite a few tensions there over the last few days. The prime minister said today that the US response has been an overreaction. I’m wondering if you could react to that, and then secondly, whether the US feels that the Serbs have a point that the low voter turnout suggests that this may not have been a legitimate election, or these elections, I should say.

Yeah, I didn’t see the prime minister’s comments about our reactions. So I’ll just reiterate our reaction, which obviously we believe in, and that’s that all parties should take immediate actions and deescalate the tensions. We strongly condemn yesterday’s attacks against troops from the NATO-led KFOR mission. These attacks, which injured numerous peacekeepers, absolutely unacceptable.

(21:44)
Prime Minister Kurti and the government of Kosovo should ensure that elected mayors carry out their transitional duties from alternate locations outside municipal buildings and withdraw police forces from the vicinity. Likewise, President Vucic and the government of Serbia should lower the security status of the Serbian armed forces and urge Kosovo Serbs to halt challenges to KFOR and to refrain from further violence. We want to see this deescalated. We want to see the violence stop. That’s our reaction, and I think it’s difficult in any way to look at that and think of that as shrill or hyperbolic in any way whatsoever.

[inaudible 00:22:19].

Thank you. Two questions, John. First to follow up on my colleague’s question, you said that the Ukrainians could start their counteroffensive wherever and whenever. I just want to clarify. Do you really mean whenever? Because they’re running out of springtime to start a spring offensive.

It’s going to be up to President Zelenskyy. Yeah, I meant whenever. Now, I was talking in general about all their operations. We haven’t been dictating to them since the beginning of this war where are they going to operate and how they’re going to do it. We’ve been helping them, giving them advice, giving them tools, training. But it’s up to them to make those decisions.

(22:53)
The counteroffensive is no different than other operations they have conducted, whether they’re defensive or offensive in nature, throughout the course of this war. President Zelenskyy is the commander in chief. He gets to decide how his troops are going to behave on the battlefield, where they’re going to fight, where they’re going to defend, where they’re going to go on the offense, and the when is absolutely a part of that. Any offensive operation done by any military, the timing is crucially important, and it’s also one of the things that you want to protect as much as you can, your sense of timing. So yes, it’s absolutely up to him.

You also mentioned that the administration opposes any attacks on Russian territory, including using Ukrainian equipment. Why is that?

We’ve spoken about this for so long. The president has had three main priorities here for the last 15 months. One is obviously to support Ukraine, and I just announced another package today. I think it’s pretty clear that we’re doing that. Number two is to support our NATO allies, and we have bolstered down, increased our footprint to 100,000 troops on the European continent alone and kept them there to protect and to make sure we’re meeting our commitments to NATO’s Eastern Flank.

(24:19)
The third one is to avoid World War III. I think we can all understand that a war that has already escalated way beyond the level of violence justified … In fact, there was no violence justified against Ukraine. I think we can all agree that a war that escalates beyond that, that actually does suck in the West and NATO and the United States is not only not good for our national security interest. It is not good for the Ukrainian people. It’s not good for the people all across Europe. It’s certainly not good for the Russian people. So we have had that as part of the thinking since the beginning.

[inaudible 00:24:57].

John, just on the Ukraine aid, the value is about 300.

That’s right. 300 million.

Then [inaudible 00:25:04] more drawdowns do you expect before you’ll have to seek additional funding from Congress? Then just lastly, how does the debt ceiling process the struggle that we’ve seen bode for getting additional Ukraine funding [inaudible 00:25:19]?

So on the future drawdown, we’ve been doing one about every two weeks or so. This one is consistent with the last three or four in terms of the amount and the kinds of material that’s in it. We’re going to be able to keep that up based on the funding we have available to us throughout the rest of this fiscal year. So when would we go back to Congress and ask for additional appropriations? I don’t know the answer to that. We’re just now here, beginning of June, so we’ve got some time to figure that out, and I just don’t have a date certain on the calendar to do that. As for the debt ceiling deal, no matter what happens in the halls of Congress, there won’t be an effect on our ability to support Ukraine.

Go ahead, James.

Thank you, Karine.

Thank you.

Which James?

James right here. Yes, sir.

James Rosen. Thank you, Karine. Admiral, two questions. First on Ukraine, when the American people hear you say and they hear the president say that the United States will support Ukraine in this conflict as long as it takes and we further hear you and the president say that the decision making as to how long the conflict goes on, when negotiations will be entertained are all left up to President Zelenskyy. Why shouldn’t the American people conclude that critical decision-making about our national security, our taxpayer resources, our military are in fact being outsourced or utterly given over to a foreign leader instead of being made by our president?

These decisions are being made by certainly the commander in chief, but with full support from not only both houses of Congress, but both parties upon Capitol Hill. There’s been tremendous support for that, and I think the American people are smart enough to realize that if we just walk away from this and we just let Putin take Ukraine, which, by the way, James, he hasn’t given up on as a strategic goal, then what’s next? If you think the cost in blood and treasure right now is high, think about how much exorbitantly higher it would be if in fact we just simply all of us walk away from this, because it’s not just the president that says as long as it takes. Every G7 leader repeated that same phrase in Hiroshima.

(27:39)
We all want to see this war end, and we’d love to see it end right now. As you’ve heard me say a gazillion times, it could end right now if Mr. Putin would do the right thing and pull his troops out. But short of that, and he’s shown no indication of being willing to do that, we’ve got to make sure that Ukraine can continue to succeed on the battlefield so that if and when it comes time to talks, President Zelenskyy can do that with the wind at his back. Nobody except maybe Mr. Putin wants to see this war continue. You think the Ukrainian people want it to go on for one more day after all the suffering that they’ve gone through? But we can’t just walk away from this, and the American people I think understand that.

On the other subject, if I might, I want to return to a colloquy that you and I had on one of your Zoom briefings. I know everyone in this room is very grateful that you conduct those Zoom briefings. What’s puzzling to me and I suspect others is that those briefings are not transcribed, and the transcripts are not disseminated. They’re on the record. So if I could just use this opportunity first to register mild protest that we should receive transcripts of those briefings. We’re not currently.

(28:48)
Secondly, the colloquy you and I had was about whether China and Russia or either one should be considered an evil regime. President Reagan described the Soviet Union as the locus of evil in the modern world. George W. Bush referred to an axis of evil after 9/11. If you have governments that are running concentration camps or launching unprovoked wars where hundreds of thousands of people are being killed and the President of the United States calls the leader of that regime a war criminal, I don’t see what it is that prohibits you from calling a spade a spade and saying these are evil regimes, which you refused to do in our earlier call.

Well, I appreciate your advice on policy, and I’ll take that back, James. But the president’s never been one-

[inaudible 00:29:37] question.

No, no, no, no.

Why don’t you consider these evil regimes?

It’s not a simple question, James. It’s a criticism that you’re posing as a question. You’d like to see us put a label on these two countries, and President Biden just doesn’t conduct foreign policy that way. Go look at the national security strategy. Go look at the national defense strategy. Take a look at anything that the president has said over his time as Commander in Chief about Russia and China, and you’ll see that we are speaking pretty plainly to the American people and to those countries and those leaders about how we view their behavior, their conduct on the world stage, and our relationships with them. We’ve been very, very honest about that.

[inaudible 00:30:24] in South Korea. But I wonder why it didn’t go well.

Why the test didn’t go well? I wouldn’t pretend to know specifically what happened. I saw the statement that the DPRK put out about technicality, technical problems with the second booster or something like that. I don’t know. We know it failed. Frankly, why exactly it failed shouldn’t be the major concern right now. The major concern is that with each and every one of these launches, whether it fails or succeeds, Kim Jong Un and his scientists and engineers, they learn. They improve, and they adapt. They continue to develop military capabilities that are a threat not only on the peninsula, but to the region, which is why we’re going to continue to work with allies and partners on holding Kim Jong Un and his regime accountable and why we’re going to do everything we can to make sure we have the proper military capabilities in the region, including training and readiness to deal with those threats.

Go ahead, Brian.

Thank you, John. Right over here. Thanks. I wanted to ask a followup about Tara Reid. Does the White House believe that Tara Reid is part of a Russian influence operation?

I’ve seen no evidence or proof of that.

She’s in Russia now. Is there any thought that maybe she’s in Russia because … She was interviewed by Maria Butina, who was jailed in the United States for being a Russian agent. Is there any concern or thought that she may have been influenced by the Russian government?

Again, I would let this prospective Russian citizen speak for her intentions and motivations. Look, it’s a matter of record that Mr. Putin and the Russian government have tried to interfere and actually did interfere in our elections, going back as far as 2016. That’s a matter of record. It should come as no surprise to anybody that Mr. Putin would show an interest in making it hard for President Biden to win an election and to try to interfere in his ability to govern as President of the United States. But whether this particular move by this particular individual is some sort of Russian information op or propaganda campaign, I just don’t know.

Have you seen any information that would link her to Russian information operations?

I have not. I have not.

Go ahead, Josh, and then we’ll keep going there.

I wanted to circle back on Russia, John, and what you would say to Moscow’s criticism that the West has effectively offering a wink and a nod to Ukraine when it comes to the drone strikes, like the ones we saw in Moscow.

Well, they’re not going to believe anything I have to say, but I’ll say it again. We have communicated privately to the Ukrainians as recently as last week or so that we don’t want to see US-supplied equipment used to strike inside Russia, that we don’t support attacks inside Russia, and that we are not going to change our policy about not enabling or encouraging those attacks.

Do you feel like you need to communicate that directly to the Russians as well?

We have made it clear to the Ukrainians. Certainly, we’ve made it clear publicly. I don’t think we’re going to

… take it upon ourselves as a burden to privately communicate that to the Russians. We have been nothing but consistent on this, and as the president has said himself, the Ukrainians President Zelenskyy himself has given us assurances that they respect those concerns, they understand them, and they appreciate them and they respect them.

All right. We’re going to take a couple more in the back. Go ahead, [inaudible 00:34:22].

John, just wanted to ask a follow-up. The White House released a statement in February about President Luiz’s visit here. Apparently President Biden at that time accepted an invitation to go down to Brazil. Haven’t heard any updates since then. Of course, since then, Brazil’s president talked to Russia. Has the US Brazilian relationship cooled? Is that why President Biden hasn’t set a date to go down there?

No, no. We’re comfortable with the US Brazil relationship. Quite comfortable as a matter of fact. Look, we’re not going to agree with everything President Luiz says or does. That’s why you have bilateral relations and friendly nations can disagree, disagree publicly if that’s called for, but we’re very comfortable in the relationship. And as for a visit, I just don’t have anything on the schedule to speak to right now.

All right, to your left.

Oh, thank you. Thank you, John. Last week, Microsoft and Western intelligence agencies reported a state sponsored Chinese hacking group targeting US critical infrastructure since 2021, and Microsoft described it as one of the largest Chinese cyber espionage campaigns. Do you know what has been targeted and how does the administration plan to address this with China?

No, I’m going to have to take your question. Sorry.

Go ahead.

I want to ask you about the CEOs again that are over in China for the investment conference. We saw that cyber attack, she’s talking about the spy balloon that flew over. The Chinese have not implemented the intellectual property protections they said they were going to do under the phase one trade deal. So this level of representation in China right now, does that send a bad message that there’ll be no repercussions no matter what China does?

These CEOs really should be allowed to speak for themselves and for their travel. There’s never been some sort of fiat by the White House or the US government that the American business executives can’t travel to China and can’t conduct business as they feel is appropriate. We view our relationship with China as a competition. Now we’ve spent a lot of time talking about the security component of that, but there’s also an economic component of that. You also heard in Hiroshima, you were there that these G7 leaders, they have concerns about unfair trade practices, employment practices, intellectual theft, and certainly the potential risks of outbound investments in China. And they came away from Hiroshima unified about those challenges presented by the PRC and about acting again according to their own dictates. Every country’s got to do it for themselves. We will do it our way to protect national security in a way commensurate with these outbound investments concerns.

Is there a timeline?

Is there a timeline?

Is there a timeline for when we will address what you’re talking about?

I don’t have a timeline for that. No.

Thank you. Thank you, Karine. Thank you, John. This is [inaudible 00:37:26] representing South Asia Perspectives. Very quick question on Bangladesh. Bangladesh government, five cases against Nobel Laureate economist, Professor [inaudible 00:37:36] who is also recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and United States announced visa restrictions just ahead of election to support free, fair, and credible election. But Bangladesh regime is filing cases Nobel Laureate, not only [inaudible 00:37:55] all other political leaders one after another. So what is your comment? And they are describing that piece of the restrictions announced that this is their favor and the government US is supporting the election, which will be held under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Where is the opposition and the civil society groups demanding a election under a neutral caretaker government. So what is your comment of all this?

You’re going to have to let me refer you to the State Department on that one buddy.

All right, Rob.

On the Chagos Islands, what representations has the administration made to the British government about Tortus holding with Mauritius over handing over the [inaudible 00:38:37]?

I’ll have to refer you to the State Department on that one too. I was not ready for Mauritius today.

Well, and I mean, are there any concerns at all about encroaching Chinese influence around-

You’re going to have to listen [inaudible 00:38:50].

All right, Owen.

John, good afternoon. Thanks, Karine. Good afternoon, Admiral. Two questions. One on Nicaragua, the other on Ukraine. First Nicaragua, the dictatorship there continues its persecution of Catholics, the latest accusing the Catholic Church in Nicaragua of money laundering. Human rights defenders say that is absolute baseless, it’s BS. This Daniel Ortega has imprisoned Bishop Alvarez for decades, expelled 32 nuns from the country, confiscated church building, shut down media outlets. Quite simply, what is the White House message to Daniel Ortega?

Yeah, so look, there’s been a dramatic deterioration of respect for democratic principles and human rights by the Ortega Murillo regime, including the harassment imprisonment of democratic leaders, members of political opposition parties, faith leaders, as you rightly said, including from the Catholic Church, students and journalists. This is all unacceptable. We condemn these actions. We’ve already taken a number of actions to promote accountability for the Ortega Murillo regime’s actions including by imposing sanctions and will continue to do so.

And separately, in Ukraine. Pope Francis, as you know, has put together a peace mission to try to end the war in Ukraine. Simply does the White House believe the Vatican can help achieve peace there?

We believe that, as I said earlier, that there could be many helpful interocular in trying to get to a peace proposal. Doesn’t have to be any one country or any one entity. The Chinese have expressed an interest. The Brazilians have expressed interest. And yes, I’m aware that the Vatican has put forward some interest. We would welcome any and all proposals to try to end this war as quickly and as diplomatically as possible. But as I said earlier, any proposal if it’s going to be seen as credible and if it’s going to be sustainable or enforceable, it’s got to be supported by President Zelenskyy. Now, president Zelenskyy has put forward his own 10 point plan for just peace. We support that effort, we support that proposal, and we’re working closely with his team to see if that can’t be operationalized and moved forward.

All right, two more [inaudible 00:41:09].

Thanks, Karine. John, the Center for Artificial Intelligence Security issued yesterday a new statement signed by dozen of experts warning that artificial intelligence could lead to human extinction. Is this warning something that the National Security Council takes seriously at this point?

We have taken seriously both the promise and the challenges of artificial intelligence since coming into office. The National Security Council, National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, certainly the president. As a matter of fact, I think you know not long ago the president convened a meeting here at the White House with CEOs from various tech companies that are involved in either AI research or an actual production of capabilities. There is promise and there’s peril. There’s both. And the president wants to see a strong private public partnership to get after both the promises and the perils and the threats and challenges. So yes, we’re taking this extremely seriously.

Okay, last question.

Thanks, Karine. Perhaps the lady can have the last question after me. And so guys-

You just got rolled over.

Well, I’ve got a press freedom question for you. Thank you for calling me and I have a press freedom question for you. And then I have an international polling matter question for you. Press freedom. This one was actually teed up for Karine, but I’ll repurpose a bit for you as press office adjacent person, the press office-

You can ask it to Karine.

I’ll take that question. Why don’t you ask me?

Okay. All right, I’ll go to the second one. I’ll ask you the press freedom, Karine. And John, I’ll ask you the international polling question. There have been many developments in the House investigations into the first family’s international business dealings recently. There’s one committee trying to get an FBI file alleging that President Biden took bribes. There’s another IRS whistleblower who’s alleging there’s a coverup in the investigation.

(43:07)
Amid all of this, there was a Harvard Harris hole this month that found that 53% of the public, including a fourth of Democrats believe “Joe Biden was involved with his son in an illegal influence pedaling scheme.” There’s of course evidence that the president interacted with his relatives, associates from China, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine. So what do you say to the majority of Americans who believe that the president is himself corrupt?

Wow. Jesus.

Can I take that question?

The president’s spoken to this. The president has spoken to this and there’s nothing to these claims. And as for the whistleblower issue that you talked about and the document, I believe the FBI has spoken to that and you’re going to have to go to them on that.

All right, let’s go. Let’s go.

(44:05)
Thank you. All right, thanks. Thank you so much, Admiral. Appreciate your time. Spent about four 40 minutes out here, so we try to get to as many people as possible. All right, Josh, kick us off and I get to see you twice in like six days.

It’s amazing. Yeah. So let’s get back to everyone’s favorite subject.

What is that?

Can’t do enough stories about it. House Speaker McCarthy, he appears to have proposed forming a commission to find ways to address the federal debt. Did this come up in the budget talks and does the White House support the idea?

As you know, Director Young was here. She was part of the negotiation process. So not going to go beyond what she shared here to all of you just yesterday. Certainly not going to go in depth into what was discussed. What I can say and will share is that, and you guys have heard us say this many times, we are proud of this agreement, this bipartisan common sense agreement that we believe that should get passed out of the House and the Senate and to the president’s desk.

(45:12)
You all saw the CBO score just yesterday where it talked about how it’s going to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion, which is incredibly important as we talk about the deficit. This is something that the president takes very seriously, $1.7 trillion, that he was able to reduce the deficit in his first two years. So again, takes this very seriously. He thinks it’s incredibly important to deal with that issue in a real way, which is why he has put policies forward, economic policies forward that deals with the deficit in that way. I’m not going to speak to what it is the speaker’s trying to do, the commission or whatever he is trying to put together, that is a question for him and the path that he chooses to take. What I can speak to is what the President has done and what we hope to see in the next day or so. All right, go ahead, Peter.

Thank you. What is President Biden’s top domestic priority?

Well, we’ve always been very clear that clearly his economic policies is something that’s important, especially when he walked into this administration, the economy was on its head because of the COVID response that was not existing and not as with the last administration and what the president had to do, right? To make sure that we were dealing with COVID, to make sure that we were dealing with the economy. And so he put forth along with Democrats and also in a bipartisan way, some historic pieces of legislation that turned the economy around. When you think about 12.7 million jobs created, when you think about unemployment at the lowest that we’ve seen in 54 years, that has been a top priority for the president and it continues to be. And lowing prices as it relates to the economy certainly is something that the president takes very seriously and continues to work on with his team.

And so today’s talking about climate. There’s a lot of action with China. And you mentioned high prices. So what is the top priority overall?

He is the president of the United States. There are multiple issues, multiple topics that the president has to deal with. That is the job of the president. He talked about climate, and it was not just about climate. It was about how we foresee the season coming up with hurricanes, the fires that we’ve seen across the country, how we’re dealing with that in this country in a serious way. Protecting lives, protecting communities, thanking the first responders. That’s important. And Americans care about that across the country. We’ve talked about the bipartisan budget negotiation, which is incredibly important, right? Because we’re talking about how to deal with the economy for the American people in a way that helps all and also make sure that we do not default. All of those things are important. All of those multiple issues are something that the president has to deal with on a daily basis.

And one more. Why has it TikTok been banned yet?

Look, as you know, there’s [inaudible 00:48:01] review. I’m going to just leave it there. It’s being reviewed by that committee. And so the president thinks it’s an important issue to deal with, but I just don’t have anything else to add beyond that. Yeah, Kristin.

Thank you, Karine. The Congresswoman Jayapal said she’s going to be a no on the debt limit and budget deal. What is the White House’s reaction to this, and how confident are you that this is going to pass the House?

So look, the President actually talked about this a little bit right before, at the end of his meeting with the cabinet members as he spoke about how we’re going to move forward with dealing with these hurricanes and clearly fires that we’re going to see this season. And so the president talked about how he sees the plan is moving forward as it relates to the bipartisan common sense budget negotiation. And he said that when he lands, by the time he lands in Colorado, that he hopes that the House would’ve moved forward. So we believe it’s going to happen. We believe this bipartisan agreement clearly should get both Republican and Democratic votes in both the House and the Senate. As it relates to your question about the congresswoman, look, we’re not going to speak to any individual member and how they vote. What we can say is that we’ve had conversations with Democratic members across the ideological spectrum to talk about the bill.

(49:26)
We had a Director Young here talking about what she sees her job being is giving in the information about what came out of this bipartisan agreement. Look, it prevents catastrophic default, as you’ve heard us say. It protects the gains that this President has made over the last two years as it relates to the economy. It protects programs that American families need to make ends meet. So that is how we see this process moving forward. We think it’s an important piece of legislation that the president wants to see at his desk so he can sign it.

And let me follow up with you on the process. The president was asked a little bit about this the other day, what his message is to skeptical Democrats. He said, “Talk to me.” And I’m wondering if you can help fill in some of the blanks. How many Democrats has he actually spoken to one-on-one? Can you give us any names? And will he be making calls aboard Air Force One?

So look, the president has been involved in this process throughout, right? He’s been involved, personally involved. We don’t read out calls, private conversations. We’re very careful about that. But it’s not just him, it’s his team. I’ll give you a little bit of an update. I gave this rundown yesterday of what it included, the outreach that we’re seeing from him and his team. More than 120 calls, one-on-one calls with members of Congress. That includes calls to all House Democratic leadership, all committee ranking members, all Tri Caucus and Ideological Caucus Chair, and all appropriation leaders. Eight briefings for the entire House caucus, including one today

As you all have been reporting, which was in person on the Hill by the key negotiators who have been closely involved with this process these past several weeks. Six of those briefings were on energy policy, on appropriations, and TANF, and SNAP. We’ve also briefed or offered to brief each of the tri-caucuses and ideological caucuses. In addition, our policy experts as well have had numerous conversations with members on the Hill. So we have been fully engaged through today, through these last couple of days, and we’re going to continue to do so.

Can you give us a sense of those more than 120 calls that were made? How many of those the President made himself?

So I don’t have specific numbers to lay out of which of these 120 that the President made, but that’s a significant amount. 120 one-on-one, these are one-on-one, those 120 that I’m talking about, calls that he and his team have made. And so the President, as you know, he was Vice President, he was Senator. He takes these conversations and relationships very seriously. He has relationships with members of Congress that he’s had for some time now and so that I can tell you that it will continue throughout the next couple days.

And just give us a sense because he’s going to be, as he said, he hopes he’ll be landing at the time that this is passing. What is that going to look like? Will we hear from him tonight? Will he have a war room set up when he lands in case the vote hasn’t passed? I know you all have said you’re going to be making phone calls from here at the White House, but how’s he going to stay connected to this process?

So we believe that this is going to happen, get out of the House tonight. The President will have a statement this evening. In what form it would look like, certainly you all will know, but you hear from the President, whether it’s a written statement or from him directly, certainly we will let you know, but he will have something to say about the passage of this out of the House. [inaudible 00:52:56]

Follow up to that, is the President confident enough in passage in the Senate that he might spend the weekend outside of Washington or will he stay in town this weekend?

So don’t have anything to preview on his travel this weekend. What I can say to you is that the President is confident or he believes, he said this, his words, he believes that this is going to going to get out of the House, it’s going to get out of the Senate, it’s going to be at his desk before June 5th, and he’ll get to sign it on behalf of the American people because this is incredibly important to make sure that we do not have a catastrophic situation on our hands as it relates to the economy. This is about protecting almost 8 million jobs. This is about protecting healthcare. This is about protecting programs that the American people truly need and depend on. And so he believes that we’re going to get this done. Is someone okay? Someone is coughing out there. Is it you? Are you okay? I don’t know who it is. I don’t know if they want water. Okay. All right, just checking in. Check in. Go ahead, April.

Karine, I had a chance to do a compare and contrast to yesterday, to today on the debt limit and SNAP. I talked to former New York Congressman Ed Towns who was once the head of the Congressional Black Caucus who was in the House when this happened with work requirements for welfare recipients during the Clinton years. He said it didn’t work then and it won’t work now. He said it’s going to create pain and suffering and he said this should have been done during the budget process versus now. What do you say to this congressman who was there who actually was the congressman who Hakeem Jeffries filled his seat? What do you say to that congressman and others who feel that this is pain and suffering that you are eliciting on those who are the least [inaudible 00:54:48] in this nation?

So that is not how we see this process. We believe that we protected the economic gains that this President made. If you think about the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, and if you look at the Inflation Reduction Act for example, it is going to help lower costs for families, healthcare costs. It is going to help our seniors when it comes to insulin, cap that at $35, that’s going to help many, many seniors in those very communities that we’re talking about that truly, truly need it. Energy costs, those are incredibly important for American families across the country. Think about the CHIPS and Science Act, right? You think about the PACT Act and our veterans, this is what the President was able to do, is to protect those types of historic pieces of legislation that is going to make a difference in American lives. And not only that, it’s going to protect programs that hardworking Americans made, right?

(55:45)
We were talking about potentially cutting Medicaid, which would’ve taken healthcare away from 21 million Americans. We protected that, right? So all of those things are important. Veterans affairs, protecting that, that’s important. When you think about creating SNAP eligibility expansion for veterans, for homeless people, for young people coming out of foster care of all ages. It’s going to protect, it’s going to expand that. So there are things in this budget, bipartisan budget agreement that is so important to those everyday people, to those hardworking Americans that is incredibly important.

(56:22)
Look, here’s the reality, when you negotiate in this way, no one’s going to get everything that they want. That is just the reality of negotiating. What the President tried to do is protect the gains that he made, historic gains that he made these last two years, and really key core democratic values that we believe is important to American families. And that is the promise that this President made, and that’s what we’re hoping will move forward as we look at the House and we look at the Senate and the President wants to get this done before June 5th.

I have some follow up on this, though. Did the White House do a compare and contrast to yesterday understanding Republicans had asked and received work requirements during the Clinton years? Did the administration look into that to see the successes, lessons learned, et cetera? And also to the congressman who was also the former head of Oversight, the first Black head of Oversight Government Reform. He questions, once again, what efforts, how exhaustive were the efforts to not have this in this moment instead of dealing with it in the budget, putting it in the budget discussion moment, why now?

So look, the reason we’re in this situation now, if we remember correctly, right, if we remember that March 9th, the President put forth his budget, he was very clear about how he saw showing the values to the American people, how we move forward with our economy. And about six, seven weeks later, it took Republicans six or seven weeks to pass their budget on April 26th. So this is a conversation that we were ready to have weeks ago, but it took some time for Republicans to put forth what their budget looks like, what they perceive their values are and showing that to the American people. Look, I want to go back to the worker’s requirement question that you asked. I mentioned the 21 million Americans who we protected, the President was able to protect from losing their healthcare. There’s food assistance that was at risk for nearly one million Americans, and it put critical support at risk for one million vulnerable children. That’s what the House Republican bill, that’s what it threatened. And so these are the things that the President was able to protect.

(58:38)
Look, again, it is important, we believe, for Americans to not lose their healthcare. And that’s what the President was able to do. And look, the President’s insistence that the GOP proposal for SNAP is temporary and the bill includes a major expansion again for veterans, for homeless, for people who are homeless, for former foster youth. All of those things truly matter and the combined impact of these provisions is that the number of people subject to SNAP work requirements will likely stay roughly the same. And so that’s another thing that’s important to note when you look at the TANF policies in the bill, maintain state’s ability to support vulnerable children. So that’s what we were able to do. That’s what the President was able to protect and those things are incredibly important as we talk about, as we look at working families, hardworking families across the country. Okay.

Is the President planning a signing ceremony for this if it passes, and will he invite the Speaker to the White House?

So I don’t have any ceremonies or anything to lay out at this time. What the President wants to see, he wants to see this passed out of the House, he wants to see this passed out of the Senate so he can sign it as soon as possible. Don’t have anything to lay out for you at this time.

Thanks, Karine.

Oh, okay, let me take one. Go ahead. Go ahead. Oh, yeah, I’ll take that. Go ahead.

I was just going to… So last month the President signed an Executive Order to address current and historical environmental injustices. Could you describe how your support for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which runs through 303 miles of rural low income and Indigenous land in Appalachia and is opposed by a number of environmental and community groups fits with the President’s environmental [inaudible 01:00:20] agenda?

So a couple things on that, and I’m glad you asked the question because the permitting reforms in this agreement fully preserve the bedrock protections of the Clean Water Act, of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. And it also delivers a key bipartisan priority by accelerating environmental reviews, all while protecting the full scope of those reviews. So that’s really important to note, and I have some quotes here from organizations who have said, “The agreement includes an important down payment,” this is a quote from the American Clean Power Association, “payment on much needed reforms to improve the efficiency of the permitting process for Clean Energy Project.” This is from Duke Energy. “This legislation helps us meet our customers demands for reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean energy by modernizing the permitting process.” The Natural Resources Defense Council said, and I quote, “President Biden stood up to extremist attacks on clean energy and climate investments.” So we also have seen a long list of support for this agreement, and we think that’s important. And it is going to protect, again, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, all critically important into what the President is trying to do moving forward.

And did Kevin McCarthy put that pipeline in the deal or did the White House?

I look, I believe, I think Director Young was asked this question. I just don’t have anything more to add to speak to specifically on what was agreed or discussed. I want to be very careful with that. But what we can say, again, and I’ve been very clear on this, that we think it’s important that this bipartisan common sense piece of legislation moves forward. We think it’s important for the American people. We think it’s important to get this done as soon as possible, avoiding any catastrophic results to the economy. And so we’re going to be very clear on that, work steadfast and continue having conversations. I think I was going to call on Ed and then I’ll take your question.

Thanks, Karine. So what happens if the debt ceiling bill comes to the President’s desk next Tuesday, a day after the X date, would the US then technically be in default?

So look, what we’re going to focus on is getting this done. That’s what we’re going to focus on. We’re going to focus on we believe the House is going to pass this and take this out of the House. It’s going to go to the Senate, it’s going to go out of the Senate. And so we believe that this is going to get done and that’s what we’re going to focus on, and that’s going to be our main priority.

Have there been any conversations between the President and Senate Majority Leader Schumer to try and speed it up in the Senate?

We’re going to leave that process, the mechanics of how this is going to move through the Senate up to Leader Schumer. Obviously we are in a short timeframe here and it’s important to get this done as quickly as possible. As you just mentioned, the June 5th X date that the Treasury clearly spoke to recently.

(01:03:20)
Steven?

The White House Press Office, your office continues to pre-screen reporters allowed into large indoor events that formerly under past Presidents were open to all journalists. Last June, almost a year ago, 73 journalists, including reporters from nearly two thirds of the seats in this room, signed a letter calling the process antithetical to the concept of a free press and the Correspondents Association also has lobbied for it to be done away with. Last July, you said that ending the restrictions was a priority, yet they remain. So I was wondering if you could commit to once and for all doing away this mysterious pre-screening process?

No, I appreciate the question, Steven. Look, every event, as you’ve heard from my team, I think you’ve asked my team this question and they’ve responded to you multiple times about how this process worked. Every event is different, but no matter what the venue set up, we always credential as many reporters in the room as possible. That’s what we try to do here. I know you’ve been in many of those events, I know you’ve had an opportunity to ask the President a question multiple times and so you can speak to that for yourself as well as the opportunities that you’ve had to be in these events. So we’ve also been able to substantially increase, as you’ve seen us do these last two years, the number of credentialed press in events on campus as COVID has eased. And so that is something that we have been consistent about. That is something that we have done. And so look, we want to continue to make sure that you guys have access to him, to the President. We think that’s incredibly important. And you’ve seen us take actions, you have. You’ve seen us take action over the past several months and you yourself have had the opportunity to be in those rooms. I’m going to-

[inaudible 01:05:08] so many empty seats. Are you still committed to rolling back this restriction and ending the pre-screening process?

Here’s the thing. There is no restriction. Every event is different. Every event plays to the room that we’re in. We have expanded credentials over the past several months. You are aware of this, you have experienced this. We have talked to you outside of this briefing room multiple times about this, and this is something that clearly, as COVID has waned, we’ve taken this very seriously and has taken in the comments and the request that’s come from this room. And also, I just want to answer James’s question about the NSC. Hold on. There’s another question, too. NSC, we’ve heard those requests. We’re going to work through that with the NSC comms to make sure that you guys have transcript of those gaggles. All right, thanks everybody.

[inaudible 01:06:00]