Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, John Kirby, and Jennifer Klein 1/22/24 Transcript

Trevor, what did you do? What’s going on? Causing problems? Are you sure?

Yes.

I’m happy to just stand here and wait. We’re on time. 1:02. I don’t even know if it’s 1:02. I think that time is a little either fast or slow.

(00:27)
Okay. Good afternoon everybody. Where’s the rest of the class? Oh my gosh. Okay, well good afternoon. Happy Monday.

(00:36)
Today marks what would have been the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a ruling from the Supreme Court that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to make deeply personal healthcare decisions free from the interference of politicians. But then the Supreme Court ruled to take that constitutional right away.

(00:55)
The aftermath has been devastating. Women’s health and lives now hang in the balance. Today 21 states have abortion bans in effect, 27 million women of reproductive age live in states with bans. That’s more than one in three women. Over 380 state bills restricting access to abortion care were introduced just last year. And on Capitol Hill, congressional Republicans have proposed three national abortion bans.

(01:25)
The stories of women being denied care are gut-wrenching. In Texas, a woman was forced to go to court to ask permission to receive the care her doctor recommended before she ultimately fled Texas to receive the care she desperately needed. And she’s not alone. We’ve seen one horroring story after another of women who are experiencing a miscarriage and are turned away from emergency rooms. Then later nearly dying, nearly dying because of that.

(02:02)
This should never happen in America, never. But here’s the reality. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has led to the chaos and confusion we’re seeing play out across the country. And it’s exactly why President Biden will continue to fight back and urge Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade back into federal law. The health and lives of women are on the line here.

(02:29)
So in about an hour, you will hear directly from the President on this who will convene a meeting with the task force on reproductive healthcare while Vice President Harris today kicks off her Reproductive Freedoms tour in Wisconsin.

(02:43)
And with that, as you can see to my right, I’m grateful to welcome Jen Klein, the Director of the White House Agenda Policy Council back in the Briefing Room, and she will talk about our actions that we’re taking today. Jen.

Thank you Karine. As Karine said, and as President Biden has made clear since the day of the court’s decision to overturn Roe, Congress must pass a federal law restoring the protections of Roe. And in the meantime, the Biden-Harris administration will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare.

(03:17)
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the administration has taken action to help ensure that women receive the care they need in an emergency, to protect access to safe and effective medication abortion, to defend the right to travel for medical care, to expand access to contraception, affordable contraception, to strengthen privacy protections for patients and doctors, to support access to reproductive healthcare for service members and veterans, and to partner with state leaders who really are on the front lines of protecting reproductive freedom.

(03:53)
To coordinate this work across the federal government, the President’s established a task force and reproductive healthcare access, which I chair alongside HHS Secretary Becerra. And today, as you heard, as we mark what should have been the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Biden will convene the fourth meeting of that task force with agency leaders.

(04:16)
The task force will hear directly from two physicians who are on the front lines of the fallout from the overturning of Roe v. Wade and who will share their on the ground experiences of how state abortion bans have wreaked havoc on their patients and interfered with their ability to practice medicine.

(04:35)
The President will then receive updates from his task force on efforts to protect access to reproductive healthcare and the continued threats to emergency care and FDA approved medication abortion. Task force members will also report on new policy actions the administration is taking to strengthen access to reproductive care.

(04:56)
While the President is convening his cabinet, the Vice President is in Wisconsin, a state where Republican elected officials want to enforce an extreme abortion ban from 1849. That’s before women had the right to vote. That includes no exceptions, including in cases of rape or incest. As you heard from Karine, she’ll kick off her Fight for Reproductive Freedoms tour and she’ll be hearing and listening to women and healthcare providers about the devastating impact of state abortion bans.

(05:27)
And with that, I am happy to take some questions.

All right, go ahead.

I’m just wondering how much more new action the White House believes it can take between now and November on this front, or do you mostly expect that the actions and announcements that are to come will be expansions on actions we’ve already seen since the Supreme Court took action?

Yeah. I mean, as the President has been quite clear since Roe was overturned, the ultimate solution is to pass federal national legislation to restore the protections in Roe. And we will continue to work to hope that Congress will pass that legislation so the President can sign it.

(06:09)
He has also been clear literally since day one of when the decision came down in Dobbs that we will do everything we can. So that’s why he’s issued three executive orders and one presidential memorandum. The executive orders are on strengthening access to abortion and contraception, on protecting patient privacy, on protecting patient safety and security, on protecting access to emergency care and defending the right to travel. And we will take actions in all of those areas. We have already and we will continue to.

(06:43)
So to your question, is there anything left to do? I think the answer is yes. And today when the President convenes his task force, you will see actions in a few more areas. They do build on the executive orders that he has already released. So just to outline a little bit more about what those policy actions today will be.

(07:06)
First on contraception, there will be new guidance to support expanded coverage of a broader range of contraceptives at no cost under the ACA. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will also issue a letter to private insurers, state Medicaid programs and Medicare to reinforce their obligations to cover affordable contraception.

(07:29)
On emergency care, HHS will be announcing a comprehensive plan to educate patients about their rights under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA and the process for filing a complaint, and also disseminate training materials for healthcare providers, convene those providers to ensure that they know how to comply with EMTALA, and also establish an expert team at HHS to help hospitals and healthcare providers comply with those legal obligations under EMTALA.

(08:06)
And last piece is we will take additional steps to implement the presidential memorandum on medication abortion to protect the safety and security of patients, providers, and pharmacies who need, prescribe or dispense medication abortion.

And could you just talk to us a little bit about how the White House is viewing ballot initiatives heading into November, the importance of them, what the landscape is?

Yeah, I think the series of ballot initiatives most recently in Ohio, but also in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Vermont, California, really show how salient this issue is and how every time Americans are given the opportunity to make their voices heard, they make their voices heard very loudly and clearly in favor of reproductive freedom. And there are more ballot initiatives coming and we will do everything we can to support state leaders, as I said, on the ground who are really on the front lines.

Thank you.

Thank you. Can you talk a little bit about the significance of this rally in Virginia tomorrow and just how much more time you think the President is going to spend on the issue of abortion between now in November?

I can’t speak to the rally tomorrow directly because that’s a campaign event. So it’s a political event. What I can say is that the President has been prioritizing and delivering on reproductive freedom for his entire administration, starting with creating the Gender Policy Council and asking me actually before Dobbs to help lead the administration’s whole of government approach to Texas SB 8. And then of course, once Dobbs came down, to mobilize the entire administration’s efforts.

(09:44)
And he will continue to do that. And of course the Vice President who’s been a leader on this issue, will continue to be that leader. She’s, as you just heard, in Wisconsin right now. She will of course be part of the rally tomorrow with all four of the principals participating, and she will be around the country.

(10:08)
She’s met with legislative leaders, state and local officials around the country, and they will both continue to draw the sharp contrast between what this administration stands for and what Republican elected officials stand for for the months to come.

Just bouncing off with MJ though, do you feel that the White House is reaching the limits of what it can do when it comes to abortion rights without congressional action?

Again, I think the President was quite clear. He literally said it within an hour of the Dobbs decision coming down that the only way to restore the rights that were lost, the fundamental constitutional right that was lost, that was protected for nearly 50 years under Roe v. Wade is to have federal legislation. And that’s why he is and his entire administration is laser focused on that. And he has made it entirely clear that when Congress sends him that legislation, he will sign it immediately.

(11:05)
I don’t think that means that there’s nothing we can do. I think there’s quite a lot we can do, and I think that’s evidenced by what we’ve done so far to all the categories that I mentioned, but really to protect access to reproductive healthcare in this country.

Can the federal government help to define some of the circumstances that women have found themselves in when medical questions about is it the life of the mother at risk where state law may not spell it out very clearly or clearly enough? Is there a role for the federal government there? And since some of these instances do result in ordinary citizens having to get involved in litigation, is there something that the administration can do to support them in pursuing those remedies?

Yeah, I mean, I think to state the obvious, we are seeing a lot of chaos, legal chaos and medical chaos because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the state abortion bans that have been passed across the country. It just bears mentioning that there are 21 states with abortion bans right now. That means that 27 million women of reproductive age, one in three are living in states with those bans.

(12:17)
There are federal tools. So the one that we are talking about today that we are going to build off of, EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the administration has long sad, long held the view that law requires that when somebody walks into an emergency room requiring emergency care to stabilize their medical condition. That treatment, even if it includes abortion, is required under federal law.

(12:47)
So I think that’s one of the things that we are trying to make sure that, as I said, patients know what their rights are, know how they can file a complaint, but even before you get to that, that providers know what is required of them under that federal law and that’s what we will be doing more of.

So you think you can add clarity where there is confusion at this point?

Yeah. I mean, again, to return where we started, ultimately the only way to ensure that women in every state across the country have the right that they lost when Roe was overturned is to pass piece of federal legislation restoring Roe. But I do think this is an important step in that direction.

To your point about federal legislation, is the President willing to compromise with lawmakers who think there should be some restrictions on reproductive rights in order to get a bill through, or is his approach more all or nothing at this point?

I think what the President has said, and he will continue to say that he believes that Roe was rightly decided and that we need a bill that restores the protections that were in Roe. And by the way, the majority, the vast majority of American people agree that Roe was rightly decided, and that’s exactly what we need to do.

Thanks. You mentioned the 21 states to have a ban at the moment. Do you have any number or any estimate of how many women have been forced to travel out of states since the decision?

I don’t have numbers on that. I will say one thing, which is that the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in two cases in Alabama where the right to travel is at issue, where the Alabama Attorney General has threatened to prosecute women and those who help those women cross state lines, but that’s not a number for sure.

Thank you. You’ve been talking about abortions and medical emergencies. On the Fifth Circuit’s decision on that, it’s unusual to see a court agree to review agency guidance, let alone rule on whether it can be implemented. How does that court’s decision affect your strategy going forward as you try and navigate this post-Roe landscape?

Yeah. As you probably know, in addition to making clear our longstanding position, that law and the guidance that followed, it reflects the position that EMTALA does cover emergencies when somebody walks into an emergency room needing medical care, and that’s abortion is the care that is required, that that is covered by EMTALA. Of course, that we are also, the Department of Justice is also litigating that, defending that in court. And that stands before the Supreme Court at the moment in a different case.

And on traveling. Are you doing anything to support providers in states that are seeing an increase in patients from neighboring states with more restrictive laws, for example, Illinois?

I think the best answer to that question is that we’ve been really working with those state leaders in states like Illinois, New York, where they’re seeing an influx of patients. But really that’s more about connecting states to each other, which has been one of the things we’ve done in our state convenings, so that they can learn from each other and help each other. There’s less of a federal role there.

Okay. Last question.

Can I ask one more thing? Thank you. Does today’s announcement that the administration is going to publish training materials for providers in medical emergencies, does that mean you’re going to advise that same information to hospitals in Texas and Idaho, which I know are the states involved in those cases that the Justice Department is in?

That information will be available to any hospital and healthcare provider who needs to access it.

Thank you.

All right, last question in the back. Go ahead Evan.

I just wanted to ask about medication abortion and the Supreme Court weighing restrictions on the mailing of mifepristone. Do you see, or rather, does the

… Biden administration see this as the next big frontier of this abortion fight, and then what are the stakes of that case, and is there any recourse that the White House would have?

I do think that that’s a really important frontier. They’ve already made it clear that in some sense they don’t think they need to pass a national abortion ban, because there is a national abortion ban if they were to be able to limit the mailing, the dispensing of mifepristone.

(17:31)
So, I can’t speak to the litigation, but of course again, there’s a case in the Supreme Court Alliance Defending Freedom versus FDA, where exactly what’s at stake is whether limits can be put on the FDA, who has made a judgment, initially a judgment to approve and then further judgments to regulate using their scientific evidence-based judgment that this is a safe medication that should be available. It’s, by the way, 53-or-so percent of abortions in this country.

(18:05)
So, we will continue to defend that and make clear that that is a safe and legal drug. One of the reasons I think that case has attracted a lot of attention, is because it is obviously squarely about medication abortion, but you have pharmaceutical companies and executives, you have medical associations, you even have conservative legal scholars weighing in on the danger of that case, because it could have implications for any drug that the FDA long ago approved and has regulated several times since.

All right, thank you so much Jen.

Thank you.

[inaudible 00:18:46] to the Oval Office. Thank you. Thank you so much.

(18:48)
Okay, thanks Jen. A couple things before we continue. Just a scheduling update. On Thursday, January 25th, the president will travel to Superior, Wisconsin, to discuss how his Bidenomics and Investing in America agenda are rebuilding our infrastructure, lowering costs, spurring a small-business boom and creating good-paying jobs.

(19:12)
President Biden remains focused on investing in America and opposing congressional Republican efforts to shower massive giveaways on the wealthy and big corporations, cut Medicare, Medicaid and social security and block us from lowering costs for American families. Before we continue with the briefing, I wanted to say one last thing to my dear friend Emily, the deputy press secretary, as she is going to head out to maternity leave today. Emily, we are so happy for you and Steven on your road to parenthood, and I think you are such an amazing human. You’re going to be an amazing mom, and just have so much joy. I know everyone here feels that, and everyone certainly on our team. I’m going to miss you terribly. You’re going to be gone for like five months, five months too long. But I’m going to miss you terribly, and I hope you spend that time… I know you’ll spend that time being very, very busy, but also time with your little one. So, excited for you. I have something for you.

(20:16)
Yeah, give me one second.

(20:23)
Give that to you. Oh, actually, you [inaudible 00:20:25] that.

Thank you.

I want you to open it. I want you to show everybody.

Okay.

Show my gift to everyone. Just a little gift for Emily.

Future President.

Future President.

[inaudible 00:20:44]

Please come to the back if you get a second today, to say goodbye to Emily and wish her luck.

Thank you, Karine.

All right. We love you, Emily.

(20:53)
And with that, we have Admiral John Kirby here to give us an update on the Middle East. Admiral?

(20:58)
[inaudible 00:21:01]

Yep, and I’m bringing it down.

(21:06)
Just a couple of things, I promise, and then we’ll get right to it.

(21:09)
Today the United States is announcing additional sanctions designed to protect not only our financial system, but our national security.

(21:17)
First, the United States today sanctioned Iraqi airline Fly Baghdad and its CEO, for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, otherwise known as the IRGC, and as well supporting Iran-aligned militia groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Additionally, the United States is designating three leaders and supporters of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the IRGC’s Iran-aligned to militias in Iraq, and one business that facilitates in launderers funds for Kata’ib Hezbollah. Kata’ib Hezbollah, I think as you all know, has been responsible for a series of drone and missile attacks against US personnel in Iraq and Syria.

(21:53)
Now, second, we imposed a fifth round of sanctions on Hamas, and this is the fifth round since the October 7th attacks. Alongside the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom are also placing sanctions on key Hamas officials and facilitators. We’ll obviously continue to use all the tools at our disposal to target Hamas, its financiers and its financial transfer mechanisms that funnel funds in support of their terrorist activities.

(22:21)
In a related way, I can also let you know that the president just recently hung up the phone talking to Prime Minister Sunak of the United Kingdom. Clearly they talked about what’s going on in the Red Sea, and the need for a continued international multilateral approach to disrupting and degrading Houthi capabilities. They also had a chance to talk about, obviously, what’s going on in Gaza, with stressing the need to continue to bring down the number of civilian casualties and to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. Of course, they also talked about Ukraine and the urgent need that Ukraine is facing right now for additional supplemental funding and support for their ability to defend themselves on the field of battle.

(23:03)
Then lastly, I’d be remiss speaking about the field of battle if I did not also point you to the president’s statement today, acknowledging and mourning the death of two Navy SEALs who were killed while conducting an interdiction operation in the Gulf of Aden, trying to interdict munitions and weapons that we believe were heading from Iran to the Houthis and Yemen. It underscores how dangerous the mission can be, and the dangers that these brave warriors are willing to face every day.

(23:39)
I think, as we all go about our day, we ought to just take a moment to remember that a couple of families just got the worst news possible, and it’s important that they know that the President and the First Lady will stay solidly behind them and their families, make sure that they get all the support they need. I know that the same sentiment has been expressed to them from the Defense Department and from the Navy Department.

(24:01)
Some questions.

Gotcha.

John, I just want to go back to the president’s comments from last week about there being a number of types of two-state solutions, and referencing the idea that a number of UN members don’t have their own military. Is it the president’s current view that a Palestinian state that’s demilitarized is the most viable outcome here?

I won’t get ahead of where we are in the process of trying to achieve a two- state solution, [inaudible 00:24:32]. It’s the president’s view that a two-state solution is the best path forward for the people of Gaza, for the Palestinian people as well as the Israeli people. And, as he said in those comments, there’s a lot that can go into creating what that construct looks like. When we say two-state solution, what does it actually mean? There’s many different interpretations. There’s lots of different ways you can get at that ultimate solution.

(24:57)
The president, as he has always done, kept an open mind about trying to pursue that. Now, he’s also under no illusions now how difficult it’s going to be to get there, particularly with this conflict going on in Gaza. So, we’re going to keep the discussions going with our Israeli counterparts. We’re going to keep talking about it with Mahmoud Abbas. We’re going to keep talking about it with our counterparts in the region, in the hopes that more progress can be made.

(25:17)
One significant milestone to help us get there, is trying to pursue normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which we still believe is possible. We were working on it very hard before the 7th of October. We’re still working on it hard, and we’ve got positive feedback from the partners in the region, including Saudi Arabia, about pursuing that. That could open up additional opportunities to try to get at a reasonable two-state construct.

Is the reporting accurate that the president has floated that idea in his last call with Bibi Netanyahu, and that it’s something that he’s sympathetic to?

Floated what idea?

A demilitarized Palestinian state.

I won’t get into the specifics of the discussions that the president is having with the prime minister. I think he was very clear with all of you about how he views the ultimate path to a two-state solution, and the need for some flexibility and how you describe what that looks like. But again, it’s going to require leadership on all sides in the region as well. And it’s going to require leadership there to also be willing to look at it the same way that the president is.

Just one more thing. By my count, there is at least two different Israeli operations today that are taking place in Gazan hospitals. What is the current US guidance to Israel about operations within hospitals where civilians are seeking care?

We don’t want to see hospitals as war zones, we don’t want to see hospitals as battlefields. They should be as protected as possible. That said, we know that Hamas deliberately uses places like hospitals to store weapons, house their fighters, even to some degree for command and control.

(27:06)
So, that places a special need on the Israeli defense forces, but also a special burden on how they approach any fighting in or around hospitals. They have a right to defend themselves. They have a right to go after these leaders. They have a right to take away the ability for Hamas to store and resource themselves, even if that is in hospitals. But again, I would say the same thing that we’ve said before on this issue, that we expect them to do so in accordance with international law, and to protect innocent people in hospitals, medical staff and patients as well, as much as possible.

Just quick follow on that question, have the Israelis briefed the US on their plans to protect those service [inaudible 00:27:49]?

I’m not aware of specific military briefings about them.

An does it-

But we’ve been very clear about our expectations.

Does the US agree with a prominent Israeli war cabinet member who said recently that the remaining hostages can only be released through a ceasefire?

Well, look, we’ve seen the way we got those a hundred hostages out, was through a week-long humanitarian pause, the temporary stoppage in the fighting. Because, obviously at the very root of it, you can’t enact safe passage for hostages out of a danger zone if people are shooting at each other. So, you need people to lay down their arms at least long enough to affect a hostage transfer. That one week got a hundred people out, and the fact that there was no fighting, helped enable that.

(28:36)
So, clearly we still support pauses in the fighting to get hostages out. We don’t support a general ceasefire, which is usually put in place in the expectation that you’re going to end a conflict, that it’s going to lead to specific negotiations. That’s no change to our policy there.

Thanks, Karine. Thank you Karine. On Friday, the president did make his view clear about a two-state solution, but he also suggested that Netanyahu was open to that view. So, did Netanyahu express to the president that, or why did the president think that?

They had a very constructive conversation, and I think I just need to leave it at that. The prime minister should speak to his comments, and I’m sure he has and he will. All I can tell you, is where the president’s head is, still believes in the two-state solution. And as you heard him say himself, he believes that there’s a way to it. He’s optimistic that we can get there, and that it could… Obviously any two-state solution is going to require some compromises.

On Friday, when we asked you about it, you said, “Obviously we see things differently then Netanyahu, based on his public remarks.” But the president interpreted those public remarks differently. He said, “No, Netanyahu didn’t say that he was opposed to two-state solutions.” So, based on what Netanyahu has said publicly, how do you interpret whether he’s open or not to a two-state solution?

I would point you back to what the president said. They had a good conversation, including about the importance of a two-state solution. That doesn’t mean that we agree on every component of what that can look like. That’s why leadership’s important here. That’s why the president’s not going to let go of this, and it’s why we need leadership in the region on moving forward.

(30:25)
But look, if this was easy, my goodness, we’d have had a two-state solution for years now. It’s not easy, it’s hard. It’s really hard, and it requires a compromise. It’s going to require negotiation. It’s going to require sacrifices, again, on both sides. The president understands that, he’s not pollyannish about that, and that’s why he’s staying true to it.

Thank you.

Two things, if I can also ask about this. Over the weekend we did see Netanyahu make rather explicit, again, his opposition to a two-state solution. Do you, or does the administration not take that opposition at face value when Netanyahu is saying that he does think this is all irreconcilable with the Palestinian state?

We can, and have, and I’m sure will have very frank discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet about the future of the Palestinian people and what Gaza looks like post-conflict. And as I said earlier, that doesn’t mean we’re going to agree with everything. I’ll let the prime minister speak to his comments.

I’m just struggling to understand. It seems like the president supports a policy or this White House does, and then the Israeli prime minister is coming out in direct opposition to that policy. And I don’t understand-

Well, is the suggestion that we should then change our minds and we should not advocate for it anymore?

[inaudible 00:31:39] the president think that he gets there. That’s what I don’t understand. Or is he thinking that he gets there without Netanyahu?

Well, only the Israeli people determine who their elected officials are going to be, not the United States. That’s one.

(31:52)
Two, the President still believes, and he’s, again, not pollyannish. He knows this is going to be hard stuff and it has proven extraordinarily elusive to date. But he believes that it’s in the best interest of our Israeli friends to have an independent Palestinian state.

(32:10)
Now, how that looks, what that looks like, whether they have a military or not, those are discussions that need to be had in the region and with leaders on both sides. But he still believes in the power and the promise of it, and he has for many, many years. So we’re going to keep at this. We’re going to keep these discussions going. It’s also important to remember that Israel is in the middle of a hard-fought fight here with Hamas, and we got to make sure that they can continue to defend themselves.

One unrelated question as well. On Friday, you were asked about a Palestinian American teenager who was killed in the West Bank. I think you were trying to get some additional information. Do you have additional information? I’m just curious how you all are interpreting that situation, and if the administration has been in touch at all with his family.

I don’t know about family communications. I’ll come back to you on that one. That’s a good question. But we have been able to get some more information about this. Certainly a tragic killing, by all counts, that we’ve been able to glean so far.

(33:09)
Our deepest condolences go to the family. He was 17 years old, just a teenager. So, our thoughts and prayers certainly are with the family. And we call on Israel to conduct a full, thorough, transparent investigation into his killing. And of course, we have every expectation that those responsible for it, will be held properly accountable. This kid is 17 years old. Talk about another family that is going through some enormous grief right now.

Go ahead, sir.

After last week’s meeting on Ukraine here at the White House, the Speaker of the house implied that President Biden did not articulate a clear strategy for Ukraine. So does the White House have one? And what, quoting Speaker Johnson, is the end-game

… for Ukraine.

Look, I can’t speak to what the speaker has heard or read or understood from the countless discussions that we’ve had with members of Congress about Ukraine and what we’re trying to do here. It’s been pretty transparent and pretty clear. We want Ukraine to win this war, as the president has said. We want a whole prosperous sovereign Ukraine. We want Ukraine’s borders, internationally established borders to be fully recognized by everybody, and that includes Mr. Putin. And we want to be able to continue to give Ukraine the support that it needs so that it can achieve those outcomes. We’ve been nothing but clear about that. And with every package that’s gone out to Ukraine, there’s been a consultation with Congress. There’s been a conversation. We’ve been very clear about this and we have talked to the Ukrainians throughout this last two years. It’s hard to believe we’re coming up on two years. Meeting their needs along the way, we want to continue to do that.

What do you make up Speaker Johnson’s comments, repeated comments? There’s no charge.

The speaker can own his comments and he should be the one answering questions. I can tell you we have been nothing but clear and consistent with members of Congress since the beginning of the war about what we are doing to help Ukraine succeed on the battlefield and what we’re going to need to continue to do. We can get caught up in all this, the comments out here on the microphones, but the next couple of months are going to be critical for Ukraine. If you think that the fighting’s just going to stop because the snow’s falling, think again. The Russians continue to fire drones and missiles at Ukraine, and while the battlefront hasn’t moved a lot on either side, there’s still a lot of active fighting going on there.

(35:44)
And Ukrainian commanders, I believe can be forgiven right now from having to make some pretty difficult decisions about what weapons they’re going to expend, what shells are going to fire, what missiles they’re going to use because they don’t know when the next shipment’s going to come. And that’s a horrible place. That’s a horrible place to put the Ukrainian military in as the Russians certainly aren’t suffering under that same uncertainty as they reach out to North Korea for ballistic missiles and by the way, continue to fire them and drones from Iran and producing on their own.

Go ahead Sabrina.

Thank you. My colleagues at the Wall Street Journal reported on a proposal by Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar for a post-war Gaza that would create a pathway toward a Palestinian state in exchange for a Saudi recognition of Israel. Is the US aware of this proposal? Does the administration support it?

I’m obviously not going to try to negotiate here from the podium, so certainly seeing that reporting, all I can tell you is that we, as even on the call with Prime Minister Sunak today, we continue to be in touch with our counterparts, our allies and partners about trying to get those hostages out, trying to get the appropriate humanitarian pause in place so that we can do that and get additional aid in as well as making sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself. But I won’t get into specific negotiations one way or another.

And is there anything else that you could tell us about Brett McGurks visit to the region, both in terms of the focus of his discussions and how the first day of talks has gone?

Well, I don’t have any readout from his first day of talks. He just got in the region. I’m sure we’ll have more to say about it as he moves through this trip. As you know, he comes in and out of the region all the time, and I suspect that in all his discussions he’ll be talking to a range of partners and counterparts on a range of issues to include, of course the fighting in Gaza and our desire to get those hostages out.

And Kelly we have to wrap it up soon because we have to gather soon.

Does the US have any concern that the positions of the Israeli government on two state solution or the pace or intensity of the war have more to do with Benjamin Netanyahu’s domestic position in term as opposed to the long-term goals that the US and allies would have that there is a focus on his own needs versus what the US believes is the right course?

In all our discussions, Kelly, with the war cabinet, we’re not having them from a perspective of their domestic politics. And I recognize the validity of the question, but we’re not focused on what their domestic political issues are. That wouldn’t be a sound place for us to have discussions with them about the war in Gaza. That’s really for them to speak to whatever pressures they might feel or might not feel from a domestic perspective. What we want to make sure is that they know they’re going to continue to get our support, but that we also want to see reduction in civilian casualties, more humanitarian assistance going in and obviously, as I said earlier, get those hostages out.

Thanks, Karien. Admiral, just a quick one on China. Over the weekend the Chinese ambassador to the Netherlands was commenting on the ASML’s ban of further chip equipment to China, and he said the US has stretched its idea of security far too far, even the matters that have nothing to do with military risks and that the US is putting pressure on their allies to do the same. I was wondering if you had any response to that.

No, we talked about this coming out of the G20. It’s not just about the United States. Other countries share our concerns about certain export licenses of certain technology that can have a national security implication. And we made it very clear we’re trying to de-risk not decouple. And our decisions in terms of these export licenses is really designed specifically to make sure that we can continue to protect US national security. That’s what we’re focused on. And these companies obviously have to make their own decisions.

Go ahead John.

Thanks a lot, Karien. John. It seems as if the administration and Prime Minister Netanyahu are on the same page as it relates to the hostages and that is that you can’t talk about having a cessation of hostilities in Gaza without a release of the hostages. Would you agree with that idea?

We believe that it’s important for… In order to be able to get hostages out safely, you’ve got to have a pause in the fighting.

And where do things stand as it relates to that? We’re almost approaching February, the hostages were initially taken October the 7th of last year. Are there efforts underway? There’s various reporting, for instance about efforts in Cairo, Egypt. Can you confirm those efforts?

What I can confirm for you is that there are ongoing serious sober discussions with our partners and our counterparts to try to get another hostage deal in place. I wish I could stand here, John and tell you that I can announce it today or we’re going to do it tomorrow. I can’t do that. But I can assure you that this is not something we’ve forgotten about. It’s not something we haven’t worked on every single day. And as I said earlier, Brett’s in the region and I have no doubt that this will be a key part of his agenda while he is over there.

Thanks, Admiral. There have been roughly 150 attacks on US troops in Iraq and Syria. Is the US response working? Is the US doing enough to protect its troops?

We’ll continue to do what we have to do to protect our troops in our facilities. We are certainly mindful of the danger and in these attacks over the weekend, now a small number, but a number nonetheless of US troops were being evaluated for traumatic brain injury. That’s a wound and we take that seriously.

And the Houthis, they aren’t stopping their attacks. So when the US retaliates, how can that not be seen as escalatory? And how does this all end?

If you’re trying to… Look, if you’re in a scrap with somebody and you can find a way to tie one or both of their hands behind their back, that’s not escalating, that’s deescalating. That’s taking ability away from the other party to inflict harm. And the strikes that we have conducted ashore in Yemen have degraded Houthi capabilities, as I’ve said earlier. It doesn’t mean that they don’t still have offensive capability available to them. Clearly they do because they continue to use it. And as the president said, as long as they continue to make that choice, we have a choice too. We have a choice to keep defending our ships and our sailors and merchant traffic and we have a choice when we have the information available to us to preempt their ability to conduct those attacks. And we’ll continue to do that.

And there was a pretty stark statement from a senior Israeli official to ABC News saying that Israel’s closer than ever to a war with Hezbollah and possibly a full regional war. Do you agree with that?

Everything the president has done since October 7th, everything, has really been designed to keep this conflict from escalating and widening, and that’s going to be our focus.

I wanted to get your response to a comment from the EU foreign policy chief, Joseph Borrell. He’s meeting with other European Union foreign ministers in Brussels, and he said that the Israeli military operation is not working and that it is seeding hate for generations in Gaza. I wanted to get your response on what the White House thinks.

The Israelis themselves have talked about the progress that they’ve made against Hamas leadership. We believe that going after leadership is a useful approach when you’re dealing with a terrorist network. It worked for us with Al-Qaeda. It worked for us with Isis. I’ll let them speak to their progress. We’ve been very careful not to armchair quarterback this thing and throw in place from the sideline, but they have made some progress against the network. They’ve made some progress against the network’s ability to resource itself and the infrastructure, particularly underground infrastructure that they continue to use. But as the Israelis have said themselves, that’s going to be a fight that’s going to take them some time. And as for the second part of that comment, I mean look, every single life lost, innocent life lost is a tragedy and should be mourned. And we have been very clear with our Israeli counterparts about the need to be more precise, more deliberate, more cautious. There have been too many civilians killed in this conflict and the right number is zero. And we recognize that there could be long-term effects from that.

And Jay, and the [inaudible 00:44:02]

Thank you John. Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected Hamas’ conditions to end the war in exchange for releasing all of the hostages. Does President Biden support that decision?

Decision by?

Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Again, I’d let the prime minister speak to his comments. We want to see all the hostages home and we want to see Israel not have to face a threat next door like the one that they faced on the 7th of October.

I’m just asking if the president supports this decision to reject a proposal that would’ve freed all of the hostages, including of course this-

I can’t validate that proposal itself. I’m not in a position to confirm that proposal.

The prime minister has talked about it.

I understand that. I’m not in a position to confirm that. What I can tell you is that the president supports Israel being able to defend itself. He supports getting all those hostages out. He supports in order to do that, an additional humanitarian pause of some length that will allow those hostages to go to freedom safely and more aid to get in. And again, you need a pause in the fighting to be able to do that. We don’t support, still today, some sort of general ceasefire.

And just on the, going back to the phone call between the president and the prime minister on Friday, we reported that the prime minister in that phone call had privately indicated that he was not ruling out the possibility of any Palestinian state in any form. Obviously, you’re aware of what he has said in public. Over the last few days my colleagues have referenced those statements. I guess I’m just wondering, as far as you are aware, is there any daylight between what the prime minister says in private versus in public on this matter?

That’s a question for the prime minister and his office.

Last question.

So if the US aid is delayed further for Ukraine, is there a danger? Does the President worry that other European states might withdraw their support?

I would say that the president’s mindful that other nations are watching what we do. Obviously, Mr. Putin’s watching what we do and other nations not involved in this conflict are watching what we do. I’m sure, I’m sure China’s watching it too, President Xi. But our allies and our partners, yeah, they’re watching closely what we end up doing here, because American leadership has been critical in supporting Ukraine. We have literally led the way, not only in the contributions, but in the coordination of contributions of other nations to get stuff into Ukraine. And so yeah, I think it’s entirely possible we should expect that some of our allies and partners might have to make different decisions if they see American leadership falter here or the United States pull back from supporting Ukraine. And that would have potentially disastrous consequences for Ukraine.

Thank you. Has the president had any conversations with any of these European states?

Well, he just talked to Prime Minister Sunak today, and one of the topics was Ukraine. So yes, absolutely.

Thanks. Thanks, Admiral. Thank you so much, Admiral. All right, we don’t have too much time so rapid fire, I guess. Go ahead Salome.

Okay. First of all, does the White House see this week as sort of a make or break week when it comes to the border deal coming together and advancing the Senate?

So look, we think this week is obviously, you heard from the president on Friday right before he addressed or when he was addressing the mayors. So this is, I think the way to look at it is this is an urgent moment, an urgent time to get things done at the border, to make sure we move his national security supplemental forward. And it’s obviously not just the border of security. You just heard the admiral talk about Ukraine. You just heard the admiral talk about Israel. All of these requests in that supplemental is urgent, is important.

(47:44)
That’s why supplementals are for when you have an emergency request. So the border is important. We think that we’ve had said before, and I think you also heard a little bit from the president on Friday, that we think it’s going in the right direction. We are very grateful and very thankful to the senators, both Republicans and Democrats who have been doing this for several weeks, several months now, trying to get to a bipartisan agreement on the border. And we want to see that happen. It is time, they have to act and we need to move quickly.

And there is a roll call circulating in New Hampshire that uses what appears to be fake audio of President Biden’s voice and acknowledging that’s obviously a campaign issue and that the campaign itself has spoken to it. Can you nonetheless talk about the concerns that the White House has about the president’s likeness to be used in this false manner?

So look, as you just stated, because I always have to say that at the top, it’s a robocall for upcoming election 2024 obviously so I just want to be careful in that comment. But that call was indeed fake and not recorded by the President. I can confirm that. And so I just want to be really careful since it is a primary election, it is a campaign. Don’t want to speak too much about that. And look more broadly as we talk about deep fakes, the president has been clear that there are risks associated with deep fakes, fake images and misinformation can be exacerbated by emerging technologies and that’s why this president has directed the Department of Commerce through the AI Safety Institute at NIST to help develop clear water marking and content standards. So that’s important. But again, to your question on this robocall, that was not the president that was fake, and it was certainly not recorded by this president. Okay.

Thank you, Karien. On Friday, President Biden said that he does not believe the border is secure, which is different from what Secretary Mayorkas has testified multiple times on the Hill. Why do they have two different views of the security of the border?

Look, the President’s been really clear. He has been clear that we need to move on the border. He needs resources to deal with the situation at the border. That’s why they’re having these conversation at the senate, on the senate level. And that’s why he’s asking for more resources and he wants to see additional resources, but also changes to policy to address what we’ve been seeing at the border. So him asking for it, him saying that we need to deal with the border security as Mayorkas, we all here have been doing at the White House, I think shows that, yeah, there’s an issue at the border, we need to deal with it and we have to act now. There’s an urgent need to act now. We want to find a bipartisan agreement to deal with that. And so we feel that meaningful change and additional resources are critical at this time.

If Mayorkas, who is tasked with making sure those resources are applied, if he is saying something different than the president about whether it’s secure or not, I guess I

I just have a hard time understanding why there is a disconnect here.

Yeah. Look, the President has repeatedly said that the immigration system is broken. He has said that from day one. When he put forward his first piece of legislation, his first big policy was to deal on the border. And it’s been three years. We haven’t seen any action. We’re glad to see that there’s conversation at the Senate, but he has said it is broken. The immigration system is broken. Border security, we need more resources. He’s been very, very clear, very clear about that, and I think those are the actions that he’s taken over the last three years. When you look at this bipartisan agreement, obviously those conversation when it leads to the border security has been about that. How can we see significant, meaningful, meaningful policy changes and also funding, adding funding to that to deal with what’s happening at the border? So look, it’s broken. The system is broken. The President has said this. That’s why on the first day, again, I’m just repeating myself here, over and over again, he put forward a comprehensive immigration policy to Congress to deal with that broken system that has been around for decades.

I just had a very quick follow up on the robocall. Understanding that that may raise some federal issues as well, is there going to be any kind of federal response in terms of national security, election integrity, law enforcement policy, anything like that?

So I don’t have anything else to share beyond confirming that it was indeed fake. It was not recorded by this President. Want to be also really, really careful because it’s obviously an election year that we’re in, 2024, so I don’t want to get too far into it. But I also just laid out why we have to be mindful. There are going to be deep fakes. That’s why the President has taken this very seriously over the last couple of years here in the administration. So I don’t have anything to preview or to lay out on any response from the federal level, but I can certainly confirm that that was not the President. It is not the President’s voice. He did not record that message.

(53:10)
Go ahead.

Thank you.

It’s been a while. Hi.

Yes, hello.

Where have you been?

Just preparing for this moment.

I think I’m going to disappoint you really badly. If you’ve been preparing all this time for this moment, it’s not going to be that exciting, I’m pretty sure.

Well, let’s see. Karine, why do you think it is that more and more people polled feel like over time President Biden is getting less and less mentally sharp?

Which poll is this?

ABC has President Biden’s rating for health since May down five points, and for mental sharpness down four points.

I have to say that’s a little confusing for me because if you look at what this President has done the last three years, historical pieces of legislation. When it comes to bipartisan infrastructure deal, many presidents before, like your favorite president, had said that-

Who’s my favorite president?

Why don’t we let the American people guess? No, no, no. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. You asked me a question.

I don’t understand you.

No, no, no. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish, and you’ll guess who I’m talking about. Who used to say infrastructure week. Infrastructure week, which was a punchline, became a joke. And now we are seeing infrastructure decade because of this President. There’s the CHIPS and Science Act. There is the Inflation Reduction Act. These are legislation that is going to have a difference for generations to come, and so this is something that this president has done. That’s pretty sharp for this president to have been able to do that. Let’s look at the economy. The economy now, unemployment is under 4%, 14 million jobs created. The economy is in a better place than when it was when he walked in. That’s just a fact. That’s just the data.

(54:55)
And we’re seeing consumer sentiment is going up. And we saw just in December how people spent more, and we hadn’t seen that in some time. So I think you needed a president like President Biden to get that type of stuff done. Someone who’s had senate experience, someone who was the VP, Vice President, under President Obama obviously, and someone who has been a pretty effective president over the last three years.

Okay. Following up on immigration, authorities in Fairfax County, Virginia ignored an ICE detainer. They released an illegal immigrant from Honduras who was charged with sexually assaulting a Virginia minor and production of sexual abuse material. Doesn’t that go to show that as record numbers of people appear at the border? You guys have no idea what kind of people are coming into this country.

Let me just say, first of all, this is why the President is having negotiations with senators, Republicans and Democrats, for the past couple of weeks to deal with what’s going on at the border security as it relates to border security. This is why the President on day one put forward a comprehensive immigration plan that, for more than three years now, Congress didn’t do anything about, but he’s appreciative that we’re having these conversation in the Senate. We’ve deployed additional troops and federal agents to the border who have, by the way, returned more than 482,000 individuals since May. That’s what we’ve been able to do. We’ve led the largest expansion of lawful pathways that we haven’t seen in some time. The President continues to have diplomatic conversation with Mexico, who have actually taken actions to deal with the situation.

(56:42)
There’s more work to do. There’s more work to do. We understand that. We have said that. You’ve heard that from the President on Friday. We understand that there’s more work to do. We need more resources. We need more funding, which is why we’re having these negotiations on the Hill. But Republicans in the Senate is working with us. Republicans in the House are trying to get in the way, so it’s up to them. Are they going to help? Are they going to actually deal with an issue or continue to move forward with a political stunt?

And as President Biden tries to make the national conversation more about reproductive rights, abortion, how many weeks into a pregnancy does he think abortion should still be legal?

So you’ve asked me this question before. I’ve been very clear. The President’s been very clear. We want to see the protections in Roe. We want to see Roe become the law of the land. That’s what the President wants to see. That’s what the President believes in. And let me be very clear here. It’s not some sort of shift that the President is making. A majority of Americans want to see their protections protected by the folks who are here in Washington, DC, in Congress, by this President and the Vice President. The president is standing with a majority of Americans. We saw that in the 2023 at midterm elections, and we saw that in 2022, not midterm election, but the 2023 elections and 2022 midterm elections. They’ve been very clear. We need to stand for freedoms, to make sure women have the right to make their own decision, personal decisions on their body, on their healthcare. That’s where a majority of Americans are. Guess what? Republican officials, they’re not there. They’re not with a majority of Americans, so the President’s going to continue to stand with majority of Americans on this. Go ahead, Brian.

Thanks, Karine. The President on Friday said that he wants to see massive changes at the border. What kind of policy changes is he discussing and open to?

I am not going to negotiate from here. I’m going to be very careful, very mindful. We want to see meaningful change, meaningful change, so that we can actually deal with a broken system. The immigration system is obviously broken. And we want to make sure that we have resources to deal with what we’re seeing at the border. And so that’s what they’re talking about in the Senate with both Republicans and Democrats. I’m not going to negotiate from here. I’m going to let them have those conversations. I think that’s important that they have the space to do that. But the President wants to deliver meaningful change and he’s also very grateful to those legislators continuing to have those conversations. We think it’s headed in the right directions, but not going to get into specifics as to what those policy changes would look like. Okay. Right behind you. Go ahead.

Thank you. Biden admitted Friday that the border is insecure. Does he have any plans to visit the southern border before the election?

The President visited the border recently.

In January.

Yeah, that was a year ago. He’s been there.

In December 2023. There were 300,000 migrant encounters, which is the highest month ever on record. How bad does the border crisis have to be for Biden to take a trip back?

So just to reiterate what I just said seconds ago, the President has been to the border. He’s visited the border. He saw for himself. He spoke to law enforcement. He saw exactly what goes on at the border. The President understands what’s going on at the border, which is why he included in his national security supplemental, which is, again, a request. That is, when you feel like there’s an emergency, you make that supplemental request, which is what the President did. It included border security. It included obviously Ukraine and Israel. And it is incredibly important, which is why he continues to push for it. And you’re seeing those conversations happening in the Senate in a bipartisan way, a bipartisan agreement, and the President’s very thankful to that. And so I’m going to leave that there. He’s taking this very seriously. Remember, day one, day one, he put forward an immigration comprehensive immigration legislation. Go ahead. Hey, Grant.

You made clear that that call in New Hampshire was a fake with the President’s voice and that was discouraging people from coming out to vote. Does that mean that he would encourage people to go out and vote in New Hampshire even though he’s not on the ballot?

I’m not going to speak to an ongoing election. I can’t. I can’t from here. I’m a federal employee. I cannot speak to this. I cannot. I would refer you to the campaign. I cannot speak to that from here.

And then a quick follow-up from I think Friday. I know that the President through his Chief of Staff apologized to Asa Hutchinson, who is a defeated candidate. I know that he didn’t agree with those words in the DNC statement, but does he fear that the DNC has taken its eye off the ball as far as trying to win over disaffected Republicans with that?

I’m going to be very careful, because you’re asking me essentially about an upcoming election and election year that we’re in, so I’m not going to speak to the DNC. I would refer you to the DNC themselves, but I reiterated that the statement that came out from the DNC that I can speak on behalf of the President, that what was said and what was in that statement did not reflect this President. I just don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Governor Whitmer went on Face The Nation on Sunday, and she talked about the abortion issue, and she said that it would be good for the President to talk more about it. And she also said that he should use more blunt language. What’s your reaction to that?

So in a few minutes, you’re going to hear directly from this President. He’s going to be meeting with his task force. It is the fourth time he’ll be meeting with this task force. The President has made it very clear that women across the country should be making these deeply personal decisions about their own bodies and not politicians. He’ll continue to stand for that. He’ll continue to stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans. And he believes and agrees that reproductive freedom is a fundamental right. It is a fundamental right.

(01:02:25)
I believe, if my timing is right, within the hour after the decision was made by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, you heard from the President. He spoke passionately about it. He spoke forcefully about what had just happened, freedoms being taken away. And at the top I talked about how 21 states now have bans on abortion or some sort of restrictive ban on abortion or restricting rights on that, and that affects 27 million women. 27 million women. So you’re going to hear from the President. Like I said, in a few short minutes, you’ll hear from him and he’ll speak directly to this, and he’s been very, very clear he’s going to stand with the majority of Americans on this.

The President’s going to South Carolina on Saturday. He’s going to spend the night. Do you have any more information about what he’s going to be doing?

I believe the campaign will have more to share on his trip to South Carolina. I don’t have anything at this time. All right. Okay. All right, go ahead.

Karine, you said to Peter that the President wants to see Roe restored. It’s still not clear to me though if he supports the late-term abortion restrictions that were included in Roe.

Well, if it’s in Roe, then that’s what he wants to see. I’m just not going to get into it. Whatever is in Roe, what Roe was when it was a constitutional law, that’s what the President wants to see restored. He’s been very clear about that

He also said he wants to be a president for all Americans, but how in this situation, with this issue, does he best represent the pro-life Americans who want to see more unborn babies saved?

What I will say is majority of Americans, majority of Americans, wants to see their rights protected, wants to see women have their rights protected, want women to be able to make those deeply, deeply personal decisions on their bodies, on their own, not politicians. That’s what majority of Americans want to see. And so the President’s going to stand with majority of Americans on this issue.

Do those unborn babies have any rights then?

I’m not going to get into that specific. I’m not going to get into that question. I’ve been very, very clear about this, where majority of Americans stand, and that’s what matters. But the President wants to see Roe become the law of the land, and that’s what he’s going to continue to ask Congress to do. Thanks, everybody. See you tomorrow. Thank you.