Speaker 1 (00:00):
… anticipating our friend Caroline closing.
Tommy (00:04):
Excuse me.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hi, Tommy.
Matt (00:05):
Just wanted to make sure your badge [inaudible 00:00:08].
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Oh my God, my badge. It's like I'll never be able to function without my badge from this point forward. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. I feel so unofficial now. All righty.
(00:21)
Yes, so our friend Caroline briefed today, which was terrific. And so, here we are. Thank you, everybody. For everyone watching at home, welcome aboard. I appreciate it. We know that many streaming options, we know C-SPAN carries this live as well, and it's great to see all of you here.
(00:37)
I do have a couple of announcements here right at the top. Today the State Department notified Congress on our reorganization plan to build an America First State Department capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
(00:50)
The secretary issued a statement on the notification. As he said, "Over the past quarter century, the domestic operations of the State Department have grown exponentially, resulting in more bureaucracy, higher costs, and fewer results for the American people. Since my first day as secretary, I've said that this department must move at the speed of relevancy and, in April, announced a broad reorganization of the department to better achieve that goal. Today we took the next step in that process by notifying Congress of how we plan to do that.
(01:22)
Further," he said, "the plan submitted to Congress was the result of thoughtful and deliberative work by senior department leadership. We have taken into account feedback from lawmakers, bureaus, and long-serving employees. The reorganization plan will result in a more agile department better equipped to promote America's interests and keep Americans safe across the world."
(01:48)
In addition, over the last few days, Secretary Rubio has announced new visa policies that put America first. I'm sure none of you have any questions about those. "The State Department is determined to protect American's right to free speech and to counter the malign influence and actions of the Chinese Communist Party.
(02:06)
The bottom line, we are using and will continue to use every tool in our tool chest to make sure that we know who it is who wants to come into this country and if they should be allowed to come in. Every sovereign nation has a right to secure its borders and to make sure they know who is in their nation and if they are safe to be here."
(02:27)
Finally, Secretary Rubio met with the North Macedonian Minister of Foreign Affairs today and his delegation. I had the pleasure of being at that meeting as well. The meeting underscored the strong relationship between the United States and North Macedonia, and highlighted mutual interests in regional stability, economic cooperation, and NATO. They explored opportunities to expand the economic collaboration, which would include energy, trade, and investment.
(02:57)
A fabulous delegation. It was a pleasure to meet them. Now it's a pleasure to see you guys again, even though I've met most of you, maybe not all of you taking your questions. Shall … Matt?
Matt (03:07):
Yes, please.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
I know you've got a few things on your mind.
Matt (03:09):
Well, yes. So I assume you are being sarcastic when you said that, "I know none of you have any questions about the visa policies."
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Of course, yes. Sarcasm is my favorite thing.
Matt (03:19):
Yes. So, anyway, I do have a couple of questions, but I'll keep them brief.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Sure.
Matt (03:20):
On the visa policies, specifically as it relates to China and the Chinese students, the statement that came out last night was it wasn't very specific, shall we say, about what affiliations with the Chinese Communist Party and what critical areas of study applicants for visas under those would be subjected to more scrutiny. So I'm wondering if there is an answer to what is the actual Chinese Communist Party affiliation that would make you ineligible for a visa, or what are examples of the critical areas in which will be subjected to [inaudible 00:04:05]?
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Well, since starting here at the State Department in January, I've been impressed with a number of things, most everything. But also learning about the nature of the visas … and I've said here regularly, many people watching around the world might not know, is that we don't give details about what our methods are regarding visas. Of course everyone is vetted. I think if you've gone through the process, it's about filing for a visa, and then you have to have a meeting. You do it in your home country, your consulate, your embassy, and that's the process. So there is a vetting. There always has been.
(04:38)
What we don't discuss, again because of privacy issues but also because it's different for each person, that there are a series of dynamics that can be applied, questions that can be asked, issues looked at, and we use every tool that we have to vet and to make sure we know who's coming in.
(04:53)
In this particular case, the United States is putting America first by beginning to revoke visas of Chinese students, as warranted, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party, as you mentioned, Matt, or studying in critical fields and enhancing scrutiny of visas for all Chinese nationals, including Hong Kong passport holders.
(05:16)
I will not be getting into the details, not only of what the details are regarding the scrutiny and the methods regarding the visa itself but also when it comes to critical fields. I was rather pleased having seen very often announcements that don't really give any information, and there's reasons for that, for national security because there's negotiations, it's diplomatic, et cetera, or giving away the nature of how we choose to do things might give up our hand and make certain things less effective.
(05:47)
In this case, when we think of critical fields, which is obviously a very specific phrase, we think about national security, the nature of how we keep America safe and secure and more prosperous. It is important to have, I think, a broad base because that could mean something different to many people. It could mean many things, and this is going to be up to the people making the decisions. I think that that's in the framework of what we've discussed regarding the visa actions as well when it comes to keeping America safe.
(06:19)
The United States, I further can say here, will not tolerate the CCP's exploitation of US universities or theft of US research, intellectual property, or technologies to grow its military power, conduct intelligence collection, or repress voices of opposition. The Trump administration is focused on protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding our national security and public safety through our visa process, obviously very openly and transparently applied by Secretary Marco Rubio.
(06:54)
Every visa adjudication is a national security decision, every single one of them. Every prospective traveler to the United States undergoes interagency security vetting. Prohibiting entry to the United States by those who might pose a threat to the US national security or public safety is key to protecting US citizens at home.
(07:18)
So we've experienced this through these last several weeks. It is something that is at the heart and really at the front line of protecting the country, and we're taking it seriously and we're being open about the nature of what's happening in this particular instance.
Matt (07:32):
Can I just ask that last bit that you just said which was not in the statement last night and is a little bit more specific about [inaudible 00:07:41]?
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Oh yeah, about the nature of the theft of certain things.
Matt (07:42):
[inaudible 00:07:42].
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Well, again, as reporters here all and curious people, you know the nature of what China has been doing with technology, stealing information, intellectual property, US research, copyrights, et cetera. This is not new or confusing. This is one way that we certainly can try to mitigate that issue. Yes, Andrea Mitchell.
Andrea Mitchell (08:10):
One follow up on that and then I going to ask you-
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Of course.
Andrea Mitchell (08:13):
… about Hamas and Gaza and Israel.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Certainly.
Andrea Mitchell (08:15):
Is there any re-evaluation of TikTok and its vulnerabilities as was defined by the previous administration as dangerous for national security reasons? Does the White House … Well, does the administration have any re-evaluation of TikTok in this context as you're cracking down on Chinese intelligence gathering?
Speaker 1 (08:38):
I would say you'd have to send that question, ask that of the White House, but we do know, though, of course, is that we're serious about Chinese intervention here, if you will, the nature of what's driving, of course, this new visa vetting dynamic. But for that specifically, I know the president has spoke on it. You'll need to ask the White House.
Andrea Mitchell (08:59):
Let me ask you about the possibility of a tentative acceptance by Israel of a ceasefire.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Let me come back to you on that. I think many of you also have the visa questions, correct? Are we … Let's stick with visas, because there's many different issues at hand, not just this one regarding China. So Daphne?
Andrea Mitchell (09:18):
[inaudible 00:09:19].
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Yeah, we'll get to Gaza after that. Yes?
Daphne (09:21):
Thank you. There are hundreds and thousands of Chinese students currently in the US. What proportion does the State Department expect will face visa revocations?
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Oh, I can't answer that at all. I mean one of the things we also, even if I was inclined to want to answer, is we're not going to speculate on where this would go. A lot of this clearly perhaps has not been done before as we look at this dynamic and make a determination of exactly what's been happening in this country.
(09:47)
A great deal of what President Trump has done and what Secretary Rubio is doing is beginning to look at certain things, whether it's foreign aid, the nature of visas, how people are getting here, what's happening at the universities, the things we've seen that we don't like that have emerged from them. But I certainly would not hazard to suggest that the numbers matter.
(10:06)
What the story is here is that the issue of being serious about safety for the country matters, and we're going to look at that at every single front. So I think it's less about numbers and more about the fact that we're keeping America safe and taking the actions that we need to do to do that.
Daphne (10:22):
At the tail end of Trump's first administration, the US revoked visas for more than a thousand Chinese students and researchers that were deemed security risks. Should we expect the actions that Secretary Rubio announced yesterday to exceed those first-term measures?
Speaker 1 (10:36):
God, you love the numbers. She loves the numbers, Daphne from Reuters. How many originally did you say Chinese students were here?
Daphne (10:44):
The hundreds of thousands.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Hundreds of thousands.
Speaker 6 (10:46):
[inaudible 00:10:47].
Speaker 1 (10:46):
And so, you've provided a number of about a thousand, which I'm not quite sure how that number even would've been a number that you could rely on, because Consular Affairs does not provide numbers. We don't discuss visas that are issued, visas that are removed, things that are revoked. Those are numbers that are not shared, are not provided. I would suggest using caution if someone has given you a number like that.
(11:13)
Again, I have no idea what the numbers will be. What I do know is that the people who are deemed to be a threat to the country or a problem now will be vetted again or looked at seriously, and Americans will be safer. That's the story here.
Daphne (11:27):
Then just on the visa restriction policy announced yesterday over the censoring of Americans, can you provide any specific examples of what actions prompted the US to institute this policy and when might we expect any visa restrictions to be implemented?
Speaker 1 (11:41):
In a case like this, you're looking at a policy that is a reflection of what the Trump administration and the American people care about, which is the idea of Americans being censored. We experienced this through COVID, the nature of our ability to be able to speak our minds. While I won't give you or can give you or would give you specifics about how this particular restriction would be approached, which is not done in a blanket way, that there's individuals who are flagged or who are seen as being a participant in some aspect of the censorship of Americans, what I can say is that all of what you see emanating from the Trump administration and the State Department is a reflection of the policy of this administration and what the American people want and expect when it comes to what their futures are going to hold.
Speaker 7 (12:30):
On the same-
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Again on visas-
Speaker 8 (12:31):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Hold on, please.
Speaker 7 (12:32):
One [inaudible 00:12:33]-
Speaker 8 (12:32):
Still on visas.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Still on visas. One moment I'll be back with you.
Speaker 8 (12:35):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Yes.
Speaker 8 (12:36):
One, on the cable that went out on Tuesday, it said they expected this expanded social media vetting guidance for visa applicants to go out in the coming days. Are you still tracking that timeline in Cuba? Is there any guidance on what that is going to look like?
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Yes. I can't give you a specific timeline, but there will be more information. What I can say is that, in general, because that was an internal communication that was leaked, at the same time we have confirmed that the details are accurate. Also, the Trump administration is focused on protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through the visa process.
(13:17)
Specifically every adjudication, as I noted to you, is a national security decision, and a visa, as a reminder, is not a privilege … It's a privilege. It's not a right. It's not a birthright. It's not something that you're owed no matter where you come from. Every prospective traveler to the United States undergoes interagency security vetting. This is important with these conversations because it seems like only certain groups are facing vetting with visas. Every single person does.
(13:45)
So I would say that, yes, you're going to get more information, and this is, as a result, not an interminable kind of … There is an end point and it should be rather quick as consulates and embassies make adjustments when it comes to how they handle visas.
Speaker 8 (14:01):
Can we expect the appointments to open back up immediately after that guidance goes out to post?
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Well, one thing I can tell you … A few things I can say is people can still make their application, do their regular steps, but it's a two-step process. You apply and then you have to get an appointment to meet with people, to talk with them. I don't know, unlike often with the passports, I mean there's a very specific process.
(14:27)
So right now there might be some delay, and what I'm told to encourage people to do is to regularly check to see when those spaces open. So as opposed to … Let me just say, I would not be recommending that if this was going to be weeks or months. So if you've applied for a visa and you want to, please do. Then if you're not getting an appointment, there's this online system. You continually recheck to see when those spots might open. I can't tell you immediately after some indetermined moment of an action, but I can tell you that it's something that would happen perhaps sooner than later.
Speaker 8 (15:13):
Then one more. On Harvard, my understanding is you are now reviewing all of the visas of Harvard-affiliated visa holders, not just students. Can you confirm that and why is this broader review taking place? Do you expect it to impact medical professionals, for example, professors at the university?
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Again, I hesitate only because all of this is regarding visas and the nature of our mission and the approach that we take regarding who is being scrutinized and how we're going to approach. So we're going to put that off. I think we probably will have a bit more on that next week perhaps, but we'll put that off now.
(15:54)
But what I can say clearly with all of the news over the last 48 hours is that the visa process is a key component of keeping the country safe. It is not targeted at certain, only specific individuals. This is an overarching national security action, and we are acting quickly. Obviously we're a nation that loves people coming here the legal way, and we want to help facilitate that, but not at our own risk. Sean?
Sean (16:25):
Sure. More on the visas. If you don't mind me emphasizing, as Daphne and Matt asked you, on the language, the secretary's statement yesterday aggressively wrote visas for Chinese students including those with connections. He's not saying specifically those with connections. So I mean there are 277,000 Chinese students in the United States. I mean should all of them feel that they're at some risk of having their visas revoked?
Speaker 1 (16:41):
I think everyone who's here on a visa has to recognize certainly, as what they've seen over the last few months, that America takes their visas seriously, that vetting is not a one-time process, it's continuing, and that if things happen, if you get arrested, if there's some kind of an issue, it's probably going to be seen at some point. But I do think that with this particular dynamic, it's clear that there's an interest in making sure that those who are here from China on a visa understand that we are taking our national security seriously and we are looking at their visas. If everything's fine, terrific. But that will be a vetting that certainly continues and is important clearly to the administration.
Sean (17:29):
And a bit broader. You said if everything's fine, you're welcome. More broadly, all these things that are going on with the student visas, with the vetting, with the suspension for now of new appointments, I mean is it still a priority for the administration to encourage students to come to the United States? They have other options. It's been said that Hong Kong, for example, is now saying students at Harvard doctoral students have a fast track to go there.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Sure. Yeah.
Sean (17:47):
Is there any concern that the US will lose in a competition? After all, there's $50 billion into the economy from international students?
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Yeah, well, people come here because this is where you start new lives, where you have every opportunity in the world. There's a reason why people come here. It's because of what the country represents. Yes, the excellence of our schools, and we want to keep it that way. We want parents who send their children, whether they'd be from a different country or America, to an American university, that they can recognize their child when that child returns home and that child actually has skills and an education that can improve their future, that can get them a job, that can help facilitate the dreams that they've had as opposed to political indoctrination or the idea of just activism or a certain political framework that they move out with.
(18:35)
This should be an education that is literally liberal, the idea that you learn things that help facilitate your life no matter where you come from, who you are, if you're a Jew or a non-believer or an atheist or Black or white or a woman. We've been through this in this country for the last two to three generations. Still, and our focus is making sure that everyone who does want to send their child to a school in this country can do so knowing that they're going to be safe, they're going to be able to get into a building and not held hostage in a library because it's been occupied, or that they're going to be able to actually learn things that you're paying that kind of money for.
(19:16)
So, yes, it not only should encourage more people. For those who are already here, it's certainly an important dynamic for believing and understanding that your child's going to be safe and that you're going to get something that you've paid for more than a social activist who lives in your basement.
Sean (19:36):
Can I switch to the Middle East or does anybody else have anything on visas?
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Well, it's an unusual day for me-
Sean (19:40):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
… and time flies, doesn't it?
Matt (19:45):
Who lives in the basement [inaudible 00:19:46]?
Speaker X (19:45):
[inaudible 00:19:46].
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Well, so many people. Too many people, Matt.
Sean (19:49):
[inaudible 00:19:50].
Speaker 1 (19:52):
So we've talked a great deal about the visas, and Gaza.
Media (19:55):
[inaudible 00:19:56].
Speaker 1 (19:56):
All right, we had Gaza. Where is she? There she is in in the blue jacket.
Speaker X (20:00):
[inaudible 00:20:01].
Speaker 1 (20:02):
You'll be second. We'll go to Andrea on Gaza and then we'll go into the back.
Speaker X (20:06):
[inaudible 00:20:07]-
Andrea Mitchell (20:08):
I wanted to ask you about the reported acceptance by Israel of a ceasefire for Gaza. What you can fill in about that? Does it include expanding food deliveries? Does it include the south as well as the north? Do you know whether Hamas has signed onto this? Is Qatar or Oman [inaudible 00:20:34]?
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Well, we know there's been a proposal put forward that seems to be promising. We are unaware of Hamas accepting it, but we do believe that it has some significant promise. We would … Of course, as you might imagine, it's been a goal of the administration to get all the hostages out, certainly the bodies that are being held. I believe that Caroline addressed this too, I think, earlier.
Speaker X (21:01):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Yes. So there is some optimism, some important optimism, but the aspect regarding Hamas and its position is unknown at this point. But I think that there's some optimism regarding what has been proposed.
Andrea Mitchell (21:19):
Do you know if this came from Mr. Witkoff and Germer and the other envoys who are here from Israel this week?
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Well, I believe that certainly Special Envoy Witkoff, as he's been involved in most issues and our successes. But at this point we're still waiting to get some kind of final point put on that which would allow even more humanitarian aid to move in, and certainly the return of hostages and bodies. So this is what we continue, always are working on, and we're excited that this might be a good development. All right. Nadia?
Nadia (21:58):
Thank you. I'll follow up on Gaza again. Caroline just said now actually that both the Israelis and … Agreed to it and they're waiting for that [inaudible 00:22:08].
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Yes, that's correct. So this is … When we say this in optimism, it means Israel's agreed. So we're in a very good position, I think.
Nadia (22:15):
But, as you know, the president said he wants to see an end to this war. Is this any US guarantee that actually they're going to discuss the end of the war after the 60-day ceasefire? Because every time they reach that stop and the ceasefire collapse is because [inaudible 00:22:33].
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Well, the ceasefires don't collapse. Ceasefires are ignored by Hamas and they're broken by Hamas. They don't just collapse under their weight. Every moment, though, even without a ceasefire and without agreements like this, there's the constant effort to get this heinous situation to end, and not just for the moment, not for the 60 days or six months, that is the hallmark of President Trump's vision and what the secretary's worked for, what our special envoys have worked for.
(23:03)
Special Envoy Witkoff could be, just like President Trump, enjoying a very comfortable life somewhere else, but these are men and women who've made this kind of commitment. So I would say that obviously the end goal is an end, but ending the murders, the slaughter, the carnage, and getting people what they need is key, and that, of course …
(23:25)
You can't … And I think Zelensky had noted this as well. I mean you can't talk about peace you're being shot at and killed. I mean one thing has to be able to lead to the other, otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
Nadia (23:40):
[inaudible 00:23:41].
Speaker 1 (23:41):
All right, now in the blue, I've skipped you often. Are you on this part?
Speaker 7 (23:45):
I want to go back to the visa, [inaudible 00:23:48].
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Visa. All right, let's get one more question regarding Gaza.
Speaker 13 (23:51):
[inaudible 00:23:52] and Middle East.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yes, and Middle East. Go ahead.
Speaker 13 (23:53):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Go ahead. Yes, you go ahead first. We won't go right back. We won't go to visas. We've spent a great deal of time on that. Go ahead.
Speaker 13 (24:00):
Me?
Speaker 14 (24:00):
Me?
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 14 (24:03):
I got a Gaza visa question rolled into one. So it's jackpot. The Mahmoud Khalil case, the federal district judge ruling yesterday, that while he found that Khalil gave insufficient responses to allegations that he omitted key information from his application, the judge also ruled that Secretary Rubio's determination that Khalil's activities would have an adverse impact on American foreign policy were unconstitutionally vague. Does the secretary have a reaction to that, number one, and, number two, does it change the position or the tactic going forward in these types of cases?
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Yeah. So, again, let's just take that back for next week. I mean I do want to get a direct response for you for that, but I literally have to go in a few minutes. Normally I would stay for as long as I could, but there's something I can't avoid. Yes?
Speaker 15 (24:46):
Russia, Ukraine?
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Yes.
Speaker 15 (24:47):
[inaudible 00:24:48] Ukraine?
Speaker 1 (24:48):
All right, we'll go to Russia, Ukraine. Yes. All right.
Speaker 15 (24:51):
Obviously the secretary connected with his counterpart in Russia yesterday. In their call, did Mr. Lavrov give Secretary Rubio any indication of whether and when this peace memorandum that Russia promised would materialize? President Zelensky is saying nobody has seen it and Secretary Rubio has said it's an important indicator of how serious Russia is about continuing negotiations. So I'm wondering if you have an update.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Yes. Again, we've said multiple times that we're going to judge Russia based not on what they say, but on what they do. Right now what's happening is not good. You've heard that from the president. What I can tell you is Secretary of State Marco Rubio in fact did speak with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Rubio welcomed, as we all did, the exchange of a thousand for a thousand prisoners, which happened over the weekend. That was arranged I believe while we were in Istanbul or … Yeah, Turkey.
(25:43)
The secretary reiterated President Trump's calls for constructive good faith dialogue with Ukraine as the only path forward ending the war. So that's what we're saying about the call itself, and we'll have to leave that there.
Speaker 15 (25:59):
On the question of the good faith dialogue-
Speaker 1 (26:01):
Sure.
Speaker 15 (26:01):
… does the secretary believe that what the Russians have offered in terms of these direct talks with the Ukrainians in Istanbul, is that being offered in good faith? We understand it's the same delegation that was dispatched last time. Is this actually going to move the ball forward or is it a rehashing?
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Right. Well, that's, I think, at the heart of the current diplomatic dialogues and negotiations, and I won't characterize the secretary's point of view or his approach. I think what he reiterated after this call I think speaks for itself, that he reiterated President Trump's calls for constructive good faith dialogue as the only way to end the war. So that was repeated in that call and I think that speaks to the secretary's position.
Speaker 15 (26:45):
Last one-
Speaker 1 (26:46):
All right. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Speaker 16 (26:47):
May I just follow up on that? Can this good faith dialogue continue alongside military offensive?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
You've got to repeat that first part. This what?
Speaker 16 (26:54):
Can this good faith dialogue continue alongside military offensive?
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Well, obviously we're going to find that out. Again, we're judging and I think the president has judged Putin based on the nature of what was clearly extremely frustrating to him regarding the killing of civilians while talks are going on for a ceasefire. That's a judgment that's going to come from the leaders of this country, the leaders, frankly, of the free world, of whether or not that's possible. We're going to have to take that moment by moment in this case, I think.
Speaker 17 (27:31):
Syria.
Speaker 16 (27:31):
Are you guys involved into the second part of Istanbul talks? Are you part of it?
Speaker 1 (27:40):
I'm not going to go into that. I have nothing to preview for you on that. So yes, sir, go ahead.
Speaker 18 (27:45):
On Iran, the president yesterday said that a deal with Iran could happen in the next couple of weeks. The Iranian foreign minister today on X said that media are speculating about an imminent agreement, but he's not sure we are there yet. Any reaction to what he said?
Speaker 1 (28:01):
Well, people are speculating because maybe somebody goes on radio and starts to speculate and starts to talk and starts to gossip. We don't do that. We've learned that discussing the details of something as sensitive as peace negotiations or ceasefire does not help. It might be more interesting radio, but that's not how we're operating. It's not how serious agreements benefit.
(28:25)
So I'm not going to comment on that. What I do know is that every report after our meetings is that they've gone well and that progress has been made. Iran is at the table, and progress has been made based on the lines of President Trump, what his lines are, that there will never be a nuclear weapon, that there will not be enrichment, and we make progress every single meeting.
Speaker 18 (28:48):
What-
Speaker 1 (28:48):
Unfortunately, a very strange short day, that is going to be it today. I know there's more, and of course I'll see you soon. You also know how to reach all of us. All right, thank you, everybody. That really is it.
Speaker X (29:00):
[inaudible 00:29:01].
Speaker 1 (29:01):
Thank you. Appreciate it. Have a great …
