Tommy Pigott (00:00):
To begin, I just have a few comments up top and then I'll be happy to take some questions. So this week, the United States demonstrated once again that American leadership matters. Driven by the clear vision of President Trump and Secretary Rubio, the United States is standing firm on the world stage and delivering real results for the American people. The United States vetoed a counterproductive United Nations Security Council resolution that targeted Israel and failed to condemn Hamas. The resolution created a false equivalency between a sovereign nation and a terrorist group and would've undermined meaningful diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire. As President Trump has made clear, we will not support any resolution that fails to demand Hamas disarm, leave Gaza, and release all hostages, including the remains of two murdered Americans. The United States will continue supporting the delivery of aid to the people of Gaza and will work to ensure that Hamas and other terrorist organizations cannot continue to exist.
(01:01)
This is the first security council veto of the Trump administration and we are proud to use our veto on such an important issue. It's time the UN returned to its founding purpose, promoting peace and security, and stopping these performative actions. Earlier today, Israeli forces recovered the remains of Judy Weinstein and Gad Haggai in Gaza. Judy and Gad were kidnapped and brutally murdered by terrorists on October 7th. Their fate remained a mystery for months, even after the worst was confirmed. Their families were denied the dignity of a proper burial for more than 600 days. We hope their families can now find some measure of peace.
(01:40)
At the same time, we are acutely aware of the anguish 56 families continue to endure, including those of Americans Omer Neutra and Itay Chen. Every single hostage must be released immediately. To further safeguard the American people, President Trump has signed a new directive restricting the entry of foreign nationals from specific countries to protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats. This action reinforces the administration's unwavering commitment to protecting our borders and ensuring that those who wish to do us harm are denied access.
(02:16)
This administration will continue to use every tool at its disposal to defend our homeland dismantle terrorist networks and deny entry to those who threaten the American people. We will never waver in our mission to protect the United States. And with that I'll take some questions.
Reporter 1 (02:31):
Thank you. If I could start with Russia-Ukraine… Was Secretary Rubio on the call between President Trump and Putin?
Tommy Pigott (02:38):
Nothing further to add besides what's already been publicly said.
Reporter 1 (02:40):
Okay. And then President Trump said today that Putin told him he had no choice but to attack Ukraine following Kiev's latest attacks. Trump said he told Putin not to do it. Has the US communicated to Russia any red lines that it does not want to see crossed?
Tommy Pigott (02:53):
Look, what's been clear from the very beginning, and President Trump has made this clear, is that he wants to see deescalation. He wants see direct dialogue. He wants to see peace. That has been his driving motivation on this from the beginning, to end the carnage and the bloodshed. As you said, the president spoke to this. Nothing further to add to his comments, but his motivation here has been very clear from the beginning, to get to that direct dialogue and stop this bloodshed.
Reporter 1 (03:14):
Would the US take any punitive actions such as imposing sanctions if Russia attacks?
Tommy Pigott (03:19):
I'm not going to speculate or get ahead of the president on that. But what I can say again is that the president has been very clear he wants to see this conflict come to an end.
(03:27)
Yes?
Andrea Mitchell (03:28):
Thank you very much, Tommy. Can you explain the apparent conflict between the State Department's position regarding Afghanistan? The relative safety and security of the Taliban government regarding the decision made with withdrawing temporary protective status for Afghans here in the US as of July 12th, because it's safe enough presumably for them to go back, and the fact that the State Department has now decided that Afghanistan is not safe, so it is on the list of states for which immigration is banned?
Tommy Pigott (04:11):
So we're talking about two dynamics here. When it comes to the specific of TPS, temporary being the operative word here, I refer you to DHS for more details. But it was always a temporary benefit, a temporary protection. That's in the name itself. So we have that dynamic. And people that are here, people that work here on temporary protected status have had opportunities to apply for permanent residence here in the United States.
(04:33)
So you have that dynamic of a temporary protected status that was temporary, versus the second dynamic of the ability to vet people entering this country, the ability to ensure people coming into this country on a visa are properly vetted. So without getting into specifics of individual countries, the White House has put out a fact sheet on this that I would refer you to for more specifics. But the idea of people coming into this country, the ability to properly vet, is a separate dynamic and we have to have confidence that we can vet people properly and I think the American people would expect us to have that. So what we're looking at here is, can we vet people properly? Are there terrorist concerns? Do we see visa overstays in regards to some of these countries? Those are some of the driving purposes here. So we have those two separate dynamics when it comes to Afghanistan.
Andrea Mitchell (05:14):
Just to follow up, there are large numbers of American veterans, those who have fought in Afghanistan and also including state department personnel, CIA personnel, others who have worked with the US government, who feel very strongly that many Afghanistan refugees are at risk if they go back because of their connections to the United States in the past, in the present time. And that going back, particularly for women, is of high risk as well. And they're asking why it is not a different case, why Afghanistan is being treated this way after the Afghans worked so hard to try to help us during the war.
Tommy Pigott (06:04):
Well, the temporary protective status is only one dynamic when it comes to the many different ways that people from Afghanistan have come to this country. And again, I'd refer you to DHS on the specifics of that TPS announcement. But I think those two separate dynamics are important, again, to stress. The temporary protected status, which is always meant as a temporary protection, versus the ability to vet people that are entering this country. And I think we have to have that realistic approach to say, are we able to vet people that are coming into this country? And the American people, I believe, want to see us be able to say that we can when we're looking at these visas. And this is part of a broader action, a broader emphasis from this administration with this action and other actions regarding visas to make sure we have that proper vetting in place.
Andrea Mitchell (06:46):
You don't think that we are violating a trust? A sacred trust with many of these people who have put their lives on the line for the United States of America?
Tommy Pigott (06:56):
Well, look. I think when it comes to this, again, the TPS is one dynamic of the many ways that people from Afghanistan have come to this country. Especially immigrant visas for example, exceptions related to that are in the proclamation itself when it comes to the proclamation we saw yesterday. So I think again, we're looking at two different dynamics, a temporary protected status, that again was always meant to be temporary. There was the opportunity for those that were here on TPS to apply for permanent residence, while then also having the secondary part of it, which says, are we able to vet people coming into this country? And I think those are two separate dynamics.
(07:26)
Yes?
Shaun Tandon (07:27):
Could I continue with Andrea's question a bit? When it comes to the travel restrictions, I mean, there are a number of countries that were taken quite a bit by surprise by this. Just Chad right now said that they're going to retaliate, not let in Americans. I realize there probably aren't that many Americans clamoring to go to Chad, but nonetheless… You look at Iran, for example. It's no secret that many Iranians are not very keen on the Islamic Republic, the diaspora as many critics. Is there a sense more broadly that the United States is losing the proverbial hearts and minds by blanketly saying that all these people, just on purely on basis of nationality, have no right to come in rather than seeing them as individuals?
Tommy Pigott (08:01):
Well, look, this is a national security imperative. What we are seeing is, can we have trust that first of all, that we're vetting people properly? Is there in some of these countries, and I'm not going to go country by country, again refer you to the White House fact sheet for more information which they've made publicly available. But do we have the ability to vet people coming in? And this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there a central authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us? A whole host of different issues that are important to figure out here. And I think another part of this is, we're in constant communication with countries around the world that try to determine ways that we can have that be the case, where we can have proper vetting procedures, where we can have confidence with who's coming into this country.
(08:42)
But again, it's part of that broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues, to say we're going to properly vet people coming into the United States. Then people that are here, if they take actions that are contrary to what their visa reported when they apply for that visa or broke our laws, they may see that visa revoked. It's about making sure we're enforcing our laws, have confidence in who we're letting into this country. And I believe the American people expect that. I think a lot of Americans watching at home would want to make sure we have that confidence. And again, I want to stress that this is a country-by-country basis, but that each person that applies for a visa is also case-by-case. So we have that country-by-country basis. We have those concerns. But then there's also exceptions that are listed in the proclamation. And each visa determination is a case-by-case determination.
Shaun Tandon (09:25):
Just a couple things on that. Of course, the past, the previous administration, there wasn't… This took place, something somewhat similar in the first Trump Administration, and the previous administration didn't have these blanket bans. Was there a sense that there was a problem? That you said that there's a problem with screening, were those problems existing? Obviously there's the attack in Boulder, but the assailant in that case, there's some Egypt, which wouldn't be applicable in this case.
Tommy Pigott (09:48):
Well, as the president said in his video announcing this proclamation, there was a discussion going on within the government to try to determine the proper course of action here. And looking at these countries, a country-by-country basis, again looking at different concerns. Visa overstays, do we have the ability to properly vet it? Are there other security concerns? That was a country-by-country basis. Those determinations were made. We saw the proclamation. We also saw the president and his proclamation outline the idea of further analysis of these within 90 days, for example, than 180 days thereafter. So it'll free the proclamation for more details exactly how that would go forward. But ultimately what we're talking about here is a national security imperative. And I believe Americans watching at home would want us to have confidence that when we're issuing visas, we can say they've been properly vetted. Do we have that ability? And this is part of that broader effort from this administration to make sure that we're properly vetting people that come into the United States.
Shaun Tandon (10:39):
Okay, just one more. The World Cup of course is coming up, and then the Olympics after that. The United States sets a FIFA that basically, obviously people will be welcome here. The secretary himself said that the US will be welcoming in soccer fans to come see the World Cup games that are here. Iran is among the countries that has qualified. Will there be special consideration there, soccer fans coming in for FIFA?
Tommy Pigott (11:03):
Well, in the proclamation itself, there are exceptions that were listed regarding coaches and players and the like that I would refer you to those, the proclamation for-
Shaun Tandon (11:10):
[inaudible 00:11:10]
Tommy Pigott (11:10):
Well, I think both people that are coming and Americans would hope that we can have confidence that when people come to the United States, when they come, that they are properly vetted. I think this goes to the exact same consideration. I think this is part of what it means to host an event of this magnitude, to make sure that we can have that confidence. And again, we're in constant communication with countries about ways that we can see the vetting process we need to see. Have that collaboration, make sure that we're having those security concerns addressed. So this is part of what it means to host an event. And I believe people coming from all around the world, Americans going to these events, would want to see actions like this. We take security concerns extremely seriously. We want people to be able to go to the World Cup and do so safely.
Reporter 2 (11:47):
Tommy. Sorry, can I just… If there was a two-minute warning, I missed it.
Tommy Pigott (11:52):
Oh, no worries. That's all right. There was, though I heard it may have gotten lost in the ether.
Reporter 2 (11:59):
Okay. All right. This is just, in your first response to Shaun, you talked about some of these countries lacking a central authority to vet. You're saying that you want other countries to vet people for US visas?
Tommy Pigott (12:09):
No. This is just a concern we have. Can we ensure that people coming from these countries are properly vetted?
Reporter 2 (12:13):
What does the central authority in a foreign country have to do with your vetting process, which is done entirely by the US government, or should be?
Tommy Pigott (12:20):
Well, there's whole ideas of documents provided by people applying for a visa. There's this whole idea of people providing passports or other types of documents in order to be vetted.
Reporter 2 (12:30):
So you're saying that these countries don't have… You have no trust in the viability or the authenticity of these passports?
Tommy Pigott (12:39):
Well, what I can say is that there's security concerns of our ability to properly vet people coming for a visa. That's what I can say.
Reporter 2 (12:44):
Okay. And then will anybody who currently has a visa lose that? Have it revoked under this proclamation?
Tommy Pigott (12:53):
Well, this proclamation is about entry, so that's what this proclamation is focused on, that we have-
Reporter 2 (12:58):
I thought it is about visas.
Tommy Pigott (12:59):
Well, it's about entries in terms of visas.
Reporter 2 (13:01):
Yes.
Tommy Pigott (13:02):
So, I mean-
Reporter 2 (13:03):
As you're well aware, just having a visa doesn't mean you get into the country.
Tommy Pigott (13:06):
Yeah, no. What I'm-
Reporter 2 (13:06):
You present yourself at the border-
Tommy Pigott (13:07):
But you're saying people here, correct? If I understood your question correctly.
Reporter 2 (13:10):
No, I'm saying people either here or who happen to be in, I don't know, Australia or something. But they have a visa and they are from one of these countries. Will their visas be revoked? Will anyone's visa be revoked?
Tommy Pigott (13:22):
I'm not going to get into hypotheticals at this point in terms of that. What I can say again is that-
Reporter 2 (13:26):
Okay, but-
Tommy Pigott (13:26):
This proclamation is about a national security imperative, and visa determinations are a case-by-case determination. So we see that constantly when it comes to visas. What we're saying here, on a country-by-country basis, is that we have concerns about visa overstays. We have concerns about countries accepting nationals that have overstayed their visas.
Reporter 2 (13:41):
The bottom line is that you do not know if anyone who currently has a visa, who is either in the United States or outside of the United States, but holds a passport from one of these countries will have their visa revoked.
Tommy Pigott (13:51):
Well, I'm not going to speculate on a specific hypothetical.
Reporter 2 (13:52):
I'm not asking you to speculate on anything specific. I'm asking, if you don't know the answer, then it is clear that this wasn't really thought through that well.
Tommy Pigott (14:00):
No, I think it was thought through. What we're seeing here is concerns about certain security-
Reporter 2 (14:04):
Okay, so what happens? What happens as a result?
Tommy Pigott (14:07):
Again, it's a case-by-case basis. You're asking me a hypothetical situation. It's a case-by-case basis.
Reporter 2 (14:12):
What are the instructions that have been sent out to embassies on how to deal with-
Tommy Pigott (14:16):
Well, I'm not going to talk about our internal communications. This is ultimately, fundamentally a national security concern. These determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.
Reporter 2 (14:24):
All that is fine. No one's arguing with that.
Tommy Pigott (14:25):
I've addressed that. I think we're going to… Yes.
Reporter 2 (14:27):
I have one more about China, though.
Tommy Pigott (14:29):
Yeah, green jacket.
Reporter 3 (14:32):
Oh, thank you.
Tommy Pigott (14:32):
Yes.
Reporter 3 (14:33):
Thank you so much. Although there are a lot of questions and explanations, I believe there are still some doubts among citizens from the seven countries that are with restrictions on this travel ban. So in a general matter, if you could explain what those restrictions mean for those citizens.
Tommy Pigott (14:54):
Sorry, one more time. I lost track there.
Reporter 3 (14:55):
The travel ban for the countries that are in the list with a partial restriction, the seven countries including Cuba and Venezuela, for example. I believe many citizens that are still doubt what means this restriction. So what this mean?
Tommy Pigott (15:10):
Yeah, when it comes to those, the White House has put out a fact sheet talking about those countries, the partial restrictions. I would refer you to that fact sheet for more information that's available on their website there.
Reporter 3 (15:18):
From the perspective from the State Department, what this mean from those who are not here, and for those who are here in the country and might want to leave and then come back?
Tommy Pigott (15:26):
Well, again, it's a case-by-case basis and we have concerns that we want to see addressed. And that's what this is part of addressing.
Reporter 3 (15:31):
Thank you.
Tommy Pigott (15:32):
Yes?
Reporter 4 (15:42):
Thank you, Tommy. I have two questions. First question, Sergei Shoigu, head of Russia's State Security Council, and Kim Jong-un, North Korean leader, met in Pyongyang today and agreed that North Korean troops will remain in Russia, even after the war between Russia and the Ukraine ends. What is the United States view on this and what is your position?
Tommy Pigott (16:02):
Well, we've talked about many times, in terms of from this podium, North Korea and Russia. I'll repeat what we have said there before, is that third countries like North Korea that have perpetrated the Russian-Ukraine war bear responsibility. We continue to be concerned about North Korea's direct involvement in the war. North Korea's military deployment to Russia and any support provided by the Russian Federation to the DPRK in return must end.
Reporter 4 (16:23):
One more, quick. Regarding the US response to the South Korean presidential elections. The White House said that US remains concerned about and opposes China's interference and influence in democratic countries around the world. And the China want that the United States should stop its actions to sow discord in South Korea between China and South Korea relations. Can this be seen as a US concern, that this elected South Korean president is more pro-China than pro-United States?
Tommy Pigott (17:15):
Look, what I can say is that we congratulate President Lee on his election as the president of the Republic of Korea. And on more details, I'll take that question back to see if we can get you an answer on that.
(17:25)
Yes?
Reporter 5 (17:25):
Me?
Tommy Pigott (17:26):
Yes.
Reporter 5 (17:28):
Yeah. Thank you, Tommy. Change topic?
Tommy Pigott (17:31):
Yes.
Reporter 5 (17:32):
I'm want to talk about the West Bank. Today marks the 58th anniversary of the occupation of the West Bank in East Jerusalem. Is the West Bank on your radar? Because there has been a spike, a huge spike as a matter of fact, in settler violence against the Palestinians and Israeli army, violence against Palestinian villages and so on. They're being locked at night. They're not allowed into their farms or to tend their animals and so on or even go to school and all these things. My question to you, is there someone or an office within the embassy in Jerusalem or anywhere, or in this building, that follows up on what happened in the West Bank? And what measures are you taking?
Tommy Pigott (18:11):
Well, look, what I can say as we've said here before, is that certain functions have been put underneath the embassy in Jerusalem under Ambassador Huckabee. That's the most I can say on that here.
Reporter 5 (18:20):
Okay, so where do Palestinians go if they have a grievance that they can raise with the Americans? Some Palestinians have US citizen and so on. Do they go to a certain office, say, "There's been an attack on my land. There's been an attack on my kids." Whatever. Do they go to a place where these grievances can be aired and expressed?
Tommy Pigott (18:43):
Well, I don't necessarily want to give a hypothetical depending on the exact circumstances you may be raising. But again, there have been functions that have been consolidated underneath the embassy in Jerusalem under Ambassador Huckabee, and I'll have to leave it at that.
(18:56)
Yes?
Reporter 6 (18:57):
Thanks, Tommy. Two questions for you. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel acknowledged a short time ago that the Israeli security establishment has been providing weaponry to a rival gang, rival to Hamas. Number one, was that done in coordination with the American government? And number two, is it in line with American policy in Gaza?
Tommy Pigott (19:17):
Well, look. I have nothing to preview on that. I'll take back the specifics, see if we can get more of an answer on that. What I can say is our approach and our policy remains that we stand with Israel and we stand for peace, and those are our goals that we want to see.
Reporter 6 (19:28):
Second question. It's kind of a different way of asking a question that was asked the other day. Who's currently in charge of Lebanon portfolio here at State?
Tommy Pigott (19:36):
Well, I mean we see a whole host of people that are involved in this issue.
Reporter 6 (19:39):
Who oversees it?
Tommy Pigott (19:40):
I mean, I have no personnel announcements to really announce at this time, but what I can say-
Reporter 6 (19:43):
I'm not asking for a personnel announcement, just-
Tommy Pigott (19:44):
Yeah.
Reporter 6 (19:44):
Who oversees it?
Tommy Pigott (19:45):
I mean, we have a whole host of different people that are involved in this. I mean, we see members of Ambassador Witkoff's team, we see different members of the Bureau. We have a whole host of experts here at the State Department that are involved in this.
(19:56)
Yes?
Reporter 7 (19:58):
Thank you, Tommy. Two questions. One question on Iraq and the other one on Iran. There are reports with, being published by Wall Street Journal talking about the Iraqi militia group. They involved-
Tommy Pigott (20:08):
I'm sorry, could you speak up just a little bit?
Reporter 7 (20:11):
There were reports published by Wall Street Journal, which says that the Iraqi militia groups involved in extracting illicit funds for Iran throughout the Visa and MasterCard payments. I'm wondering if you have any comments on that. And how do you view these militia groups inside Iraq, which they are serving in the interest of Iranian governments?
Tommy Pigott (20:33):
Well look, we've been clear in terms of when it comes to the militia groups, that militia groups within Iraq should report to the Iraqi government. Beyond the more specifics of your question, I'll take that back and see if I can get more specifics on that.
Reporter 7 (20:43):
Yeah. And the second question, do you have any updates for us about your negotiations with Iran? We heard about from the Iranian officials, including the Iranian Supreme Leader, Iranian Foreign Minister, which they said that the proposal you sent to them is incoherent, disjointed, and very unrealistic. And they made clear that Iran will never accept any proposal, any deal, which requests them to abandon all nuclear consortium outside Iran.
Tommy Pigott (21:12):
Well look, what I can say is that senior advisor and Special Envoy Witkoff sent a detailed proposal and we encourage the Iranian regime to accept it. It is in their best interest to accept it. We've also been clear again and again and again that the Iranian regime can never have a nuclear weapon. That there is a good option and a bad option in regards to that. Beyond that, it is not in our national interest to negotiate these issues publicly. But I can say that it is in the Iranian regime's best interest to accept the proposal that was given by Special Envoy Witkoff. And again, reiterate what has been made clear from the beginning. That the Iranian regime can never have a nuclear weapon.
Reporter 7 (21:45):
Will the next round of talks with Iran depends on their response to this proposal?
Tommy Pigott (21:49):
Look, we expect to meet with the Iranians again soon. But beyond that, I have nothing to preview.
(21:55)
Yes?
Reporter 8 (21:56):
Yes, yes. Thank you so much. Going back to Ukraine, I may follow up on the exchange with my colleague. Given the President's early comments comparing the conflict to a schoolyard fight, dispute if you want. Are you concerned that Russia might deem those comments, particularly the President said that they should fight for a while, as a green light to fight?
Tommy Pigott (22:21):
The President has been clear from the beginning that he wants to see this conflict come to an end. He has been clear from the beginning that his driver, his motivation here is to end the bloodshed, to end the carnage, to end the conflict. He has said that again and again and again. He has also encouraged de-escalation. He has encouraged the parties to come to the table to have direct talks. He has been clear that's what he wants to see. So he's made his position on this clear, and I think the framing of that question… Honestly, he has been very clear on this that he wants to see this carnage come to an end. He wants to see this bloodshed stop.
Reporter 8 (22:51):
He also made it clear that peace talks are right now basically going nowhere. Why no pressure on Putin right now?
Tommy Pigott (22:58):
Look again, he spoke to this just a little while ago, that he wants to see those direct talks happen. So I'm not going to get ahead of the president in terms of what he may or may not decide to do. But what the president is able to do, and it's a credit to his leadership that we've seen the progress towards peace that we have seen. That we have seen the parties engage in some sort of effort to try to get to that ceasefire. That's the goal. That's what the president wants to see. That's his driving motivation, and as he just said a little while ago, that remains his motivation here.
Reporter 8 (23:23):
I have one more question, if I may. Different topic. USAGM, VOA, reporters, journalists, colleagues, they've been in town, they were working for the US government and some of them are from dangerous countries. Now 50 of them, five-zero, are about to lose their J-1 visas. Does the State Department have any plan to protect them?
Tommy Pigott (23:39):
Well, I'm not trying comment on specific cases like that. As spokesperson Bruce has often said from the podium here, there are many different ways and many different ways that people can enter this country in terms of visas and the like. But I'm not going to comment on specific cases.
(23:51)
Yes?
Reporter 9 (23:54):
Back to Russia and Iran. President Putin has expressed willingness to help the US in talks with Iran. Question is whether President Trump has asked Mr. Putin specifically to help with this, or is it an offer by the Russians? And at this point, why would Russia want to help?
Tommy Pigott (24:09):
Well, I have nothing to preview beyond what the president said in his Truth just a little while ago. Or yesterday, whenever that Truth came out.
(24:15)
Yes?
Reporter 10 (24:15):
Can I follow on the topic of Russia, and I'm sorry if you addressed it in the two minutes that I also missed at the top. Was the secretary able to join for the Putin call or the call today with President Xi?
Tommy Pigott (24:25):
Well look, nothing again to offer beyond what the president has already described on these calls.
Reporter 10 (24:28):
Okay. On the Putin call, the secretary was meeting at the White House as National Security Advisor, in one of his capacities, with the senior Ukrainian delegation. Do you know if they were provided either a heads-up that the call with Putin was going to happen or a readout after it did?
Tommy Pigott (24:45):
I'm not going to get into those private diplomatic conversations. Nothing to add beyond what was already stated publicly.
Reporter 10 (24:49):
Without getting into the details that may have been provided, is the secretary or this department aware of what the Russian response might be in terms of timing or nature?
Tommy Pigott (24:57):
I'm not going to get into that from here. I mean, the president has already put out his Truth to this nature. The president's been clear, he wants to see deescalation. He's also been clear he wants to see the parties come to the table, to have direct negotiations.
Reporter 10 (25:07):
But assuming the response happens, is the US expecting something of a heads-up beyond what Mr. Putin told Mr. Trump?
Tommy Pigott (25:14):
Again, I'm not going to speculate on this.
(25:16)
Yes?
Reporter 11 (25:17):
Thank you, Tommy. US administration and the State Department established a strong communication line with the transitional government in Syria. And President Trump's envoy for Syrian affairs and the Turkish Ambassador for the US in Ankara is visiting Israel right now. And during this visit, Israel just started to target some places inside Syria, which stopped before with the intervention of Mr. Trump, convincing the Israelis that after these communications started with the transitional government. How do you see the targetings of the Israeli Air Force towards targets inside Syria at the time that the ambassador is visiting Israel?
Tommy Pigott (26:08):
Look, what I can say is that the United States continues to support efforts that will bring lasting stability and peace between Israel and Syria. A stable and peaceful Syria is in everyone's security interests. And that's what I have to say in terms of that question there.
(26:21)
All right. Thank you.
