Tommy (00:00):
… deal with the Republic of Korea. This agreement as the secretary's meeting today with ROK Foreign Minister Cho Hyun reflects the unwavering strength of the US-ROK alliance, which has served as the linchpin of peace, security, and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific for more than 70 years.
(00:20)
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the State Department reported to Congress that the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, and Palestinian Authority, PA, are not in compliance with their commitments under the PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989 and the Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002. In response, the United States is imposing sanctions that deny visas to PLO members and PA officials in accordance with Section 604 A1 of the Middle East Peace Commitments Act. These actions reflect our national security interests and our commitment to holding the PLO and PA accountable for undermining the prospects for peace.
(00:59)
On the humanitarian front, the United States is providing $52 million to the World Food Program to deliver emergency food assistance from American farmers and producers to people in need in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, and Djibouti. Under this new award, WFP will distribute 12,702 metric tons of food, yellow split peas, rice, vegetable oil, and Super Cereal Plus from our pre-positioning warehouses in Houston and Djibouti to support the 1.9 million vulnerable people.
(01:34)
The United States is the largest donor of humanitarian food assistance globally, and the department continues to call on other donors to provide additional contributions to address global humanitarian needs.
(01:44)
And before I turn it over to questions, I want to introduce our front row as Spokesperson Bruce started last Tuesday, continuing the pattern here today. We have the Kyiv Post, Turan, Jeune Afrique, The Africa Report, NewsNation, Bloomberg, SBT Brasil, and NHK. So, with that, I'll turn it over to some questions.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Thank you, Tommy. On the sanction zone, the Brazilian Supreme Court judge you just mentioned, what is the State Department position to the main reason that led to the sanction announced by the Department of Treasury? What did the US find as the main threat?
Tommy (02:23):
Well, look, Moraes is an activist judge that abused his authority by engaging in a targeted and politically motivated effort designed to silence political critics through the issuance of secret orders compelling online platforms, including US social media companies, banning the accounts of individuals for posting protected speech. Moraes further abused his position to authorize unjust pretrial detentions and undermine freedom of expression. The actions taken by Moraes impact US persons and companies, and the United States does not tolerate maligned foreign actors who abuse their positions of authority to undermine freedom of expression of American citizens.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
So, do other Brazilian individuals might face the same sanction? Or if there is an indication of new travel bans or visa restrictions for Brazilian citizens in general now or in the near future, even next year when there is a World Cup?
Tommy (03:17):
Well, I'm not going to preview what we may have in terms of further sanctions announcements or other actions there. What I can say is just point to this action and again, stress how seriously we take this.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
And then last question, if possible, how is the diplomatic engagement among those two countries? Secretary Rubio had a meeting here on this matter, if the State Department has a position on this meeting.
Tommy (03:43):
Well, I have no readout to provide on a meeting for you. Yes, Leon?
Leon (03:47):
Yeah, hi. I'd like to come back to what you announced. I mean there was a statement this morning, but you repeated it to the sanctions against members of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. Could you specify to us who exactly are sanctioned, the officials that are sanctioned, and at what level? And could you explain to us a little bit the context of this coming really two days or a couple of days after the UN conference at the UN on the Palestinian statehood and the push of many allies, US allies, France, UK, Canada, for a Palestinian statehood?
Tommy (04:29):
Well, look, to stress, this is a biannual review that happens twice a year in every single year. And this report refers to the review period that ended in January 2025. So, in terms of the timing of this report, this is a biannual report provided to Congress and that's being provided here. It's the first report being provided under this administration. So, in terms of timing, that's the timing and that's why we're seeing this report now.
(04:51)
In terms of specific individuals, outlined in the media note in terms of the policy, one of the many policy options that were available that is being implemented, I don't want to get into specific cases because ultimately, per the report, there is an opportunity for a case-by-case basis consideration for a waiver. And so, we saw the meeting note outlining certain policy implications, the actions that were taken, but ultimately, this is a case-by-case or there is that option for in terms of a visa. Yes?
Leon (05:17):
Thanks, Tommy. Appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Quick follow-up on Gaza?
Tommy (05:20):
I'll take two more questions on this specific topic on the PLO announcement and then we can go on to a broader region for sure, but two more on this specific topic.
Leon (05:27):
Just to follow up with that, for example, for Brazil, for the Supreme Court judge, you didn't have any problems naming him and saying who it was, but in this case, you're not naming anybody. And could you give us a sense of as to what level they are? How many people are we talking about?
Tommy (05:46):
Well, so the sanctions will impose denial of visas for PLO members and PA officials. And again, to stress, a waiver may be considered on a case-by-case basis consistent with our national security interests. Yes?
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Can I follow up on this? Thank you, Tommy. Appreciate it. You said you were going to take a few more questions on this.
Tommy (06:03):
I'll take two more on this specific topic, broader region for sure but on this specific one.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
So, on that one specifically, the previous administration engaged with Palestinian Authority to find a solution for the future governance of Gaza and that administration and Trump administration also said Hamas says no place in Gaza's future, a position that is widely shared by many other countries in the world. How does this action specifically impact Trump administration's ability to engage with PA? Maybe it doesn't impact it at all. Can you help us understand that? And were there any heads up given to Arab states about this action? Thank you.
Tommy (06:47):
Well, I'm not going to speculate on what it will look like going forward, but what I can say is that the Biden administration in this biannual review also found them in noncompliance. They chose not to take certain actions. This is the first report of this biannual review that is under this current administration. And we decided to take a few actions that were available in terms of once we identified the noncompliance. That is what this indicates. There's nothing further to read beyond this report except for the report finding noncompliance, as well as saying we are taking that action in terms of certain restrictions. But I'm not going to speculate further beyond that.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
And the Arab states?
Tommy (07:19):
I'm not going to preview private diplomatic discussions. Yes? Oh, sorry, one more behind and then we'll move on to new topic.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Thank you, Tommy. Two things, of course, some actions were taken against the PLO back in 2017. They shut off the office, they cut off all aid and so on. So, this is also during the first Trump administration. I wanted to ask you that the Israeli media is reporting that Israel is going to annex part of Gaza and that they have a green light from the United States of America. That's what the government claims, the Israeli government. And that is at a time when the envoy, Steve Witkoff, is meeting with the Israeli government, meeting with Netanyahu, what has been described and what is being described as a very decisive meeting. Do you have anything to elaborate on this? Can you share with us what is he discussing? Are parts of Gaza going to be annexed?
Tommy (08:14):
Well, what I can say is what my colleague Karoline just spoke to. She spoke with the special envoy this morning. She outlined just a few minutes ago what the point of the meetings were, addressing the humanitarian issue that the situation that we are seeing, addressing next steps for Gaza. I have nothing further to add for her comments, but it is a clear indication that this administration is determined to getting as much aid as possible into Gaza without it being looted by Hamas.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
But does this administration look favorably at annexing parts of Gaza?
Tommy (08:45):
Well, what we're focused on now is trying to address this conflict. We're trying to end this conflict. We are trying to get as much food into Gaza as possible. I'm not going to speculate or preview where these may go. What I can say is what we've been focused on doing, what Karoline described just a few minutes ago, what we've been talking about here from this podium for many, many months, ending this conflict, getting as much food into Gaza as possible where it is not being looted by Hamas. Yes?
Kellie Meyer (09:10):
Two questions, and thank you, Tommy. I appreciate it. Kellie Meyer with NewsNation. One on Gaza and one on Ukraine, if I may. So, with Gaza, I wanted to ask, what's the expected outcome from this visit from Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, as well as Ambassador Huckabee? Is this to push both sides to break through this jam and get through these negotiations? And will this potentially upset Israel who has said that there is no real starvation happening in Gaza?
Tommy (09:35):
Well, what my colleague Karoline said, and to reiterate here, it shows that President Trump has a humanitarian heart, that he wants to get as much food into Gaza as possible without it being looted by Hamas. The President also truthed earlier today, saying, "The fastest way to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages." They have refused to do so. We've also seen the secretary speak earlier today about how there was a ceasefire in principle
Tommy (10:00):
… principle with an agreement and then Hamas came and rejected the deal. That is the lack of good faith we are seeing from Hamas when it comes to these conversations. So ultimately what this shows is that President Trump wants to get as much aid into Gaza without it being looted by Hamas as possible. That is a commitment we've had and that's what this is showing.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
And just on Ukraine, quickly. There's the talk about getting European allies to pay into this fund in the Treasury Department, and then we would then send the weapons onto Ukraine. Do you have a sense of just how exactly you're going to make sure that these European allies do pay into this fund? And do you have a sense of how many so far have agreed to this?
Tommy (10:37):
Well, I'm not going to comment on pending congressional action or refer you to Congress on that, but what I can say is talk about the NATO weapons deal that was talked about by the president. The fact that we have an agreement with NATO in order for them to buy weapons in which they can then send to other countries if they so choose. And I think this is part of an America first foreign policy and the burden sharing that we've seen pushed by President Trump and Secretary Rubio. The idea that we have other countries stepping up, that makes stronger alliances, that makes partnerships stronger while at the same time, helping the American people revitalizing certain industries, increasing the amount of purchases that we're seeing. So we're seeing that impetus from this administration. We're seeing the effort to make the NATO alliance stronger. We're seeing that NATO weapons deal also being implemented, so we're seeing that effort here to put America first. But when we do that, address these challenges in a way that we have our allies and partners also stepping up.
Speaker 5 (11:24):
[inaudible 00:11:26]
Tommy (11:26):
Yes.
Speaker 5 (11:26):
If I may, the secretary in our interview this morning revealed that the U.S. engaged with, "Putin's top people," early this week and they didn't pan out. Can you please enlighten us who met with whom? We know the Secretary was in the building, he didn't travel. We know that Russian ambassador was in the building yesterday. Beyond that, there is no public record of any Russia-U.S. engagement.
Tommy (11:48):
I have nothing to read out for you from here.
Speaker 5 (11:49):
Were the Ukrainians involved [inaudible 00:11:52]
Tommy (11:51):
Again, I have nothing to preview from here.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
And I know you have heard this from me before, that Kiev is under attack and last night, we had unprecedented, again, attack on civilians. Timing of it is eye-popping. Any reaction?
Tommy (12:07):
Well, we have been clear, the President's been clear and so has the Secretary about how we view recent actions from Russia. We've seen the President discuss the new timeline that he has in place in terms of actions he may take regarding Russia, secondary sanctions or other items. So what we are seeing here, or terror, excuse me, and other items. What we are seeing here again, is a clear indication and transparency from this administration about how we view these recent actions. The fact that we have tried in good faith to approach these discussions, to encourage both parties to come to the table. We have seen that happen, which is a credit to leadership of this administration, but also the fact, as the President said, we need to see action, not words. And so the President's been very clear on that. He's been very consistent and he's spoken on this very publicly in recent days.
Speaker 5 (12:49):
Thank you. If I may, one more topic on Moldova-
Tommy (12:52):
Okay, one more.
Speaker 5 (12:53):
Moldova president yesterday, she revealed that her country is under attack by Russia, disinformation campaign going on prior to the election. Your allies in Romania also confirmed that. Is this something that you guys are concerned about? Is there anything you can do to stop this?
Tommy (13:06):
Well, let me take that back and see if we can get any more details on that question.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
Excellent.
Tommy (13:09):
Okay. Yes.
Speaker 6 (13:09):
Thanks, Tommy. Following up on Karoline's comments at the White House briefing, she said there would be a new aid distribution plan announced in Gaza. Do you have any details? Will GHF be involved in that? Is it exclusively GHF? Will it involve additional openings of crossings, for example? Anything you can tell us there?
Tommy (13:27):
Nothing to further add in addition to what the President has said on this. It is clear though from special envoy Witkoff's trip that this is a priority. We are working on this. We're trying to get as much aid in as possible. We've seen the hundred million meals, of course, almost that number being delivered by GHF. But the President wants to get as much aid as possible into Gaza without it being looted by Hamas.
Speaker 6 (13:47):
And then if I could follow up. The administration lifted sanctions on extremist Israeli settlers earlier this year. Is there any consideration of putting those sanctions back on, given there has been no change in behavior by these settlers and they have in fact, killed more people in the months since?
Tommy (14:01):
So I'm not going to preview what actions we may take here from the United States Government. What I can say is that this issue, as Karoline described, was raised by the President to the Israeli government. The Ambassador has also talked about the fact that he has raised this issue with the Israeli government. The fact that we need to see these attacks stop and we need to see accountability. Yes.
Speaker 7 (14:20):
Thank you, NHK. I'd like to ask about U.S.-Iran negotiation. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi told Financial Times that U.S. must agree on compensation before nuclear negotiation since U.S. attacked Iran's nuclear sites. Do you have any comment on that?
Tommy (14:38):
Well, what I can say is that any demands for financial compensation from the United States to the Iranian regime are ridiculous. If the Iranian regime really wanted to save money or alleviate some of the sanctions policy, they would stop taking destabilizing actions. They would stop wasting money on their nuclear program. They would stop sending money to terrorist death squads across the region. They would stop oppressing their own people. So if they really wanted to save money or find a way towards prosperity for their people, they would start taking those actions. So any demands for financial compensation for the United States are ridiculous. But to stress, the United States is ready to talk with Iran. Iran has a short window of opportunity, but the ball is in Iran's court. So we're waiting to see what they do in terms of now it's in their court. Yes.
Speaker 8 (15:24):
Thank you, Tommy. To follow up on the topic of Iran, we saw today the joint statements on Iranian state threat activity in Europe and North America. I was just curious about the timing of this statement with the U.S. and so many allies signing on, and whether this was driven by any kind of a spike in the attacks that the U.S. has seen since the strike on Iran, or what was the catalyst for the particular timing of this statement, if there was any catalyst?
Tommy (15:55):
No details to provide in terms of that. What I can say is these are discussions that have been happening with our partners for a long time, and it's an issue that we take incredibly seriously.
Speaker 8 (16:03):
And one other question. I know that Sunday is the deadline for 180 days since President Trump's executive order for a report from the United Nations Ambassador from the U.S., as well as Secretary Rubio, regarding which international intergovernmental organizations, conventions and treaties, the U.S. wants to continue being a party to. Can you give us any kind of an update on where that review stands or what kind of reforms the U.S. is looking for at the United Nations?
Tommy (16:34):
Well, that review is ongoing. While that review is ongoing, we remain a participant in much of the UN system in order to advance our interests. I don't want to get ahead of what the President may end up deciding once that review is complete. But what I can say is that this is part of that effort, again, to put America first. And we're not going to be a part of organizations when it's not in line with our national interests. We're not going to be part of organizations that pursue policies that hamper the United States. What we're going to do is defend our national interests, and we're going to be looking at this in terms of this ongoing review to make sure that our participation in these groups does exactly that. Yes. Nadia.
Nadia (17:10):
Thank you. I just wanted to go back to the PLO office. You just said that the PLO and the-
Tommy (17:14):
Last question on the PLO.
Nadia (17:15):
Yes. Last one, please.
Tommy (17:16):
Last one. Okay.
Nadia (17:17):
You said that the PA and the PLO are not in compliance of Act 1989 and of the Middle East Peace Commitment of 2002. Do you believe that Israel is in compliance of these two agreements? And do you believe that building settlements, enlarging settlements, is not in violation of all previous peace commitments that Israel has signed?
Tommy (17:41):
Well, what I can say is speak to this report. That's what I can speak to and again, speaking to this report. Again, the Biden administration found the PLO not in compliance and decided not to take any action. And the PLO remains in noncompliance. This is the first report that we have had under this administration. That's why we're seeing this action taken, this biannual report. And it's important that we're vocal about this. We're outlining the reasoning behind it as we have, and it's an important issue here. We're identifying this noncompliance and choosing to take action.
Nadia (18:12):
Okay.
Tommy (18:12):
Yes.
Speaker 9 (18:13):
Thank you, Tommy. Karoline Leavitt addressed this a bit. President Trump posted earlier today that the Canadian recognition of a Palestinian state could affect a trade deal between the two countries. So it goes beyond just disagreement with the countries supporting a Palestinian state. It looks like it's actually turning into action. To what extent does the recognition of a Palestinian state by these several countries over the last few days, how is it going to impact the bilateral relations between the U.S. and those countries?
Tommy (18:44):
Well, the President's comments speak for themselves, though he also spoke about how in terms of these recognitions that it is helping Hamas, the Secretary also spoke to this. It could be seen as a reward for Hamas in many ways. We actually saw on the day that Hamas rejected, as the Secretary described today, rejected the ceasefire deal was the same day that France, and now it's the recognition. So we are seeing, as the President described, that this could be seen as a reward for Hamas. And in many ways, as the Secretary also said, this could hurt the process of peace because of these timelines they set there. Hamas has been the one blocking reaching a ceasefire. Hamas has been the one blocking peace, and now we have these timelines set that could actually lead to a reward for Hamas if they continue in this behavior. So that's what we're seeing here. The president and Secretary have talked about this. I have nothing further to add to the President's comments in terms of a trade talks with Canada. Yes.
Speaker 10 (19:34):
Thank you. I wanted to shift to another conflict in Sudan, the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world, and the U.S.'s role there, engagement. A Quad meeting had been expected yesterday with the Saudi, UAE and Egyptian foreign ministers here in the building. It didn't happen. I'm wondering if you could tell us about the reasons for the postponement, whether there's a date perhaps around UNGA for a replacement meeting, and whether that's a setback at all, that this has
Speaker 11 (20:00):
… had to be postponed.
Tommy (20:01):
Well, no date was set in terms of a Quad meeting here in terms of your first question, and we look forward to bringing the Quad together in the near future. We hope to set that date soon, but in terms of your last question, we continue to coordinate on our collective engagement. We continue to coordinate in terms of pursuing outcomes. That dialogue continues and we are committed to supporting that dialogue that leads to peace and ends the suffering of the Sudanese people.
Speaker 11 (20:27):
Can you clarify the US position on the Sudanese armed forces in their future in a post-war transitional government? Because that seems to be a sticking point for a lot of the external actors. I think Egypt in particular wants to see a role for them. Can you clarify what the US position is? Is that a non-starter for you?
Tommy (20:45):
Well, I don't want to get into the details of dynamic diplomatic conversations. We think the best path to peace and stability is an immediate and durable cessation of hostilities, and we are in communication with as many partners, the Quad being one of them, but not limited just to the Quad, in order to try to accomplish that end. Yes.
Speaker 12 (21:03):
Can I follow up on what [inaudible 00:21:05] raised in this call with Russian officials? Why wasn't there a readout provided of it? Is it because the secretary was acting in his capacity as a national security advisor?
Tommy (21:13):
Again, I have nothing to preview in terms of that topic.
Speaker 12 (21:15):
But you're not denying that those calls happened, just that you're not going to provide an insight into the [inaudible 00:21:20]?
Tommy (21:20):
Well, again, I have nothing to offer in terms of those conversations here,
Speaker 12 (21:23):
But the secretary wasn't inaccurately referring to a call or anything in this interview that he had with [inaudible 00:21:28]?
Tommy (21:27):
No. I mean the secretary's comments speak for themselves. I just have no additional readout to provide here for you.
Speaker 12 (21:32):
Okay. Can I ask on a separate topic where conversations stand with the Chinese on the two Americans who have been subject to exit bans there? Are you getting all of the access and clarity on the circumstances that you need?
Tommy (21:42):
Well, I refer you Spokesperson Tammy Bruce's comments on this, I have nothing further to add. Let me take that question back though, see if we can get a more robust update for you.
Speaker 12 (21:52):
Okay. And [inaudible 00:21:55].
Tommy (21:54):
Do you have one more?
Speaker 12 (21:55):
Well, I was going to ask if you also have on Special Envoy's Witkof's travel and whether there's any update on these alternative options for helping hostages that was referenced in his statement last week. Is there an actual plan that is being operationalized? Does it coincide with his travel there now?
Tommy (22:17):
Well, I wouldn't speak to sensitive discussions of that nature if there was a plan or if there wasn't a plan in place, given how important these discussions are. What I can say, as Caroline said again, is that he's having meetings there discussing next steps for the situation in Gaza, amongst the things discussed is the humanitarian situation, getting as much food in as possible. Well, also the importance of releasing the hostages, of course, that remains a priority as the special envoy said, the president talks about, Caroline talks about, making sure we release those hostages and bring them home. Yes?
Speaker 13 (22:46):
Thank you, Tammy. Secretary Rubio have a first meeting with the South Korean foreign minister today. What topic will be discussed in this meeting?
Tommy (23:00):
So I'm not going to get ahead of that. If I'm correct this is actually happening right now, so I don't want to get ahead of conversations that are happening currently. What I can say, taking a step back, as I mentioned in my topper, the fact that our alliance with the ROK is the linchpin piece in the region, and we are seeing a large amount of high engagement between the United States and the ROK. We saw that when the secretary went to Malaysia. We've seen that since then. We see this complete and total trade agreement that the president announced, and so we see all this engagement and I think this is the latest element of that in terms of conversations between the United States and the ROK.
Speaker 13 (23:36):
Thank you.
Tommy (23:37):
Yes?
Speaker 14 (23:40):
With regard to the sanctions, could you just clarify on the PLO and PA, could you just clarify that this is not in retaliation for or related to, or an effort to hinder the PA's cooperation with France, Britain, Canada, and the Gulf states who have said that they intend to recognize Palestinian statehood in September. And the second one, when should we expect the biannual compliance report on Israel's compliance? I assume that's the same time schedule as the Palestinian assessment.
Tommy (24:15):
Well, I'll say on this one, and I'll refer to my earlier answer in terms of the fact that this is biannual review, this has been therefore in process, the review period ended in January 2025. Yes?
Speaker 14 (24:23):
Sorry, but you didn't answer the first one or say… So does that mean the Israel one is complete and the US found no violations?
Tommy (24:32):
Well, what I can speak to is this report here, that's what I can speak to. And again, the fact that the Biden administration found compliance, chose not to take any actions, excuse me, noncompliance, chose not to take actions. We also found noncompliance and chose to take action. Yes?
Speaker 14 (24:44):
But it's not in retaliation, these sanctions, they have nothing to do with the statement?
Tommy (24:48):
Again, just this question, this is part of a biannual review. Yes?
Speaker 15 (24:52):
Are you concerned about the degree of global diplomatic isolation for the US on its entire position relating to the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Tommy (25:02):
I reject that premise that we are isolated. I think we are showing through the fact that we have conversations all the time with our allies and partners, the many agreements that are being signed, the fact that we have many different initiatives that are bearing out here because of President Trump's leadership. We're seeing this across the board.
(25:18)
In Europe, we're seeing it. In the Middle East, we're seeing it. In the Asia, we're seeing that in the Indo-Pacific. Again and again, agreements being signed, conversations happening because of the leadership of President Trump. And also the fact is, as my colleague Caroline talked about, all the different peace agreements that President Trump has helped broker since he's been in office, so I reject the concept of any sort of isolation here in terms of the United States, I think it's just the opposite, while, of course, putting America first,
Speaker 15 (25:40):
I mean, is there a single country you can name that publicly supports the GHF?
Tommy (25:45):
Well, look, what I can say is that we do, and I can say we're committed to getting as many meals as possible into Gaza without it being looted by Hamas. The president also spoke to the fact that he's looking for new efforts to do just that, he spoke about that when he was in Europe. So what I can say and speak to is our commitment, and what I can say and speak to is the many different conversations, agreements, progress we are making with allies and partners around the world.
Speaker 15 (26:07):
And just finally, just to add to that, what is the US's policy for a long-term viable piece between Israelis and Palestinians?
Tommy (26:17):
Well, as we've said here before, our focus is on ending the conflict and addressing the humanitarian situation.
Speaker 15 (26:21):
I mean, is there a long term? Is there any policy or plan?
Tommy (26:24):
I'm not in a preview right now what that is, what I can say is that our focus is on ending the conflict and making sure the hostages are released and getting as much food into Gaza as possible without it being looted by Hamas. Yes?
Speaker 16 (26:35):
Thank you, Tommy. I just want to go back to following one of Saif's questions regarding reports on Israeli media three days ago, I'll try to be specific, Haaretz reported that Israeli officials briefed Secretary Rubio in their plan to annex parts of Gaza Strip, and they received an approval from the Trump administration. Do you have a comment?
Tommy (27:03):
I addressed this question earlier, refer to my comments there. Yes?
Speaker 17 (27:06):
Thank you, Tommy. Nice to see you again. [inaudible 00:27:11] question about the Ukrainian war. US president Donald Trump cut the deadline for a ceasefire deal with Vladimir Putin from 50 days to 10 days, warning of strong sanctions if no action is taken.
Tommy (27:21):
I'm sorry, could you speak up just a little bit? I'm having trouble hearing.
Speaker 17 (27:22):
Yes, sorry. US President Donald Trump cut the deadline for a ceasefire deal with Vladimir Putin from 50 days to 10 days, warning of strong sanctions if no action is taken, but at the same time, we see Russia continues to capture new towns and villages almost every day and this raises doubts about Russia's real intention. Do you think this move can lead to real peace talks or is it just the political pressure? And what could be the consequences if Russia keeps expanding its attacks while ignoring the ceasefire deadline? Thank you.
Tommy (27:56):
Well, I'm not going to preview what the president may decide. He's been clear in terms of the broad considerations he's making. He's also been clear on the timeline that he has. What I can say in terms of our transparency on how we view Russia's actions, that remains, I discussed them earlier here. The President has been clear on that. The secretary has also been clear talking about what'll be seen, the fact that we need to see actions, not words.
(28:16)
And when it comes to this, the President talking about that itself when he was talking about moving the deadline, moving it forward. So ultimately our hope is that we can get the sides to the table, that they can have conversations toward the ceasefire, that there can be conversations that lead to a long and enduring peace. Our fundamental, our driving principle here is to end the bloodshed. That remains, that continues, that's why we've seen the engagement we have seen, that's what we've seen, the actions we have seen. That remains our policy. That remains our effort to try to end this conflict. Yes?
Speaker 18 (28:46):
Thank you. On the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is reportedly being considered for the designation of terrorist organization by the administration. It was asked today in White House briefing as well. My first question is, organizations like Hamas emerge from the ideology of the Brotherhood. Does the State Department view the Muslim Brotherhood more as an ideology or as a structure centralized organization? Second, where does it fall in terms of US national security concerns?
Tommy (29:19):
Well, what I can speak to again is our view of Hamas and the fact that they have blocked peace, they have blocked ceasefire. They have been weaponizing aid against their own people. The fact that they are [inaudible 00:29:30].
Speaker 18 (29:29):
I'm asking about Muslim Brotherhood.
Tommy (29:31):
Yes, but I can talk about in terms of, you mentioned Hamas, so I'm speaking to that, so that's what I'm speaking to here. In terms of our broader policy when we're looking at different groups in the region, let me take that back and see if we can get further details for you.
Speaker 18 (29:43):
I appreciate it.
Tommy (29:44):
But in terms of our view of Hamas, we've been very clear on that. Yes? I wanted to follow up
Speaker 12 (29:49):
I wanted to follow up on that question you took back on Tuesday from my colleague. Do you have an update on what the plan is for the millions of dollars of contraceptives that are currently sitting in a warehouse in Belgium that are meant to be distributed
Speaker 12 (30:00):
… distributed to lower-income countries under USAID.
Tommy (30:02):
We're still in the process here in terms of determining the way forward. What I can say again, and to clarify, we're not talking about PEPFAR products, we're not talking about contraceptives in terms of condoms. We're talking about select products that were purchased under the previous administration that could be potentially be abortifacients under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, and as well could potentially violate Mexico City. We are in the process now of determining that pathway forward. When we have an update, we'll provide it.
Speaker 19 (30:27):
Do we have an audience?
Speaker 20 (30:27):
[inaudible 00:30:29].
Tommy (30:28):
Yes, sir.
Speaker 21 (30:29):
Thank you. Thank you. UNIFIL's mandate in Southern Lebanon will end in few weeks, in fact by the end of August. My question is whether the United States is going to support the renewal of the mandate of UNIFIL, and what do you expect from the Lebanese government regarding the disarming from Hezbollah?
Tommy (30:57):
Well, we've talked about that here from the podium before in terms of needing to see that disarmament of Hezbollah and the Lebanese government's role in that, I'll refer you to those comments. In terms of your first point, let me see if I can get more information for you on that.
Speaker 22 (31:09):
[inaudible 00:31:10].
Tommy (31:10):
Yes.
Speaker 22 (31:11):
Yeah, thank you Tommy. A question on Europe. We saw the trade deals of 50%, and I'm reading an article from the Italian Corriere Della Sera that says that the Italian foreign minister Tajani said that Europe couldn't do better than 50% and that somehow they have to work on this number. But inside the Italian government, also in the European Union, there is some concern that because of the European, we'll have to buy so much liquid gas. Somehow, the United States would've a leverage on Europe and foreign policy as allies need to take decision. What will you be the answer from the State Department to this?
Tommy (31:55):
Well, in terms of trade discussions are free to the US [inaudible 00:31:58]-
Speaker 22 (31:57):
In foreign policy-
Tommy (31:58):
What I can say is that this is strengthening our relationship with our allies and partners in Europe. This is about strengthening our relationship with the European Union, but also bilaterally with different countries in Europe. That's what these agreements are doing through this rebalancing. We saw that in conversations with the president when they were talking about this deal just when he was in Europe, that rebalancing that was necessary in order to lead to those long-term, stronger relationships. That's what we're seeing. That's what we're seeing in a lot of these deals that end up benefiting countries around the world, and it's again, showing President Trump putting America first, but when we do that, we can find common ground and lead to benefits for everybody. All right. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 21 (32:33):
Thank you, Tom.
Speaker 23 (32:33):
Thank you.