Photo of The White House by Aaron Kitteridge from Pexels
Here is everything you need to know about the Government Shutdown that took place during the Biden-Harris administration. This is not the first time the U.S. government has faced a shutdown.
This blog post covers what happened in January, February, and March of 2024.
In 2018-2019, (then) President Donald Trump caused a shutdown because he wanted money for a border wall. This resulted in several weeks of having the U.S. government experience a partial shutdown.
You can read more about the Trump shutdown here:
- A Timeline of the 2018-2019 Partial Government Shutdown – Week One
- A Timeline of the 2018-2019 Partial Government Shutdown – Week Two
- A Timeline of the 2018-2019 Partial Government Shutdown – Week Three
- A Timeline of the 2018-2019 Partial Government Shutdown – Week Four
- A Timeline of the 2018-2019 Partial Government Shutdown – Week Five
- Will There Be Another Partial Government Shutdown?
This blog post covers the Government Shutdown starting from January 2024.
January 2024:
January 5, 2024: As bipartisan talks on a deal linking stricter border security policies with Ukraine aid stretch on with no clear resolution in sight, Speaker Mike Johnson has a new problem: the growing number of House conservatives willing to shut down the government over it. (Politico)
There are just two weeks remaining before the first tranche of federal funding runs out on January 19, with a more high-profile group of agencies set to run dry on Feb. 2. And without a border agreement that Johnson can sell to the majority of the House GOP, he’s facing a growing rebellion among hardliners who want to pick a shutdown fight over surging migration at the nation’s southern border.
The idea began with Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who floated it on social media, and others followed suit. Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) reiterated the position during a House GOP trip to the border this week, with Biggs claiming: “No more money for his bureaucracy until you’ve brought this border under control.”
The Conservative House Freedom Caucus is hardly united behind the push to shut down the government over the border — and without a bigger swath of its members vowing to oppose any funding plan without a border deal, the speaker’s headaches may prove somewhat contained. The Louisiana Republican had demanded any Ukraine aid be tied to border changes, but never truly embraced the Senate’s ongoing partisan talks…
…House Republicans have a narrow three-vote majority, which will shrink to two after Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) leaves office on Jan. 21. That makes the burgeoning demands from his right flank more than enough to sink any spending bill that GOP leadership tries to pass along party lines. If Johnson leans too heavily on Democratic votes to pass a funding agreement, though, he could face fresh threats to his gavel…
…When it comes to government funding, Johnson would be able to sidestep frustration from his hardliners if he can strike a deal with Senate Democrats and the White House. That gets harder if he decides to try to link a GOP border bill to the government funding talks, an idea that’s DOA in the Senate.
“We have seen this failed playbook before, and here’s the bottom line: shutting the government down over extreme partisan policies … doesn’t solve a single problem — instead, it forces the personnel at our southern border to work without pay and seriously undermines the very agencies responding to the uptick in new arrivals,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
While House Republicans have also used short-term funding extensions to buy more time since taking over the majority last year, that’s less likely to happen this time — the speaker is wary of turning to another stopgap bill after fierce backlash from his use of one in the fall…
January 7, 2024: The White House posted: “Statement from President Joe Biden on the Bipartisan Funding Framework”
The bipartisan funding framework congressional leaders have reached moves us one step closer to preventing a needless government shutdown and protecting important national priorities. It reflects the funding levels that I negotiated with both parties and signed into law late last spring. It rejects deep cuts to programs hardworking families count on, and provides a path to passing full-year funding bills that deliver for the American people and are free of any extreme policies. I want to thank Leaders Schumer and Jeffries for their leadership in reaching this framework. Now, congressional Republicans must do their job, stop threatening to shut down the government, and fulfill their basic responsibility to fund critical domestic and national security priorities, including my supplemental request. It’s time for them to act.
January 8, 2024: Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby En Route Charleston, SC.
Aboard Air Force One En Route Charleston, South Carolina
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hello. Hi, everybody.
Q: Hi, Karine.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hello. Okay, just one quick thing at the top and then we’ll get going here. So, today President Biden is traveling to South Carolina where he will deliver remarks at an event at Mother Emanuel AME Church.
We will continue — we will then continue on to Dallas, where the President will pay his respects to the late Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson.
And now I have the Admiral right behind he here, who’s going to discuss the latest in the Middle East.
There he goes. There you go.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine. Just a quick update on trucks into Gaza. Over the last 48 hours, 210 trucks got in. That’s good, but it’s not good enough.
One of the things that — I know you know Secretary Blinken is in the region right now. He’s in Saudi Arabia today, heading to Israel tonight. But that’s going to be one of the things he focuses on. It has already and will continue to see if we can’t increase that humanitarian assistance into Gaza.
That’s it.
Q: Are you — is the U.S. concerned, on the Lebanon blast that the Israeli strikes in Lebanon are going to increase risk of a — of a wider war?
MR. KIRBY: So, first, I’d let the Israelis speak to their operations one way or another. We’re not going to confirm that — reports of their operations.
From the beginning, we have talked about our strong desire not to see this conflict escalate or widen. And that includes the potential for a second front up in the north of the country.
We believe that the displaced people in Lebanon and displaced people in Israel have a right to return to their homes, and we want to see that happen as soon as possible.
Q: What is the level of frustration at the NSC about Secretary Austin not informing the White House until later about his hospitalization? And will there be any consequences for that?
MR. KIRBY: I think — look, our main focus right now is on Secretary Austin’s health and making sure that he gets all the care and support that he needs to — to fully recover. That’s the focus.
And he has already resumed all his authorities. He’s already doing all of the functions he would normally do. He’s just do- — he’s doing it right now from — from the hospital.
Well — well — obviously, I think, as you might expect, we’ll take a look at processes and procedure here and try to learn from this experience. And if there’s some changes that need to be made, you know, in terms of process and procedure, we’ll do that.
Q: There are some — there are some calls for him to be fired. Is that something that the President is wanting or considering doing?
MR. KIRBY: The President’s number one focus is on his health and recovery, and he looks forward to having him back at the Pentagon as soon as possible.
The President respects the fact that Secretary Austin took ownership for the lack of transparency. He also respects the amazing job he’s done as Defense Secretary and how he’s handled multiple crises over the last almost three years now. And very much values his advice, candor, leadership, and, again, looks forward to having him back at the Pentagon.
Q: John does the President know what elective surgery the Secretary had, even though the American people don’t know? And does he know what his current symptoms are and his current health condition is?
MR. KIRBY: I know that the President had an opportunity to talk to Secretary Austin a couple of days ago, wish him well, get — see how he was doing.
I don’t know the details of that conversation, and I don’t know the level of the President’s personal knowledge of his medical situation. And then, that would really between — between the two men.
Your — your question about that elective procedure is really better directed to the Pentagon, not — not to us.
I want to make sure I put a fork in m answer to you. There is no — no plans for anything other than for Secretary Austin to stay in the job and continue in the leadership that he’s been exu- — that he’s been demonstrating.
Q: John, given — John, given the delay in disclosing this, did Secretary Austin meet the President’s own standard of transparency? And is the White House committed if — if President Biden had to have some kind of medical procedure, is the White House committed to releasing that information to the public in a very timely manner?
MR. KIRBY: Well, on the second question, you’re a little out of my lane. That’s really — but I don’t want to speak for Karine, but I think the answer is yes. I mean, the answer is absolutely yes. We’ll be as transparent as possible.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. I mean, the President has always put transparency at the center of his administration, from the beginning. And obviously, that’s what we’re going to continue to do.
So, we’re going to. continue to be transparent. Obviously, the Department of Defense will have more about the — more to speak about their protocol. I just don’t have anything to add on — specifically on that piece.
Q: Do you think you were transparent here, though? I mean, it took days for this — for this — for people to be informed about this and at a time of, you know, conflict around the world.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: From what I —
MR. KIRBY: This —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay — no, go ahead —
MR. KIRBY: I’m sorry —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, no, no. Go ahead.
MR. KIRBY: The — the Pentagon has talked about this. The Secretary put out a statement, took accountability for the lack of transparency. We’ll let you — we’ll let the Pentagon speak to the process there.
Q: John — John, quickly. You mentioned you guys are taking a look at process. Does the President want an official review into what happened in him not — you know, communication not coming up through the White House?
MR. KIRBY: As I said to Jeff, I fully expect that we’ll take a look at process and procedure here. We’ll do what’s akin to a hot wash and try and see if processes and procedures need to be changed at all or modified so we can learn from this.
Q: John —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q: All right. Does the White House have an official view on, like, the duty of the Cabinet Secretaries and when they need to disclose this type of, you know, medical procedure or hospitalizations?
MR. KIRBY: Look, I think there’s a — an expectation that when a Cabinet official become hospitalized that there’s a — that that will be notified up the chain of command. There is that expectation.
Q: Can you say, was there any contact between Jake Sullivan and the Defense Secretary in those four days — January 1st to January 4th — any contact at all?
MR. KIRBY: On the morning of the 1st of January, the Secretary, as well as Secretary Blinken, Jake, other relevant officials, did have a secure conference call with the President. This was regarding operations in the Middle East. And — and so, there was — there was contact —
Q: (Inaudible.)
MR. KIRBY: — and then, on the 1st of January.
Q: John, you said at the beginning of your remarks that the most important thing right now is the Secretary’s health. How is his health?
MR. KIRBY: That’s really for Secretary Austin and the Pentagon to speak to, Jeff. That — that would be inappropriate for me to — to get into his personal health condition.
He — he did indicate that he’s recovering well in his own statement, And as — again, he expects to be back at the Pentagon in the relatively near future.
Q: John, the Situation Room knows how to get in touch with all senior Cabinet officials at all time. Did they know his physical —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Can you repeat the question — yeah, we —
Q: — the Situation Room itself know his location? There’s a board in the Situation Room. It shows where the President is at all times, the Vice President is at all times. I mean, did the Situation Room know where he was physically?
MR. KIRBY: There’s a process in the — at — in the — for the Situation Room, the Ops Center, to check in every morning to get the general location of all the non-White House principals, the Cabinet officers. And there is a process of connection to the agencies to do that.
But it’s generic, Peter. It’s what town they’re in — D.C., if they’re oversees, where they are. That’s the process. The — the issue of when a Cabinet official gets hospitalized, that’s — that’s really on the agency to inform that — that that has happened.
Q: It wasn’t — it wasn’t the Situation Room knew and didn’t put it up the chain itself?
MR. KIRBY: That is correct.
Q: Okay.
MR. KIRBY: There was no — you all hear — you all seen the press reporting on this. There was no notification or knowledge at the White House or the National Security Council until Thursday afternoon.
All right.
Q: Thanks.
Q: (Inaudible) —
MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, Admiral.
Q: (Inaudible.) He’s leaving?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: Oh —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wa — Admiral.
Q: Admiral. Admiral.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: J.J. had a question.
Well, since he was in earshot — he’s still in earshot. J.J. had something.
Q: One more. Didn’t realize you were leaving already. There was some reports over the weekend about Elon Musk and some concerns about his — his drug use and the behavior that he’s been exhibiting. Some of his board members concerned. Aware of that reporting? And is there — he’d had some contracts with the government. Any reaction to it? There’s connections between —
MR. KIRBY: We wouldn’t comment on that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We wouldn’t comment on private companies.
Q: So, Karine, should the American people — I’m sorry. Do you need a second.
Okay. Should the American people have confidence in Austin given his lack of transparency? And then, also, do the American people need to be concerned about a lack of transparency for the President given this lapse?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I want to go back to Austin’s statement a couple of days ago, where he has taken responsibility.
Q: Yeah.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, I think that’s important. So, I would point you to that. And I will just reiterate that the President has complete confidence — continues to have confidence in Secretary Aust — in Secretary Austin.
And — and as the Admiral just stated, I think the number one thing right now for him — we want to see him back at the Pentagon — get well and back at the Pentagon.
And I’ll just add one more thing is that the President — as we have shared, the President spoke to Austin — Secretary Austin on Saturday. They had a very good conversation. And again, you know, the President appreciated Austin’s statement and taking full responsibility here. And I think that’s what — that’s what matters, is him getting back to — to the Pentagon and taking full responsibility.
Q: Do you think it’s necessary — to, sort of, like, tie up this issue — for Austin to articulate where — what happened? I mean, does he need to sort of explain, kind of, how the President explains when he’s —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’re going to leave it to the Department of Defense to speak to this. I think they will. So, I will leave it to them to talk about their process, their protocol, the specifics — that specific question that you’re asking. So, we’ll leave it there to — to walk us — walk — walk all of you through the — through what happened last week.
Q: Karine, there was a spending toplines agreement over the weekend. What is the administration’s current view on whether a shutdown can be avoided in a couple of weeks?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just say a couple of things, since this just happened — right? — over the weekend, and just want to be on the record here.
So — so, the bipartisan funding framework congressional leaders have reached moves us one step closer to preventing a needless government shutdown and protecting important national priorities. The framework reflects the funding levels negotiated as part of the bipartisan budget agreement and rejects deep cuts to programs hardworking families count on, and it provides a path to pass — to passing full-year — full-year funding bills that deliver for the American people and are free of any extreme policies.
Now it is for congressional Republicans — they have to do their jobs — they must do their jobs and stop threatening to shut down the government and fulfill their basic responsibility to fund critical domestic and national security priorities, including the President’s supplemental requests. It’s time for them to act. And so, that’s what we expect.
As far as the process and how this moves forward, that is — certainly congressional leaders to — to figure out how this legislative process is going to be.
But look, and we’ve said this over and over again — this is their basic duty, when it comes to Congress and keeping the government open and funded. This is something that they are responsible for, and they should not pay politics with this.
This is — these are programs that the American people rely on. And so, we — they have to get this done.
Q: Karine, just to follow up on that, you say it’s the Congress’s job to figure this out, but surely the White House is involved.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: Can you give us a sense of who’s doing what and where you see the next steps happening here?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I mean, you know this: The first go-around — right? — around the debt ceiling, the President certainly got involved — right? — and there was a bipartisan agreement that was signed — that was actually signed by the President and — and it became law. And — and it was voted by two thirds of the House — Republican House, and it was — certainly got bipartisan support in the Senate.
So, this is something that, obviously, the first go-around — that we were involved and we made it happen because we — the President understood how important this is to get this done for the American people.
As it relates to this particular deal, the — the administration was — was obviously in close touch with congressional — with congressional members of both parties throughout their negotiation process on this particular outcome. And we provided, like we always do, technical — any type of technical guidance to lawmakers. And so, that is how we were involved in this particular new iteration of this.
Q: Is there anything in the deal that the President is unhappy with?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you know, this is — if you’re asking if — like, if this is con- — this is consistent, right? We believe this is consistent with the original agreement that I had just, kind of, went through that process.
And so, the framework both abides by the cap set in the bipartisan budget agreement and achieves the same levels for defense and non-defense discretionary spending that we and the — the White House and the congressional leaders agreed to last May, as I just laid out how this process had started originally.
Q: Karine —
Q: Back to Sec- —
Q: Sorry, you — (laughter) —
Q: Back to Secretary Austin again. Could you let us know at some point if the President is aware of what landed his Defense Secretary in the ICU, at least so we know that the President is aware? If this is a secret from the President even, that’s — that’s a different thing.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I — I hear you — I hear — I hear you, J.J. It’s just that it is not something that we can speak to, right? This is his own medical — it is — it is a private thing that — it is something that the Secretary and the Department of Defense would speak to.
As you know, they spoke on — the President and the Secretary spoke on Saturday. They had a conversation. And the President wants to see the Secretary get well, and it sounds like he’s doing weeks from his own statement — the Secretary — and get back to the Pentagon and continue the job that he’s been doing this past couple of years — and, we believe, very well.
So, don’t want to get into — into any — any specifics on that. That is really for Secretary Austin and the Department of Defense to — to speak to.
Q: Karine, quickly on the — on the border talks. Are there any plans for the President to host Johnson at the White House to discuss the border? And have they had any calls or conversations recently in the last couple of weeks?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — and you’re talking about just between the President and — and the —
Q: Between the President —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — Speaker?
Q: — and the Speaker, yeah.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any — anything to preview for you on any conversation that he’s had specifically with the Speaker.
What I can say is that the President is in regular contact and conversations with congressional leaders. As you know, his team has been also in regular communication — part of the negotiation, as we saw- — talk about the supplemental. And so that’s been going for some weeks — for some time now. I don’t have any specific conversation between the two of them on — to preview at this time or lay out or to announce at this time.
What I will say, though, as it relates to the supplemental: One of the negotiators — the Republican negotiator was on one of the Sunday news networks and said that he expects, essentially — I’m paraphrasing here — he expects to have something go out this week. And so, I think that’s important.
We — we’ve always said we believe that the — the direction of the negotiations have been going in the right direction. And we appreciate that there is a bipartisan conversation happening in the Senate on border security.
Q: Over the weekend, the former President referred to the January 6th detainees as — as “hostages.” Does — did the — Mr. Biden see those comments? And was there any reaction or does he plan to address that at all?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, you heard — you heard from the President on Friday. He gave a — he gave a really important, critical speech on January 6th.
And I’ve said this, and the President has said this many times, right? What we saw on January 6th was an attack on our democracy. We saw — and not just us — the American people saw 2,000 insurrectionists, really, attack the Capitol. And we saw a confederate flag flying around in the Capitol. That’s what we saw.
And not just that. We s- — police officers were injured. Some police officers lost their lives because of that event. And so, you heard you — heard that from — from the President.
As it relates to what you asked me about the hostage — look, I want to be careful. We follow the law. We don’t comment on 2024. We also don’t comment on DOJ investigations or legal processes.
So — but, you know, I’ve seen American veterans note that — how grotesque and offensive to compare those convicted of assaulting cops and attempting to overthrow the American government that veterans — that veterans have died defending innocent Americans, like an Israeli — like in Israel and — and people of other nationalities who — who were abducted during Hamas atrocities on October 7th.
So, it is — like I said, it is grotesque to make those type of comparisons. And the President, you know, spoke very forcefully of how he saw January 6th and laid out there’s a choice that we have to make here. There’s a choice that we have to make — that the American people have to really decide.
Q: Is it really a condemnation — isn’t it, Karine? — of — making that comparison?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I want to be careful, right?
Q: Do you have to be careful?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, but — but, look, what we —
Q: He referred to them as “hostages.”
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, he did. And I just said about how January 6th was — was an attack on our democracy, and we have to continue to call that out. That’s what the President said — right? — that’s what the President said and laid out on January 6th.
And, you know, it is — look, what we saw on January 6th cannot be repeated again. And that is one of the things that the — the President is making very, very clear. And he has over the past couple of years.
And what we saw was certainly something that is a dark day for — for the history of — of this country. And so, we ca- — we get to make sure it doesn’t repeat itself.
And there is misinformation, disinformation currently out there still about January 6th — right? — about — about — about that. And so, we have to call that out as well. And that’s what you’re going to continue to hear from this President.
Q: How is the President going to assess the threat level of political violence in his speech today in Charleston? And — and is he going to specifically point to former President Trump as someone who foments violence?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, just going to be really careful and mindful here as well. But I’ll say a couple of things. The Vice President, the President — I’m sorry, when the — when the President was Vice President, he and his family worshiped at the Mother Emanuel, and that was back in 2015, to show solidarity after the heartbreaking tragedy.
And so, the President has continued to underline that we cannot forget the act of racist hate suffered by Mother Emanuel congregation and that we must continue to stand together against those kinds of sentiments as Americans.
As he said when he signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act and when he took action to protect houses of worship and when he spoke at South Carolina State University’s commencement, upholding the dignity and rights for all Americans and giving hate no safe harbor are North Star — -starts — Stars for this Pres- — this President. So, that’s what you’re going to continue to expect from him.
But, I’m not going to get too far ahead of the President. You’ll hear directly from him in a couple of hours.
All right? Yeah. All right. Thanks, everybody.
January 12, 2024: Press Gaggle by Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby En Route Allentown, PA.
Aboard Air Force One En Route To Allentown, Pennsylvania
MR. BATES: Good morning.
Q: Good morning.
MR. BATES: I have a few things at the top. And then, Admiral Kirby is going to take questions.
We are on our way to Pennsylvania, where the President will visit several small businesses in Lehigh Valley and the Allentown area.
Allentown, a historic steel town, was hollowed out by failed trickle-down economics. But thanks to Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda, Allentown and communities nationwide are experiencing an economic comeback.
As we saw yesterday, the President’s economic agenda is working, with applicants for new businesses reaching record heights.
Sixteen million new business applications have been filed in the last three years. That’s more new business applications in — than the four years of the prior administration combined.
As the President has said, every time someone starts a new small business, it’s an act of hope and confidence in our economy, and we’ve seen 16 million acts of hope since President Biden took office in that regard.
This is the same hope and confidence the President will highlight on the ground today.
Entrepreneurs who have hope and confidence in this economy, supported by the President’s investments, were able to take on the risk of starting a business.
And as a result, in Allentown and beyond, we are seeing a small business book, more good-paying jobs with rising wages, record-low unemployment, and lower costs for hardworking families.
Similarly, Bidenomics has accomplished the decades-long goal of bringing manufacturing back to America. We have created 26,000 new manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania under President Biden. Pennsylvania lost 23,000 manufacturing jobs under Donald Trump.
Also, today, we announced that we are implementing one of the most impactful provisions of the President’s SAVE plan, which is the most affordable repayment plan in U.S. history.
Starting next month, borrowers enrolled in SAVE who took out less than $12,000 in loans and have been repayment for 10 years will get their remaining student debt cancelled.
This action will particularly help community college borrowers, low-income borrowers, and those struggling to repay their loans, and it’s part of our ongoing efforts to act as quickly as possible to give more borrowers breathing room.
We encourage all borrowers who may be eligible for early debt cancellation to sign up for the SAVE plan at StudentAid.gov.
Already, 6.9 million borrowers are enrolled in the plan; 3.9 million have a monthly payment of $0.
The President will continue using every tool at his disposal to get student loan borrowers the relief they need to reach their dreams.
And I’ll underline that proponents of MAGAnomics have consistently opposed the relief that he is delivering for hardworking borrowers.
And then, finally, next week, on Monday, the President will travel to Philadelphia for a service event in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
And with that, Admiral Kirby will take questions.
MR. KIRBY: Thanks.
Hey, guys. I don’t have an opening statement.
Q: All right.
MR. KIRBY: Fire away.
Q: Can you give any new assessments this morning about how much the Houthi capabilities had been degraded and how significant the damage was to the targets with the strikes last night?
MR. KIRBY: We’re still doing that assessment right now. That’s what we call a battle damage assessment. That’s ongoing. And it could take some hours before we can have a better sense — a clearer sense of what — the actual damage done.
I would just remind that these were all valid, legitimate military targets — all really aimed at going after the Houthis’ ability to store, launch, and guide drones and missiles.
Q: Is the President ready for a war in Yemen if it were to come to that? And would he be willing to send in ground troops?
MR. KIRBY: We’re not interested in a war with Yemen. We’re not interested in a conflict of any kind here. In fact, everything the President has been doing has been trying to prevent any escalation of conflict, including the strikes last night.
Q: Have you seen the bipartisan group of members of Congress say that the President violated the War Powers Resolution? What’s your response to that?
MR. KIRBY: We’re very comfortable and confident in the legal authorities that the President exercised to conduct these strikes.
Q: Are you expecting an attack in the Red Sea today? Do you see that as being ineffective or not really showing that they were degraded after your strikes last night?
MR. KIRBY: Look, I think there was — going into this, certainly no- — nobody was Polayannish about the possibility that the Houthis might conduct some sort of retaliation. So, I don’t have the operational reports on this.
But again, they’ve got choices to make here, and the right choice is to stop these reckless attacks.
As the President said — I’ll point you to the last sentence in his statement last night — he reserves the right and he won’t hesitate to take further action to protect our troops and our facilities and international commerce.
Q: Do you know who was in the Situation Room last nigh when he decided to make those airstrikes — that decision?
MR. KIRBY: He made that dec- — he made the decision to approve these options after the attack on Tuesday — the big attack that was, like, 18 drones, some cruise missiles, a ballistic missile. And he was kept up to speed as that attack was unfolding. It took some time.
When he was briefed that it had been accurately and effectively defended, he called his national security team together — this is Tuesday afternoon — was presented with the response options and approved those options at that time.
Q: John, can you talk about calculation (inaudible) now as opposed to earlier? This has been going on for a while. Some Republicans would say it should have been done earlier; this is overdue. So, what made now the right time to do it?
MR. KIRBY: I think you have to keep it in context for everything they’ve been doing since November, Peter. And repeatedly since that time — you al have seen the tick-tock. We — on the diplomatic front, we’ve worked with the U.N. We worked with coalition partners to condemn those attacks; work on that U.N. Security Council resolution; out together Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is really about defending international shipping in the Red Sea, boosting our military presence in the Red Sea.
I mean, everything the President has been doing since these attacks really started in late November has been designed to disrupt their ability to do that but also to send a strong signal to the Houthis that they need to stop.
And on Tuesday, we had this very large attack on multiple ships in the Red Sea using, again, a large number of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.
And — and right before that, you might remember, the — we issued what can only be understood as a final warning to the Houthis. They violated that, obviously, in this attack on Tuesday. And so, it lead to these strikes.
Q: On Soleimani. There was — when we had the strike on Suleimani back during the last administration, there was communication with the Iranians through the Swiss, I believe, that was meant to keep it from escalating beyond a certain, you know, level. Is there anything like that going on right now with Iran or anybody else in the region?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any diplomatic conversations to speak to in that regard. Again, this was really focused on disrupting Houthi capabilities to conduct these attacks.
Q: And — but the Houthis had an opportunity, they knew that this was coming, so they were able to move some of their resources. So, was this meant more as a signal to the Houthis not to try anything further? Or was this meant to actually destroy their capabilities?
MR. KIRBY: This wasn’t some signaling exercise. This was this was — this was designed to disrupt and to degrade Houthi military capabilities.
And as I said in the first answer, while we are still assessing the actual impact of those strikes, we know that each and every target was militarily significant to the Houthis’ ability. So, we’ll — we’ll see where that goes.
Q: And just to follow up on Peter’s questions, what is the President’s strategy to keep Iran out of this war?
MR. KIRBY: Well, first of all, there’s no war with the Houthis. We don’t seek a war in Yemen with the Houthis. We want to — we want to see these attacks stop. We know that Iran backs the Houthis just like they back Hezbollah and they — and they back Hamas. We have in the past and we will certainly continue to hold Iran accountable for their destabilizing activities.
I mean, in this administration alone, we’ve issued some 500 sanctions — again- — I mean, against 500 entities, 50 sanction regimes. We’ll continue to work with our partners, you know, to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to dissuade these destabili– these destabilizing behaviors by Iran.
Q: (Inaudible.) sanctions against Iran?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t want to get ahead of where we are. We have in the past looked at economic sanctions as a tool. They certainly remain on the table. But I don’t — I won’t prejudge any decisions that haven’t been made yet.
Q: John, can you tell us about Secretary Austin’s participation in this decision-making process?
MR. KIRBY: It was seamless. It was as if — it was no — no different. His participation was no different that it would be on any other given day, except that he was briefing the President on options and engaged in the discussions from the hospital. But he was fully engaged as he would be in any other event.
Q: And on Taiwan elections this weekend. Are you guys following what’s happening? And are you concerned about any implications so soon after the San Francisco meeting?
MR. KIRBY: We are — obviously, we’ll be watching and monitoring the — the elections in Taiwan. Taiwan has strong democratic institutions that we want to see exercised, of course. We wan to see free, fair, transparent elections. Obviously we’re not taking a stake one way or the other in the — in the result. That’s up to the people of Taiwan.
And just like we would say anywhere else in the world, it would be unacceptable for any other actor — nation-state or otherwise — to interfere with that — with that — with that exercise of democracy. But we’ll be watching it closely, of course.
Q: Back on the Houthis. I don’t know if this is your swim lane or if it’s — if it’s Bates’s. But are you seeing an — is the administration seeing any sort of economic impacts as a result of the strikes as of this morning?
MR. KIRBY: No, not — not at this time. No.
Q: Does the President believe the Houthis are a terrorist group?
MR. KIRBY: As we’ve talked about, we are reviewing the FTO — Foreign Terrorist Organization — finding on the Houthis. As you know, we — we delisted them. And we have announced that we’re reviewing that — that decision right now. No decisions have been made yet.
Q: How soon can we expect one?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t — I don’t think I can give you an exact timeline or a date on the calendar. I mean, that work is ongoing, largely at the State Department. But — but it’s — it’s an ongoing review.
Q: And if the attacks against these vessels don’t stop, is the President willing to do this all over again?
MR. KIRBY: Well, with the caveat that — (Air Force One experiences turbulence) — you okay? (Laughter.)
With the caveat —
Q: Sorry, it’s —
MR. KIRBY: No, I know, I know.
Q: Yeah. The — it’s — yeah.
MR. KIRBY: I’m reaching for the bulkhead too. (Laughter.)
With the caveat that, you know, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals, and I certainly am not going to take about potential future military operations one way or the other. I would, again, point you to that last statement in his statement yesterday: He said he will not hesitate to take further action if its required to protect our sailors, our ships, or the — the ships and sailors of merchant traffic in the Red Sea.
Again, I want to come back to the — the Houthis are the ones that escalated here — and, in particular, escalation on Tuesday. And they have a choice to make. And the right choice would be to stop these reckless attacks.
Q: And what about Tuesday was so much different? Like, was it the scale? What was it about Tuesday that was significantly different?
MR. KIRBY: It was a — it was —
Q: The scale (inaudible)?
MR. KIRBY: It was significant scale. I mean, almost 20 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles all — sort of targeted —
Q: (Inaudible.)
MR. KIRBY: — toward a fairly significant cluster of ships, both naval ships — not just U.S. but a British destroyer, as well as international — I’m sorry, as well as commercial vessels. Some of them the U.S. flagged.
Q: Let me ask you, Do you ask the French to participate, and do they refuse?
MR. KIRBY: I won’t get into the diplomatic conversations we’ve had. I mean, you’ve seen the list of people that participated in — you know, you’ve also seen that internationally, even those who weren’t actively involved in the dropping of bombs, many of our coalition partners have signed up to the — the support — nonoperational support but also just, you know, rhetorical support for what we did.
Q: Kirby, could you just briefly reflect on this moment in foreign policy for the Biden administration? We have Gaza going on, this, Ukraine. How are you all staying above water and navigating?
MR. KIRBY: You know, the President describes this time that we’re living in as an inflection point, and he’s right. I mean, you look all around in the world, and one of the things that’s a common thread is democracy is under threat. And it’s in threat in many different ways.
And it’s — the President believes in a foreign policy that — that bolsters our allies and partners, that builds on alliances and partnerships, that recognizes that the United States can’t do it all alone, but that our leadership is vital and important to solving some of these problems.
And I think what you’re going to see going forward this — this coming year is what you’ve seen from the — in the last three years from President Biden, and that is a very active foreign policy built on relationships — improving relationships that need it, shoring up the relationships that we know are strong and solid, and trying to solve these problems in a collateral — in a collaborative but also a multilateral way.
MR. BATES: Thank you, Admiral.
Q: And just very briefly —
MR. BATES: We’re about to land, so we’ll take other questions.
Q: Just a quick one on oil. Oil prices topped $80 a barrel. What kind of supply disruptions and changes in pricing here in America is the White House tracking?
MR. BATES: We are monitoring conditions. We will remain in touch with our international partners to determine any long-term impact surprises.
But let me be very clear: It’s the Houthis who have been endangering the freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vial waterways. And they should stop with their reckless behavior, which is costing many countries unjustly, including ours.
Q: The Justice Department announced this morning that they will seek the death penalty for the Buffalo supermarket shooter. Obviously, the President campaigned on abolishing the federal death penalty. And this is the first time that Attorney General Garland’s department is pursuing the death penalty. So what are the President’s thoughts about that course of action?
MR. BATES: What happened in Buffalo was grotesque and a heartbreaking tragedy.
In 2022, in the wake of the shooting, President Biden traveled to Buffalo to meet with the families of the victims impacted by this senseless violence. And as he said there, “hate will not prevail,” because hate has no place in America. Period.
With res- — with respect to the death penalty, the President has long talked about his views on this issue broadly. We will leave it to the appropriate authorities to speak to individual cases and sentencing decisions. And I would refer you to the Department of Justice for anything more.
Q: And Speaker Johnson agreed to topline numbers, again, doubling down on his agreement with Schumer. Does the White House see that as potentially averting a government shutdown?
MR. BATES: Listen, House Republicans voted for an agreement in May. Speaker Johnson reaffirmed it on Sunday. And again, this morning, we have an agreement. (Air Force One experiences turbulence.) (Laughter.) And Republicans need to keep their word and stop trying to shut down the government.
Q: Are you —
MR. BATES: I’m impressed by everybody’s balance. (Laughter.)
Q: Are you in touch with agencies —
Q: We’re impressed by your balance.
Q: Are you in touch with agencies to potentially plan for that at all?
MR. BATES: Just — sorry, just one moment. As Speaker Johnson and Democratic leaders said on Sunday, we do have a bipartisan funding framework that reflects the funding levels in last year’s bipartisan budget agreement. Republicans need to keep their word.
Of course, we do prepare for every contingency. OMB and agencies are making preparations for every program. But, again, that is — that is out of caution.
This could all be prevented if House Republicans keep their word and do their jobs.
Q: What is the President’s message to progressives who do not want to be dragged into another war in the Middle East?
MR. BATES: You — you have heard Admiral Kirby directly a moment ago that we are not looking for any kind of war. This was a proportionate action justified by the circumstances, an act of self-defense with bipartisan support.
And, again, we — we have sent strong warnings to the Houthis about how reckless and unjustified this behavior is.
AIDE: Thank you, everybody.
Q: Donald Trump says he wants to make tax cuts permanent if he’s elected in 2025. Does the White House have a reaction at all?
MR. BATES: With the — with the caveat that we do not comment on the 2024 elections, yesterday’s news that, in 2023, inflation dropped by almost two thirds from its peak builds on the progress we’ve been achieving for American families. And that news highlights why there’s every reason to continue the economic growth and momentum of Bidenomics, not decimate the middle class with the hi – — the — the cost-hiking MAGAnomics agenda that Republican officials are proposing.
Americans are now wealthier than during the Trump administration. Americans are earning more than during the Trump administration. More Americans are working than during the Trump administration.
As we’re talking about today, more small businesses are being created than at any point in American history. And a record-breaking number of Americans have gained healthcare coverage.
MAGAnomics would threaten to revers all those gains by selling middle-class families out to rich special interests, including by demanding in — deficit-hiking tax giveaways for the wealthy and big corporations. And we oppose those kinds of proposals.
Rather than tax welfare for the rich, like MAGAnomics calls or, Bidenomics will continue to power the strongest economy in the world by growing the middle class.
AIDE: Thank you, everybody.
MR. BATES: Thank you, all.
January 19, 2024: Bill Signed: H.R. 2872
On Friday, January 19, 2024, the President signed into law:
H.R. 2872, the “Further Additional Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024,” which provides fiscal year 2024 appropriations to Federal agencies for continuing projects and activities funded in the four of the 12 annual appropriation bills through March 1, 2024. For the remaining eight annual appropriations bills, the CR provides funding through March 8, 2024.
January 31, 2024: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon. Hello.
Hi. I have a few things at the top before we get started.
As the Presi- — as the President and his team continue working to deliver a historic bipartisan agreement on the border, House Republicans have a choice to make: They can keep playing po- — politics or they can work in a bipartisan way to secure the border.
Sadly, this is not new. For years, they have refused to heed the President’s requests for action on much-needed funding for border security.
For example, in the bill the President introduced in his first day in office, more than a thousand days ago, he requested funding to develop and deploy — exped- — expediting screening technology to improve our ability to catch narcotics and contraband at every port of entry. Republicans never acted on the bill.
Each year in office, President Biden has requested record — breaking border security funding into law. But without exception, House Republicans have tried to stop the President from delivering the resource we need at the border.
As recently as October, President Biden submitted a supplemental request for additional resource for border security; House Republicans did not take it up.
Now House Republicans are going further and signaling that they may refuse to even consider a historic bipartisan security deal that would strengthen America’s national security.
Perhaps Speaker Johnson and House Republicans should reflect on what they’ve had to say over the past few months.
In October, Speaker Johnson said, “We must come together and address the broken border.” And in November he said, “I think we can get a bipartisan agreement” on “border security.
But suddenly, we’ve heard a change of tune. One Republican member from Texas even said, why would they do anything to help President Biden?
This is about helping the President — this is about helping the American people. It’s not about securing the border.
Republicans in the Senate are working with us to do just that. Republicans in the House should as well.
Look no further than their effort to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, an impeachment that even conservatives say is unconstitutional.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board said, “Grandstanding is easier than governing, and Republicans have to decide whether to accomplish anything other than impeaching Democrats. Impeaching him accomplishes nothing beyond political symbolism. A better idea is to strike a deal with Mr. Biden on serious border security reforms.” That’s from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.
Former President Trump — Trump’s own impeachment lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, urged Republicans to vote no.
House Republicans’ own impeachment witness, Jonathan Hurley, said there is no basis for impeachment.
And former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served in Bush administration, said House Republicans should “drop this impeachment charade and work with Mr. Mayorkas to deliver for the American people.”
Members of the House Republican Conference have said this is baseless. Congressman Ken Buck said, “Secretary Mayorkas did not commit an impeachable offense.” And Congressman Tom McClinick — McClintock said, “These are not impeachable offenses.”
So, our challenge to House Republicans is this: Will you go against the very voices you typically listen to play a dangerous, unconstitutional game, or will you listen to what many of yourselves have — have been saying? Come to the table, work on a bipartisan border security solutions, finally find our needs at the border, and actually tackle the problem instead of playing politics with it.
So, this is not about politics. This is about bipartisan solutions to help the American people and secure the border.
We hope, for the sake of the country, House Republicans challen- — change course from their years of playing politics with this issue.
So, now, yesterday, a new IMF report found that the United found that the United States is leading the global economic recovery. As Axios put it, “the U.S. is winning the world economic war.” The United States economy grew faster than any other large, advanced econo- — economy last year by a wide margin and is on track to do so again in 2024.
And the Washington Post wrote earlier this week, “Falling inflation, rising growth give U.S. the world’s best recovery.” That’s thanks to strong actions taken by this President to recover from the pandemic and invest in America.
And yesterday, we got new evidence Americans are seeing the results, with consumer confidence at the highest level in more than two years and inflation expectation falling to the lowest level since the start of the pandemic.
And before I turn it over to my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, as you all know, this Friday, the President and the First Lady are honored to attend the dignified transfer or the three U.S. Army soldiers we lost in Jordan.
As the President said, these service members represented the very, very best of our nation.
The President spoke to each of the families yesterday to offer his heartfelt condolences, and he and the First Lady will have another opportunity to meet with them in person in Dover on Friday.
As the Pentagon announced yesterday, the President and the First Lady will be joined by Secretary of Defense…
February 2024:
February 20, 2024: Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route To Los Angeles, CA
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, it’s cold back here.
Q: It’s very cold.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, guys. I have a couple of things at the top.
See? Aamer has his hat on. It’s — it is cold.
Q: I’m sorry. I’ll take it off.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no no, I’m not — no judgement. I’m just saying it’s cold.
All right. If House Republicans are serious about border security, serious about standing up to Putin, and serious about protecting our national security, they must act immediately to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental bill.
Instead, right now, they are on vacation as the stakes for our security and the security of our closest partners and allies continue to mount. The events of the last few days underscored this fact.
Let’s be clear, President Biden has led the way on the urgent need to secure our border, working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on the toughest, fairest border legislation in decades. And he has put forward the resources we urgently need to enable Ukraine to stop Russia in their tracks and from posing a great threat to our NATO Allies.
Now, this Saturday, the President will participate in a video conference call with other G7 leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss our continued support for Ukraine and steps we can take together to continue holding Russia accountable.
This is the third year that G7 leaders have convened in February to condemn Russia’s unjustified attack on Ukraine and express solidarity with the people of Ukraine.
As you recall, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, President Biden quickly pulled together a G7 leaders call to coordinate our response, and he continues to work together closely with our allies and partners.
Ahead of Saturday’s meeting — and you heard this from the President before he boarded on Marine One this afternoon on the South Lawn — we will be announcing a significant new package of sanctions on Russia on Friday to mark the second anniversary of the invasion and to respond to the death of Aleskey — Alekskey [Aleksey] Navalny, who courageously stood up to the corruption and the violence of the Putin government and ultimately gave his life in pursuit of Russia where the rule of law exists and is applied equally to everyone.
As the President said in Friday, this urgently reminds us — this tragedy, pardon me, reminds us of the stakes of this moment and the need to stand up to Putin and pass the national security supplemental bill, and the Ukraine aid it contains, which overwhelmingly passed in the Senate on a bipartisan basis.
Time is of the essence. House Republicans must take urgent action to support national security legislation that would easily pass the House.
Today, the Vice President — the Vice President traveled alongside EPA Administrator Michael Regan to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, as part of the administration’s Investing in America tour, where they announced $5.8 billion in funding for clean water infrastructure.
This is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to ensuring a future where every child and family has access to clean, safe water, and it brings the total amount of clean water funding announced by EPA from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to $22 billion.
Then, on Thursday, the Vice President will travel to Grand Rapids, Michigan, to continue her nationwide Fight for Reproductive Freedoms tour. During the fourth stop of her tour, the Vice President will highlight how organized — organizers, advocates, and elected leaders in states like Michigan have worked to protect reproductive rights since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
And finally, the First Lady will travel to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to highlight the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, which President Biden launched in November to fundamentally change how we approach and fund women’s health research.
With that, Aamer, you want to kick us off?
Q: Yeah On the sanctions. The U.S. has already thrown quite a bit of sanctions at Russia. How should we see what’s going to be announced on Friday? Will this be substantive and have actual teeth in what it does to Russia and to Putin? Or is this more symbolic as we reach the two-year anniversary and also in reaction to Navalny’s death?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you’ve heard from the President earli — earlier — early right before he got on Air Force One when he was on the South Lawn. He said the — those sanctions would be major.
I’m going to be really careful. We don’t preview, as you know, the details of sanctions ahead of time for a variety of reasons, including to avoid capital flight risk. So, we have to be super careful.
But, again, as the President stated, it’s clear that Russia is responsible for — for Navalny’s death and what has happened to Navalny is yet more proof that Putin’s brutality — no one — not in — not in Russia, not here at home, and not anywhere around the world should be fooled here. He does not target the citizens of other countries, as we are — we have been seeing happen, obviously, in Ukraine for the past two years. He also inflicts terrible crimes on his own people.
So, I’m going to be super careful. You will hear from — from this administration on Friday, when the time — when the time is right.
Q: Are the punishments for Navalny going to be different from the sanctions that were already planned for the anniversary? Is there something in addition to what was already arranged for that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be really careful. Obviously, there’s a connection, obviously, to Naval- — Navalny’s death here. And so — and obviously, it’s going to be the two-years anniversary coming up. But I’m just going to be careful and not —
You’ll hear directly from us, from the administration, as to sanctions, why the sanctions are happening. And I just don’t want to get ahead of that.
Q: Why — why should we expect these sanctions to be any different? We’ve been imposing sanctions since 2022, and none of them have had their desired goal.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things here. We and our partners have imposed the most severe sanction on Russia that any economy this size has ever faced. That — so, that is a fact.
We’ve kicked them out of the international organization and worked to isolate them on the world stage. We’ve been able to do that — along with, obviously, our NATO Allies, right?
We’ve provided Ukraine with the capacity to impose massive costs on the Russian military, and the Russian military has been severely degraded as a result of the brutal and unprovoked war they launched against the people of Ukraine.
It’s critical now, obviously — what we’ve been saying for the past couple of weeks, couple of months — that Congress needs to act. We saw a bipartisan — bipartisan agreement come out of the Senate in order to end the really important national security supplemental. We need to see the House do the same.
We have heard from Republicans — House Republicans say that if the bill were to get to the floor that it would get bipartisan support. We need Congress to act.
Q: Right at the beginning, you talked about Congress going on recess. The President has the authority to call Congress back. Why doesn’t he simply do that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, here’s the thing. The Senate did their job, moved forward with a bipartisan piece of legislation with the national security ri- — risk that we are currently facing. And it was critical, it was important, and it was done in li — in a bipartisan — 70 to — 70 to 29 — in a bipartisan way.
And we need to see the House act. They went home early. They went home early.
Q: But he could call them back.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, this is for Speaker Johnson to deal with, right? He has already said these bills are dead. And it shouldn’t be that way. He shouldn’t be putting — playing politics. He shouldn’t be playing with our national security. And this is on Speaker Johnson.
It is — this is a question for Speaker Johnson. Why does he continue to say these bills are dead when we know — we know for a fact that if he were to put this particular bill that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way and put it on the floor, the national security supplemental, it would pass in a bipartisan way?
We’re talking about funding for Ukraine. We’re talking about the funding for Israel. We’ve talked about the Indo-Pacific, right?
And — and what did we have to do? They had to — the Senate had to strip out a border security from it — another — another piece of legislation was had for months, and we got a bipartisan negotiation.
Speaker — the Speaker continues to get in the way and play politics here.
Q: Karine, you’ve mentioned the — you’ve mentioned —
Q: (Inaudible) on the —
Q: Sorry. You’ve mentioned the — the supplemental several times, but we also don’t have funding for the whole government, right? So, what is the President going to do on that when Congress comes back? And two, does this mean you’re optimistic about a CR?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President has been really clear. We have to prevent a needless shutdown, right? We’ve said this. Every time we come to this space, we say we have to prevent a needless shutdown. House Republicans must finally do their jobs and work across the aisle to pass funding bills that deliver for the American people.
So, we support bipartisan negotiations happening on the Hill, obviously. And so, House Republicans should not waste their — waste our time, waste their time, waste the American people’s time. They should move forward.
We — this is their basic duty. Their basic duty to keep the government open, and we’re going to be —
Q: And what will the President do?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it is their job. It is their job to keep the government open. What we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to call that out and say, “Hey, you know what? This is about” — these are — we’re talking about programs that the American people need — they need.
And so, this is for Congress to work out. They got to get this done.
Q: So, the President sa- —
Q: Does that mean that —
Q: The President — the President said yesterday he’s willing to meet with the House Speaker. Is there any update on that? Any progress made?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, obviously the President, if it — it is — if it is indeed a serious discussion, he — to be had, he’s open to that, obviously. Right? He’s alw- — if it’s a serious discussion.
But I have to remind everybody — right? — what Putin — Putin is a deep threat to our national security. You guys know this. I don’t even have to remind you of that.
Our borders need — needs to be secured. Right? You’ve both heard us say this. The President has — has led on both when it comes to getting a bipartisan agreement on the border security, when it — when you saw what the — what the Senate was able to do on getting that national security supplemental in a bipartisan way.
But so far, it’s the Speaker. As I just stated moments ago, it’s the Speaker that is the only one who is actively hurting America’s national security by killing those priorities that I just laid out, and then going on an early — early vacation, as I mentioned already.
So, this is a question to the Speaker: Is he going to choose Trump — is this what he’s going to do? — and his own internal politics over the doing — doing what’s right for the Ukraine, doing what’s right for our national security, doing what’s right for our border, doing what’s right for Israel and the Palestinian civilians? Or — and let’s not forget the Indo-Pacific.
If so, let’s have a real discussion. Let’s have a serious, good-faith discussion. But we all know where the Speaker stands already. And he’s playing politics on this.
Q: Karine, what does a “serious” discussion entail?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s up to —
Q: How is that different than —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look —
Q: — the last conversation they had?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, that’s — look, here’s the thing: We know that the Senate already has put forth a bipartisan — a bipartisan agreement — passed 70 to 29 on the floor of the Senate — to deal with the national security. Right? They’ve also came together to deal with border security.
And what we keep hearing from the Speaker — this is why it’s — it’s kind of — it’s kind of bizarre, right? Because they — they keep swinging, right? They keep saying, “We must have bipartisan border legislation now” to “Where on Earth did this bipartisan legislation come from? Get it away from me. We’d like to talk about reversals.” Right? It’s just bizarre.
I mean, this is the Speaker. This is the Speaker of the House who goes from one side to another and doesn’t actually know what he wants.
So, it’s up to him: What is — is he really serious about having a conversation? But there are — it’s in front of him, right? The agreement that came out — that came out of the Senate to deal with the national security, it’s in front of him. There’s a — there — there was an agreement on the border. It’s in front of him. He keeps saying these things are dead. He keeps saying these things are dead.
And so, the President is like, “Okay, well, if it’s a serious conversation, let’s have it.” But he’s not serious. He isn’t. Where — where is the seriousness coming from the Speaker right now?
Q: So, on — on Rob’s question, you said no, there is no update on a meeting with Speaker Johnson and — and the President?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have an update. What I’m saying is we are open to having a serious conversation, is the — if there is one to be had. But I’m also laying out where the Speaker has been for the past couple of weeks on this. He’s not serious about this. Right?
I mean, he — you guys have written about how he swung from — from back and forth on this issue.
Q: What’s the sign — what’s the sign? What could the Speaker do to demonstrate he’s acting in good faith?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean — I mean, if he’s acting in good faith, then take it up. Take it up. Take up the national security supplemental. Say — say you’re going to bring it to the floor or say that you’re going to have a discussion about it.
He’s saying it’s dead. He’s saying it’s dead before he even brings it — brings it to — brings it to his own caucus. Right? His own caucus has said if it puts — if it goes to the floor, it would pass in a bipartisan way, the border — the border security negotiations. He just said it’s dead. Didn’t even do — go through a process of trying to go through to see, “Hey, well, how — how much — can we move this further in the House?” No.
So, where’s the seriousness here?
Q: Karine, on — on Senator Joe Manchin. What was the President’s reaction to the fact that a fellow Democrat didn’t want to endorse him right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — and you’ve heard us say this. We — the President has a very good working relationship with Senator Manchin the last three years. They — the two of them, along with other — other congressional members and — have been able to get some historic legislation passed and — on behalf of the American people. Whether it’s the CHIPS and Science Act, whether it’s the American Rescue Plan, there has been a lot of effort and good work with — with the — with the senator.
I can’t speak to his decision. That is something for hime to speak to. We appreciate, obviously, our working relations- — relationship with the senator. And I’m not going to talk politics, you know, I can’t.
Q: Was the President disappointed?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to — I’m not going to go beyond a private conversation with the President. I’m just going to say that we respect Senator Manchin. We’ve had a very good relationship. The President has had a very good relationship with the senator over the past three years.
Q: (Inaudible.)
Q: Karine, on Gaza. Could — did you want to follow up on that?
Q: No, go — it’s okay.
Q: On — on Gaza. Could you talk a little bit about the President’s thinking in terms of endorsing this terminology around ceasefire? You have this U.N. resolution. It’s the first time the U.S. has backed that word. It’s crept into the President’s own language. What is his thought process in introducing that word? And is it too little, too late?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, a couple of things here. There’s no change in our policy — U.S. policy, obviously. We — we are steadfast on that. You heard President Biden talk about this last week. It expresses our position if — if the U.N. resolution that you’re talking about that we have put forth — in support of a hostage deal that would pause the fighting for an extended period of time.
So, that policy stays the same. That potential deal represents the best opportunity to reunite all hostage — hostages with their families and enable a prolonged pause in fighting and it would bring about conditions for more lifesaving food, water, fuel, medicine, and other essentials to get into the hands of Palestinian civilians who so desperately need it.
The resolution also includes other priorities that we have been vocal on, such as supporting the protection of civilians in Rafah and the ongoing U.N. UNWRA investigation into whether — whether some of its employees were part of the horrific terror attacks on October 7th, to name a couple.
We’re proposing this resolution because it is vital that any Security Council efforts help — help ongoing diplomatic efforts on the ground, not hinder them. Regrettably, other proposals in the Council, such as the one being — that was deliberated today, as you all know, service to hurt these diplomatic efforts.
And just as you — as you are asking me about the word, and so, look, it’s not the first time we’ve called for a temporary ceasefire in order to free the hostages held by Hamas and other — and allow more assistance to get to Gaza, as I just stated. President Biden has used the term “a temporary ceasefire” twice earlier this month. And he — he was talking about a temporary ceasefire for hostages as far back as November.
And so, this — the U.S. policy does not change what we’ve been trying to do and what the President and his team has been working on around the clock in a diplomatic fashion to make sure that we get that — that we get — we get those hostages home, including American hostages home to their families and to their loved ones and get that all-important humanitarian aid into Gaza.
This is something that we have been doing, right? This is something that we were able to do, that — that we were able to have that short period of time of humanitarian pause, obviously, and got more than 100 — 100 hostages home.
And so, this is what we’ve been talking about. This is the temporary ceasefire that the President wants to see.
Q: And another one on language. Do you — do you agree with — with Prime Minister Netanyahu that it was inappropriate for Lula of Brazil to compare the plight of the Palestinians with the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not — I’m going to let Lula speak for himself. We’ve been very clear where we stand. We stand, obviously, with Israel being able to defend itself against Hamas and this terrorist organization. That’s why we continue to push for — obviously, one of the reasons we continue to push for the national security supplemental.
What we saw on October 7th was 1,200 — 1,200 people — more than 1,200 people who were killed and more than — obviously, more than 150 people who were — who were taken hostage. And it was a — it was a devastating, tragic day. And we want to continue to make sure that Israel is able to defend itself.
Obviously, we want to also make sure that the all-important humanitarian aid get to — get to Palestinian civilians, who are — who are victims of — who are victims themselves of what Hamas is doing. Let’s no forgot — forget: Hamas is embedding themselves into hospital, into civilian infrastructure, and they’re causing harm to their own people.
And so, we want to make sure that we can get – that temporary ceasefire and get that done so we can get that aid and also make sure that we get those hostages home to their families.
Q: And if I could just follow up on what Trevor asked. Is it — just to put a fine point on it, is it appropriate, as terrible as the suffering is in Gaza, to equate it with the — with the Holocaust?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I — I’m not going to — this is a very sensitive situation right now — obviously, a very sensitive issue. We understand that as it relates to what folks are seeing in Gaza, it’s incredibly personal.
And what I can say is that we support — obviously, our policy in Israel is — is steadfast. And — and I’m just going to be super mindful.
Obviously, these are two different scenarios — right? — two different situation: what we saw in the Holocaust. And it is — it is two different things that should not be compared.
But, obviously what we’re seeing in — what we’re seeing — the deviation that we’re seeing in — in — with the Palestinian civilians, what Hamas is causing is devastating. It is devastating.
Q: Just quickly on —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But they’re two different times in history, and we have to be very clear about that.
Q: Any reaction to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on the frozen em — on frozen embryos?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, I’m going to be careful on — on commenting on specific case. But this is exactly the type of chaos that we expected when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and paved the way for politicians to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.
All across the country, women are being forced to grapple with the devastating consequences of action by Republican elected officials, from undermining access to repro- — reproductive — reproductive care and emergency care to threatening access to contraception.
And, as a reminder, this is the same state whose Attorney General threatened to prosecute people who helped women travel out of state to seek the care they need.
The President — this President and this Vice President will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state.
Q: The President —
Q: Karine, can you give us an idea of what the President is doing tomorrow? What are his remarks about?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We certainly will have more to share later today on what Pr- –the President’s day is going to look like tomorrow.
Q: The President has talked a lot about stimulating competition in the financial services sector. How concerned is this administration about the Discover-Capital One merger?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that last part.
Q: The Discover-Capital One merger. How — how concerned are you guys?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, with this as well: I’m not going to speak to any particular case. But let me lay this out.
Bank mergers are reviewed by bank regula- — regulators on a case-by-case basis.
As we have said, we need a diverse banking sector with a mix of — of large, regional and community banks. And as the President says, capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism, it’s exploitation.
His comp- — his compet- — his competition executive order urges the Department of Justice and bank regulators to review bank merger policies. This administration will continue to fight to protect and enforce our anti-trust laws.
Anything further, obviously, I’m going to refer you to Department of Justice.
Q: Karine, the — the publisher of the New York Times has talked about getting flak from the White House for its coverage of the President’s age. Can you talk to us a little bit about what you think is, sort of, fair game when covering the nation’s oldest president and what might be off limits?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I mean, a couple of things there that I would say on that — on the particular — particular item.
Look, you know — and, you know you — you ask me pretty regularly about the President’s age and we lay out what our perspective is. We lay out what we see — we’ve seen this president do in the last three years, which is deliver on historic — historic piece of legislation that’s going to change the lives of American for generations to come.
That — so wh- — now, to your question, more specifically, about — about the New York Times coverage, is that — that display — what we believe to be a journalistic objectivity about coverage of the President’s age speaks to why we agree with former New York Times editor Margaret Sullivan, and she says, “Maybe the Times and other major media outlets out to look in the mirror.” “Self-scrutiny and — and course correction are not among their core strengths.” And I’ll leave it there.
Q: Yeah. Has — has the President reached out to Congresswoman Tlaib following her com- — her social media posts over the weekend to vote uncommitted? And do progressives — does he believe that progressives have a right to be outraged over the administration’s handling of Israel and Gaza?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, what I’m about to say, I think, answers both questions.
So, I’m — on the first one, I’m being really careful because there’s an upcoming election — obviously, an upcoming primary. So, I’m going to be really careful.
But, as you know, the — we had se- — White House senior official, they traveled to Michigan earlier this month to hear from Muslim and Arab Americans, leaders during what has deeply pain — pain — what has been deeply painful and personal moment. We care very much about that and what the community is going through and wanted to convey that in a strong way.
Obviously, we know that this has been a difficult time, and the President cares very deeply. And importantly, it’s why he is working day and night to stop the suffering and loss of life — of life among innocent Palestinians and Israelis who have been caught in the middle of this conflict between Israel and Hamas.
And so, that is our commitment. But we understand how deeply — how deeply people feel about this. And — and we value what they have to say.
Going to be really careful on commenting specifically on — on the congresswoman. Obviously, there’s an upcoming primary.
Q: Was the President — was the President offended by Charlamagne’s comments on main — was it “main character energy” that he said is lacking?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be really careful. Again, this is related to 2024. So, I can’t — I’m not going to speak to Charlamagne’s —
Q: No, that was related to —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I refer you — I refer you to —
Q: I don’t think that was related to the campaign. I think that was related to how he’s handled his administration.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I have not heard — I’m going to be very honest. I have not heard Charlamagne’s comments. I know he’s had specific thoughts about 2024, So, as it relates to that, I’m going to refer you to the campaign.
Q: Any plans for the President to speak with Yulia, Aleksey Navalny’s widow?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to — to read out this time. But as you all know, the Vice President met with — met with Navalny’s wife recently. But I don’t have a meeting — I don’t have a meeting with the President to — to read out at this time.
Q: Can you share anything on what priorities the President is tackling on this long trip to California?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Priorties?
Q: Phone calls? What’s he doing up there?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President, as always, is always working on behalf of the American people. We’ll have more on what his say looks like tomorrow. I don’t have anything beyond that.
Q: As a follow-up, last month was the worst month we’ve had in layoffs in the tech sector. Any chance that the President will address that fear it’s going to spread into the larger economy?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s the largest month of what?
Q: The largest — largest lump monthly — largest — excuse me, largest layoffs in a single month in the tech sector since, I think, May of — May of 2023.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — so, we closely monitor, obviously, all reports of Americans losing their jobs. President Biden knows what losing a job can mean for a family and entire community. You’ve heard him talk about his own personal experience growing up.
But broadly speaking, thanks to the strong economy under President Biden, layoffs are near record lows. In fact, they’re lower than the average during the prior administration, even before COVID.
As you know, unemployment is at under 4 percent. And — And, also, 3 million jobs were created just last year, more than any year under the previous administration. And companies continue to grow.
We’ve seen small business applications boom at 16 million applications in the last three years. And so, that tells you a lot about the economy.
But obviously, anytime we hear about Americans losing jobs, that’s something that we monitor.
All right,
Q: Does the President plan to meet with his son, Hunter, while he is in California? He was with —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not — I’m not going to speak to — the President’s family.
Q: And then, is he — is he aware — is he aware or in touch with his brother James heading into his interviews with House Republicans —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m not —
Q: – tomorrow?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to — I’m not going to speak to the President’s private conversation with his family. I never do, and I’m not going to do that now.
All right. Thanks, everybody.
Q: Thanks, Karine.
Q: Thank you very much, Karine.
February 21, 2024: A leader of the Cherokee Nation is warning Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to avoid a government shutdown, saying it would have a “devastating” impact on Indian County and the Cherokee Nation in particular. (The Hill)
A partial shutdown will begin on March 2 unless Congress takes action to extend funding. Appropriations covered by Agriculture, Energy-Water, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development bills would be the first to expire, with other appropriations running through March 8.
Congress is on recess, and the House is not set to return to Washington, D.C., until just before the first deadline.
“As the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation — the largest tribal nation in the United States with citizens in every state across the country, including Louisiana — I write to draw your attention to the devastating impact that a federal government shutdown will have not only on Cherokee Nation in particular, but also for Indian Country as a whole,” Chuck Hoskin Jr., the Cherokee Nation principal chief, write in the letter to Johnson.
The letter was addressed to Johnson on Feb 14, ahead of the annual National Congress of American Indians in Washington. He urged Johnson to “take this danger into account” as the March 1 and March 8 deadlines to pass funding bills approach.
Hoskin emphasized that essential tribal services such as health care, education programs and public safety that are funded by federal money will “be severely curtailed if Congress fails to keep the government open.”…
…If the federal government were to shut down, Hoskin said more than 142,000 Cherokee Nation citizens will not be provided with groceries, nearly 13,000 people will lose access to diabetes medication and cancer treatment and more than 1,000 will not be able to continue workplace training programs. He added that detention agreements “will have to be canceled,” which could release 85,000 “criminals before their sentences are served.”
Hoskin argued that if the federal government shuts down, it disrupts the Cherokee Nation’s ability to exercise sovereignty because it “cannot fully administer the programs that are central to our self-governance.” He added that the same is true for all tribal nations in the country, which will greatly feel the effects of a shutdown.
“I implore you, as Speaker of the House, to consider the broader implications of a government shutdown on Indian Country,” he wrote. “It is critical that the United Stats honor its commitments and responsibilities by finding a resolution that averts this crisis.”
February 21, 2024: The House Freedom Caucus pressed Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to put forward a yearlong stopgap funding bill, which would trigger automatic cuts to government spending, if he can’t win concessions on controversial conservative policy riders. (The Hill)
In a letter to Johnson on Wednesday, the hard-line conservative caucus also asked for an update regarding spending talks with Democrats ahead of a March 1 deadline to prevent a partial government shutdown.
“With the expiration of government funding rapidly approaching, negotiations continue behind closed doors and as a result, we anticipate text for likely omnibus legislation that we fear will be released at the latest moment before being rushed to the floor for a vote,” the caucus stated in the letter. “House Republicans should not be left in the dark on the status of the spending levels and hard-fought policy provisions.”
Johnson has faced pressure from his right flank to hold the line for lower spending in ongoing bipartisan talks and to push for a laundry list of policy riders related to abortion, diversity initiatives, border issues and other GOP priorities…
…The letter comes as some members have already raised concerns that Congress could be headed for another short-term funding patch next week to keep various parts of the government open as bipartisan spending talks heat up…
February 23, 2024: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, February 23, 2024
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody.
Q: Good afternoon.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think it’s Frid- — it’s Friday, right?
Q: (Inaudible.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. (Laughs.) Good point. Good point.
Okay. A couple of things at the top before we get into questions. (A cellphone rings.) Somebody wants to take that? (Laughter.) Don’t want to interrupt your call.
Okay. So, I want to address some devastating news out of Oklahoma. As a parent, I was absolutely heartbroken to learn about Nex Benedict’s death.
Every young person deserve to feel safe and supported at school.
Our hearts are with Nec- — Nex Benedict’s family, friends, entire school community in the wake of this horrific and gut-wrenching tragedy.
I know that for many LGBTQ+ students across the country, this may feel personal and deeply, deeply, painful.
The President and his administration launched the 988 line to help, and we have a line dedicated to serving LGBTQ+ young people that can be reached by dialing 988 and pressing “3”.
Though devastating tragedies like these, we must support each other and life on another up.
Now, in other news that we learned — that came out this week is how the people of Alabama woke up to shocking news.
The State Supreme Court has put access to fertility treatments for at risk families who are desperately trying to get pregnant.
It’s unimaginable for people who want to become parents, and it’s a devastating example of the kind of chaos and confusion that has resulted from the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
There are reports that families seeking fertility care don’t know what to do or where to turn. Doctors are afraid to pr- — of prosecution. And families in other states are worried they might be next.
But this is not the first time reproductive care has been disrupted in Alabama, a state where women are already living under a total abortion ban. The state has no exceptions for rape or incest.
This is the same state whose Attorney General threatened to prosecute people who help women travel out of state to seek the care they need.
And it’s not just Alabama. We’re seeing this chaos play out across the country.
The day Roe fell is the day that the floodgates opened for Republican elected officials to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.
Now, as a result:
Twenty-one states have abortion bans in effect. In nearly all [these] states, doctor can be charged with a felony for simply doing their jobs.
Twenty-seven million women of reproductive age now live in states with abortion bans.
Over 380 state bills restricting access to abortion care were introduced just last year.
And congressional Republicans have proposed three national abortion bans.
It doesn’t stop there. Believe it or not, it doesn’t stop there.
Birth control access is under attack. Women are bring denied care for ectopic pregnancy. And now, with this decision out of Alabama — Alabama, IVF is under attack.
So, we want to be really clear here: It is absolutely unacceptable to this administration when women are denied the care that they need. It is unacceptable.
President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state.
Now, as you saw this mo- — morning, we are excited to announce that on March 1st, President Biden will welcome Prime Minister Meloni of Italy to the White House to reaffirm the strong relationship between the United States and Italy.
The leaders will discuss shared approaches to address global challenges, including their commitment to continue supporting Ukraine as it confront’s Russia’s aggressions, preventing regional escalation in the Middle East and delivering humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, developments in North Africa, and close trans- –transatlantic coordination regarding the People’s Republic of China.
They will also discuss Italy’s G7 presidency and coordinate in advance the N- — of the NATO Summit in Washington.
And finally, earlier today, you heard directly from the President when he delivered remarks and issued a statement to mark the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine tomorrow.
We mourn — we mourn the many Ukrainian lives who have been lost as a result of Russia’s unprovoked and unlawful war, and we are committed — committed to com- — continuing to support the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia’s vicious and brutal war in Ukraine.
As part of that commitment, we sanctioned over 500 targets today to impost additional costs on Russia for its repression, human rights abuses, and aggression against Ukraine.
The Department of Commerce is adding more than 90 companies to the Entry List for their activities in support of Russia’s defense-industrial base and war effort.
And the Department of State is designating three Russian individuals who were connected to Navalny’s imprisonment and the Russian government’s harsh treatment of him.
The U.S. government has designated over 4,000 entities and individuals in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine over the past two years, the strongest set of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy.
And we will continue — we will continue to take actions to ensure Mr. Putin pays an — an — a steeper price for his aggression abroad, the repression at home.
At the same time, we need House Republicans to take actions to join us — to join us in standing up to Putin and to take action by passing the national security supplemental bill to sure we can continue to support Ukraine.
Time is of the essence and Ukraine cannot afford for House Republicans to continue to delay.
Before I continue, we will have the week ahead later to all of you. I don’t have that in front of me at this time. But, obviously, we’ll share that with all of you.
Go ahead, Zeke.
Q: Thanks, Karine. We’ve heard some sharp works from the President, from yourself, criticism of the Speaker for not bringing up the Ukraine aid to the floor. Has the President reached out directly to the Speaker at all sine their last conversation a month ago?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we have – — I don’t have a — a call to read out to you about a call between the President or — and the Speaker.
You — look, want to be very clear here. We’ve been — we’ve been — and it’s been clear to all of you, and you’ve all have reported this as well. We know for a fact that if this bill — this national security supplemental were to go to the floor, it would get bipartisan support. This is in the House — in the House, obviously. We know that House Republicans would support this. We know that House Democrats would support this.
All — all he needs to do — all the Speaker needs to do is bring this to the floor — it will get support — instead of playing political — political games here, instead of playing political stunts.
And you all have reported — I believe Politico reported — how there is no direction for this — for this — for this Republican co — caucus in the House. They don’t have a plan. And it’s easy to do.
This is something — and I’m going to be really blunt here. Lives are at stake. If you think about what’s happening in Ukraine, if you think about what’s happening in the Middle East, live are at stake here. This is about saving lives, and they can get this done.
This is also about the national security of the American people. So, if he truly stands with the American people, he would get this done. Put it on the floor. It will get bipartisan support. Put it on the floor. Stop playing political games.
Q: In your topper, you mentioned the Alabama decision. Is there any actions the federal government can take or is looking at taking to try and help women who are trying to get in vitro fertilization services? (Inaudible.) hospital network that — that stopped the practice now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look — and, look, I don’t have anything to share at this time. I know you’re asking me are there any policy actions — right? — that we can take from here. Look, what we will say here is that the fix here is — is not — is — is Roe v. Wade. That’s the fix. That’s how we get to a place where we fix what’s going on and stop the chaos that we’re seeing in these states.
That’s the fix. It is a legislative fix that needs to come from Congress. That’s what we need to get — to get a place to.
I don’t have anything to announce here. But it is unimaginable of what families are now having to deal with and how this could spread to other states. And this is the chaos — the chaos that comes from the Dobbs decision, that comes form what Republicans have been doing since the Dobbs decision.
And so, we have to get this right. We have to get this fixed by making sure Congress acts and gets Roe — become — makes Roe the law of the land. The courts got it wrong. The courts got it wrong in this.
Q: And then, last from me. Last month, the President said that he did not have any additional executive authority to act on with regard to the border. He met with governors this morning, where he apparently told them that he was frustrated with his lawyers and seemed frustrated with his lawyers as he’s trying to devise some executive actions. We did some reporting on that in the last couple of days as well.
So, is the President currently contemplating any additional executive actions on the border? What are they, and when will we see that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we don’t have any actions to — to announce today — no decisions. And this is something that I’ve actually spoken to the President about. No decisions have been made on this.
Here’s what we know, and here’s the bottom line. There is no executive action — no executive action that the President can take — no matter how aggressive it could be, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional — additional resources that Congress could have provided that Republicans rejected. Right?
There’s nothing — no actions that he could take that would have been — that would be as – as — as tough, as fair as this bipartisan — bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate, obviously, that we worked on for — for months.
And that’s what would have actually dealt with this, what was happening at the border, dealt with the immigration situation. And this is what Republicans rejected.
And so, look, I don’t have any decisions to — to make at this time. What we believe is that piece of legislation that came out — bipartisan piece of legislation that came out of the Senate, that would have been the way to move forward here.
And, again, Republicans in the House decided to block that. They denied to go a political direction. They decided on issues, on policies that were included in there that they believed in — that they, at one point, believed that’s how to move forwards to deal with the border — they — they rejected it.
And so, again, don’t have anything to announce at this time or any decisions — to be even more clear, any decisions that have been made right now. But we had something at — on the table that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way, and they decided — and they rejected it, meaning the Republicans in the House.
Go ahead, Selina.
Q: Thanks, Karine. On the Alabama IVF ruling. How concerned should American families be that this could spread to other conservative states? And does this president need to do more than simply calling for the codification of Roe v. Wade? Does he need to go further here, siren this does deal with —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look —
Q: — a separate issue?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I hear your — your — your question here. Yeah, they should be concerned. They should be concerned. On your first part of your question, they should be concerned that this should — could spread in other states.
This is the chaos that has come out of the Dobbs decision. This is the chaos that has come out of — of getting ri- — rid of Roe, which was the law of the land for almost 50 years.
And so, look, what needs to happen — I mean, the way that we fix this or the way that we get to a place where women feel protected, where women can make decisions on their own body, where families can make a decision or how to move forward in – in growing their family or starting a family is the law of the land. That’s the fix. That’s what needs to happen.
And there is — that is the — the best way to move forward here.
Q: And on the border deal. The President had earlier said that he was out of options when it comes to executive actions. Does the fact that he’s considering other actions mean that there as more he could have done earlier?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —
Q: So, what changed here?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be very clear. The bottom line, the only way to — we could have had move forward — we could move forward in an effective, more comprehensive way was to move forward with the bipartisan — bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate. That was the way that we believe would have been a fair — it was a — one of the toughest, one of the fairest bipartisan border security bills that we have seen in decades.
It would have dealt with giving resources that’s needed at the border. It would have dealt with policy issues as it relates to immigration. And that’s what — the way we should have moved forward.
A couple of things it would have done: establish a fair — a more efficient process for asylum claims with consequences for those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States; provide more resources to secure the border and process claims — Border Patrol agents, law enforcement personnel, and detection technology to combat fentanyl trafficking, asylum officers and immigration judges; make our country safer, our border more secure, while treating people fairly and humanely, consistent with our values as a nation.
Republicans rejected this bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate. That’s something that the President worked with in a bipartisan way, obviously, with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for months. They rejected that.
And we believe that is the direction — that is the bottom line for us. That’s what — that’s the way we should have moved forward. We just — I don’t have anything to announce or any decision that’s been made.
Q: Just really quickly, though.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: Roe v. Wade versus trying to protect women’s rights to IVF treatment: They are two separate things. So, is the administration looking at protections for the latter?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I don’t have anything t share on any policy changes of any policy updates for all of you. We have to understand how this started. This started because of what happened with Roe — the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe, something that was a — a — you know, a Roe was — was — was, you know, constitutional for almost 50 years — almost 50 years. And that got overturned.
And the moment that got overturned, that day, Republicans started to work and take action. I just mentioned 380 pieces of legislation to go against what women’s — difficult decisions that women need — women need to make about their bodies, about their family, about how they’re going to move forward, about the care that they need — 380 pieces of legislation across the country. That’s what is happening. That’s what’s happening right now.
And so, the chaos has been started — was started that day that happened — the day Roe was overturned. And the only way to fix this — the best way to fix this is to restore Roe.
Go ahead.
Q: Thank you, Karine. The President made an appeal this morning to governors at the White House, asking them to kind of go back to their states and talk with their congressional lawmakers about passing the Ukraine aid bill. I’m wondering if that is sort of the next course of action where you’re thinking about targeting the Speaker and top House Republicans in their districts.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, the President had an opportunity to — to engage with governors of both — obviously of both parties, which is something that he does yearly. And they have important — important items to speak on — to speak to on the agenda. And obviously, this is a — this is an issue that governors care about.
We know that even with the bipartisan deal for the border security, obviously, that came out of the Senate, we got support from governors. We go letters from governors. We got letters from that included c- — mayors from — from the cities that were being affected. So, we know that we got support from them.
And so, one way, obviously to get the Speaker to do his job and put it — put it on the floor and actually take it up is for governors to speak up as well.
And I believe that they have. Obviously, the letter was a key part of that.
And so, look, there are — there are many, many items on the agenda to discuss. This is something that’s important when you think about immigration, when you think about what’s happening at the border and how it’s affecting these — these states, these governors.
So, yeah, I think it’s important for — one way the President to show leadership and also say — and — and governor to show leadership is to — to be very clear what this means to them, to their constituents back at home.
Q: Are you planning to follow up with them in, you know, the next week if they have had those conversations?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we’ve been in regular touch with governors. Obviously, we – there was a billion dollars that we were able to secure to help governors deal with the — the migrant situation, the migrant issue over the past several months.
So, we’ve been in constant communications with governors, with mayors. And so, those conversations continue.
What you were able to see is the President leaning in and showing how important it is to move wit the — with the bipartisan deal, as it relates to the border — obviously, border security and — and also, obviously, the national security supplemental, since we are — we are speaking about the — the two-year anniversary tomorrow of Ukraine being — being attacked by Russia.
So, all of these things are important. We’re talking about our national security — our national security — the importance of our national security for the American people. And we’re also talking about our border and what we need to do to make sure that we deal with the border challenges.
Q: I have a quick one on the meeting that he had in California with Navalny’s family. We did see the readout that you put out. You know, the President has spoken a little bit on it. But what specific assurances did he offer Yulia? Because the sanctions package was already in the works — right? — to mark the anniversary of the two-year war.
What did he tell the Navalny family that he can do?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —
Q: — to protect them? I mean, did he advise her not to go back to Russia?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be really careful and not speak to a private conversation that the President had. That is something that we don’t do here. I’m not going to go beyond the readout.
But, yes, was the — was the sanction package in motion before Nalvany’s death? Yes. As you — as you know, tomorrow will be a two-year anniversary.
But we added to the package — obviously added additional sanctions once we learned about Nalvany’s death.
So, both are true. In this case, both can be. true and are true. And so, I just am not going to go beyond a conversation — a private conversation.
Q: Did he ask her not to go back to Russia?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not — I’m just not going to do that. Obviously, it is her decision to make. I’m just one going to get into — into private conversations.
Go ahead.
Q: Border deal aside, the White House is actively discussing taking executive action on the border, as the governors mentioned earlier today, and as we reported. So, why now? Is the border deal just a jumping off point to new executive actions that the President can take?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to comment on any individual policy option that’s being speculated in the media. I’m just not going to do that.
What we have been very clear — the bottom line is the way to have moved forward was with this border deal. That’s the way —
Q: But there is executive actions that are now being considered that weren’t considered before. So, why?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not — I’m not going to get into policy discussions that are possibly happening or — or how — however it’s being reported. I’m just not going to get into that.
What I can say is the bottom line here: We believe no executive action, no matter how aggressive it could be or — or could look would have been as — as significant as the border deal that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way. No action.
And let’s not forget: Republicans rejected that. And so, don’t have anything to go — to go on beyond that.
Q: On Alabama. What’s your message to the clinics in Alabama that have proactively paused IVF-treatments? Are they making the right call?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I can’t speak to the decisions that the clinics are making. That is for them. They are, you know — you know, there are safety concerns. There’s legal concerns that they out to weigh and decide on.
What we can speak to is the chaos that has been created because of the overturning of Roe, and we see this. And it is devastating. It is dangerous to women.
And so, what we’re going to do is continue to speak out against that and make it very clear that — that the court decision that was made was wrong. And — and, yeah, you know what? This could — this could get spread. This could go beyond Alabama. And that is a scary thought for many families across the country, certainly many women across the country.
Q: Last question. You mentioned there’s no readout with the President and the House Speaker. The — one of the — one of the messages in the G7 call, according to John Kirby, will be that the President will do everything he can to get Congress to pass that funding. Has there been any reach-out from the White House to try to get a call or meeting in the books since he is the person between that funding and the White House?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I get the question. But let’s not forget, for the past several months, NSC and other parts of, obviously, the President’s administration have had regular conversation. You’ve heard Jake Sullivan speak to going over to House and the Senate to talk to Republicans and Democrats about the aid, the importance of the Ukraine aid.
You’ve heard that conversation. You’ve heard him say this from this podium. And we also know there is bipartisan support. We saw it coming out of the Senate. And there’s bipartisan support in the House.
What the Speaker — the pressure here needs to be on the Speaker. The Speaker needs to do his job and actually take this up, put it to the — if he were to put it to the floor, it would have bipartisan support.
But we’ve been doing our job. We’ve been having those conversations with congressional members. And, you know, it’s — it’s unfortunate that the Speaker chooses to turn this into a political — a political football here.
This is not what this is about. This is about our national security. This is about the American people.
Go ahead, Ed.
Q: On the sanctions —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — that were unveiled today. What makes these sanctions any more effective than the hundreds announced before?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, a couple of things, as I just mentioned. So, first of all, these sanctions are cumulative, so we have to look at it in that way. These are 500 new targeted sanctions that are now being sanctioned — the targets are being sanctioned for the first time, so that’s important to note.
These targets are within Russia’s defense industrial base, its financial system, and it will continue to impost costs on Russia to make it harder to carry out its brutal war and vicious war in Ukraine.
We will continue to make sure that we hold Putin’s aggression accountable and raise the cost on his — on — not — not just him but also his enablers. But we also, as I’ve said — as I stated, we need Congress to act. They need to do their job. They need to provide the assistance that Ukrainians need to continue to fight Putin’s brutal war.
That’s what they need to do. They need to be able to make sure that we provide Ukraine’s — Ukrainians with the assistance to defend themselves. And so, we are continuing to urge the Speaker. Again, if the Speaker were to put this on the floor, we would see bipartisan support for the national security bill.
Q: I guess, asked another way, you’ve — there have been 4,000 sanctions now in the last two years. It hasn’t stopped the war. So, to what extent — or how should the success of these sanctions even be measured —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look –
Q: — if that hasn’t happened?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I totally get the question. Look, we believe they’ve been effective. Right? That’s what we believe. The goal of sanction export control is to increase — again, increase the cost of — Mr. Putin and his enablers. And it’s clear that our sanctions and imports controls are having an impact.
And so — it’s not just them. It’s — obviously, Russia had been forced — because of we’re — we’re raising the stakes on Russia and their — and his enablers, we see Russia being forced — right? — to turn to countries like Iran and North Korea to get the arms and ammunition it needs to carry out this war.
And I want to read — I want to just lay out an example from Bloomberg. Bloomberg reported last month that Russia’s government has tapped almost half the national wealth funds available — available reserves as it pours money into the — its defense budget at the expense of Russia’s other needs.
When you think about Putin’s own oil c- — own oil czar, the have li — he’s linked the fact that Russia has been force to sell its oil at heavily discounted prices to our coalition’s increased enforcement of oil — oil price cap in recent months.
So, we have seen the impact, we believe. Again, this is cumulative, what we were able to sanction — again 500 additional targets. And we believe that it has had an impact.
Q: On the Alabama IVF ruling, you have spoken out just here yesterday and forcefully about it. The Vice President did yesterday and continues to on her national tour. The President tweeted about it and issued a written statement.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: When might we see him more publicly speak out about this issue? We keep hearing — at least we keep hearing from voters and Democrats who say, “Where is he on this? Why isn’t he talking about –“
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I’ve —
Q: “- an issue of such urgent concern?” Presidential focus, time statement in public instead of on paper is very different than sending you out here or tweeting about it or sending the Vice President on the road. So —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, Ed. I think the President has spoken about what the attack on reproductive rights — what the attack on women being able to make choices on behalf of — of their own healthcare and getting the healthcare that they need, the actions that he has taken, whether it’s executive actions and what, obviously, his agencies have been able to do — DOJ, HHS — I mean, those have been done because of this President, and he has spoken to this many times.
The day that Roe was overturned, you heard from the President. The President was the only person that spoke to this on — on that day. And I would argue that a statement from the President is incredibly powerful, is important. He spoke to this through — through his statement, And the President has been very clear where he stands.
He believes that we need to continue to protect women’s right to make a decision, reproductive rights decision — reproductive health decision, pardon me. And that’s where we’re going to continue to be. That’s where he’s going to continue to be. And we’ve been very clear about that.
Q: We’ve asked about this before. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is once again concerned they are not being brought into conversations about potential executive orders and other actions taken by the White House, saying that what they’re reading about, at least, is unacceptable them and they haven’t had much dialogue with the White House about it. Are there any plans to — to remedy that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, first, we —
Q: To meet with them?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No decisions have been made. I want to be very, very, clear about that, again. And I would say that we are in regular communication, regular contact with members of — of the Hispanic Caucus, members of the Progressive Caucus, just members of —
Q: Well, they claim they’re not.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: From my understanding, and I’ve asked about this, we’ve been in regular communications with them. And so, obviously, we respect – we respect congressional members. We work — we work very closely with them on many, many issues.
We’ve been in regular communication and regular contact. We just don’t have any decisions to make on any executive actions. And we don’t have any decisions that have been made. And that may be why they haven’t been talked to about that particular issue.
But I would say, as it relates to immigration, as it releases to what we’ve been trying to do, certainly, as it related to the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate, we were in regular discussion. No decision has been made. No decision has been made here.
Go ahead.
Q: Thank you. We know what the governors told us that the President told them about the border and what he’s considering with regards to executive actions. Just for the sake of clarity, can you tell us what the President told them?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to go into private conversations. I’m just not. The governors can speak for themselves. I’m just not going to go into it.
Q: Okay. And Tammy Duckworth, the senator from Illinois, is talking about legislation that could protect IVF at the federal level. If Congress were to pass legislation to protect IVF, would President Biden sign it?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have not seen the legislation. I have not talked to our Office of Leg Affairs about it. So, I want to be super careful here. Obviously, Tammy Duckworth, the senator, is a — is a close colleague, someone we’ve worked very closely with. So, I just would need to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs.
We believe the best way, honestly, to get this done, as it relates to the chaos that has been created, is to get Roe to — to become law of the land, and that’s something Congress can do. I just — I want to be careful. I just don’t want to speak to that particular legislation.
Q: And are you actively trying to get additional funding for the Border Patrol or some of the other funds to help deal with the border situation added to the CR or whatever vehicle might have to move to avoid a government shutdown?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we’re always having active conversations on what else we can to do make — to deal with the challenges at the border, obviously. Don’t have anything specific to lay out on additional funding. Obviously, there was additional funding that we requested in that border security supplemental.
Obviously, there would have been additional funding if the House — House Republicans would have moved forward with that bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate and Republicans didn’t reject it outright. Obviously, that would have been helpful to what’s happening, the challenges at the border. I just don’t have anything to share on the specifics.
Go ahead, (inaudible.)
Q: Several on the border, Karine. But the northern one, it’s not as dramatic as in the south, but there are different and more and more reports on migrants crossing the border to come to the U.S. Is the administration worried? Is it in contact with the Canadian government to try and stop the flow?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts, obviously, on a range of issues that — including migrants attempting to cross the border. Don’t have any new announcements to make. But we are constantly having those conversations with our counterparts in Canada. I just don’t have anything for you at this time.
Q: How worried is the administration that it’s happening more and more (inaudible)?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I’m not going to — to put a gauge on this on how worried we are. But we do have constant communication with our counterparts on a range of issues, including the one that you just laid out to me.
Q: And on the sanctions. The Canadian government today, in parallel, announced its own package of sanctions against Russians and Russian entities. How — how was the coordination happening the — the planning of all of this?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, obviously, I just laid out that we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts on a range of issues. Obviously, Canada has been a — a strong partner with us, along with 50 other — 50 — or 49 other countries — obviously, NAT- — including NATO — NATO Alliance, as well, and what the President has been able to do to bring a strong front as it relates to helping Ukraine beat back with Russia’s aggression.
I don’t have any specific conversations to lay out on how that coordination — potential coordination worked. But we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts.
Go ahead.
Q: Thank you, Karine. On the consideration of these new executive orders for the border. What changed between the time President Biden said, “We are a nation who says, ‘If you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,” and now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t understand. What — what do you mean? The — your question, I don’t get —
Q: As a candidate —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — how it’s connected to the —
Q: — President Biden was telling people to come to the border. So, what has changed since then?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have a context of this quote that you’re giving me. But what I will say is this. The President took this issue very seriously of what is happening at the border and what — and the immigration system as a whole. Right?
And we have said over and over again, this is a system that has been broken for decades, under the last administration, as you know, which was a Republican administration, and other administrations before that. And he took this so seriously that the first piece of legislation that he put forth on day one was on immigration reform. That is what counts, and that is what matters.
And for the past several months, we worked with Republican senators and also Democrats in the Senate to try to come up with a fair and tough piece of legislation that would deal with border security. That was — let’s not forget — endorsed by the border union patrol.
And that’s how seriously the President has taken it. We’ve done this for months, and House Republicans have gotten in the way. The Speaker has gotten in the way.
And so, we want to deal with this issue. This is an issue that a majority of Americans care about. House Republicans, the Speaker got in the way.
The question really is for the Speaker: What changed? Speaker Johnson, what’s changed?
Q: Something else President Biden has promised is a more humane border policy than Trump. So, why would he even be considering now a border policy that is more similar to Trump?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What border policy are you talking about?
Q: Well, Axios is reporting that the legal authority Biden is considering using powered Trump’s Muslim ban and similar sweeping restrictions at the border.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into — get into or comment on individual policy option that’s being speculated right now. As I said before, no decisions have been made. We want to make sure — the President has been very clear: He wants to make sure that our country is safer, and we need more Border Security, abv — obviously, to secure our border. We’ve been very clear about that. And we want to do it while treating people fairly and humanely, and that is consistent with our values.
But, look, Republicans continue to get in the way. Speaker Johnson has gotten in the way of this. And so, a lot of these questions are for him.
We did our job. The Senate did their job in a bipartisan way on — there are provisions in that — polic- –policies that are in that legislation that Republicans agreed with at some point, not very long ago — just last year — that they agreed with. And now they’re rejecting it.
Go ahead.
Q: Karine, with regards to the sanctions on Russia, you mentioned that previous sanctions, you said, had ben effective, in part, because Russia was forced to go to other countries like Iran and North Korea to get resources.
Still, though, the war is not over. How can you make the argument that those sanctions have been effective if they’re still getting those resources from those other countries, whenever they get them from?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we believe — and I just laid this out moments ago — that we have seen an impact. I talked about Bloomberg. I talked about what their — Putin’s own oil czar has had to do. I mean, this is the — I mean, what we have been able to impose on — on Russia has been pretty significant. It has been pretty significant, when you think about the — another major economy — the most that we’ve ever been able to do on any major economy. And as — as I’ve stated, this is cumulative. Right? This is a — this is a continuation. And we believe, as has been reported, that we have seen — that we have seen some impact here.
We’re going to continue to use every tool — every tools in our — in our tool belt, obviously. We’re going to develop — developing new tools to make it harder and costlier for Russia to fuel its war machine. That’s why we’re going to do. And at the same time, we need Congress to do their jobs, we need House Republicans, we need the Speaker to put on the floor a national security supplemental plan that we believe and we know will get bipartisan support.
We’ve heard from Republicans in the House; we’ve heard from, obviously, Democrats in the House. That’s what we need the — the House to do.
Q: And on the border. I know you’ve said you couldn’t or wouldn’t get into specific executive actions being considered or not considered. But bottom line: As a — as a policy, does the administration believe that asylum laws need to be strengthened?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be —
Q: And — but the reas- — the —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. I know.
Q: I know, but the reason I asked that is that the bipartisan bill — and you said the President would sign it–
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, he would.
Q: — would strengthen asylum laws. So, I just want to be sure: The administration does believe that asylum laws need to be strengthened?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Obviously, because it was in — as you just stated — in the bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate that the President’s team worked very closely on. I just want to be very, very clear and very careful. Decisions haven’t been made. I’m not going to get into any internal — internal policy — individual policy, pardon me, option that’s being speculated in the press. I’m just not going to do that from here. But no decision has been made.
Q: And finally, on a separate topic. I know the U.S. has had a complicated relationship with Mexico before. I wanted to get the White House’s reaction to President López Obrador doxing a New York Times reporter in a press conference.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, well, I — well, I’ve not seen that. Obviously, that’s not something we support. We believe in the freedom of the press, obviously, which is why we do this on — on — almost a daily basis.
And we — we — it is important for the press to be able to report on issues that matter to the American people freely in an — in a way that, obviously, you all feel secure and safe and in a way that you’re not being doxied [doxed] or attacked. That is — you know, that is something that we will, obviously, reject.
Go ahead.
Q: Thanks, Karine. One follow-up on Nex Benedict and then another one on a —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — separate subject. Given that Nex’s family said they had been bullied in the months prior to their death, specifically about their gender identity, and the family also says that Nex was physically assaulted the day prior their death, does the White House think that this case should be the subject of a federal hate crime investigation?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be really careful. That is something for the Department of Justice to decide on. I cannot speak to that. Obviously, our hearts go out to — to Nex Benedict’s family. It is a tragedy that is awful.
And I said at the beginning, and I’ll say it again: Every kid should feel safe and should feel protected when they go to school. And this should not be the case.
And I said this at the beginning, and I’ll say it again: Every kid should feel safe and should feel protected when they go to school. And this should not be the case.
But that is something — as far as any legal action, that’s something for the Department of Justice to decide.
Q: And then the Florida Surgeon General defied CDC guidelines this week suggesting it’s fine to send unvaccinated kids to school amid a measles outbreak there. This comes as the CDC says that routine childhood vaccinations hit a 10-year low in 2023, putting about a quarter of a million kindergartners at risk for measles.
Does the administration support tightening the kinds of philosophical and religious exemptions that are increasingly being used to defy school childhood vaccine mandates? And what else is the administration doing to promote the importance of childhood vaccines, especially against the backdrop of this nationwide uptick in measles outbreaks?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, just a — a couple of things. As it relates to the outbreak, the CDC is actively monitoring these cases. And as you know, we have — the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response remains in close and regular contact as we continue to — to work and monitor what’s going on on the ground.
And we want to make sure that communities feel safe, obviously. So any questions on — specifically on that, I would refer you to the CDC.
Look, you know, responding to measles outbreaks, which are now, obviously, occurring in every region of he world is a priority for this administration. Meas- — measles, as you know, is highly contagious, infect- — infectious — contagious infection. But it is easily prevented with routine child- — childhood vaccines.
We are providing technical support to the — for example, to the World Health Organization and UNICEF, and we are donating, as well — to makes sure there is a vaccine alliance, which has provided millions of measles and other vaccine doses to low- and low-middle income countries.
So, we are monitoring this. It is important that, obviously we do everything we can to mitigate the situation. But CDC is actively aware, obv, — obviously, actively monitoring these cases that we’re seeing across the country.
Go ahead.
Q: Thank you, Karine. So, in addition to the sanctions, is the President supportive of, you know, confiscating frozen Russian assets and using it for Ukraines reconstruction?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things, because this is a little bit complicated. And I want to take a step back for the folks who — who are, clearly, watching this briefing. I understand that you all understand this.
But in 2 — 2022, we worked together with our allies and partners to quickly immobilize almost $300 billion of Russia’s sovereign assets that they had held internationally when they launched their brutal invasion of Ukraine. That joint action to cut off Russia’s access to a significant amount of funds has made it much riskier for Russia to fund its war against the Ukrainian people and boost their defense spending while also mana- — managing their economy.
So, now we’re going to continue to be in active conversation with our allies and partners, including the G7, as well as members of Congress, on additional steps to seize Russia’s aggres- — to seize Russians’ — Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and to ensure Russia pays for the damage it has caused.
I don’t have any new announcement to make. But it is a bit complicated because, as I said, we’re talking about international — kind of an int- — it’s been held internationally. So, it is a little bit more complicated.
Q: Are there other countries who are planning to, you know, take that action?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would refer you to other countries. I can’t speak for other countries here. But I just wanted to make sure we laid out it is complicated. It is not as simple as it — as it may seem. But, certainly, don’t have any new announcements to make at this time.
Go ahead, Karen.
Q: Thanks. What’s the view from the White House right now about how conversations are going about government funding and spending bills next week — or ahead of next week’s significant deadlines —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I mean —
Q: — for a shutdown?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, and we’re — you know, we’ve been here before and we’ve always been very clear: House Republicans have a job to do. Their basic duty is to keep the government open. They need not to play politics here. They need not to play politics here. They need to get this done. We’ve been very clear about that. And — and it is their job.
If you think about it, and I’ve talked about it before, House Republicans — two thirds of the House Republicans voted for the deal last year. And just early this year, they reaffirmed that deal. So, what’s the problem? What’s the problem here? They need to get this done. They need to get this done.
There are important programs that the American people need. And so, they need to move forward and make sure we keep the government open.
Q: I feel like I’ve asked you this before deadlines. But are you anticipating another short-term funding bill, another CR? And is the President okay with that this time around too?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m not going to get into legislative negotiations from here. But, look, it is — we got to be really clear. Like, these are programs that are critical, that are important to the American people. And it needs to get done. It needs to get done.
So, I’m not going to get into negotiations from here. House Republicans need to do their jobs here. They need to get to work. And they need to make sure that we — they avoid, they prevent a needless shutdown.
Q: And are White House officials involved in any conversational like Leg Affairs, with congressional leaders this weekend about getting closer to something?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can say that OMB — OMB and our Leg Affairs team are in touch with lawmaker from both parties every day on the need to keep the government open.
But, again, this is — this — this problem is a problem of the House Republicans’ making. It’s not something that we can fix for them. This is something that they can deal with. This is something that they actually need to get to work here. They need to get to work.
Go ahead, Ed.
Q: Thanks, Karine. I want to try a little bit different on the executive actions, possibly, on the border. Th bills are stalled. So, why wait three years, now, in to take alternatives or take possible executive actions on the border?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What are you talking about?
Q: Well, you mentioned the — the bill, the when — the first week in office, the President issued his bill for that — for immigration reform and then the negotiated Senate bill. Those are both stalled. The House is not taking them up.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think you’re seeing it very differently than we are. We’re saying that the President took it very seriously. He took it very seriously by taking action on day one, putting forward a comprehensive immigration policy legislation that he wanted Congress to act on. They did not act on it.
We – we taken actions on our own. And we’ve been able to secure some funding to deal with what we’ve seen at the border. But we need more. We need more. And we’ve said this. We have said this for the past three years. And House Republicans have continued to get in the way.
In the last couple of months, we worked with Senate Republicans and Democrats for — for several months to come up with a border security that is tough, that is fair, that’s supported — that was endorsed by the Border Patrol union. The Border Patrol union endorsed this — this legislation. Repu- Republicans rejected it.
So, this is — this is something for Republicans in the House to speak to. We’ve worked with the Senate in a bipartisan way to get this done, to actually deal with an issue that matters to the American people, in a bipartisan way. And House Republicans have allowed politics to get in the way.
And Speaker Johnson left early after — if you think about the national security supplemental that had to — we had to take out — they had to take out the border security from it because that’s what the Speaker wanted. That was done out of the Senate. It was passed. And then, the Speaker went home early and is gone. He went on — they — he went on vacation early.
And so, this is — this is truly a question for the Speaker.
Q: Well — but my question is — is: Now we’re hearing about executive actions that could be taken. Why wait this long —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have been very —
Q: — to look at executive actions?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ve been very clear: We have made no decisions on that. I’m not going to get into policy discussions or hypotheticals that we’re hearing right now. Be very clear.
But the focus here should be what happened in the Senate in a bipartisan way that Republicans have rejected. That is — that is the reality that we’re in here, Ed. That’s that reality.
Q: And then one more, if I may. In fiscal year 2023, at the border, there were 24,000 Chinese nationals that had illegally crossed and 288 were deported. And the National Border Patrol Council President says that the vast majority of them coming across now are military-aged men. What’s the level of concern for the White House about these military-aged men?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, this is a — this is — continues to be a concern for this — for this administration. So well — we’ll just start there. But speaking specifically to individuals just in general who pose a — a risk to public safety and national security regardless of nationality, they are detained as they undergo immigration proceedings and are removed if they do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.
Global migration is at the highest since World War Two. And that means we we work with our international par- — partners to bolster their enforcement capabilities while expanding economic opportunities and lawful pathways.
That’s what we’ve been able to do for migrants deserving of protection, specifically under the President’s Los Angeles Declaration for Migration and Protection and Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity.
And again, I go back to that bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate. And that would have been a — a step forward here. It would have been a piece of legislation that — that, as I’ve said, would have been tough, it would have been fair, and it was endorsed by the Border Patrol union, and Republicans in — in the House rejected it.
Go ahead, Gerren.
Q: Thanks, Karine. A group of progressive lawmakers led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and 200 organizations sent a letter to the President this week urging him to take executive action, including executive orders, to advance a range of bills that have been introduced by Democrats that have been stalled in Congress, including H.R. 40, which the President said he supports, to create a reparations commission, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, as well as resolutions to protect Black history and create a banned books weeks in — in light of these bans we’ve been seeing in states like Florida.
Has the White House received this letter? And does the President believe that his racial justice agenda has been effective? And does he think that he — he can do more through executive action?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just say that a lot of — and, yes, we have received the letter, and a lot of the items in that letter that has been — the issues that have been outlined is some of the — is some of the causes that the President has championed over the past three years.
The President has taken, as you know, historic actions as it relates to voting rights here, strengthening voting rights on the federal level. He’s taken action to raise wages. Let’s not forget the actions that he’s taken — because he’s taken the actions on building an economy from the bottom up, middle out, we have seen, as it relates to unemployment for the Black community. When he walked in, it was a 9 percent. Now it’s at 5 percent. Always more work to be done. But that matters.
Black wealth has jumped up to 60 percent since the pre-pandemic days.
He supports a study of reparations and continues the — as — and the continuing impacts of slavery and signed an executive order to — to deal with racial equality on his very first day in office, as it relates to the federal government and what agencies can do better. And also, you know, he’s spoken about banning of books as it relates to Black history.
So, the President is going to — is committed to making sure that we address racial inequalities here, and he’s going to take — continue — and he’s going to continue to take action to make sure no communities are left behind. And as I just stated, he’s taken historic executive action on this issue.
This is a priority for this President. When he walked into this administration, he talked about the different — the different crises that our country was dealing with: climate change, it was COVID at the time, the economy at the time. Racial inequality was part of that a well.
And so, he’s committed. He’s committed.
(Speaking to an aide.) I know. You’re trying to get me. (Laughs.)
Go ahead, sir.
Q: Thank you. During last year, in December, the administration sold weapons to Israel, bypassing Congress. Why can’t the U.S. do the same for Ukraine right here and right now, given their desperate need of weaponry?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we need — we actually need funding. We need this — we need this funding in order to get Ukraine what they need. It’ gone. You’ve heard — you’ve heard — you’ve heard the Admiral speak to this from the podium. It’s gone. There is no more.
We need Congress to do its job and pass much-needed assistance — security assistance that the Ukraine’s need — Ukrainians need.
Q: But we’re talking about a sale of weaponry.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: If there’s — I mean, there’s a lot more to this, right? There is actual — their actual funding that we need to make sure that we get so that DOD and that the — obviously, the Pentagon can do what it needs to do in order to give the — to give the security assistance that is needed, to give — to give the — to give the weapons that they need to pro- — to fight against Ukrainians’ [Russia’s] aggression.
You’ve heard the Admiral speak to this today on his — in his gaggle, and you’ve heard him talk about this multiple times.
There are — there is an assistance that we have to provide them. That is — it’s not a — we just don’t have it now. We’re done.
Q: If there — if there is no success on the Hill, would you consider selling weapons to Ukraine?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the way to deal with this is to pass this national security supplemental. The way to actually help the people of Ukraine to fight for their sovereignty, to fight for their democracy, to fight against — against Mr. Putin’s aggression is to actually pass this national security supplemental.
That would get bipartisan support in the House. It will. That’s how we’re — we move forward here. There’s no other way to actually do this in a bipartisan scenario. It’s there. And Speaker — Speaker — the Speaker needs to do his job. Speaker Johnson needs to take this up.
We know that the bipartisan support exists. We’ve heard from Republicans speak to this directly and very recently. So, why doesn’t he just do his job and stop putting politics in front of this?
This is why I don’t want to get into hypotheticals, because there’s an option that exists. There’s an actual oct- — option that exists. And the Speaker is putting politics in this. And that’s not how we should move forward.
All right, everybody. Thank you so much.
Q: Thanks, Karine.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. See you tomorrow — not tomorrow. Tomorrow is Saturday. (Laughter.)
See you next week.
February 23, 2024: Leaders in both parties are racing to secure a deal on government spending as the negotiation window quickly closes and the fears of a shutdown grow more pronounced. (The Hill)
Congress returns to Washington next week facing a pair of looming funding deadlines — March 1 for a handful of agencies and March 8 for the rest — leaving lawmakers with little time to iron out their differences and get bills to the floor to keep the government open.
While Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has moved deftly to avoid a shutdown since taking the gavel in October, restive conservatives are losing patients with his willingness to cut budget deals across the aisle. And some observers on Capitol Hill are already warning that the current fight is the greatest shutdown threat of Congress.
“I’m worried. Of all the scares we’ve had since the last fiscal year, I think this is going to be the scariest. I think we could be in a world of hurt,” said a Senate GOP aide. “I don’t know if it’ll be a partial or full, but I think the chances of a shutdown are the highest we’ve had this fiscal year.”
Party leaders in both chambers have sought to assure the public — and the markets — that the sides will come together to adopt their appropriations bills and avoid any disruptions to government operations.
But a number of disagreements remain between the parties. And Johnson is facing additional pressure from within his own Republican conference, where conservatives are demanding right-wing policy riders that are a non-starter with Democrats in both Congress and the White House.
“I think the odds are 50-50 at this point,” Rep. Patrick McHenry (R.-N.C.) told CBS’s Major Garrett on “The Takeout” podcast this week.
McHenry, chair of the Financial Services Committee, called the current shutdown threat “a preventable disaster” — one that might have been avoided if party leaders had moved the spending bills late last year instead of kicking the process into an election year.
A deal is expected to be released as early as Sunday.
“All the Speaker has to do is allow the Appropriations Committee to go get a deal,” McHenry said. “If the Speaker wishes to stop it, for whatever reason, we’ll probably have a government shutdown.”
The debate is the latest challenge for Johnson who, less than four months into his Speakership, is facing the same dilemma over government funding that led to the removal of his predecessor. And his options all carry risks.
If Johnson brings bipartisan spending compromises to the floor, he could keep the government open but might face the conservative backlash that toppled former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R.-Calif.). If he decided to block those spending bills, the government would likely shut down, providing a political gift to President Biden and the Democrats just months before November’s elections…
…Hard-liners are already turning up the heat on Johnson.
Twenty-eight members of the House Freedom Caucus penned a letter to the Speaker on Wednesday requesting an update on their conservative policy demands, which touch on a host of explosive topics that include abortion, immigration, and eliminating the salaries of certain federal officials.
Without those provisions, the hard-liners said, the House will have a difficult time wrangling GOP support for government funding…
…The demand for policy riders has already been squarely rejected by top Democrats, who are warning that any bill with those provisions will never reach Biden’s desk…
…Democrats have their own set of policy demands, including more funding for a federal program — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC — that helps feed millions of low-income children and their mothers. WIC is facing a shortfall, and DeLauro and Democrats won’t support any spending bill that doesn’t fix it…
……As lawmakers barrel toward their fourth shutdown showdown this Congress — which as been billed the most unproductive in years — some member are openly airing their frustration with being unable to complete the “key” part of their job…
February 24, 2024: Speaker Mike Johnson (R.La.) is looking to prevent a partial government shutdown by moving a set of spending bills as a single package ahead of Friday’s deadline, according to a source familiar with the matter. (The Hill)
Johnson held a private call with GOP lawmakers Friday night and told members his goal is to pass a package of the four bills due Friday, known as a “minibus,” but warned the number of bills included in the package is up in the air, according to the source. Congressional leaders could release the compromise bills as soon as Sunday.
Johnson warned the lawmakers, however, that they will likely be “disappointed” with the final bills if they are expecting “home runs and grand slams” in them, according to a partial transcript of the call. Conservatives have been urging Johnson to insist on a number of controversial policy riders in the appropriations measures.
“I don’t think anybody on this call thinks that we’re going to be able to use the appropriations process to fundamentally remake major areas of policy. If you’re expecting a lot of home runs and grand slams here, I admit you’ll be disappointed,” Johnson said on the call.
“But we will be able to secure a number of policy victories, both in bill text and report language, or other provisions and cuts that severely undermine the administration’s programs and objectives. These bills will be littered with singles and doubles that we should be proud of, especially in our small minority.” he added…
…The House returns to session on Wednesday…
…The Speaker also floated the possibility of a continuing resolution to extend funding for some programs and agencies as negotiations continue, and acknowledge a short shutdown is possible if negotiators need a little more time to come to a consensus, according to the source.
Johnson, though, said he does not want to pass a continuing resolution, according to the lawmaker…
…Moving the spending bills as a package could frustrate conservative members, who have demanded a return to regular order that includes voting on individual appropriations measures. House lawmakers, however, are up against a clock, returing to the Capitol on Wednesday and facing the first deadline Friday…
…The current shutdown showdown marks the fourth time this Congress lawmakers are racing the clock to keep the lights on in Washington.
February 24, 2024: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made a plea for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to pass aid to Ukraine, during a Friday interview. (The Hill)
“We need Speaker Johnson to make sure that we get that aid,” Schumer said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “If he put the bill on the floor, it would pass. There are a good number of republicans in the House who know how important it is, and he has to see that history is on his back.”
“He cannot have obeisance to Donald Trump,” Schumer continued. “He has to do the right thing here.”
Schumer visited Ukraine Friday, as part of a congressional delegation set to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Senate Majority Leader also pushed Johnson to pass a national security spending package that the Senate passed last week, which features $60 billion in Ukraine aid…
…For his part, Johnson has pushed back against the Senate’s package, signaling that he won’t bring it to the House floor because it doesn’t have border security measures that the House Republicans want.
“[In] the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters,” Johnson said last week in a statement. “America deserves better than the Senate’s status quo.”…
February 25, 2024: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) reiterated Sunday that House Democrats are “willing to find common ground” with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on legislation, including ways to keep the government funded past the March 2 deadline. (The Hill)
“My view from the very beginning of this Congress is that, as House Democrats, we are ready, we’re willing, we’re able, to find bipartisan common ground on any issue, at anytime, anyplace, in order to make life better for the American people, to address issues related to the economy, public safety, national security,” Jeffries said in an interview on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM with host John Catsimatidis that aired Sunday.
“And we should always be willing to do that, and so, Mike Johnson and I speak regularly, try to figure it out, ‘Where are those places of commonality?” he added…
…The House unveiled their own legislation last week that would combine aid for Ukraine and border provisions that Republicans want. As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine hits two years, a bipartisan group of lawmakers have urged their colleagues to back the bill.
Congress is also dealing with the prospect of another government shutdown. Johnson on Friday said he would move a set of spending bills — as a single package — forward next week, ahead of the deadline, according to sources familiar.
Shutdown drama has divided Congress in the past, but Jeffries noted that while the two parties may not always agree, they should be able to work together professionally…
February 25, 2024: Congressional leaders are trading blame as both sides struggle to strike a bipartisan deal to stave off the threat of a partial government shutdown. (The Hill)
Lawmakers have until March 1. to pass legislation to fund the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and other offices for fiscal 2024 or risk their first partial government shutdown in years.
Leaders were expected to announce an announcement this weekend on potential next steps as spending talks continued over the current recess. But leaders on both sides said Sunday that more work is needed for both sides to reach a compromise…
…”We are mere days away from a partial government shutdown on march 1. Unless Repubicans get serious, the extreme Republican shutdown will endanger or economy, raise costs, lower safety, and exact until untold pain on the American people,” Schumer wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
However, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pushed back on Schumer’s comments shortly after.
“Despite the counterproductive rhetoric in Leader Schumer’s letter, the House has worked nonstop, and is continuing to work in good faith, to reach agreement with the Senate on compromise government funding bills in advance of the deadlines,” Johnson said.
However, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pushed back on Schumer’s comments shortly after.
“Despite the counterproductive rhetoric in Leader Schumer’s letter, the House has worked nonstop, and is continuing to work in good faith, to reach agreement with the Senate on compromise government funding bills in advance of the deadlines,” Johnson said.
“Leader Schumer’s letter fails to mention that many of the points still being debated come from New Democrat demands that were not previously included in the Senate bills,” He added. “At a time of divided government, Senate Democrats are attempting at this late stage to spend on priorities that are farther left than what their chamber agreed upon.”…
…The back and forth between both sides also comes as the House Freedom Caucus pushed the prospect of a yearlong stopgap funding bill. The legislation would trigger automatic cuts to government spending if the party doesn’t win concessions on controversial policy riders.
Some of the measures the ultraconservative caucus has pressed for include efforts to reduce “Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ salary to $0,” targeting the Pentagon’s abortion travel policy and defunding Planned Parenthood…
February 26, 2024: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) vowed to reporters Monday that Senate Republicans would not let the government shut down, later warning colleagues on the floor that a government shutdown would be a political loser for fellow lawmakers. (The Hill)
“We’re not going to allow the government to shut down,” McConnell told reporters Monday as he walked to the Senate chamber to deliver his opening comments for the week.
The veteran GOP leader doubled down on his message on the Senate floor, urging colleagues to avoid a standoff that could wind up shuttering federal departments and agencies.
“Without action by Friday, the country would face needless disruptions to agriculture, transportation, military construction, and essential services at the VA,” McConnell warned colleagues on the floor in comments that also appeared to be directed at the House.
“So I’ll say at the outset what I’ve said every time Congress has faced this threat: Shutting down the government is harmful to the country. And it never produces positive outcomes — on policy or politics,” he said.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said several “substantive” differences remain between Democratic and Republican negotiators in both chambers.
“I think we’re making real progress despite the chatter you may hear. I talked to the Speaker today and I’ve been in touch with the staff and also with my counterparts on the defense subcommittee,” she said, referring to her conversations with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and fellow members of the Appropriations panels.
She said the negotiations over some of the policy riders that House conservatives want to add to the package have been “elevated to the leadership” level.
“I’m hopeful that we can avoid a government shutdown, which would be a disaster, and actually move some bills this week. What I’m not sure of is what the exact plan for moving the agreed upon conference reports,” she said. “And which bills are in which packages.”
February 26, 2024: Conservatives’ demands for controversial policy additions to spending bills are stalling efforts to fund the government by Friday, nudging the country closer to a partial government shutdown and sparking frustration among lawmakers in both parties. (The Hill)
Congressional leaders failed to unveil the long-awaited compromise appropriations bills over the weekend, blowing through a Sunday target date floated last week and, as a result, leaving members wondering about a path forward just days ahead of the looming deadline.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.N.Y) said House Republicans were responsible for the holdup, writing in a letter to colleagues Sunday that conservatives in the lower chamber “need more time to sort themselves out.” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), however, dismissed his “counterproductive rhetoric,” saying that new requests from Democrats had delayed the process.
The blame-game preview comes as hard-liners are pressuring Johnson to use the appropriations process to extract policy concessions from Democrats after the Speaker cut two previous spending deals with lawmakers across the aisle, which incensed members of the right-flank.
At the same time, Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House are pushing for a bipartisan deal to keep the lights on in Washington, a message that will ring loud and clear for Johnson on Tuesday when President Biden hosts the top four congressional leaders to discuss government funding.
Those dynamics are thrusting the Speaker into a familiar — yet difficult — decision: Cave to conservatives and force a shutdown that would be politically perilous for Republicans, or break from GOP hard-liners and work out a spending deal with Democrats that risks sparking a rebellion on the right/
Prominent lawmakers are imploring him to choose the latter.
“It is my sincere hope that in the face of a disruptive shutdown that would hurt our economy and make American families less safe, Speaker Johnson will step up to once again buck the extremists in his caucus and do the right thing,” Schumer said Sunday.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.Ky.) — who on Monday said a shutdown would be “harmful to the country” — called for full cooperation among lawmakers in the sprint to avert a funding lapse.
“We have the means — and just enough time this week — to avoid a shutdown and to make serious headway on annual appropriations. But as always, the task at hand will require that everyone rows in the same direction: toward clean appropriations and away from poison pills.” McConnell said.
Congress enacted a stopgap bill last month that extended funding through March 1 for programs and agencies covered by four of the 12 annual spending bills, including military construction, water development and the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. Funding for the remaining eight bills will run out on March 8.
Senior negotiators in both chambers had been hopeful Congress could meet the March 1 deadline as lawmakers signaled some progress in spending talks in recent weeks. Johnson was also looking to move a package of the first four bills this week to stave off a partial shutdown, a source familiar told The Hill over the weekend.
Concerns, however, are already bubbling up that Congress is headed for another short-term funding patch as hard-liners dial up pressure on the Speaker to secure conservative policy wins in areas like abortion and the border.
Some on the right flank say they are willing to shut down the government absent any conservative wins…
…The House Freedom Caucus sent a warning shot to Johnson last week, demanding an update on their laundry list of policy requests and cautioning that if the priorities are not included in funding measures, he should not count on the bills receiving widespread GOP support in the chamber.
They are demanding policies that would eliminate the salaries of controversial Cabinet officials, target transgender- and abortion-related issues and gut the Biden administration’s climate initiatives, among other hot-button matters…
…Conversations about next steps will come to a head Tuesday, when President Biden is set to host the top four congressional leaders — Johnson, Schumer, McConnell and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) — for a meeting at the White House to discuss government funding.
Biden is also expected to press leaders on the need to pass an emergency defense and foreign package that includes assistance for Ukraine and Israel, as well as funding to replenish U.S. weapons and munitions. The Senate approved a $95 billion package earlier this month that has been pushed aside by House Republicans, throwing the future of foreign aid into question.
“We also want to see that the government does not get shut down, it is a basic, basic priority or duty of Congress is to keep the government open,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday when asked about the gathering. “So that’s what the president wants to see, he’ll have those conversations.”
February 26, 2024: Lawmakers are racing to avoid a partial shutdown by Friday’s funding deadline, an effort that grew more difficult over the weekend as leaders failed to reach a deal — and traded barbs who is responsible for the holdup. (The Hill)
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Sunday that congressional leaders had not yet reached an agreement on compromise spending bills, blaming House Republicans for the delay. But Speaker Mike Johnson (R.La.) shot back, placing the onus on “new Democrat demands” in negotiations.
The Senate reconvenes Monday, and House lawmakers are back in Washington on Wednesday, leaving lawmakers just a handful of days to hash out their difference and approve appropriations bills — or, if needed, clear another short-term stopgap. Four spending measures are due Friday, and the remaining eight must be approved by March 8.
President Biden is hosting the top four Congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday to discuss the upcoming government funding deadline and the Senate-passed foreign aid package that is awaiting action in the House…
Sprint to shutdown deadline
Government funding is at the top of the to-do list for Congress this week as lawmakers stare down a Friday deadline to pass four appropriations bills or face a partial shutdown.
It is the fourth time this Congress that members are facing a shutdown cliff.
Appropriators closed out the weekend without releasing the compromise spending bills that have been the subject of negotiations for months, putting lawmakers behind the eight ball as Friday’s deadline quickly approaches.
Funding for military construction, water development and the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development lapse Friday. Thee remaining eight spending bills expire March 8.
The top four Congressional leaders — Johnson, Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — will convene at the White House on Tuesday to meet with Biden and discuss government funding and the stalled foreign aid package.
The “four corners” last met at the White House in January to discuss sending additional aid for Ukraine. Johnson, however, has been pushing for a one-on-one meeting with Biden to discuss national security and the border.
This week’s gathering comes after Schumer and Johnson played a round of the blame game over the weekend, holding each other responsible for the delayed announcement of the compromise appropriations bills.
February 26, 2024: President Joe Biden and House Speaker Mike Johnson have virtually no relationship. (Politico)
The two men holding the most powerful positions in the country have rarely talked. They don’t know each other. They are decades apart in age and miles apart in political philosophy.
Their lack of a meaningful relationship — let alone any relationship at all — has contributed to political friction and standstills over the past few months. But it’s putting an additional strain on the nation’s government this week, as both Biden and Johnson barrel toward another government funding deadline on Friday and into a third year of war in Ukraine as the underfunded country fights off Russia.
The White House has not taken Johnson up on his for a one-on-one meeting but the two are likely to square off Tuesday when the four congressional leaders meet at the White House where the president plans to discuss both the supplemental and government funding.
In the lead up to the meeting, there have been few signs of affinity developing between the two.
For Ukraine funding, the Biden administration is engaged in a public pressure campaign to effectively shame Johnson into allowing a vote on the floor. The government funding, the White House is working with Democratic allies who control the Senate ahead of a potential standoff with the GOP House…
…The theory that Washington best works on interpersonal relations is a bit of a glamorized and outdated view of politics. One doesn’t need to have tight friendships with lawmaker in order to win their votes.
But for Biden at least, gladhanding and human connection is core to his identity and one of the ways that he reportedly viewed his presidency as different from Barack Obama’s. He has prided himself on his personal engagement with the Hill, including the Republicans there. That he lacks those variables with the House Speaker is no small matter.
Many senior aides at the White House still feel like they don’t quite know how Johnson will lead his conference or get a major deal done, according to two aides granted anonymity to speak about internal conversations. There is a belief that Johnson’s foremost allegiance is to not get on the wrong side of Donald Trump. That has disappointed but not surprised the White House team. But it’s also frustrated them on occasion, including when the speaker moved to effectively kill border security and Ukraine aid legislation earlier this month.
Over time, the president’s aides have come to see Johnson as a useful political foil — ripe for attacks on the border, Ukraine and his support of “The Big Lie” — that could turn off swing voters and help both Biden and House Democrats this fall…
February 27, 2024: The White House posted: “Remarks by President Biden Before a Meeting With Congressional Leaders“
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Well, thank you all for being here.
Look, I want to thank the leaders for being here today. We got a lot of work to do. We got to figure out how we’re going to keep funding the government, which is an important problem, an important solution we need to find. And I think we can do that.
And — and Ukraine — I think the need is urgent. I hope we get to speak to that a little bit. And I think the consequence of inaction every day in Ukraine are dire. I’ve been speaking to some of our — our G7 partners. And you just got back, Chuck.
LEADER SCHUMER: I did. I did. Yeah.
THE PRESIDENT: They’re very concerned.
And — and also, we need to — we — we need to — in terms of the supplemental, we need to deal with the Israeli portion. But that also contains a significant portion having to do with humanitarian assistance into the Palestinian area, which I think is important.
THE PRESIDENT: They’re very concerned.
And — and also, we need to — we — we need to — in terms of the supplemental, we need to deal with the Israeli portion. But that also contains a significant portion having to do with humanitarian assistance into the Palestinian area, which I think is important.
And we have to replenish the air defenses for Israel, and we have to work on making sure they don’t face the threat from — they can face the threat from the — from what’s going on in the Middle East, not just from Hamas but also from Iran
And so — and government funding, I’m sure you guys had all — that all taken care of. But all kidding aside, I think that it’s Congress’s responsibility to fund the government. We got to get about doing it. A shutdown would damage the economy significantly, and I think we all agree to that. And we need bipartisan solutions.
So, I want to hear from the group. And I want to hear from all of you here. So, thank you all for coming. And that’s what we’re going to be talking about. Thank you.
(Cross-talk.)
We’ll get a chance to talk afterwards.
February 27, 2024: The White House posted “Readout of President Biden and Vice President Harris’s Meeting with Congressional Leadership on Government Funding and the Bipartisan National Security Supplemental”
Today, President Biden and Vice President Harris met with Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Johnson, and leader Jeffries in the Oval Office about the urgency of keeping the government open and passing the bipartisan national security supplemental.
The President made clear that Congress must take swift action to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. A shutdown is unacceptable and would cause needless damage to hardworking families, our economy, and our national security. He emphasized that the only path forward is through bipartisan funding bills that deliver for the American people and are free of any extreme policies.
The President also emphasized the urgent need for Congress to continue standing with Ukraine as it defends itself every day against Russia’s brutal invasion. He discussed how Ukraine has lost ground, on the battlefield in recent weeks and is being forced to ration ammunition and supplies due to Congressional inaction. He underscored the importance of the bipartisan national security supplemental, which passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and would pass in the House if it was brought to a vote. He made clear that in addition to arming Ukraine and investing in America’s defense industrial base, the bill would help Israel defend itself against Hamas, and provide more humanitarian aid for those impacted by conflicts around the world, including Palestinian civilians who are experiencing dire humanitarian conditions.
February 27, 2024: Senate Republicans are trying to wave their House GOP counterparts away from blundering into a partial government shutdown at week’s end, something that looks increasingly likely given Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) unstable grip on power over a narrow majority. (The Hill)
GOP Senators warn a shutdown for any reason would be a political loser and imperil their prospects in November.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) delivered a stern message to his GOP colleagues Monday afternoon, warning them that shutting down the government is not an option.
“Shutting down the government is harmful to the country. And it never produces positive outcomes — on policy or politics,” he warned on the Senate floor.
Congressional leaders failed to release the text over the weekend for legislation to fund military construction and the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation and Housing, and Urban Affairs, setting the stage for a partial government shutdown after March 1.
Senate Republicans expressed frustrations Monday afternoon over the failure to reach an agreement, noting that the funding levels of the bill have already been worked out and that a standoff over controversial policy riders is gumming up the process.
McConnell warned that if lawmakers fail to meet Friday’s deadline, “the country would face needless disruptions” in those areas.
He added that funding the government “will require that everyone rows in the same direction: toward clean appropriations and away from poison pills.”
McConnell’s comments appeared directed at the Speaker and House conservatives who are insisting on adding controversial policy riders to the government funding package, according to Senate aides familiar with the negotiations.
The House Freedom Caucus last week submitted to Johnson a list of more than 20 policy riders they don’t want to add to the annual spending bills, including a proposal to zero out Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s salary, block the Pentagon’s ability to reimburse the travel costs of service members who obtain abortions and defund elements of the Biden administration’s climate agenda.
Members of McConnell’s leadership team echoed his warning that stumbling into a government shutdown would boomerang on Republicans eight months before Election Day, which will decide control of the White House, Senate and House…
February 27, 2024: Jousting among House Republicans and the rest of Washington is by now a familiar exercise. Lawmakers who are fresh from a recess will join President Biden today to replay a debate about an imminent shutdown and who might be blamed by voters. (The Hill)
The president will describe Ukraine’s urgent military needs, and he’ll try to deflect criticism about a migrant crisis at the U.S. southern border by pointing to his planned Thursday visit to Brownsville, Texas. His message to Republicans, according to the White House, will be, “Stop playing politics.”
The odds are slim that Congress and the administration will sit down today and hatch a plan to prevent a lapse in funding by Friday while settling immigration differences, including a divide between House and Senate Republicans, as well as an accord that might loosen Congress’s purse strings to bolster allies in Kyiv and Israel.
Biden will meet in the Oval Office this morning with four House and Senate leaders in what is expected to be a group restatement of position and a flurry of finger-pointing.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has been criticized within his own party for being a shape-shifting leader who can be slow to make decisions. The conservative House Freedom Caucus wants Johnson to press again for deep spending cuts. House Democrats will not back proposed GOP add-ons to spending measures dealing with abortion, LGBTQ and other cultural touchstones.
February 27, 2024: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.N.Y.) ahead of a White House meeting Tuesday called on Speaker Mike Johnson (R.La.) to “reject the MAGA hard right, which wants a shutdown.” (The Hill)
Schumer is ramping up his rhetoric ahead of a Tuesday midday meeting at the White House with Johnson, President Biden, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).
The nation faces a partial shutdown this weekend, with the Department of Energy and other agencies closing, unless Congress takes quick action.
“Agriculture, transportation, veteran’s programs and more will be thrown into chaos this Friday if we fail to extend funding,” Schumer warned on the Senate floor. “As I’ve said throughout the 118th Congress, there is no justification — none — for provoking a government shutdown.”
He said Democrats “strongly oppose shutdowns” and many of his Senate Republican colleagues, including McConnell, feel the same way, but he argued that Johnson is under pressure from House conservatives to take a hard line in negotiations over any bills to fund the government past the end of this week.
“Look, we realize the Speaker of the House is in a difficult position, but he must reject the MAGA hard right, which want’s a shutdown,” Schumer said, asserting the view “does not represent a majority of the Republicans in the House.”
Schumer said a small group of House conservatives who have demanded more then 20 controversial policy riders be added to government funding legislation “are trying to bully everyone else into submission to get what they want.”
“And what they want, make no mistake about it, they say it openly is a government shutdown,” he claimed…
…Funding for military construction and the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development will expire after March 1. Funding for other federal departments and agencies, including the department of Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services will expire after March 8.
February 27, 2024: The White House posted “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and White House National Security Advisor John Kirby“
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon. Hello. Okay, I have a couple of things at the top, and then we’ll get going.
A short time ago, President Biden and Vice President Harris concluded a meeting with congressional leaders on the need to keep the government open and pass the national security supplemental.
In the meeting, the President made clear that Congress must take swift action to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. A shutdown would cause needless damage to hardworking families, our economy, and our national security. The only path forward is through bipartisan bills that are free of extreme politics.
The President also emphasized the urgent need to Congress — for Congress to stand with Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s brutal invasion.
Ukraine has lost ground on the battlefield in recent weeks and is being forced to ration ammunition and supplies due to congressional inaction.
The bipartisan national security supplemental passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support — 70 to 29 — and would pass in the House if it was brought to a vote.
It would arm Ukraine, invest in America’s defense industrial base, help Israel defend itself against Hamas, and provide humanitarian aid for people impacted by conflicts, around the world, including Palestinian civilians.
The President called on the House to support of national security and pass the supplemental, and made clear the dire consequences if they failed to act.
Now, today, in the wake of the Alabama Supreme Court decision threatening access to IVF treatment, HHS Becerra — Secretary Becerra is in Alabama today to hear from families and healthcare professionals.
Today’s visit is a critical part of the Biden-Harris administration’s ongoing work to hear directly from families impacted by the Republican elected officials’ extreme agenda.
The Biden-Harris administration will continue to fight back against attacks on reproductive freedoms, whether that’ attacks on abortion care, birth control access, and now IVF access. It is absolutely unacceptable to this administration when women are denied the care they need.
And some news for you today. This Sunday, March 3rd, Vice President Kamala Harris will return to Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday by joining the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
While there, she will deliver remarks on honoring the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement and the Biden-Harris administration’s continued work to achieve justice for all and encourage Americans to continue the fight for fundamental freedoms.
Ala- — Alabama will be the 12th state the Vice President has traveled to in 2024 after visiting 24 states in 2023.
With that, my colleague, Admiral John Kirby from NSC, is here to give any updates in the Middle East.
Admiral.
MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Karine.
I think — good afternoon.
Q: Good afternoon.
MR. KIRBY: I think as you may know, USAID Administrator Samantha Power is in Israel this week for a series of meetings, including ongoing efforts by the United State to increase the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance to civilians that live in Gaza.
Today, the Administrator announced that the United States will provide an additional $53 million in urgently needed humanitarian assistance, which will include assistance to the World Food Program and other international NGOs providing resources for food, shelter, water, medicine, sanitation, hygiene all to the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
This brings the total amount of funding announced by the United States government since the 7th of October to more than $180 million.
Now, there is no question that much more aid is needed to address the critical and urgent needs on the ground. That’s why President Biden and the entire team will continue to work every day to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza while also prioritizing the safety of civilians and aid workers.
That’s also why we are working so hard on a temporary ceasefire to not only get the hostages out and the fighting paused, but all — to get that critical humanitarian assistance in and to increase the flow. There’s just not enough getting in right now.
There was significant progress towards those ends last week following U.S. engagements in the region. We are building on that progress this week, and the President and his team remain engaged around the clock with multiple partners in the region.
But, as the President said in the last 24 hours or so, there is no deal as of yet and there is a lot more work to do.
Speaking of more work to do, the United States took additional action to counter terrorist financing and to disrupt Houthi attacks on international shipping.
In coordination with the United Kingdom, we sanctioned the Deputy Commander of Iran’s IRGC, Mohammad Reza Falazadeh, for his role as a Houthi-affiliated operative and for owning and operating a vessel used to ship Iranian commodities in support of both the Houthis and the IRGC.
We also designated two additional companies that own and operate a vessel involved in shipping more than 100 million dollars’ worth in Iranian commodities on behalf of Iran’s Ministry of Defense.
This brings the total amount of funding announced by the United States government since the 7th of October to more than $180 million.
Now, there is no question that much more aid is needed to address the critical and urgent needs on the ground. That’s why President Biden and the entire team will continue to work every day to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza while also prioritizing the safety of civilians and aid workers.
That’s also why we are working so hard on a temporary ceasefire to not only get the hostages out and the fighting paused, but all — to get that critical humanitarian assistance in and to increase the flow. There’s just not enough getting in right now.
There was significant progress towards those ends last week following U.S. engagements in the region. We are building on that progress this week, and the President and his team remain engaged around the clock with multiple partners in the region.
But, as the President said in the last 24 hours or so, there is no deal as of yet and there is a lot more work to do.
Speaking of more work to do, the United States took additional action to counter terrorist financing and to disrupt Houthi attacks on international shipping.
In coordination with the United Kingdom, we sanctioned the Deputy Commander of Iran’s IRGC, Mohammad Reza Falazadeh, for his role as a Houthi-affiliated operative and for owning and operating a vessel used to ship Iranian commodities in support of both the Houthis and the IRGC.
We also designated two additional companies that own and operate a vessel involved in shipping more than 100 million dollars’ worth in Iranian commodities on behalf of Iran’s Ministry of Defense.
The Biden administration has now administered over 55 separate Iran sanctions rollouts targeting more than 550 individuals and entities.
All told, we’ve targeted — taken targets with Iran’s involvement in human rights abuses; hostage-taking; missile, drone, and non-pro lifer — proliferation programs.
We have no plans to lift, waive, or provide any new sanctions relief for Iran, and we will continue to look ways — for ways to take action and to hold them accountable.
And with that, I’d take some questions.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Josh.
Q: Thanks, Karine. John, two subjects. First, with regard to Israel and the possible ceasefire, a senior official from Egypt told AP that there is a six-week ceasefire that could go into effect, with Hamas agreeing to free up to 40 hostages and Israel would release at least 300 Palestinian prisoners. Would those terms provide sufficient incentives to both sides to find a way to work together?
MR. KIRBY: We’re still negotiating, and I am not going to negotiate from the podium. I’m not going to comment about those particulars.
We’re still working out the modalities of this — of this arrangement and we’re hopeful that we can get there.
Q: And then, secondly, Secretary Yellen said today that she was looking toward unlocking the value of some $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine. Does she want to spend that money? Or is the U.S. looking to use it as collateral for, like, a debt insurance?
MR. KIRBY: What we’re talking about here is the potential for using frozen assets. Back in 2022, we froze some 300 billion dollars’ worth of Russian assets at the beginning of the war.
What we’re talking about is the potential of using some of those frozen assets to assist Ukraine in their ability to defend themselves but also to potentially assist with reconstruction in Ukraine.
Now, that — that — also, we believe Russia needs to be responsible for the damage they’ve caused in Ukraine. So, it’s not going to let them off the hook for that, but it could be used for that purpose as well.
Q: But — but are you going to spend it, or are you going to use it in an alternative way and keep it intact?
MR. KIRBY: Again, the idea would be exploring the option of being able to use those frozen assets to help Ukraine as they defend themselves and as they try to recover from two years of war.
But I want to make a couple of things clear. Number one, we still need more legislative authorities from Congress for the President to be able to act on that, to, quote, unquote, “spend it” the way you’re talking about.
Number two — and this is not an unimportant thing, and the Secretary said this as well — we’ve got to have coalition — our coalition partners, who also were involved in the freezing of these assets, to come along with us.
And so, the conversations we’re hape- — hap — havining — I’m sorry. The conversations we’re having now are with our allies and partners about — about making sure that they’re on board with the usage of these frozen assets.
Q: Thank you, Karine. John, thank you. “Next Monday” is a very specific date that the President offered up for when this ceasefire could begin, especially, as you mentioned, if negotiations are still ongoing. So, can you provide any insight about why he offered up the date of next Monday and what has to happen between now and then?
MR. KIRBY: He told you himself that he was getting advised by his national security team, particularly our National Security Advisor, about the progress that we were making and the — the direction in which the talks were going. We’re — we’re hopeful and cautiously optimistic that we’ll be able to get this pause in place very, very soon.
Q: And then, secondly, has the President been briefed or seen Israel’s plan to evacuate Rafah?
MR. KIRBY: We have not been presented with such a plan.
Q: Thank you.
Q: Admiral, the President referred to his hopes for a ceasefire. You have used the word “pause.” Previously, he has talked about the “temporary ceasefire.” Is he shifting his sense of what kind of cessation in violence would be? How long it would be? Anything on that that is new, in his view?
MR. KIRBY: I wouldn’t say that there’s anything new, Kelly. I mean, a humanitarian pause, temporary ceasefire, they’re rough – –they’re roughly the same things. We’re not talking about anything different.
Q: There’s a political —
MR. KIRBY: What we’re hoping to d- —
Q: — difference, though. When the President says “ceasefire,” it carries a different sort of weight.
MR. KIRBY: What we’re hoping to do is get an extended pause in the fighting — I’ve just called it a “temporary ceasefire” myself — that would allow for several weeks — hopefully, up to six — where there will be no fighting so that we can get all the hostages out, increase the flow of humanitarian assistance but, just as critically, get the fighting stopped so that there’s no more civilian casualties and there’s no more damage to civilian infrastructure.
Now, the last pause was a week. What we’re hoping for is much more aggressive than that. And as we’ve said before, we also hope that if we can get that in place — and both sides can abide by it for the course of several weeks, maybe up to six — that maybe that could lead to something more in terms of a — a better approach to end the conflict writ large.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Selina.
Q: Thanks, Admiral. Just to follow up on Weija’s previous question, though. We’ve learned, according to an Israeli source, that Netanyahu was quite surprised by the President’s comments about his expectations that there would be a ceasefire by Monday. So, that doesn’t bode a lot of optimism that one of the key parties was surprised by that timeline the President had set. So, why did he say Monday?
MR. KIRBY: I can’t speak for the surprise that foreign leaders have or don’t have with regard to things that we’re saying.
The President talked to you all after staying completely up to speed — and he has been kept up to speed — on how these negotiations are going. And he shared with you some context. And he certainly share with you his optimism that we can get in — in, hopefully, a short order.
But he also said, you know, it’s not all done yet. And you don’t — and you don’t have a deal until you have a deal. We don’t have one right now.
So, the team is still working at this very, very hard, as I said in my opening statement, around the clock. But we believe that we are getting closer. And — while we don’t want to sound too sanguine or Pollyannish about it, we do think there has been some serious negotiations.
Q: And after Speaker Johnson’s meeting with the President, it doesn’t really should like he changed his mind on Ukraine. He again reiterated that the border needs to be addressed before Ukraine. So, given this current trajectory, what does that mean for Ukraine and its battlefield needs?
MR. KIRBY: I’d also point to what he said about, you know, taking up the issue of Ukraine funding in a timely fashion, and he said that right out there outside the West Wing. And we know that he does support funding for Ukraine. He said so himself. We know that significant House leadership — and certainly on both sides of the aisle in the House — support funding for Ukraine.
Now, the question is: When you say a “timely fashion,” what do you mean by that? I can tell you, to the Ukrainian soldier on the battlefront, timeliness is now. It’s right now.
As — as you and I just came back from the weekend, the Russians started taking some other towns and villages. Now, they didn’t — nothing to the significance of Avdiivka, in terms of the logistics hub that they want to create there. But they’re on the move. This is not some frozen conflict.
And so, we urge the Speaker, when he says a “timely fashion,” that he — that — that he actually lives up to that. Because, again, to the Ukrainian soldier, the time is right now.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Steve.
Q: What’s the significance of trying to get a hostage deal in place before Ramadan starts on March 10th?
MR. KIRBY: What we’re focused on, Steve, is getting this deal in place as soon as we can. And you heard from the President — I mean, we’re — we’re hopeful that this can — this can happen in – this can happen in — in coming days.
And if that does — if we are able to get the pause in place and the hostages out in a relatively short order, then, clearly, an extended pause — as I was talking to Kelly about — would certainly take you into Ramadan.
But right now, it’s — it’s not about trying to beat the clock to Ramadan. It’s about trying to get these two sides to come to closure on a deal that, again, would get these two sides to come to closure on a deal that, again, would get all those hostages out and get the — and to get the fighting stopped.
Q: And separately, we took note of the remarks by the French President today on the possibility of sending French troops to Ukraine. How would the United States regard any NATO Allies sending troops to Ukraine?
MR. KIRBY: Well, that’s a sovereign decision that every NATO Ally would have to — would have to make for themselves.
You heard the Secretary General Stoltenberg say himself he had no plans or intentions of — of — certainly under NATO auspices, of putting troops on the ground. And President Biden has been crystal clear since the beginning of this conflict: There will be no U.S. troops on the ground in a combat role there in Ukraine.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, M.J.
Q: Thank you, John. Senator Schumer just said that Ukraine couldn’t wait a month or two more for additional funding because it would, “in all likelihood lose the war.” Is that the administration’s assessment as well?
MR. KIRBY: I’d also point to what he said about, you know, taking up the issue of Ukraine funding in a timely fashion, and he said that right out there outside the West Wing. And we know that he does support funding for Ukraine. He said so himself. We know that significant House leadership — and certainly on both sides of the aisle in the House — support funding for Ukraine.
Now, the question is: When you say a “timely fashion,” what do you mean by that? I can tell you, to the Ukrainian soldier on the battlefront, timeliness is now. It’s right now.
As — as you and I just came back from the weekend, the Russians started taking some other towns and villages. Now, they didn’t — nothing to the significance of Avdiivka, in terms of the logistics hub that they want to create there. But they’re on the move. This is not some frozen conflict.
And so, we urge the Speaker, when he says a “timely fashion,” that he — that — that he actually lives up to that. Because, again, to the Ukrainian soldier, the time is right now.
Q: And separately, we took note of the remarks by the French President today on the possibility of sending French troops to Ukraine. How would the United States regard any NATO Allies sending troops to Ukraine?
MR. KIRBY: Well, that’s a sovereign decision that every NATO Ally would have to — would have to make for themselves.
You heard the Secretary General Stoltenberg say himself he had no plans or intentions of — of — certainly under NATO auspices, of putting troops on the ground. And President Biden has been crystal clear since the beginning of this conflict: There will be no U.S. troops on the ground in a combat role there in Ukraine.
MR. KIRBY: It – the situation is dire, M.J. As I said, the Russians not only took Avdiivka, they’ve taken a couple other towns and villages in just the last 48, 72 hours.
These guys on the — these Ukrainian soldiers on the — the front, I mean, they’re –they’re making some real tough decisions about what they’re going to shoot at and what they’re going to shot at it with. And they’re running out of bullets, and it’s — it’s not — as Jake said the other day, it’s not running out of courage; they’re running out of bullets.
So, the situation is very dire. I’m not in a position to put a time stamp on it and say, you know, by such and such date they’ll lose the war. But they are certainly beginning to lose territory — territory that they had clawed back from the Russians and now they have to give it back to the Russians because they can’t — they can’t fight them off.
Q: I’m not asking you to give a prediction, but do you generally agree that in a month’s time, in two months’ time, it is very possible that Ukraine could lose the war without additional funding —
MR. KIRBY: What I would —
Q: — as Senator Schumer said?
MR. KIRBY: What I would tell that — as I said to Steve, the time is now — right now. The dire — the situation is dire now. I can’t predict what it’ll look like in a month or two because I can’t predict what the Russians are going to do.
But certainly if — just for argument’s sake, if they continue to get no support from the United States, in a month or two, it is very likely that the Russians will achieve more territorial gains and have more success against Ukrainian frontlines in terms of just territory gain, mostly in the East but potentially even in the South.
Q: And just a quick follow-up on Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu said over the weekend that regardless of what happens with the ongoing hostage talks, that they plan to go into Rafah. You just told Weigia that it’s not like the U.S. has seen some evacuation plan from the Israelis. So —
MR. KIRBY: It’s not — it’s not “like” we haven’t seen it. We haven’t seen it.
Q: You have not. That is what I meant.
Given that, do you believe that there is a — a -plan by the Israelis to secure the safety of the civilians in Rafah before they enter Rafah, which, again, the Prime Minister says they are planning to do no matter what?
MR. KIRBY: Well, the Prime Minister has also ordered the Israeli Defense Forces to — in producing a plan for operations in Rafah, to include in that a plan for securing the safety of the more than a million refugees that are there.
Again, we — we’ve not been presented one. I can’t speak for the Israelis and to what degree their planning has progressed and what that looks like. But the Prime Minister himself has said — he publicly said that he has tasked his generals to come up with one.
MR. KIRBY: That’s correct.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia.
Q: Thank you, Karine. Hi, Admiral. The U.N. Special Rapporteur said today that Israel is purposefully starving Palestinians in Gaza by destroying greenhouses, small-scale fishing boats, and their farms. So, why the U.S. has not done a review of how this war is conducted while you are very quick to do it Ukraine against the Russians?
MR. KIRBY: I —
Q: And then a question for Karine.
MR. KIRBY: Okay. I’m not aware of the report coming out of the U.N. on the greenhouses, so I’m going to take that, and we’ll go back and look at that.
As I’ve said there — there is a process of supporting foreign militaries. We are following that process. And the State Department has acknowledged that — that when they are alerted to incidents of concern, they do look into them. It’s not a formal review; it’s not some investigation, but it’s part of the normal process of security assistance to a foreign military.
Now, whether they’re looking at this one, I don’t know.
And you had a question for Karine.
Q: I have a question about the Arab — sorry — about the Arab American community leaders today.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: They said that their vote of noncommittal is an appeal to the White House, to the President, to stop the killing of their relatives in Gaza.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: So, how will the White House change their strategy to address this issue that Arab Americans are concerned about and calling for?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be really mindful because we’re talking about an election, so I’m not going to comment on — on an upcoming election. But there’s a couple of things I do want to say, which I think is incredibly important.
First of all, you know that senior officials have gone to Michigan as of late — earlier this month to meet with Muslim and Arab Americans and we understand — right? — during a very deeply painful and personal moment, right? We understand what they’re going through. We understand what this means to this community. And the President understands that too.
So, we care very much about what — about that and what the community, again, is going through. And we wanted to convey that very strongly, obviously, which is why you had senior officials go direct- — go to Detroit, go to Michigan, to have those conversation.
And look, we know it’s been a difficult time. The Pr- — the President cares about that. They care — he cares about that. They care — he cares about what that community is feeling very deeply. And we believe it’s Important that they feel that they are able to — to express themselves and voice — voice their feelings and their concerns.
And so, look, you heard the Admiral talk about the hostage deal, the temporary ceasefire. That is why it is so critical and important to get that done. That is why you’ve seen this President and his administration work 24/7 to get that done, so we can get a temporary ceasefire, so we can get that humanitarian aid into Gaza, so that we can get those hostages — and we have American hostages that are — that are part of that number as well. We want to get those hostages home to their families, to their loved ones.
And the President is not going to stop. You heard him yesterday in New York. He’s not going to stop until we get that done. So, I’ll leave it there.
Let me let the Admiral finish.
MR. KIRBY: (Laughs.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Danny.
Q: Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Admiral. I’m just going back to President Macron’s comments about not running out Western troops on the ground in Ukraine. Has President Macron discussed that will President Biden at all?
MR. KIRBY: I — I won’t go beyond the — the readout of the conversation. I don’t have anything more to add on that.
Q: And very briefly, you said as well that President Biden has said before that he would not send U.S. troops to Ukraine in a combat role. The French Foreign Minister suggested Western troops could be sent for demining or arms production or cyber. Is there a possibility that — is that something that would be considered by the U.S.?
MR. KIRBY: No. The only U.S. military personnel that — that are in Ukraine are associated with the embassy as part of the defense attaché office, and they’re doing important work in terms of helping us with the accountability of weapons and systems that are provided to Ukraine.
The President has been clear: There’s not going to be U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Raquel.
Q: Thank you so much Karine. Hi, John. One about Gaza and another about Ukraine.
On Gaza. What makes the President confident the ceasefire can be reached in a week? Any breakthroughs that — that made him confident about that?
And any comment about the number of civilians dead in Gaza reaching 30,000? How many more will have to die until the U.S. agree with a permanent ceasefire?
MR. KIRBY: We don’t want to see one more die, which is why this pause we’re working on is so important. The President was reflecting updates that he’s been getting from the national security team about the progress of those talks.
We’re hopeful and, as I said early, cautiously optimistic that we can get there — and hopefully in short order. But it’s been — it’s been a lot of — lot of diplomatic work, a lot of negotiations to try and get us to this point.
And we’re not there yet. I think that’s important to say. The President made that clear too. It’s not — you don’t have a deal until you have a deal. We don’t have a deal right now.
But as for how many more should die, again, I’ve said many times before, the right number of civilian causalities is zero. We don’t want to see one more person in- — innocent person killed in this conflict, which is, again, why this six-week-or-so pause could be so effective in terms of reducing the number of civilian casualties and giving use some breathing space to get more humanitarian assistance in and potentially talk about an end to the conflict.
Q: Another one on Ukraine, very quickly, because Senator Schumer described the meeting on Ukraine as the “most intense” he ever had in the Oval Office. How does the President feel about it after the meeting? Does he believe a deal can be reached? He’s more or less optimistic about it?
MR. KIRBY: The President believes that it’s important to continue to have these conversations. He’s — he believes it’s important to make sure that — certainly, in the Speaker’s case, that he makes the case for why it’s important for this supplemental funding.
Obviously, the big purpose of the meeting today, as Karine already let you guys know, was really about preventing a government shutdown. But, clearly, they had the opportunity to talk about the national security supplemental, and the President made his case.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, April.
Q: A couple of topics. One, with the grassroots committees meeting with the President and — and administration officials. Going back to the Dearborn, Michigan, issue, you’ve got a large contingent of Arabs, you’ve got a large contingent of Muslims, as well as Jewish people.
Karine, you just said you’re listening. For both of you, as you’re listening, are you taking anything in as to what they are saying in these conversations? Are you acting on any of what they’re saying?
MR. KIRBY: Absolutely. We take these conversations very seriously. And — and without getting into specific details or disclosing some of the things that we’ve been hearing, we — we are taking them on board. And we are — we are willing to adjust the — the way we’re approaching the conflict and the way they’re talking about the conflict to — to reflect those concerns. But we’re taking them very seriously.
Q: So, as you’re taking them in and taking them seriously, it sounds like you’re acting on some of what they’re saying. Is it more on the political front, the humanitarian front, or national security front that you’re acting on with — with these grassroots conversations?
MR. KIRBY: I can only speak about the national security implications here. And I can tell you very much that — because we’ve — the National Security Council has been a part and parcel of these conversations, and we’re coming back from them, we feel, informed, more educated, and certainly more understanding of some of the concerns that are out there in the Arab community and — Arab American community. And, again, we’re — we’re taking that on board, and we’re doing — and were acting on it.
Q: And I know, as this meeting happened, it was about preventing a government shutdown. But, again, there is an intertwining of foreign affairs, national security involved in the budget. But is there a concern that it continues to be kicked down the road? Because we’ve been kicking the — the can down the road since last year, and it just keeps going and going —
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q: — and going. We keep coming to this point. Is there a concern about that?
MR. KIRBY: Absolutely. I mean, when you don’t — when — you know, one of the things that’s — that’s been unfortunate throughout this appropriations process for now, for two — you know, for the entire time we’ve been in office, is the use of continuing resolutions to try to keep the government going.
And just — not to — not to get into too long- — too long an answer here, but when your ba- –basing everything on a CR, that means there’s certain things, like, for — in the defense world, where you can’t –you can’t enact new contracts for weapons systems or ships or airplanes because a CR only allows you to fund last year’s numbers. So, you’re limited. You can’t start some new programs, and you can’t even pay for some programs using new funds because you’re — you’re stuck with the last year’s funding.
So, it absolutely has an effect on national security.
Q: So, the CRs are crippling the military — the U.S. military capabilities?
MR. KIRBY: It is definitely making it harder for the Defense Department to continue to support our global requirements when you are talking about continuing resolution funding. It definitely hampers your flexibility. No question about it.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. We need to start wrapping up.
Go ahead, Anita.
Q: Thank you so much, John. I’ll start with Israel then move on to Ukraine. You just said it’s not about trying to beat the clock to Ramadan, in terms of a ceasefire. But how concerned is the administration about the possibility of escalation during Ramadan, during this holy month, and how, you know, it’s going to be seen for U.S.-backed troops to be attacking Muslim —
MR. KIRBY: We’re mindful of the sensity — sensitivities, of course, around the month of Ramadan and the import- — the spiritual importance of that to — to the — to the Muslim world. Of course, we understand that.
What — What we don’t want us — we — we want to see this temporary ceasefire in place as soon as possible. And, again, if we can get the agreement for several weeks, it would take you through Ramadan anyway. You can’t enact new contracts for weapons systems or ships or airplanes because a CR only allows you to fund last year’s numbers. So, you’re limited. You can’t start some new programs, and you can’t even pay for some programs using new funds because you’re — you’re stuck with the last year’s funding.
So, it absolutely has an effect on national security.
Q: So, the CRs are crippling the military — the U.S. military capabilities?
The clock that we’re worried about is the — the hostages. We can only assume that they are being held in abhorrent conditions and that their health is at risk, their lives are at risk. We want to get them ba- — out as soon as possible.
Q: And then, just quickly, on Ukraine. After this difficult conversation — or this intense conversation, sorry, in the Oval Office, are you looking at other funding possibilities — Lend-Lease or loans to Ukraine or weapon sales to Ukraine?
And then, just to push you on Steve’s question and Danny’s question about the French President, are you — you know, has — does President Biden think it would be a good idea if France were to go into Ukraine (inaudible)?
MR. KIRBY: As for other funding, I’ve said before: There’s no magic pot of money here that we can dip into. We asked for it in October. And, again, it was done in good faith and in consultation with our Ukrainian partners. We need that funding.
Look, we’ll let President Macron speak — he — for his military and what he is or is not willing to do with — with his troops.
The President has been clear: He does not support U.S. troops involved in this conflict in Ukraine. And I’ll leave it at that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. (Inaudible.) Go ahead, Annie.
Q: Thanks so much. Admiral, I just was hoping you can help me a square , sort of, two strains of conversation in this room. One has been about the, sort of, conditions that the United States wants to see before Israel goes into Rafah. The President himself referenced this last night, saying that he’d want to know about plans for evacuation before they go in and take out the remainder of Hamas. Separately, we’ve been talking a lot about a ceasefire that could start as early as, you know, this weekend.
So, can you help me understand: Is the idea here that there would be an invasion of Rafah before the ceasefire, or it’s going to come after the ceasefire? I just —
MR. KIRBY: So, the —
Q: I’m trying to understand wh- — how these two things are connected.
MR. KIRBY: I understand the confusion. But you actually do have to kind of consider them a bit separately. And, again, I don’t want to speak for the Israelis. The — they should speak to the operations they are or are not planning.
All I can tell you is that we’re — we haven’t been presented any kind of a plan to provide for the safety and security of the refugees there. And we’ve said very clearly: We would not support Rafah operations unless or until there is a credible, achievable plan to provide for their safety and security.
So, I can’t tell you what timeline the Israeli Defense Forces are on, in terms of Rafah operations.
At the same time, we are in active negotiations, and we are hopeful that we’re getting to the conclusion or near the conclusion of those discussions and negotiations over a temporary ceasefire, which would, if enacted, last perhaps as long as six weeks from the time it was signed on to by both parties.
In that six weeks, based on the — the idea of a temporary ceasefire, of course, there would be no fighting, which means civilian casualties will come down; damage to civi- — civilian infrastructure will be stopped; you’ll have breathing space to get more humanitarian assistance in; and, of course, we’d have the ability to get all those hostages out. The idea is to get them all out — all the hostages that are — that are remaining.
Q: Is that in the plan —
MR. KIRBY: But it would have to happen over stages.
Q: Is that when this —
MR. KIRBY: So, if — wait. So, if we were able to get this in place — I can’t give you a date certain on the calendar, but if we did, you can expect, should both sides abide by their commitments, several weeks of no fighting.
Q: So, would that mean that a Rafah invasion wouldn’t happen, or it would just be delayed until after the ceasefire?
MR. KIRBY: There would be no fighting for the — for the entirety of the agreed-to timeframe. No fighting anywhere.
Q: Thanks. John, just on the Oval Office discussions today. Speaker Johnson came out and — and — as he said before, that, you know, the southern border has to be addressed before — before Ukraine aid and funding. They are saying this shouldn’t be done legislatively; more so, that it should be done by rolling back executive orders or changing it from an executive perspective. Is that part of these discussions? And is the White House ruling out undoing some of the executive orders from earlier on in the administration?
MR. KIRBY: I’d say a couple of things.
First, the President has taken executive action at the border. And he — and he certainly will continue to do so as appropriate and within the bounds of the law.
He’s also said – that in order to make the new changes, the fixes to the border security, you got to have new legislation. A lot of this has to do with capabilities, funding, — I’m sorry, capabilities, personnel and — and resourcing, infrastructure. You can’t just make that happen through executive action, all of that. You’ve got to have funding behind it, which is why the supplemental request was so important. And the one submitted in October included border security.
And the President said months ago he was willing to have a discussion with members of Congress about border security. Border security was in the supplemental request. And we worked with the Senate to get a bipartisan deal arranged that — that the Speaker said he absolutely insisted on. And then, when it was delivered to him, he said, no, he didn’t want it.
Q: So, there would be a legislative component to this if, let’s say, the Republicans are saying you can un- —
MR. KIRBY: In order to —
Q: — unlock Ukraine funding if you were to do something executive-wise on — on the border?
MR. KIRBY: We were willing to have a discussion — and did, with the Senate — about border security and Ukraine funding, as well as Israel and the Indo-Pacific. That’s — we’re still waiting to have those discussions.
The — the Speaker has to decide exactly what he wants to do here and then move out. He says he wants to act in a timely fashion on Ukraine. Well, let’s go. Let’s get them what they need.
And the President is more than willing to have discussions about the border.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. We’ve got to wrap it up. Go ahead, Tam. Last question.
Q: At what point do you declare the supplemental dead or too late to help Ukraine?
MR. KIRBY: We need it now. I wouldn’t even begin to speculate about what would be too late. We’re already, in some ways, too — too late. They lost the town of Avdiivka because of — literally because of ammunition. So, in some ways, its already having a dramatic effect on the battlefield.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks. Thanks, Admiral. Appreciate it.
MR. KIRBY: Yep. You bet.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Give me one second. Hi.
Q: Hi.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Go ahead.
Q: So — so, in the pr —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I had something to say, and I changed my mind. Go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q: I mean, all right. So — so, in the past, you’ve described Speaker Johnson’s proposals as “not serious” regarding government funding, the border —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — Ukraine. In the Oval Office today, was Speaker Johnson serious? Did he meet the threshold that the White House has set in the past?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. I know some — I know that Senator Schumer said it was intense. Yes, the meeting was intense, but it was also very productive. And I think that’s important to take that into account.
A couple of things that I would say is that all four congressional leaders agreed with the President and the Vice President that a shutdown is unacceptable. But, as you all know, the clock is ticking. It is ticking. It has been ticking for some time now.
And it continues to do so — right? — as it relates, obviously, to — to a potential shutdown but also — but also what we’re seeing — right? — with the national security supplemental. This is something that we put forth in October.
And as it relates to that, all four leaders also understood the gravity — gravity of the situation in Ukraine. And they heard — and here’s the thing, they heard a sobering account from the CIA Director, who was in the room, about — about how Ukraine has lost ground on the battlefield — you heard me say that at the top — in recent weeks, because of congressional inaction.
And so, this is the reality. This is the reality that Ukraine is in. This is the reality that we’re in when we talk about our national security. And this is the reality that Congress is in. They have not taken action. And so, we are seeing what’s happening currently in the battlefield in Ukraine.
So, as the President said, there are consequences, and the consequences are incredibly dire. Congress must take action. We have to support our national security. And that is what the President — that was the message that went into — during that – during that meeting. And that’s how we saw the meeting play out.
All four congressional leaders were in agreement on those — on those two pieces that I just laid out here. It is incredibly important to move forward. The clock is ticking here. The clock is ticking.
Go ahead.
Q: Thank you, Karine. House Speaker Johnson and the President had their first —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — face to face, one-on-one meeting. What can you share about how that went?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, yes. And I think, obviously, the Speaker spoke to this himself when he was at the Sticks. The President and the — and Speaker Johnson had a moment after — after the meeting — after the group meeting.
I’m going to be mindful here. It was a private discussion, so I don’t have a readout for all of you. But it was — you heard — again, you heard from — from the Speaker on how — on his — his side of things. I just don’t have anything else to share on — on the private meeting they had.
Q: Okay. Well, earlier you just said that this was a very productive meeting.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: On the Ukraine funding front, what was productive about it? It seems like nothing has changed.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, I mean, there’s work to do, obviously. Right? There is work to do. And we have said, if the Speaker puts this on the floor, it would get bipartisan support. We believe that. We’re talking about the national supplemental, obviously. It would have su- –bipartisan support.
I just laid out how all four leaders heard directly from the CIA Director about how dire it is and what we have seen the last couple of months in Ukraine because of the congressional inaction. I mean, that is dire — right? — that they heard dire reports from the CIA Director on what is currently happening.
And, you know — and it’s not that — just that; it’s what you all have reported from what’s coming out of Ukraine and what we have seen as — as recently as last week when — when Russia took over one of the — one of the critical cities in Ukraine.
And so, look, the evidence is there. They heard from the CIA Director. The reporting — all of — you have been reporting. We’ve heard from President Zelenskyy directly about this. It is — there are consequences here. There are consequences.
And — and, you know, Congress needs to act. The House needs to act. Senate acted. Seventy to twenty-nine, they passed a bipartisan — in a bipartisan way this national security supplemental. Now we need it to go to the floor. We know — we know, hearing from Republicans in the House, that there would be bipartisan support.
So, yes, it was productive in the sense that everybody was in agreement on what needs to happen next. Now we need to see that action in Congress.
Q: Yesterday, a U.S. airman died after he set himself on fire —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — outside an Israeli — or outside the Israel Embassy. Was the President aware of his death? Did he have any response to it?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, the President is aware. And we can — I can say that it is — obviously, is a — it’s a horrible tragedy, and our thoughts are with the family of the servicemember at — during this — I could — we can’t even imagine this hor- — horrible, difficult time.
The Department of Defense and the Metropolitan Police are looking into this. So, we’re not going to get ahead of that. So, I would certainly refer you to them. But it is — it is a horrific tragedy, what — what occurred the other day.
Q: Is there anything new that you can share about the President’s visit to the border on Thursday? Does he have any plans to announce any executive actions?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to — I’m not going to get ahead of the of the President. Don’t have anything to — to announce at this time. We’ve — we’ve spoken to executive actions. I’ve spoken to that many times.
We think the bottom line is: The way to have dealt with this border — the challenges that we see on the border, what we see with this immigration — broken immigration system that has been broken for decades, is if we — if Republicans had moved forward with — with the bipartisan deal that came out of the Senate.
But instead of doing that, Donald Trump — they listened to Donald Trump, the former President, and they made it about politics. They did not make it about an issue that majority of Americans care about. They made it about politics and Donald Trump. And that is unfortunate.
What I will say is just — and I said this yesterday in the gaggle; I’ll say it again. As you all know, he’s going to travel to Brownsville, Texas. He’s going to meet with U.S. Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, and local leaders, and he’s going to discuss the urgent need to pass the bipartisan — bipartisan proposal that came out of the Senate.
And we believe that if this proposal — this legislation were to become law, it would be, yes, the toughest but also the fairest. And let’s not forget, it was — it was supported by the Border Patrol union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And, you know you don’t see that type of support for a bipartisan piece of legislation nowadays.
And so, he’s going to reiterate to congressional Republicans to stop playing politics, to focus on the American people, to get this done. If they are serious — if they are serious about giving the U.S. Border Patrol agents what they need, if they are serious about fixing the immigration system, they would get politics — push politics to the side and do — do the work on behalf of the American people.
Go ahead, Kelly O.
Q: Speaker Johnson referred to a separate second meeting with him and the President. You referred to it as “a moment.” Was it a separate sit-down? Was it planned that the President would make that time available? Or did that just kind of come out organically —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I th- —
Q: — after their meeting?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think the — I think the President, you know, wanted to have a one-on-one conversation with Speaker Johnson. They did. I was — it was– it happened after the group meeting. It was a brief — they spoke briefly. It was a private discussion.
And so, that’s how we would call it. It happened after the briefing. He pulled him to the side while the other — other three left. And they had a moment; they had a conversation. I wouldn’t get too — too into the semantics here. I would just say they had a moment, and I think it’s important that the — the President believed it was important to have a moment and to have a brief conversation with the —
Q: So, that sounds more like something that just came up today, not on the planned schedule —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean —
Q: — as you set the day.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — it wasn’t — it wasn’t a planned — on — on the planned schedule. I think the President wanted to have a one-on-one conversation with the Speaker. He did that. And it was an — he believed it was important to do.
Don’t have a readout of it, obviously. It was a private discussion, a private conversation.
And so, that’s how we would call it. It happened after the briefing. He pulled him to the side while the other — other three left. And they had a moment; they had a conversation. I wouldn’t get too — too into the semantics here. I would just say they had a moment, and I think it’s important that the — the President believed it was important to have a moment and to have a brief conversation with the —
Q: And if there were any agreement — if the Speaker had accepted a premise from the President or if they had made any kind of a more formal decision in the moment, would that be something you could share?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I think we’ve been very clear what we want to see, and it doesn’t change. Right? What we want to see is the national supplemental, as it was passed out of the Senate in a bipartisan way — 70 to 29 – to deal with our national security, to deal with what’s going on in Ukraine, to deal with what’s going — what’s going on in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific — let’s not forget — we want to see that passed. We want to see — because that hasn’t changed, right?
So, there’s no separate deal here. What we want to see is this national security supplemental be put to the floor. And we know — we know, because we’ve heard from congressional House Republicans, that it would pass in a bipartisan way. That’s what the President wants to see.
Q: And if there were any agreement — if the Speaker had accepted a premise from the President or if they had made any kind of a more formal decision in the moment, would that be something you could share?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I think we’ve been very clear what we want to see, and it doesn’t change. Right? What we want to see is the national supplemental, as it was passed out of the Senate in a bipartisan way — 70 to 29 – to deal with our national security, to deal with what’s going on in Ukraine, to deal with what’s going — what’s going on in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific — let’s not forget — we want to see that passed. We want to see — because that hasn’t changed, right?
So, there’s no separate deal here. What we want to see is this national security supplemental be put to the floor. And we know — we know, because we’ve heard from congressional House Republicans, that it would pass in a bipartisan way. That’s what the President wants to see.
And they heard — these — the Big Four heard directly from the CIA Director about how dire — the consequences are dire. And we’ve seen that. We’ve seen Ukraine has lost ground in the battlefield.
And obviously, there’s the other issue of a potential shutdown. The clock is ticking on that as well. They got to move. They got to move and stop focusing on extreme positions here. We got to move. And this is about the American people. That’s what this should be about.
Go ahead, Selina.
Q: Thanks, Karine. You said the Big Four all understand the gravity of the situation in Ukraine. But does the President actually trust Speaker Johnson? Did this move the ball forward at all in terms of convincing him to put Ukraine aid on the floor for a vote?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, he needs to do — this is Speaker Johnson — needs to do what’s best for the American people. He needs to do what’s best for our national security. He needs to do what’s best for our countr- — our country. He needs to put our national security supplemental on the floor. That’s what we know.
The last time where was a vote on Ukraine, it got more than 300 votes — more than 300 votes, including many, many House Republicans. That’s the reality.
And so — and also keeping the government open — there are critical programs that the American people need. If the government shut down — shuts down, Americans don’t get those critical programs that they need.
And so, look, I can’t speak for, you know, the — the Speaker and what he’s going to do. What I can speak for and what we can continue to reiterate from here and what the President can continue to reiterate is how important it is to move forward. There are national security consequences here, as I’ve laid out moments ago. And there’s also critical programs — important programs that the American people — as it relates to keeping the government open.
It is literally a basic duty that Congress has, and Republicans in — in the House are getting in the way of that, and they should not.
Q: And the President sounded confident or optimistic that a government shutdown could be avoided. But we’re only days away. No bill text has been released. There are still many, many policy disputes.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: So, where is that optimism coming from?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, the President is an optimistic person. You guys know that. He talks about that often, in many speeches that he gives — he — he gives to the American people about optimism and possibilities. That is a president who believes in that.
And so, look, he’s going to continue to be optimistic. He brought the Big Four here to have these critical, important conversations about how to move forward here.
And it’s about the American people. This is not about the President here. We’re talking about the national security supplemental. We’re talking about keeping — keeping the government open, even our border challenges. This is about the American people.
So, we have to be optimistic. But he’s — we’re going to continue to do the work. When the Big Four — when the congressional members left, what was agreed upon is that their teams would continue to have conversations, obviously — with our teams — OMB, Office of Leg Affairs — to continue to have those conversation on how to — how to certainly deal with what’s going on with the potential shutdown, as the clock is ticking.
And we’re going to push — to continue to push to make — to — to, you know, reiterate the importance of putting that national security bill on the floor. It already came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way. It needs to go to the floor and the House.
Q: Is it more and more likely we’ll just get another CR?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I can’t speak to — I’m not going to speak to, you know, how – you know, the — how –how Congress is going to move with a procedure. I’ll leave that up to them and how they want to move with the CR, if there is a CR.
What we are going to continue to re- — reiterate and say from here is how important — important to get that national security supplemental through, how important is it to continue to keep the government open.
And we’re not going to stop talking about the border. You’ll see the President in – on Thursday in Texas talking about how important is was to — you know, to get that bipartisan Senate agreement.
Q: Is it more and more likely we’ll just get another CR?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I can’t speak to — I’m not going to speak to, you know, how – you know, the — how –how Congress is going to move with a procedure. I’ll leave that up to them and how they want to move with the CR, if there is a CR.
What we are going to continue to re- — reiterate and say from here is how important — important to get that national security supplemental through, how important is it to continue to keep the government open.
And we’re not going to stop talking about the border. You’ll see the President in – on Thursday in Texas talking about how important is was to — you know, to get that bipartisan Senate agreement.
And because of — again, because of the former President, Republicans decided to reject a bipartisan agreement that was supported by Border Patrol union, that was supported by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which you don’t see very often in this current political climate.
Go ahead.
Q: The CIA Director’s participation, was that planned well in advance? Was that the President’s idea? Did he show maps? How — how did all that go?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to go into specifics and details on — on the meeting. What I can say is that the CIA director was there. He laid out the — the consequences, how dire they were. He talked about what was going on in the battle- — in a battlefield, obviously, and how Ukraine was losing ground, which is important.
I think we believe — the President believed it was important to hear from the CIA Director. Let’s not forget the meeting that the President held not too long ago, just last month, had the National Security Council folks in there, other folks from the intelligence community.
So, this is — this is — this is a normal, obviously, situation that we’ve had before in making sure that the Big Four hears directly from the intelligence community, and that’s what you — that’s what happened today.
I’m not going to go into specifics, but he was very clear. He laid it out for them — how dire the consequences are right now. And Ukraine needs our help. The brave people of Ukraine who has been fighting for their democracy, you know, they need continued — continued assistant from us. And it’s not about just their democracy. It’s about our national security as well.
Go ahead, M.J.
Q: Speaker Johnson again called on President Biden to take executive action on the border. Does the White House, at this point, believe that it has many more executive actions that it can take, or does it believe that it’s come close to exhausting those options?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s what I will say, M.J.: We believe in order to deal with what’s happening at the border, you need a legislative solution. You do. It doesn’t matter — we don’t think — we don’t believe — the bottom line is: We don’t believe that an executive action would — would amount to what this legislation — this bipartisan legislation would have – would have been able to do if it was enacted into law — if it was passed, obviously, and enacted into law.
And what it would have done is been the toughest but also fairest deal, with providing resources, obviously, that’s needed for law enforcement, and make some key changes as it relates to the immigration — immigration system. That’s what I believe.
I don’t have anything to share about additional executive action. As I’ve said before, don’t have a decision here to — to share with all of you.
But we fundamentally believe that if that bipartisan agreement that came out from the Senate was — was moved or was even voted out of the Senate and then, obviously, moved to the House and enacted into law, it would have been the first step, that beginning step, to deal with a real issue that majority of Americans care about.
Anything else, I just don’t have an- — anything to share.
Q: I have a question on a different topic. Former President Trump suggested recently that his mugshot and his legal troubles are being embraced by Black people because they understand what it’s like to be targeted and discriminated against.
I just wonder: You know, you are a White House that prides itself on, you know, your relationship with the Black community, it’s, you know, outreach to the Black community. The President himself talks frequently about how he believes he won in 2020 thanks to Black voters. What was his response to that comment from the former President?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, and I do have a couple of things to say about that. I want to be really careful because it was said — he said it as a candidate. Obviously, don’t want to comment on 2024. But speaking separately — right? — speaking apart from that and just being very candid here, it’s repugnant and it’s defice — divisive to — to traffic in racist stereotypes. That’s what we have seen. And that affect all Americans, right? You’re tearing up all Americans by doing this.
It is, again, divisive and repugnant. And it’s coming from, obviously, a former president of the United States. And in any context, it is profane to compare the long, painful history — the long, painful history of abuse and discrimination suffered by Black Americans and — to something that is totally different than self-serving purposes.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, and I do have a couple of things to say about that. I want to be really careful because it was said — he said it as a candidate. Obviously, don’t want to comment on 2024. But speaking separately — right? — speaking apart from that and just being very candid here, it’s repugnant and it’s defice — divisive to — to traffic in racist stereotypes. That’s what we have seen. And that affect all Americans, right? You’re tearing up all Americans by doing this.
Q: Just to clarify, is that description reflective of how the President himself —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I speak for —
Q: — is —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — the President of the United States as the White House Press Secretary. Absolutely.
Q: He’s aware of the comments, through, from the former President?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Ab- — he’s aware of the comments. I’ve spoken to him directly about these comments. He’s aware.
Go ahead, Karen.
Q: Thanks. Back on the Ukraine aid. You’ve said several times during this briefing that the House should put on the floor the bipartisan bill that the Senate has already passed. House Speaker Mike Johnson said after the meeting that he was very clear with the President that the House is “actively pursuing and investigating all the various options” on that. That doesn’t sound like he is ready to just take that Senate bill and put it on the floor.
Can you tell us what he said to the President about the “various options” that the House would consider? Are they going to break up what the Hou- — what the Senate has already passed? Would they put something into it? What did he tell the President?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What — what we are supporting right now is the national security supplemental that came out of the Senate. That’s what we want to see. That’s what we want to see put on the floor. That’s what we’re going to continue to make sure we push forward.
There is bipartisan support. You’re talking about one — obviously, one member — one member in Congress. But we have seen other members, other Republicans who have said they would support this, who have said they want to have bi- — they want to vote on this national security supplemental. It would get — we know it would get bipartisan support.
And so, that’s what we want to see. We’re going to be consistent on that. That’s how we want to see the House move forward.
Q: But did the Speaker tell the President he would not put that Senate bill on the floor as it is right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would let the Speaker speak for himself. I think you were talking about a con- — another congressional member.
Q: No, I’m saying —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m so sorry.
Q: — Speaker Johnson said that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Well —
Q: Af- — after the meeting, Johnson said that he told the President that the House is pursuing and investigating various options on the security — supplemental security bill.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We have been very clear: We want to see the national security supplemental that was passed out of the Senate go to the floor of the House. We know it would get bipartisan support. That’s what we want to see.
And what I said — and you — you are correct, all fours — all four congressional leaders understood the gravity as it relates to the national security supplemental, as it relates to Ukraine — the gravity of the situation in Ukraine. They heard directly from the CIA Director: We want to see the national security supplemental that — that came out — 70-29 out of the Senate. It should be put to the floor. We know it would get bipartisan support.
Go ahead.
Q: Hi, Karine. Thanks. You’ve referenced several times that the bipartisan Senate border bill has been endorsed by the union that represents Border Patrol agents. Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council — the main union for the Border Patrol agents — will actually be joining Donald Trump on Thursday for his border visit. And he said he actually did not receive an invite from the White House. And we were wondering what your response to that is and if there was any reason why.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I — I — we’ll have more to share on what Thursday is going to look like. We’ll have more to share on who is going to be joining the President. I don’t have anything beyond — beyond what I just laid out.
But is a fact that the — the Border — the Border Patrol union did indeed support the bipartisan proposal that came out of — of the Senate. And I think that’s important to state.
I can’t speak for him being with the former President in Texas. That’s for him, obviously, to speak to.
AIDE: One or two more.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, April. Go ahead.
Q: Karine, this week, the Vice President has been talking to groups about voting rights. She – as you said at the top today, she’s going to Selma on Sunday to commemorate Bloody Sunday. But the actual date of Bloody Sunday’s anniversary is March 7th, the day of the State of the Union address.
Now, with that said, is the President going to deal with the issue of voting rights within the State of the Union Address that happens to fall on the historic date of Bloody Sunday? And what can he say and what will he say as we are now voting without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act? It’s been completely gutted, so —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — what’s he going to talk about?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re right. It’s been completely gutted. And its shameful that it’s been completely gutted.
I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s State of the Union Address. I want to be really mindful. The President is working on it. And obviously —
Q: How many drafts?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I’m not going to get into that.
But what I can say is obviously the President understands, and you’ve seen him do this a couple times before — right? — address Congress, and not just address Congress — speak directly to the American pe- — to American people in primetime about the state of the Union —
Q: Right.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — about what he sees is important to the American people, how to move forward. And you’ll see him address that. Just not going to get ahead of that.
As it relates to voting rights, look, you’re right. You know, the access to — to voting has been compromised in many ways. It’s been gutted, obviously, as you just laid out. And let’s not forget the action that the President took very early on in his administration. He signed an executive action to deal with vo – — voting rights access on the federal level.
And so, he took that very, very seriously, and he continues to call for Congress to take action here on voting rights.
And so, I’m not going to speak to the President’s State of the Union and if that’s going to be included. You’re right, it’s going to be on a — on a very important anniversary of Selma. I just don’t want to get ahead of the President at this time.
Q: Okay. So, let’s stick with the State of the Union and then something different. So, State of the Union is typically optimistic about what’s going on in the country. Is the state of the Union strong at this point?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to let the President speak to that. But look, I think I was asked this question earlier about the optimism of this President. He is optimistic. And you hear him say — he tends to end many of his speeches — and I kind of said this a bit — about possibilities and how important it is.
And, you know, as President, as authentically Joe Biden, he believes in possibilities. He believes in all communities, as we’re talking about voting rights, to have the possibilities — to not be left behind.
And you see that in every policy that he’s moved forward with, especially his economic policies. You see that in all of the legislation, to make sure that we have equity at the center of all of these important pieces of legislation and policies that we move forward with.
And he wants to make sure that we build a – for example, an economy from the bottom up, middle out. And we have seen — we have seen some successes in these communities. We have seen success in the economy, turning it around. It was at a tailspin when the President walked in after what we saw the last administration do to the economy.
And so, look, he’s going to continue to do the work. Again, I don’t want to get ahead of this President. You’ll hear from him directly, obviously, on that day on the state of the Union. But he is always optimistic. And I think it is important — I think, for him, it is important, as you speak to the American people, you have to show that optimism, even if there are still a lot of — as there’s still a lot of work to be done.
All right. Go ahead, (inaudible). I’m going to start wrapping it up. Go ahead.
Q: Thank you, Karine. Speaker Johnson left here saying that — “Border first.” Do we know what he wants at the border? There’s many actions that the President could take. Does he have anything that — that he’s demanding, and is there anything the President could give up to compromise so he would move up Ukraine?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, here’s the thing, Cristina — and I appreciate the question. I don’t think he knows what he wants. No, ser- — and I say that very seriously.
They first asked for — when we put forward the national security supplemental, it has border security in it, and we were told by the Speaker and others we need to deal with the border security challenges first. You had a bipartisan group of senators coming — coming out of the Senate, working for four months with — with the White House to put forward a bipartisan piece of legislation that dealt with an important, important — important challenge that we see at the border in immigration.
And then, so, we did that. We moved that forward. We presented it. And it — we were told, “No, no, no, no, no, we want — we don’t want the border security; we want just the national security supplemental without border security.”
Then, the Senate goes back, and they pass the national security supplemental without the border security — 70-29. We did that – or they did that, and the Speaker refuses to put that to the floor.
So, what is it that he really wants here? If you look at the border security deal, that proposal, it has –components of that has what the Speaker has been talking about for years.
So, the question is really for him. Like, you know — and — and let’s not forget why that happened. That happened because Donald Trump told them — told Republicans that if they move forward with the border security negotiated deal that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way, that it would help this current president — it would help President Joe Biden.
And they put politics — they put politics first, instead of the American people. That’s what we’ve seen. This is what has been developing. You all have written about it. That’s what we have seen.
Now we’re going to continue to talk about the dire needs that we’re — the consequences that we’re seeing in Ukraine, as you just heard me say over and over again during this briefing, and the importance of getting that national security supplemental done. They heard directly from the CIA Director — right? — today.
We’re going to continue — the President is going to go to Texas — Brownsville, Texas, to be more specific — to talk about the importance of moving forward with the border security challenges, that particular negotiation that came forth in a bipartisan way, So, the question is really for him. Like, you know — and — and let’s not forget why that happened. That happened because Donald Trump told them — told Republicans that if they move forward with the border security negotiated deal that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way, that it would help this current president — it would help President Joe Biden.
We’re going to continue — the President is going to go to Texas — Brownsville, Texas, to be more specific — to talk about the importance of moving forward with the border security challenges, that particular negotiation that came forth in a bipartisan way.
And let’s not forget: The clock is ticking on the government shutdown. This is not how our government should be done — moved here — run here. You know, House Republicans need to do their jobs. They need to do their jobs. They need to do what is best — what is best for our national security, what is best for the American people.
I know you guys are probably tired of hearing me speak. We’ll see you guys tomorrow.
Q: Thanks, Karine!
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Bye!
February 27, 2024: Readout of President Biden and Vice President Harris’s Meeting with Congressional Leadership on Government Funding and the Bipartisan National Security Supplemental
Today, President Biden and Vice President Harris met with Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Johnson, and Leader Jeffries in the Oval Office about the urgency of keeping the government open and paying the bipartisan national security supplemental.
The President made clear that Congress must take swift action to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. A shutdown is unacceptable and would cause needless damage to hardworking families, our economy, and our national security. He emphasized that the only path forward is through bipartisan funding bills that deliver for the American people and are free of any extreme policies.
The President also emphasized the urgent need for Congress to continue standing with Ukraine as it defends itself every day against Russia’s brutal invasion. He discussed how Ukraine has lost ground on the battlefield in recent weeks and is being forced to ration ammunition and supplies due to Congressional inaction.
He underscored the importance of the bipartisan national security supplemental, which passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and would pass in the House if it were brought to a vote.
He made it clear that in addition to arming Ukraine and investing in America’s defense industrial base, the bill would help Israel defend itself against Hamas, and provide more humanitarian aid for those impacted by conflicts around the world, including Palestinian civilians who are experiencing dire humanitarian conditions.
February 27, 2024: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday said lawmakers are “making good progress” to avoid a government shutdown. (The Hill)
“We are making good progress. We made it very clear. The Speaker said unequivocally he wants to avoid a government shutdown,” Schumer told reporters outside the White House after he and other top congressional leaders met with President Biden.
“We made it clear that means not letting any of the government appropriations bills lapse, which means you need some [continuing resolutions] to get that done, but we’re making good progress and we’re hopeful that we can get this done really quickly,” Schumer said.
Schumer met with the president alongside Speaker Mike Johnson (R.La.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D. N.Y.), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R- Ky.).
Returning to the Capitol, McConnell told reporters, “We talked about keeping the government open, which I think we all agree on.” Schumer said there are “little back-and-forth’s on different issues that different people want,” but he said he didn’t think those matters were “insurmountable: — calling it “heartening” to hear Johnson say he wants to avoid a shutdown…
February 27, 2024: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Tuesday said he is “very optimistic Congress will avert a shutdown by Friday’s deadline after meeting with President Biden and top congressional leaders at the White House (The Hill)
“We have been working in good faith around the clock every single day for moths and weeks, and over the last several days, quite literally around the clock to get that job done. We’re very optimistic,” Johnson told reporters on the White House lawn. “We believe that we can get to agreement on these issues and prevent a government shutdown, and that’s our first responsibility.”
“We will get the government funded and we’ll keep working on that,” he later added.
The positive outlook comes three days ahead of Friday’s partial government funding deadline, when four of the 12 annual spending bills are due. Without congressional action this week, a slew of programs and agencies will shut down. The remaining eight bills will lapse on March 8.
Congressional leaders had hoped to unveil the compromise spending measures over the weekend, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D- N.Y.) informed members in a Sunday letter that the negotiators had not yet reached an agreement on the legislation…
…Johnson has been under intense pressure from his right flank to push for a number of controversial policy additions to annual spending bills, including provisions related to the border, abortion and language that would eliminate the salaries of various Cabinet officials. Those request, however, have been soundly rejected by Democrats…
February 27, 2024: Three of Congress’s top four leaders had a loud and unified message for Speaker Mike Johnson (R- La.) when they met with him at the White House on Tuesday: Ignore the pressure from conservative critics and avoid a government shutdown on Friday. (The Hill)
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D- N.Y), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D- N.Y.) emerged from the meeting, which participants described as “intense” and “passionate,” feeling somewhat reassured that Johnson heard their pleas.
“It was a productive and intense meeting,” Schumer said outside the White House. “We made it so clear that we can’t have the shutdown because it hurts so many people in so many different ways.”
Schumer said “the Speaker did not reject” the warning and “said he wants to avoid a government shutdown.”
Jeffries said after the meeting that the atmosphere was “intense” as leaders in the room, which included President Biden and Vice President Harris, emphasized “the need to avoid a government shutdown and to fund the government so we can address the needs of the American public.”
He said negotiators are making “real progress” on the appropriations bills for federal departments and agencies that will see their funding lapse on March 1 without congressional action. Those bills include funding for military construction and the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.
“I’m cautiously optimistic that we can do what is necessary in the next day or so to close down these bills and avoid a government shutdown,” he said.
But he also warned that Congress may have to pass another stopgap spending measure to fund the department of Defense, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and other agencies that will see their funding lapse after a second March 8 deadline…
…Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D- Wash.) said on the Senate Floor Tuesday that the policy riders Freedom Caucus conservatives are trying to add to the spending bills are threatening to derail the legislation before March 1 and March 8 deadlines.
“The biggest obstacle right now has been Republican poison pills that were never truly on the table. They were always going to be non-starters,” she said.
“But we have made really good progress on the first few bills, and we can get them done if extreme demands are pushed aside. We cannot let a few far-right extremists derail the basic functioning of the government,” she added.
Senate Democrats and Republicans — as well as House Democrats — have become increasingly concerned about Johnson’s ability to avoid a shutdown in light of how much difficulty he’s faced passing legislature this and last year…
February 27, 2024: Readout of President Biden and Vice President Harris’s Meeting with Congressional Leadership on Government Funding and the Bipartisan National Security Supplemental
Today, President Biden and Vice President Harris met with Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Johnson, and Leader Jeffries in the Oval Office about the urgency of keeping the government open and passing the bipartisan national security supplemental.
The President made clear that Congress must take swift action to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. A shutdown is unacceptable and would cause needless damage to hardworking families, our economy, and our national security. He emphasized that the only path forward is through bipartisan funding bills that deliver for the American people and are free of any extreme politics.
The President also emphasized the urgent need for Congress to continue standing with Ukraine as it defends itself every day against Russia’s brutal invasion. He discussed how Ukraine has lost ground on the battlefield in recent weeks and is being forced to ration ammunition and supplies due to Congressional inaction.
He underscored the importance of the bipartisan national security supplemental, which passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and would pass in the House if it was brought to a vote. He made clear that in addition to arming Ukraine and investing in America’s defense industrial base, the bill would help Israel defend itself against Hamas, and provide more humanitarian aid for those impacted by conflicts around the world, including Palestinian civilians who are experiencing dire humanitarian conditions.
February 28, 2024: House Speaker Mike Johnson Wednesday quipped the reports Congressional leaders ganged up on him during this week’s meeting at the White House are “pretty accurate.” (The Hill)
Johnson, along with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D. N.Y), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D. N.Y.) met at the White House with President Biden and Vice President Harris on Tuesday for talks on funding for Ukraine and efforts to avert a government shutdown.
Meeting participants described the talks as “intense” and “productive,” and said they felt somewhat reassured Johnson heard their pleas to avoid a government shutdown on Friday…
…Johnson’s comments came just hours after Congressional leaders struck a deal to avert a government shutdown at the end of the week. Under the deal announced Wednesday, leaders agreed to punt a pair of funding deadlines into March to allow more time for spending talks.
This deal came after what one Republican senator told The Hill was piled pressure on Johnson during Tuesday’s meeting.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the senator said, “When you can demonstrate it’s kind of three against one, you can kind of pressure or influence someone, and I hope that’s what he senses.”
The leaders in the room were also unified when it came to asking Johnson to pass the Senate’s $95 million foreign aid package, including $60 billion for Ukraine. Johnson has signaled he will not bring the package to the House floor as it lacks border security provisions House GOP members have demanded for months.
February 28, 2024: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone.
Q: Good afternoon.
Q: Hello.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughter.) Hi. Hello. Thanks, Weijia.
All right. A couple of things at the top before we get going.
The President has been receiving updates on the wildfires that have already scorched over 500,000 acres across the Texas Panhandle. We are grateful for the brave firefighters and first responders who are working to protect people and save lives. And we urge everyone in the affected area to remain vigilant and heed the warmings of local officials, especially those who have been ordered to evacuate.
White House and federal officials are in close contact with state and local officials on the frontlines of these fires, and FEMA and the U.S. Forest Service are providing assistance to — to the state. Specifically, FEMA has issued two fire management assistant grants to support Texas and one grant for Oklahoma.
The National Interagency Fire Center and the U.S. Forest Service are also providing firefighting assistance, including tanker planes. As always, we stand ready to provide further support as needed.
And tomorrow, following Secretary Becerra’s trip to Alabama, the White House Gender Policy Council, and Office of Public Engagement will host a listening session on the importance of access to IVF; and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in fed – — in federal law for all women in every state.
And we will have more, obviously, to share in this event later today.
Also today, President Biden will sign an executive order to protect Americans’ sensitive personal data from exploitation by countries of concern. This is the most significant executive action any president has ever taken to protect Americans’ data security. It will authorize the Attorney General to prevent the large-scale transfer of Americans’ personal data to countries of concern and provide safeguards around other activities that can give those countries access to sensitive data.
Buying data through data brokers is currently legal in the United States, and that reflects a gap in our national security. Today, we are taking narrowly crafted steps to close that gap.
Aver- — as a result of the EO, the Department of Justice will begin a process to put regulations in place to prohibit the scale of data or — the sale of data, pardon me, or put in place a cybersecurity safeguards on the transfer of data.
Of course, throughout this process, we engage heavily with industry and other stakeholders to minimize any unintended economic impacts that will continue as this process moves forward. The administration is committed to protecting American safety and privacy, and we will continue to take appropriate action to ensure their protection.
With that, Aamer, you want to kick us off?
Q: Yes. On Leader McConnell’s announcement today. Did he call or let the President know — he was here yesterday — ahead of the announcement —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: – that he would be making it?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any — any details to read out to you outside of, obviously, the readout that we — the we had or beyond the rea- — readout that we had from yesterday. You heard directly from the President just moments ago. I believe you were in the room, Aamer.
And I’ll quote the President: “He and I have trust. We have a great relationship. We fight like hell, but he has never, never, never misrepresented anything. I’m sorry he’s stepping down.”
I just don’t have anything outside of that.
Q: So, to that end, what does this mean, if anything, for current negotiations on big items like the — this foreign aid supplemental or even the CR?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t — I don’t presume it means anything, right? He said he’s going to step down, essentially, at the — by the end of the year. I don’t think that affects his leadership. Leader McConnell has been a leader, as you know, for some time of the Senate.
And he’s been very clear, as well as the other four — the other three of the Big Four yesterday. They said it was important. They all agree the importance of making sure Ukraine gets the funding that they need. They all four agreed with the President and the Vice President on making sure that we keep the government open.
And I think that’s important — important to note. And so, I don’t think it affects Mitch McConnell’s leadership in this current time as we’re moving forward.
Look, we have bipartisan support in the Senate. And we know that we have bipartisan support on — on the House side as it relates, obviously, to the national security supplemental. And we want to see the House bring that forward and out that to the floor so we can see that moving so we can make sure that the brave people of Ukraine gets — continues to get the assistance that they need from the United States.
Q: And the Leader also noted in his speech that, “Father Time remains undefeated,” and “It is time for the next generation of leadership.” How does that sentiment resonate, if at all, with the President?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this. Look, we — a decision like that the — that the — Mitch McConnell, the Senator, made a very personal decision. And that is for an individual to make and decide on. And he spoke to it. So, I’ll certainly let the senator continue to speak to that, if he chooses. And we know his words. We heard it on the floor of the Senate today.
The President has been very clear. The President has said he wants to continue to deliver for the American people, as he has done for the last three years in a historic fashion.
This is — this is a historic presidency when you think about how we’ve turned the economy around; when you think about how we’ve been able to — the President has been able to beat — beat Big Pharma and let Medicare negotiate for — for the American people, making sure that we’re getting these prices to be lower; a climate change aden — agenda; passing an Inf — the Inflation Reduction Act, a incredibly important piece of legislation, obviously, that is now law that’s going to do — that’s going to move the climate situation in a direction that is in the positive way — right? — and to make sure that we’re dealing with the climate — the climate change issue.
So, there’s a lot of things that the President has done. He wants to continue that. And that’s what he’s looking forward to do. And obviously, you’ll hear a lot more from him next week as he addresses — addresses Congress.
Q: And could you just indulge me on just one non-McConnell question?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Sure.
Q: He’s going to be at the border tomorrow. What should we expect him to see and do, and what’s his objective? What dies he hope to accomplish tomorrow?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, — as you all know, we’ve — we’ve announced and you have all reported he’s going to Brownsville, Texas, tomorrow. He’s going to meet with Border Patrol agents, law enforcement officials, frontline personnel, and local leaders.
While he is there, the President will be briefed by officials from the Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. And the President will also deliver remarks to highlight the need for Congress to pass the bipartisan border security agreement that was negotiated out of the Senate, as you know, not too long ago and took four months — four moths of us, the White House, working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to get that done. And, obviously, Republicans have rejected that because of politics.
Go ahead, Selina.
Q: Thanks, Karine. The President said he’s sorry to hear that McConnell is stepping down. But what impact broadly does he believe this will have on the Republican Party, on the future of the party, and the future of Congress?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to get into — you know, into evaluating or looking into how this is going to affect the Republican Party. That’s for them to speak to.
What we’re going to continue to do is work on behalf of the American people. We know where the — where — where the Big Four stand as it relates to making sure that we get that national security supplemental done in a bipartisan way. It was done in the Senate in a bipartisan way. We want to see that get to the floor.
We know where the Big Four stood yesterday on making sure that there is not a shutdown, that that is avoided, that Congress do its job and keep the — keep the government open to make sure that Americans get the programs that they need from — from the federal government — important programs, important — import- — important resources that is critical to the American people.
That’s where we stand. That’s what we understand. As it relates to the Republican Party, that’s for the Republican Party to speak to.
Q: And did the President take a mental fitness or cognitive test during his physical this morning?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just say I did see Dr. O’Conner in — he stepped into my office earlier today, after the President completed his physical this morning, as you all know. He was happy with how everything went. And as soon as he finishes completing the memo — it will be a robust, comprehensive memo — we will certainly share that with all of you, as we have done in the last two years.
And look, you saw the President return to work. He took some of your questions not too long ago, and you saw he’s going to continue to — to fight for the American people. And in this particular instance, he was talking about fighting — fighting crime. So, the President is going to continue that — that process.
As it relates to — you were asking me about a cognitive test — as it relates to that, look, you know, the President doesn’t need a cognitive test. That is not my assessment. That is not my assessment. That is the assessment of the President’s doctor. That is also the assessment of the neurologists who has also made that assessment as well.
And, you know, — and you’ve heard us say this, and I’ll reiterate this: The President’s doctor has said, if you look at what this President — the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief– he passes a cognitive test every day — every day, as he moves from one topic to another topic, trying — understanding the granular level of these topics.
You saw him talk about a fighting crime today. Tomorrow, he’s going to go to the border. Next week, he’s going to give a State of the Union Address.
And so, we have keep that in mind. This is a very rigorous job. And the President has been able to do — do this job every day for the past three years.
And let’s not forget, he is also leading a historic presidency, which is also important to note in everything we’ve been able to do — he’s been able to get done over the past three years.
Q: But given that there’s been so much scrutiny, and you say there’s no problem, he would pass the test every day, why not just have his doctor administer the test and then case closed?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because the doctor doesn’t believe that he be- — he needs one, because his — including the neurologist doesn’t believe he needs one.
Look, I think, — I think folks need to understand that the President passes, again, a cognitive test every day. If you look at what a clinical cognitive test is actually, what it actually does, it is a 15-minute appointment that is — that is administered by someone that, most of the time, people don’t actually know.
And — and — and the President has a team of doctors that is with him 24/7. And he is able to do the work every day that is rigorous — that is more rigorous than it would be for any 15-minute clinical — clinical appointment.
And you thin about the job growth, you think about the record small-business action, you think about the bloom in that — in that particular space of 16 million more small businesses have been cre- created. You think about delivering historic investment — that has been done by a president who has to deal with these issues every day, again, on a granular level.
And — and so, his doctor, including the neurologist, do not believe that he needs one. That is their assessment.
Go ahead, Jeff.
Q: Thanks, Karine. Is the President’s expectation still that a ceasefire will take place in Gaza starting Monday?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President, obviously, and his team has been working 24/7 for some time now, as you all know, to get to a — to get to a cea- — a ceasefire. Obviously, that would also include humanitarian aid get — going into Gaza. That would also include making sure that we get hostages home, including American hostages back home to their friends and families, obviously, which is incredibly important.
We are working around the clock to get that done. The President — you heard the President a couple of days ago say that he is certainly — he is optimistic and hopeful in getting done. And so, that is incredibly important to this President, to his entire team to secure — to secure that deal — that hostage deal. So, we’re going to continue focusing on that.
I wish I had something to share of any news on where we were. I do not. But this is a priority for this President.
Q: I’m just curious if he still thinks that timeline is realistic. (Inaudible)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think he’s optimistic and he believes that it is — it is important to get done.
Q: And separately, did the President monitor his son’s testimony today in Congress? And does he have a comment or does the White House have a broader comment about it?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can’t speak to — I can’t speak to the President monitoring that. Obviously, he was busy this morning. You saw him go to Walter Reed. And obviously, he gave remarks and met with — did remarks on crime and met with some law enforcement.
What I would say is — just going to be, you know, as — anything that’s related to — to Hunter, obviously, Hunter and his representatives can speak to that on any specifics regarding his testimony.
I’ll say this broadly, and we’ve been very clear here that we think it’s a stunt that has dragged on for months and months and months. It’s uncovered zero evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. In fact, House Republicans’ own wit- — own witnesses have refuted allegations over and over again, and — with the core premise of their inquiry continues to fall apart.
You all have reported this. We have seen this for the past several months.
So, House Republicans would be better off in helping American families. There’s a national security supplemental that, if it went to the floor, it would pass. That would help our own national security, that would help Ukraine, that would help other — making sure that we get that humanitarian aid into Gaza, making sure that we’re continuing to assist Israel. And also, let’s not forget the Indo-Pacific.
There is a potential shutdown. The clock is ticking. They need to do their jobs and get that done.
And so, look, you know, that’s kind of where we are with this. It’s dragged on. There’s zero evidence. We think it’s baseless.
Anything else, I would refer you to our Hou- White House Counsel.
Go ahead.
Q: Just on the news about Senator McConnell. Does — do you know if the President feels like he increasingly has fewer Republican governing partners that he can work with?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, we’re talking about Mitch McConnell, the Leader. Obviously, he’s been — he’s been in that — in that role as Senator for some time, has worked closely with this President. You heard from the President how he views their relationship — a very important relationship.
But, look, we were able to get a bipartisan negotiation coming out of the Senate on border security, on — on dealing with a broken immigration system, which is something that people didn’t think we’d be able to do.
Se- you know, that is really important. We were able to get a bi- — bipartisan support on the national security supplemental — 70 to 29 — you know? And I think that is also important that we were able to do that in the political climate that w’re in.
Are we sorry to see Mitch McConnell go? Because, obviously — in November, when he steps down, he still — sounds like he’s still going to be in the Senate. He’s just stepping down as leadership. So, I want to make that clear as well. And the President said he’s sorry to — to see that happen.
But we believe that there are still ways and still Republicans, certainly, in the Senate that we can work with in a bipartisan way. And we have done that. We have done that over the last three years.
Q: A little follow-up to Jeff’s question but more narrowly tailored, I guess. Is the e President supportive of his son, Hunter, you know, sitting down for this closed-door deposition today? Does he think it’s a good idea?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to get into private conversations that the President has with his family. Just not going to do it from here. I’m just going to leave it there.
I shared our thoughts on this. We’ve ben very clear how we think it’s a political stunt. We would love to work with the House R- — with House Republicans on issues that matter to the American people. The President has said: It’s — why don’t they focus on the American people instead of his family? And everything that they have moved forward with as it relates to this, certainly, has been baseless.
I’m just not going to get into a private conversation with the President.
Q: Thank you, Karine. Was President Biden surprised that more than 100,000 voters in Michigan in yesterday’s primary chose to vote that they were “uncommitted”?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’ll say this. The President is — appreciates the people of Michigan coming out last night to make sure that their voices were heard yesterday. I think that’s really important. And he is proud to have received more than 80 percent of the Democratic Party voters’ vote. And I think that’s really important.
As it relates to the uncommitted, look, I said this yesterday: There has been senior officials that have gone to Michigan, as recently as earlier this month, to hear directly from the Muslim and Arab American community. And we understand how — how personal this is, how this moment is incredibly painful. And we’re going to continue to have those conversations. And we’re going to make sure that we continue to listen and continue to engage.
And as I mentioned earlier before, this is why it’s important to get this hostage deal. It will be accompanied with a temporary ceasefire. And so, we want to see that done. We want to see that moving forward. The President is going to continue to work on that 24/7.
And — and let’s not forget: We’re going to continue to work on making sure there is a two-state solution as well.
And so, he is — he appreciates folks getting out there, making their voices heard. But he also got more than 80 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary, and that’s important, too, to note.
Go ahead, Jordan.
Q: Thanks, Karine. It sounds like negotiators on the Hill are making progress toward avoiding a government shutdown. But it seems like they might need a stopgap spending bill to make sure there’s not temporary shutdown. Do you see that as a scenario? And would the President sign one if necessary?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we’re going to let the negotiators do their job, do their work. We’ve been very clear: There is no need for a shutdown here. And, you know, the President and the four — the Big Four made that clear yesterday in their meeting.
And House Republicans need to do their job. They need to do their job. It is not rocket sci- — rocket science — right? — what needs to happen. They need to figure it out, keep the government open, make sure those all-important programs that the American people need continue.
And so, I’m going to let the congressional leaders have their conversations, do their negotiations on the exact path forward, and leave that to them.
Q: The — the House is expected to consider a bill that would transfer the RFK Stadium site in Washington, D.C., to local leadership that would allow it to be redeveloped for, perhaps, another stadium or housing. Does the White House support that bill?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t have anything for you on that. I would have to — I haven’t checked with the team. I know — I saw that reporting. I just don’t have anything to share with you on that.
Q: Then, lastly, Venezuela has proposed some changes to its election that run aground of the agreement it had with the U.S. — moving up the election date, sort of limiting the involvement of opposition. Is the White House aware of that? And if so, what that trigger snapback sanctions if that were the case?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I would have to get back to the team on that — on that particular election question that you just asked me, and just would have to get back to you on that piece — particular piece.
Go ahead, Danny.
Q: Thanks, Karine. The World Food Program has warn — warned that famine is imminent in Northern Gaza. Does the White House share that assessment of the situation there, that a famine is imminent? And has the — has the White House urged Israel specifically to let aid into that — to that particular area?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, this is why we’re trying to get that deal, right? This is why we’re trying to get the hostage deal, which would be accompanied, obviously, by a temporary ceasefire. It is important. It is important to get that aid into Gaza, to make sure that we get the food and the necessary medical needs into Gaza. And so, that is going to — that is certainly why we’re continuing to push, obviously, to make sure that the hostages get home to their families.
And so, this is what the President wants to see. We know that innocent Palestinians are indeed suffering in Gaza. We understand that. The President understands that, which is why he’s been working, again, around the clock, 24/7, to get all-important humanitarian aid.
You heard from my colleague yesterday as — as the administrator from USAID was — is in the region and announced $53 million of additional humanitarian aid that will go into — into Gaza to make sure that that food is getting in, make sure that sup- — other supplies are getting in — critical supplies. And so, that announcement happened yesterday.
So, we are aware of what’s happening on the ground there. And we are going to continue to work 24/7 to get that hostage deal done, to make sure that there is a temporary — a temporary ceasefire, getting that aid in, and getting those hostages home — hostages home.
Go ahead.
Q: Thanks, Karine. Does the President support an extension of the current continuing resolution to later in March to give negotiators time to come to an agreement and avoid a government shutdown?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I just got a version of that question. And, look, I think we were very clear that all four — the Big Four that were here meeting with the President and the Vice President were very clear yesterday — the importance of continu- — continuing to making sure or keeping the government open and not shutting down. The clock is ticking. And they all agreed that we have to keep the government open. They have to do that. Right?
And so, as it relates to the process and how they’re going to do that, I’m going to let the negotiators and congressional members deal with that. They can figure that out.
But it is important — it is important that we keep the government open.
Q: And I hear what you’re saying about Mitch McConnell staying until the end of the year. But with respect to Ukraine aid, based on his comments today, are you concerned that there just isn’t any support for Ukraine aid among many Republicans in Congress —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —
Q: — and that there — and that there won’t be — that they won’t be able to get the votes for that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — I disagree. There is actually support for Ukraine. There is bipartisan support in the House. I mean, they got it, certainly, from the Senate, right? They passed, 70 to 29, a national security supplement that include — that included aid to Ukraine. They just did that.
Now we want t see that go to the floor of the House. And we have heard from Republicans that if it came to the floor, they would vote for it. So, that’s what we want to see.
So, we actually believe there’s support in — in — with House Republicans, obviously with Democrats, to move that really all-important national security supplemental that is needed for — not just for Ukraine and, obviously, Israel and — and Indo-Pacific and what we need to do there in getting that humanitarian aid, obviously, to folks — innocent Palestinians who need it in Gaza, but also for our own national security, it is important that we get it done.
I talked about this yesterday: During the Big Four meeting, we had the CIA Director that was in that meeting that laid out the dire consequences and what we have seen in Ukraine as they have lost — you know, they have lost ground on the battlefield. And it is because of congressional inaction. They laid that out for them.
And so, — and so, look, the CIA Director was clear in that meeting. We have been clear. And they all agreed. They all agreed. All four agreed that we needed to move forward on this.
Go ahead, Karen.
Q: Thanks. Can you talk a little bit about the President’s prep for the State of the Union next week? How involved has he been so far in the drafting of the speech and where this process stands a week out?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we have a little bit mo- — time left. The President, obviously, this is a — the President sees this as an incredibly important opportunity not to just address Congress but also to — to address the American people. Millions of people — millions of Americans are going to be watching and listening to the President talk about the state of the Union, obviously, and how he’s going to move forward with — with his plans for – on behalf of the American people.
As it relates to the draft, it’s always in progress, obviously — almost alwa- — always — almost always to the end, to the final, final minute. And so that President is going to be heavily involved, as he has been for the last two.
He’s looking forward to this moment. We still will — we’ll still — about a week away. And so, there’s still time. There’s still time.
Q: And he’s going to Camp David this weekend. Is that meant to be practice sessions? Is he bringing people up there with him to do speaking (inaudible) —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, he’s going to work — he’s going to work on the State of the Union Address/ He’s going to continue to work on behalf of the American people as he’s there. And so, look, there’s going to be, obviously, focus on — on the speech. Just don’t have anything else to share.
We’ll sh — we’ll have more color for you as we get closer — closer to next Thursday.
Q: And, of course, wh- — should we expect travel after the State of the Union? Would he be doing that traditional “take the message on the road”?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, the President likes to be on the road and talk directly to the American people. So, certainly, you’ll — you should expect the President to get on the road, as he normally does.
Go ahead, Andrew.
Q: Thanks, Karine. On — on the matter of the President’s physical. I know that in the past, Dr. O’Connor has put out a memo to you that gets released —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — to us. The President is the oldest person to ever serve as President. And I know that — you’ve said he takes a cognitive test every day through doing the job and Dr. O’Connor ha said that he remains healthy enough to exercise his various responsibilities.
Having said that, why is — is the President or your office not willing to make Dr. O’Connor available to us to just answer questions here? Previous presidents —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: – have put their doctors up at that lectern. Why — why not this one?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — so a couple things, Andrew. And the President said that they thought he was “too young,” so, you know, you heard from the President. He talked about this when he was asked.
And so, look, as it relates to Dr. O’Connor — look, this is someone who has served under Republican and Democratic presidents in the White House as a military physician, extensively in the field as well. And — and so, he is well respected. And let’s not rememb- let’s not forget, there was a — he did this with a team — a team of 20 — 20 doctors who participated in completing the President’s physical at Walter Reed. So it wasn’t just him. There were specialists that were part of this as well.
Q: Yes, and —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And — and I think that’s important to note.
And as I said, at the beginning, when I —
Q: But —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Let me finish. I said, at the beginning, when I was asked this question: It’s not just Dr. O’Connell — O’Conor who said this; also, his neurologist does — do not believe that he needed — that was their assessment — that they did not believe he needed a cognitive test.
As it relates to your question, there is not a precedent for bringing the doctor to — to the podium. And it — or to the brof- — to the briefing room.
Like, I understand it has happened a few times over the 35 years, a couple of times, but it is actually not the president. And so, what Dr. O’Connor has done is he has put forward, over the last two years, a comprehensive, robust — robust memo — as you just state, that is sent to me and then, obviously, we disseminate it to all of you — that lays out — lays out in parts of the President’s physical. And I think that’s important. It is — it is robust, and it is comprehensive.
Q: That — that being said, I know it hasn’t been, you know, a yearly thing for every president. But given the President’s age; given that his age is a concern for Americans, accor- –according to polling, it is an issue; and he — that the is the oldest person to ever serve as president, why would it not help, in your estimation, to put Dr. O’Connor or any of the other medical unit physicians that —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — that saw the President up there to answer questions, not necessarily from, you know, all of us but some of our colleagues who are medical correspondents, people who really know — know the medical field. Can he be made available to some of them, even if you don’t want to put him up here?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not a doctor. The doctor — the —
Q: Me neither. (Inaudible.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right. And I am — and that’s why I’m telling you and you will see from the doctor himself in a couple of hours. We will certainly make this robust, comprehensive memo, as we have done the last two years, available to all of you.
And the reason I said I’m not a doctor is because his own doctor — his personal doctor, as well as the neurologist — has said that we don’t need to have a cognitive test. As it relates to the Pres- — the doctor coming to — coming to the briefing room, it is not a norm. We’re trying to get back to the norm that it was — it used to be where doctor’s don’t come to the briefing room.
It is not — it is not the norm. It is not. It has happened a couple of times over the 35 years, but it’s not the norm.
And so, look, the — the doctor has also said that, look, he is — he is a professional here. He doesn’t want to make this about politics. he wants to make this about the work. He wants to make this about making sure that we put forward to — to you — he puts forward to all of you a robust, comprehensive memo. And that is what we — we’re going to do. We did it the last two years, and we’re going to do it again.
Q: Okay. One more on — on Gaza and the Michigan results last night. There are many, many voters in Michigan – Arab American voters — who have said they — they cannot vote for the President again because of what transpired in Gaza. there are many who voted “uncommitted” to register their disapproval but remaining open to voting for the President in November.
What is he going to do between now and November to assuage the concerns of people who, in many cases, have lost family members, have — have seen horrible things happen to the people they love over here, and they’ve seen him literally go over and hug the man that they believe is responsible? How is he going to clean that up?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — and I have answered this already, and I’ll say it — maybe I’ll say it this way. Look, the President understands. He understands how painful this moment is to many people. He gets that, which is why he has had conversations with the Arab and Muslim — Muslim community, listened directly to them and heard their concerns.
You — you’ve heard me say just moments ago how senior officials went to Michigan and listened and engaged. And we’re going to continue to do that.
And this is why he is continuing to work on securing a hostage deal. This is why he is continuing to work to do just that. And if we do that, which is going to be accompanied by a temporary ceasefire, that is going to be important. It is going to be important to do.
And his team has made that a priority. We’re going to continue to get that done. And let’s not forget, we got to continue to make sure we get to a two-state solution. And so, those are the — those are the commitments that the President has made.
And as it relates to the pain that community is going through, obviously, we’re going to continue to listen, we’re going to continue to engage, and we understand how painful this is for so many — for so many in this country.
Go ahead.
Q: Thanks, Karine. Do you know: Will the report from Dr. O’Connor include the rationale for not doing a cognitive test?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I believe that, as I said, the report will be robust and comprehensive. It will certainly speak to that as well.
Q: And do you know: Does the President have any plans to go to Michigan in the coming weeks or months? And might that include meeting with Arab American leaders?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t want to get ahead of — of the President’s schedule. Obviously, the President is going to do a lot of travel over the next several weeks and months. Just don’t have anything to share specifically on Michigan.
Go ahead.
Q: Thank you, Karine. Why go to Brownsville, Texas, specifically?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think the President — and I said this at the top, and I’ve said this many times — he wanted to show that it was important for him to go down there to hear from Border Patrol agents, to hear from first responders on what’s going on on the ground. He’s been — he’s been to the border before — recently in this administration.
And he also wants to lay out the work that he has been able to do with sen- — with senators in a — in a bipartisan way. We were able to come — come forward to the American people — push forward a bipartisan bill that dealt with the border — the challenges at the border that also dealt with a broken immigration system. We were able to do that.
And, you know, as I said — as I’ve said many times, it was support- — it’s supported by the Border Patrol union, U.S. — U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and that is not something you see every day. But what we ended up — what ended up happening is that Republicans rejected it. They rejected it because of the last president and the politics around the last president.
And so, look, the President is going to — he said — we actually even said that once the bill was killed by Republicans that — that the American people are going to hear directly from American — from — from the President.
Q: Well, the reason I ask is because Brownsville is one of the slower sectors. In the month of February, they averaged, I think, 17 illegal crossings a day for a little more than 450 in the month. The number one sector has — had more than 14,000 in the same time period. This administration has often criticized Republicans when they go to the border and hold similar press conferences as saying they’re doing publicity stunts and photo ops. So, how is this any different?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, it’s very different. What House Republicans have done is nothing — absolutely nothing. If anything, they consistently get in the way — they consistently get in the way of what the President is trying to do to get more resources.
They are turning this into a political stunt by listening to Donald Trump and saying that they need to kill it — this is what they’ve been doing — and making it political, where the President got his team now — directed his team to work with senators, both Republicans and Democrats, to get a bill done.
Q: But the President is not going to actually see the parts of the border where it’s actually really bad.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think — I think you’re missing the point. The point is the President actually did the work to get a bipartisan bill done that act- — that deals with an issue that the majority of Americans care about. He did. It felt with border security challenges. It dealt with immigration iss — policy. He actually did that.
Republicans got in the way. They rejected it. Well, Republicans in the House got in the way, and then it as rejected because of what they are told by the last — by the last president, by Donald Trump, to kill it.
Q: What do you say to people, though, who think that this is just an election-year stunt — finally hearing about the border —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We worked —
Q: — after it’s been a problem for the last three years?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, here’s the thing. Here’s what I would say. On the first day of this President administration, he put out a comprehensive immigration policy to deal with this issue. He did that on the first day. That was his first piece of legislation.
I would hole the American people would see how serious this President was — or is about — about fixing this issue. Not only that: spent four months — four months having a bipartisan conversation, doing negotiations to come up with a — with a — with a bill, with a pol — proposal that was, again, approved by the Border Patrol union — right? — that was – that’s supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
We don’t see that. And that’s because of the President’s direction of what he was able to do because he got involved and worked with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. And then when we got this bill done — by the way, it included a lot of thing that House Republicans wanted — when the got that done, it was rejected because of politics.
I mean, that’s where we are. That is where we are. So, the President is going to make that very clear and take it directly to the American people.
Q: Thank you.
Q: Karine, has the President spoken to the family of Laken Hope Riley, the young Georgia student who was murdered, allegedly, at the hands of an undocumented immigrant?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, first of all, I do want to extend our deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Laken Hope Riley. Given this is an active case, I’m going to be really careful about speaking to that case more specifically. Would have to refer any — anything specific to that — to that case to law enforcement and, obviously, ICE.
And I — the President — I don’t have anything regarding to the President speaking to the family. But it is heartbreaking. I — I can’t even imagine what the family is going through.
And so — but anything else specifically, I would refer you to ICE and law enforcement.
Q: Just for clarity, when you say you don’t have anything else in regards them speaking: So, we can assume that they haven’t spoken to this point, at least?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t have anything to read out to you.
Q: Okay. If they have spoken, will you correct us and let us — let us know that there is something yo can tell us?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would — we would — we would let you know. I just don’t have anything for you.
Q: Okay. Perfect. You got a lot of questions about Michigan. I just want to ask this a little bit differently. I know the President understood — understands the way that people of the “uncommitted” community felt in registering their votes. What message does the President think was being sent by those 100,000 Michiganders? What do they — what does he believe they want to see him do?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I can’t speak for them. Right? I — no, seriously, I can’t. What I can —
Q: But – yeah, but the White House has spoken to them. So, I guess, presumably the White House would know what — what they want to see him do.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, what we’re doing, what I can tell you that we’re going to continue to do, is listen. And we understand how painful that is for the community.
That is why — and let’s not forget — that is why — and I think that’s what you’re alluding to in your — in your question to me — he’s had his senior advisors — senior officials go to Michigan to have those conversations with that community — Ar — Arab and Muslim leaders — and we’re going to continue that conversation.
And he believes it is important for people to feel like their voice is being heard. That’s our — our message.
But let’s not forget: We’re — there’s also work to be done, which is what the President has been doing for the last — you know, last several months, 24/7 with his team, getting that hostage deal so it can lead to a temporary ceasefire.
We want to make sure that happens. And if the President is going to work very to secure that —
Q: And having —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — and getting to a two-state solution.
Q: Having spoken to the leader of the House — the House Democratic Leader in the statehouse there in Michigan just yesterday, one of the message that was communicated in that conversation was his desire, A, to communicate this message directly to the President. So, is that under consideration, A?
And, B, that the President not just continue to make efforts to get the hostages out but that the U.S. policy change vis-à-vis Israel and what it’s doing is Gaza. Is the President open to changing course in that regard, which includes the provision of weapons to Israel?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the U.S. policy is not going to change on this. But what we can do is get to a temporary ceasefire so we can get that humanitarian aid into — into Gaza to the — the innocent people of — of — the Palestinian people who need that aid.
And you heard me — you heard us announce yesterday about the $53 million that was announced by Administrator Powers [Power]. And we believe that’s also important to do to continue to do that — get that — get the food that’s needed to get in there and, also, incredi — incredibly important medical supply as well.
And so, we’re going to continue to work with Israel on getting that done, as well as making sure we get the humanitarian aid.
We believe getting to a temporary ceasefire is important. Of course, the President wants to see this war end. Of course. And that’s what he’s working towards: getting a ceasefire, making sure — there are hostages that are being held in Gaza —
Q: Six Americans.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — their families and their friends — and six Americans, exactly — their family and friends want them to come home. We got to make sure that we get them home as well.
So, that’s where we’re focused on. That’s what the President — he spoke about it just a couple of days ago, obviously, when he was in New York. He’s hopeful. We’re going to continue to work towards that end.
Q: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q: Thank you. In two weeks from now, there will be third anniversary of the first Quad Summit that the President held here three weeks — three years ago. In these three years, what has been achieved the Quad for that the challenges remain the same?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I would say — I would say this. The President is incredibly proud of the progress the Quad has made over the past three years. To your point, the anniversary is coming up, and we’re — we are hoping to continue that momentum in 2024 under India’s host year, as you just stated.
And we’re talking about not just the United States — obviously India, Japan, and Australia. And we have all shared — a shared vision here of a free, open and prosperous Indo-Pacific. The Quad is helping all of our nations deliver concrete benefits to the Indo-Pacific across a number of critical, important sectors.
So, we look forward to continuing that progress for the Quad in 2025 — and not just in 2024 but, also, beyond.
Q: As Quad has made significant progress, as you said, President formed another group of four countries called 12U2 — Israel, U.S., UAE, and India. In the context of the war that goes — going on in the Middle East, has this grouping taken a back burner, is no longer active?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. It’s still a priority. 12U2 remains critically important. And the President is — is deeply committed to making sure that we continue with 12U2, obviously, with our partnership among our four countries and beyond through innovative, inclusive and science-based solutions to an- — advanced — let’s not forget — enhance food and energy security; space operation: other ventures advancing projects on water conservation, waste management, and other areas.
So, there’s a strong future for 12U2. And so, we’re looking forward to continuing that partnership. It has not taken a back burner. It is certainly a pri- — continues to be a priority.
Q: One more question, if I may. As the President heads to the border tomorrow, on illegal immigration. There are many groups, m- — mostly Indian Americans, who feel that the President is not much as serious as he is on illegal immigration — not much serious on legal immigration systems. He hasn’t held any meetings with those groups, what th — what the problems are, what the issues are. Can you give them a sense of the steps the President has taken to address them?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, one of the steps — if we look at H1-B visa process, we have taken action to improve that: end the process and backlogs for lawful permanent residents who are eligible to become U.S. citizens.
Just last month, for example, as part of our efforts to strengthen the integrity of our immigration system and reduce potential for fraud, DHS published a final rule relating to H1-B visas. So, the changes promote fairer and more equitable outcomes.
And so, we will continue our work to improve the system within our authorities. And that has certainly been a priority.
Obviously, I would refer you to U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services for any specifics on the actions we have taken. But we take that very seriously. And we’re continuing to do everything that we can to improve the visas process.
Q: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Janne.
Q: Thank you, Karine. The U.S. want South Korea to provide more 155mm artillery shells to Ukraine. South Korea has already provided more artillery shells to Ukraine than Europe. Why does the U.S. demand more support from South Korea?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to let South Korea speak to their own — their own military decisions and their bilateral relations. We are grateful — we are grateful for their support to — to Ukraine, obviously, as they continue to defend against the — Russia’s aggression. So, we are grateful for that. But I’m not going to speak to their own military decisions. That is something for them to speak to.
Q: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Ed.
Q: Yeah, thanks, Karine. I appreciate it. So, the — on the executive order the President signed today, if I could. What’s the level of concern of the President that, kind of, apps like TikTok and Temu are sending data now — the private data now to the Chinese Communist Party?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we — we do have concerns, which is why we put out the EO, which we’ve never seen any other administration do before, right? And it is to protect Americans’ sensitive personal data from exploitation by countries of concern — and the most significant executive action that we have seen from any president — any president has ever taken.
And so, look, it is important. I think — I think it — it — as I stated at the top, when you think about the buying data brokers is currently legal. It’s legal in the United States. And that reflects a gap in our national security.
So, this is about national security. This is about the people’s privacy — Americans’ privacy.
And so, what we’re going to do — what this EO is going to do — it’s going to narrow that by — by carefully crafting steps to move forward here where we’re protecting the privacy of Americans.
Q: Then how come the President’s campaign, then, is on TikTok if there’s such a concern?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m going to let — I’m going to let the campaign speak for itself. I know this question has come up a couple of times. I’m going to let them speak for itself.
As it relates to TikTok or the impact of TikTok or any other companies, look, this program does not target any one company or — or cover expressive content. But if a company is collecting Americans’ data on a large scale that falls under one of the covered categories, such as precise geological data, that data won’t be able to be sold to — or transferred to the country of concern once the rulemaking process is complete.
So, as you know, when the President signs an executive action, there’s a rulemaking process. But we believe that this is going to make a difference in — for our national security and also for the American people in perfect — protecting their privacy. So, that’s important.
Go ahead.
Q: Thank you very much, Karine. So, tomorrow marks the fourth anniversary of the Doha Agreement between Washington and Taliban. Following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington has repeatedly said that the Taliban need to fulfill their commitments in the agreement. What specific parts of the commitments does the administration want the Taliban to be — to fulfill under this agreement?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things here, and I know my colleague at the State Department was asked this question and spoke to this earlier today.
So, it has been four years since the previous administration signed, as you know, the 2020 agreement with the Taliban. This agreement empowers the Taliban, weakened our partners in — in Af- — in the Afghan government, and committed to withdraw our troop a few months after President Biden’s inauguration, as you know, with no clean — clear path, plan for — for what could come next. That’s what we saw.
The Taliban have not fulfilled their commitments in the Doha Agreement. The Taliban has also not fulfilled their Dohan commitment to engage in a meaningful dialogue with fellow Afghans leading to a negotiated settlement and inclusive political system.
So, we continue to hold the Taliban to their commitments. And we are working tirelessly every day to ensure that this set of commitments is fulfilled. And that has been how we’re moving forward on that.
Q: And if I may, is there any plan for VP to do her physical checkup?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You would have to speak to the VP’s office.
Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead, Go ahead, Jared.
Q: Thank you. Back on the EO. So, you talked about how it narrows this — this gap that exist in federal law. You would need legislation to fully close that loophole?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, we always need Congress to take the step to narrow it. There’s going to be, as you know, a process here. And so, we’re going to let that process take place. But this is a step.
This is — this is — let’s not forget, this is a step that no other president has taken. And we want to make sure that we’re protecting our national security. We want to make sure that we’re doing everything that we can do also to protect Americans’ privacy.
Q: is there a sort of engagement now with Congress on what that legislation would look like, what it is that needs to happen? I guess, what’s that next step after this step, right?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, we’re going to do — there’s going to be a rulemaking process. We — as the President signed this — right? — DOJ is going to move forward on this. And so, it’s important. They’ll have additional details as the executive — and how it moves with the executive action.
And we’re always talking to Congress on a — on a — on a myriad of — of important agendas, items, obviously, that matter to the American people. That will continue.
Go ahead, Nadia.
Q: Thank you, Karine. Two questions. The White House considers Israeli settlements as an obstacle to peace. In fact, it clashes with the President’s vision of a two-state solution. So, Israel is intending to build 3,000 new unit — one of the biggest settlements in the West Bank, which is Ma’ale Adumim.
So, do you see this as Prime Minister Netanyahu defiance against the President and making his vision of a two-state solution redundant?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that last part again.
Q: Does Netanyahu — by building the settlements that clashes with the White House vision of a two-state solution, is he defying the President and making his vision redundant?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Is her def- — def- —
Q: Defying President Biden.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look —
Q: Netanyahu.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — we have certainly seen these reports, and we’ve been really clear about how disappointed we are by — by the announcement, right?
And — and, look, it has been longstanding U.S. policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations that new settlements are, indeed, counterproductive, as you just stated in your question, to — as we try to head to peace. Right? They are also inconsistent with international law.
So, we — we’re going to continue to be in firm opposition to settlement expansion. I don’t have anything else here to share. Obviously, we continue to have diplomatic conversations with the Israeli government. But we are going to be very clear bout our disappointment in this.
It is — it is not — that has been our — our longstanding U.S. policy has been very clear under both Republican and Democratic administrations on this specifically.
Q: And also, in reference to the $53 million in humanitarian aid. The problem that many people see, especially U.N. organizations and agencies on the ground, is the method: how can you get this — this money or this aid to people who are starving.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: Some countries have been doing air dropping of food, like Jordan and other countries. So, why can’t the U.S. do the same?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to share with you about the air dropping — if we’re considering that, is that something that we’re going to do. Just don’t have anything to share about that.
But look, this is, again, why it’s so important to get to this hostage deal, why it’s so important to get to this temporary ceasefire. We need to get all — important humanitarian aid into Gaza, to the innocent people of Palest- — of the Pales — of Pales — Palestinian people, to make sure that they have what they need. Whether it’s food, whether it’s medical assistance, we understand that.
And, as you just mentioned, $53 million was just announced by USAID to — to help in that process. But we have to get to this hostage deal. We have to.
It is important to get the hostages home and that aid in and get that temporary ceasefire. So, the President is going to work on this, continue to work on this 24/7. He is committed to this. He wants to make sure that we secure that deal.
MS. DALTON: We just have time for one more.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead, what in the back. Go ahead.
Q: Yeah, thanks. The former President and his people are saying that the only reason President Biden is going this week is because former President Trump was going to go, and he wanted to not lose this issue. So, can you give us a sense of what the planning process was to go this week?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, that’s — I mean, look, you guys have covered this President and other presidents for some time. We just can’t all of a sudden put something on the President’s schedule. Right? It takes time to do that. The President has been very clear that he was going to take this issue directly to the American people. He has said that.
When Republicans rejected that Senate — Senate bipartisan bill on border security, on the immigration policy — right? — to fix a broken system that has been broken for decades, he said he was going to take it directly to the American people and, also, at the same time, hear from law enforcement and frontline personnel who deal with this issue every day. And, obviously, he’s going to make — he’s going to give remarks.
But he’s been very clear about this, that he was going to take it directly to the American people. He is going because it’s important for the American people to hear directly from him. He is going as — because it’s important to highlight that Republicans are getting in the way here. They are getting in the way. They had rejected a deal that — parts of that — that deal, they wanted, and they rejected it.
So, this is not about politics for this President. This is about how we’re going to fix an issue that a majority of Americans care about: a broken immigration system, the challenges at the border. That’s why the President thought it was important to go at this time.
Q: And on that point, does he feel that Republicans’ rejection of the bill — of the compromise bill, of the — the product that the Senate put together, does that allow him to flip the script, to go on the offense on this issue?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I believe we are on the offense. We believe we are in the offense. Four months — let’s not forget, it took four months to get this done and work in good faith.
And let — and we have said: If this bill was able to get in — to become law, it would have been, yes, the toughest but also the fairest that we have seen in some time.
And, look, we believe we’re on the offense because we did the work with the Senate in a bipartisan way for four months. And Republicans rejected it. They allowed politics to get in the way. When you work in a bipartisan way — right? — in good faith, you’re putting politics aside, and you’re trying to get something done on behalf of the American people. That’s what the President did.
All right, everybody. See you on Friday. Thank you.
February 28, 2024: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D. N.Y) told colleagues Wednesday that congressional negotiators are “very close” to reaching a deal to avoid a government shutdown at the end of the week, announcing that they “continue to make very good progress on an agreement.” (The Hill)
Schumer reiterated his arguments made at a meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) at the White House Tuesday warning of the fallout of a partial government shutdown.
“A shutdown is a loser for the American people. In a shutdown, costs go up, safety goes down, and the American people would pay the price,” he said.
“I’m hopeful that the four leaders can reach this agreement very soon; we can not only avoid a shutdown on Friday, but get closer to finishing the appropriations process altogether,” he added.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Tuesday that disagreements over policy riders have been the biggest obstacle to reaching the deal.
The biggest obstacle right now has been far-right Republicans poison pills that were never truly on the table. They were always going to be nonstarters,” she said.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, said Monday that the negotiations over policy riders had been elevated to the leadership level.
Funding for military construction, the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development are set to expire March 1. Other federal departments, including the Pentagon and departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, will see their appropriation end March 8.
Johnson is now floating a proposal to postpone those deadlines to March 8 and March 22.
Senator Republican Whip John Thune (R- S.D.) said Wednesday that the funding deadlines could be pushed back by a week or two weeks, respectively, but expressed frustration over congressional leaders repeatedly punting on big decisions.
“The first tranche of bills have been pretty carefully vetted,” he added. “I think there’s a path to getting that first tranche done. The second tranche is obviously more complicated and may need more time.
February 28, 2024: As the clock ticks down toward a potential partial shutdown of the federal government this week, millions who rely on federal assistance for food could be left in the balance. (The Hill).
If Congress fails to reach a deal to fund the government, a partial government shutdown would be triggered on March 1. That partial shutdown would impact several federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which manages SNAP and WIC food assistance.
Impact on SNAP food stamps
SNAP, which stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, used to be called the Food Stamp Program. The program helps low-income and no-income families buy groceries by loading up a monthly benefit allowance onto an EBT card.
Because of the way SNAP is funded, the impact of a government shutdown wouldn’t be felt right away, a USDA spokesperson told Nextstar. Each month’s benefits are issued the month prior, so people would receive their benefit as normal in March even if Congress can’t reach a deal by the end of the month.
If the shutdown drags on longer than a month, there is reserve funding that should allow SNAP to keep operating for a while, but delays and issues might arise if USDA employees who run the program are furloughed, explains the Food Research & Action Center.
Impact on WIC benefits
When it comes to WIC, which refers to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the situation is a bit different. WIC provides food assistance to low-income pregnant women, new mothers, and their babies and young children. The program is facing a $1 billion budget shortfall.
WIC has enough money to keep offering aid for a short time under a government shutdown, but that could quickly run out, explained Safa Hamas, who oversees the WIC program in Wake County, North Carolina.
When WIC doesn’t have enough money to help everyone who qualifies, the program prioritizes pregnant women, breastfeeding women and infants with nutritional issues like anemia or pre-term birth. If there’s enough funding to help them, WIC will offer assistance to the next priority tier, which includes infants under 6 months who have nutrition-related medical issues…
…Hamad told Nextstar’s WNCN that when there’s not enough funding, people in lower priority tiers get put on waitlists.
“What I’m most concerned about is that we’re going to have to turn people away,” she said. “So, even toddlers will be put on waitlists.”
While funding for WIC is a point of contention in the current negotiations, a continuing resolution could avert a funding lapse even if the government shuts down, a USDA spokesperson said. A continuing resolution is a temporary plan that allows the government to keep running as normal while lawmakers continue to debate a final budget.
A shutdown’s impact on federal agencies
While some USDA benefits continue and other’s won’t, the fate is clearer for the agency’s employees under a government shutdown. “The federal government is currently not allowed to spend money effective 12:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 2, 2024.” reads an FAQ for department employees.
“Most USDA employees will be placed on furlough,” the FAQ continues, at which point they will not be allowed to work except to help with shutting down operations. They won’t be paid for their furloughed time until the government is funded again.”
If Congressional leaders don’t come to an agreement soon, government funding for agriculture, transportation, military construction and some veteran’s services expires Friday. Funding for the rest of the government, including the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department expires a week later, on March 8.
February 28, 2024: Congress has until March 1 to avert a partial government shutdown and until March 8 to avoid a full government shutdown. If lawmakers fail to meet these two deadlines, parts of the government would be required by law to temporarily shutdown operations. (The Hill).
The March 1 deadline would impact the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Energy.
The second deadline, on Friday, March 8, would impact all other agencies including the Internal Revenue Service. Every department and agency has a set of procedures in case of a shutdown that includes which employees are considered essential, how many would get furloughed and who would work without pay.
According to the contingency plan released by the Department of Treasury for the fiscal year 2024, essential functions of the IRS would continue. It’s not clear exactly how filing season and refunds would be impacted since there has never been a shutdown during tax season.
However, experts agree that electronic tax refunds would most likely be processed as normal, if as long as there are no errors on the return. If there are issues, with a return, it could take longer to process since IRS employees considered non-essential would be furloughed.
Taxpayers filing a hard copy might not be as lucky, and could experience delays in receiving their refund.
The IRS recommends filing electronically and setting up direct deposit to get a refund within 21 days.
The last time the government faced a looming shutdown was in January. At the time, IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said the agency would do everything in its power to minimize disruptions.
“We have not experienced a shutdown in the middle of filing season, so there is some uncertainty there,” Werfel said in January.
The filing deadline of April 15 will stay in place even if there is a government shutdown. Taxpayers can avoid possible delays by filing as soon as possible.
February 28, 2024: Congressional leaders have struck a deal to avert a government shutdown this week, agreeing to punt a pair of funding deadlines into March to buy more time for spending talks (The Hill)
Under the deal announced Wednesday, leaders have agreed to extend funding for six bills covering the department’s of Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development through March 8.
The deal would also extend funding for the six annual funding bills, which cover the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, the Pentagon and other offices, through March 22.
“We are in agreement that Congress must work in a bipartisan manner to fund our government,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D.-N.Y.), said in a joint statement on Wednesday, along with the heads of the appropriations committees in both chambers.
“To give the House and Senate Appropriations Committee adequate time to execute on this deal in principle, including drafting, preparing report language, scoring and other technical matters, and to allow members 72 hours to review, a short-term continuing resolution to fund agencies through March 7 and the 22 will be necessary, and voted on by the House and Senate this week.”
Leaders say negotiators have come to agreement on all six measures due March 8, but a senior appropriator signaled on Wednesday that there could still be some loose ends.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat in the House of Appropriations Committee, told reporters Wednesday that “there’s still one or two pieces” to iron out when asked about the first batch of bills. That included unresolved items in areas like WIC and SNAP benefits, as well as guns.
House Republicans expect to vote on a stopgap bill on Thursday. DeLauro said she expects text for a package containing the first batch of six bills to come out this weekend.
The new deal sets up a battle in the House, where Johnson faces a tough challenge in getting through another short-term stopgap measure, particularly conservatives have passed for a full year stopgap.
“I don’t think it’s the right move but you know the Speaker’s got to make a decision that he thinks is best,” Rep. Bryon Donalds (R-Fla.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said on Thursday.
I think, like most conservatives, I’m disappointed and I’m wondering where we’re gonna fix the border,” Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), another member of the caucus, said.
Experts have warned a full-year stopgap could trigger steep cuts to government funding, and members on both sides of the aisle have rejected the idea amid concerns about how it would impact defense and nondefense programs. But conservatives have continues to fight for the proposal in pursuit of lower overall funding levels and stronger border security.
Under the stopgap spending bill, funding for four of the 12 full-year spending bills is set to expire Friday, while funding for the remaining eight bills is up on March 8.
The latest agreement comes as spending cardinals in both chambers have signaled more time may be needed to complete their funding work after weeks of tense bipartisan negotiations.
“I think we possibly could have been ready for next week and gotten it done. But it takes a while to process bills in both houses right now,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who chairs the subcommittee that crafts funding for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, told The Hill on Wednesday.
Baldwin’s forthcoming bill is among the eight currently scheduled to lapse March 8. Often a battleground for fights over abortion-related policies, her bill is seen as one of the tougher measures to craft.
“I think that will give us enough time to conclude, but I think we’re at a point where most remaining issues have been resolved,” she said when asked about the prospect of a stopgap through March 22 earlier on Wednesday.
Rep. Henry Cullar (Texas), the top Democrat on the House Funding subcommittee that oversees Homeland Security Department funding, also said Wednesday that he and other negotiators are still working on hashing out spending for various programs under the subpanel’s umbrella and “working on riders.”
House Republicans pursued a laundry list of riders Democrats have decried as “poison pills” during spending talks, as the party seeks to secure conservative policy wins. However, Republican negotiators have acknowledged they won’t get everything they’ve asked for as both sides seek to put a bow on fiscal 2024 funding.
“I understand that we’re not going to get all the riders, but I’m hoping that there are maybe a couple that we can get some wins out,” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), the spending cardinal for the subcommittee the crafts funding for the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, said on Wednesday.
February 29, 2024: Statement from President Joe Biden on Passage of the Bipartisan Government Funding Bill
This bipartisan agreement prevents a damaging shutdown and allows more time for Congress to work toward full-year funding bills. That’s good news for the American people. But I want to be clear: this is a short-term fix — not a long-term solution.
In the days ahead, Congress must do its job and pass full-year funding bills that deliver for the American people. And House Republicans must act on the bipartisan National Security Supplemental, which already passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and would pass the House if it was brought to a vote.
During my meeting with Congressional Leaders this week, we all agreed on the vital importance of supporting Ukraine. That understanding must now be backed with action. Every day that House Republicans refuse to hold a vote on the bipartisan National Security Supplemental, the consequences for Ukraine grow more severe.
In addition to arming Ukraine as they defend against Russian attacks every single day, this bill will help ensure that Israel can defend itself agains Hamas and other threats. And it will provide critical humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people and those impacted by conflicts around the world. Because the truth is, the aid flowing into Gaza is nowhere near enough, and nowhere fast enough. Innocent lives are on the line.
It’s time for House Republicans to put our national security first and move with urgency to get this bipartisan bill to my desk.
February 29, 2024: The head of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus is bashing the nascent funding agreement hashed out by leaders of both parties, warning that conservatives would be willing force a government shutdown to secure steeper cuts and policy preferences (The Hill)
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) has led the charge among the far-right lawmakers urging Speaker Johnson (R-La.) to fight for scores of conservative policy riders to accompany the 2024 spending bills. Absent that, Republicans want the Speaker to champion a stopgap bill, known as a continuing resolution (CR), to extend government funding at current 2023 levels through the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends Oct. 1.
The latter strategy would trigger an automatic, 1-percent cut to federal programs of all types beginning May 1 — a stipulation of last summer’s bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) designed to encourage lawmakers to reach an agreement on 2024 spending or face reductions to popular programs.
Good said that 1-percent cut is far preferable to the deal Johnson endorsed with the leaders of both parties and both chambers, which adopts higher spending caps established by those same leaders in January. He’s also calling for a series of policy changes, including tougher border security measures and a scaling back of the government’s spying powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
“I would do a CR through Sept. 30 that triggers the FRA caps that would cut about $100 billion from the deal,” Good said Wednesday evening in the Capitol.
“I’d attach border security to it. I would attach [the] Israel pay-for. And I’d attach FISA… reforms. That’s what I’d like to see happen. And we ought to be willing to have a shutdown fight to force it to happen.
Good isn’t the only conservative voicing his disapproval.
Reps. Troy Nehels (R-Texas), and Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) were among conservatives who said Thursday they wouldn’t vote for a stopgap measure.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said he preferred a yearlong CR to the one announced Wednesday night.
“I’m for the long-term CR; that’s the only way you can get leverage,” he said. “That’s not what the direction looks like now.”
And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) made clear she’s unhappy with the direction the party is headed.
“Remember the big fight earlier this year about no CR’s and rules and no omnibuses and no minibuses? Well, everything talked about in conference this morning was a CR, another CR, a weeklong CR,” she said. “And then you’ve got the most conservative members of Congress standing up wanting one-year CR. I don’t know what to say.”
It’s unclear how much power conservatives like Good hold to force a shutdown. The spending deal unveiled Wednesday features two legislative packages scheduled to receive to separate votes over the next month.
The first package is expected to hit the House floor before March 8; the second is slated to follow by March 22. The House will vote Thursday on a CR to prevent a shutdown before those two deadlines, with the Senate expected to follow suit.
The conservatives could block those packages if Johnson chooses to bring them to the floor under regular order, which would require the passage of a rule beforehand — a rule the conservatives could sink.
The more likely strategy would be to bring the funding bills up by a procedure known as the suspension calendar, which bypasses the rule requirement but heightens the bar for passage; a two-thirds majority would be needed to send the bills to the Senate.
That’s the likely route GOP leaders will choose, and given the early support from bipartisan leaders, it’s expected to be successful.
But for Johnson, there are dangers in the strategy, as well. His predecessor, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had brought a CR to the floor last September under the suspension calendar. It prevented a government shutdown but also triggered a vote to remove his gavel.
Within days, McCarthy had been toppled from power.
February 29, 2024: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) declined to say Thursday if he’d help protect Speaker Mike Johnson (R- La) from a conservative revolt. (The Hill)
In an interview with the New York Times a day earlier, the Democratic leader had suggested that “a reasonable number” of Democrats in his caucus would cross the aisle to keep Johnson in power in the face of a coup — if the Speaker agreed to consider legislation providing aid to foreign allies, including Ukraine.
On Thursday, Jeffries emphasized that he wasn’t stating his own position, but simply making an assessment based on “observations” of the members of his caucus.
“The comments that I have made on this issue speaks for themselves,” Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. “The only comments that I have made on this issue are observations, but not a firm declaration.”
Johnson, since taking the Speaker’s gavel in October, has said he supports more military aid for Ukraine. But former President Trump has come out against the assistance, and Johnson is under heavy pressure from conservatives on the GOP conference to keep any such bill off the floor.
Amid the fight, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has vowed to force a vote to remove Johnson from power if he does stage a vote — a threat with teeth since the new House rules stipulate that a single lawmaker can bring such a motion.
Democrats are scrambling for ways to get the Ukraine bill to the floor, and a number of them have already emerged to say that they’d help Johnson survive a motion to oust him if he agrees to certain conditions, such as considering the Senate-passed foreign aid package.
“Just like I told McCarthy: Talk to Hakeem, and there are some of us that can support you,” Rep. Henry Cueller (D-Texas) said last month, referring to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was booted from his leadership post last year at the hands of disgruntled conservatives. “I’ll say the same thing to [Johnson].”
More recently, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) delivered a similar message.
“If we get a vote on the appropriations bills and we get a vote on the supplements, there’ll be enough Democrats that Johnson will not be removed as Speaker,” Smith said. “That’s just my view.”
In his interview with the Times, Jeffries said he hasn’t overlooked that message being sent by members of his party.
“It does seem to me, based on informal conversations, that were Speaker Johnson to do the right thing relative to meeting the significant national security needs of the American people by putting it on the floor for an up-or-down vote, there will be a reasonable number of people in the House Democratic Caucus who will take the position that he should not fall as a result,” Jeffries told the Times on Wednesday.
The debate is evolving differently than the one that preceded McCarthy’s removal in early October. In that case, a number of Democrats had also offered their support, but a defiant McCarthy rejected the help, expressing confidence that he’s “hold on” despite a slim majority.
The strategy backfired with every Democrat voting to remove him.
February 29, 2024: Evening Report — Government shutdown averted after House OK’s temporary deal (The Hill)
The House, torn over its narrow Republican leadership, has decided to avert a shutdown this week.
But the reprieve may be short-lived.
The legislation — which cleared the chamber in a 230-99 vote — kicks the two government funding deadlines to March 8 and March 22, buying lawmakers more time to hash out their differences on spending bills and push them over the finish line.
The short-term funding bill is heading to the Senate one day before Friday’s funding deadline.
This was the fourth stopgap approved under this Congress and the third under Johnson’s leadership.
But not all is calm on the legislative front…
Six appropriations bills due next week seem to be in the clear, but there are disagreements on other measures.
“Clearly, the second group of bills could be difficult and problematic, especially as Republicans in the House continue to insist on policy riders that erode women’s reproductive freedom,” said Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chair of the Democratic Caucus, said shortly before the vote.
February 29, 2024: Senate passes short-term bill to avert government shutdown (The Guardian)
The Senate passed a short-term funding bill following a House vote on Thursday afternoon, narrowly averting a partial government shutdown that was due to occur this weekend.
Ahead of the Senate vote, the majority leader, Chuck Schumer, addressed the chamber floor, saying that he saw “no reason this should take a very long time.”
“This agreement is proof that when … bipartisanship is prioritized, when getting things done for the American people takes a high priority, good things can happen, even in divided government.”
The temporary extension funds the departments of agriculture, transportation, interior, and others through 8 March. It funds the Pentagon, homeland security, health and state through 22 March.
“These bills will adhere to the fiscal Responsibility Act discretionary spending limits and January’s top-line spending agreement,” congressional leaders said on Wednesday.
The extension comes after congressional leaders said there was an agreement on six of the 12 annual spending bills and plans for them to be signed before March 8, before they would face another partial shutdown.
The short-term extension bill is on its way to Joe Biden, who is expected to sign it ahead of its Saturday shutdown deadline.
Meeting with congressional leaders earlier this week alongside Kamala Harris, Biden said that a government shutdown would “significantly” damage the economy.
At the end of the process, Congress is set to approve more than $1.6tn in spending for the fiscal year that began in October — roughly in line with the previous fiscal year. That’s the amount that former speaker McCarthy negotiated with the White House last year before eight disgruntled Republican lawmakers joined with Democrats a few months later and voted to oust him from the position.
Some of the House’s most conservative members wanted deeper cuts from non-defense programs that the agreement allowed through its spending caps. They also sought an array of policy changes Democrats opposed. They were hoping the prospect of a shutdown could leverage more concessions.
“Last I checked, the Republicans actually have a majority in the House of Representatives, but you wouldn’t know it if you looked at our checkbook because we are all too willing to continue the policy choices of Joe Biden and the spending levels of Nancy Pelosi,” said Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican.
But Chuck Fleishmann, a fellow Republican from Tennessee, countered before the vote that shutdowns are damaging and encouraged lawmakers to vote for the short-term extension. “I want the American people to know, Mr. Speaker, that this negotiation has been difficult, but to close the government down at a time like this would hurt people who should not be hurt,” Fleischmann said.
February 29, 2024: Government shutdown averted after House OKs temporary deal (The Hill)
The House, torn over its narrow Republican leadership, has decided to avert a shutdown this week.
But the reprieve may be short lived.
The legislation — which cleared the chamber in a 320-99 vote — kicks the two government funding deadlines to March 8 and March 22, buying lawmakers more time to hash out their differences on spending bills and push them over the finish line.
The short-term funding bill is heading to the Senate one day before Friday’s funding deadline.
This was the fourth stopgap approved under this Congress and the third under Johnson’s leadership.
But all is not calm on the legislative front…
Six appropriation bills due next week seem to be in the clear, but there are disagreements on other measures.
“Clearly the second group of bills could be difficult and problematic, especially as Republicans in the House continue to insist on policy riders that erode women’s reproductive freedom,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chair of the Democratic Caucus, said shortly before the vote.
MARCH 2024:
March 1, 2024: Press Release: Bill Signed: H.R. 7463
On Friday, March 1, 2024, the President signed into law:
H.R. 7463, the “Extension of Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act, 2024,” which provides fiscal year 2024 appropriations to Federal agencies for continuing projects and activities funded in 4 of the 12 annual appropriations bills through March 8, 2024. For the remaining 8 annual appropriations bills, the CR provides funding through March 22, 2024.
March 1, 2024: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies for the briefing starting late today.
I want to start by saying: Happy Women’s History Month — a time when we celebrate the countless women who have fought tirelessly and courageously for equality, justice, and opportunity in our nation. And we reaffirm our commitment to continue advancing rights and opportunities for women and girls in the United States and around the world.
The President is honoring this commitment with action. He signed a law historic legislation to advance gender equity over the last year, including to support women in the workplace, such as the Pregnant Workers Family — Fairness Act — pardon me; the Speak Out Act; and the Pump for Nursing Mothers Act as well. And to ensure all people can live free from violence through the strengthening and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
The President is also proud of having the most diverse group of women at the highest levels of government in the U.S. history, including the first woman Vice President and the first gender-equal Cabinet.
This Women’s History Month, we remain committed to continuing this important work in service of advancing the full participation of women, a foun — foundational tenet of our democracy.
And I wanted to lift up some really good news that all of you saw this morning and you also heard from the President as well speak to this, which is the lowering health cost for the American people that we heard today.
So, as you know, for far too long, American families have been crushed by drug cost many times higher than the cost to make them and what people in our — in other countries are charged for that same very — that same prescription.
Insulin costs less than $10 to make, but Americans are sometimes forced to pay over $300 for it as well. As the President said this morning, it’s flat wrong. That’s why the President fought tooth and nail to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which caps the price of insulin for Americans on Medicare.
This was a critical action to lower healthcare costs for American people. But the President has been clear that the insulin cap should apply to all Americans. And that was something that we saw congressional Republicans blocked at that time.
In this — in his State of the Union address, he also called on Pharma companies to continue this progress and bring prices down for everyone on their own.
Today, Eli Lilly, the largest manufacturer of insulin in the United States, heeded that call and announced that they are lowering their prices, capping what patients pay out of the pocket — out of pocket for drugmakers’ insulin products at $30 — at $35.
This is great news and important progress toward lowering costs for all Americans. Unfortunately, congressional Republicans are making — are among the few left that believe insulin costs should be sky high. In fact, they are fighting to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which would increase healthcare costs for American people and increase the deficit as well.
And finally, last night, House Republicans voted to overturn the Department of Labor’s rule that investors make their own investment decisions free of government interference. The Senate will vote on the measure today.
Republicans talk about their love of free markets, small government, and letting the private sector do the work. The Republican bill is opposite of that. It forces MAGA Republican’s ideology down the throats of private sector and handcuffing investors as well. The bill would bar fiduciaries from considering significant risks like extreme climate threats and poor coop — coop — corporate governance when they make investment decisions.
It would give investment professionals less flexibility to make prudent decisions, meaning they won’t be free to maximize the retirement savings for millions of Americans. That would jeopardize the retirement and life savings for police officers, firefighters, teachers and tens of millions of retirees all across the country.
This is unacceptable to the President and that is why he will veto this bill if it does come to his desk.
President Biden is focused on protecting workers’ hard-earned live savings and pensions. And that is — that is what he’s going to continue to do. You’ve heard him say that many times.
And with that, Aamer, you want to kick us off?
Q: Yeah. Thank you. So, Chicago had their mayoral — or first round of their mayoral elections yesterday. And it’s the latest big American city where frustrations about crime was a central issue of the cycle. Does President Biden — does he feel that this administration and, I guess, Washington writ large is putting enough attention on dealing with the issue of crime, particularly in areas — big urban areas like Chicago?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just first speak to the mayor’s race. Look, the President is committed to working with who — whoever — whomever the — you know, the people in Chicago or the people on the ground, whichever — if it’s a city or a state — whomever they choose to represent them. So, that is — is the case and will continue to be the case.
And so I’m going to withhold commenting on any specific race but I know you’re asking about crime specifically. Look, the President put forth, as you know, a comprehensive Safer Communities plan. And he put that forth after inheriting a rise of crime. That is something that he has been focused on since the beginning of his administration.
Let’s not forget, in that plan, he calls for more than 100,000 police officers to go into the community, to work with communities, and make sure that communities feels safe, families feel safe. And that’s what the President has put forward.
And you’ll see — when you see his commitment to crime – you’ll see that in his — in his budget next week. As you know, we’re going to release that March 9th . And it will reflect his commitment, as well, as we’re trying to continue to fight crime, which is — the President has been leading at from the beginning of his administration.
But what we have seen is that, for years — for years, congressional Republicans have been doing the opposite. When you think about the COPS program, which is something that the President put forward, they have wanted to defund that, to take that away.
And if you think about that, that leads to the defunding the police. Just recently, they called on defunding the FBI. And you think about the border security funding; they want to take that away as well.
So the President has been committed. And one more thing I would add: Let’s not forget the banning assault weapons. That is a key part of this — when we think about crime, when we think about gun crime — that we believe will help alleviate the crime that we’re seeing, keep families safe, keep communities safe across the country.
So, the President has walked the talk. The President has been very consistent on making sure that communities feel safe and fighting crime. And he’ll continue to do that.
Q: Okay. So just one on a different topic. If TikTok isn’t safe for federal government workers’ devices, does the President believe it’s safe for Americans’ children’s smartphones?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m glad that you asked about that because, look, we have been clear about our concerns about TikTok, apps like TikTok — and, certainly, our concerns with countries, including China, as they seek to leverage digital technologies and Americans’ — and Americans’ data in ways that can present harm and — and risk to our national security, clearly.
There was — to your point about families, there was a piece of data, of CDC data, that just found recently that nearly 60 percent of teen girls felt persistently sad or hopeless in 2021, and — and 30 percent seriously considered suicide.
So, this is something that the President has taken action on. If you look at the executive — executive — using his executive branch authorities. When you think about his Unity Agenda, a couple of things that hew as able to do was stop collecting — stop collecting personal data on kids and teenagers online, ban targeted advertising to children, and impose stricter limits on the personal data companies collect on all of us.
And so, this is what the President calls on for Congress to pass in a bipartisan way — you know, privacy legislation to hold bi- — big tech accountable.
And so, the President is going to continue to take actions. But we see that. We see that in the data how this has affected young people, especially during this pandemic in the last couple of years.
Q: Thanks, Karine. To follow on that, does the President believe TikTok is a threat to national security?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we have said that we have concerns. We have concerns about the app. And that’s why we have called on Congress to act and — including — and I mentioned earlier, just moments ago — including what China — how China is trying to collect the privacy of Americans in a way that it would have — it would — can present national security risks.
So, yes, we have concerns about that. And — and look, we’re going to continue to — again, to call on Congress. I just laid out the President’s Unity Agenda and what he’s looking to do and the actions that he wants to take from the executive branch, his authority. And so, we’re going to continue to call that out.
Q: But does that — do the actions include a ban on all devices in the U.S.?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, what I would — what I would say is this: The White House does not use TikTok. And — but we do believe — we do believe that — that, you know, Congress took action. And so, therefore, clearly, we’re — they took action and put this into law. And clearly, we’re taking — taking those steps as it — as it relates to the federal government.
Outside of that, we know that CFIUS has an ongoing investigation or ongoing — looking at this — looking at this situation. So, I’m not going to go beyond what CFIUS is doing.
Q: I guess what I’m trying to understand is: You know, has the President not issued a federal ban on TikTok on all devices because he does not think it’s a threat to national security or because he does not have a legal mechanism to do so?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into the specifics on what he has legally to do or not do so. What I’m saying — and we’ve been very clear that TikTok, you know, poses a problem and an issue. And so, we have concerns that as it relates to American’s data — collecting Americans’ data a the potential national security risk. And we’ve been very, very clear on that.
Again CFIUS has an ongoing process that they’re going to — they’re working through, so I’m going to let that speak for itself, what they come up with.
Q: And then, just one more on the — the intelligence assessment of the Havana Syndrome. The community does not believe it was a foreign adversary that is to blame for these cases, but rather things such as pre-existing conditions, conventional illnesses, environmental factors. Can you elaborate on what that might mean and what else you’re doing to try to pinpoint exactly what caused it?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so a couple of things. So, look, nothing is more important to this admin- — administration, to this President than the health and wellbeing of our workforce. So that is a priority for this President.
With bipartisan support with Congress, we have focused on ensuring that our colleagues and their families who report anomalous health incidents receive the support and access — care that they need. And so that has also — that medical treatment, the medical care that they need has been incredibly important.
So we also asked the — the U.S. Intelligence company [community] to surge resources to help advance our understanding of the AHI reports to date and examine all possibil – — all possible explanations. We have committed to be transparent with the workforce because we believe that’s what they deserve and with the American people as well.
But what the IC has learned — and we would refer you to, clearly, ODNI — as it relates to the assessment and what the specifics of that assess- — assessment and the key judgements that the IC released, that’s something that they clearly would recommend to them.
But it is important to note that what the Director of the National Intelligence said and underscored today is that today’s IC assessment does not call action into the very real experience and symptoms. Like, we acknowledge that, and we understand that people are truly — truly went through — went through an ordeal. And so, you know — and that’s something that, clearly, our colleag- — our colleagues and their families had to deal with.
So, our commitment and the President’s commitment to the health and safety of the U.S. government personnel remains unwavering. And this is why the departments and agency will continue to provide timely care on the medi– as we look at the medical care and make sure that — that the reports are thorough, support research efforts, and process HAVANA Act payments as requested.
So, again, when it — as it relates to the specific — any specific questions to their assessment, I would refer you to ODNI.
But this doesn’t change the commitment that the President has in making sure that, you know, these families, our colleagues in the workforce get the help and the assistance that they need. And we’re — they’re going to continue to — to work through that.
Q: Thank you. And just to follow up on that, is the President satisfied with that report, with that assessment on the Havana Syndrome?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’ll say this: You know, what’s important to the President is that we take this very seriously, as the intelligence community has.
And you saw the assessment. They laid it out pretty — pretty clearly from ODNI. What we are committed to is making sure that — that our workforce and their families get the assistance that they need through this — the medical care. And, look, the work is ongoing. It continues.
Q: So the — that extra, special financial support that came from the HAVANA Act that the President signed, the White House still believes that the people who are suffering from these symptoms, even with this assessment now, that those people should still get that extra financial support?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Absolutely.
Q: That’s the position of the White House?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, absolutely.
But I do want to send a message to the American people: Look, it is — it is important, again, for the health and wellness of the — of the workforce to be a priority.
And that’s what you — you saw from the intelligence community assessment. And — and it — look, and even from the assessment, that doesn’t alter that. It doesn’t alter our commitment, the President’s commitment to their health and safety. And so that’s what I would say.
There is a commitment there to make sure that we make sure that there is a safe workforce for folks who are working for the U.S. government and who clearly are employees.
Q: If I can just — on one topic that you had brought up: the Eli Lily news. Did the President make a personal appeal directly to any company executives ahead of this announcement to lower the cost of insulin?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this: I mean, the President has the biggest bu- — bully pulpit, right?
Q: Yeah, beyond what we heard from him, of course, in the State of the Union.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I mean, I think that’s pretty important, right? I think when people ask what is the President doing using the bully pulpit, as he did at the State of the Union, and calling out or laying out how we can help the American people is critical. It’s important here.
And we say that, right? We say that. He talked — he spoke to insulin and how costs need to go down. And here we see Eli Lilly taking action.
And so, look, this is something that he’s going to do. Using the bully pulpit as the President of the United States is an incredibly powerful tool, and the President uses that in a very important way not just to talk to the American people and lay out his platform, lay out how he’s working every day to make sure — in this case, lowering costs for Americans, whether it’s healthcare, whether it’s energy — and making sure that we continue to deliver, but it’s also speaking directly to companies like Eli Lily and saying, “Hey, you know, we need — you all need to change how you move forward, especially on something like insulin that affects so many families across the country.”
Q: But one-on-one conversations with anybody —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have — I —
Q: – or other companies?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have a — any conversations to preview. But I think it is important to really speak to the importance of the bully pulpit, as the — and the way that the President uses that in a way that’s effective and in a way that communicates what the American people need.
Go ahead.
Q: Thanks, Karine. China is going through its party Congress process right now, and they’re expected to implement the biggest government reshuffle in a decade over there.
Do you — what will the U.S. engagement with the Chinese look like once this process is over? Do you have a comment?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the approach — the approach that we have to China hasn’t changed, right? We’ve — you’ve heard us say, “We seek competition, not conflict.” You’ve heard us say that it needs to be practical. That’s the way we approach it: calm with — and resolute. And that is not going to change.
And the President will always do what is required to defend our interests, the American people’s interests. Still believes it is important to keep the lines of communication open.
As you all know, Secretary Blinken very recently, when he was in Munich, had a — had a meeting, a conversation with Wang Yi, his counterpart in China. And so, again, keeping those lines of communications open.
So, as you mentioned, they’re going through the annual parliament to put in place its government representative. We maintain working-level lines of communication as they go through this process. And after that’s done, as we have said, we are prepared to have high-level engagement with China from — from the President on down.
I don’t have anything to preview. I know many of you have asked me about if there’s a conversation with the President and President Xi. There — I don’t have anything to read out for you at that — at this time.
Q: Xi is expected to further tighten his grip on China after this process is over. Is that — how is the administration viewing that? How is the administration planning to engage with him?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to get into what — how the process of their annual parliament. I’m going to let them — you know, that’s something political. We don’t really want to respond to that.
They’re going to go through their process. Once that is over, we’re going to continue having an open channel conversation.
As I mentioned, Secretary Blinken had a conversation with his counterpart, Wang Yi, very recently in Munich when they all — when they all gathered there for the summit.
And so, we’re going to keep — continue to have those line of communication.
Look, as I said just moments ago, it’s going to be resolute, it’s going to be practical, and it’s going to be calm. And we have been very, very clear: Nothing will change on how — on our approach with handling — with dealing and our — our relationship with China in this — in this past two years.
Q: And I had one on another topic. The Ron DeSantis opportunity-ed in the Journal yesterday, where he talked about signing a law that ended Disney’s self-governing status in Florida that essentially provided the company with a favorable tax structure; they were able to get away without paying taxes around regional infrastructure developments.
How does the White House that has been cracking down on tax evasion view this move by DeSantis? I mean, is there — is there any line of thinking that perhaps supports what has just happened in Florida with Disney?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, Im going to be very frank with you, Nandita. I have not read the op-ed, and I — frankly, I don’t plan to.
Look, the President has been very clear here. He’s going to deliver for the American people.
I talked about lowering costs. We just talked about Eli Lilly and their great announcement or — of capping $35 for insulin, which is going to be so important to family across the country.
We just talked about — I was just asked about crime and the work that the President has done over the lat two years to fight crime in communities, something — something that he inherited, when you think about the rise if crime in the last couple of years.
And so, we’re not going to play political games. That’s not something that we do here. We’re going to continue to stay very focused — laser-focused on delivering for the American people.
And I’m not going to read that op-ed.
Go ahead.
Q: Thanks, Karine. There’s a bipartisan rail safety bill that was introduced or proposed today in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer endorsed the broad outlines of the proposal. Has the White House seen it? Does the White House support it in the wake of the East Palestine disaster?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’re glad to see bipartisan support. This is something that — you know, that Secretary Pete has been calling for. And this is, clearly, to bring forth several rail safety measures, which is incredibly important.
So, you know the bill would increase the maximum fines for safety violations. It would strengthen rules governing trains carrying hazardous materials. It will accel- — accelerate the timeline for phasing in safer tank cars and establishing a permanent retirement for two-person train cars. So, this is a good first step and we welcome it.
Q: Is there anything, just on the executive branch side, that you guys are considering or weighing in terms of assistance to East Palestine?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as far — you’re talking about economic — more economic assistance? Look, we — you’ve heard from Secretary Buttigieg, you’ve heard from the EPA Administrator speak to how we’re going to hold Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] accountable here to make sure hat the pay and they pay for the mess that they created on the ground in the community of East Palestine.
This is something that we are incredibly focused on and serious about. You’ve even heard the EPA Administrator say that if they don’t, they will — they will have to pay this three times over.
And so, look, we’re going to keep them — keep them accountable. And that’s going to be our focus.
Q: And just one final one. The President nominated Eric Garcetti roughly 600 days ago to be ambassador to India. I think he’s supposed to have a committee approval process next week. The vote, I think, is still kind of up in the air.
Does the administration believe that he will be confirmed? And do you feel like this is a make-or-break moment for a long process?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you know, Phil — you know Eric Garcetti was voted out in a bipartisan way — out of committee. And so, clearly, he had bipartisan support, which is very important in this process.
And we encourage and look forward to the Senate — the Senate — you know, moving forward with his nomination on the floor.
Q: Thanks, Karine. I just wanted to circle back to crime. As soon as next week, Congress could end up overturning a new sentencing law in D.C. that reduces penalties for some violent crimes, among other measures. Is the President prepared to issue a veto if that vote passes and it crosses his desk?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I know we’ve been asked this question before.
Q: Yeah, but given that Manchin has signaled support, I thought (inaudible) update.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President takes this very seriously when it comes to crime. I’m not going to get ahead of — of what — of what the — you know, of what the decision is going to be or of what it’s going to ultimately look like. Don’t want to get too much into hypotheticals.
But what I can state clearly, and I’ve said this before: The President is very committed to make sure that our communities are safer, that families feel safer. That’s why he put forth a plan very early on, making sure that we put more police in — in communities, that work with communities so that they feel safer.
That’s — and you’ll see that as it — as it relates to funding, you’ll see that in his budget next month.
I’m not going to get into too much of hypotheticals from here. But the President, I believe, in the last two years and throughout his career has shown his dedication in making sure that we keep communities safe.
Q: Okay. And just a second one. Since it’s March 1st, do you have any information about the President’s planned trip to Ottawa this month? It’s been reported that he’s going to be visiting Trudeau.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to share. Nothing to preview at this time.
Q: Okay.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q: I wanted to ask you about the student loan arguments that were before the Supreme Court yesterday, and many justices seem to take issue with — with the program. And I wonder if the administration has a message to those who have had loans already forgiven and are kind of in limbo right now.
And given the skepticism from a lot of the justices, are there any plans from the administration in the event that you don’t have the authority or the authority is struck down?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. We, you know — the plan that we put forward in August is the plan that we have — right? — which is a — which is also a plan that you heard the Solicitor General really defend in a — in a very strong and powerful way yesterday. And that’s our plan.
And we believe in our legal authority to get that done, to get it implemented. And let’s not forget, it is a good plan. It is a plan that is going to give American families — middle-class families who truly need it, individuals who truly need it — up to $200,000 in relief; to give that, again, a little bit of breathing room for, again, working families and middle-class Americans.
You heard — I don’t know if you saw this, but Secretary — Secretary of Education sent out an email to borrowers yesterday, and basically saying that we have their back. And I think that’s also very important. That’s the message that we sent to borrowers who need this opportunity right now as we’re coming out of this pandemic, going through this pandemic — a little bit, again, of breathing room.
Q: I guess my question is: If that plan is deemed unconstitutional, is there a backup plan?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I just said, that’s our plan. This is our — our focus right now is getting this done.
It is — you saw — again, you saw the Solicitor General really give a strong argument yesterday in front of the highest court in the land. There’s a reason why we took it to the Supreme Court: because we believe that we have legal authority.
And let’s not forget who this helps. It helps teachers. It helps firefighters, nurses, police officers. That is who we’re talking about and giving that extra little time and extra breathing room to make sure that they can either start a family or buy a house.
And let’s not forget: When that happens, when that occurs, it actually puts money back into the community and helps the economy more broadly.
Go ahead.
Q: Thank you. Follow-up on —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh — (laughs) — go ahead.
Q: Is it me? Or —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s okay.
Q: Okay. Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’ve got the floor, my friend.
Q: A follow-up on Mayor Garcetti’s nomination. It looks like he doesn’t have bipartisan support, as this week, Florida Senator Marco Rubio placed a hold on his nomination, along with six other diplomatic position, including Rich Verma, Greeta — Geeta Rao.
What do you have to say on that? Is the President calling these senators — some of these senators to get these nominations through the Senate?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, it’s basically what I just said. We think that Eric Garcetti is — you know, is qualified to serve this vital role. That’s why the President nominated him, right? The President nominated him because he thought he had the experience to be the U.S. ambassador to India.
And as I mentioned moments ago to one of your colleagues, he received bipartisan support going out of committee. And we — we would like to see the — you know, the Senate to move him forward and to continue getting that support.
Q: One more. Secretary Blinken landed in Delhi today to attend the G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting — attend (inaudible) — Foreign Ministers Meeting and his bilateral with his Indian counterpart. Is he carrying any message from the President for the Prime Minister and (inaudible)?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. On his visit, Secretary Blinken will reaffirm the strength of the U.S.-India relationship and express our commitment to continue working together and in groups like the Quad to advance economic growth for our two contours and expand cooperation as we have our shared priorities.
So, that’s what you’re going to hear from Secretary Blinken. That is the message that he will deliver.
Q: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q: Thanks, Karine. Just following up on the HAVANA Act, which technically stands for the “Helping American Victims Afflicted by Neurological Attacks” Act. The predicate, obviously, of that law the President signed is that these are attacks. And now the intelligence community is saying that the — seven agencies are saying it was either “unlikely” or “very unlikely” that that’s the case.
So, understanding your position that obviously the administration wants to ensure that personnel across the government gets care — but that’s not what this law outlines. This law outlines care for those who have been a subject of attacks. Is that a concern of yours? And how do you plan to address that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think what the President wants to make sure that occurs, that happens is that we show our commitment to — to government employees, to the workforce, as they’re going through a real issue here. This is a real problem that they all have experienced.
And so, we want to make sure that they continue the medical care that they’re getting, and that they get the resources that is needed as they’re working for the U.S. government. That doesn’t take that away.
And — and so, that is a message that we’re going to send to the workforce, the U.S. government federal workforce, and also the families who are going through this, the individuals who are going through this right now.
And I think an important message for the President to send. They had a real experience that they all went through, that they reported, that, clearly, the intelligence community looked into to see exactly what it was. They have a conclusion; they came up with an assessment. I would leave it to them to speak directly to that.
But it doesn’t — it doesn’t take away what they went through. And so, the President is committed to that. And I think that’s the message that we want to make sure goes forward.
Q: And just quickly following up on that: Now that this assessment is in, does the President feel, does the White House feel as if this is a settled matter? Or does he have more (inaudible)?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — honestly, I would refer you to the ODNI on their specific assessment and where they are and what they concluded. I’m not going to speak from — to that from here.
I just — what I want to reiterate again is that we want to make sure that the workforce, our federal workforce, understand that their health and safety is indeed our priority.
Go ahead, Jen.
Q: Yeah. On the Federal Reserve search — the search for the Vice Chair — can you say, is the President looking for a more dovish counterbalance to Jay Powell, which is what some progressives would prefer? Or is that not a factor in this search?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, this is a priority. Making sure that we fill this vacancy is a priority to this President. I’m not going to get into specifics on what the President’s process is, but I would tell you that he — he thinks it’s important to get that vacancy filled, and he’s going to clearly continue to make that a priority. And we hope to have something to share in the near future.
Go ahead.
Q: FISA 702 reauthorization. What’s the White House’s position on reforms to 702 in this round? Would you be open to reforms? Or is the White House insisting that the selection be reauthorized without any charges?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything new to — to share on that particular piece.
Q: Okay. If I could go back to the question about the D.C. Council action and the likelihood that the Senate will send the President a bill that forces him to make a decision. Is it fair to say the President at this moment is undecided? Has he not yet decided what he’s going to do?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals from here. I just — what I can say to you is the President’s commitment just more broadly, as it relates to crime, as it relates to making sure that Americans and families feel safe, and what he’s done in the past two years but also beyond.
And so, that’s what I can speak to at this time. Just not going to get into hypotheticals from here.
Q: Okay. So let me ask you it this way: There — basically there are two ways to look at the question. One is to side with the mayor, who said that the Council’s action went too far and she vetoed it. The other is to side with members of the Council who insisted on enacting it against her objections. But has the President decided where he stands? Does he stand with Mayor Bowser? Does he stand with mayors — members of the Council?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, what I can say — so as it relates to D.C., I’ll say this and the President has ben very clear about this: You know, we think that we must do more to — to reduce crime and save lives. And that’s why the President has taken those actions.
And it relates to more — D.C. more broadly, and the President has said this as well, it’s a clear example of why D.C. deserves statehood. Right? And that’s something that the President has called for since the campaign.
But, again, I’m not going to get into — into particulars, into hypotheticals.
The Safer American Plan was something that the President has put forward to lay out how he sees making communities safer, how he sees dealing with an increase of crime that happened — that he inherited, that happened before he walked into office.
So I’ll just leave it there, and I won’t speak further to any hypotheticals.
I’ll go to the back, and then I’ll come back down.
Go ahead.
Q: Yeah. Thanks, Karine. So, I want to ask you about the Labor Secretary pick, Julie Su. While she was labor secretary of California, the — during COVID — the state lost between $20 billion and $32 billion in unemployment insurance to fraudsters. Meanwhile, 5 million people had benefits delayed and a million people had the wrongfully canceled. Is the President concerned that this will impact her getting confirmed?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things, because there’s — we got to put this all in context of what was happening at the time.
Its was a historic crush of unemployment claims at the onset of the pandemic. That’s what we were seeing. The design of the initial pandemic unemployment systems and years of national investments in UI modernization led to challenges — right? — including fraud attacks, as you were just stating, across the nation in red and blue states alike. That was happening across the country during the very early states of the pandemic.
But under her leadership — under Julie’s leadership, California took important steps to process a number of claims — we’re talking about one in five, which is the entire nation — that’s what California was dealing with — to ensure that working people who were — who were out of work, and this was not their fault, could continue to pay their rent, could continue to put food on the table, continue to put the — keep- the lights on.
So, look, she believed in safety nets and — need to be strengthened. And that is something that she indeed believes in.
And — and I’ll add — I’ll add this as well. When the President took office, he — he prioritized combating potential frauds of relief funds, just as he did aggressively and successfully as the Vice President.
So this is an issue that’s important to her, strengthening those safety nets, and also an issue that’s important to the President that he’s actually taken action on.
Q: So, does he think she can be confirmed?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, absolutely. Yes. He thinks that the Senate should confirm her and she is the right person for the job and has the experience to do the job.
And let’s not forget: She has spent the last two years working hand in hand, you know, with — with Secretary Walsh.
Q: You talked about TikTok earlier. I’m just curious now, why did the administration then wait so long to ban TikTok in all federal employees? Twenty-nine states have already done it. And the President, his first month in office, canceled an investigation by the Commerce Department into TikTok. So why did he wait so long?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’m not going to speak to any investigation. Look, the process is happening now. That’s what we’re seeing. What I can say is that the President has been very — been very clear about his concern with apps like TikTok. And I just laid out the CDC reporting and how it’s affecting our children, and the importance of making sure that we deal with this in a real way, which is why he put forth his Unity Agenda and laying out ways that we can deal with an issue that is affecting the emotional growth and — and also — of our children.
And so, look, the Unity Agenda kind of lays out how the President wants to move forward. I’m not going to go beyond that.
Go ahead.
Q: A quick follow-up on the ESG Labor rule. You had framed, the White House has framed this as kind of MAGA Republicans imposing their views on the free market. The fact that two Democratic senators say they’re going to vote for this bill, does that undermine the argument?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all, because this is a — this is something that Republicans have pushed forward. This is their — this is their — this is there agenda, which is kind of in line how they want to move forward with a very extreme ideology, the MAGA — the MAGA Republican ileo — ideology. And that’s what they’re going, again, is they’re really pushing down the throats of private sector. That’s what we’re seeing. This is what this piece of legislation is.
Q: And a timeline question. Any timeline on when the President would issue this veto if we assume this bill passes today?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, it depends on the mechanism of the Senate and what ultimately happens in the voting dynamics. I can’t speak to that here, on the timeline.
Go ahead, Peter.
Q: Thank you, Karine. Why is President Biden afraid of China?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The President is not afraid of China.
Q: Well —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Did you see — did you see the President last week, when we went to — when we went to — when we went to Ukraine, went to Kyiv? This is not a President that’s afraid of anything. It was a historic trip that many of you said was brave.
So, clearly, this is a President that’s not afraid to go into a war zone. He’s not afraid to go there when there’s no military presence on the ground.
So, there’s nothing that this President fears.
Q: China flew a spy craft over the U.S. The President didn’t really do anything to China. And according to the FBI director, China may have created something that ha killed more than 1.1 million people in this country. And President Biden is not punishing them.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you’re — you’ve given me two — two things here. So let’s take them in parts.
As we all about the Chinese surveillance — the China surveillance balloon, the President did take that down. And he did it in a way that, as it was on its path, we collected information from it; we protected our national security information on the ground; and we did it in a way that as smart, effective, and also protected the American people. That’s what the President is always going to put forth, is the — is the safety of the American people. So that’s what the President did with that particular issue.
Look, as it relates to — you’re talking about the COVID origins, we’ve been very clear. We’ve been very clear that we need the data, and we need to figure out how to get to the bottom of the COVID origins. And that’s something that the President has said since the beginning of this administration.
So, that — none of that has changed.
Q: But with his campaign, it was all about shutting down the virus and how hard it was for families with an empty chair at the kitchen table because of COVID. If we now know, according to the FBI director, who is most likely responsible for all those empty chairs at all those kitchen tables, why not do more to try and hold them accountable?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — so, I’m going to flip that on its head for a second. It was because of this President that took action — by the way, the last administration did not; they dod not have a comprehensive plan to actually —
Q: But before that —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, no no. No —
Q: That is responding to COVID.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No —
Q: But where did COVID come from?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, but — but —
Q: If we know that it’s China —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Peter, you can’t tell — first of all, you can’t tell me how to answer the question. I’m going to answer it for you. Right? So just give me a second.
Q: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So because he took those actions, he actually helped to save lives. Because he — he took action to make sure that people got shots in arms and put a comprehensive plan in front of the American people and put in the work, we actually were able to get to a place where COVID is not gone, but we are now in a place — we’re in a different place in the pandemic. And that’s because of the President. And that’s because of his leadership.
So, let’s not — let’s, like, be very real about what the President has done over the last two years to take on COVID, to make sure that the economy is growing again, to make sure that we’re really working for the American people. So that’s number one. I want to be very, very, clear on that.
Now, to your question about COVID origins: As we’ve known — as we’ve know, we have seen many — many different conclusions — right? — from — from the intelligence community. Some of them have made some conclusion on one side. Some of them have made conclusions on the other side. Some of them say they don’t have enough information. So I want to also be very careful there as well.
And it was because of this President, very early on — the first several months of his administration — he went to the intelligence community and said, “We need to figure out how all this occurred.” Because, who knows, we have to try and prevent any future pandemics. So that is the work that this President did.
Our relationship with China has not changed. It is — it is very different — I’m going to be very clear — very different than how we have seen it in the last administration.
All right, I’m going to continue. Go ahead, Peter. And I’ll come to the back.
Q: Just a separate thought on China, if I can quickly. The administration has constantly described the administration has constantly described the relationship between the U.S. and China is one of strategic competition, a point that the President has made himself a couple of weeks ago when he spoke about this issue.
The congressman, Mike Gallagher, who was the Republican Chair of the House Select Committee on China, yesterday referred to this relationship as an “existential struggle.” Does the White House agree with that characterization? And is the White House understanding the threat from China right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, under this President, we are more prepared to outcompete China, protect our national security, and advance a free and open Indo-Pacific than ever before. That’s under this President. And that’s because of the Pres- — of the work that he he’s done in the last two years and also on the experience. This is an experienced President.
As you know, he spent more than 30 years in the Senate. He spent eight years as Vice President. And so, he understands national — how to deal with foreign policy relationships, foreign leaders.
And so, that’s how we see our relationship with China moving forward. Many of our efforts we have been pursuing are bipartisan. They’re underscoring the alignment at home on key issues, and we will continue to work with Democrats and Republicans, because the way we have moved forward is in a bipartisan way.
Q: Let me follow up on a separate question that was asked by one of my colleagues in the room about student loans and the wait for the decision from the Supreme Court as it relates to this.
I know that you said earlier that there is no other plan. The plan right now is the one being presented before the Supreme Court and you feel strongly in your case. Obviously, those who have loans that they would owe, in case this is rejected, don’t have the same ability. They have to have a backup plan in case. I know that two months would pass before they would have to pay those loans again, in case the Supreme Court rejects this here.
But what do you say to those Americans who have tens of thousands of dollars that they might be responsible for two months after the Court makes its decision, if they choose to reject it? How should they be preparing right now for that? And what would you do to protect them?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I’ll just add that, yesterday, right in front of the Supreme Court, you saw many of those Americans speaking out loud —
Q: We did.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — and clear, and saying how important the President’s plan is to them. Because they’re being crushed, right?
Q: But what’s the — what should be —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No —
Q: — the plan B?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well —
Q: Because everybody who has their own budget at home has to have a plan B.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I totally — I — I hear you, Peter. And you asked me what the message was to the American people. You heard — I just laid out or mentioned how Secretary of Education put out, sent an email out to those borrowers saying that, “Hey, we have your back.”
This is an administration when you think about the President and the last couple of years here — he has — that is kind of his motto, right? “We have your back.” We will do everything we can to protect Americans and give them, again, some space to actually be able to be part of this growing economy.
And so, look, we do not — we do not — again we do not have another plan. This is our plan. This is it.
We believe that we have the legal authority. That’s why we took it to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. And we’re going to continue to fight.
And you saw — you saw the solicitor general do a fantastic job in putting forth a strong argument defending — defending the President’s plan.
Q: Just to be clear, though: So you don’t have another plan? Which is to say for those other — and you have those individuals’ backs, which is to say, if this is rejected though, there isn’t anything in the works right now —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What —
Q: — by this administration to have their —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I’m saying to you, Peter —
Q: — back going forward? They would be —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I’m saying — what I’m saying to you, Peter, is: This is our plan. It is a good plan because it helps Americans across the country, especially working Americans, middle-class Americans. So this is our plan.
And you heard it. You heard it. The reason I mentioned the folks that were in front —
Q: I get it. I’m just asking on behalf of —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — of the Supreme Court.
Q: — those folks that have tens of thousands they owe. What should they do?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I — and — and —
Q: So what should they do?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — they should know that we are going to continue to fight, that we feel strong in our legal authority here.
And you heard it. You heard it from the — from — from the SG yesterday, who did a — who did a — who defended it — the President’s plan in a forceful way in front of the Supreme Court.
Q: Has the President spoken to Jimmy Carer in recent days, given the fact that he appears to be doing well, considering the circumstances? Have they had any opportunity to speak?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any call to preview or to speak to. As — as you know, the President, I think, spoke to this when he did his ABC interview recently, that he has known Jimmy Carter for some time, was the first senator —
Q: But no new calls to share with us then?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — the first senator to endorse him. And so they have decades of relationship behind them. And so I would just say that, you know, he continues to wish him well.
But I don’t have a call to read out.
I’ll go to the back. Trying — all the way in the back Go — behind you.
Q: Thank you. So, shifting gears. The Daily Beast reported yesterday that Republican Congressman James Comer invoked President Biden’s son, Beau Biden, over not being prosecute — prosecuted, excuse me — saying “This U.S. attorney had had an opportunity to go after the Biden’s years ago.” He goes on to say, “It was Beau Biden, the President’s other son, that was involved in some campaign donations from a person that got indicted.”
So, I’m wondering if the White House has a response to Chairman Comer invoking Beau Biden and whether the President thinks it’s potentially — if Mr. President thinks it’s potentially appropriate that Mr. Comer investigate his deceased son.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, it’s completely unappropriate [sic]. And it’s ugly, the comments that he made. And it says a lot about the chairman, which is not good, by the way. To — to make the statement that he did is incredibly ugly and inappropriate.
And here’s what I would say: Instead of — instead of House Republicans focusing on attacking the President and his family, why don’t they actually focus on what the American people put them in office to do, which is to deliver of them, which is to actually work with — with their colleagues — the Democratic colleagues, the President — to actually put forth pieces of legislation or put forth policies that’s going to make a difference in their lives?
And, you know, you don’t have to listen to me: You can look at the results from — from the midterms that said just that. They want to see — they want to see Congress working for them. That’s what they want to see.
They want to make sure that their Medicare is protected. They want to make sure that we’re lowering costs. They want to make sure that their family feels protected. They want to make sure that their rights are protected.
But that’s not what the House Republicans are doing. Instead, they want to do political stunts.
Q: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: In the back. Way in the back.
Q: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Way — way in the back. Go ahead.
Q: Thank you. The Attorney General, Merrick Garland, was testifying up on the Hill today, and he was asked a lot about fentanyl. I have a few questions for you on that front.
He was asked by Senator Graham — he said — Senator Graham said, quote, “Would you agree with me that whatever we are doing, as it relates to sentencing guidelines, is not working?” And the Attorney General said, “I would agree with that because of the number of deaths that you pointed out.”
Does President Biden believe that sentencing guidelines around fentanyl deaths need to get stricter?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to just — I just cause a bit of that — the coverage. I didn’t catch all of it. And I — I will say that the — the Secretary — or the Attorney General spoke to a number of issues from what I understand. What I know for sure that he did, he spoke to the department’s independent — the Justice Department’s independent work and his commitment to rule of law.
I’m just not going to go beyond — beyond that.
Q: The Attorney General said — was asked if he opposes making the most cart- — the senior-most cartels being labeled as “foreign terrorist organizations.” And he said he would not oppose that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I only saw a little bit of the coverage.
What I can say is what he’s committed to. I’m just not going to go into this.
Q: So let me get a little big broader for a second. The number of fentanyl deaths in this country has doubled in the last two years. The Attorney General descried it as an epidemic. Can you describe what the administration has done to take on, to curb, and to try and tackle this epidemic, as he put it?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the — this administration, when you think about fentanyl and you think about the work that this President has done, it has been very much focused on getting — making sure that we keep families safe, making sure that we keep our communities safe, and getting fentanyl off the street. And we’ve done that in record numbers.
You’ve heard me talk about that. You’ve heard me talk about the work that this President has done in fent — fentanyl more specifically, which I was just talking about the plan that he put forward to make sure that we keep communities safe. And that is part of that as well.
We have seen record number of fentanyl, you know, come off the streets because of the work that the President has done, because of what he has committed in protecting the border’s security, making sure that he put forth historic funding.
There’s still more work to be done. We would like to do that with Republicans. They’ve refused to work with us. If anything, they want to take away — they want to take away that border security funding. They want to defund the FBI.
But the Pres- — the President is using the tools that are in front of him right now on the executive level to seek — to make sure that we do every — he does everything that he can, without the help of many — of many Republicans in Congress, to make sure that we keep our communities safe. And that’s what he’s going to continue to do.
Go ahead, way in the back. Owen.
Q: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Karine. Two questions for you, please. Thank you. Number one, just recently in California — a very tragic story. Catholic Bishop David O’Connell, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, he served the area for 45 years ministering to migrants, the poor, victims of gang violence; known as the peacemaker. And he was gunned down at his home, murdered, just — again, just a few weeks ago. I know the White House is aware of it, but do you have a statement you — or is there —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: — something you want to tell the faithful there in Los Angeles?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Absolutely. And I appreciate the question.
We do have something that we want to share, which is: The President and the First Lady join Archbishop Gómez, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the entire Catholic community in the mourning of Bishop David O’Connell. We also express our sympathy and prayers for the family and friends of the Bishop, who will certainly — certainly remember his legacy of service to those on the margins of society.
And so, again, we offer up our condolences to — the community.
Q: Thank you. And then secondly, is the President — is President Biden aware of this leaked document that recently came out of the Richmond, Virginia, field office that compared Catholics — conservative Catholics — to violent extremists?
Several attorneys general have written a letter, and they say, quote, “Anti-Catholic bigotry appears to be festering in the FBI, and the Bureau is treating Catholics as potential terrorists because of their beliefs.” Again, they wrote that in reaction to the leaked document.
So, my question is: Is the President aware of that document? And what would he tell Catholics seeing these headlines who might be worried. “They’re coming after us — the Feds — because of our faith”?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — look, I have not seen this leaked document. I have not spoken to the Pres- — I haven’t see it, so therefore I haven’t spoken to the President about it. So I just don’t want to get ahead of — of that.
Q: Would you look at it eventually and give —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.
Q: Okay.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q: Thank you, Karine. About Labor Department’s ESG rule.
I have a follow-up question on that. Today, Senator Jon Tester joined Senator Manchin, and he — he voiced his opposition to this ESG retirements rule. I understand the President will veto this bill. But what’s your reaction to his statement today?
And how does the White House feel about growing opposition to the ESG investment in Congress and in general?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I spoke to this at the top of the briefing, and I laid out where the President is on this. I — as it relates to the dynamics of the Senate and where this is going to go, I’d leave the to the — to Senator Schumer. That’s something for him to speak to.
What I can say is that if this bill reaches the President’s desk, he will veto it. And I’ll — I’ll leave it there for now.
Go ahead.
Q: Thanks a lot. I want to ask about Merrick Garland’s testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was asked a number of questions in regards to Hunter Biden and the ongoing investigation that’s being conducted by the U.S. Attorney in Delaware.
And during that particular testimony, he said it would be a “national security problem” if the President’s son had been receiving payments from a foreign government as a means to influence the administration.
Do you agree with that statement from the chief law enforcement office of the U.S.?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re not going to continue to be prudent from here and not speak to any investigation that is currently underway by the Department of Justice.
And when it comes to Hunter Biden, I would refer you to his personal representative. He’s a private citizen. So I will leave it there.
And we’re going to be consistent from here.
Q: Let me ask you another question on a separate matter entirel- — entirely- a foreign policy matter. Two Iranian warships are going to dock in port in Brazil on Sunday. As you well know, the President of Brazil was just here meeting with President Biden. President Biden lauded the shared values of both countries. Do you have any issue with the Iranian warships docking in port in Brazil?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, we’ve been very clear when we’ve been asked these type of questions of meetings or any engagement. We just won’t speak to that from here. I would refer you to the respective countries. I’m just not going to speak to a potential meeting or a potential engagement. Just not going to do that.
Court —
Q: Well, it’s not a meeting.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Courtney.
Q: It’s not a meeting.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m just not going to — clearly, there’s some sort of engagement happening. I’m just not going to speak that — to that from here.
Go ahead, Courtney.
Q: Thank you, I wanted to ask you about the case that is before a judge in a federal court in Texas about abortion medication. We’re expecting that judge to rule any day now in the decision that could either temporarily, permanently — depending on how the legal process goes — ban access to mifepristone in certain places.
What’s your message to patients that are worried about this? I know that you’ve, so far, spoken out on how you disagree with this court challenge. But what should doctors know, that should patients know when this can happen any day, especially given that this judge has ben relatively hostile to the administration?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I mean, I spoke to this very recently. Like, we don’t know what the court is going to do, as you just stated. Ultimately, it’s for the col — court to decide. So we’re always very careful.
The decision would be unprecedented, as you know, and devastating to women’s health. And we may find ourselves in uncharted territory.
And so, we’re closely — closely working with the Justice Department and DHS — HHS – on this, on how to be prepared for any range of outcome or potential outcomes. And so we’ll continue to do that. We’ll continue to be steadfast. We will — we’re monitoring this and waiting, like all of you, to see where the decision goes.
But again, we’re not taking this lightly. We’re taking this very seriously. This is going to be — depending on where this goes, this could be unprecedented and uncharted territory. And we’re going to continue to do our — our work internally to see which way — how we would respond.
Q: I also wanted to ask you about education for practi- — (sneezes) — excuse me — practitioners, doctors who perform abortions in certain states. When they’re in medical school now, it’s difficult to get practice with the procedure given that it’s so limited or restricted.
Vice President Harris expressed interest in working on that issue, either by sending students to other paces to get practical experience or other ideas. Can you provide any update on that and if your engaged in that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I know she — she spoke about this recently. I don’t have anything more to share than what she laid out about her concerns and the potential next steps. Don’t — just don’t have anything further to share with — than what the Vice President laid out.
Go ahead.
Q: If the Supreme Court rules against the President’s student debt plan, will you all consider extending the payment pause while you come up with a plan B?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, we don’t — our plan is what we — what we laid out in August. That is our plan. And we believe it’s a good plan as it delivers — as it relates to the American people — middle class Americans, as it relates to working people.
This is a plan that is going to give relief to tens of millions of Americans across the country. And we heard from many of them yesterday in front of the Supreme Court.
I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals.
We believe — we believe that we have a strong legal authority here. That’s why we took it to the Supreme Court. And you heard from the solicitor general. She made a very strong case for why the President’s program is important. And — and I’m just going to leave it there for now.
Q: Just another question on TikTok. You all have had TikTok influencers in the building before; you’ve briefed them before. Given the focus on the national security concerns, do you still feel like that’s an appropriate way to engage with the app?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as — as I’ve mentioned before, the White House, clearly, does not — does not use TikTok. But one thing that we do believe in is meeting the American people where they are. And the reality is some — many of them — millions of them are — on this app.
So we engage with people who are using their own platforms. It’s up to them on how they use the content. But we’ve always said from here — this is something that we’ve said for a long time — that we’re going to try to communicate with the American people and meet them where they are. But we’re — also have been clear about the concerns that we have with this — with — apps like TikTok. And that’s not going to stop.
Q: Thanks.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Oh, go ahead. You’re the last question.
Q: Thanks, Karine. We just learned that the TSA officers at a Pennsylvania airport stopped an explosive device from getting on the plane Monday. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any comment from here at this time. I would have to talk to our team.
Q: More broadly, do you have a message to Americans who are hearing about flight safety incidents, close calls, devices on planes? How can you ensure that the airs are safe — the air is safe?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, Secretary Buttigieg has been on the airwaves today, this morning, the last couple of months on this, speaking to our commitment to making sure that we keep Americans safe, especially Americans who are — are, clearly, flying.
And — and so we’re going to continue to do that. The President is committed to that.
As it relates, for one example, to the — the objects — the three recent objects, one of the reasons the President took that — the actions that we took because we wanted to make sure that we kept civilian air- airways safe. So, you’ve seen him take really bold actions in that way.
But as it relates to, you know, just what we’ve been seeing the past couple of months and just most recently, look, we’re going to do everything that we can to make sure that we — that Americans feel safe flying.
I know there’s a FAA investigation on this most recent incident, and so, you know, we’re going to see where the investi- — investigation goes and how we can prevent that.
All right. Thanks, everybody. See you tomorrow.
March 8, 2024: Press Release: Bill Signed: H.R. 7454
On Friday, March 8, the President signed into law:
H.R. 7454, the “Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2024,” which extends through May 10, 2024, Federal Aviation Administration authorities and related revenue authorities and extends through May 11, 2024, the authority of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to mitigate credible threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems to covered facilities and assets.
Thank you to Representatives Graves and Larson, Senators Cantrell and Cruz, and many others for their leadership.
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 6 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (H.R. 4366; the “Act”), I hereby designate as emergency requirements all funding (including the transfer and repurposing of funds) so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as outlined in the list of accounts.
The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
March 9, 2024: Press Release: Bill Signed: H.R. 4366
H.R. 4366, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024,” which provides in divisions A through F, full-year funding through September 30, 2024, for departments and agencies of the Federal Government covered by 6 of 12 appropriations bills. Division G includes extension for existing authorities.
Thank you to Leaders Schumer and McConnell, Senators Murray and Collins, Speaker Mike Johnson, Leader Jeffries, and Representatives Granger and DeLauro, for their leadership.
March 22, 2024: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and White House National Communications Advisor John Kirby
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone.
Q: Good afternoon.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I wanted to just start off at the — at the top that we just heard — obviously, all of us just heard the terrible news. Our thoughts are with the Duchess of Cambridge and her family members and friends during this incredibly difficult time. And certainly, we wish her a full recovery.
And I think it’s important that we respect their privacy, especially at this time, so I’m not going to go further — further than that.
I’ll just — I will do one more thing before that, though. I know folks are going to ask if the President has spoken to her or the family. I can just say right now that we don’t have anything to share at this time. But, obviously we – we wish the Duchess of Cambridge a full recovery and we are incredibly sad to hear of the news.
Q: Is the First Lady going to send her a note?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to share at this time. We — this news just broke, obviously. So, we are taking this one — this terrible news — as all of you are. And so, just don’t have anything to share.
We want to make sure that we certainly respect their privacy at this incredibly difficult time — not just for her but her family. So, I’ll just — just leave it there.
Q: Did the palace give the White House any kinds of a heads up?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would just say we learned just like all of you. And we want to be incredibly respectful to their privacy.
So, I have a couple of things at the top. Obviously, we have a guest. The Admiral is here today to talk about a couple of things in the Middle East and more broadly.
So, tomorrow makes 15 years since the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land. President Biden believes that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. And since taking office, he’s been focused on historic actions to lower healthcare and prescription drug costs and expand access to coverage.
So, ahead of this historic milestone, I want to go over some key statistics which I think is incredibly important.
Under President Biden, more Americans have health insurance than under any president. A record-breaking 21 million Americans signed up for health coverage this year, with a majority of shoppers able to find coverage for less than $10 a month.
Americans are saving, on average, 800 bucks a year on premiums.
Four states have ex — expanded Medicaid since the President took office. And millions have benefited from ACA’s critical protections, which have prevented people from being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or being charged with more for being a woman.
But President Biden is not rist — resting on these accomplishments. He has a bold agenda to continue to bring down Americans’ healthcare costs. He’s calling on Congress to — to make expanded Affordable Care Act’s tax credits permanent so Americans can continue to save on premiums.
After decades of failed attempts and without a single Republican vote in Congress, President Biden beat Big Pharma by passing the Inflation Reduction Act. Already, the law is lowering prescription drug prices.
Now, President Biden wants to expand the amount of drugs that Medicare can negotiate lower prices for at least 50 drugs per year. And he wants to expand the 35 bucks for a month cap on insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on drug spending to everyone.
Despite all of this, Republican officials are still working to end the Affordable Care Act, repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, and gut Medicaid. In fact, congressional Republicans have attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times, including during the last administration with the support of the President’s predecessor.
President Biden has been clear he will never let that happen and he will never stop working to protect and strengthen the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Speaking of healthcare, this week Republican Study Committee, which represents 100 percent of House Republican leadership and 80 percent of their conference, released its budget.
Now, you’ve heard the President say this. His father has an expression that goes, “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value.”
So, let’s look at what House Republicans actually value. First, their budget endorses a national abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest. It pus IVF treatment on the chopping block through House Republicans’ support for the Life at Conception Act.
The President believes we must restore the right to choose and protect other freedoms, not take them away.
The Republican Study Committee budget would make devastating cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and the Affordable Care Act; increase —
Q: Your mic is dropping out.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s —
Q: Your mic is dropping out.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s dropping down? Can you guys hear me?
Q: Yeah.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was on a roll. (Laughter.)
All right. But I want to make sure you hear me.
All right. So, the Republican Study Committee budget would make devastating cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and the Affordable Care Act; increase housing and prescription drug costs for families; give more huge tax cuts to the wealthy and the biggest corporations. Put simply, their budget lays out a dark future for America.
This is about our visions for the future: whose side are we on. President Biden is on the side of the American people. He believes in giving the middle class a fair shot, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and securing Americans’ rights and freedoms. He will never stop fighting for that future.
(Referring to the microphone audio.) Is there still an issue? I hear some rumbling. We’re all good? Okay, great.
And then, next, before I turn it over, I wanted to turn to the latest from Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives just voted to pass the funding bill to keep the government open, invest in the American people, and strengthen our economy and national security. The Senate should pass — pass it as quickly as possible.
To be clear this bill is a com- — compromise reached by congressional appropriators, so no side got everything it wanted.
But it expands access to child care, Head Start; invests in cancer research; funds prevention programs; and advances American leadership abroad.
It also provides resources to secure the border that Republicans opposed. We fought hard and for additional resources and were successful in preventing Republicans from severely underfunding DHS.
But it’s not enough. Republicans have blocked our multiple requests in increased border funding and the bipartisan border security agreement.
Congress should pass that agreement to give border personnel the policies and funding needed to secure the border. The House must also pass the bipartisan national security supplemental to advance our national security interests.
And I do have one — one last thing.
Turning to the President’s schedule and upcoming visit, we recently announces that, on April 15th, the President will welcome Prime Minister Sudani of Iraq to the White House to coordinate on common priorities and reinforce the strong bilateral partnership between the United States and Iraq.
The leaders will reaffirm their commitment to Strategic Framework Agreement and deepen their shared vision for a secure, sovereign, and prosperous Iraq fully integrated into the Board of Regents.
President Biden and Prime Minister Sudani will consult on a range of issues during the visit, including our shared commitment to the lasting defeat of ISIS, an ev — an evolution of the military mission nearly 10 years after forming the successful Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.
They will also discuss ongoing Iraqi financial reforms to promote economic development and progress towards Iraqi’s energy independence and modernization.
And I do have something about the week ahead.
On Tuesday, March 26th, the President and the Vice President will travel to Raleigh, North Carolina. We will have more to share soon, but you’ll hear the President and the Vice President highlight how they are fighting for all Americans and their vision of the future. So, we look forward to seeing you on the road.
With that, Admiral John Kirby is here to — to give us an update, discuss Ukraine and the Middle East and the President’s morning call with the President-elect of Indonesia. Thank you for your patience…
…MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Chris, what you got?
Q: So the spending vote is today.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q: (Inaudible) will let us reach durable spending agreements with House Republicans. What’s your response to the motion to vacate that was filed against Speaker Johnson and, you know, the future of those (inaudible) negotiations?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we’ve always been clear: We are not going to get in the middle of what’s going on in the House leadership. That’s not going to be our focus. The President has been very clear. He’s going to continue to focus on the American people.
You saw him in Arizona, where he made a really important chips announcement on semiconductors. Going to create 30,000 jobs in — in Arizona — good paying union jobs. The — the, you know, $8.5 billion commitment that’s going to actually with — with Intel — that’s going to actually spur more investment into this country — on manufacturing investment, doing more semiconductors right here in the U.S.
And so, that’s what the President wants to focus on: creating jobs, actually investing in America. You saw him go through three states in two days to talk about how he sees his vision for this country. He has been also, very clear.
Look, there are a couple of things that are on the floor of the House — right? — or one of them is — should be on the floor of the House, which is the national security supplemental. We know it would get overwhelming support. We need to see them move forward on it. You just heard from my colleague from NSC how important that — for Ukraine to have the funding that they need or have the assistance — security assistance that they need to continue to defend themselves. We want to see that go through.
And there’s the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate — Republicans and Democrats coming together to try and deal with what’s going on at the border.
We’re just not going to speak to what’s going on with the leadership. I guess, get — grabs — you know, get your popcorn, sit tight, and watch what is happening.
Q: And what’s the risk if the Senate does not immediately move on the spending legislation and potential for partial whenever shutdown of —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look — look, there is still time to prevent a partial shutdown. You know, the House passed the funding bill, as you all know, and the Senate still has time to pass it today. And there is no reason for it to not move forward.
This is about — this is not about this President. It’s not about the White House. It’s about the American people. We’ve always said that. This is about programs that American families need.
And so, we — we sh- — we should be able to avoid a partial f- –shutdown. It is possible to do so. And so, we want to see if the Senate move quickly on this.
Q: Thank. Has the President seen that dramatic video of migrants surging past National Guardsmen in Texas in — in El Paso?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I have not spoken to the President about that video. What I can say is this: You know, I really, truly believe that’s a question for, you know, the Republican governor of Texas, right? This is — this is something that he should address, that he should actually speak to.
The President has worked with Congress in the Senate, as I just spoke to, about getting an immigration bill done, making sure that — making sure that we deal with the border challenges that we see — that we are now seeing. And you have a — a governor of Texas who’s continued to politicize this.
I do want to say we are grateful for the Border Patrol’s quick work to get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants. So, that’s important.
But congressional Republicans need to move on this. What they’re doing instead — and this is the bipartisan agreement, obviously — is listening to the former President, President Trump, tell them not to get involve in moving forward this bipartisan agreement because of his own personal politics, because it will help this President.
You all reported that. It’s not coming from us. You all reported that.
And it is unfor- — unfortunate that Congress Republicans are not getting on board with what majority of Americans care about. And you have a governor in — in Texas, Governor Abbott, who is continuing to make this — make this, sadly a dangerous situation, a chaotic situation. Let’s not forget who they pass by to — to do — to pas by the razor wires. They pass by the Texas National Guards that the Republican Governor put — put at the border.
Q: But are — are you saying that Americans should just expect that there will continue to be a standoff between the National Guardsmen —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There shouldn’t be —
Q: — and the border agents?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But — but he —
Q: What is the resolution there?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There shouldn’t — the resolution is — is pushing for — with the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate with Republicans and Democrats. That’s the solution.
Q: But with all due respect, it doesn’t seem like it’s going anywhere.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s not — there’s no —
Q: So, what’s the solution —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There’s — there’s no there’s no “all due respect.” You are asking me a question. I am telling you the solution
The solution is for Congress to move forward and Republicans to get out of the way or get involved — get involved.
Republicans in the Senate got involved with Democrats, got involved with is a well for a couple of months to come up with this bipartisan agreement — an agreement that was supported by the Border Patrol union, an agreement that was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that was — that if it is put into effect — it does become law if they give them — the President the opportunity to sign this bill, it would be the toughest and the fairest legislation or law that we have seen in some time to deal with the border.
I mean, honestly, this is a question for the — for the governor of Texas. Seriously, that question is for — he is the one who — the razor wire, that’s him. The National Guards, that’s him.
The Border Patrol agents still did their job, even though it was — it was — you know, they got — you know, they got in the way, Like, the governor’s plans got in the way.
Q: It just — it sounds like, right now, the White House and the President — the administration is not considering anything else to stop future events like that. Right now, the blame is the Texas governor and Congress.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You have a governor who has politicized this issue. Fact. That is just fact. He has politicized this issue.
You have a former president who said to Congress — Republicans in Congress — do not move forward with a bipartisan agreement that was agreed upon by — by senators because it helps up — it helps Joe Biden, when we’re not thinking about helping Joe Biden. We’re thinking about helping the American people.
The majority of the American people want us to do something on this issue. And Republicans are allowing the former President to get in the way.
So, we’ve done the work. We have. We have done the work. And we need more. Yes, we were able to secure more funding for DHS with this — with this budget deal, but we need more resources. We do.
And so, there is an agreement — there is an agreement that took two months to get to. I don’t know. It’s up to them. They have to answer that question.
Go ahead.
Q: On that same issue. Today, Governor DeSantis said that he’s also looking at implementing a law like Texas that would allow Florida to arrest migrants as soon as they cross the Florida border. Are you concerned that other governors will be looking into, kind of, stricter immigration laws like this?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m concerned about the politics that’s being played here instead of dealing with the issue, instead of the governor of Florida saying, “Hey, senators — my senators in my state, we need to work on the issue at hand here. There is a bipartisan agreement that is in your chamber — right? — that is in the Senate and that was agreed upon in a bipartisan way. Can you guys move forward with that instead of playing politics?”
That’s what they want to see. We want to see an issue actually dealt with that majority of Americans care about.
There is a bipar- — I cannot say this enough: There is a bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate. Republicans were asked to reject it because of the former President, because of helping th- — his own politics.
That’s not how we should be moving forward as a country. That is just not. And that’s not what the President believes.
Q: Thank you. So, on this border video. What does President Biden think should happen to adult men who are assaulting and overpowering U.S. National Guardsmen?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me just first say, we’re grateful — and I said this moments ago — to Border Patrol agents for their — to — to quickly — to quickly work and get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants.
So, I — I want to be really clear that everyone who was apprehended was apprehended by Border Patrol. They were able to do their job, even though it’s made more — even though Republican governor — in particular, Governor Abbott – has made it difficult for them.
They need more resources. We need more personnel. I mean, we have to have the backs of our law enforcement on the ground are — who are dealing with this every day. But Republicans are getting in the way. Republicans in Congress do not want to help. And you have a governor, Governor Abbott, who is politicizing it. That is what’s happening.
Border Patrol agents did their job, even though, you know, the governor is getting in the way of them doing their jobs.
Q: But — I get that you guys — you talk so much about having a more humane immigration system. This video does not show helpless women and children begging for a safe place to come in. It shows adult men landing haymakers in U.S. troops in uniform. If that was happening anywhere else in the world, wouldn’t President Biden send reinforcements?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, two things. Everyone was apprehended by the Border Patrol agents. That is important to note. They were apprehended.
Q: They were deported?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wh- — they were apprehended. I can’t speak to indivil — individual cases. That’s not something I can do from here. But they were all apprehended. That’s number one.
And it — the reason why you’re talking about the Texas National Guard, they were put there because of the governor of Texas. The governor of Texas put the Texas National Guard there. We didn’t put them there. He put them there.
What we really need is actual solutions. We need to see resources. The Border Patrol agents deserve resources. They deserve to be able to do their jobs. And we’re not getting that from Republicans. They’re rejecting a bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.
Q: And last one. There is a Venezulan migrant with half a million followers on TikTok who is telling border crossers they can live in the empty houses in this country. Would President Biden support a law that would make that kind of squatting illegal?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have not seen that TikTok video, so I can’t comment on that.
Go ahead, Alaykla. Oh, maybe not. (Laughs.)
Q: Oh, yes. Does the President have plans to speak to Hakeem Jeffries now that there has been a motion to vacate Speaker Mike Johnson about whether Democrats will support him if that vote happens?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s something for Democrats to — to speak to. We’re not going to get involved. We do not get involved. We’ve been pretty — pretty consistent. Regardless if it’s Republicans or Democrats, we’ve been pretty consistent in that.
We trust Hakeem Jeffries’s leadership. He’s the leader of the Democrats. That is for them to decide on. I’m not going to comment on that.
Q: But if Democrats were to force him to bring a vote to the national security supplemental bill, would Biden then support their support of the Speaker?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Look, Democrats are going to make their decision. Democrats’ leadership, Hakeem Jeffries is going to make their own decision on how to move forward. We’re going to be consistent here on how important it is to move the national security supplemental.
We’ve been very clear. It passed 70-29 out of the Senate. Overwhelmingly — we believe it would pass overwhelmingly in the House if it was put to the floor. And there’s no — there’s no time to wait here. There’s no time to wait.
We see what’s going on in Ukraine. A lot of that is because of congressional inaction. We can’t — we can’t continue to allow that to happen. Ukraine needs the funding, the security, obviously, to continue to defend themselves. And that’s what we’re going to continue to speak to.
Go ahead.
Q: Just a quick housekeep- — housekeeping matter. Will the President head to Wilmington regardless of whether the shutdown is going to be averted or not?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you hear us say this all the time. This is still the case with this situ- — this scenario that we’re seeing, obviously, in Congress right now, is that the President is the President wherever he is, and he can do his business wherever he is.
I just don’t have a change in his — his schedule at this time.
Go ahead.
Q: The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been closing in on 40,000 this week. It’s down a little bit today. But does the President see that as an economic achievement, or does he view that — in his view, is the stock market not necessarily representative of the economy?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what we’ve said many times here — you’ve heard that from our economists; you’ve heard that from me — is the stock market is not the economy. We understand that. It is clear that President Biden’s economic plan is working to grow the middle class, spur investments in manufacturing.
You just heard me talk about what we saw in Arizona, what the President was able to announce in Arizona: semiconductors from — that came out of the CHIPS — CHIPS and Science Act — incredibly important bipartisan legislation; infrastructure and outperform other countries. That’s what we’re trying to do here.
So, record stock market highs under President Biden are good for retirement accounts, obviously, household wealth, which is why we would never root for a stock market crash or for Americans to lose their jobs. That’s not what this President is all — is about.
Q: Could you — if there — there could potentially be a lapse in funding if they can’t get this passed in the Senate by tonight. Can you speak to what the op — or the planning has been like for White House operations here, like who would be deemed essential? Can people work over the weekend? That kind of thing.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, Congress can prevent this — this partial shutdown. We believe there’s still time to do that. So, I want to be very clear here. But like every other agent, we are reviewing and updating our contingency plan. This is something that we do regularly. And we’ll have more to share, obviously, once — once that is finalized.
But federal employees just across the government will — will furlough, and that includes White House staff, just to give you a little bit of what that would look like.
But we believe there is still time. There is still time for Congress to prevent a partial shutdown. We — you know this — this doesn’t have to be. This doesn’t have to be. And obviously, we’re always — like every agency, we look at all options.
Q: If I could ask one question related to the royals. King Charles has been diagnosed with cancer, President Biden had said that he hoped to speak with him. Did they ever connect?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I have — don’t have a call to read out about what the President and the King — and King Charles. I just don’t have anything to share at this time.
Q: Do you expect the President will reach out to King Charles over the weekend about this?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, look, as I said before, obviously, it is tragic news. It is devastating news. And we certainly — the Duchess — wish the Duchess of Cambridge a — a full recovery. We want to respect their privacy, especially at this time. They have young children. They have a family so we want to respect their privacy.
I don’t have anything to share on the President reaching out. We just are learning this news. Literally, as I walked out, this news came — came to be. And so, it is incredibly deviating to hear, and we wish her, again, a full recovery.
Go ahead, Karen.
Q: Thanks. It was just over a week ago that the White House announced the new weapons package for Ukraine, and Jake Sullivan had said at the time it could move very quickly to get there. Do you have an update on whether that assistance has reached Ukraine and reached the battlefield yet?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, it was important to be able to — to have that extra additional as- — funding for — to give additional assistance. Ukraine obviously needs that. They are — they have lo – lo- — been losing ground in the battlefield. So, obviously, Jake came here and gave a lowdown — a laydown of how important that is.
I don’t have any specifics on where we are getting the funding — or not getting that funding — getting the assistance to — to Ukrainians. I would refer you to the Department of Defense. But it was important. It’s critical to do everything that we can to make sure Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself.
But that is not enough. You also heard Jake Sullivan say that from here. That is not enough. We have to move forward and get the national security supplemental. They — it has to get out of the House. We know it we got out of the Senate. It’s important to do that.
(Inaudible.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know we’ve got to wrap up. Go ahead, Jon.
Q: Thanks, Karine. The House Republican majority will narrow even further next month. Mike Gallagher announced that he’s stepping down from Congress on April 19th. Does that present an opportunity for the White House to try and pass that national security supplemental, given the fact that the numbers, the dynamics may be changing?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I mean, we don’t even need the dynamics to change — right? — in the House to get this done. We really don’t. If the Speaker were to put it on — on the floor — would have put it on the floor weeks ago, today, it would pass overwhelmingly. We know that to be true because we’ve heard from Republicans; you know where Democrats stand. We know that.
And so, we don’t need the dynamics of the House to change. We just need the Speaker to do his job and put forth on the floor something that we know, a — a — this national security supplemental, a bill that we know would pass overwhelmingly. That’s what he needs to do.
We need it. We need it for our own national security. It is important to get this done on behalf of the American people.
All right, everybody. Have a great weekend. We’ll see you next week.
Q: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, everyone.
Q: Thanks, Karine.
March 11, 2024: Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2025 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as Amended
By the authority vested in me as President by the laws of the United States of America, and in accordance with section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (the “Act”), as amended, 2 U.S.C. 901a, I hereby order that, on October 1, 2024, direct spending budgetary resources for fiscal year 2025 in each non-exempt budget account be reduced by the amount calculated by the Office of Management and Budget in its report to the Congress of March 11, 2024.
All sequestration shall be made in strict accordance with the requirements of section 251A of the Act and the specifications of the Office of Management and Budget’s report of March 11, 2024, prepared pursuant to section 251A(9) of the act.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
March 14, 2024: Remarks by President Biden at a Campaign Event | Milwaukee, WI (March 13 2024)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, folks. (Applause.) Well, it’s good to be here with the power of the state. Gwen Moore runs my whole life, runs everything. (Laughter.) And your county executive and your mayor. You got a hell of a crew.
And I tell you — but thank you so much. You know, the thing about this campaign and particularly here in — in Mil- — in Milwaukee specifically, but Wisconsin general and several other states, it’s going to get down to knocking on doors, the old-fashioned way. No, it really is. And it get’s down to just making contact with people.
Secondly, you opened up — you got 44 headquarters in this state — 44. And this is going to be the next President one of these days. (Laughter and applause.)
(The President addresses a child in the audience.) When you become president, and they say, “Joe Biden is out in the waiting room,” promise me you won’t say “Joe, who?” (Laughter and applause.) Okay?
Folks, look, we’ve got a lot to do. And there’s an awful lot at stake in this campaign. I need not tell you all. You understand it fully.
One of the things that is — that I like about this campaign, particularly here in this state, is — by the way, this is the first time headquarters has been here in Milwaukee. Well, there’s a reason for that. (Applause.) There’s a reason for that. Because if it wasn’t, I’d be afraid of going back with Gwen. You know — (Laughter.)
But all kidding aside, look, this is about ordinary people. I grew up in a neighborhood that was not poor but middle class — technically, lower-middle class — you know, a three-bedroom house with four kids and a grandpop living with us.
And, you know, wh- — it was decent, but, you know, there wasn’t anything left over at the end of the month. And so, what I started to do was — my dad used to say — that trickle-down economic program had been going on for years, not a whole hell of a lot trickled down on my dad’s kitchen table.
And so, we decided to make a completely different approach to how we were going to govern the country. And one of those was to make sure that we invested in people, we built them from the middle out and the bottom up. When that occurs, the wealthy still do very well. But it’s about time they start paying their fair share of taxes. (Applause.)
And today, I just came back from announcing $36 million project to reconnect this city in a way that it should never have been separated in the first place.
The reason I know that, my city — the city of Wilmington, Delaware, where I grew up — is a situation where we have I-95, not I — what’s that — I 50 —
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ninety-four.
THE PRESIDENT: – 50 — – 94 here.
And I’m President of the United States; I’m in charge of this program. They haven’t funded Delaware yet. I’m like, what the hell’s going on here? (Laughter.)
But we have, you know, over $3 billion to do this across the country. It’s about bringing people together.
You know, we’ve — I have a very different view than — as you know, than the opposition here, the guys I’m running against. I don’t think we’re a dying nation; I think we’re a growing nation. I don’t think we’re behind. No, I really mean it. (Applause.)
And I’ve been doing it a long time. But, you know, it’s never — I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s prospects — never, never, never.
And so, but they all — it’s — and I know it sounds like hyperbole, but it’s all in your hands and you — folks like you all across the country, because this is how I won the first time I ever ran, and this is how we’re going to win again.
A lot of you helped me in 2020, and we made sure he was a loser — he is a loser. (Laughter.) And we’re going to make sure that happens again, right? (Applause.)
And, by the way, we are — we are a country of immigrants. We’re — they are not “vermin.” (Applause.) And, look, you know, the matter is, all of us are immigrants — every one of us except the Native Americans here. And the fact of the matter is that we — it’s what we built this country.
That’s why we’re the most unique country in the world, the most powerful nation in the world, the most connected nation in the world. And we’ve got to take advantage of it, not walk away from it.
Any rate. A lot more tot talk about, but I want to — just ate to say thank you, thank you, thank you. (Applause.)
And, by the way, history is watching. History is watching. This young man is going to be reading about what we do and don’t do. Now, I don’t mean me personally — what we do as a generation now. We have a chance to really turn this country in the right direction, move in directions that are —
You know, we have the most vibrant economy in the world. We got a lot more to do. We’re investing in healthcare. We’re investing in all the things that matter, all the things that your senator from this state, Johnson, says if back to — if we win, he’s going to try to eliminate — eliminate.
So, we ju- — this is really important — really important. Not because of me but because of all of you and all we can do.
So, “No one should be jailed… ” By the way, I’m taking care of that. No one is going to be jailed. (Laughter.) No one should be jailed for just using and possessing marijuana and it is staying on their record. (Applause.)
And, by the way — and, by the way the fact of the matter is that stays on their record all — the whole time just for smoking marijuana. Now, if you’re selling it, if you’re out growing, it’s a different deal. But if you’re just using, it should be wiped off your record. Because you have that on your record, you have to — “Have you ever been arrested or do you have a felony on your record?” You have to put yes.
Not anymore. Not anymore.
Anyway, we got to do everything from gun violence to deal with choice. You know, our freedoms are at stake. They really are at stake — not a joke — the right to choose, the right to be able to determine whether you’re going to get to vote, how we vote.
There’s so much more we can do. But I’m talking too much. I just want to talk to you each individually.
Thank you all very, very much. (Applause.)
March 16, 2024: Remarks by President Biden at the Gridiron Club and Foundational Dinner
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, thank you, thank you. (Applause.) Thank you, thank you. I think I should sit down.
Good evening.
AUDIENCE: Good evening.
THE PRESIDENT: It’s great to be here at Gridiron dinner, though it’s six hours past my bedtime. (Laughter.)
What I love about the Gridiron are the opportunities for young people, like Dan Balz and Al Hunt. (Laughter.) But it was tough to see Mitch McConnell announce he’s stepping down as GOP leader. I hate to see a friend give up in his prime. (Laughter.)
Look, it’s been a long night. So, I’ll keep my remarks just a few minutes less than my State of the Union. (Laughter.) Kamala will stand up 83 times, because even the press has to admit: I crushed it. (Laughter and applause.) Granted, your expectations were so low, I just had to show up and remember who the president is. (Laughter.) That’s the press, always underestimating me.
But Kamala and I and the members of the administration here tonight are proud — proud of our accomplishments on behalf of the American people: record job growth, wages rising, rigging the Super Bowl for Taylor Swift. (Laughter.)
There have been some bright spots in the media. I heard Wordle website is actually doing news now. You get that? (Laughter.) The New York Ti- — anyway — (laughter.)
We know not everyone is feeling the progress we’re making. We’re committed to helping the little guy. Ron DeSantis, though, won’t take our calls. (Laughter and applause.)
Our big plan to cancel student debt doesn’t apply to everyone. Just yesterday, a defeated-looking man came up to me and said, “I’m being crushed by debt. I’m completely wiped out.” I said, “Sorry, Donald, I can’t help you.” (Laughter and applause.)
But we’re lucky to have great partners, including Governor Whitmer of Michigan. She did a great job tonight. (Applause.) Gretchen and I both joined the picket line of UAW workers.
A strong union can make a corporation quiver, at least that’s what Jeff Bezos has been telling me at dinner. (Laughter and applause.) Jeff is a big supporter of journalism. He’s the richest man in the world, and that’s even with owning The Washington Post. (Laughter.)
Believe it or not, Republican Governor Cox of Utah is a good friend. He also did a great job tonight — a really great job tonight. (Applause.) He’s smart, he’s civil, he’s willing to stand up to extremists — or, as we call that, he’s a good Democrat. (Laughter.) God bless you, man. I hope I don’t get you into too much trouble.
I heard Republicans were going to do a skit tonight, but they couldn’t get a speaker. (Laughter.)
And the biggest joke of the night: an impeachment inquiry. Imagine believing something so baseless that has a zero chance of succeeding. But Republicans would rather fail at impeachment than succeed at anything else. (Laughter.)
They want a secure border — bor- — border, but they block it. We had the strongest border bill ever that we’ve c- — come up with. They take credit for one of the biggest infrastructure laws, but voted against it. And I’m the one confused? (Laughter and applause.)
Hell, my good friend, the Taoiseach of Ireland, is here tonight to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day tomorrow. He took one look at Congress, and he asked for another Guinness. (Laughter.)
Of course, the big news this week is two candidates clinched their parties’ nomination for president. One candidate is too old and mentally unfit to be president. The other is me. (Laughter and applause.)
Look, I’m running against the same guy that I beat in 2020. But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. (Laughter.) That’s what he said.
And another big difference between us: I know what I value most. I’m Jill Biden’s husband, and I know her name. (Laughter and applause.)
In the coming months, Kamala and I will be making the case how Americans are better off than four years ago, how we got so much through the pandemic, turned around the economy, reestablished America’s leadership in the world. All without encouraging the American people to inject bleach. (Laughter.) All without destroying the economy, embarrassing us around the world, or — or itching for insurrection.
Look, I wish these were jokes, but they’re not. As I said in my State of the Union Address, we live in an unprecedented moment in democracy, an unpre- — Democracy and freedom are literally under attack.
Putin is on the march in Europe. My predecessor bows down to him and says to him, “Do whatever the hell you want.” A former American president actually said that.
Joining us tonight is the prime minister of Estonia and the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States. I say — (applause) — I say to Putin and told him in person we will not — we will not bow down. They will not bow down, and I will not bow down. Period. (Applause.)
Here at home, our basic freedom is under assault — the more freedom to vote, the freedom to choose, and so much more.
The lies about the 2020 election, the plots to overturn it, to embrace the January 6th insurrectionists pose the greatest threat to our democracy since the American Civil War.
In 2020, they failed. But you all know the threat remains, a poison cours- — coursing through the veins of democracy. Disinformation everywhere. There’s a toxic cycle of anger and conspiracy. Massive — massive changes in the media industry, with pursue, with pursue, with pursue. Pursuing what? Pursuing heat and pursuing — instead of light.
All the while, the other guy calls you the free press. Well, he calls you the enemy of the people, even as many of you risk your lives to do your job and sometimes even give your lives to do your jobs.
I made it clear we are doing everything we can to bring Evan and Austin home and all Americans wrongly detained around the world. (Applause.) And we’ll not give up.
Folks, every single one of us has a role to play in making sure American democracy endures. This year, you, the free press, have a bigger role than ever.
Let me state the obvious. You’re not the enemy of the people. You are a pillar of any free society. And I may not always agree with your coverage or admire it, but I do admire your courage.
Good journalism holds a mirror up to a country for us to reflect the good, the bad, the truth about who we are.
This is not hyperbole: We need you. We need you. Democracy is at risk, and the American people need to know. In fractured times, they need a context and a perspective. They need substance to match the enormity of the task.
As a result, the choices you make really matter. And each story you make makes democracy stronger.
I know it’s possible because I know the American story. We’re a great nation. We’re good people, defined by core values of honesty, decency, dignity, light over darkness, courage over fear, and truth over lies.
These are also the bedrock principles of good journalism.
So, tonight, I’d like to toast the free press and toast to the American people and the enduring causes of democracy and freedom.
May God bless you all. And may God protect our troops.
Thank you. (Applause.)
March 23, 2024: Press Release: Bill Signed: H.R. 2882
On Saturday, March 23, 2024, the President signed into law:
H.R. 2882, the “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024,” which provides funding through September 30, 2024, for projects and activities of departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
Thank you to Leaders Schumer and McConnell, Senators Murray and Collins, Speaker Mike Johnson, Leader Jeffries, and Representatives Granger and DeLauro, for their leadership.