Karine Jean-Pierre White House Press Briefing on 7/08/24

Good afternoon everybody. Hello. Happy Monday. It’s going to be a great week. I have very long things, long, long toppers at the top. Just warning you all, no falling asleep please. Okay, so we’ve gotten more strong economic news in recent days. On Friday, our economy created more than 200,000 jobs last month. Under President Biden’s leadership, we have now created a total of 15.7 million jobs over the last three and a half years. Yesterday a record 3 million travelers were screened at airports, a sign that our economy is strong and Americans are back on the road for the summer in record numbers. Speaking of which, last week we sold 1 million barrels of gasoline to help lower gas prices ahead of the 4th of July, which saw the lowest gas prices in three years.

(01:05)
And today, a new report from the Economic Innovation Group highlighted what the New York Times called a quote, “A remarkable comeback under President Biden.” That report found that communities that have been lifted behind struggled under the last administration, what The Times called a particularly grim stretch under Donald Trump. But those communities are coming back under President Biden, with jobs growing more than four times faster than in the previous four years. Investments spurred by the President’s Investing in America agenda are benefiting previously left behind communities. That’s just some of the economic progress happening under President Biden. Watch out for more news in the coming days. Exciting.

(01:53)
And next I want to share highlights from the President’s recent schedule as well as looking ahead to the next two weeks. So over the last 10 days, President Biden has been hitting the road and meeting directly with the American people as well as continuing his job as leader of the country. In the two days after the debate, he met with supporters in Atlanta, Raleigh, New York and New Jersey.

(02:17)
Last week, he delivered remarks on the Supreme Court, visited the DC Emergency Operation Center for a briefing on extreme weather events, hosted a Medal of Honor ceremony and joined the First Lady for a 4th of July barbecue with active duty military service members and their families. Throughout the week, the President also spoke with leaders of the UK, United Kingdom, Israel, and the Republic of South Africa. On Friday, the President traveled to Madison, Wisconsin for a campaign rally. On Sunday, just yesterday, he held numerous events across Pennsylvania with elected officials including Governor Shapiro, Senator Fetterman, and Congresswoman Madeline Dean. He participated in interviews, including Joining Morning Joe just this morning, and throughout, the President has engaged with elected leaders including members of Congress, governors and local officials.

(03:14)
This week, President Biden will speak to national labor leaders of AFL-CIO, host the NATO Summit to show the unprecedented strength of our alliance, hold a press conference, a big boy press conference according to Justin Sink from Bloomberg who’s not here, but Josh, you are here, I see you. So that will happen on Thursday, and travel to Michigan on Friday for a campaign event. And next week he’ll travel to Texas and Las Vegas. On July 15th, he will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas. He will highlight the Biden-Harris administration’s progress, advancing civil rights and his vision to bring America together. On July 16th, he will address the 115th NAACP National Convention in Las Vegas, emphasizing the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to advancing racial justice and equity for all Americans, including Black Americans.

(04:18)
On July 17th, he will speak to the UNEDOS Annual Conference where he will underline the Biden-Harris administration’s historic accomplishments, including lowering prescription drug costs for America’s seniors, lowering the Latino uninsured rate and creating a Latino small business boom. And finally, I just mentioned the US is going to be hosting the 75th Summit, the NATO Summit right here in the United States, obviously in Washington D.C. This week. NATO is the most powerful and capable alliance in the world, and President Biden is proud, very proud to have work to strengthen it and also expand it. So with that, the Admiral from the National Security Council is here to take your questions on that.

I do have a few things to get through, so I’ll ask you to bear with me. As Corrine mentioned, President’s looking forward to hosting the leaders from 38 different countries this week in Washington for a historic summit to mark the 75th anniversary of the NATO Summit. This will obviously include the leaders of all our NATO allies, as well as NATO partners, including Ukraine, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea.

(05:33)
Before we discuss the schedule, I just want to take a minute to discuss the context in which NATO leaders will be gathering this week. For 75 years, NATO has served a vital role in protecting the American people and making the world a less dangerous place. NATO is the strongest defensive alliance in history, and today it is bigger, stronger, better-resourced and more united than ever before in large part, due to President Biden’s leadership over the past three years.

(05:57)
He’s worked hard to expand the Alliance by welcoming two new members, Sweden and Finland, and we’ll officially welcome in Sweden this week. He has spent countless hours rallying the Alliance in 2021 and 2022 to build a global coalition to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and provide indispensable support to that country, and I’ll get more on that in just a second.

(06:18)
President has also strongly encouraged greater partnerships between the NATO, Alliance and friendly nations around the world, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, as you will see. And the President knows that the global threats and challenges that we all face, including from authoritarian actors and terrorist organizations are inextricably linked. He has also encouraged our NATO allies to join him in making significant investments in our mutual defense and deterrence capabilities.

(06:44)
Now, when the Biden-Harris administration took office, only nine NATO allies were spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. 2% was the Wales Pledge, that was the goal that every member of the Alliance had swore that they would get to. Today, a record 23 NATO allies are at or above the minimum level of 2% of GDP on defense spending, more than twice as many as in 2020 and nearly eight times higher than when the allies first set that 2% benchmark a decade ago.

(07:16)
Now, just quickly turning to the schedule. Tomorrow evening, President Biden will welcome NATO leaders and he and Dr. Biden will host a 75th anniversary commemoration event at the Mellon Auditorium. That is the site I think you all know when NATO Treaty was formally signed in 1949. On Wednesday, President will hold his first bilateral meeting with the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer here at the White House. President will also meet with the 32 members of the Alliance at the Convention Center. And then later that evening, he and Dr. Biden will host NATO leaders for a dinner again here at the White House.

(07:48)
On Thursday morning, NATO will hold a meeting with the EU and with NATO’s Indo-Pacific Partners, that’s Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand to deepen our cooperation. And then on Thursday afternoon, there’ll be a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council, after which the President will host an event with President Zelensky and nearly two dozen of our allies and partners who have signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine just as the President did, as you saw in Italy a week or so ago.

(08:14)
After that, the President will hold a press conference. I guess a big-boy Press conference is what we’re calling it, and take some questions from y’all. Now, we’re working to also set up some additional meetings, bilateral meetings. The only two that I can speak to right now are with the UK Prime Minister and President Zelensky, but I have no doubt there’ll be additional bilats, and as we get more fidelity on those, we’ll let you know. Finally, as customary for summits the United States hosts, there’ll be a leader, spouses and partners program hosted by Dr. Biden.

(08:46)
Now, if I could just quickly turn to Ukraine because back to the context for what this meeting’s all about, I think it’s important to just do a quick update here what the situation is on the ground. Since the passage of the supplemental in April, the President has authorized seven security packages to help Ukraine, including five drawdowns of munitions and equipment. The resumption of that US aid has made a significant impact on the battlefield. Instead of the nightmare scenarios that were predicted several months ago about what we could see heading into the NATO Summit, we’ve seen the situation stabilize. Ukrainian forces have successfully stopped Russia’s attack north of Kharkiv, denying Russia the ability to take that city, and limiting Russian gains to areas just across the border. The Ukrainians have held the line in Chasiv Yar. They’ve held fast east of Pokrovsk, hardening their defenses and ensuring that Russia will not break through, and they’ve halted Russian attacks in Zaporizhzhia.

(09:39)
Throughout these last three months, the Russians have attacked relentlessly across all those fronts and the price that they have paid for the few meters that they have gained here and there has been extensive. Heavy casualties, destroyed equipment, disrupted supply lines, degraded morale. The people of Ukraine have yet again demonstrated that when supplied and when supported by the international community in the United States, they can hold off the largest, though certainly not, I think is clearly evident, the most capable army in Europe.

(10:11)
Their success is not just limited to the front. Ukraine has put US-provided ATACMs, the long-range strike missiles, to good use in Crimea, destroying Russian surface-to-air missile systems, commandos airfields. They sunk the last cruise missile-capable warship in the port of Sevastopol and the Russian Black Sea Fleet has now fled Crimea in response. While it has been heartening to see Ukraine hold on in this critical period, we should not forget the grim reality.

(10:38)
Russia continues to bombard frontline towns with massive and low-accuracy glide bombs, and sending missiles at Ukrainian cities, including over just the past weekend where they hit a hospital, a children’s hospital. Russia has ramped up its campaign against Ukrainian electrical generation, depriving the civilian population of power and attempting to set the conditions to punish them over the fall and the winter. To strengthen Ukraine’s air defenses and to help Ukraine protected cities and its grid, the United States and several of our allies will have several big announcements at this week’s summit, and the NATO Allowance will announce significant new steps to strengthen its military and political partnership with Ukraine, to help Ukraine continue to defend themselves today and to deter Russian aggression well into the future.

(11:18)
These elements taken together with bilateral support are part of a bridge to Ukraine’s NATO membership. Together, the Washington Summit will send a strong signal to Mr. Putin that if he thinks he can outlast the coalition of countries that are supporting Ukraine, he’s dead wrong again. As President Biden has said himself, Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia, for free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness.

Thanks, Ben. Let’s go ahead.

Thanks, John. You mentioned the context of the summit this week. It’s also the first time the President interacted with these world leaders since that disastrous debate against former President Trump 10 days or so ago, where the President struggled to confront the former president on all sorts of things. Does the President feel… How does he plan to reassure American allies in NATO that he’s up for the job now when he couldn’t confront Trump on stage then?

I think the question presupposes the notion that they need to be reassured of American leadership and President Biden’s commitment, and I don’t believe that’s the case. We’re not picking up any signs of that from our allies at all. Quite the contrary. The conversations that we’re having with them in advance, they’re excited about this summit, they’re excited about the possibilities and the things that we’re going to be doing together specifically to help Ukraine.

So you’ve seen zero… I mean, there have been stories, multiple outlets from both sides of the Atlantic over last several days with questions from European leaders about the President’s capacity to lead the United States. You’re just denying that?

I’m not aware of any such conversations that have been had, certainly none with us and here at the White House and with our staff. We’re looking forward to it. I want to go back to what I said at the beginning. In the last three years, rather than browbeaten and insulting and demeaning allies, this President has invested in allies and partnerships. And when he took office, what I said, nine, only nine allies had reached the 2% level. Now 23, that’s not by accident. That’s because of leadership. That’s because of constant stewardship of the alliance and other partnerships around the world. The President’s record speaks for itself and the allies and the non-NATO friends and partners that are coming as well, they know that. They wouldn’t be coming, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, to a NATO summit if they didn’t believe in American leadership and how important it is, and if they didn’t believe that President Biden takes that responsibility extremely seriously.

[inaudible 00:13:43]. On the point about European countries, NATO members boosting their defense spending, that was something though that was a big concern of the last President. That’s part of the reason many of them are boosting their funding. And it was a concern of the President-

Before the last President. As you recall, President Obama said the same thing. This pledge goes back a decade or so, but the numbers speak for themselves. I mean, rather than browbeaten and yelling and screaming and complaining and whining about it, President Biden invested in this alliance, and just the last three and a half years now more than double, the number of allies have reached that 2%.

Two questions on the follow-up from the debate. Have you, in your meetings with him, ever seen him appear similarly to the way he did on debate night?

Look, I’m a spokesman and the last-

[inaudible 00:14:30] meetings with him?

I am. The last thing I’m going to do is sit here and talk about every meeting I’ve had with the President. What I can tell you is what I saw in that debate is not reflective of the man and the leader and the commander-in-chief that I have spent many, many hours with over the last two and a half years in terms of the specificity, the way he probes, the questions he asked. Heck, just this morning he was asking me questions about the situation on the European continent that I couldn’t answer, and I told him I had to get back to him.

When he spent with governors last week, he suggested he’d like to curtail events that begin after 8:00 PM at night just because he’d rather focus on resting and doesn’t want to have a long day. In your understanding of things, has the National Security Council ever withheld information from him he should have known late at night out of concern he might not be able to process it?

No.

Russia has bombed Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital, as you noted. Do you believe the timing of these strikes is meant to send a message to NATO ahead of this week’s summit?

It’s hard to draw a line married to that. I mean, sadly, this is par for the course for Mr. Putin to hit civilian infrastructure, and he doesn’t care whether he’s hitting hospitals or residential buildings. I can’t draw the line that this is some sort of message. But look, as I said, what you’re going to see over the course of the week is a very set of strong signals and messages to Mr. Putin that he can’t wait, NATO out, can’t wait the United States out, that we’re going to continue to support Ukraine.

I’m sorry, I just wanted to ask about the air defenses and some of the deliverables that are coming out of the NATO Summit. Can you walk us through what you think will be happening in terms of any additional commitments in addition to the funding packages that come, and can you say a few words about this project to consolidate the way that weapons are going to Ukraine through the distribution center that I think there’s a center that’ll be set up in Vespa under coordination center [inaudible 00:16:42]

Yeah. I mean, the purpose for me to come today was just kind of give you the lay down of the summit ahead and not to get too far ahead of the leaders in the specific deliverables. So without doing that and without getting fired, I’ll just tell you that you’re going to see some announcements on air defense. You’re going to see some announcements on deterrence capabilities, not just with respect to helping Ukraine but boosting the alliance. You’re going to see some announcements with respect to the defense industrial base and how to shore up that and make it more resilient and invest it more, including in our own industrial base here in the United States. And you’re going to see, as I alluded to, some discussion about Ukraine’s path to NATO and what that can look like, and a reaffirmation of what the President has long said, that NATO is in Ukraine’s future.

Just to follow up on that, can you say whether the word irreversible will be in the communique?

I’m not going to get ahead of the specific language one way or the other.

[Inaudible 00:17:49] Israel and Gaza, can you say anything about the Israeli response to the Hamas response to the ceasefire proposal? Lots of responses.

No surprise to you all, I’m not going to negotiate here from the podium or public. I would just tell you that there has been some back and forth. As you know, we have a team in Cairo right now that includes Brett McGurk and the director of the CIA. They’re meeting with their Egyptian, Israeli and Jordanian counterparts, and there’ll be follow-on discussions after that over the next few days. Look, we’ve been working this very, very hard and there are still some gaps that remain in the two sides in the positions, but we wouldn’t have sent a team over there if we didn’t think that we had a shot here, and we’re going to take every shot we can to see if we can get this ceasefire deal in place.

Within days?

I couldn’t give you a date certain.

Good. David?

Thank you. John, thanks for doing this. First, just to follow up on the communique, even if you can’t get into irreversible. The President’s objection last year and Chancellor Schultz’s objection, if I remember Vilnius

… correctly, was that neither one of them wanted a date set for fear, I assume, that the United States and its allies would be drawn into the ground war if Ukraine was still at war while a NATO member. Does that remain today to be his primary objection? Is he willing to do wording that just is short of a date? Because even if you do the word irreversible or not, it doesn’t really change the meaning very much of what you published in Vilnius. Can I have a second on just a level of-

I’ll make this simple, but unsatisfying. Again, I’m not going to get into the text and the discussions about what the draft’s going to look like, David. I think you can understand that. But I do think your question is important to provide some context to.

(19:54)
The president still believes that NATO is in Ukraine’s future. What that future looks like depends on an awful lot of factors. Right now you got a war going on inside Ukraine, and the focus, rightly, has got to be on helping them win that war, and we are, as I detailed in my opening statement.

(20:11)
Number two, for any country that wants to join NATO, any country, and it’s an alliance of democracies, the democracies have to meet certain guidelines, particularly when it comes to governance. We are and we’ll continue to work with Ukraine on reforms that are necessary for any democracy that wants to be a member of NATO.

(20:31)
Then the third thing I’d say is it’s a unanimous vote. Everybody has to be on board with that, and that can take some time as well. So the focus is on making sure that they can win now and that we can continue to work with Ukraine so that there is a path to NATO.

(20:46)
The last thing I’d say is, back to the bilateral security agreement that the president signed with President Zelensky at the G7 in Italy, I mean we’re one of many other nations that have done that too, because we know that whenever this war ends, however it ends and whatever the border looks like, Ukraine’s still going to have a long border with Russia that’s going to need to be defended, and they’re going to need the reassurance of being able to put forth a capable and competent defensive capability against Russian forces going forward. That’s why we’re making sure that there are things in line to make sure that Ukraine can defend itself.

One follow up on that. You mentioned that it was 10 years ago that the 2% GDP goal was set. Obviously there was no war underway at that time. And so, the entire security situation looks radically different than it did when that was set.

Well, I beg to differ. There was fighting in Afghanistan-

[inaudible 00:21:44].

… and Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014.

In ’14, yeah. But I think the 2% may have been set.

It was in Wales. It might have been set before the invasion.

[inaudible 00:21:53].

But, nevertheless, it was still a tense security environment.

Right. We’re in something much different today. I think we’re all in agreement, just given the amount of arms going in.

No argument.

So is part of the president’s message at this summit that 2% is in the rear-view mirror, that the NATO allies are going to have to be spending significantly more than that, maybe double that, for some countries, some larger economies, or is he going to stay away from numbers? I know it’s politically sensitive with all of them. Also, you mentioned the word win. I was wondering how you’re defining that.

Okay. There’s a lot there. The president’s not going to set a new bar or new level of GDP spending on defense here at this summit. The goal is 2%. It was a commitment everybody made 10 years ago. Not everybody’s there. Most of the remaining nations that haven’t reached 2%, most of them, not all, are working on it and are getting there. And so, I think the president wants to focus on that, wants to laud and commemorate those who have, but also make it clear that those who haven’t, they still have some work to do.

(23:05)
On win, I think we’ve been consistent about this, I mean at least I think I have. I mean we want all of Ukraine’s sovereign territory respected, which means we want no Russian forces in any part of Ukraine by the internationally recognized boundaries.

Go ahead, April.

John, you just said, answering a question to Zeke, you’re not picking up on signs of allies needing reassurances when it comes to President Biden. But the allies also look for a secure United States. Have you heard any conversations from the allies about issues of the elections process here, what they’ve been seeing, and the stability of the United States in the next few months, couple of years, et cetera?

I’m not aware of any specific conversations with respect to our domestic political situation. But, look, April, we watch the domestic political situation of our allies and partners, of course, like we did with the UK and with France over the weekend, and we have no doubt that they’re watching ours as well and that they’ll be watching our election with a lot of keen interest. We certainly would expect that, but I’m not aware of any conversations that we’ve had at senior levels here at the NSC or elsewhere here at the White House from allies specifically about this particular election.

[inaudible 00:24:32] members of the European Union who gathered reporters a couple of years ago with concerns about democracy here?

They might be talking to y’all, but I’m not aware of any specific conversations here.

Go ahead, Elena.

I just want to circle back, admiral, on Ed’s question. So you said broadly that the president, in your view, is not represented by what was on the debate stage. Then you gave us an anecdote about a meeting today where he was engaged and so forth. Are you saying you have never encountered a situation where you thought that he was displaying any of those symptoms or affectations or something that would give pause, or are you just declining to answer one way or another?

Well, I’m a little uncomfortable answering these kinds of questions because, as a spokesman, my job is to be an advisor and counselor, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for a spokesman to-

But you gave us a [inaudible 00:25:24].

Yeah, I did because I wanted to make it clear. So, yes, I’m uncomfortable with these kinds of questions. But to answer your specific question, in my experience the last two and a half years, I have not seen any reason whatsoever to question or doubt his lucidity, his grasp of context, his probing nature, and the degree to which he is completely in charge of facts and figures. If he isn’t, what I’ve seen is … Because it happened to me this morning, when he isn’t and when I can’t be in command of those facts and figures, I have to fess up and go get the information that he’s asking for. And he asked me some questions this morning I didn’t have answers for.

Okay, Nadia.

Thank you, Karine. Two questions on the Middle East. Israel has conducted the largest seizure of land in the West Bank, which undermines the president’s vision for a two-state solution. So why the White House has been mum on that and will the president [inaudible 00:26:22]?

Yeah. It’s not that we’ve been mum.

[inaudible 00:26:23]?

There was a statement put out by the State Department about this call for settlements. Nothing’s changed about our view that settlements continue to be counterproductive to peace and stability and the possibility of a two-state solution. We don’t support that.

Okay. Second, you mentioned about the Ukraine and Russia in terms of the civilian casualties. The UN said today that actually half of the facilities of UNRWA has been hit and 520 people have been killed in addition to the aid workers. So do you still believe that Israel is doing what it takes to protect civilian lives, including women and children?

We certainly believe that they need to continue to do more to protect innocent civilian life.

Yeah, but they’re not doing much. I mean I’ve been asking this question for nine months.

Your question wasn’t about what they’re doing or not doing. Your question was do we believe that they should do more and my answer is, yes, well, they need to do more to protect civilian life, and we’re going to continue to have conversations with them about how they’re prosecuting these operations.

Go ahead.

Thanks, John. Just sticking with the Middle East, but connecting up to the other big story. During the ABC News interview on Friday, George Stephanopoulos asked the president, was he, “The same man today that you were when you took office three and a half years ago?” The President’s reply began, “In terms of successes, yes. I was also the guy who put together a peace plan for the Middle East that may be coming to fruition.”

(27:55)
Now it may or may not be coming to fruition, we don’t know. We do know 38,000 people have been killed in Gaza, almost two million displaced. According to UNICEF, one in three children under age of two is suffering from acute malnutrition. Does the president consider his Gaza policy a success?

The president believes wholeheartedly that this ceasefire proposal that we are trying to get done will make a big difference in terms of not only temporarily ceasing hostilities, but potentially giving us an opening to end this conflict. It’s important to remember how this started. And you talked about our Gaza policy. I’ll state it for you again. We want to make sure Israel has a right to defend itself from the kinds of attacks it suffered on the 7th of October, which I know is easy for people to forget. 1200 people slaughtered, most at a music festival.

(28:51)
Number two, that Israel’s doing everything they can to protect innocent civilian life. Is it enough? No. They need to continue to do more and that we are doing everything we can to give humanitarian assistance into the people of Gaza. That’s our Gaza policy.

(29:04)
As the president has also said, we would be and we’ll still continue to be willing to adjust the policies that we are executing with respect to Gaza as we see things unfold on the ground.

But the broader question was does he consider his policy to have been successful?

Israel is defending itself against a terrorist attack, so we can check that off. Humanitarian assistance continues to flow. In fact, if it wasn’t for the United States, I dare say that not a fraction of the humanitarian assistance that is getting into Gaza we get in. Is it enough? No. And the Israelis have taken some steps to be more precise, more discriminant, and more careful in their operations. Is it enough? No. So we’re going to keep at it. We’re going to keep working on this.

You keep saying is it enough, no. The president described Israel as bombing … An indiscriminate bombing in December. Seven months have passed and you have paused one armed shipment, as I understand. Is that fair?

That’s right. Is there a question here?

Do you think that that’s an effective response to indiscriminate bombing of a civilian population?

It’s never right to be conducting indiscriminate bombing of a civilian population. That’s why we continue to work with the Israelis to be more precise, to be more careful.

All right, just come over [inaudible 00:30:18].

Sure. Sorry. Very sorry. Hi, admiral. Can I just start with the Middle East as well? Hamas has accused Netanyahu of putting obstacles in the way of the ceasefire deal that is being talked about now. Does the US think that Netanyahu’s government is doing everything it can to secure the ceasefire deal?

We’re working hard to get that ceasefire deal in place. I’m not going to negotiate here in public or talk about who’s saying what and who’s doing what. We have seen both sides now, as Andrea rightly asked in her question. We’ve seen both sides come out with some public statements with respect to the text. The last thing I’m going to do is get into bartering here.

(30:57)
We’re trying to close those gaps as best we can. We wouldn’t have sent the CIA director or Brett McGurk to Cairo if we didn’t believe it was worth a shot and worth a chance. I would also add that on both sides, you see public comments that aren’t necessarily fully reflective of the conversations that we’re having privately with them or their interlocutors.

Certainly just on Ukraine, there’s a bit of an information battle over the weekend. The Russians said that they destroyed two Ukrainian Patriot missile systems. The Ukrainians said that they were decoys. Does the US have its own independent evaluation of what happened during that strike? What is the state of Ukraine’s air defense system when it comes to Patriot missile systems?

Yes, we do. I’m not going to talk about it, and I think you’re going to hear more here this week about what the allies and the United States are going to do to continue to bolster Ukrainian air defense.

(31:50)
Look, I know we get hung up on the Patriots, and I get that. There has been contributions of Patriot systems by other nations. We talked about how we’re re- sequencing some of our deliveries of Patriot interceptors from some countries now diverting them to Ukraine. We’re doing that. Other nations are also trying to contribute Patriots.

(32:12)
But let’s not get caught up on just one system. There’s short-range, there’s medium-range, and there’s long-range air defense, and Ukraine needs all of it. Again, I think you’re going to see this week the allies really stepping up and showing that they’re willing to continue to provide those kinds of capabilities.

Go ahead, Josh.

Thank you. John, Viktor Orban is visiting China right now on the heels of a visit to Russia. I’m wondering whether the US has any views on that and what impact it might have on the situation in Ukraine?

Yeah, we’re concerned about it. It certainly doesn’t seem to be productive in terms of trying to get things done in Ukraine and trying to move forward to achieve this just peace that President Zelensky continues to work hard and we continue to try to operationalize. But, yeah, it’s concerning.

Was there any advance notification given to the US on either trip, Russia [inaudible 00:33:03]?

Not that I’m aware of.

Go ahead, Anita.

Can I add-

Oh. Go ahead.

Can I try one more time on irreversible. Does the US have a position-

Yes, you can try.

Yeah, of course [inaudible 00:33:08]. Does the US have a position on the inclusion of that word?

Our position is that NATO is going to be in Ukraine’s future. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to get to that point. The president’s looking forward to talking to President Zelensky and our NATO allies about that path, that bridge to NATO.

Anita?

Thank you so much, John. A question on Ukraine and one on Iran. Starting with Ukraine and this Russian rocket attack that killed 30 people at the largest children’s hospital. Does this shift the US’s position on not allowing Ukraine to strike directly at Russian airfields that originated these attacks?

Shift the position?

Yes, make you change your mind about not allowing that, and how do you justify not giving Ukraine permission to attack [inaudible 00:33:48]?

There’s been no change in our policy. You saw that the president, several weeks ago, gave guidance to Ukraine that they can use US-supplied weapons to strike targets just over the border. That’s still the case.

On Iran, we’ve heard the US say that this election, this presidential election, is not free and fair, that they have doubts that this is going to change anything meaningfully. But we’ve also heard the US say that they will negotiate or do diplomacy with Iran when it serves our national interests. So is the US now ready to resume nuclear talks, other talks, or make any diplomatic moves with Iran in light of this new president?

No.

Okay. Arianna?

I’m sorry. You said no. Can you elaborate, please?

Well, it seemed like a pretty easy question to answer. No, we’re not in a position where we’re willing to get back to the negotiating table with Iran just based on the fact that they’ve elected a new president. They’re still supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They’re still supporting the Houthis as the Houthis attack ships in the Red Sea. They’re still attacking shipping as well, and they’re still supplying drones and drone technology and drone expertise to the Russians so that the Russians can continue to kill innocent Ukrainians like they did over the weekend. So no. No.

This guy seems a bit more moderate. Do you see any opening?

Look, we’ll see what this guy wants to get done-

[inaudible 00:35:04].

… but we are not expecting any changes in Iranian behavior, sadly.

[inaudible 00:35:08]-

We got … Arianna, go ahead.

Okay. Thank you so much. During this morning, the president said that France rejected extremisms during the latest parliamentary election and expressed his confidence that the United States would also do so. So France has a very different electoral system, as we know. So why this optimism from the president? More broadly, was there a sense of relief in the administration that the election turned out the way it did?

I think it’s pretty clear from the election that the far right didn’t find the purchase that it wanted to find and that compromise in the democracy is going to have to still be the watchword in France as it is here in the United States. It’s not going to change our strong relationship with France. It’s not going to change the fact that France is a valued NATO ally, and the president’s looking forward to continuing to work with President Macron and the entire team.

All right, last question. Go ahead.

Thank you, Karine. Thank you, admiral. I was just wondering, with the renewed spotlight and scrutiny on President Biden in public settings this week, how he’s preparing for the NATO Summit, how you guys are deciding how many questions to take at the press conference? What [inaudible 00:36:11]-

You’ve got to ask the press secretary that one.

Okay.

You’re the one who’s prepping him for a lot of this on matters of national security and foreign policy.

So am I.

Yeah, exactly.

[inaudible 00:36:19]. It’s a team effort.

Yeah, I will let Karine talk about the press conference, the big boy press conference, I think y’all are planning to have. But he has already had discussions with his national security team in the lead up to the summit, as you might expect that he would. He’s reviewing material. He’s doing his homework and getting ready. He’s got the first major set of remarks tomorrow night at the Mellon Auditorium. He’s working his way through those remarks, as you would expect him to do. He’s getting ready for at least the two bilateral meetings that we know he’s going to have specifically with the new prime minister of the UK and President Zelensky later in the week.

(36:55)
So what I have seen from my perch is the normal amount of preparatory work that he does before a major international conference, and they’re no different than how he prepared for the G7 or for the events in Normandy or previous international fora. So it’s pretty typical from what I’ve seen.

[inaudible 00:37:12].

Do you expect Vice President Harris to play a role in the events this week or to take any meetings during the time that she’ll be watching?

I can’t speak for the vice president’s staff and team, but I can have them get back to you about what her schedule’s going to look like.

Thank you so much, admiral. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, [inaudible 00:37:26]. See you, guys.

Thank you, admiral. Okay. Well, all the debate questions have been answered, press conference answered.

[inaudible 00:37:36].

Let me close my book and get out of here. Hi, Zeke.

Thanks, Karine. My first few is on the credibility of this White House when it comes to talking about the president’s health. When you were here last Tuesday, you were asked if the president had any medical examinations since his physical in February or … That included the time period after the debate.

Yup.

You said flatly no.

Yup.

Three days later, you admitted the president had a ”

They put a short check in with the medical team thereafter. I mean those are two very different answers.

No, no, no, no. Actually if you were to listen to the, I think I did a 30-minute gaggle on Friday, 30 minutes with pool and I said he did not have a … I cleared it up. You’re right, you’re correct. I still stand that he didn’t have a medical exam. I said that in the gaggle and you’re right, I said that in the briefing. He had a check-in and he said this on Friday. He had a check-in with his medical doctor, which is something that he does a couple times a week. As you know, and I stated this as well, for those who don’t know, obviously outside of the briefing room, outside of the White House, many Americans don’t actually understand this. Let’s take a step back. They deal with their medical issues or physicals very, very differently. They’re lucky if they get to see their doctor once or twice a year, right?

(39:05)
They have to get in a car, they have to either take public transportation in order to make that happen. The president’s medical unit is literally down on the other side of the Colonnade, is just down the steps from the residence. And so a couple times a week he does a check-in, a verbal check-in, with his doctor while he’s exercising. That is something that happens often. Matter of fact, he did a check-in today because I know folks were going to ask about if he was tested for Covid. He was not. We are following CDC guidance. He was not tested for Covid. Just to let you guys know about that one. And if he has any symptoms, obviously we would test him.

Is that in the context of the second gentleman’s diagnosis, or?

=Yes, yes. Which is why-

Or is this another one?

No, no, no. It is in context of the second gentleman. But to answer your point, he did not have a medical exam. He did not have a physical, he did do a verbal check-in with his doctor a couple days after the debate and it was very quick. It was a couple of words that were spoken to each other and that’s how we were able to give you that answer. But he did not have a medical exam. He did not have a physical.

But so [inaudible 00:40:12] no though last Tuesday. Did you know about that verbal check-in, or did we just not ask him that precise enough question?

No. So the line of questions that I was getting that day was in the way that I was hearing the question was about the medical exam. I answered MJ’s question when she asked me medical exam and I answered and I said, “No, physical.” And then somebody else asked me, “Was there a check-in?” I did not mean to steer anybody wrong. I was still thinking about the medical exam. I was still thinking about the physical. That’s how I answered the question. And then when became … when the president actually spoke to it, I went back, asked the medical doctor, and he said they had a verbal check-in. That’s what he said. But in answering the question, I was talking about the medical exam, I was talking about the physical.

And a quick one.

Sure.

There’s been a lot of reporting in the last 24 hours about a Parkinson’s expert who’s come to visit the White House almost a dozen times over the last year or so, including at least one meeting with the president’s physician. Could you state very clearly, yes or no, was that expert here to participate in anything surrounding the care of the President of the United States?

So let me just say a couple of things. We have had a comprehensive … I just want to take another step back. Comprehensive physical examination. The president has had that. We’ve given the comprehensive report. We’ve shared that the past three years, every year that he has had this exam, he sees a neurologist. And just to give you a quote from the report most recently in February, “An extremely detailed neurological exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder such as a stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s or ascending lateral sclerosis.” So that came directly from in February in that comprehensive report that was provided by the president’s doctor to me that I share with all of you. So anyone who is watching can certainly go to our website.

That’s not answering the question though, which was where his multiple visits pertaining at all to the president’s care?

Well, here’s the thing. I’ve said he has had three physicals. In those three physicals, that’s when he has seen a specialist, a neurological specialist.

Does this specialist [inaudible 00:42:38]?

I have to be super mindful here and this is why, and I’ll explain this to you in a second. There are thousands of military personnel who come onto this White House. Many of them get the care from the White House Medical Unit and so need to be super careful. There are the medical unit hosts a wide range of specialists from dermatologists to a neurologist. And so I cannot speak to every person because there’s actually a security reasons to protect their privacy. We respect and protecting people’s privacy. So do not want to share, I’m not going to share people’s names from here, but the president I can tell you, has seen a neurologist three times as it’s connected to a physical that he gets every year that we provide to all of you.

[inaudible 00:43:24] that’s a very basic direct question.

Wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on. Wait, wait, wait a second. Wait.

Did Dr. Kevin Cannard come to the White House eight times, or at least once in regards to the president specifically.

Hold on a second.

That much you should be able to answer by this point.

Wait, no, no, no, no.

After four days of reporting about it.

No, wait a minute, Ed, please a little respect here, please. So every year around the president’s physical examination, he sees a neurologist. That’s three times, right? So I am telling you that he has a neurologist three times while he has been in this presidency. That’s what I’m saying.

[inaudible 00:44:02].

I’m telling you that he has seen them three times. That is what I’m sharing with you, right? So every time he has a physical, he has had to see a neurologist. So that is answering that question.

No, it’s not.

No, it is, it is. You are asking me-

Did Dr. Kevin Cannard come to the White House [inaudible 00:44:20] the president’s condition.

But I also said to you, Ed, I also said to you for security reasons, we cannot share names. We cannot share names.

You cannot share names of others he would’ve met with, but you can share names with regards to if someone came here with regards to the president.

No, no, no, no. No, we cannot share names of specialists broadly. From a dermatologist to a neurologist, we cannot share names. There are security reasons we have to protect-

They’re on the White House visitors list.

It’s public.

It’s public.

I understand that. I hear you.

I looked it up before I came out, it was right there for anyone to see.

Ed, I hear you. I cannot from here confirm any of that because we have to keep their privacy. I think they would appreciate that too. We have to give them-

No, it’s [inaudible 00:45:00] of the doctor.

We have to keep their privacy.

It’s public. It is public.

It’s public information.

It is listed that he went to [inaudible 00:45:04].

I hear you. Guys, guys, guys.

And you’re going to [inaudible 00:45:09] unless the White House just answers the question.

Hold on a second. There’s no reason to go back and forth and be in this aggressive way.

Well, we’re missed around here about how information has been shared with the Press Corp around here.

What are you missed about? What are you missed about?

Everything he just asked about.

And then every time I come back and I answer the question that you guys asked.

And you answered incorrectly and then have to come back and clean up [inaudible 00:45:27].

I never answered the question incorrectly. That is not true. I was asked about a medical exam. I was asked about a physical, that was in the line of question that I answered. And I said, “No, he did not have a medical exam.” And I still stand that by that. Matter of fact the president still stands by that he had a verbal check-in. That is something that the president has a couple times a week, a couple times a week.

Now in regards to Dr. Kevin Cannard?

And I am telling you right now that I am not sharing, confirming names from here. It is the security reasons. I am not going to do that, Ed. It doesn’t matter how hard you push me. It doesn’t matter how angry you get with me, I’m not going to confirm a name. It doesn’t matter if it’s even in the log. I am not going to do that from here. That is not something I am going to do. What I can share with you is that the president has seen a neurologist for his physical three times. Three times. And it is in the reporting that we share a comprehensive reporting.

(46:23)
Matter of fact, it’s more than what the last guy shared and it is in line with what George W. Bush did. It’s in line with what Obama did. And so it is comprehensive, it is out there. I just read a quote from it, but I am not going to devolve somebody’s name or confirm someone. I’m not going to do that. That is as is privacy for that person. I’m not going to do that. It doesn’t matter how hard you push me. It doesn’t matter how angry you get with me from here. I’m just not going to do that. It is inappropriate. It’s not acceptable. So I’m not going to do it.

[inaudible 00:46:58].

(46:57)
If you cannot confirm the name, can you confirm whether or not the president has seen this Parkinson’s specialist? And you mentioned three times, but the visitor log show a duration of eight visits over eight months. I think that is the crux of the question asked.

But I also said there are thousands of military personnel that come to the White House and they are under the care of the medical unit. They are. So can you

So can you confirm that the Parkinson’s specialist visits were for the president or not?

What I can tell you is that the president has seen a neurologist three times and I read to you what the neurologist has said and I read to you the last line. I could say it again, “No findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorders such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s or ascending lateral sclerosis.” That is from February. That is coming from February. That is what the medical unit, the president’s doctor, shared. And I said to you, it’s happened three times. Each time there is a physical that occurs and we put out a comprehensive report. That is when he has been able to see a specialist. So that’s what I can share.

Question on this. Has the president, you mentioned Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, all of these things, one diagnosis that we have heard, a potential diagnosis is hydrocephalus, which is fluid buildup in the brain. It’s something we’ve never heard in any of the medical reports. Is that something that the president has been evaluated for?

If it’s not in the medical report, obviously it’s not something that the president is dealing with.

Has it been evaluated?

Well I can tell you this, just going back to Parkinson’s for a little bit. So to give you some answers here, has the president being treated for Parkinson’s? No. Is he being treated for Parkinson’s? No, he’s not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson’s? No. So those are the things that I can give you full-blown answers on. But I’m not going to confirm a specialist, any specialist that comes to the White House out of privacy.

Question is will the president go to The Hill today? I know we saw his letter. Is he intending to have this conversation face to face with [inaudible 00:49:14]?

So look, the president, obviously this is someone who is a senator for 36 years who was the president of the Senate as when he was vice president for eight years. And he respects, truly respects, the members of Congress. And has always will always do that, especially as a former senator. And I will say, and you’ve heard us say this before or most recently is this is a president who’s won the primary right by 14 million votes, 87% of those votes. Certainly.

(49:46)
And look, I don’t have any engagements to read out outside of that, but I will say that the president was in Pennsylvania. I just mentioned at the top he got to see Senator Fetterman, Senator Casey. He also got to see Congresswoman Dean. He spent some time with them. They traveled across Pennsylvania and I will say when the president gets knocked down, he gets back up. This is quintessential Joe Biden and there are a long list of other congressional members who have shown their support for this president. I don’t have anything else to read out. You saw the letter. The letter was, I think, pretty clear on where the president stand and I’ll just leave it there.

You’ve noted that there are thousands within the Walter Reed system who may be treated by a specialist who visits here at the White House. But this neurologist had a meeting with the president’s physician, with his doctor.

I understand that.

You are refusing to say if he was here to evaluate the president or if he was consulting on the president’s health. So what then was that meeting about?

And I will say that Dr. O’Connor leads the medical unit. He literally he leads the medical unit.

So will you tell us?

No, because we will not confirm or speak to names that you’re providing to me. It is out of security reason, it is out of protecting someone’s privacy. We’re just not going to do that. But they are. The reason that I mention that is because there are a thousand military members that do indeed use the White House Medical Unit. They do. They get care from that.

But we’re not talking about those other people, we’re talking about the President of the United States.

Guys, I’m trying to answer the question so you can connect the dot that there are multiple neurologists that come, not neurologists, specialists, that come through here because there are more than a thousand medical military personnel here.

But you certainly could clear this all up just by saying what he was doing here and if it was connected to the president, yes or no.

I am not going to confirm that a particular neurologist, anybody. It doesn’t matter if they’re a dermatologist or a neurologist, I’m just not going to do that. I shared with all of you that the president has met, has been with the neurologist three times as it relates to his physical. Three times. So you know.

[inaudible 00:52:00].

Guys, I’m just not going to do that. Out of security reasons, out of privacy. It is not something that I’m going to do. A measure of privacy we have to be able to give people from here.

One other question-

[inaudible 00:52:13].

Hold on, hold on. Guys, come on. Come on.

The president’s doctor you say has seen no reason to evaluate him for Parkinson’s since his physical in February. Is that based on these verbal check-ins that you’ve been describing, based on his public appearances?

Wait, say that one more time.

You said that the president’s doctor has seen no reason to evaluate him or reevaluate him for Parkinson’s since that physical in February. What is that based on? Is that these verbal check-ins?

I never said that.

That’s what the White House has said.

Well, what I have said is that he just had a physical just in February and the physical was very clear. It was a comprehensive physical. We gave out a report on that. And as it relates to the check-ins, that is something that is common. The president has a medical unit that is literally down the hall that he’s able to check in with when necessary. They normally do it while he’s exercising. That is not uncommon. It is very different. It is very different than any everyday American. They do not have that option. They do not have that access. Because he’s President of the United States, every other president has had that access and they’re able to do that.

So wait, just to be clear, yes or no, has his physician seen a reason to reevaluate him for Parkinson’s since the February physical?

No. The comprehensive report that you all have. Stands. The president obviously will have another physical and we’ll wait for that physical.

Great-

Yeah, go.

So the president has said twice that he’s had neurological evaluations as part of his physicals in these various interviews today and also on ABC. But there have been a number of people who have said, “Listen, why don’t you have a cognitive test just to rule out that there are any issues.” With the the president, would you counsel him to do that just to sort of put an end to these questions?

[inaudible 00:54:07], I hear you. The neurologists have said it is not warranted. The president himself, he said it today, he said it multiple times and the doctor has said this, everything that he does day in and day out as it relates to delivering for the American people is a cognitive test. And that is what the medical doctor has said. That is what the specialist has said. I just want to take a step back for a second because I do take offense to what Ed alluded to. Come out here, every day there’s a press briefing and we do our best to give you the information that we have at the time. That’s what we do. And we understand that the freedom of the press, we respect the freedom of the press. You heard me talk about this last week. I appreciate the back and forth that we all have.

(54:59)
I try to respect you and I hope you try to respect me. And we literally do everything that we can. My team does everything that we can to make sure we get the answers to you. That’s what we do. And sometimes we disagree, sometimes we are not in agreement. But you know what? That’s democracy. That is what is important to have that healthy back and forth. And so to say that I’m holding information or allude to anything else is really, really unfair. I think people who are watching and have been watching this briefing for this past week could say that we are doing our best in this briefing to provide the information that we have. And I will admit, I will be the first one to admit. Sometimes I get it wrong. At least I admit that. At least I admit that. And sometimes I don’t have the information and I will always, always admit that. But I do take offense to what was just happening at the beginning of this briefing. It’s not Okay, go ahead.

We are seeking clarity.

I understand that.

And I think what we’re trying to say is when a name is in a public record on a waves form that it is in the public domain. The president could authorize that his medical records or additional medical information could be made public because he could waive HIPAA. He could do those things. And if he chooses to do that, we would like to know more. Part of the reason we are pressing here is that we are not clear on what has happened and therefore the American people to whom we report don’t have a sense of it. So that’s what we’re trying to do.

But the personal attacks is not okay.

And we want to have a positive-

I just want to be very, very clear here.

So the question is, one question is, after a debate that drew days and days and days of scrutiny, why hasn’t the president had an in-person, physical check-in maybe blood work, maybe other things? Because when he said he was seen, I certainly thought he had been physically seen, not a phone

… Phone check. And that’s part of what we’re saying about how information comes out in waves.

Totally understand.

And then we may have a different impression.

And I told understand that.

So this has dominated his presidency for 10 days and he could submit to another exam, a full exam, partial exam, whatever. He can waive his right to make things public. None of us are asking about the military members who might be seeing a physician here. None of us. We are only asking about the president’s well-being.

Understood.

And so that’s why we want to understand. When you see on the public records that a physician with his specialty has come to the White House, gone to the resident’s clinic and met with the president’s physician, we feel like there is more to be said there and that’s what we’re asking.

And I understand that, KellyO, and you know I respect you wholeheartedly and I’ve known you for some time. We want to be also… Because we are particular, we are talking about someone whose name… Who is out there. And I understand, I get it. It’s in the log. I get that. It’s in the log.

What’s the security concern?

We want to respect that person and give them the measure of privacy that they deserve. The moment I say anything about any specialist, it becomes a thing from this podium. So what I can share, and this is what I can share, he has seen a neurologist three times. Three times-

And is that at Walter Reed or here?

Not more than that. Not more than that. He’s seen a neurologist three times, and that is connected to the physical, the comprehensive physical that we have been able to share with you. So I think that gives you some information about how many times, three times. And the reason why I am sharing that there are thousands of military personnel, so you also have an understanding because there are 1,000 military personnel that comes here, and that not just comes here, but under the care of the Medical Unit, right? They get care from the White House Medical Unit. There tends to be dermatologists from… Or dermatologists to neurologists who come through here, who come through here because the White House Medical Unit is indeed caring for folks.

(59:07)
So I have confirmed, three times, three times. I just cannot get into details or confirm a name of a person. I cannot do that. There are security reasons. We have to give people a measure of privacy.

Would you ask the president if he would waive some of his records and make those public?

Look, I don’t know how all of that works. I’m not going to pretend I know how that works, and what I will do is certainly, we’ll share that information with the powers that be. I just don’t want to get into a back and forth on that particular question. Yeah.

Thanks, Karine. To KellyO’s point, the president today, when he called into Morning Joe, he said that he had released all of his medical records. Should we take that as an indication that he’s going to do so?

Well, look, what I can say is that we have shared a comprehensive medical report that is pretty detailed, that is in line with other presidents, certainly not the last one, but the two before the last president, and we have been pretty much in line with what they have done. To be more clear, George W. Bush and also President Obama. So we’ve been-

The last one did let his doctors come to the briefing room to speak to us.

Okay. And we know what that last president said from this briefing room. Okay?

During the call today-

They only did, I think three or four paragraphs. Very different, very different approach.

During the call today to MSNBC-

Yeah, sure.

Was the president reading off of a script?

So I was in the room when the president called into Morning Joe. The president spoke from his heart. The president was very clear. There was no script at all. And he was very detailed. You heard him say actually during the call that he was reading some quotes. He said it, he shared that information. He was reading some quotes from the debate. So he shared that with you. What you heard was a passionate interview. It was about 18 minutes. He talked about and laid out his vision for this country. He talked about how he wants to make sure we move forward. I want to be really careful because he also talked about the campaign, which I can’t do from here, but I think it was incredibly powerful.

He was reading quotes, but not from a script?

Nope. It was not a script. I was in the room. It was not a script.

And in a big boy press conference, how many questions should we expect that he’s going to take?

So look, it is going to be a solo press conference. It is going to be certainly more than a two plus two. We’re still working it out. So I’m not going to go into specifics from here, but you could expect a solo press conference from this president at the end of the NATO Summit. He’s looking forward to it and he will be taking your questions. So that’ll be a good thing. [inaudible 01:01:48]

Karine, I have two questions.

Yes.

One, a follow-up on Dr. Cannard, and that is, can you explain what the role of Megan Nasworthy is? Does she oversee care for some of those military personnel that you were referencing as a group or does she oversee care for the president?

Again, want to be careful here. I know who you’re speaking of. I don’t have her full portfolio in front of me. So my team and I will be happy to get back to you.

Okay. And then on the president’s and the white House’s engagement with House Democrats and Democrats more broadly, there was an article a month ago in the Wall Street Journal that the White House universally panned because the on-the-record quotes criticizing the president’s age and acuity were largely from Republicans, but I want to ask about the graphs in that story about Democrats. It said that the White House-

From that same story?

From that same story.

Okay.

It said that, “The White House kept close tabs on the Journal’s interviews with Democratic lawmakers, and after the offices of several Democrats shared with the White House either a reporting of an interview or details about what was asked, some of those lawmakers spoke to the Journal a second time and once again emphasized Biden’s strength.” They quote Congressman Gregory Meeks, a New York Democrat, saying, “They just said that I should give you a call back.” I’m wondering if you could characterize what the White House told Democrats to tell reporters about the president’s [inaudible 01:03:08]?

I think the Democrats spoke for themselves. I think you know how stories work. There’s a lot of back and forth. When you all come with a story from us and we want to make sure you hear from other voices, we make that available to you all, and it is up to the reporter if they’re going to reach out or not to that particular person. But we expect and we anticipate and we understand that it doesn’t matter who, if it’s a Congressperson or a Governor or any elected official, they’re going to speak for themselves. They’re going to speak for themselves and I would say that Representative Greg Meeks has also been very supportive. If you fast-forward to where we are today, Representative Meeks has been very supportive of this president, continuing, moving forward. And we’ve heard from many others, many others. The CBC more broadly has been very supportive. We heard from the Chair, Chairman Horsford from the CBC. And so that is the type of support that we continue to see.

So there hasn’t been outreach by the White House to Democrats who might have misgivings about the president’s age or acuity, to have them say positive things about the president publicly?

I don’t quite understand where you’re going with the question. I think I explained it. Sometimes when you all are working on stories and we were trying to provide supporters from the president, that is not unusual and it is up to the reporter to reach out or not. And so that is something that we certainly do. That is something that is not uncommon, but what I would say more broadly, there are Congressional members as we’re talking about what’s happening in Congress, as we’re talking about the president’s outreach, as we’re talking about how we move forward, there are Congressional members out there who have been incredibly supportive. We have to remember there are hundreds of House members, and so there are folks out there.

Can you talk a little bit about the president’s outreach today and tomorrow ahead of these all conference and all caucus meetings?

So what I can say is that, as you all know, the president has done some outreach. He’s spoke about it himself. I can say as of today, he has engaged with dozens of members, whether in person or on calls. We saw him engaging with Congressional members over the weekend. We saw him doing that on several of the trips that he has done over the past 10 days. There’s been about six states that he’s been able to stop over and engage with supporters. So he’s been able to do that, and there’s a long list. I’m trying to spare you the list here, but there is a long list. Senator Chris Coons, Senator John Fetterman, Senator Alex Padilla, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Raphael Warnock, it goes on and on. Representative Clyburn, Al Green, Horsford, as I mentioned already. There has been a long list of, we believe, incredibly supportive, supportive Congressional members who have continued-

[inaudible 01:06:14] list that have been provided to us from the campaign too, but I’m wondering if the president has spoken directly with Leader Schumer and Minority Leader Jeffries in the last 24 hours, and whether the president believes has their support?

I hear you. We shared that just last week that the president spoke to the leadership, obviously on the Democratic side.

Has he spoken to them since yesterday?

I don’t have anything to read out to you as far as what we’ve shared with you last week, but the president has been in regular touch and those conversations went very, very well. I think he mentioned in particular, Leader Jeffries, that went almost for an hour. The president said that himself. He said how much they had a very good conversation. The president saw Congresswoman Dean, as I mentioned. He saw both Senators of Pennsylvania as well yesterday, traveled across the state and had really, two big events with supporters with Americans who got to hear directly from the president. And I think that’s important.

Karine…

Go ahead, Michael.

Thanks, Karine. Were all three of President Biden’s neurological exams that you’ve confirmed, were they all conducted at Walter Reed?

Look, I don’t have anything to state as to location. What I can say for sure that he has seen a neurologist three times as it relates to the exam that he takes every year, and I just don’t have a location to speak to.

Well, let me just try a different way. Has any neurologist?

And you also know that the president does go to Walter Reed to do-

Yes, [inaudible 01:07:48].

Right, to do his physical exams.

Well, has a neurologist? I’m not talking about anyone in particular. Regardless of the identity, name of that person, has any neurologist came to the White House to visit President Biden?

What I can tell you, during those exams that we have been able to do every year for the past three years, and there’s a comprehensive exam that we share, comprehensive report that we share with all of you, he has seen a neurologist.

That’s what I’m trying to clarify. It seems like those were taken at Walter Reed. So it’s an important distinction of all this.

You all know that he does indeed go to Walter Reed as part of his physical exam. That is no secret. That is something that he does. And I also confirmed that he sees a neurologist every time that he’s done these exams. I don’t have anything beyond that.

Okay. Thanks.

[inaudible 01:08:38] Go ahead, April.

Karine, as everyone’s talking about neurological issues, this is different, but on that same page. The president has had two aneurysms, okay? And there are complications from aneurysms, to include impaired short-term memory, inability to concentrate as well as speech difficulties. Have any neurologists worked with him or just trying to observe him as he is a person who has suffered from two aneurysms that could have been fatal?

Look, April, in the comprehensive reporting that we share with all of you on a yearly basis, the neurological exam have been detailed, extremely detailed. It is directly from the doctor. They talk about the specifics of that neurological exam. And so I would refer you to the six-page comprehensive memo, and that’s what I refer you to.

But that is something that we know about, that he had two aneurysms.

Yeah.

And all of those complications are part of a neurological exam. Have they tested for that at all? Do you know?

What I can tell you is that the exams have been detailed, they have been extensive. And that’s what I can share with you. I would refer you to the document, to the report.

My last question.

Sure.

With just days away from the Republican Convention, how do you, as this White House who stands behind this president, how do you work to do an image change or an image change to revamp him? To make him shinier and brighter, if you will?

So I’m not going to speak to the Republican Convention. That’s something that I’m not going to do, but I am going to-

[inaudible 01:10:29].

Hold on. Wait, hold on a second. Hold on. Give me a second. Look, in the past 10 days, the president has gone to six states. He has. He’s gone to North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Georgia, Pennsylvania. I know that’s a commonwealth, but he’s been to six. And in that time, he has engaged directly, directly with the American public. And you’ve seen the enthusiasm, you’ve seen the energy. He’s been able to talk to them directly and talk about his goals for the future, talk about what he’s done in the past three and a half years, and they have heard specifically from him on even his health, even the debate, and I think that’s important too. And you just heard me lay out the next two weeks.

(01:11:21)
So the president’s going to continue to go out there. He’s going to continue to be present in the communities. He’s going to continue to hear directly from the American people and that’s the best way to do this. That’s the best way to get out there. That’s the best way to make sure that you have your finger on the pulse and that the American people get to see you for themselves.

Since you won’t speak to the Republican Convention, what about the Democratic Convention?

I can’t speak to Democratic Convention either. I can’t speak to that. That’s for the-

No, but how do you-

No, but you’re asking me to speak to two things that I can’t speak to from here. That is something that the campaign and the Convention can speak to very, very-

[inaudible 01:11:58] right at the end of next week.

April, you may not like my answer, but I’m telling you the president’s going to continue to go out there. I just shared with you at the top, a robust plan that the president has to be out there, whether it is in Vegas, whether it’s in Texas, and let’s not forget the other states that he’s visited in the last 10 days, in the last 10 days. There’s a stark difference from what we’ve been doing and what the other side is doing. Stark difference.

(01:12:25)
And so the president is committed. He’s going to continue to do that. He wants to engage, engage directly with the American people. 600 people at the church yesterday, 600 people at the event in Harrisburg. That’s a pretty good start, and that’s just a continuation. That’s actually not a start. That’s a continuation. Go ahead, Josh. I know. I’m getting to you.

Is it still the administration’s policy that physicals are done annually?

Yes. Just like every other president has done before this president, we’re going to continue to uphold that.

So it would be fair to us to assume that as of now, his next expected physical would be next year?

It would be next year. The last one was in February.

Okay. And can you clarify for us, forgive me, I might have missed it, by design, he will or he won’t go to the Hill tomorrow?

Say that one more time?

He won’t go to the Hill?

Oh, I don’t have any engagement to share. As you know, NATO is front of mind. That’s what he’s focused on. You saw that letter that came out from the president. He’s going to be focusing on the more than 30 world leaders that are coming here for the 75th anniversary of NATO, continuing to show the strength of our alliance. I think it is something that the president’s very much looking forward to, and you’ll certainly hear from the president on Thursday when he gives his press conference, his big boy press conference, as your colleague, Justin, has stated many times.

Oh, I’ll give him your regards. We shouldn’t expect then some sort of big outreach push to Democratic members of the House?

Look, we have shared, I just shared that he has done dozens of calls, not just calls, but also face-to-face, as he did in Pennsylvania, his team, campaign side, they’re going to do their thing. We’re going to do our thing on our side, and he respects tremendously, Congress. And so he’s in regular contact with them and that’s what you’re going to continue to see. All right, thanks everybody. Thanks everyone. [inaudible 01:14:17]