Karine Jean-Pierre White House Press Briefing on 9/26/24

Hi, everybody.

[inaudible 00:00:06].

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

We’ve been gone too long. Missing [inaudible 00:00:16], okay. So the president has been briefed on Hurricane Helene and at his direction, administration officials are in contact with their local and state counterparts to ensure that they have everything they need. This week, the president approved emergency disaster declaration requests from the governors of Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia, which unlock additional federal resources to help these states respond to the storm and the entire Biden-Harris administration stands ready to provide further assistance to impacted states as needed.

(00:52)
We continue to urge residents, especially those who have been instructed to evacuate to heed the warnings of local officials. With that, I have here to my right, the FEMA Administrator Criswell, come on up. Deanna, thank you so much for being here.

Yeah, thank you Karine. Good afternoon, everybody. As you heard, I did just finish briefing President Biden on the impacts that we are expecting to see from Hurricane Helene. And as I told him, we have been preparing for this storm for a number of days and we began moving resources into Florida on Monday.

(01:31)
I just want everybody to know that this is going to be a multi-state event with the potential for significant impacts from Florida all the way to Tennessee, and the president wants to make sure that everyone is paying attention to the potential life-threatening impacts that this storm may bring, and he has directed me to travel there tomorrow to assess the impacts.

(01:55)
The entire state of Florida is under some type of warning right now, whether that’s a hurricane warning or a tropical storm warning. And we expect life-threatening flash flooding in the states north as the storm continues to move north.

(02:09)
And so I need everybody to pay attention to their local officials. They’re going to have the best information on the specific risks where you are at.

(02:19)
We’re already seeing impacts in Florida, and the forecast indicates that we could see up to 20 feet of storm surge. So just think back two years ago to Hurricane Ian. The peak storm surge from that was 14 feet and we saw the amount of destruction and 150 people lost their lives, the majority of them from drowning. So please take this threat from storm surge seriously.

(02:46)
Residents that are in these areas, they can still take action. They can take action now to move out of harm’s way. And remember that you may only need to go 10 or 15 miles inland to get away the threat of the storm surge itself because water is the number one reason that we see people lose their lives in these storms. So please don’t underestimate what the impacts could possibly be.

(03:11)
So at the President’s direction, we have over 1100 personnel so far across the federal government supporting the preparedness efforts for this storm. We also have an additional 700 personnel from FEMA that are already in these states supporting other disasters that we can quickly pivot to support any of the response needs as needed.

(03:32)
Some of the resources that we have already deployed include eight search and rescue teams across Florida and Georgia, as well as resources from the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, to immediately support any life-saving operations as needed.

(03:47)
The Army Corps of Engineers has power restoration teams and debris specialists who are going to be able to help restore power and support debris removal operations as soon as it is safe to do so. We have health and medical task forces from Health and Human Services to evaluate the impacts to medical facilities.

(04:05)
We have food, water, generators, and tarps that are deployed to staging locations across the region, and so they’re easily accessible and movable post storm and the Red Cross is actively standing up shelters in areas that are expected to see and feel the impacts from Helene.

(04:24)
My regional administrator is currently embedded in the Florida Emergency Operations Center as well as incident management assistance teams in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. And we have one currently moving to North Carolina today so we can ensure seamless communications between the federal government and the needs of the states.

(04:42)
I’m very grateful, as you heard, President Biden quickly approved pre-landfall declarations for Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, and this allows us to immediately provide any of that life-saving support in the coming days. And I’m grateful for the rest of the federal family that is there on the ground working with us side by side as we prepare to support the American people for what is to come over the next several days.

(05:07)
I just want everybody to know that at the Biden-Harris administration, we are ready for this event. We have aggressively pre-deployed resources. We are postured for whatever response might be needed. And so let me just say one more time before I take any questions. Take the storm seriously. People in Hurricane Helene’s path, you need to listen to your local officials. If they tell you to evacuate, please do so. And if they tell you to shelter in place, then that’s what you should do. They’re going to give you the best information that you can do for your specific situation. Those decisions can save lives, and with that then I’ll take questions.

Thanks Deanne. So this is likely to be the 21st billion-dollar weather or climate disaster this year. So does FEMA have the resources to keep on responding to disaster after disaster like this?

So we have absolutely enough resources to continue to support the lifesaving response that we need to for this event. I think everybody’s aware that we went into immediate needs funding as our disaster relief fund, the funding was running low, but the reason we do that is to make sure we have enough money for an event just like this. And so I want everybody to know that we have exactly what we need and there are no limitations to our ability to support the response for this disaster.

(06:25)
As we continue to go through the recovery though, for all of these disasters, that also takes personnel and we’re going to continue to work through with our states about what they need and how we can best adjudicate those resources. But we are seeing an increase and we’re seeing a strain on our staff with more of them deployed for longer periods of time, helping to support these communities recover.

And just also related to the money here, some pretty substantial losses projected in terms of the crop insurance, in terms of the flood insurance, and there’s no new money in the CR as far as this is concerned. Is there any expectation that you’re going to have to go back with a supplemental request?

Yeah, so we did put a supplemental request in with the CR. It does not give us a supplemental at this time, but it gives us the ability to spend the money that was put forth in the president’s budget. But we’re already through INF 9 billion, close to 9 billion in projects that we have put on hold that we can’t reimburse communities for. Once we lift INF and once the CR goes into effect, we’ll be able to pay those. But without a supplemental, we will be back in INF probably in the January timeframe.

Can you talk more about how widespread you think prolonged power outages will be and what those power restoration teams are doing to prepare? Is there anything they can do proactively before the storm?

So Florida has a really robust plan and they have really aggressive targets to try to get the majority of people, I forget what the exact percentage is, I think it was 85 or 90% within 48 hours, back up. And they have several thousand resources that have been pre-positioned to come in and support Florida Power and Light or the other utilities to help them get the power back on.

(08:16)
We expect widespread power outages from this. When we think about Tallahassee, it’s got a lot of tree canopy, so those trees are going to come down and impact those power lines and the debris and the ability to detangle the debris from the power lines is what could take a long time.

(08:32)
The power restoration teams, they do a couple of things from the Army Corps one, they can help us put generators in on critical facilities to help make sure that those facilities have power, but they can also make assessments on how to prioritize some of the work so we know where we need to put our efforts to help the private sector utility companies get the power restored as quickly as possible.

Could you talk a little bit about how the response has changed based on the severity of the storms? I think we’re seeing storms with increasing severity, so how does that change the response for you? I mean, I know it’s more manpower, but what else? How else does it change?

I think the biggest thing is that we want to get things in place early. This is why we’ve been moving resources into the area since Monday and having, we know there’s a large population that’s really vulnerable in Florida, and so that’s why we have so many search and rescue teams that are able to come in and augment the really impressive amount of teams that Florida already has within the state.

(09:34)
So this is on top of what they already have. And so for us, it’s making sure that we are sending more than we think that we’ll need. And if I don’t need them, I can send them home. What I don’t want to do is be short. I want to make sure that I have enough that can support whatever the states might request.

Good answer. You said that you are headed down there tomorrow. Did you discuss with the president whether it might be possible for him to make the trip down in the coming days? And secondly, is there a single piece of advice or warning that you wish in these kinds of situations people would heed more seriously that you might want to emphasize in this setting?

Yeah, so the purpose of my visit is to assess the impacts, and I’ll be briefing him on what those impacts are. I’ll leave it to Karine to talk with him about what actions he might take, but I think the message is take this seriously. I mean, we look at the cone and the cone is the wind, but the water is what kills people. We need to really look at where this storm surge is going to be in Florida. But Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and those Appalachians, they’re going to have up to 20 inches of rain in an area that can have significant flash flooding, and that is really life-threatening and it comes so much faster than what we see from a storm surge, right?

(10:51)
They’re going to have less warning once the rain starts there. So they need to know what they’re going to do now, put those plans in place today for where they’re going to go, how they’re going to contact their family and their friends, what they’re going to need to take with them like medicine or power devices for medical reasons, it’s not too late. They should be able to put those plans together today so they can take the actions that their local officials tell them to do.

We’re good. Thank you. You keep talking about the need to follow evacuation orders if local officials give them, we know from past storms that people don’t always heed that, not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t afford to leave the area, don’t have anywhere to go, don’t have family members to help them. Is FEMA doing anything to work on that particular issue, given what you’re talking about with water and the danger that can come from that, if people stay in place?

So part of the pre-landfall emergency declaration is specifically to reimburse states and local jurisdictions for any of the costs that they incur to do sheltering and evacuation because we want them to have the resources to put in place whatever measures that they need.

(12:02)
I think the important thing on the evacuation to remember is if you’re told to evacuate, especially from the storm surge area, it doesn’t mean you have to go to a whole other state. And I think we often think of those pictures of contraflow lines and backed up traffic, but you really sometimes only need to go a few miles to get out of harm’s way.

(12:21)
And so the local officials should be able to tell you where there’s local evacuation centers that you can go to until the threat of the storm has passed.

(12:29)
And then when we get to the point where if they are displaced, then we have the long-term sheltering concerns that we’ll have to work with. But the initial sheltering concern is just getting out of this storm’s path for right now, then we can work on what those long-term needs are. And that’s why the pre-landfall declaration is so incredibly important that the president approved is to make sure that those states have the resources to stand up those shelters and to help people get to safety.

And do you feel that the state is ready to stand up those shelters? I mean, you’re talking about how you’re going to reimburse them, but is Florida ready to do that?

Florida has stood up many shelters and the American Red Cross is also there supporting that. I just need people to evacuate and go to them.

Okay. We going to wrap it up, go ahead, John.

Thanks, Karine. What resources are available, not only to families, but also to small business in the aftermath of this storm making landfall. Resources coming not only from FEMA but also from the SBA?

Yeah, there’s a number of programs that are available for FEMA. We specifically made some changes into our disaster declaration of the Stafford Act recently, which allows people that work from home to actually get compensated for some of their business losses if they work from home, if they had a computer or other equipment that they needed to do their personal, if they’re a photographer and they lost their cameras. So we just made that change recently in March to be able to compensate small business owners that work from home. SBA can speak specifically about their programs, but they’ve also made

Some really amazing changes this year, which increases the dollar amount that people can borrow from the SBA. It extends the time where they’re going to delay the interest until they have to pay it or to start to repay that loan. And it’s a tremendous resource to really help small businesses get back on their feet.

And how do you decide where to position yourself tomorrow with the storm making landfall?

So we’re looking at where we think the biggest impact is going to be, and right now it looks like it’s a dead-on hit to Tallahassee and so we’ll fly as close to Tallahassee as we can get, and then I’ll meet up with the governor and his team so I can see what the impacts are, hear what the team is thinking, and then we will assess. I’ve got staff on the ground that will have the intel as to where the hardest hit areas are. And then typically we like to either get an aerial view so I can fly over and see what some of those damages are or on the ground if need be. But I’m also prepared to move up to Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina as we start to see what those impacts are and assess that because me being on the ground helps me validate some of the damages more quickly so we can get major declarations in place faster.

Okay. Last question. Go ahead.

Thank you. At the start of this year, you rolled out reforms to cut some of the red tape for the individual assistance program. Now that so many people are in the path of this storm, can you give an update on how quickly you expect survivors to be able to tap into that given those changes that were put in effect more than six months ago at this point?

Now we’ve seen some really tremendous positive impact from the changes that we have made. In fact, one of the changes we made was we decoupled the requirement to apply for an SBA loan in order to be eligible for our programs and it’s really saving people several days in the process and we’re getting a large number of people that wouldn’t have come back to us, which is great.

(15:50)
We’re also seeing people get funding quicker. We have serious needs assistants that can get them a very small amount of money to help with some of their immediate costs, but also the Individual and Households program that can help them with if they’re underinsured. And so it really all depends on what their specific need is. The money that they will see the fastest typically is that initial $750. Any damages to their home, we still have to assess and see what those damages are and then can make that determination. But we have teams that go right out in the field, they can register them in the field and that really helps to speed up the process.

Okay. All right. Thank you so much, Administrator.

Thank you, Karine.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

Appreciate it.

I just wanted to add, the President asked to have the Administrator come to the podium today because of how serious we want to make sure that people out there are taking this, they need to take this very seriously. And also obviously we wanted to lay out our federal response posture so that folks know that we are there for them and we will obviously be there on the ground as the FEMA Administrator just laid out. So please, please take this very, very seriously and listen to your local officials. Just want to reiterate that once more.

(17:09)
I have one more thing. It’s a busy day here at the White House. One of the other things that we’re going to be doing, as you all know today, the President and the Vice President are announcing new actions to reduce gun violence and save lives from the American Rescue Plan to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to issuing more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other administration.

(17:34)
The President and the Vice President have continued to use every tool available to protect people from the epidemic of gun violence. Homicide rates are down 17% compared to the same time last year, and the number of mass shootings this year is 20% lower, but more must be done. So President Biden is going to sign an executive order to accelerate progress on two key priorities, combating emerging firearms threats and improving school-based active shooter drills. Additionally, federal departments and agency will be announcing a range of additional actions to reduce gun violence from promoting safe gun storage and red flag laws to improving the background check system. The Biden-Harris administration will continue to do everything it can to put an end to this senseless, senseless violence while calling on Congress to fulfill their duty and pass common-sense gun safety legislation. With that, Colleen.

Thanks, Karine. Democratic Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams has been charged with bribery, wire fraud and seeking campaign funds from a foreign government. Does the President believe he should resign?

I’m not going to comment on this ongoing, particular ongoing matter. I’m going to let the DOJ speak to this.

Okay. And then two other quick things. Does the President hope that Vice President Kamala Harris, should she be elected President, will she continue the Office of Gun Violence Prevention? Does he hope?

Look, I’m not going to speak for the Vice President or get ahead of ourselves here, but what I will say is, as you know, the Vice President has been a leader on this issue. She leads the Office of Gun Violence and has taken this seriously, not just as a vice president but throughout her career and has been obviously a key partner in all of the actions that this President has done and has taken. I think it’s safe to say that she will continue to lead on making sure that we deal with this epidemic. Gun violence is an epidemic. We need to continue to protect our communities, protect our schools. And so I could assure you that she’s going to continue to stay laser-focused on this issue.

Okay, one quick thing. As you know, Ukraine wants to fire long-range weapons into Russia and some Republicans today backed the idea. I wondered why the White House doesn’t share that same assessment.

So I think we can expect that one of the conversations that the two leaders will have would be on this topic. And so there’ll be also a broader discussion on the significance amount of military aid we are providing Ukraine, you saw announcements this morning, although I’m not expecting there be any new announcements on this particular action or a decision coming out of this meeting. I expect the leaders will discuss the weapons system the President announced, as I just stated.

(20:44)
And I do want to take a little bit of a step back here. I want to remind everyone watching the briefing, how the United States, how this President has mobilized a massive amount of military equipment and capability to help Ukraine really fight back, push back against Mr. Putin and his aggression. It’s been almost three years, almost three years, and this President has been there day one. He has been able to bring more than 50 nations together to support Ukraine and their fight for their democracy and so that’s what you can expect. And the President is very proud of the impact of that support, what it’s had and is proud of that coalition. And certainly you’ll see more of that in Germany. As we announce, the President’s going to be going to Germany. And so I will leave it there and not go any further. [inaudible 00:21:35]

Thanks, Karine. Mayor Eric Adams suggests that he’s being targeted by the Biden administration over his criticism of the migrant crisis. Now this is the kind of accusation that’s similar to what we’ve heard from former President Donald Trump. So what is the President’s reaction to that kind of language being used from a Democrat?

Look, we have been always very clear. The President was clear even when he was running in 2020, that he was going to make sure that DOJ is independent and DOJ is handling this case independently. I’m not going to go beyond that.

And Adams was also at a reception last night with the President at the Met. Did they talk?

I can confirm to you that the President did not see the mayor and they did not speak. [inaudible 00:22:18]

You just mentioned that obviously you expect the two leaders today to discuss the issue of the use of long range missiles into Russia. Do you know if the President has any openness to changing his policy stance on that?

Look, I said it’s going to be one of a range of topics that they’re going to discuss. And let’s not forget the President and both presidents saw each other recently, just yesterday. They’ve had multiple bilateral engagements. This is a continuation of that, a continuation of the support that you have seen from the United States and obviously what the President has been able to do in past two-plus years and bringing nations together to continue to give support to Ukraine. What I said is I could expect this to come up as a topic, but I wouldn’t expect any new announcements. I’m just not going to go beyond that. You all will see the President momentarily and President Zelensky in this pool spray, as you know in the Oval. And so you’ll have an opportunity to hear directly from both of them. I just don’t have anything beyond, there’s no announcement that I would expect coming out of this news.

Just separately on this Lebanon ceasefire proposal that was released last night, I’m sure you saw the Prime Minister’s office said the news about a ceasefire is incorrect. What is the disconnect here? We had senior US officials saying last night, suggesting really strongly that they expected the two sides to agree to this proposal, and here we are, however many hours later and the Prime Minister’s office is saying no.

So a couple of things. As you mentioned the joint statement last night, you saw that. We and our allies, partners don’t believe in an all-out war. That’s not the answer here. That’s not what we want to see, and that is something that we’ve been pretty consistent about throughout the past several months. Our joint statement was a clear call. It was a call for a temporary ceasefire to open up space, open up space for diplomacy to achieve a deal that allows civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes safely and securely. And I would add that the statement was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side. There are now discussions ongoing today in New York. Our teams are continuing to have discussions and so you’ll probably hear more later in the day, but those discussions are ongoing.

If it was coordinated with the Israeli side and the expectation last night as it was shared by senior US officials was that the two sides would agree to this imminently, why are we hearing from the Prime Minister’s office today-

I would have to refer you to the Prime Minister’s office. I am just laying out the facts and what we know and what we want to avoid. We do not believe an all-out war is the answer and we’ve been very clear about that. The President’s been very clear about that. I just laid out the facts and what we’re trying to do, this is a clear call for a temporary ceasefire. We want to provide space. We talk about how diplomacy is the way to move forward. That’s what the President believes. I laid out that the statement was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side. I can’t speak for them. They will have to speak for themselves. I’m just laying out what we know, how this came together and what our end goal is what we want see.

Do you still expect an agreement to come out imminently?

As I just mentioned, we have our teams who are in New York right now, they’re currently having those discussions, currently negotiating or discussing this further in New York, and so I’m sure that we will have more to share later in the day. Okay, Francesca.

Thanks, Karine. The President never had a direct conversation with the Israeli prime minister about this. Do you expect that you’ll call him today or that you’ll speak with him tomorrow about this?

As you know, they’ve spoken many, many times, probably more than a dozen times, easily in this past several months, almost a year now since October 7th. They have decades-long relationship, and so they know each other very well. And when they have discussions, they’re very honest and frank. I don’t have a conversation to read out, a call to preview at this time. As I stated, and I’ve said this before, we have said this before, our teams talk pretty regularly, practically on a daily basis. And so that certainly continues as we’re talking about the ceasefire, the statement that you saw from the G7 plus our key Middle East partners overnight.

So essentially he did not feel that he needed to talk directly with the Prime Minister because his team was talking to…

I mean, their teams talk regularly as they’re doing right now in New York today. And so that is something that will continue to be the case. But they have spoken multiple times. As a conversation between the prime minister and the President, I just don’t have anything to preview at this time.

[inaudible 00:27:11] Ukraine.

Sure.

His approval today of the long-range bombs, should we take that as a sign that he is more open to allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory?

Look, our policy has not changed. They’re going to talk on a range of issues today. What we can say and what we can commit to is that we will continue to support Ukraine as they continue their fight against Mr. Putin’s aggression into Ukraine. And so that is our commitment. That’s what the President’s focused on. I don’t have anything else to add. Go ahead.

On the long-range missile issue, does the White House have a reaction to Putin’s comments that would invite a nuclear response on the United States?

Look, we say this all the time.

Mr. Putin can end this war today. He can. He started this war. He started this war, not the Ukrainians. He started this war. It could end today. It could end today if he decides to stop the aggression that he started into Ukraine. We’ve been very clear about that, and we’ll continue to do so.

And there’s been no change on the administration’s policy on NATO membership for Ukraine since the NATO Summit.

I don’t have anything else to share beyond what we’ve been pretty clear on as it relates to that.

One more is: Was there any reaction to former President Trump’s comments that Ukraine’s cities are gone questioning, giving more aid to the country while they refuse to make a deal or this comment that he wants them to win, kind of suggesting that Zelensky wants Democrats to win the election?

Look, I am not going to respond to everything that the former President says, especially since he’s a candidate in this election. The President has been very clear to his commitment, not just him, but more than 50 nations that are supporting Ukraine in their efforts to fight for their democracy, to fight against Mr. Putin’s aggression. And let’s not forget the President was able to make NATO stronger so that we can be able to continue to do the work that NATO is supposed to do, and an example is what is happening in Ukraine.

(29:26)
That is his focus that’s going to be continued. You’ll see this today in the bilat that he has with President Zelensky. You saw that this week at the UN Assembly. He saw multiple leaders. Obviously, he was with multiple leaders and had a couple opportunities, as we read out to all of you, to meet with some of them. This is what the President’s going to focus on and that’s what I’m going to speak to.

(29:54)
Okay.

Thank you, Karine. On the Zelensky meeting, why is it that President Biden and Vice President Harris are holding these meetings separately? Is the suggestion that one would say something different than the other and that there might be some dueling diplomacy there?

There’s no dueling diplomacy. It’s not unusual. The Vice President has met with President Zelensky separately many times. Nothing new here.

Okay.

I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Critics have said that Zelensky’s trip to Pennsylvania was a political stunt. Did the administration communicate at all with Ukraine on who would be attending that trip or make any effort to make it a bipartisan event?

So let me just lay this down because I know that there’s been a lot of talk about this. The Ukrainians asked to visit the facility which employs American workers as you know, who are manufacturing critical supplies that the Ukrainian military is using every day on the front lines of freedom. Because of its centrality to their country’s continued existence, this came from Ukrainian, not us. This is something that they wanted to do. After they made that request, the DOD did what it has done for years; figure out how to provide transportation for foreign leaders traveling on US soil, which is common, which happens when they come to the US, and the whole world knows this is someone Putin once dead. He’s made very clear when it comes to President Zelensky.

(31:26)
Also, just two months ago, President Zelensky traveled to Utah and held an event with the Republican governor, a very similar event, and Republican officials were there at that event in Utah. And there wasn’t a single demand, not one, not one single demand for an investigation when that occurred a couple of months ago in Utah. So this was business as usual for a Ukrainian request during wartime, during wartime.

(31:54)
I would encourage, we would encourage the House Republicans to drop this. This is a political stunt. They need to drop this. I think I gave a lot here, a lot of good layout of how this all occurred but anything else specific I would certainly refer you to the DOD.

Just clarifying though that the campaign didn’t play a role in determining the guest list because they’re claiming that having no Republicans there in a battleground state made it effectively a campaign event?

This is something that Ukrainians asked for. They did this a couple of months ago in Utah, in Utah, with a Republican governor and Republican elected officials were there as well. We didn’t hear any type of investigation request when we went to a Republican state. We didn’t.

On the gun event today, what kind of gun does the Vice President have, and when did she buy it?

That’s something for her office to speak to.

The reason I’m asking is because you have this event today, but the VP, as district attorney, sponsored Proposition H in 2005 would’ve banned handguns within San Francisco city limits and required that residents turn in the handguns that they already owned by a certain deadline or face mandatory jail time. But she’s out on the campaign trail now saying that she’s a proud gun owner and is not going to take away your guns. So can the White House get us an answer on that, because she hasn’t, and her campaign officials also haven’t answered that question even on television?

Look, a couple of things here. When it comes to the VP and owning a gun, she can speak for herself. The campaign could speak for that. Her office can speak for that. That’s for them to speak to.

(33:42)
There’s no conflict here when we’re saying that we want to see responsible gun ownership. That’s what we want to see; responsible gun ownership. I think that is what’s important here. At the end of the day, gun violence is an epidemic in our country. Think about our schools, our grocery stores. It’s an epidemic. We have done the work. We have seen violent crimes go down because of the work that this President and this Vice President has done. There’s an office to prevent gun violence, and that is something that she leads. But we’re asking for responsible gun ownership. That’s what we want to see. That’s what’s important here.

(34:29)
If people don’t understand that, I don’t know how to further even explain that to them. Our kids, our schools, there’s an epidemic here. There’s an epidemic. There are drills happening in our schools right now. That’s something that the President’s going to speak to. That is traumatizing some of our kids because of this epidemic.

(34:54)
That should be the focus. How do we make sure that we end this epidemic? We want to see responsible gun ownership. That’s what we want to see.

I think the question is not about responsible gun ownership though. It’s about her past position saying that supporting a measure that would have required that non-law enforcement or military residents of a city turn in their handguns. So no gun ownership or face possible mandatory jail time versus what she’s saying now, and then also not answering the question of her gun ownership.

Again, that’s something that she’s going to have to speak to. What I can speak to this moment in this time, what we’ve been trying to do for the last three and a half years is making sure that we are dealing with an epidemic that is existing in our communities, that we see in our schools, that we see in grocery stores. It is an epidemic here, and what we’re trying to do is prevent gun violence. And we have seen that go down. We have because of this work, because of the executive actions, because of a bipartisan legislation that was able to be done under this administration to deal with gun violence, something that we hadn’t seen in 30 years. So there is some bipartisan support here to deal with a responsible way of having gun ownership. We need to do more here. We need to do more.

Thank you, Karine. Back on the long-range missiles into Russia. Our latest reporting is that President Biden has not changed his position on this in part because the Pentagon has assessed it would do very little to change the trajectory of the war. So does the President’s plan to be blunt with Zelensky about that assessment today and to give him a yes or no answer at least as far as it stands today?

Again, I’m not expecting any new announcements. That is something that I am going to be clear about. What our focus here is that we are focused on ensuring, ensuring that Ukraine has what it needs to prevail in this war. That is the President’s focus. That’s what they’re going to continue to discuss about. That’s what the President’s going to continue to support Ukraine on, not just us, the 50 plus countries that the President was able to get together to support Ukraine making NATO stronger. I’m not going to get into any reporting about this. I’ve been very clear. And you’re going to see both Presidents momentarily in the bilat. You’ll hear directly from the President. And so I’ll just leave it there.

Okay, and then following up again on the ceasefire deal in Lebanon, you said that the statement was coordinated with Israel. Are you saying that the US has any reason to believe that despite what we are seeing and despite the public comments, Israel agrees with the US?

What I’m saying is that their discussions continue in New York. I laid out the facts as they are and wanted to be very clear about that. Let me just really just read out a couple of things from the joint statement that you all saw from the G-7 plus key Middle East partners.

(37:58)
“The situation between Lebanon and Israel since October 8th, 2023, is intolerable and presents an unacceptable risk of a broader regional escalation. This is in nobody’s interest, neither of the people of Israel, nor of the people of Lebanon. It is time to conclude a diplomatic settlement that enables civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes in safety. Diplomacy, however, cannot succeed amid an escalation of this conflict.” We want to see a 20-day ceasefire. Those discussions continue. It was something that we laid out. It was a plan that we laid out. We want to certainly see that move forward and those discussions continue in New York with our teams.

And you’ve made that abundantly clear. I guess my question is, Israel is not on the list of countries that came up with the proposal or has agreed to it

You’re right. It’s the G-7 plus the key Middle East partners that put forward this joint statement last night.

So why do you have any reason to believe that they’re going to agree to this?

As I stated, and you pointed this out when you asked me your question, Israel was aware of this statement. And what I can tell you right now, we are having continued discussions that is happening with our teams in New York. I’m not going to get into private diplomatic engagement, but I can assure you these conversations are continuing.

Thank you.

Just a quick follow-up on that statement that you read, it refers to the situation as a situation, the conflict and an escalation. Do we agree at the White House that what we’re witnessing between Israel and Lebanon right now is in fact war?

I’m not going to get into semantics from here. What we know and what we are seeing is that this cannot continue, and we want this to end, right? We want a peaceful solution here. I’m just not going to get into semantics-

Because we’ve heard the President say, as he said multiple times this week, he wants to avoid a full-scale war, an all-out war. He said it remains a possibility that’s why they’re pursuing this diplomatic solution. But I guess just for our understanding of what an all-out war looks like versus what we’re witnessing now?

I mean, look, I’m not going to get into… Here’s what we want to see. We want to see a 21-day ceasefire to give us the space to have that conversation so that we can have a negotiation to end this. That’s what we want to see. And so we believe this gives us an opportunity to do this by calling for a 21-day ceasefire to be more clear.

(40:39)
It’s important. It is intolerable what’s happening. It cannot continue for both sides. It cannot continue. And so we’re going to do everything in our power. The President has been very clear to get to that point. I think it was important. It was important to see a joint statement from the G-7 and key Middle East partners. I think it was important to see that. You see countries coming together and seeing what’s happening. The tensions need to stop. We need to get to a ceasefire.

(41:13)
That is what we’re trying to get to here. We’re going to continue to have this discussion on getting to that 21-day ceasefire. That’s continuing in New York, as you know. UNGA continues, even though we’re back here. Our teams are there. They’re having those discussions. They’re doing these diplomatic conversations. You hear us talk about all the time. Diplomatic resolution is key. That’s what we’re trying to get to.

(41:38)
That’s what I think you can see the type of movement that you’ve seen from this President when he was at UNGA having conversations with other leaders. And now we’ve come to a place where we’ve put this forward, and this is what we believe. If we see this 21-day ceasefire, it gives us the space. It gives us the space to have that conversation.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Karine. I’m going to have another go at the ceasefire.

Sure.

So, the White House said that you don’t want to see a wider war, and you wanted to see this 21-day ceasefire. But yesterday, a senior administration official described this proposal as a breakthrough. So-

A breakthrough?

Yeah. So, what makes you believe that [inaudible 00:42:24] is listening to you when they did not listen to you over maybe 10 months and the White House failed to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas? The party changes. Now it’s Israel and Hezbollah, as opposed to Israel and Hamas. So, where do you get this optimism? When the president always say we are two days away from securing the ceasefire, we’re three days away, until now, you’re unable to secure a ceasefire and release U.S. hostages. So, where is this optimism coming that both Hezbollah and Israel can listen to the White House?

So, here’s the thing. As I stated, our teams have been in discussion. The president certainly has been engaging our teams, in particular, with Israel and Lebanon throughout this week. And based on those conversations, we have had with Israel and Lebanon, and we have had with our partners as well, we felt comfortable in releasing this statement because of those ongoing dialogue, that diplomatic conversation, resolution that we’re trying to get to calling for a ceasefire.

(43:29)
And it is up to the parties to respond. I mean, it is. It is up to the parties to respond. But we felt comfortable in releasing that statement last night because we have been having those discussions with Lebanon and Israel. But to your point, it is up to the parties to respond.

(43:47)
Now we put out the statement, the joint statement last night. Conversations continue, discussions continue in New York, and so we’re going to continue to move that way. But we have to do something, right? We have to continue to act. And diplomacy is the way to deal with what we have been seeing.

I understand.

Right.

But does the White House have leverage over either party so we don’t go to a wider war?

We’re trying to prevent a wider war. That is what we’ve been working towards for some time. And we have had these discussions with both Israel, with Lebanon, with our partners, and we felt comfortable enough to release this statement. We believe that diplomatic resolution is key here, and we can’t stop. We got to continue to try, right? But it is up to our partners to respond. It truly is.

(44:40)
But just because we released the statement, it doesn’t stop there. It doesn’t. So, we’re going to have diplomatic discussions as it’s happening in New York. It doesn’t stop from last night releasing this joint statement. And we’ll see where we get. We’ll see where we get to.

One last question. The number of the people who are being killed in Lebanon is over 600 now, 2, 000 wounded. Do you believe that these are legitimate target, including that the number of the dead also are women and children? And do you believe that Israel still operate within international law?

Here’s what I can say. We want to see the tensions end. We want to see a ceasefire. That is what we’re … What we’re seeing right now, and this is in our statement, it is intolerable, what’s going on right now. It cannot continue, and it’s not good for either side. It is just not. This is why we’re trying to get to a diplomatic solution here.

(45:38)
And you mentioned children and women. Nobody wants to see that. We don’t want to see that. And so, we’re trying to get to a diplomatic solution. That’s why we called for … We laid out a path, a call for a 21-day ceasefire, and that’s why we’re continuing to have these diplomatic solutions, diplomatic conversations. We have to do this. We have to. That is the way out of this.

(46:02)
And I know we have to wrap pretty soon. Go ahead, Gerren.

Thanks, Karine. In response to a criminal complaint filed against Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana, in a social media post, described Haitians as “gangsters” and Haiti as “the nastiest country in the western hemisphere.” He has since deleted that post. CBC Chairman Steven Horsford tried to censure him in the House yesterday. It was blocked by Republicans. But what is the White House’s reaction to Higgins’ post and the failed effort to hold him accountable?

Look, I’m not going to speak to House actions and how they go about their business. That is for them to decide how they’re going to deal with individual congressional members.

(46:47)
What I will say more broadly, and we have been very clear from here, the president has been clear, the vice president has been clear, I think what we are seeing right now, what we have heard from national leaders about what is going on in Springfield, Ohio, the baseless, baseless lies and conspiracy theories, it’s dangerous and it is false. And to go after immigrants in that way who are there legally, helping a community economically, who are welcomed in that community, and saying these baseless lies is dangerous.

(47:27)
And so, what this president and this vice president believes is that we cannot pull apart our communities. They want to bring together our communities. That is what you have been seeing over the last three and a half years.

(47:39)
And conspiracy theories like this are harmful. And we have seen this already, how dangerous this is, how dangerous this is to go after, in this particulars instance, Haitian migrants who were welcomed in that community. And it has not just been denounced from us, denounced from the governor of Ohio, denounced by the police department, local police department, the city manager of Springfield. I mean, on and on, by Republicans, who have denounced this.

(48:07)
And so, it’s unfortunate that we have national leaders who are playing political stunts and political games. And so, that is what we’re going to continue to speak to. We are about bringing our communities together, not tearing them apart.

Just one more question.

Sure.

Death row inmate Marcellus Williams was executed in Missouri on Tuesday, despite concerns about evidence and jury selection process in his 1998 case. Despite the St. Louis County prosecutor and the victim’s family requesting that he live, Missouri’s governor, attorney general, and the Supreme Court ultimately failed to intervene.

(48:40)
Considering this and the president’s stance against the death penalty, what does he personally think of Williams’ execution?

So, obviously, I can’t speak to this case specifically. I can’t do that from here. But the president has long talked about his serious concerns about the death penalty as currently implemented and whether it is consistent with the values fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness. He supports the attorney general’s decision to issue a moratorium on federal executions while the Department of Justice conducts a comprehensive review of policies and procedures governing the federal death penalty.

(49:19)
And so, I’ll leave it there.

(49:21)
I know I got to go. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Thank you, Karine. Just to follow up again on the Lebanon. Is the administration meeting at all with Prime Minister Netanyahu while he’s in the U.S.?

I don’t have any meetings to preview. What I can tell you, as I’ve said multiple times, our teams in New York are meeting. And so, I will just leave it there. And they’re in regular conversation as it relates to the Israeli government. Our teams here are in regular conversations on a practically daily basis. And so, the teams are in New York having meetings about this particular ceasefire call that we put forward.

And you mentioned that the efforts doesn’t stop with the announcement last night.

Say that one more time.

You mentioned that the diplomatic efforts-

No, it hasn’t-

… has not stopped.

I mean, it’s happening right now in New York.

Right.

Yes.

My question is: In order to make it different than the announcement that obviously President Biden was comfortable in announcing a few months ago on the Gaza ceasefire, in order to make that different than the announcement he made last night with other leaders, would he consider conditioning aid to Israel?

I don’t have anything else to lay out beyond the statement that you saw from not just us, the G7 leaders and also key Middle East partners as well. Don’t have anything beyond that.

(50:42)
We have not changed, obviously, our position on that. We want to have a diplomatic resolution. That is what we have been saying for some time now, and this is one of the ways that we want to move forward on this.

Just very briefly also on Afghanistan. The Taliban have formally sought to join the upcoming BRICS Summit. What is the administration’s stance on the Taliban’s bid to join BRICS? And how do you assess the geopolitical implications of Taliban’s growing ties with China and Russia?

So, look, we’ll let the Taliban speak for themselves here. But we have been very clear that we judge the Taliban by what they do, not by what they say. We’ve been very consistent about that.

(51:20)
The Taliban want international legitimacy, to be removed from sanction lists, and foreign financing to restart the Afghan economy. These aspirations require the Taliban to live up to their commitments. At minimum, Afghanistan cannot strengthen its economy unless women are able to participate in all aspect of society without limitations.

(51:42)
So, we will continue to engage with the Taliban on matters of our interest, for example, on respect for the rights of women and girls and the return of wrongfully detained U.S. citizens. And that’s how we’re going to move forward with them.

(51:57)
All right. We got to go? All right. Thanks, guys.

Thanks.

Thank you, Karine.

See you, Karine.