Karine Jean-Pierre White House Press Briefing on 9/13/24

[inaudible 00:00:02] All right, good afternoon everyone.

Good afternoon.

Happy Friday. Okay, we all feel the same way, although tomorrow, this is another work day.

Yes.

Okay, so I have a couple of things at the top. So yesterday a North Dakota judge struck down the state’s near total abortion ban. The law makes it a felony for doctors and other healthcare providers to provide women the care that they need. It is extreme, dangerous, and terrifying, and has left North Dakota without any abortion providers, and that was made possible when the former president handpicked three, three Supreme Court justices to Roe V. Wade. As a result, more than 20 states have abortion bans currently in effect, and it’s not stopping at the state level. Republican elected officials in Congress have proposed four national abortion bans, while refusing to protect nationwide access to IVF and contraception. President Biden and Vice President Harris believe that women in every state must have the right to make deeply personal decisions about their health. They continue to call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe V. Wade into federal law and fight efforts by Republican elected officials to undermine our fundamental freedoms.

(01:41)
Next, I wanted to also quickly recognize all of the amazing team USA athletes who participated in this year’s Paralympics in Paris that ended this past weekend. Team USA showed incredible resilience and strength. This year’s athletes brought home an impressive 105, including 36 gold medals. From the President on down, we have all been cheering you on here at the White House. We are so proud of all of you, as the First Lady said, pardon me, and I quote, “Our athletes carry more than just our flag. They carry our nation’s heart and our hopes with them too.”

(02:27)
And finally, as you all know, the president joined a brunch in celebration of Black excellence on the South Lawn this afternoon. Over the coming days, president Biden will participate in a celebratory engagement centered on the triumphs and legacy of Black Americans and the institutions they have created. In addition to today’s brunch and celebration of Black excellence, President Biden will deliver remarks at the 2024 Phoenix Awards dinner on Saturday and address the National HBCU Week conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on Monday. These events will focus on speaking directly to the community about the Biden-Harris administration’s accomplishment for the Black community. As a proud Black American myself, I must say that I am incredibly proud to be working for President and a Vice President who has certainly delivered for Black Americans. His time in office is marked by significant wins for the Black community, including achieving the lowest Black unemployment rate on record, nominating Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, and investing a historic $16 billion into HBCUs. We are looking forward to traveling to Philadelphia this coming Monday. And with that, Darlene?

Hi. Thank you.

Hello.

Two questions. So the administration had promised to use the full extent of the law to make sure that pregnant patients got emergency care after Roe V. Wade was overturned. The AP is reporting today that none of the hospitals that have denied care to pregnant patients since Roe V. Wade was overturned, have been fined. Do you know why?

So I would have to talk to the Department of Justice. I’m just now learning this reporting that the Associated Press has. So I would have to go back to Department of Justice and also refer you to them as well to get a better sense of how they’re operating that particular policy. But I would have to say, and I said this at the top, we would not be in this position if the former president did not appoint three, three Supreme Court Justices, with obviously one of the goals that they were successful at was making sure the Dobbs decision was done, which overturned Roe V. Wade, which was a constitutional right that women had for nearly 50 years. And that is why the President had to step in. That is why the President had to sign an executive order. That is why we have been very forceful, very clear about what Dobbs decision has done. And we don’t even have to… It doesn’t have to come from us; we could see what has happened across the states, 21, 22 states that now have abortion bans, and now that is affecting, as we know, 27 million women who are now affected by this, who, their reproductive freedom has been taken away. That decision to make those really personal decisions for themselves has been taken away. But as it relates to that specific question, I would have to refer you to Department of Justice.

And since the President mentioned Springfield, Ohio in his remarks, he didn’t actually say Springfield, but we knew what he was talking about, is the administration considering any help for Springfield? They have been facing bomb threats. Some schools were evacuated today. Is there any?

So look, as it relates to that, we are aware of the evacuations. Local police are investigating what is happening on the ground, the situation, we encourage everyone to please follow the advice and the direction of the public safety, follow their guidance. I’m going to be mindful and not speculate on the evacuations, but again, to your point of what the President said and what we have said from here, from this podium, it is that it is extremely sad and concerning that a community is facing this type of danger and vitriol. And as the President said today, I think very forcefully, this needs to stop. And there is absolutely no place, absolutely no place in this country, and certainly in our political discourse for this type of vitriolic, smearing, hateful language. And certainly as we have done in the past three and a half years, and the President has done throughout his career, and the Vice President as well, we’re going to continue to call that out and condemn that type of vitriolic behavior. We will certainly offer any assistance, if needed, on the ground by the local police.

Thank you.

Okay.

And just to bounce off the question about Springfield, the Ohio Governor said that the federal government needs to give Springfield some help to deal with the influx of migrants. What’s the President’s reaction to that? And does the White House have plans to provide some funding to the state?

So a couple of things, and I’m actually glad you asked this question. There are a couple of things I do want to lay out that the administration has been able to do. Again, this is conspiracy theory, what we’re hearing, that has been debunked by the Ohio Police Department, the Springfield mayor, the city manager. And so we have to make sure that we put that out there, that this has been debunked and spreading this type of hateful conspiracy theories is indeed very dangerous. It’s very dangerous.

(07:54)
So since day one, our priority has been ensuring communities across the country have the support they need. So we’ve delivered resources to Ohio as well, to cities, states, and non-for-profits across the country. Since the spring, DHS has been directly engaged with the city of Springfield and local officials to make sure they have the support they need. And we want to do more. We would like to do more. That’s why we did the bipartisan proposal with the Senate at the end of last year, obviously early into this year. And it was stopped. It was stopped because the former president said that bill, that particular proposal would hurt him and help Joe Biden. And so Republicans in Congress stopped that. It would’ve given more resources to cities like Springfield, Ohio. But I don’t want it to miss the point here that the administration has indeed provided more than $1.3 billion in grant funding in jurisdiction around the country to help with the influx and what they’re dealing with. We want to do more, but we’ve been blocked in doing so.

So are there any new conversations that the President is trying to start right now for further assistance?

We want to fix this problem. We want, we did $1.3 billion, that’s something that this administration has been able to do. We want more funding. Republicans are getting in the way in Congress, we were able to put forward, again, a bipartisan deal that would’ve been the toughest and the fairest law if the President had an opportunity to sign it, Republicans got in the way. Now if Republicans want to work with us, and in good faith, they did, they actually did, and then they turned their backs on what they wanted, on what they thought they believed would be the right way to move forward in dealing with the immigration system and dealing with the border challenges. And they walked away from it. And we need them to come to the table again. We need them to actually want to move forward to deal with this issue.

And just shifting gears to Boeing, 30,000 workers are on strike for the first time in 16 years at Boeing and Boeing CFOs said this is going to impact production, deliveries, operations, and will jeopardize their recovery. So how is the President reacting to this and what’s his message to those workers?

So administration officials are indeed in touch with Boeing and the machinists. So we encourage them to negotiate in good faith, which is something that we say when situations get to this level. And we believe that they need to negotiate, yes, in good faith and work towards an agreement that gives employees benefits and that they deserve, and it would make the company stronger as well. So we’re in touch with the parties and again, continue to encourage them to negotiate in good faith. Okay, [inaudible 00:10:43].

Thank you. Karine, first two points of clarification on Springfield. Conspiracy theories aside, the Governor says that this influx of migrants has caused a significant strain on the healthcare and public safety system in Springfield. Does the administration acknowledge that? Have you talked to them about it?

Look, and I said this in my answer prior, we’ve been in touch with Springfield, since the spring, we’ve been in touch with them, DHS has, and we’ve been offering assistance to them. And that is something that we’ve taken very seriously. And we have been able, during, in 2023, this administration, we’ve been collaborating with states and cities across the country, and we launched this one-stop clinic, one-stop shop clinics to help eligible non-citizens get work permits and decompress their respective shelter systems. And today, those clinics have served more than 37,000 people. So that shows how we’ve been working with different jurisdictions across the country, and we’ve provided, I just mentioned, more than $1.3 billion to address the concerns, for example, that the Governor has, mayors have,

… obviously in cities and towns, and so we’ve done that. We want to continue to help, but we also need Congress to get involved. And that’s why the President took very seriously the negotiations that were happening to try to get the toughest, fairest border deal. And we were able to do that. Republicans got in the way, but $1.3 billion to help cities and states across the country is nothing to sneeze at.

So short of a deal, are you saying that currently there is no more federal resources to give to Springfield?

We need more federal resources. We have been working with Springfield, Ohio in particular since the spring. Since the spring. We need more funding. We need more. And that is why the president and his team got together with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to come up with this border deal. Donald Trump, the former president, told Republicans in Congress to not move forward with it. They voted against their own bipartisan deal.

And then turning to tariffs, during the debate, the vice president described Trump’s proposed tariffs as a sales tax on middle-class families. Today the Biden administration announced new tariffs on about $18 billion worth of Chinese goods that will go into effect in two weeks. So can you talk about whether these new tariffs are fundamentally different from what Trump has proposed and how?

Sorry, the 301 tariffs? So we made an announcement that went out early this morning, and I think the president, back in May, when he was announcing that he was going to take action, he said very clearly he was going to do that to protect Americans, workers and businesses, from China’s unfair trade practices. And that’s a commitment that he made and he spoke to back in May. And the comparison as you’re asking me, the Trump administration, the last administration, their trade deal with China failed to boost American manufacturing. And the president’s economic agenda, what we’ve been trying to do for almost four years now, and we’ve seen some results here, is nearly $1 trillion of new investments here in America. Manufacturing investment has hit record highs and factory construction has doubled to a record high. The annual trade deficit with China is the lowest in a decade, and that is because of the president’s economic agenda, lower than any year under the last administration.

(14:40)
And so the president is going to continue to take action to protect American workers and manufacturing and encourage China to eliminate its unfair practices. As it goes to the specifics of it, obviously USTR will have more information on that, but the president made a commitment. He’s keeping to his commitment. And if you can see what his economic agenda has actually done, manufacturing, businesses, and how that lines up with China and how his agenda has affected China’s behavior. And I think that matters.

I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. How is it not a sales tax on all the goods that people buy every day?

Look, what we’re trying to do is making sure that we’re protecting American workers and businesses. That’s what we’re doing. USTR can certainly get into more details and specifics to your question. But our commitment, and I think it shows in the president’s economic policy as I just laid out and how the annual trade deficit with China is the lowest in the decade, lower than any year during the last administration. And so what we’re trying to do is eliminate China’s unfair practices, and we’ve seen the results of that. That was the commitment that this president made in May, and that’s the commitment that we’ll continue. This is about American workers and businesses and we’re going to certainly continue to deal with China’s unfair trade practices, and that’s what you’re seeing.

Thanks, Karine. Just back to the Boeing strike, does the White House believe that there is an immediate economic impact from the strike?

We’re in touch with officials and this is something that, as I say all the time when I get asked this question, we’re going to monitor very, very closely. I don’t have a specific question to you on that, on a yes or no, but this is something that we’re certainly going to monitor. What we want to see is all parties to come together in good faith and come up with a deal that helps the workers. The hard work. Continues to really respect the hard work that the workers do day in and day out for companies. But I don’t have anything specific. We’re going to monitor. We’re going to keep eye on it.

Not even a general assessment on the economic impact, immediate or otherwise?

This is something that we’re going to monitor.

Okay. And just staying on that topic, I’m stepping back a little bit, you’ve obviously gotten a number of Boeing-related questions in this job. The door that blew off the plane. A number of compliance issues. There are two astronauts who are literally stuck in space. What do you think is going on with the company?

I can’t speak for what’s going on inside of a company. That is for them to certainly speak to. As it relates to the strike that is currently happening, we’re certainly in touch with Boeing and the machinists. We want them to come together in good faith. As it relates to the safety concerns that Americans should have, rightly have, obviously the Department of Transportation has been on top of that, dealing with ways to make sure there’s transparency and they deal with those safety issues. FAA has been on top of that as well, but I can’t speak to what’s going on with Boeing. That is something for them to speak to.

Just one more on a separate topic. Pope Francis today said about the upcoming presidential election that voters here have to choose the lesser of two evils. He pointed to Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant positions and then the Vice President’s support of abortion rights. Do you know if the president is aware of these comments, if he has had any reaction?

I mean obviously the Pope speaks for himself and I don’t have any more comments from here. I have not spoken to the President about the Pope’s specific comments on this coming election. Okay.

Just to follow up on Boeing.

Sure.

So we understand that admin officials, including Julie Seward, are in touch with both sides. But is there someone specific, like a liaison like James Berling was in the UAW talks, that the White House has appointed?

I don’t have a specific person to point to from the White House. White House officials including the Department of Labor, as you just mentioned, the acting secretary has been in touch with Boeing and the machinist on this particular matter, but don’t have a person to point out to you. But White House officials here have been in touch.

And are the president or the vice president planning to join any of these workers on the picket line? Have any discussions taken place?

As you know, the president was the first president to go to Michigan and be with UAW workers when they were striking. And he was very proud to do that, has been named the most pro-union president ever, and so he’s proud to hold that title or acknowledgement. I just don’t have anything to share on either of their schedules.

Has the present spoken to the union?

I don’t have a call to speak to at this time.

And one quick one on the US Steel-Nippon Steel deal. The Washington Post was reporting that the White House made push a decision on the deal until after the election. We did see some pushback from the White House saying that there was no timeline around this, but is there any clarity you can offer on what the reporting was?

We’ve been very clear. The president has been very clear. He wants to make sure that, and it isn’t vital that US Steel is to remain an American steel company and that is domestically owned and obviously operated. The president told our steelworkers he has their backs, and he meant that. You remember when on Labor Day, he was in Pennsylvania and said that. The vice president said that as well or made that very clear in her remarks as well. And so we have not received any recommendations from CFIUS. There’s a process. CFIUS has to make a recommendation. It has to be transmitted to the president. The president then makes a decision. That has not occurred. That has not happened. CFIUS is independent and they’re going to make those decision. I believe last week the White House provided a statement that we have not received any recommendations, so that continues to be the case. And so I don’t have anything. I just don’t have anything to share if this is imminent on a decision. They are independent.

Would the White House recommend that CFIUS expedite the review process?

It’s their process.

CFIUS has been looking at the deal for a while now.

For some time. I know, and it is their process. They are independent and the process is they make the decision, their recommendation. It’s transmitted to us and the president obviously makes a decision. But that has not occurred and we have to allow them to have the space to make that decision, for the process to play through.

So you’re saying the Post saying that the decision it could land only after the election, is that accurate?

I am not. What I’m saying to you, how the process works, we have not received any recommendations yet from CFIUS. Therefore, it could not be imminent if we have not received any recommendations. That’s all I’m saying.

Thanks, Karine. Former President Trump this afternoon said if elected, he would do “large deportations” from Springfield, Ohio and said them to Venezuela. These Haitian migrants are in Ohio legally and of course aren’t from Venezuela. Does the White House have a reaction to this pledge of the former president?

Obviously he was speaking as a candidate and that is the upcoming elections. But I will say more broadly, if Republicans were serious about fixing what is happening at the border, the border challenges, which the majority of Americans care about, if they were serious about it and they truly cared about this issue, they truly cared about fixing an immigration system that has been broken for decades, they would get back to the table. Or they don’t even have to. There’s a deal. There is a border deal, a bipartisan border deal. They can vote on it and we would have the toughest fairest deal that we’ve seen in some time coming out of Congress that would become law because the President would sign it, because his team was part of certainly deliberating on that deal. If they were very serious about it, they would move that deal forward and help us make it into law, and it would deal with issues that cities like Springfield, Ohio are dealing with right now.

But the White House oppose any mass deportation of Haitian migrants from Springfield, right? That’s what I-

Is that the question?

My question-

Obviously. Obviously, yes. I think core of the question is, okay, there’s legislation out there. There’s a policy. There’s bipartisan legislation that would deal with issues that they have concerns about at the border and actually deal with an immigration system. Obviously, we do not support mass deportation of a community that is not

… is not part of a country that they came from. That doesn’t make any sense. That is not something that we would support.

(24:06)
But there’s a deal out there. There’s a deal, a bipartisan deal. They keep getting in the way. They’re voting against their own deal. That doesn’t make any sense. Where’s the sense in that? Where’s the sense in that?

(24:20)
Go ahead.

The president spoke about the issue affecting Springfield today. Why today? And he did reference the former president directly. Is his message intended for Donald Trump?

I think what the president said speaks for itself. I think he was very clear. He saw it as an opportunity. He had 1,200 people celebrating Black excellence, and he saw it as an opportunity.

(24:47)
We keep hearing from the Republicans who keep lifting this up, even though it’s been debunked, this hateful smear. It’s been debunked by the Springfield mayor. It’s been debunked by the city manager. It’s been debunked by the Ohio department, police department. And we hear Republicans, national Republicans continue to spread that hateful conspiracy theory.

(25:11)
And so, the president took an opportunity to address it head on. I think his words and what he said very powerfully landed very well, and people got the message.

And in the meeting with the prime minister today, how much do you think their … what will the approach be concerning threats that Putin has made about expanding his concerns to the west if weapons are made available for Ukraine to go deeper into Russia?

Yeah. His comments about NATO and the U.S. more specifically, look, that kind of rhetoric certainly is dangerous, but it’s not new. It’s not new for Russia. Matter of fact, it has been the mainstay of Russian propaganda throughout this war that they’ve had. This is their war that they’ve had in Ukraine. This is their aggression. This is what they have done. This is what Mr. Putin has done, to be more specific. And that’s how it started.

(26:10)
And this war can end. This war, the war that we’re seeing in Ukraine, the aggression from Russia, can end today, can end today. Russia can move their troops out of Ukraine, and it can end.

(26:24)
So, that type, again, that type of rhetoric is incredibly dangerous, but it’s not new. It’s certainly not new.

Should we expect any announcement about the president’s support for munitions being used inside Russia?

I wouldn’t expect any big announcement today. Look, the president certainly is looking forward to meeting with the prime minister. He believes it’s an important conversation that they’re going to have and a varied conversation, a wide range of conversation about Indo-Pacific; Ukraine, obviously; the Middle East. And so, I would just leave it for there. And our policy certainly hasn’t changed.

(27:03)
Go ahead, Jacqui.

Thank you, Karine. What is the holdup on a decision allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles inside Russia?

I’m not going to go … I got this question yesterday. I’m not going to deliberate here. I’m not going to get into specifics from here.

(27:19)
As I said to Kelly O, I would not expect there to be any announcements on this coming out of this meeting. That’s not something that I would expect. There’s been no policy change. But what I can continue to make sure that you all know and you see it for yourself is that the president is committed to make sure that Ukraine has what its needs to defend itself against Russia’s aggression, to defend and fight for their democracy. I’m not going to deliberate from here.

One of the bigger criticisms of this administration has been that on everything that’s ultimately given to Ukraine, the answer was first a no on ATACMS, on HIMARS, on Patriots, on fighter jets, and that if this had just been given to them on day one, maybe there wouldn’t be the funding fatigue that Congress now has to grapple with the next time they need help, and that the aid that you guys promote has been slow-walked in the form of a decision to use it.

Let’s step back for a second. What this president has been able to do in the past two years, really, in his whole, his entire administration, is fix the reputation of this country that was tainted by the last president. We have to remember how we started, where we started, and what this president has been able to do.

(28:43)
People thought NATO was going to be weaker. The president made NATO stronger. We to two more, two more countries that are now members of NATO. That’s because of this president’s leadership.

(28:54)
We have 50-plus countries who are now backing Ukraine and continue to do so because of this president’s leadership. Ukraine is fighting for their sovereignty; they’re fighting for their freedom and against Mr. Putin, who decided that he wanted to invade. The president has been very clear how important it is to stand with Ukraine in this time.

(29:22)
We’re talking about democracy. We’re talking about freedom. And if anything, this president’s actions and what he’s been able to do has shown just that, because it’s not just about Ukraine and NATO and Europe; it’s also about our national security as well. It’s all connected. And the president is always going to do what is important for the American people. And I think that is what you’ve seen, and that is what the president is going to focus on and continue to do.

I just remember sitting here a couple of years ago, splitting hairs with Jen Psaki over whether drones are offensive or defensive weapons. I mean, this has been a struggle of this administration that has been a topic of criticism.

(30:05)
And now, for instance, this week, in the debate, the vice president was promoting what this administration has done in terms of giving Ukraine what it needs, but there’s plenty of criticism outside of that to say that it’s also effectively blocking a victory by slow-walking these decisions.

I think if you were to ask those 50 nations, if you were to ask NATO leaders, if you were to ask President Zelenskyy himself their thoughts on the president leadership, I don’t think they would have the words that you just said to me. I think they would say that the president has been a leader during this time and has had their backs. And I think that’s what the president has shown.

(30:47)
As it relates to what Ukraine needs to continue to defend themselves, we are in regular touch. My colleagues here at NSC, at State, at Department of Defense are in regular touch with the Ukrainians on their needs and what they need to continue to fight against this aggression. So, I’ll leave it there.

(31:04)
Go ahead.

Can I just circle back to the U.S. Steel thing that Nandita raised? Putting aside the timing piece of it-

Yeah.

A lot of the question right now is essentially whether the president is reconsidering his position or not separate from the timing of what his decision will be.

Yeah.

He said in the past that U.S. Steel should be U.S.-run and U.S.-owned.

Yeah, and I said it at the top earlier.

Right.

Moments ago.

And, quote, “guaranteed.” So, I guess, the core question is …

And he said he has their backs. He said that on Labor Day.

But does he still plan on killing this deal?

We have to see the recommendation from CFIUS. That is the process. The president is waiting to see what CFIUS recommends. That hasn’t happened. There is a process. They’re going through their process. I know that it has been some time, but they’re independent. They’re going to go as slow as fast as they choose.

(31:58)
And so, we’re going to let that process happen. The president is not going to say any more than what he has said until CFIUS transmits their recommendation, and it hasn’t happened yet. And so, not going to get ahead of that.

(32:14)
And what I will say, and this is, I know you didn’t ask me about the timeline, but we put a statement last week saying that it hasn’t happened yet; so, therefore, it cannot be imminent.

Well, we’ve reported that the existing CFIUS timeline is September 23rd. So, that’s not too far away from now.

And I’m not going to get into it from here about a timeline, their deadline. I’m just saying to you: We have not received their recommendation. And so-

Does-

Yeah.

Joe Biden’s previous statements on this U.S. Steel remaining domestically owned and run guaranteed still stand?

Still stand. I literally mentioned it in a question that I received from one of your colleagues, and I said his position continues. It is vital. It is vital for U.S. Steel to remain American steel company that is domestically and certainly owned and operated. That stands.

(33:04)
He said that on Labor Day, which was not too long ago, when he was in Pennsylvania. He said to the steelworkers, he has their back, and that stands.

(33:12)
As far as CFIUS, they haven’t made their recommendation. It has not transmitted over yet, so the president, I can’t say anything until that happens.

And very quickly with respect to the meeting this afternoon. We’ve reported that the Europe or European countries believe that Iran has begun providing ballistic missiles to Russia to be used in attacks on Ukraine. Can you speak to whether the U.S. also believes that those shipments have begun, or is it unclear?

So, I would refer you to NSC. I believe they did a gaggle earlier today. So, I refer you to those comments.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

(33:46)
Go ahead.

I just want to go back to the long-range missile.

Sure.

Just one more. It’s just that, I mean, considering the tone of the Russian president, the fact that you would take this as a direct participation of NATO members, and considering Article 5 of NATO charter, what type of conversation has the president had with his colleagues, Canadian prime minister, for instance, one of them just to have everybody ready for a potential attack on a NATO country?

Look, I’m not going to get ahead of any conversations. What I can say, certainly, our policy has not changed. I don’t want to speak to hypotheticals here. I just am not going to go into “What if this happens, then what?” I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.

(34:37)
What I can say: This is incredibly dangerous type of rhetoric that we’re hearing from Russia. Not unusual. This is the type of propaganda that we’ve heard from Russia throughout this war. And when asked, we’re going to be very clear about that.

(34:55)
And then, when also asked, we’re going to also be very clear that this war can end. Mr. Putin can end his aggression that we have seen in Ukraine. It is his war that he started. He can end it, pull the troops out, pull his troops out. He could end it.

(35:12)
Yeah.

No new conversations with leaders, NATO leaders-

I don’t have any. I don’t-

… on the gravity of the comments?

I don’t have any new conversations to share. As I’ve said, this is not new for Russia. We have seen this throughout the war, making this type of dangerous comments, dangerous rhetoric. Not new. And there is a way to fix this. This is for Russia to end its war.

A personal question, actually, Karine because I was listening to you this morning, well, at noon, and you refer to yourself as a proud Haitian American.

Yeah. That’s not new.

That’s not new, no. But do you take this personally when the community is a target of attack, as it is at the moment in Springfield?

I take it personally when any community, any

… any vulnerable community is attacked. Not just a community that I belong to and proudly belong to, but any community, any vulnerable community that is attacked wrongfully so in a hateful way. One of the things that I’m proud about in being part of this administration is that we condemn that type of stuff. We condemn that type of hateful language. That’s what I’m going to continue to do, and I get to do that on behalf of President Biden who also condemns that type of hateful rhetoric as you have heard him today and many times before when a vulnerable community is attacked.

(36:43)
That’s not what national leaders should be. Political leaders should not be attacking vulnerable communities. That’s not who we should be. And if they’re going to fall for conspiracy theories online, maybe they shouldn’t be our leaders, maybe they shouldn’t be. But it is on all of us. It doesn’t matter if you’re Haitian-American, it doesn’t matter if you’re Jewish-American, it doesn’t matter if you’re Muslim-American, all of us should come together. When we hear that type of hateful rhetoric, we should come together and have each other’s backs and call it out because it’s not okay. It is dangerous. It is dangerous. It puts people’s lives at risk and this President is going to continue to stand up and speak against it.

Are there any invulnerable communities?

Go ahead, Patsy.

Thank you, Karine. One last-

It’s not funny. I know you want to make-

I’m just asking a question when you’re talking vulnerable communities-

Wait a minute. Hold on.

… you’re making a distinction.

Hold on. Wait. Hold on. It’s not funny.

I didn’t-

Wait. No. It is not-

I asked a question.

I’m answering. Let me answer. If you stop-

Are there invulnerable communities?

Not everybody wants to hear the sound of your voice, sir. Give me a second and I will tell you my answer. It’s not funny. Patsy.

Thank you, Karine. Following up on one last try on the long-range weapons. Can you just give us a sense of what might be the President’s biggest concern at this point? Is it the risk of escalation with the nuclear power?

I’m not going to get into hypotheticals here. We’re going to call it out. Oh, you mean with Russia making the comments about NATO and US.

We’ve been trying to get you to give us more details on what’s the holdup on providing [inaudible 00:38:36] to Ukraine.

I don’t have anything else to share. Our policy has not changed. We are going to be in regular touch with the Ukrainian people as they continue to fight against this aggression from Russia. No change in policy. I just don’t have anything to add. The President has been a leader when it comes to giving Ukraine the support that they need. Fifty-plus countries, that is important to note. Making NATO stronger, that is important to note and that is because of this President’s leadership. I just don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Can we stay on Russia?

Sure.

The State Department just announced new sanctions on Russian state media RT, laying out its disinformation campaign operations to destabilize various governments, including the government in Argentina, creating tensions between neighboring countries. Does the administration have a specific strategy to try to stop RT’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere or other places in the world?

So I’m going to let certainly the State Department and the Department of Justice speak to their announcement. You heard from the State Department today. You heard from the Department of Justice last week. We are taking this very seriously. They are taking it very seriously. I’m not going to get into what’s next. Certainly they will make announcements on their own if they feel that there’s more to share.

Can I just indulge with a response that RT has given out on social media saying, “RT lives rent-free in the State Department’s head. We’re running out of popcorn, but we’ll be here, live laughing hard.” I mean, kind of mocking the administration’s steps on sanctioning them at this point. Do you have a response?

So let’s not forget last week, the Department of Justice and I just mentioned the Treasury and State, they took some actions to disrupt Russia’s covert information operations to undermine our democratic institution in the homeland. We do not laugh at that. That is very serious and we take that very seriously. And State’s announcement today make it clear that the US… And I want to be clear, is not only targeting RT’s covert operations. We learned that in fact, in fact RT covert influence efforts extended to places like Europe and Africa. That’s what we learned. Anything more than that, I would have to refer you to the State Department and the Treasury to speak to that as they made that announcement today. I just don’t have anything else, but we take this very seriously. Okay. Hi, Trinity? Yes. I was told you were going to be in the briefing room today. Howard University?

Yes.

Hi. Nice to see you.

Nice to see you.

Want to say a little bit about yourself?

Yeah. Hi everyone. I’m Trinity Webster-Vast. I’m a senior honors, broadcasting as major, African American studies minor attending Howard University. And I had the pleasure of meeting Karine at the White House Correspondents Association dinner in which I won a scholarship.

Congratulations again.

Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to go back to the event held today on the South Lawn. Why was it important for the Biden administration to hold this event today? And are future events coming of the same nature?

So look, I want to start off by quoting what the President said and think it’s important today when he was addressing the crowd on the South Lawn, “We recognize that this nation would not exist without the blood, sweat and tears, without the determination, dreams and contributions of Black Americans.” And he felt that it was fitting to do this on the same week of the Congressional Black Caucus Week. It was a really special event. I think you felt that out there if you were participated. And so he wanted to host this branch for a couple of reasons, to show his personal gratitude, to the community and celebrate their progress. Progress we’ve made under the Biden-Harris administration. You heard him talk about that in his remarks and wanted to make sure that we didn’t forget that we continue to speak to why Black Americans and African-American history is really part of American history and that is something that we cannot forget. I’m going to take one last one. Go ahead, Karen.

Big political news earlier this week when Taylor Swift endorsed the Vice President. I’m not going to ask you about the endorsement because you’re not going to answer that. But the voting registration site that she drove people to from her post, in that first 24 hours, there were more than 400,000 visitors from that lane. Is the President aware of that traffic and the interest in the registration? And does he think that that kind of influence can make a difference in driving turnout, getting people to get more engaged in elections?

I think it’s important for people to exercise their sacred right to vote, and that is something that the President finds it incredibly important to continue to do and to protect that right to vote. I do want to say as it relates to Taylor Swift, what I can say is there are a lot of Swifties here in the White House. And so I can say that I hear that a lot. But look, one of the things that he did is very early on in his administration, he signed an executive order to do everything that we can from the federal level to make it easier for Americans to vote.

(44:02)
And so that is what you saw. The link that you mentioned obviously is a way to make it easier for Americans to register, certainly to vote. It is a sacred right. Many people have fought for that right to vote, and it is certainly part of our democracy. And so it’s incredibly important. I’ve not spoken to the President beyond the endorsement that occurred. I have not asked him specific about the link and the amount of people who have gone on it to register. I think that’s great. It’s important. Outside of this election, I think it’s important for people to be able to register and vote. That’s why this administration has done everything that we can to give people that opportunity and protect that right. All right. Thanks, everybody.

One more [inaudible 00:44:58].

Thanks, everyone.

Karine, 400 people murdered in Chicago this year. Can you address that? 400 people murdered in Chicago this year. Can you address that?