Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre 3/25/24

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Just have a couple things at the top before we get going. President Biden, today, he called Taoiseach Leo Varadkar of Ireland to recognize his years of service as a leader of Ireland and of the good relationship they have developed. Having recently celebrated St. Patrick's Day at the White House, the leaders reflected on their cooperation over the years on shared priorities, particularly deepening US-Ireland ties between our people and our economies. (00:38) They noted recent progress in Northern Ireland with the restoration of its executive and assembly, reaffirming the critical role these institutions play in preserving the gains of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. The president conveyed that he looks forward to continuing to build a vibrant future for US-Irish relations with the new taoiseach, once elected by the Irish Parliament. (01:03) Additional news from this morning, as part of President Biden's investing in America agenda, today, our administration announced the single largest investment in industrial de-carbonization in our nation's history. The Department of Energy will provide $6 billion for 33 projects across more than 20 states, reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions, revitalize industrial communities, strengthen the nation's manufacturing, competitiveness, and support good-paying union jobs. With this investment, the Biden-Harris Administration will spur the next generation of de-carbonization technologies and keep America's key industries competitive. (01:45) I want to turn to two pieces of news looking ahead to Tuesday. First, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the administration's appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision on mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortion that the FDA first approved as safe and effective over 20 years ago. This administration will continue to stand by FDA's independent approval and regulation of mifepristone as safe and effective, and we will continue to fight back against unprecedented attacks on women's freedom to make their own health decisions. As the Department of Justice continues defending the FDA's actions before the Supreme Court, President Biden, Vice President Harris remain firmly committed to defending women's ability to access reproductive care, and they will continue to urge Congress to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade. (02:42) Finally, I want to briefly preview tomorrow's travel. President Biden and Vice President Harris will head to North Carolina to discuss the administration vision for the future. On the other hand, Republican-elected officials are proposing a very different vision for the nation. Last week, Republican Study Committee released a budget which proposes devastating cuts to Medicare, to Social Security, and Affordable Care Act. It would increase prescription drug, energy, and housing costs all while forcing tax giveaways for the very rich. Tomorrow's trip is an opportunity to contrast those visions, and we'll be sure to have more to share with you on this trip, as well. With that, my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, is here to discuss Israel and the UN Security Council resolution that you all are covering today.

[inaudible 00:03:40], everybody. Today, as you all know, we abstained on a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza until the end of Ramadan and the release of all the hostages. Our vote does not, I'll repeat, does not represent a shift in our policy. We've been very clear, we've been very consistent in our support for a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal. That's how the hostage deal is structured and the resolution acknowledges the ongoing talks. We wanted to get to a place where we could support this resolution, but because the final text does not have key language that we think is essential, such as condemning Hamas, we couldn't support it, though, because it does fairly reflect our view that a ceasefire and the releases of hostages come together, we abstained. (04:33) Defense Minister Golan is here today, meeting with Mr. Sullivan, in fact, as we speak. He'll have other meetings while he's in town today and tomorrow, certainly with the Secretary of Defense Austin tomorrow, and we certainly look forward to having those discussions with him and making it clear to the defense minister that the United States continues to stand with Israel as they fight Hamas and will continue to work with might and mane to get those hostages back with their families where they belong. Thank you.

John, what was the president's reaction to the decision by Netanyahu not to send an Israeli delegation this week?

I got to tell you, Steve, we're kind of perplexed by this. A couple of points that need to be stated and, in fact, restated. Number one, it's a non-binding resolution, so there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas. Number two, as I said in my opening statement, it does not represent a change at all in our policy. It's very consistent with everything that we've been saying we want to get done here. And we get to decide what our policy is. The Prime Minister's Office seems to be indicating through public statements that we somehow changed here. We haven't, and we get to decide what our policy is. It seems like the Prime Minister's Office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don't need to do that. So again, no change in our policy.

What does this do to the relationship between the president and Prime Minister Netanyahu?

I have no doubt that the two leaders will have follow-on discussions, as they have, as appropriate throughout this conflict.

Thank you, Admiral. You say it's not a shift in policy by voting for this today. Get specific with us as to why again and to the charge that, by even abstaining, because normally, there may be some attempt of the Security Council or the UN overall to condemn Israel every so often, for whatever reason, and the US usually stands up in vetoes those resolutions. Here now, for the first time in awhile, the United States is at least abstaining and allowing it to go through. So the perception broadly is that the US has no longer got Israel's back when it comes to conversations like this at the UN.

Yeah, that's just not true, Ed. Nothing could be further from the truth, quite frankly. Of course, we still have Israel's back. As you and I are speaking, we are still providing tools and capabilities, weapon systems so that Israel can defend itself against which we agree is still a viable threat to Hamas. Again, no change by this non-binding resolution on what Israel can or cannot do in terms of defending itself. (07:23) But the other day, Friday, when I was up here, Brian was asking me about how come it was not okay for Russia and China to veto a resolution that we drafted on Friday when we vetoed similar ones prior to it, and my answer then is going to be my answer today, because of the substance of it. The ones we vetoed didn't condemn Hamas. This one didn't condemn Hamas, which is why we couldn't support it, but we didn't veto it because, in general, unlike previous resolutions, this one did fairly capture what has been our consistent policy, which is linking a hostage deal in the release of those men and women with, of course, a temporary ceasefire.

There are US officials today saying Netanyahu is acting this way because he's facing some domestic political pressure, there's domestic political issues going on. Aren't there also domestic political pressures facing President Biden, and that's part of the reason why y'all are allowing this to happen today?

I can't speak for-

Members of the Democratic Party saying he's doing this wrong. You got the general public suggesting his support for Israel is his place. Is that part of why this is going through?

No, absolutely not. And I got to take issue with the premise of the question. The president makes decisions based on the national security interests of the United States, and this decision to abstain on this resolution is in keeping with the national security interest of the United States, and quite frankly, it's in keeping with the national security concerns of the Israeli people.

The Customs and Border Patrol Chief yesterday suggested in an interview that the situation of the southern border is a national security threat because of the roughly 140,000 known gotaways for those that crossed the border and were detected as crossing illegally. Is that the position of the whole Biden Administration of the White House, that the situation down there remains a national security threat?

President has spoken to this? He's talked about the urgent need for additional funding for key capabilities at the border. And if you care about the border, if you care about the security of the border, and the President sure does, then we ought to get that national security supplemental passed. That's what that funding will do. There's only so much that he can do through executive action. In order to get more resources to prevent more people from getting in illegally, you got to have funding.

But a national security threat is going a little further than broad concerns the president ... more specific.

DHS monitors all available intelligence at the border every single day, and we're certainly aware that there could be national security threats that can arise at the border, which is why we're arguing so hard to get additional resources and capabilities down there.

Two questions on Israel. I know you said earlier today that the meetings with Defense Minister Golan weren't necessarily supposed to be a replacement for the delegation that was supposed to come here this week, but how much of those conversations with senior officials naturally become about alternatives to Rafah, what the intent of the meeting was supposed to be this week?

Well, I also said I fully expect that Rafah will come up in the context of these conversations, he one he's having with Jake right now. I think he's going over to the State Department this afternoon, and of course, at the Defense Department tomorrow. Absolutely, I think we'll have an opportunity to talk about Rafah, but it probably won't be a full replacement for what we were hoping to do with a broader, larger delegation of Israeli counterparts. That said, and I also said earlier today, that just because this meeting is now not going to happen doesn't mean that we aren't still going to look for an avenue and an approach to be able to share those alternatives with the Israelis.

Following up on what Steve asked, doesn't this whole episode speak to a pretty poor state of relations between US and Israel right now? And how much is the president losing his ability to influence Bibi Netanyahu with everything that's happening?

Israel's still a close ally and a friend. The defense minister is here as we speak, just in the other room. We still have a very close relationship with our Israeli partners and with the government in place. As we've said many times, it doesn't mean we're going to agree on everything, and by goodness, we don't, but that's what friends can do. You can disagree, you can have those conversations, but we all recognize how important it is that Israel still be able to defend itself, at the same time, making sure that humanitarian assistance is getting in, civilian casualties come down, and we get those hostages out.

Thanks, Admiral. Just following on that question, how would you characterize the relationship in specific between Netanyahu and President Biden, since he didn't call President Biden to notify him about the cancellation of this delegation visit? Is their relationship at a new low?

I wouldn't describe it that way at all.

I don't really have much more to add. I think I got the same question on Friday. These are two leaders who have known each other for going on now four decades, and they haven't in the past agreed on everything and they don't agree on everything right now. But they both agree on one really important thing, and that is the importance of the state of Israel, the importance of the security of the Israeli people, the importance of making sure that an attack like the 7th of October doesn't happen again.

But is the President concerned about that Rafah invasion now moving forward in a way he doesn't want it to, since he's not able to have this-

We have the same concerns about a major ground offensive in Rafah that we had yesterday and the day before.

And just lastly, an administration official said there could be domestic political reasons for why Netanyahu responded in the way he did. Could you elaborate on what those domestic issues in Israel could be?

No.

Admiral, is it your expectation that the Defense Minister has with him the kind of operational details you've been looking for on a potential Rafah mission? Do you think he possesses that, and would that likely come up in the meeting?

He's in the top of the chain of command of the Israeli Defense forces, so we're quite certain that he has enough visibility on what their thinking is about Rafah to be able to share that if he chooses to.

Does the President feel the delay of this other delegation meeting that he wanted, is there a sense that there is an urgency in terms of lives when you're considering humanitarian crisis we've talked about, potential for military operation? Does he view this kind of a delay on that sort of meeting as potentially causing much further harm to those in Gaza or this very delicate situation?

Well, there's two ways to approach that. One is we haven't seen any indication that the Israelis are imminently getting ready to conduct a ground operation in Rafah, and we have not seen their operational plans for that. So just to be clear, there's no sense right now that this is about to happen in coming days. Now when it would happen is of course be up to the Israelis. (14:02) But so just in terms of timing, it seems like they're a ways off here from actually moving into Rafah. That said, does the President feel a sense of urgency about the suffering in Gaza? Absolutely. Which is why we've been pushing so hard to get additional crossings open, get more trucks in even while we're negotiating for a hostage deal, still trying to do everything we can to improve the humanitarian situation on the ground, continuing to do airdrops. Now we've got this temporary pier that's at sea moving its way over to the Mediterranean as we speak today. (14:33) The President's put a lot of energy and effort and made the team put a lot of energy and effort into alleviating that suffering. Yes, there is a keen sense of urgency.

Thank you, Admiral. Now that the Israelis have canceled this visit, is the U.S. moving closer toward withholding or conditioning weapons to Israel? Is that something that Secretary Austin might raise during his meeting with the Israeli defense-

I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and speculate about that one way or the other.

Why does the administration believe that the right path for the U.S. here is to conduct these airdrops, to build this pier, but not to leverage everything it can, including conditions on weapons to open up more land routes and better protect civilians in Gaza?

I would take issue with this idea that we're not leveraging everything we can. First of all, it's not a leveraging exercise. It's not about trying to use some sort of power dynamics here with our good friend and ally Israel. It's about helping them defend themselves. I think we need to remember what happened on the 7th of October. (15:36) Number two from the very beginning we have at the same time as we've been providing them the capabilities, we've also been able to influence some of their decisions on the ground and some of the way they have prosecuted operations and including increasing the amount of humanitarian assistance that gets in. It's not enough. I recognize that a lot more needs to be done, but we believe you can do both at the same time. And that's the approach that we've been taking.

John, on this resolution that the U.S. abstained to today, that was within the power of the United States to block, the Prime Minister said it gives Hamas hope the international pressure will allow them to accept a ceasefire without the release of our hostages. Is he wrong?

Yes.

Does the U.S. still have leverage to change language of future resolutions now that this language without the Hamas component has been put into place?

Well let's see. They just voted on this non-binding resolution today. I don't know of additional text that's coming, but we'll take each one in turn.

And quickly on the border. Is the administration still considering executive action on the border?

I don't have any announcements to make. With respect to executive action, I would remind that this argument that the president hasn't taken executive action is this not true. He has kept American troops down there at the border. He has worked as commander in chief with the government of Mexico to improve their ability to try to stem that flow and to go after fentanyl traffickers. (17:04) It's not as if he hasn't, but there is a real limit that what really needs to be done, if you really care about the border and stemming the flow is additional resources. And the President can't just sign those into being, you got to have funding behind that. You have to have a checking account for that. And that comes from the power of the person, that comes from Capitol Hill.

So is there nothing more that he could do outside of-

I'm not going to get into anything more he would or wouldn't do. I certainly won't get ahead of the President's decisions based on this. But the idea that he hasn't taken executive action when warranted is just not true. He has, but there is a real limit to executive action in terms of what's needed down there. (17:39) What's needed is funding more than anything. And again, for all the people out there expressing concerns about the border, number one, we share those concerns, which is why the President put billions of dollars into a national security supplemental to give the border patrol, to give the customs courts additional resources. You got to have funding for that.

Some of these meetings are proceeding this week. Can you help us understand what the American position... What the alternative is? What would you have suggested to the Israelis?

Well, because I think we're going to still continue to try to have those conversations, I'm going to let those conversations happen before announcing it from the podium.

Can you talk about when those conversations might happen? Are these through the regular channels-

I wish I could.

Is there hope of talks happening [inaudible 00:18:23] down the road?

I wish I could right now, but this decision just happened in the last couple of hours, so we're going to have to see where it goes.

Is there any circumstance that the U.S. would support a Rafah operation in the future? Are you ruling it out entirely, or are you ruling it out [inaudible 00:18:36]?

We've been very clear. We don't believe that a major ground operation in Rafah is the right course of action, particularly when you have a million-and-a-half people there seeking refuge and no conceived plan, no verifiable plan, to take care of them. We've been very consistent on that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. On the non-binding thing, the UN Secretary General said after the vote, this resolution must be implemented. You say it's non-binding. So who is right here? And if it's non-binding, if as you say, it does not change anything, why has the administration blocked so many pretty similar resolutions in the past?

Because they didn't condemn Hamas. I've said that repeatedly.

It doesn't condemn Hamas either-

Because they didn't condemn Hamas and because they also just called for a ceasefire with no linkage to the hostages. This one, the reason why we can't support it but didn't veto it, is because it does link hostages and a ceasefire, which is in keeping with our policy.

And on the binding thing, is it binding non-binding?

It's a non-binding resolution.

Thank you, John. Steve asked this question earlier, but what was the President's personal reaction to the Israeli delegation canceling their trip given that he had personally requested that they make this trip to Washington?

I have not talked to the President, so I don't have his personal reaction.

On the UN Security Council resolution, if there were to be language added to it, updated to it that condemns Hamas with the U.S. support that resolution? Is that what you were saying?

That's pretty speculative MJ. I don't know if I can go there. This one just passed. As I said, it's a non-binding resolution. I don't know of any additional text that's coming up before the Security Council, so I don't want to get ahead of where we are right now.

Well, you were specific about the language and the reasons in the past for vetoing it, and now just abstaining from it. So I'm just wondering if the language were to be updated to-

I know of no plans to update the language that was just passed this morning. So again, if additional text gets brought before the Council, then I guess we'll have to examine it like we do every time. But I don't think it would be useful exercise to speculate on language that doesn't exist right now.

And then just finally on the ground incursion into Rafah, and talking about alternatives to that, are U.S. officials basically envisioning highly precise targeted military operations as opposed to a major military operation? Can you just talk to us a little bit, even if it's in broad strokes about what the administration is possible that is an alternative to a ground incursion into Rafah?

The way I would put it is based on our own experience going after terrorist networks, places like Iraq and Afghanistan, Somalia, places in the Sahel as well, we feel like we've learned a lot of key lessons. Now, not every one applies to Gaza, Gaza's a unique environment. You've got meters and meters of tunnels under the ground. You've got a much more urban environment, very densely populated, small geographic space. So you got to be careful in terms of apples and oranges here. (21:33) But we still believe that we have learned some key lessons about how to dismantle a terrorist network, how to decapitate its leadership, how to starve it of resources, and how to put pressure on its fighters on the battlefield. And we were looking forward to, and I think still are looking forward to having the opportunity to share some of those lessons and perspectives with the Israelis. Now, what exactly that would look like? I'd really rather not go into it from the podium.

But that's the kind of idea that we can expect U.S. officials to discuss with their Israeli counterparts, even today with Minister [inaudible 00:22:04]-

Broadly speaking, yes. And we'll see what the conversations with the Defense Minister look like here. Again, he's talking to Jake right now, so we'll have a read out of that of course. And he's... Again, more discussions over the next day and a half. We will obviously expect that a key part of these discussions is going to be how we're going to continue to support Israel. So let's not forget that. (22:27) This was a pre-scheduled, long-scheduled trip by the Defense Minister largely to talk about how the United States is going to continue to support Israel and the tools that they need. But I certainly would envision in the context of what happened this morning with the Israelis canceling that delegation that we'll take advantage of the opportunity to also talk about Rafah.

Thank you-

Oh, thank you. Has the President spoken to the Prime Minister today? And does he have any plans to?

No, and I don't know.

Okay. And will he join any of these meetings now with Gallant, given the latest that's happened?

I know of no plan to have him join the meetings with Defense Minister Gallant.

Okay. And then finally, before the meeting with Jake Sullivan today, the Defense Minister, you stood out in front of the White House, he delivered statement. He said, "We will operate against Hamas everywhere, including in places where we have not been." (23:21) So it seems that they expect to discuss Rafah as well. What leads you to believe that they're open to these other alternatives that you're laying out, or that the U.S. could even walk them off of an operation there?

They had agreed to send a delegation to Washington DC a week or so ago, that expressed some interest. They canceled the meeting because of what happened at the UN, but our indications at the working level are that they are interested in hearing our perspectives. So we'll see.

Thank you. I have a technical question and another question. On the technicality, you said the resolution is not binding. Is it non-binding or is it binding but not

Not enforceable and no consequences for Israel, for example, if they don't abide by the ceasefire.

My understanding is a non-binding resolution resolution.

Okay. Are you aware of the reports that Palestinian women were sexually harassed and some even were raped in the Shifa Hospital by the Israeli army? And have you seen also videos of Israeli drones targeting civilians in Khan Yunis? And if you're not aware of these incidents?

I am not. This is the first I'm hearing of that.

Okay. I mean-

Those are troubling allegations, obviously. Troubling reports.

The State Department confirmed one of them.

Let me take the question back.

Okay. Please.

See if we get you a better response.

Thank you.

Thank you, Admiral Kirby. A member of the Israeli War Cabinet, Benny Gantz, essentially broke with Prime Minister Netanyahu over his decision to pull back this delegation. He accepted that the delegation should come and in addition to that, he said that Prime Minister Netanyahu himself should come and meet with President Biden. What's your reaction to that and is there a sense that the War Cabinet is not unified as it was?

That's the first time hearing that Minister Gantz made that remark. I would certainly respect his desire or his right to speak to his comments one way or the other. As I said a couple of hours ago, it's disappointing. Obviously we would've preferred to have that meeting here this week to talk about viable alternatives and as I think I mentioned, Josh, we're going to continue to look for an opportunity to have those conversations going forward. I can't speak to the dynamics on the War Cabinet that's really for them to speak to. I wouldn't get into that.

When it comes to you characterizing their decision as disappointing and perplexing, is there also a sense of offense, of being offended by the Israelis decision to pull back this delegation? A lot of countries would love to have an invitation from the White House to have a meeting.

I think I'm just going to leave it the way I described it.

Go ahead.

Thank you, John. Until recently when I or one of my colleagues here asked if the U.S. would consider withholding military aid to Israel if they don't allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, you said that the administration would always make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself. Now, you are saying in response to the same questions that you will not get into hypotheticals. Should we read anything into that, that now this is something that is being considered or discussed within the administration, that it is now a hypothetical being batted about back behind you in those rooms?

The short answer to your question is, no, you shouldn't read anything more into it than what I'm expressing. Even as we speak, the Defense Minister for Israel is just a few steps away meeting with our national security advisor in a long-scheduled meeting, which was in part designed to talk about what we can continue to do to help Israel defend itself against a still-viable threat. You can still do that. You can still have those conversations. You can still provide those capabilities. At the same time disagreeing with your good friend and ally about things like civilian casualties, humanitarian assistance, and where things are going up in New York City. So we're going to continue to have those talks, but I'm just not going to get into the parlor game of what tripwire would be in place or what we would consider a tripwire in order to change the way we're supporting Israel in the field.

And on the subject of humanitarian aid. Last week, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, said that he was blaming Israel directly for the hunger crisis in Gaza because arbitrary denials were keeping food and other humanitarian goods from getting into Gaza. Is the provision of aid into Gaza Sling that Mr. Sullivan is discussing with Minister Gantz right now, and how urgent is it that Israel stop what the foreign Secretary described as arbitrary denials?

Yes, humanitarian assistance will be on the agenda in Jake's meeting and I suspect in the other meetings that the defense minister will have, and we need Israeli support and facilitation of humanitarian assistance. That they're a critical player in this. They have a real key role to play, and we're going to continue to urge them to do more to allow more humanitarian assistance in.

And one last thing. You just now talked about how you weren't going to describe tripwires that would potentially stop the provision of-

As we all call them red lines too.

... defense assistance, I'm sure you have people called them red lines before, but the fact that you are not going to discuss them, should we infer that they now exist somewhere on some paper or in some memo or proposal?

Again, I appreciate the effort and I understand where the question's going. I'm just simply not going to engage in that kind of speculative talk. We are still providing Israel the capabilities they need to defend themselves. That is one of the reasons why the defense minister is here. And at the same time, we're having conversations with the Israelis about what they can do to increase humanitarian assistance. I want to go back just real quickly and I apologize Karine, but on the humanitarian assistance. Let's also not forget that Hamas chose to break a ceasefire that was in place on the 6th of October. They precipitated the conflict and they continue to hide behind civilians in civilian infrastructure, including in hospitals, and they know exactly what they're doing. So while yes, there are things that the Israelis can and should do more to get more trucks and humanitarian assistances. Hamas could solve all these problems right now by putting down their arms, letting all those hostages go.

Okay, John, last question.

Thanks Karine. John, you made a point throughout the briefing about mentioning that this was a non-binding resolution that the U.S. abstained on. Last week's resolution that the U.S. brought forward, was that binding or non-binding?

I have to get an answer for you and go back on that.

You don't know that answer?

I don't have that answer for you, but I'll take the question and I'll get back to you.

And if it was binding or non-binding, why would it matter? Why would that matter? Why is that important in terms of that resolution that the U.S. put forward last week.

Well, let me get an answer for you and then I'll answer the second one as well.

Okay. And then one additional thing. With the resolution that the U.S. put forward last week, why couldn't the U.S. have put that same resolution forward a week before or a month before?

Because we were working with previous texts that previous countries were putting forward to try to get them into a better place. This language doesn't just get cooked up and thrown onto the security council floor in a matter of 30 minutes. It's usually worked over time, and we were working with the authors in other countries to try to get the language into a better place. And when we couldn't, we were left with no alternative but to veto. In this case, we chose to abstain because it didn't mention anything about Hamas, but yet because it did reflect our policy view that a hostage deal has to be linked to a ceasefire. Thanks everybody.

Thanks Admiral. All right. [inaudible 00:31:28].

Hi. Thank you.

Hi.

There's one on Ukraine aid. Speaker Johnson said last week that, quote, "There is a big distinction in the minds of a lot of people referring to members in this conference between lethal aid for Ukraine and the humanitarian component." Now, I know the White House's preference is obviously to get the Senate passed package passed by the House, but is there any consideration in the White House to just focus on delivering lethal aid to Ukraine if that's what can get a majority in the House?

Look, the national security supplemental as it is, could get a majority in the house. That's what we know. We understand that to be true. It can get overwhelming support, which means it includes Republicans as well as Democrats, if it just got put to the floor. I think what's happening is the Speaker's giving an excuse that is not warranted, that is not needed, because we know that if he were to put it on the floor it would get through. And so that's why I'm not even going to take that and really dive into that question because he's bypassing what we understand right? Seventy-twenty-nine coming out of the Senate, that's a bipartisan, overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate. And we know, we're hearing from Republicans in the House, we know where Democrats, majority of Democrats stand, that if he were to put it on the floor it would get support. So that is the facts. That is how we see it. We would encourage and continue to encourage Speaker Johnson to put that bill on the floor.

And Chairman McCaul was on the [inaudible 00:33:05] yesterday talking about how the Speaker has made it clear that he would move on this after the Easter break. And does the White House have any specific commitments from Speaker Johnson on moving on Ukraine aid in whatever iteration?

So I can't speak to commitments. What I can speak to agreements, right, from even when the big four met with the President not too long ago, earlier this year, that the understanding that we needed to move forward with this aid for Ukraine, we need to move forward with the national security supplemental. That was an understanding among them. They agreed with the President and the Vice President. And so that's what we want to see. I can't speak to their timeline. We want this to happen right away. Right away. We originally put this forward back in October of last year. And so there's a need. We see what's happening. As we were talking about Ukraine specifically in your first question to me, we see what's happening in Ukraine. They're losing ground on the battlefield. (34:04) And that is partly because, why Russia has been even more aggressive, is because the inaction of Congress. And that's what we see. That's what the CIA Director told the big four not too long ago, right here in the White House. So they need to move forward. It is about our national security just as we talking about aid to Ukraine, but it is also about our own national security. It's all connected here. Go ahead.

Thanks Karine. If the Supreme Court decides to restrict access to mifepristone, what will the President do? What options does this White House have to ensure access to the abortion pill?

So look, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. I want to be super mindful here. We have confidence in our arguments before the court. And so there's a DOJ, obviously ongoing litigation I just mentioned at the top. It's going to be a process that's going to begin tomorrow. So I want to be super mindful. Don't want to get into hypotheticals. But the President and the Vice President have been very clear. We're going to continue to certainly defend FDA's approval. It is independent, it uses science. It is a medication, as I said at the top, that has been around, when you think of mifepristone, for more than two decades. And this is science-based. This is science-based. As FDA when they move forward on these types of scientific judgment, if you will. But not going to get into hypotheticals. And we have confident in our arguments.

And Russia continues to indicate without evidence that Ukraine played some kind of role in the terror attack. Just how worried is the White House about that and Russia using that to justify its war on Ukraine?

Look, we've been very clear. You saw our statement from over the weekend. This was a terrorist attack that was conducted by ISIS, Mr. Putin understands that, he knows that very well. And look, there is absolutely no evidence that the government of Ukraine had anything to do with this attack. We've been very

... very clear about that. I do want to step back for a second and offer up our deepest condolences to those who lost loved ones, those who are injured because of this horrific, horrific attack. We continue to strongly condemn the heinous terrorist attack in Moscow. And we said this before, that in early March the United States, this government, shared information with Russia about a planned terror attack in Moscow. We were very clear about that. On March 7th we actually informed Americans in Russia to... did a public advisory, to be more specific. And ISIS bears the sole responsibility here. The sole responsibility, and Mr. Putin understands that. We shared that with their government. And so there is no evidence. Absolutely no evidence that Ukraine was involved here.

How did you go about sharing that information? Through the State Department, US Embassy-

I'm just not going to get into specifics. The US government shared that with Russian authorities, and I'll just leave it there.

What do you make of Russia's decision not to act on that warning?

That's for Russian authorities to speak to their own security operations. That's for them to speak to. When we have information about imminent threat to civilian populations, we provide that information to the respective authorities, and that's what we did. We did that in early March. It is up to Russian authorities to speak to what they did with this particular information that we provided early March.

Thanks, Karine. I wanted to ask you about former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel being hired by NBC News. Given that this is a White House that has condemned lies about January 6th, condemned lies about the 2020 election, what do you make of the network hiring somebody who participated in a phone call pressuring Michigan officials to not certify certain votes?

Look, we're always very mindful about personnel decisions, in this instant made by a media organization. I'll say a couple of things and I'll quote the president in a second. You all heard him at the Gridiron dinner very recently, about two weekends ago. He spoke directly about critical role that journalists play and they have in protecting our democracy by making sure that the public knows the truth, that the public knows the facts. (38:25) And what he said is, "We need you. Democracy is at risk and the American people need to know. In fractured times, they need a context and a perspective. They need substance to match the enormity of the task." It is a big task that journalists have, and we understand that. And the facts and the truth are critical here. I'm not going to make any comments on a personnel decision, but as more broadly speaking, it is important. It is a burden on all of us here to be really mindful about that and that the public understands what the facts are and what the truth is.

So you're quoting the president talking about that kind of burden. Do you, does this White House, does the president believe that that kind of voice, that voices like hers, that there's room for her in the national political discourse?

Look, I'll answer it this way: we saw what happened on January 6th. We saw what happened when 2,000 people, a mob went to the Capitol and undermined our democracy, attacked our democracy because they didn't believe in free and fair elections. And so we understand and we saw that. And some of you may have been there. Many of you reported it. And it was an attack on our democracy. And it is important. It is important that we are very clear to the public about the facts, that we are very clear to the public about the truth. And we understand the burden that you all have. And so I just want to be super mindful. Not commenting on a personnel decision, but more broadly speaking, that is where we are. That is where we are as a country. Yeah.

Karine, Senator Tim Kane said yesterday, talking about immigration and executive orders, he said, "Congress should act." But he also says, "Where the president can act, he should." Is the president receptive to this type of advocacy from senior members of his own party on this issue?

Look, the senior senator, speaking about a senator, bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate to deal with immigration. To deal with immigration policy and the challenges at the border. There was a bipartisan agreement that, if it went into law, if it'd gone through the process of the Senate and the House and the president got it to his desk and signed it, it would've been the toughest and fairest action on immigration in decades, in years. (40:55) And so that is what the president continues to speak to. We believe that is the direction to go. That is the way that we can stand on some legal ground here. And we know that it was done in a bipartisan way to move it forward. And so that's what this president wants to see. Obviously we're in constant conversation, communication with leadership in Congress. That is something that we do pretty regularly. (41:19) But there is a deal. There was a deal that was made, and the last former president, the last president, President Trump said to Republicans, some of you reported this, to reject that deal because it would hurt him politically. And that's not what we're about here. What the president wants to focus on is what Americans care about, and majority of Americans care about what's happening at the border. And we took a step to do that. We took a step. The president, along with Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in the Senate took a step to actually deal with this issue. (41:51) We've been very clear about executive actions. Will we look at executive actions to see what could work? Sure, we always do that. But here's the thing: what we understand, the bottom line is that we have to move forward with legislative action to actually make a difference here. And that's what we want to see. Executive action won't do it. It won't have the impact that this bipartisan agreement, negotiation that came to fruition.

Do you have any expectation, though, that Congress is going to act that? The deal has been out there for a while, Congress is out for the next couple of weeks, the former president is against it, his party's now against it.

I hear you. I hear you.

But in that case Congress often doesn't deliver what you guys want. Isn't that where then the White House steps in?

Look, I hear you. So look, we were able to get some additional funding for border security operations through the budget agreement. So that was a good thing. But we need to take a step further. And so, look, we're going to continue to doing the work. We're going to continue to have those conversations and we're going to continue to be very, very clear. Take it directly to the American people, like you saw the president do when he went to Texas, Brownsville, Texas. And be very clear of where we stand. The split-screen that day could not have been more clear about where the president stands and what he wants to do. And he has offered, continues to offer an olive branch to the other side to get this done. If they truly care about this, there's a way to do this. There's a way to meet the American people where they are, majority of them. It's to move forward with that border deal. That's the way to move forward here. Go ahead, Kalia.

President Biden has recently talked about Donald Trump's financial issues in jest at fundraisers and so forth. Today there was action reducing the amount that Mr. Trump has to put forward in order to stave off the judgment as he continues. Does the president have any comment on that? And also the setting of an April 15th trial date in one of the cases involving the former president.

I'm going to be super careful. It's an ongoing matter, so I'm not going to speak to it. And I'm sure the president will have opportunities to speak to it himself and so I'll leave that to him. I'm just not going to speak to that particular or any ongoing litigation or case from the podium. Go ahead, Josh.

Can I ask a bit about whether you can share any preview of the Japanese prime minister visit on April 10th? And in particular, has the government been in touch with the Japanese government on the Nippon Steel, US Steel deal? Or has that been not a subject that's proceeded this visit?

Look, I don't have... I've seen the reporting. This is the FT reporting that you're speaking to?

That's linked to it, but there'd be some sort of... whatever you can share on that is great, too, but more broadly, have the governments discussed this steel deal at all?

I just don't have anything to share. Obviously that visit is just in a couple of weeks. Certainly there's going to be many items on the agenda to discuss. I just don't have anything to share on that particular question. Okay.

Great.

Yep. Back to you.

Okay.

Thank you. At the end of the week it will be one year that Evan Gershkovich was detained. Is there any update on the negotiations?

I wish I had one for you. I really do. I wish I had an update on Evan. I wish I had an update on Paul. As you know, we have been really focused on getting them released and it is a priority for this president. I just don't have anything to share at this time. All right, guys, I have to. Go ahead, Emily.

Thanks, Karine. I just wanted to check in and see if the president or first lady reached out to the British royal family. I know cancer's a personal issue to them. And did they call or write a letter?

I think you saw the President's Tweet. Is it a Tweet now? Whatever it is.

Post.

Post, the president's post. Obviously our hearts go out to Princess Kate and her family. We understand it's a difficult time. As you know, this is something that the president and the first lady understand very personally. I don't have a call to read out to you, but certainly we wish her a full recovery and our hearts and thoughts are with her and her family during this very difficult time. As you know, she has little children and I do not want to even imagine what they're going through right now. With that, folks, we'll see you. We'll see you on the road tomorrow. Thanks, everybody.