Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre 5/14/24

All right. All right, everybody. All right. Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon.

Hi. It's raining outside. Okay. So as you just saw today, the president directed his trade representative to increase tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on $18 billion of imports from China. This action will protect American workers and businesses from China's unfair trade practices. As you've heard, the president often say American workers and businesses can outcompete anyone as long as the competition is fair. Our US trade representative, Ambassador Katherine Tai is here to share more on the President's announcement and take some of your question. (00:57) And with that, I will turn it over to Ambassador Tai, welcome to the Briefing Room for the first time.

Thank you so much. Well, good afternoon, everyone. President Biden has consistently been clear that he will take action to defend American workers and businesses from the unfair trade practices of the People's Republic of China. Today, he is once again keeping that promise. President Biden and I both know that American workers and businesses can outcompete anyone as long as the competition is fair. But for too long, the PRC has been playing by a different set of rules with unfair and anti-competitive economic practices. (01:38) Those unfair practices include forced technology transfer, including cyber hacking and cyber theft, non-market policies such as targeting industrial sectors for dominance, labor suppression, and weak environmental protection, and flooding markets worldwide with artificially cheap products that wipe out the competition. The president's action today is a part of his vision to rebuild our supply chains and our ability to make things in America, to lower costs, outcompete the PRC, and encourage the elimination of practices that undercut American workers and businesses. (02:21) We are doing that by investing in manufacturing and clean energy here at home and raising tariffs to protect these investments. I conducted a statutory review of the PRC's forced technology transfer and other intellectual property related practices, which were the subject of the 2018 Section 301 investigation. In that review, I found that the PRC continues to deploy these unfair trade practices, and I conveyed my findings to the president in a report which is available on the USTR website. (02:57) It is clear that the previous administration's trade deal with the PRC failed to increase American exports or boost manufacturing. In fact, China's exports in some critical sectors like EVs and batteries actually increased. In response. President Biden today signed a memorandum directing me to increase tariffs on critical manufacturing and mining sectors, including steel and aluminum, semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries, solar cells, and certain critical minerals. The increased tariffs are expected to cover approximately $18 billion of trade. (03:37) The president also directed a process to request excluding certain production machinery from the tariffs to permit solar and clean manufacturers to purchase equipment while diversifying their suppliers. Next week, I expect to issue a public notice that conveys the specific tariff lines, tariff rates, and timing for the proposed increases, along with the details of the machinery exclusions process. This strong action by the president is strategic. As he has said, we do not seek to constrain China's economic development, but we will insist on fair competition and defend American workers from the PRC's unfair practices. (04:24) Today's direction by the president defends American workers and businesses from the PRC's artificially cheap products, whether EVs or steel or critical minerals or semiconductors. I also want to emphasize that we continue to consult with our partners and our allies who face similar threats from the PRC's unfair trade practices, and are also voicing their concern with those unfair practices and taking action. Our partners are essential to addressing the broader threat to our working families and businesses. (04:58) Today's strong tariff announcement is an important part of President Biden's worker-centered trade policy, which is about using trade to empower workers and making sure that they can compete fairly and thrive and supports the historic investments we have already made here at home. I can now take your questions.

Thank you, Ambassador. First, there seems to be some confidence that these tariffs won't cause the competition to slide into conflict with China. If you could just explain a little bit about why you are so confident and then secondly, BYD is looking to build EV factories in Mexico that could flood the US market. Why isn't the administration preemptively announcing tariffs to hit these vehicles?

So you actually asked two questions.

I did.

Yes.

Sorry.

So let me begin with the first, which is that we've been very, very clear about the strategic nature of this tariff review process and the focus on ensuring that the actions that are announced will be effective in leveling the playing field, giving our workers and our businesses the chance to continue to compete and to thrive against an onslaught of really, really challenging measures and a challenging economic system that is coming from Beijing. We have been clear about this with the American public. We have also been equally clear about this with our counterparts in Beijing. (06:30) Every single one of us from the president on down over the course of the last three years have made clear the challenges that we are facing, the nature of that challenge and the need for us to act because we know what happens if we don't act and we don't defend. We will see the same patterns repeated over and over again. So what we are doing today should by no means be a surprise to our counterparts in Beijing. We have made clear this is not about escalation. This is about the consequences of decades of economic policy and the need for the United States to defend our rights.

And you have the second question.

And the second question was on EVs and BYD in Mexico. At USTR, that is exactly what we are built to worry about and to be concerned with. That will require a separate pathway. This is about imports from China. What you're talking about would be imports from Mexico. Equally important, something that we are talking to our industry, our workers, and our partners about and I would just ask you to stay tuned.

Thanks, Ambassador. When Trump hiked tariffs on Chinese goods, it led to some increased prices for US customers. How can you be sure the same thing won't happen again?

First of all, I think that that link in terms of tariffs to prices has been largely debunked. What I would say is that what the president has instructed that we do is to focus on making our supply chains more resilient. That means we need more options. That means here in America we need to have more manufacturing capacity. Resilient supply chains means that we will be able to insulate the American economy from the kinds of price spikes and the inflationary dynamics that we have seen that have come primarily from the supply chain challenges we've experienced first from the pandemic, next from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. (08:33) If you think back to March of 2020 and you think about how much a face mask cost, it's a trick question. The answer is you did not have enough money to buy a face mask because there just weren't enough in the world to go around. So it is with that in mind that these actions are being taken it is in fact to address those types of challenges that no one wants to experience again.

The US government is subsidizing the EV industry here pretty significantly. How is that different from what the Chinese government is doing?

So if you take a look at the Chinese economic model, what you see is a system of state support that is built to dominate and take over entire industries. So this is what I mean by we've seen the pattern, steel and aluminum, solar panels, batteries, EVs. Today, China's production capacity in steel is 55% of world capacity. That's in one country. Aluminum, 60%, EVs, 60%, solar, 80%, and in certain critical minerals, 85 to 95%. So those are subsidies with an aim to cornering the world market and achieving dominance and creating dependency. (09:56) The types of support that we are talking about here are defensive in nature. They're about creating the space to compete, the space to thrive, the space to survive the kind of onslaught that we are seeing across the board.

Did the president signal to President Xi in their most recent conversation that this might be happening soon?

So let me put it this way again, from the president to Secretary Yellen, Secretary Blinken, in my own engagements with counterparts from Beijing, we have been very, very clear about the sobriety with which we approach the US-China trade and economic relationship. It needs to be fair. I did offer my counterpart the courtesy of a notification. This does not come as a surprise, should not come as a surprise to our counterparts in Beijing.

The notification, was that today or yesterday?

That was a pre-notification.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador Tai. I know that these new tariffs are seen as more targeted and strategic, but the administration has chosen to keep in place those Trump-era tariffs on some $300 billion worth of goods, which Biden himself had said in 2019 that Americans are paying for. So why make that decision to keep it in place and aren't you concerned that it's going to keep prices elevated?

So first of all, let me say a couple things. In terms of the price that Americans paid for in the previous era, some of that, maybe a lot of it was about the chaos and unpredictability that it created and the escalation that resulted. Secondly, I'm a trade lawyer by training. And at USTR, we are deep into the technical issues. This Section 301 based review that we undertook required us to look at a couple questions. One of them was the effect of the practices on our economy and there you have our response, which a targeted strategic response that is meant to work together with the investments that we're making. (11:58) The other aspect that we had to look at was the effect of the tariffs on changing China's behavior with respect to the IPR abuses and the forced tech transfer. There, the findings in my report, which you can find on the USTR website right here, it's a serious report, is that not only have we not seen the problematic practices subside in some areas, we have seen them get worse. And in that light, there is actually no reason for us, no justification to relieving the tariff burdens on the trade with Beijing.

And just quickly, what do you say to critics who say that by putting these high tariffs on Chinese EVs, you're leaving American consumers with fewer options, more expensive cars as China is very far ahead and creating very cheap EV cars?

I think what you have to do is remember and revisit the story and the show that we have been a part of for the last several decades, which is as you allow China to dominate

... the supply and the production in these industries. Your choice is actually made for you. You have fewer choices and it lays our entire economy, from consumers and workers all the way up to our government, susceptible to the kinds of coercion that we've seen from a government who was willing to weaponize the dependencies that it has created when a partner does something that it does not like politically.

On Mexico, you said, "Stay tuned." Are you saying that there could be some changes to the USMTA rules or to the law that would allow the US to apply tariffs on goods from China that originated in Mexico or other third countries?

What I'm saying is the fact pattern that's developing is one that is of serious concern to us and that at USTR we are looking at all of our tools to see how we can address the problem.

Specifically from Mexico or from other countries as well?

I think just the general fact pattern.

Is there anything else you can say to elaborate on the problem?

Stay tuned.

Okay. Good.

Thanks Greene. Thanks, Ambassador. So, this is an election year. Why did it take three years to impose these tariffs?

So, this is where I put my lawyer hat back on. Under the 301 statute, in the fourth year of the tariffs, if there is a stakeholder that is benefiting from the tariffs who asks us to keep them, we keep them. That is what happened in 2022 because the tariffs first went on in 2018. As a result of that, in the fall of 2022, we started a process. We opened up a portal that was open, I think, in the end of '22 to the very beginning of '23, notice and comment. We wanted to hear from all of our stakeholders, their views on the tariffs, the pros and the cons, please inform us. That elicited I think about 1,600 comments. So that's at the beginning of 2023, and then we started a whole-of-government inter-agency review within the Biden administration. That process has taken us to today and the unveiling of this finalized package, which the President approved.

So it took three years to figure out the Chinese were flooding the market and stealing technology. It's pretty evident that they've been doing that all along.

No, it took a year and a half for the course of the review. You will see the amount of care that we put into our investigation and our findings. Yes, there continue to be problems, but then the question is what do you do about the tariffs for this administration? It is extremely important that we approach a relationship like the one between the US and China and these issues around the industries and the jobs of the future with discipline. That's what takes so long is the design and the architecture of the tariff defense system that you will see.

One more quickly on Mexico, if I could. Are we looking at tariffs? I mean quotas, the Trump Administration imposed quotas on steel and aluminum tariff. Aluminum is coming in from Canada and Mexico. Could there be the same policy related to EVs once [inaudible 00:16:15] comes in?

I think I'll just rely on the answer I provided before, which is stay tuned.

Go ahead, Anita.

Thank you Ambassador. It should also come as no surprise that former President Donald Trump is very critical of the moves that President Biden made today. He's just blown up my inbox calling this a weak and futile attempt, saying basically it's too little, too late. What's your response to that?

I would just say that this action

Not to respond to a candidate.

Thank you. I appreciate that. So I'm subject to the Hatch Act. I guess what I would do is interpret your question to mean, or maybe I should ask you to rephrase your question.

Sure. How do you respond to criticism that these tariffs are not enough and have come too late and those are coming clearly from former President Donald Trump?

So again, subject to the Hatch Act, let me just say in general with respect to criticism that these tariffs might not be strong. Let me put it this way. We have put a lot of heart and a lot of effort, intellectual effort, economic effort and consultation effort into this package. They are designed to be strategic and not chaotic. They are designed to be effective and not emotional.

Awesome.

Okay. Thank you, Karine. Thank you Ambassador. Following up on my colleague Selena's question. You said that the President has been consistent on this issue, but back in 2019 when he was a candidate, he said that any freshman economic student could tell you that the American people are paying, "his tariffs," referring to his opponent at the time. And he also said that he would reverse what he called senseless policies. Why did he change his mind?

So I'm going to reject the assertion that he changed his mind. What he has been clear about is his commitment to America, factoring capabilities and resilience, a future for our economy that is built from the middle out and from the bottom up. These tariffs are tariffs, are tools, and this is something at USTR that we feel very strongly about because there our tools, they're the tools of trade. When used strategically and smartly, they can be powerful forces for economic strength and development. And that is what you were seeing in this package.

Previously he called them senseless. They're no longer senseless.

I think you have to separate out the tool itself and perhaps how it's being used and whether or not they're articulated for a particular purpose.

There will obviously be costs here. Who are the big losers here? Is it American importers? There was an International Trade Commission report last year that essentially said that.

I would encourage you, I think the ITC report is maybe not as long as our report. It is long. I would encourage you to take another look at it because a lot of what people think it says is not what it said in terms of the methodology that the ITC used. It is very clear that there were positive impacts of the tariffs on the specific industries that were being covered by it. (19:42) Let me just back up to the frame of your question. I think that it just comes down to this, which is the President has committed to America's workers and to America's industries and these industries of the future, a bright future, and we are going to use all of the tools at our disposal, trade tools in combination with the investments that we have made and the commitment that the President has to standing up for America's economic interests to make that happen.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And it's good to see Angela Perez in the house. But thank you. Ambassador Tai. Okay, so I just have one more thing at the top and then we'll continue with questions. Today the President and First Lady are honoring the memories of the 10 lives lost two years ago in Buffalo, New York. As a result of unacceptable racial hatred and senseless gun violence, we also honor the bravery of those in law enforcement who responded quickly and who risk their lives every day to protect and serve their communities. (20:57) Today, White House Deputy Director of Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Gregory Jackson, will join families of the victims and survivors of the shooting for a ceremony of reflection in Buffalo where he will deliver a letter from President Biden. In his letter, the President shares his condolences and reiterates his commitment to combat gun violence and counter hate field violence. The President will continue to use every tool at his disposal to end the epidemic of gun violence affecting Buffalo and communities nationwide. With that, Amer.

Was it appropriate for Speaker Johnson to show up at the trial of the former President today?

So look, I can't speak to... Don't want to comment obviously, as this is related to 2024 elections, and I can't speak to the Speaker's schedule, that is something for him to decide on. And let's not forget this is also connected to an independent judicial process. So going to be really mindful and he makes his choices on what he does with his business. That is his choice to be made. What I can speak to is obviously what the President is speaking to today as it relates to 301 tariffs, making sure that he's protecting American workers, protecting American businesses, making sure that when we're allowed to compete in a fair way, we can thrive. And that's what you heard from this President. (22:28) And what we've learned and we've seen from what the Speaker is obviously leading with Congressional Republicans, is that they want to cut Medicare, they want to cut Social Security, they want to get rid of things that the American people truly, truly care about. And so our focus is going to continue to build an economy from the bottom up the middle out. And this is something that we can speak to. I think the contrast between what we do here and what Republicans more broadly Republicans and Congress do is I think couldn't be more stark.

Can I ask you if there's any administration reaction to Georgia's passage of the Foreign Influence law today? And will there be any ramifications for the U.S.-Georgia relationship if it is in fact enacted?

So I do have a statement from us on this. We're deeply troubled by Georgia's Kremlin-style foreign agents legislation which just passed, as you just stated, Parliament. And we expect the President to veto it. While it is unclear whether Parliament will try to override a potential veto, we have been outspoken about our concerns with the legislation which runs counter to Democratic values and would move Georgia further away from the values of the European Union and let's not forget also NATO. (23:55) The Georgian people have been making their views known about this legislation, protesting in the streets, as you all have been reporting this weekend. We saw some of the largest protests in Georgia's history with tens of thousands of peaceful protesters, undeterred by intimidation tactics, telling their government to oppose this legislation because they want Euro-Atlantic future. We will see what the Parliament does, but if this legislation passes, it will compel us to fundamentally reassess our relationship with Georgia.

Based on what you're seeing around Rafah, does it appear that the Israelis are preparing to move in a big way?

So I don't have anything new to she and what the Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor, he was here obviously 24 hours ago when he was asked about operations and our discussions obviously, and what we're seeing in Rafah, we have been very clear about this that we going to continue to monitor to keep a close eye. He also said that from what we understand, from what we know, what we're seeing in Rafah right now, according to what Israel has shared with us, it is limited targeted operations. That's what we've been told. (25:13) And we have been very clear, we have been very clear about how we feel about our concerns privately and publicly about a potential major operation in Rafah. We have been very clear about the more than 1 million people who are living, who are now seeking refuge to be more exact in Rafah. And we want to make sure that their lives are protected. These are innocent civilian lives. We want to make sure that they are protected. And so that is basically nothing has changed to what Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor stated right here at the lectern yesterday.

Green. And just to follow up on Amer, when you say fundamentally reassess relations with Georgia, what does that mean?

I'm not going to get into specifics. I'm not going to get into details here. I think I laid out where we are, our concerns, we are deeply concerned about this. I think

... think the people of Georgia have been very clear over the past couple of days, the largest protests over the weekend that we have seen, tens of thousands that they have seen in that country. But we want to make sure that we put out our disapproval, our disagreement, and of course, we're going to reassess our relationship with Georgia. I'm just not going to get into specifics into details of what that might look like. Danny?

Thanks, Karine. Just back to Rafah briefly. Qatar has said that they think Israel's military, what Israel is doing there at the moment already is setting back the negotiations for a ceasefire and a hostage deal. Do you share that assessment?

So look, and Jake said this yesterday, there are multiple phases, multiple elements to this hostage deal that would lead to a ceasefire that would obviously get hostages home, some of them American hostages, that we are working to get that hostage deal really focus and we know how critical it is and also to get that humanitarian aid, create a situation where we can get more humanitarian aid into obviously Gaza more broadly. So look, we're going to continue that work. We're going to continue to have those conversations. It is a dynamic situation, and as it relates to Rafah, I answered, I think Amir asked me the question about what we are seeing. We're monitoring the situation. We've been very clear publicly and privately. Jake, when he was here, he talked about in the upcoming days having an in-person meeting with his counterpart in the Israeli government. He's looking forward to do that. We've been having continuous conversation with Israel about Rafah operations. It's been constructive, and so we expect those conversations to continue. Go ahead.

Hey, I just wanted to... Thank you.

Yeah, cool.

Just wanted to be a little more granular on Rafah.

Yeah.

You said that Israeli government had told you there are limited targeted operations. Is the White House concerned that Israel is making a very incremental encouragement into Rafah to make it harder for you guys to say that the red line has been crossed or-

Look, I'm not going to get into a red line from here. What I will say is obviously IDF can speak to their own operations. What we've been told these, and as you just stated in your question to me, these are targeted limited operations. So far it does not appear, it does not appear to be a major ground operation, and we have been warning about that. We've been very clear about that. You heard that from Jake Sullivan yesterday, our National Security Advisor. You've heard that many times from here from us. We, of course, are monitoring the situation, our longstanding concerns over a potential major ground operation. We've said there's more than 1 million Palestinian who are seeking refuge in Rafah, and so we've been very clear. They're taking shelter there. That remains. So we're going to continue to have conversations obviously with Israeli government. Jake Sullivan spoke to this. In the upcoming days he is expecting that to happen in person, but those conversations continue, and they have been constructive. Go ahead.

Thanks, Karine. A senior White House official recently met with some students and faculty at Morehouse College. Can you talk a little bit about some of the concerns raised from those students and faculty members and how the White House responded?

So what I can say is, and you're speaking about Steve Benjamin-

Exactly.

Right? Mayor Benjamin, who is also the director of the Office of Public Engagement, I can confirm that he did have a meeting at Morehouse. I won't get into the specifics, but he regularly does this. He regularly goes on the road, hears directly from Americans, directly, in this instance, would be students and faculty obviously, and just don't have anything beyond that to share. The president is certainly looking forward to his commencement address this coming Sunday at Morehouse. He's looking forward to speaking not just to the students, but obviously families and loved ones who will be there to celebrate the students but also to hear a message from this president. Don't have anything more to share, but I can certainly confirm that Steve Benjamin was at Morehouse recently.

How many American medical workers does the White House estimate are currently trapped inside Gaza and unable to get out, and is there a plan to help them?

So certainly, look, what we have said over and over again, and we will continue to say this, that humanitarian aid workers obviously are brave to do the work that they're doing, not just in Gaza, but around the world, whether it's Sudan, Haiti, many places that they actually go out there and do that brave work to offer assistance much needed to folks on the ground. So we appreciate that. We want to see them protected. We want to make sure that they have the ability to continue that work. I don't have an estimate for you on the number of people to your question, but it is imperative, it is important that we see humanitarian aid workers protected, and those are conversations that we continue to have with the Israeli government. Go ahead.

Thanks a lot, Karine. In regards to the president's plans to increase tariffs that he announced earlier today, is there an expectation that China will retaliate, and if indeed that happens, what should American consumers plan for in terms of increased prices that they pay for on a variety of Chinese goods?

So I think the ambassador addressed this question a little bit, and what I will say is there's no need for a trade war. There isn't, and we've been very clear, and the ambassador said this at the podium just moments ago, obviously, that we have been very clear about this. We've been very vocal about how the president believes we should move forward. He wants to do this in a smart and strategic way. That's what you see, and it's not just the tariffs, it's an investment. You hear him about investing in America, making sure that manufacturers are coming back. We have created almost nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs, so there's an investment piece, not just the tariffs piece. (32:09) The president has been also very clear, this is about American workers, this is about American companies, this is about protecting them. We have been also very clear that China's policies, trade policies have been unfair, and we've had concerns. You heard the Ambassador talk about how you've seen cabinet-level conversations about this over the year, and we've been also very consistent about that. Whether it's Secretary Yellen, Secretary Blinken, they've been the most recent secretaries who have traveled to Beijing, and this came up to have those conversations. So look, there's no need. There's no need for a trade war. This is not what this is about. This is about protecting, again, American workers. This is about protecting American businesses, making it more fair so that we can compete. We believe that with a fair scenario here, that we can out-compete.

I also wanted to ask you a question that you were not asked yesterday. It's in regards to the vice president's language that she used yesterday to young people. I'm not going to repeat that language. I don't use language publicly, and I don't think you want me to repeat verbatim.

It's up to you if you want to repeat it or not. I can't speak for you.

I'm not going to.

Okay. Well, there you go.

My question to you is that appropriate? Were you surprised she used that language? Was this a one-off or can we expect similar language from the vice president going forward?

So look, for those of you who have covered the vice president knows the vice president, she's passionate about what she fights for. She is. I think it's important to have someone who's passionate about what they're speaking about, about what they're trying to lift up. You've seen her be incredibly passionate about the reproductive freedom and what's happening right now in this country. When it comes to women's right, women's ability to choose, make really difficult decisions on their body, you've seen her talk about that, with ending gun violence and encouraging young people to not let any obstacles get in the way. So we're talking about someone who has broken glass ceilings. We're talking about someone who can speak about what it's like to go through that process. So she's incredibly passionate, and I will leave it there. I could not be more proud to have her as someone that I look up to as vice president, and I think many people here would say the same.

I read her remarks. I watched her remarks, and I agree with the sentiment that she was conveying to those young people. Could she have done that without dropping the F-bomb?

Look, she was passionate. She's passionate about what she believes, and that's what I think you heard from this vice president and I think it's important. Go ahead, Karen.

Thanks, Karine. There was a lawsuit filed by a group of major airlines against the Biden Administration over a new rule requiring transparency on checked bag fees and reservation change fees. Is the administration concerned that this is going to delay this rule going into effect, which is supposed to happen on July 1st?

So look, I can't speak to the timeline from this. I think that's something that Department of Transportation can certainly speak to that more. This is a significant win as we see it, this rule for consumers. I think that's important, saving them half-a-billion dollars every year and bringing transparency to what has become a free written purchasing process, so it is significant. It's a win for the American people. It's a win for consumers. Can't speak to the timeline. That's something that the Department of Transportation can certainly lean into [inaudible 00:35:46]

But could a lawsuit like this be a setback for the broader agenda of the administration tackling hidden junk fees?

So I probably should have said it first, going to be really mindful it's a litigation, don't want to speak to the litigation. I'm speaking more broadly and so what I can say it's a win for consumers. It's an important rule. We're talking about saving billions of dollars to the American consumer, and so it is an important, move forward, step forward. Anything else, I would certainly refer it to Department of Transportation. Go ahead.

Yes. At this point, when Gaza has been practically leveled, 80% of the hospitals are out of service, most of the people have been displaced. What do you think is the incentive Hamas have to keep negotiating a ceasefire?

Look, it is, we believe incredibly important and critical to get to the ceasefire, to get to a hostage jail, to get hostages home, and it's not easy. You heard Jake talk about this. He actually quoted Senator George Mitchell and talked about how sometimes it takes 1000 failures before you can get to one win. I think that really speaks to the moment that we're in. I said this before as I was asked this question, there are a lot of dynamics here that when you're talking about the different phases when it comes to a hostage deal. So look, it's not going to stop us from continue to have these conversations. (37:18) It's not going to stop us from understanding what is at stake here. We got to get these hostages home. We got to get that humanitarian continuing to get that humanitarian aid in, and we got to get to a ceasefire. We have to. Hamas, as we have stated, and you've heard us say over and over again, is a terrorist organization. This could end today. If they would let the women, the wounded, the elderly go, it could end. This could end. You heard Jake go through the 10 points of how we're seeing and how we're viewing what's happening in the Middle East, and so that continues. It's not going to stop us from having this really important critical conversation, negotiations around the hostage deal. There's so much at stake here and it is important and critical to continue these talks.

Do you think that the U.S. is safer today than it was seven months ago considering the rage and the questioning from countries in the Global South?

Say that one more time. If who's-

If the U.S. is safer today than it was seven months ago, considering-

Look, I don't have any changes of where we are today. I can't speak to that. What I can say is the president's always going to put our national security first. He's always going... as it relates to the American people as it relates to us, that's the lens that he moves with. That's how he sees things, and I think that's incredibly important and his commitment. His commitment continues to be so. Yeah.

Taiwan's going to hold its inauguration next Monday. Does the administration expect any changes in policy with the incoming president? Why? Then

And then aren't you seeing any signs that China may try to use this occasion to act aggressively or in a coercive way?

I mean, look, I can't speak for what China's going to do or not do. I am not obviously in the head of President Xi, but we've been very clear about what we stand with our one China policy. Nothing has changed there. And look, we have to let the leader speak for himself. I just don't have anything to add beyond that. We will see. We will see. Okay.

Thanks, Karine. Why do you think Americans are so down on President Biden right now?

What do you mean?

I know you don't like to talk about polls like the five of six swing states that he is losing right now to somebody who is a criminal defendant, but more broadly, it doesn't seem like anything you guys are doing is making him more popular. Why do you think that is?

So you've mentioned a criminal defendant, your words not mine, so I want to be super mindful about how I answer this question because obviously, that criminal defendant is also in the race for 2024 election, so I'm going to be super mindful there. (40:14) I will speak more broadly to what the American people are going through. We understand. We are sensitive enough and open-minded enough to understand that not just this country, but globally people have had to deal with a pandemic and coming out of that pandemic. We understand that even, you think about gas prices, and because of Putin's war, what that has occurred that led to gas prices increasing. And the President had a lot to deal with when he walked in, a lot, a lot of crises. And this is a president that took that very, very seriously and took action. The American Rescue Plan, no Republicans voted for that, but we ended up trying to work to get an economy that's fairer for all, and make sure that we don't leave people behind, and creating 15 million jobs, an unemployment rate that's under 4%. We understand that people are still feeling this. We get that and we're not blind to that. (41:18) That's why you hear the President pretty regularly announcing how he is going to lower costs for the American people, whether it's big pharma, trying to lower healthcare costs, expanding ACA for those who truly need it, or it is making sure that we get rid of junk fees. That cost Americans a lot of money every year. (41:38) So look, we know it's going to take a little bit of time. We get that and we are going to continue to, it's not going to stop us from talking about it, and it's also not going to stop us from talking about the contrast that we see from GOP Republican congressional members who want to do the opposite of what the President is trying to get done, cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. That is what they're talking about, slashing taxes for billionaires and corporations. That's not what this president wants to do. He wants to make sure that we're building an economy from the bottom up, middle out. And again, we get it. We get that prices are too high for Americans and that's what we're going to continue to do the work.

I get that you understand that people are hurting right now. Why is it that nothing you're doing to address their concerns is working?

What I'm saying is we're going to continue to do the work. I can't speak to the polls. Those are for folks who are experts who can do a deep dive, and look into that, and speak to them. What I can speak to is we understand what the American people is feeling. We understand what they're going through. That's why we're going to continue to do the work. 301 tariff, that's part of it, making sure that we're protecting American workers, making sure that we're protecting American businesses. That's the work that the President's going to focus on and we're going to continue to move in that way.

So more broadly then, have you considered in The White House that some of President Biden's recent policy positions could be a turnoff to the people that used to like him?

So here, I would disagree with you there, because a lot of the policies that the President is pushing forward are incredibly popular. They are. Student debt, even though you have Republicans who stopped the President on moving with his plan on student debt, that's actually very popular with Americans. Fighting big pharma, that's popular with Americans. Making sure that we lower costs on healthcare, that's popular with Americans. (43:30) So what the President is actually doing is popular with what majority of Americans want to do. Even in protecting reproductive rights, something that Republicans are not on the right side of history. You think about what extreme elected officials want to do, the President wants to protect and make sure that we actually are giving a woman a right to make really difficult decisions on their healthcare. So that part, I certainly disagree with you on. (43:58) Go ahead, Jared.

Is the meeting with Israelis on Rafah also expected to include ongoing conversations about that shipment of 2,000 pound bombs and kind of steps or conditions you want to see, the administration wants to see to move forward on a final determination?

So look, don't have anything for you on a timeline or on that particular conversation. The Rafah operations, we've been really clear about our concerns about that. Any major military operations going into Rafah, we have been clear that we do not believe that is the right way to move forward, and so we're going to continue to be clear. We're going to have a meeting about that. Specifically, as you know, the National Security Advisor stated that. There's been continuous conversations on this particular issue that we believe has been constructive and the conversations continue. We're going to monitor the situation. I'm not going to go beyond what we've just stated about where our focus on the Rafah operations in those conversations. Go ahead.

President Biden has frequently pledged that no one making under $400,000 would see their taxes go up. Tariffs are effectively a tax on imports. I'm wondering if you can commit that no American importer making less than $400,000 would see their cost go up.

So our commitment to Americans are very clear, which is that we are not going to tax. We do not want to see a tax increase on Americans making over 400,000. That has been our point where we have been since the beginning of this administration. That has not changed. We have to remember what these tariffs are all about is actually making sure that we are protecting American workers, that we are protecting American businesses. We cannot forget as well, that the trade deal that the last administration, the Trump administration did, did not. Actually, it was a bad deal. It was a failed deal. It didn't increase our American imports. It didn't increase manufacturing here, and this is-

Importers of solar cells are some of the products that are part of the announcement today. You can guarantee that none of those importers-

What I can say is American-

Below a certain threshold [inaudible 00:46:01].

What I can say is Americans here, we have been very clear that we do not want to see taxes for them if they are making under 400,000. That is something that we've been very clear about, but I also do not want to, we should not forget why we're doing this today. This is about protecting American workers. This is about protecting American businesses. What we saw from the last administration failed. It failed. We did not see manufacturing go up. We did not see imports go up or exports go up, and so that is also incredibly important to note and we want to do this. The President wants to do this in a smart and strategic way, and that's what you are seeing from this announcement today.

Karine, there's a report that's just out right now that Jake Sullivan will be going to Saudi Arabia and Israel this weekend to discuss the military operation in Rafah. I know you mentioned that there would be a meeting in the coming days. Can you confirm his travel?

I can't confirm that at this time.

Karine, picking up on your last answer that you don't believe that this is a tax on Americans making under $400,000 a year. Some Democrats, including Jared Polis, the governor of Colorado, come out and said, "The tariffs are direct regressive tax on Americans and this tax increase will hit every family," calling it, "Horrible news." How do you respond to that?

Look, I mean, it's very much to what I've been saying. This is truly about what the President wanted to do. He wanted to make sure that this was done in a smart and strategic way. That's what this announcement is about. It's about making sure that we address the unfair policies that we have seen from China, and this is what this does. American workers and businesses can outcompete anyone if we actually create a competition that is fair and that's what you're seeing from this president. (47:47) We have been also very clear that we do not want to see a tax increase for anyone making under $400,000. That has also been our approach on this as we talk about the economy, as we talk about making sure that we are building an economy from the bottom up, middle out, we want this to make sure that we're not leaving anyone behind. This is a smart and strategic approach from this president. These tariffs are targeted at critical industries where his investing in America agenda is spurring a manufacturing boom. He's coupling investment with actions to protect American workers and to protect businesses as well. That's our approach here. That's how we're going to move forward.

I know you said you couldn't confirm Jake's travel to Saudi Arabia this weekend, but would you say across the administration, is there an increased sense of urgency to make sure the Prime Minister Netanyahu does not go further into Rafah?

I mean, I think there's been a sense of urgency from day one. We've been very clear about this. The last time the President spoke to the Prime Minister, one of the topics that came up that we read out to all of you was the Rafah operations. You've heard us say over and over again about our concerns and we've been clear about our concerns privately and certainly publicly, about more than 1 million people. 1 million Palestinian citizens are now seeking refuge in Rafah, and so we want to make sure that their lives are protected. (49:12) Understanding that dismantling Hamas operation is actually really important. This is something that we believe in that we want to see as well. That's why we've offered our own thoughts on how to move forward with that. Conversations continue. We're going to be very clear about our concerns here and I'll just leave it there. All right everybody. Thanks everyone else. I'll see you tomorrow? Tomorrow.

Thanks, Karine.

Bye everybody.