Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:59 P.M. EDT
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone.
Q Good afternoon.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, bear with me. I have a few things at the top.
So, I want to start by saying that what the country witnessed last night was historic. We saw the leadership we always see from Joe Biden. We saw a man who, as he has always done, put country first.
Surrounded by his family, you heard the president say, “I revere this office, but I love my country more.” He went on to say the defense of democracy is “more important than any title. I draw strength and find joy in working for the American people. But this sacred task of perfecting our Union is not about me. It’s about you, your families, your futures. It’s about ‘We the People.’” And “I have decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. That is the best way to unite our nation.”
This is a selfless act — something that very few politicians would ever do. President Biden will go down in history as one of the nation’s greatest presidents, accomplishing more in nearly four years than most presidents do in eight years.
To quote him again, “I have given my heart and my soul to our nation, like so many others have. And I have been blessed a million times in return with the love and support of the American people.”
He made clear last night that over the next six months, he will be focused on doing his job as president of the United States and building on his historic results for the American people. That is his focus.
And I will end by saying that I am so proud to work for this man, who has served his country for more than 50 years with honor and dignity. And I look forward to working — continuing to work with him again for — ahead — ahead in the next several months.
Today, the Department of Homeland Security released additional data on the impacts of the ex- — executive action President Biden announced on June 4th.
Since then, encounters at the border between ports of entry have dropped more than 55 percent. Average daily encounters are now lower than they were at the end of the previous administration and lower than at this point back in 2019.
But we know the only way to bring lasting solutions to secure border — to secure the border and to begin to fix the broken immigration system is to pass the bipartisan border security agreement.
Sadly, congressional Republicans have decided to put partisan politics ahead of our national security and twice voted against the bipartisan agreement and badly needed resources to hire additional Border policy — Patrol agents and fentanyl detection technology at the border.
In the absence of legislation action — legislative action, the Biden-Harris administration has taken decisive actions to secure the border.
Recently, the administration has taken action to hold criminal organizations accountable, including sanctions against different gangs and smuggling organizations that are responsible for various criminal activities. That includes human smuggling and trafficking, gender-based violence, and money laundering.
We have also taken concrete steps to make our immigration system more fair and more just and to keep families together.
That is why, in August, eligible spouses of U.S. citizens and their children who have lived here for 10 years or more will be able to apply for legal status while remaining in the United States with their families.
We’re also helping young people who have been educated in the U.S., including DREAMers and DACA recipients, receive work visas more quickly. These actions will help more young people use their talents to enrich our communities and strengthen our economy.
This administration will continue taking action to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system.
Now, when President Biden took office, we were in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. But as the president said last night during his Oval Office address and as today’s GDP report makes clear, the United States has the strongest economy in the world.
This did not happen by accident. Under the leadership of President Biden and Vice President Harris, we saw the economy grow a strong 2.8 percent last quarter, with business investments mo- — up more than 5 percent. Nearly 60 million jobs have been created, and wages are up higher than before the pandemic, with inflation down to 3 percent.
But as the president said, we have more work to do. Over the next six months, the president and vice president will keep fighting to lower costs for hardworking families, from lowering health care and housing costs to making billionaires pay their fair share and cutting taxes for families with the Child Tax Credit.
While congressional Republicans side with special interests and threaten Social Security and Medicare, the president and vice president will continue fighting for the middle class.
Today, we are praying for the thousands of Americans under mandatory evacuation orders out West as widespread wildfires burn hundreds of thousands of acres across Oregon, California, and elsewhere.
We are grateful for the brave firefighters and first responders who are working to protect people and save lives.
We urge everyone in the — in the affected areas to remain vigilant and heed the warnings of local officials, especially those who have been ordered to evacuate.
And the president has been briefed on the fires, and we are in close touch with the governors’ office — offices in affected states to ensure they have all that they need.
White House and federal officials are also in close contact with state and local officials on the frontlines of these fires. And 6,800 federal personnel from the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior are on the ground, helping to fight the blazes and keep people safe.
The Department of Defense has also mobilized four of its C-130 modular airborne firefighting systems to support fire suppression effort.
FEMA also issued several fire management assistance grants to help reimburse states for firefighting costs.
As always, we stand ready to provide further support as needed.
And finally, on Monday, Iowa’s extreme abortion ban will take effect, banning care before a lot of women even know that they are pregnant. Iowa will be the 22nd state with an abortion ban in effect. All of these bans imposed by the Republican elected officials put women’s health and lives in jeopardy.
The president and the vice president have been clear: This should never happen in America. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in states across the country since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
And it’s not stopping at the state level. Republican elected officials in Congress have proposed four — four national abortion bans, while refusing to protect nationwide access to IVF and contraception.
President Biden and Vice President Harris believe that women in every state must have the right to make deeply personal decisions about their health care. They continue to call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law and fight efforts by Republican elected officials to undermine our fundamental freedoms.
And with that, I will turn it over to the admiral, Admiral John Kirby, who is here to take questions about the prime minister of Israel’s visit and meeting with the president today and take any questions on the Middle East.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine. Good afternoon, everybody.
As you all know, the president and the prime minister are meeting right now in the Oval Office. There is a lot on the agenda, but first and foremost will be discussing how deeply and how strongly the president feels, we feel that we’ve got to get this hostage deal in place so we can get a ceasefire also in place, at least for phase one for that first — those first six weeks.
There are gaps that remain, and our team continues to work with our counterparts in the region to see if we can’t close those gaps. We believe that they are of a nature where they can be closed and that we can achieve a deal, but it’s going to require, as it always does, some leadership, some compromise, and an effort to get there.
The president will be reaffirming for Prime Minister Netanyahu that he believes we need to get there and we need to get there soon.
Today is the 293rd day that these hostages have been held captive by Hamas. And you just have to assume that it is the most horrific of circumstances. Sadly, we know that not all of them are alive. Still — hostages still need to get home to their families. Two hundred and ninety-three days, there ought not to be a two hundred and ninety-fourth. And we’re going to keep working on that.
I do anticipate that the two leaders will also cha- — also have a chance to talk about other substantive issues, in terms of the blue line up at the north and making sure we don’t see an escalation of the conflict between Israel and — and Lebanon and make sure that we’re providing opportunities for both Israeli and Lebanese citizens to return to their homes, as well as, of course, the need — the critical need for stability in the West Bank. We’re still seeing violence in the West Bank that the president has been absolutely steadfast calling out as unacceptable.
They’ll also discuss the United States’ ironclad commitment, of course, to Israel’s security, including countering the very serious threats that Iran and its proxy groups continue to demonstrate throughout the region.
The president and the prime minister, of course, after their meeting today in the Oval, will have a chance to meet with families of the Americans that are being held hostage by Hamas. This will be this president’s second in-person meeting with these families. As you all know, we have kept up a regular drumbeat of interaction with them.
Since the 7th of October, Jake Sullivan has met with them 10, 12 times — something like that. And other members of the team have also kept in touch with them to make sure that they know everything that we’re doing to get their loved ones home.
Just quickly before we go to questions, a quick word on Venezuela. We support the peaceful elections that we expect and hope will come on Sunday — elections that will reflect the will and the aspirations of the Venezuelan people for a more democratic, stable, and prosperous future.
Any political re- — repression and violence is unacceptable. And, of course, regardless of who wins, we encourage both candidates to commit to a peaceful outcome and to work together for the good of all Venezuelans.
With that, I’ll take some questions.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Zeke.
Q Thanks, John. First, in ter- — one, the president is meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu right now. Does the president believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to get a hostage deal that — given his political consideration at home, in Israel, that he’s actually capable and willing to bridge those gaps that you say remain?
MR. KIRBY: Yes, yes, and yes. He has said so publicly himself, Zeke. He wants to get the hostages home.
And the Israelis, the — the government, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been working with us to try to get that — that deal over the finish line.
That said, as I — as I mentioned at the top, there’s still some gaps that remain, and we’re going to be talking to the prime minister today about the — closing those gaps.
Q And just on a broader note: The president mentioned last night that he plans to spend the next six months in — of his time in office focused on some foreign policy issues. How does the president’s announcement change what the White House, what the NSC has planned for the balance of the year through January 20th, in terms of an issue of the president — travel by the president? Will we get to Africa? You know, what — what are the — the —
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q — to-do list of things that maybe hadn’t been planned for the second term that he now has to — has less than six months to get done?
MR. KIRBY: Well, look, now that — that he’s not running for reelection, certainly, you can expect that there’ll be opportunities on the calendar that may not have been before. And so, we’re all exploring what those opportunities can look like in terms of advancing his foreign policy agenda and national security opportunities here and around the world.
But I don’t have anything on the schedule to speak to now. But I mean, you know, stay tuned. I think there’ll — there’ll be some opportunities that the president is going to want to explore.
Look, I mean, still got a war in Ukraine, still got a war in Gaza. You still got climate change to deal with. You still got a very restless Indo-Pacific. I mean, I could go on and on. There’s plenty of things for the national security team to try to continue to get done.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Peter.
Q John, we heard from the vice president earlier with comments stric- — sorry, strong comments related to the vandalism and the protests that we saw yesterday. We haven’t heard yet from the president or from the White House at large. Do you condemn what you saw yesterday? How do you characterize the protests, including what we saw at Union Station?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we did put out a statement last night from the White House. But absolutely condemn any violence in protest activity. I mean, it’s a First Amendment right to peacefully protest. We fully support that.
We know that there are strong views about what’s going on in Gaza. And some of those views are in opposition to some of the policies that we’re pursuing. We get it. That’s democracy.
But when it turns violent and when you burn an American flag and pull it down off a U.S. government site, that’s just absolutely unacceptable. And — and obviously, we condemn all that.
Q Are these protests pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel? How do you characterize what we’re seeing?
MR. KIRBY: I think it’s a little bit all those things. I mean, I can’t speak for the protesters. Obviously, I don’t share their views. But, obviously, they took great exception to the prime minister speaking on Capitol Hill. And as I said, many of them have taken exception with our — with our policies with respect to Gaza.
Q Today, we heard from one of the family members who is going to be meeting with both the prime minister and the president a short time from now, Aviva Siegel. She was a former hostage of Hamas. She says, “I want to ask President Biden, if Bibi is not able or willing, to agree to the ceasefire and hostage deal to bring the Americans home.” Is there anything more that President Biden is prepared to do unilaterally to try to bring those hostages home?
MR. KIRBY: I wouldn’t get into hy- — hypothesizing and speculating about options one way or the other. We want to get all the hostages home — clearly, the Americans in particular. And that’s why this deal was so important, Peter.
And we are close. We are closer now, we believe, than we’ve been before. The gaps are closable. No question about that. And we believe, the president believes that getting that hostage deal in place, getting that six-week ceasefire — that’s the best way to get all these loved ones back with their families.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Weijia.
Q Thank you, Karine. Thanks, John. Did the U.S. find any of Netanyahu’s remarks yesterday to be false or misleading?
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to parse everything he said or, you know, do a factcheck here from — from this podium. He — you know, he should speak for himself about what his — his views are.
Q He should, but he had a powerful stage: a joint address before Congress. Do you agree with assertions that Iran financially backed some of the protesters; that if there are Palestinians in Gaza who aren’t getting enough food, it’s not because Israel is blocking it — as two examples.
MR. KIRBY: So, on the first example, we’ve said ourselves — the director of National Intelligence came out publicly and said that we do know that Iran has been funding and encouraging some of the protest activity here in the United States — some of it.
We do not believe that all the protest activity out there on a daily basis is being fully funded by Iran. There’s a lot of organic concern out there in the American people about what’s going on in the Middle East. And most of these protests are — are formed and fashioned in that regard.
On the second question, it’s a — there has been an — a steady increase of humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza. The problem isn’t getting it to Gaza right now. The problem is getting it around Gaza. And one of the reasons why it’s so dang difficult to move things around inside Gaza is because there’s a war going on and bombs are dropping.
And, regrettably, in the conduct of some of their — their recent operations, the Israeli military has, in fact — not on purpose; we have no reason to believe they did this deliberately — but there has been accidental strikes on some of the — the trucks and the convoys that have been moving around.
So, there’s — it’s a — it’s not — it’s not one or the other. There’s a lot of reasons why it’s not moving around. And some of that is, of course, the military activity of the Israelis inside Gaza.
Q And then, now that the vice president is the likely Democratic nominee, has she communicated with the president whether a Harris administration’s Israel policy would be the same or different as his?
MR. KIRBY: You would have to talk to the vice president’s office and the campaign for that.
I would just — before we leave that, though, just want to remind: She’s been a full partner in our policies in the Middle East, particularly with our policies towards Israel and the war in Gaza — a full partner, been involved in nearly every conversation that the president has had with the prime minister, and very much engaged throughout.
Q Okay, before I get to my questions, can I just — a quick follow-up on that. Can you j- —
MR. KIRBY: Sure.
Q Can you explain to the American people who might think it just looks odd that she is having her own private meeting with the prime minister, separate from the president’s, that suggests that they aren’t speaking with one voice.
MR. KIRBY: Well, I reckon if she was here, she’d be in the room right now. But she’s not physically here. There’s nothing unusual about that. And the vice president has — has and I fully expect over the next six months will continue to have meetings of her own with foreign leaders. She’s met privately with President Zelenskyy as well and others.
Q It was 20 days ago that the administration first said that they were really optimistic about finding — really closing the deal. Has nothing changed in 20 days? Is that still where we are?
MR. KIRBY: I wouldn’t say nothing has changed.
Q What — what are the remaining gaps? What are the sticking points?
MR. KIRBY: (Laughs.) Yeah, I’m not going to negotiate in public.
I wouldn’t say nothing has changed. I mean, there’s the last 20 days that you talk about, and we’ve been working really, really hard to try to get those gaps closed.
There are — there’s still more work to be done. But
we believe, as I said earlier, we’re closer now than we’ve been before. And we think it’s absolutely achievable to get this over the finish line.
Q Just sort of following up what you just pointed — there’s one other thing that the prime minister said yesterday that’s getting a lot of attention — is that the conflict has had one of the lowest ratios of combatant-to-noncombat casualties in the history of urban warfare. Obviously, our own State Department has found it reasonable to assess that the Israeli’s actions at times have been inconsistent with international law. So, who is correct here? And is the United States comfortable with the ratio of deaths between combatants and civilians?
MR. KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to go line by line through the prime minister’s speech and debate it here from the White House podium. He should speak for his comments. He should speak for his views.
What I can do is speak for ours. And the right number of civilian casualties is zero. And there has been too many civilian casualties in this fighting in Gaza. And as I just indicated in my previous answer, there continue to be civilian casualties in this war in Gaza. There continues to be desperate need for food, water, medicine because it’s a combat zone, in many places. And we need to bring the war to an end.
And one of the principal things that the president — president is going to talk to the prime minister about today is how we get there, how do we end this war. And the best way, in his view, is to get this deal in place, get a six-week ceasefire, get phase one going so you negotiate to phase two, get a cessation of hostilities, and, more critically, get those hostages home.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Danny.
Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Admiral. You mentioned in your topper the word “compromises.” Does the president believe that — specifically that Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to make compromises to achieve a ceasefire deal and that it’s not just Hamas? And also, what are those compromises that Netanyahu would have to make, if so?
MR. KIRBY: Both sides have to make compromises. And because we still have gaps that haven’t been closed, I think you can surmise from that that there are still compromises that need to be made.
The Israelis already have made many compromises to get us to this point. Hamas, through their interlocutors, have made compromises to get us to this point. And yet, we’re still not there.
So, there’s still — there’s still a need for compromise.
Q And will the president be saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu, “You need to make compromises”?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we’re going to do a read out, and we’ll — we’ll tell you how the meeting went after it’s over. But as I said in — in the opening statement, this will be a — a prime topic of discussion: that it’s time now to get these compromises in place. It’s time now to get the negotiation in place and get the hostages home. It’s time to end the war.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Asma.
Q Thank you. How does the administration reconcile the comments that the president has made about the fact that Hamas has been decimated; its military objectives achieved, as he said, some weeks ago; and the fact that we heard the prime minister again reiterate that he wants total victory? How do you all reconcile those two visions?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t think they need to be reconciled. I think they’re — they’re — both things can be true. We do believe that, from a military perspective, Hamas has been very, very badly beaten and — and denigrated. No question about that. Doesn’t mean they’ve been eliminated. They still have leadership in place. They still can direct operations. They still have fighters at their beck and call. And we’re seeing that every day.
And we also still believe that they need to be defeated; that the threat to Israel needs to be eliminated from Hamas; and that whatever the post-war situation looks like, it can’t end with Hamas being in — in control over Gaza.
So, I don’t think that the two things are necessarily irreconcilable or — or at odds with one another.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Lalit.
Q Thank you. Two questions. To what extent the war in Gaza has impacted that president’s ambitious project, IMEC Corridor? And is I2U2 being discussed today in the bilateral meeting?
MR. KIRBY: For the IMEC Corridor? I think it’s too soon to know whether there’s going to be a big impact on that. The president is absolutely still committed to it. We still got the teams pulling together and working on that. It’s got great promise for infrastructure and investment opportunities across that whole corridor not only just for the movement of — of commerce but the jobs that it will create just in — just in its establishment.
Q And, secondly, the president’s another key initiative has been the Quad. Is president still committed to attending the Quad summit being hosted by India this year?
MR. KIRBY: We’re still committed to there being a Quad leaders’ summit this year. But there’s nothing on the calendar right now for it.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jeff.
Q Thank you. John, the meeting with the hostage families this afternoon that you referenced — can you just give us a sense of what message the president and the prime minister want to bring to those families? What are they going to say?
MR. KIRBY: I won’t speak for the prime minister, but the president intends to tell them how seriously he is still committed to getting this deal in place and getting their loved ones home. He is going to tell them that we’re going to maintain the contact with them that we have had, that there’s not — not going to be a gap in communication as we get — as we get closer here, hopefully, to the end, and that he’s not going to rest until all their loved ones are back.
Q The — the pool was in the Oval Office briefly for the beginning of their meeting, and the two men were friendly and cordial. And President Biden was joking about how old he was when he first had a meeting with a — a previous prime minister.
But we know that there have been tensions between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Biden. What’s your — can you talk a little bit about the state of their relationship right now?
MR. KIRBY: It’s a healthy relationship. And by “healthy,” I mean they’re not going to agree on everything. They haven’t. They haven’t, through the long political lives that both of them have — have enjoyed, always agreed on everything. They come from two different political traditions. But they know one another.
I beli- — I can — I’m only speaking for President Biden that — that he’s very comfortable in the relationship that he has with the prime minister and the ability that he has — he would do it anyway, but certainly with — with Prime Minister Netanyahu — the ability that he has to be candid and honest and lay it all out there. And he’ll — he’ll do that today.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Tyler.
Q Did the president watch the — the prime minister’s speech yesterday or see anything that he —
MR. KIRBY: I don’t know if he — I don’t know if he watched it. I — I don’t know that.
Q And you didn’t — do you have a sense of his reaction?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t.
Q Okay. And — yeah, okay. Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: You’re welcome. That was easy.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Go ahead.
Q On Venezuela. Do you think that Maduro has the ability to kind of fully rig the election? Or do you think that he wo- — it’s more likely that he would just contest the results?
MR. KIRBY: It’s difficult to know exactly how this is going to play out, so I can’t really answer that specifically. That — but — well, the reason I mentioned it in my opening statement is to make it clear to Mr. Maduro that we’re watching. We’re watching closely. They need to be free and fair elections — free of repression, free of voter intimidation.
And, again, no matter who wins, our expectation is that the winner is going to continue to look after democratic institutions in Venezuela.
Q But — and so, if the opposition does win, are you concerned about violence that might break out?
MR. KIRBY: If we weren’t concerned about the possibility, I wouldn’t have mentioned it in the opening statement.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q Thank you. Admiral, two questions on Iran. How is POTUS Biden going to deal with Iran? I mean, which aspects of dealing with Iran is he going to prioritize in the next six months in office? And which one of them would he be recommending to VPOTUS Harris if and when she gets to the White House again?
And my second question —
MR. KIRBY: Well, she’s already at the White House. She’s already a key partner in our foreign policy objectives.
Q As a commander in chief. If —
MR. KIRBY: I would tell — tell you that you’re going to continue to see, over the next six months, the same focus by this administration, this team, which of course includes the vice president, on holding Iran accountable for all their destabilizing activities — support to the Houthis, to Hezbollah, to Hamas; the merchant attacks that they’re allowing the Houthis to continue to perpetrate and that they’re perpetrating themselves in the Gulf region; as well as their support to Russia in Russia’s war in Ukraine. I could go on and on.
We have sanctioned Iran some 600 different times just in the last three and a half years of this administration. We’ll continue to hold them accountable. That will be a steady focus for the president.
Q Israeli prime minister yesterday labeled those — part of the protestors as “Iran’s useful idiots.” What is the administration’s method of dealing with them? I mean, what is it —
MR. KIRBY: First of all, that’s not a phrase we would use. As I mentioned, I think, to Peter’s question, we know that Iran certainly has tried to meddle here. They’ve tried to sow discord. They’ve obviously contributed to some funding of some protesters.
But I — I think to — to paint everybody with that brush is unfortunate and not — and not an accurate reflection. Most of the protest activity here in the United States is peaceful. Most of it is — the vast majority of it is organic; it comes from people who have real concerns. And that’s what a democracy is all about.
Q And do you agree with the — with the prime minister’s assertion that basically that Israel is protecting U.S. — I mean, why — is it sort of an overt criticism from leader of an ally? And what does U.S. need protection from an ally?
MR. KIRBY: I’m sorry, can you —
Q Yeah, well, he said, “When Israel fights Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, we are fighting Iran. When Israel acts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we are not only protecting ourselves, we’re protecting you.” So, why does the U.S. need protection from an ally? Isn’t U.S. doing enough?
MR. KIRBY: It is clear that — that Israel and the United States share a concern about Iran’s activities. And the prime minister is not wrong. When you — when you’re going after groups like Hezbollah or Hamas, in this case particularly, or when we together try to defend each other against the Houthi missiles and drones that continue to fly, that — that is also because of the proxy nati- — nature of it, also countering Iran’s activities. I mean, together, that’s what allies and partners do.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q Thanks, John. Just to take the long view of this. Pretty early in President Biden’s presidency, February the 4th, 2021, he spoke at the State Department about his priorities in foreign policy. And he said that one of those priorities was “reclaiming our credibility and moral authority.”
The prime minister of Israel is, in the judgment of the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, a war criminal. Isn’t hosting an alleged war criminal in the Oval Office undermining of credibility and moral authority?
MR. KIRBY: No, because we don’t consider him a war criminal.
Q But the International Criminal Court does.
MR. KIRBY: We don’t agree. And as we’ve said before, we don’t find the ICC’s finding to be relevant or appropriate in this case. We don’t find him to be a war criminal. He’s an ally and a partner and a friend.
Q Well, the — the chief prosecutor says that Israel does have legitimate war aims, of course. But the way Israel chose to achieve these in Gaza, namely intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population, are criminal.
MR. KIRBY: Is that a question?
Q I —
MR. KIRBY: Because if it is — if it is, I’ve already answered it. We don’t consider him a war criminal.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Janne.
Q Thank you, Karine.
Q Thank you — thank — yes, she called me.
Q I thought she said “Jake.”
Q And thank — thank you very much.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I said “Janne.” I said “Janne.”
Q Oh, Janne?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q My bad.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s all good.
Q Thank you. Thank you, Karine. And thank you, John. I have two questions. Recently, American families who were victims of Hamas filed a lawsuit against North Korea (inaudible) in the U.S. Federal Court demanding $1 billion in compensation from North Korea, claiming that North Korea was responsible because the weapons used by Hamas were weapons supported by North Korea. What is your comment on this?
MR. KIRBY: Look, Mr. Kim continues to export military capability. And we continue to work with allies and partners and counterparts to hold them accountable for that. They’re also exporting technology and weapons systems to Russia so they can kill innocent Ukrainians. And we’re going to continue to hold them accountable for that kind of behavior.
Q Also, second question. If Vice President Kamala Harris is elected the next president, will she continue (inaudible) keep going on between U.S. and South Korea or (inaudible)?
MR. KIRBY: I — I am not going to speak for a hypothetical electoral outcome, and I’m certainly not going to speak for the vice president in this regard. You really should talk to her team and — and her campaign.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jon.
Q Thanks, Karine. John, the president has been pushing for a peace deal, a ceasefire for weeks, if not months. Now that he has announced that he’s not running for another term, how, if in any way, that complicates those efforts to reach a peace deal?
MR. KIRBY: We don’t believe it does. And in the conversations that we’ve been having in just recent hours, there’s no reason to suspect that his decision not to run for reelection is going to have an impact on our ability to get the deal done.
What’s going to have an impact, as I said before, is leadership — leadership on all sides and the ability to continue to compromise. We are close. We just have to finish it.
Q The president also last night spoke about his goals in his remaining six months in office. One of those goals is to get back those wrongfully detained Americans, people like Evan Gershkovich from the Wall Street Journal.
MR. KIRBY: And Paul Whelan.
Q And Paul Whelan. Exactly. The president has been described by some as a “lame duck president.” Does it complicate those efforts to get back those wrongfully detained Americans?
MR. KIRBY: I can assure you that we continue to work extremely hard at getting all wrongfully detained Americans around the world, including those in Russia that we’ve been talking about, getting them home where they belong. They don’t need to — there’s no reason for them to be detained. The whole team is working on this around the clock. I can absolutely assure you that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to have to start wrapping up. Go ahead, Annie.
Q Thank you. And thank you for the answer, also, on the last question. Yesterday, Netanyahu asked the U.S. to fast-track weapons in his speech. I’m wondering if the president is considering lifting his pause on the 2,000-pound bombs that the Israelis have requested?
MR. KIRBY: No change to that policy at this time. And I would just add that that is the only shipment of the only type of weaponry that has been held up, that all the military security assistance that had been going to Israel continues to go to Israel. They are still getting the tools, the capabilities, and the weapons that they need for the fight that they’re in.
Q Thanks, John. Thanks, Karine. What conversations has President Biden had with Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of her meeting with the Israeli prime minister?
MR. KIRBY: I won’t speak to private conversations between the president and vice president. I wouldn’t do that on any given day, and I’m certainly not going to do it starting today.
The vice president — I’m sure her team will give her a readout of how the conversation with — between the president and the prime minister is going right now. And then that will, I’m sure, inform her conversation. But I’m not going to give more detail than that.
Q And just second question. What additional pressure is the president willing to exert upon Netanyahu, just given that the framework, as my colleague mentioned, was just submitted about a few weeks and still nothing has come of that?
MR. KIRBY: The framework for the deal?
Q Mm-hmm.
MR. KIRBY: I mean, my goodness, there’s — you know, I know it’s — I know we don’t — we’re not there yet, and I — I get that there’s more work to be done, but think about what has happened since he laid that out on the 31st of May. We went from that framework proposal to getting the framework itself agreed to now by both sides.
There’s some haggling that’s being done over some of the details. Some of that haggling has had positive results, and we have closed some gaps. There are still gaps that remain to be closed, as I said earlier, some details that need to be worked out.
There’s an awful lot of energy and effort being put into this — certainly, by our team, but I’d — I’ll go so far as to say by — by our counterparts as well.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jake.
Q Thank you. I’ve got two questions. But first, can you tell me the backstory behind the — the nice bling you’ve got around your neck there?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I — I had a chance to meet with some of the hostages’ families myself back in December. And the father of one gave me this to wear, and I try to wear it as much as I can just to remember that — again, 293 days. They need to be home with their families. And since they’re here at the White House and this is going to be a prime topic of conversation, I thought it was appropriate to wear it today.
Q Does the president have one?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t know.
Q Okay. I’ve got two questions. Is it or is it not the U.S. government’s position that UNRWA is complicit in terrorism?
MR. KIRBY: UNRWA does some things that no other agency can do on the ground in Gaza. You and I both know that.
Now, there has been an investigation done to some of their employees. And I understand that there’s been some additional
claims or charges against additional employees to — that had been laid out there. But it’s clear to us that UNRWA has taken this seriously. They fully investigated it. They eliminated the employment of those that they believe were involved in terrorist activities.
It’s absolutely unacceptable — not just to us, but it should be, and we believe it is, unacceptable to UNRWA. But UNRWA is still — you know, and, yes, I know, we’re not providing funding to them now because of legislation, but I think it’s important for people to know that there are things that can’t get done without UNRWA’s cooperation and support on the ground.
Q And the government’s position is that those are claims and charges, right? Nothing more than claims and charges?
MR. KIRBY: Well, some of them have been verified because they did their own investigation — UNRWA did — and — and terminated some of those employees. So, clearly, there was something to it.
Q My second question. Hezbollah has been firing thousands of rockets. At what point does that violate the president’s “don’t, don’t, don’t” warning?
MR. KIRBY: We are working, as I said in my opening statement, to try to resolve the differences at and around the blue line. We haven’t seen — although there has been firing back and forth across that blue line and we want to see that stop, we haven’t seen it escalate into an all-out war here nor do we want that to happen, which is why we’re working so hard, diplomatically, to try to find a solution.
One of the things that the prime minister and the president will talk about today is what we need to do — what more do we need to do to stabilize the situation on the blue line so that families, both Lebanese and Israeli, can start to move back to their homes.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Let’s let the admiral go.
Go ahead, Jared. You have the last question.
Q Thank you, Karine. Good afternoon, Admiral. The progress that you cite as it relates to sort of the phase-one hostage and ceasefire deal, does that signal that there has also been progress in the day-after, post-conflict Gaza and sort of what that government looks like?
MR. KIRBY: No, those are two different processes. I mean, we’re — when I’m talking about progress made and gaps that can be closed, I’m talking about the ceasefire deal itself, which, as you know, has mul- — has two phases to it. Phase one gets you six weeks of — of a ceasefire and the return of the most vulnerable — but not all — but the most vulnerable of hostages.
That’s a separate process than what you call “the day after,” which is something, frankly, that Secretary Blinken has been working on since almost the day after October 7th in terms of trying to figure out — with our partners on the ground, including the Israelis, but Arab partners — what does governance look like when the war is over and how are the aspirations of the people of Gaza actually met by a governing body and a governing authority that has an interest in meeting their aspirations for peace and security.
Q How would you characterize that process right now?
MR. KIRBY: It’s ongoing and still a lot of work is being done. I mean, if you want me to give it a, you know, report card, I can’t do that. But I can tell you that Secretary Blinken, Jake Sullivan, the whole team is still very much dedicated to that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you.
Q Hey, John. Pope Francis reiterated his call today for a — an “Olympic truce.” Can you comment on that? Karine, could you?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Karine. Yest- —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Admiral. I forgot to thank him. (Laughs.)
Q And yesterday, you were asked a couple of times about the — the rationale for the president’s decision. You said, “Tune in.” One thing the president did not say was explicitly why he stepped aside. He s- — you know, you talked about how he believed it was in the best int- — interest of the country to step aside, but why did he? Did he believe he was going to lose to Donald Trump?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think that the president actually answered this question.
Q He didn’t.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait — no, no, no. I think the American people think he answered the question. He said, “I revere this office, but I love my country more.” He said, “I draw strength and I enjoy in working for the American people, but this sacred task of perfecting our Union is not about me. It’s about you, our families — your families, your futures. And I’ve decided the best way — the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. That’s the best way to unite our nation.”
He talked about unity. He talked about passing the torch.
“I know there is a time and a place for long years of experience in public life, but there’s also a time and a place for new voices, fresh voices — yes, younger voices. And that time and place is now.”
That is what he said. That is why he laid out why he’s passing the torch, why it’s time to give — give it over to new, fresh voices. And he also talked about unity.
And I would also refer back to his letter where he talked about also wanting to unify his party.
Q Did the president believe that his presence in that race was divisive?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into more than what the president laid out. He talked about unity. He talked about bringing the — the party together. He talked about putting the country first. He talked about passing over the torch, bringing in new voices.
I think he laid out very clearly why he decided to make this decision. And I believe the American people got it. They understood it.
Q If it was clear, I wouldn’t be asking the question, but I’ll — I’ll move on.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think it’s clear.
Q Okay.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I do.
Q So —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think that the American people do.
Q For several weeks, the White House has said — had said multiple times that the president was not going to leave the race. He ultimately did.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q You’ve also said several times that — that the president would not pardon or commute the sentence for his son, Hunter. I just want to make sure that that is not going to change over the next six months. The president is saying —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s still —
Q — he would not —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s still — it’s still a no. It’s still a no.
Q It will always be a no?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s still a no. It will be a no. It — it is a no. And I don’t have anything else to add. Will he pardon his son? No.
Q Thank you.
Q Thank you, Karine. So, picking up on Zeke.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Sure.
Q For such a monumental decision, the president did address why he left the race, but —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, thank you.
Q — but — but he left a lot of it for us to read between the lines. He did not make clear why he’s leaving the race. Even in the excerpts that you bring up —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — he says that, you know, “the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation.” Is he saying it’s because he was too old?
You know, in another one, he said that it was for the sake of democracy. That does not answer why he thought he was in the way of democracy.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean —
Q So —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, go ahead. Sorry.
Q Why did he make this decision?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, a new generation — and he also said the next seten- — sentence was to unite — is also to unite the nation.
Look, the president has talked about this twice — one in a letter that he addressed to the American people on Sunday, laying out a very monumental — to your point, it is. It is a monumental decision that he made, and he thought very long and hard.
He also said that he’s been serving this country as a public servant for more than 50 years. It is not an easy decision to make. He talked about unity. He talked about the next generation. He talked about passing the torch.
I was asked in this room a couple of da- — I don’t know, maybe two weeks ago — all of these days are coming together — that when the president ran in 2020, he talked about passing the torch, he talked about the next generation, he talked about being a bridge to the next generation. And I was asked, “Is that something that the president still wants to do and still cares about?” And I said yes.
And so, this is part of that. Right? This is part of what he said in 2020. He talked about unifying the nation. He talked about unifying the party. And he believed the time was now. The time was now to step down from his reelection and to move — you know, to move ahead with the next six months, the end of his term. And that’s what he decided to do.
Q Before he made the decision, he said that there were three things that could sway him: the Lord Almighty, a medical condition, and if his team showed him that he could not win. So, was it because of the polling?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I could just — I can tell you it’s not a medical — it was not a medical decision, because I’ve been asked before and we answered that very straightforward and in a — in a very direct way. I’m just not going to get beyond that.
Q And then, finally, President Biden spent much of his speech talking about the choice that Americans face in November. Trump’s campaign manager called it a campaign speech. Your response?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: My response that it’s not a campaign speech. I would remind my friends on the other side that the president is no longer a candidate.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Karine. Democrats on Capitol Hill are being handed this card with talking points about the vice president and the border. Do you know who’s handing this out?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have no idea. You probably should ask her campaign.
Q So, the first one says, “Vice President Harris was never appointed border czar. There’s never been such a position. It doesn’t exist.” Why are Democrats so sensitive about the vice president and the border?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Why are Republicans so sensitive about actually not owning up to them getting in the way of a border deal? Why? Why won’t they own up to that? Why won’t they own up to the last president told them not to move forward?
It was a bipartisan deal on — just right there, available to them, and they voted twice against it — twice against it.
Why are they so sensitive to moving forward and actually dealing on an issue that majority of Americans care about — is dealing with what’s going on at the border?
Q Do you think that the border would be less of a talking point now if there was less migration to the border, say, if somebody had addressed root causes of migration —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well —
Q — sooner?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Hold on a second. Did you not hear the beginning of my — it was — I know there were a lot of toppers, but one of the toppers I talked about: what we’re seeing at the border. It’s down by 55 percent. Not because of Republicans in Congress and what they did — it’s because what this president and this vice president did. They s- — they — he moved forward and took actions to deal with what’s going on at the border.
Republicans continue — continue to block getting resources to the Border Patrol agents. They continue to block actually dealing with an immigration system.
So, yes, we are going to debunk the false — the false, you know, characterization of the vice president. She was not a border czar. Are it’s not just us. Independent fact-checkers have said the same thing — that that did not exist and that is not true.
Q And a different topic. Russia and China are teaming up in the skies near Alaska for the first time ever. Are you getting a sense yet, based on everything that’s been going on, that some of America’s enemies might be looking at what’s happening here and think there’s nobody in charge?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just say this. There is very much someone in charge. The president is the president until the end of his term. So, that — that statement is certainly false. And we have seen the president bring together our allies and partners. He reinvigorated NA- — NATO. He got more than 50 countries behind Ukraine to make sure that they were able to defend themselves against Putin. He stood up to Putin. And he’s done a lot more.
And now — right now, as we’re speaking, I believe it’s still happening, the president is having a bilateral conversation, meeting with the — with the prime minister of Israel. So — who, by the way, the prime minister of Israel thanked the president for the work that he’s been — he’s been able to do in helping to make sure that Israel is able to have an ironclad security. Right?
And so, that’s that.
But let me be clear — I want to actually address your — I guess, the basis of your question, outside of saying there’s no leadership.
Our Department of Defense did not see this activity in Alaska air defense identification zone as a threat. North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, continues to monitor PRC and Russian activity near North America. And to meet — to meet presence — and to meet presence with presence, U.S. and Canadian aircraft detected, trackted [tracked], and intercepted the Russian and PRC aircraft.
And, more broadly, the U.S. remains concerned about the PRC and Russian collaboration across all instruments of national power that do not promote global stability and security, not just the — in the Arctic.
But the President, if anything, if you look at his foreign policy objectives and what he’s been able to do and what the last administration did, they — the last administration ruined our relationships with our partners and allies. This president had to fix that and make sure that we — we actually mended our relationship with our partners and allies. And that’s what we’ve been able to do. And a perfect example is what we’re seeing with Ukraine being able to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.
Go ahead.
Q So, yesterday and again today, you insisted that the president didn’t make this decision because of a medical condition. It wasn’t about his health. Yesterday, you said that he could have finished a second term if you — if he won one.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q So, was this decision to step out of the race just a political calculus? He just didn’t think he could beat Trump?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else to add to what the president said himself last night, to what he penned and released to the American people on Sunday. Don’t have anything more to add to that.
He wanted to unite the country. He wanted to pass the torch. He felt after 50 — 50-plus years of public service, the time was to do just that. I don’t have anything else to add.
Q Do you have anything to add on what he teased about proposing reform to the Supreme Court?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So that is something, certainly, that the president would talk to — more about in the ho- — in — you know, in the upcoming weeks, just for so- — folks who may have missed that. He said — last night, he said, “I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy — Supreme Court reform.”
And I answered this question — this part — I said this part of — to a question yesterday. He believes if you are serving in — at the high — in high office, you should be held to a transparency, accountability, and you should be held to a high ethics.
That’s what the president believes. I’m certainly not going to get ahead of the president. And he will have more to share with all of you soon.
Go ahead, Tyler.
Q Just — I know many of my colleagues have asked these questions.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.
Q And just given the historic nature of the announcement and the decision, I think it’s important to get some more transparency. You just said that the president thought long and hard about the decision to exit the race. But also, yesterday, you said that he made a decision on Saturday night. And prior to that, the —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s — that — there’s — there’s — I — you could still think about something long and hard if he started thinking about it on Saturday night and finally made his decision on Sunday.
Q Okay, that doesn’t seem like a long time period.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, that’s — that’s your — that’s your — that’s your assumption.
Q I just wanted to clarify —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But, you know — but that’s your — that — that is your assumption. Not everybody will have that same assumption or thought, right? I mean, it is — it is a decision that he felt that he needed to make and that was — that was — that was the tick-tock of it, if you will.
We were laying out to you how it happened, and that’s how it happened. That’s how the president said it happened.
Q And do you expect the president to address any further his decision-making process? As my colleagues have asked —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — we don’t feel that we have gotten the clarity about how he made this monumental decision. And so, obviously, we’d love an opportunity to ask him questions himself. But barring that, do you think we should expect any more clarity from him?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to — the president is going to make his decision on his own on how much more he wants to share. Obviously, he gave an Oval address and addressed the American people, as he said he was going to do in his letter back on Sunday. And he had a letter on Sunday as well.
Maybe there’s — there’ll be more than he wants to share. We have six months. Certainly, the president enjoys taking all of your questions. He’ll continue to do just that. I don’t have anything to share beyond what you’ve heard from the president on Sunday and his Oval address to the American people last night.
Q And just one last one on sort of the next six months. We just asked Kirby about this. But is there anything you can tell us about how operations at the White House may change, the president’s schedule may change, anything else that reflects — obviously, he has a lot more time now that he’s not going to be a full-time candidate?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean — I mean, you’re right. He has a lot more time. Now he won’t be a candidate. That is true. And the president said he wants to continue his — obviously, as he was doing before, continue and solely focused on being president and what that means and — for the American people and delivering and building on unprecedented successes that he’s been able to get done. Right?
We still have a lot more to do. We still have to make sure there are — I was just asked about the Supreme Court. Right? He mentioned that in his speech. I won’t get ahead of that. That is something that he cares about: the ethics — right? — and transparency, something he wants to make sure that that is addressed.
Again, not going to get ahead of the president. But he gave a little bit of that. He laid out what he’s done for almost four years and making sure we’re building on that, whether it is continuing to lower costs — he talked about that — bringing down inflation, creating good-paying jobs. All of these historic legislation that he was able to get done, they still have to be implemented. Right? Whether it’s the s- — the — the CHIPs and Science Act, whether it’s the infrastructure bill, whether it’s the Inflation Reduction Act, there’s still a lot of work to get done to make sure that we deliver the good things — the good components of those — those now laws to the American people.
Still a lot to get done, he’s focused on it, and we’ll certainly — we will certainly have more to share. As you know, he’s going to be going to Austin on Monday. And so, you know, stay tuned. Stay tuned.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Karine. So, after President Biden said he was going to step aside and endorse Vice President Harris, Democrats quickly coalesced around Vice President Harris. I was wondering if President Biden sought assurances from other leading, you know, Democratic candidates that they would challenge her — that they wouldn’t challenge her?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m not going to get into specifics or behind-the-scenes conversation. I’m just not. And also, that’s kind of on the campaign, the political side. So, going to be careful from here.
Look, I think it’s important that what we saw the first 48 hours — 24 hours, 48 hours after the president decided not to run, the coalescing of support behind the vice president, which is not surprising. She has been a partner — a critical partner to this president in — in everything that we have been able to successfully get done, some historic items that we’ve been able to get done.
She’s been the critical partner to this president. She has four years — almost four years of experience as vice president, also as a senator, also as attorney general. She has an impressive résumé.
And I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: I do not see — and the president obviously did not see anyone else who would be more qualified to step in. And so, it is not surprising that she got the support that she has and continues to get. And the president certainly is going to continue to support her.
Go ahead, Jeff.
Q Thanks, Karine. The president praised Vice President Harris last night in his address as a good partner and a strong leader. Will he have any objections as she starts creating a little bit of distance with him on any policy areas?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, certainly, I can’t speak to how she’s going to move forward with her campaign on policy issues. That’s something that the campaign would have to address directly.
I would say — again, kind of repeating myself but saying this in a little bit different way: The last four years has been very successful policy-wise. They’ve been able to get things done. They’ve been able to turn around the economy.
We have — not to forget — we should not forget what happened when the president and the vice president stepped into their roles. Right? They stepped into the presidency, the admin- — administration. We had a once-in-a-century pandemic that the president turned us around and with the help of the vice president.
You think about the American Rescue Plan, you think about the Inflation Reduction Act, many of these legislation, she played a role in getting it across the aisle. She also presides — right? — in the Senate. Right? She — she really gave us some really important — important votes in getting things done.
So, they’ve been partners in this. You know, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals here about what — how she’s going to move forward with her campaign. But you think about crime, you think about health care, you think about the economy, you think about immigration and the successes that we have seen in those particular areas — and that’s just a few — foreign policy, she’s been in part — a partner of tha- — in that.
Q Sure. And she’ll no doubt have to run on the
record that they have together. But the relationship has changed a little bit. She’s not just a supportive vice president; now she’s also the candidate and — the candidate for the party going forward in the election. So, if she decides to show a little bit more of her own views on Gaza, for example, is the president okay with that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, a hypothetical that I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole in. What I say is that the president respects the vice president. He endorsed her, believing that — as I said, pashing — passing the torch to the next generation of new voices — that she was more than qualified to do the job, more than qualified to step in on day one, as he said himself. I’m just repeating him.
And I think that says volumes, coming from a president who’s been a senator, who’s been a vice president — right? — who knows how this place works, who knows how Congress works. Now, who knows what it’s like to be president of the United States. I think that is — I think, coming from this president, says a lot.
I don’t want to get into hypotheticals here.
They are — pretty much have been a hand in glove, if you will, these past four years on getting things done, on the different policy issues. And I suspect that will continue.
Go ahead, Karen.
Q Thanks, Karine. You mentioned now about what the president said last night about the vice president, but one thing he didn’t do was explicitly tell Americans to vote for her. He said, “Now the choice is up to you, the American people.” Why not use that moment, when he had millions of people tuned in, to say that message flat out?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because he was being mindful. This was an Oval address. This was not a campaign political address. This was an Oval address. And he thought it was important, as he is — he said it: He started off his remarks talking about being at the Resolute Desk, talked about the space and the portraits that were in the room, the busts that were in the room, the importance — the heavy weight of that office. And he believed this was a monumental decision, as many of you have reminded me today, that he made.
And he wanted to take that opportunity to talk through what he’s been able to deliver; to talk about what it meant for him to be president, an honor of a lifetime; and, you know, to lay out what this next six months is going to be. And so, that’s what he wanted to focus on.
There will be many — plenty of times — plenty of times for him to go out on the campaign trail and talk about choices and talk about what it — what’s — what’s at stake. I’m going to be very careful here, but there will be plenty of time to do that.
He didn’t feel like that was — the time to do that was last night.
Q And can you tell us a little bit about the — after the speech?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q We know from some social media posts, we could hear it here —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, yeah.
Q — that the president walked out into the Rose Garden —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — and several hundred staff were out there. But what was that like?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q What did he do afterwards, private time with family? Just tell us how his mood was afterwards.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, it was — look, it was a beautiful, beautiful moment. The president went to the Rose Garden. There were hundreds of staff cheering him on. I’m very proud to have been part of this administration — many of us for — since the beginning of this administration, almost four years.
And he also wanted to appreciate the staff. He knows how hard it’s been — not just the past three and a half years, but certainly the past couple of weeks.
And so, I think it was a very special moment, a very powerful moment for the staff here. I was there, out in the Rose Garden. I got to listen to him speak off the cuff and say thank you and talk about, you know, the work that we have been able to get done — the historic amount of work that we’ve been get- — able to get done and what’s ahead the next six months.
So, yes, there were hundreds of staff here in the Rose Garden. We — some — some of us — I was able to be in the Oval and — and watch the president deliver the remarks. Many of the staffers were able to watch together, here, at the White House in the Residence.
And afterwards, we all came together and cheered on the president and thanked him. And so, I think — and he was able to thank us and appreciate us as well.
Go ahead, Jon.
Q Just following up on that, Karine. What’s the mood of the staff right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think —
Q Is it —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m sorry.
Q No, that’s all right.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sorry.
Q I’m just curious: Is there melancholy? What — what’s — what’s the exact mood right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think it’s a little bit of what I just said to Karen. I think there’s a lot of pride in the work that we’ve been able to get done on — under this leadership of this president. I think that there’s a lot of understanding there’s a lot more work to be done in the next six months. We’re energized.
And, look, I mean, I’m not going to — I’m going to be very honest. It’s been hard. It’s been very hard. You know, when you — when you do these jobs, you believe in the work ahead. You believe in the leadership of the person that you’re working for. This person being Joe Biden.
And so, it was — it has been a tough couple of weeks. But we are so — we are so full of pride of what we’ve been able to get done. And now, there’s six months left.
Q I — I noticed — and maybe I — I misread it —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — but when you had your prepared remarks at the very top, it seemed as if you got a little emotional —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — talking a little bit — no? I missed that? I misread that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, no. I mean, no. I mean it is emo- — I mean, I’ve said it. It’s an emotional moment for everyone, you know, including me. It’s an emotional moment, you know?
This is a — you know, you do these jobs; they don’t — they don’t pay all that well, as you know. (Laughs.) You guys have tough jobs as well. And it takes you away from your family. You don’t sleep as much. (Laughs.) They are, you know, 24/7 jobs, for sure. And you do it because you believe in the work.
Whether you’re — whichever side of the aisle you’re in — right? — I would hope and think that people who do these jobs believe that you’re going to make people’s lives better — right? — or you’re very much connected to the issues that you’re working on. I think that’s important.
So, yes, it’s emotional.
Q Follow on that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s emotional.
Q In the back.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q Thank you. What would the president say to those who have increased their attack on vice president based on the color of his skin, her gender? They’ve been caught using terms like “lunatics.”
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, there’s something I do want to say about that. When you have the lead — the speaker of the House — obviously, he’s a Republican — and this is something that you all have reported — set up a meeting to tell Republican leaders to stop being racist, to stop being misogynist, to stop being sexist, I think that says a lot that they have to be told to not do that.
But, more broadly, I think it’s — I think it’s desperate, I think it’s disgusting, and I think it’s a dog whistle.
And we ha- — we should not forget that she is the vice president of the United States. She’s the vice president of the United States. She should get that respect. She has been doing this job with the president for almost four years. She’s a former senator and has been a critical partner in getting the economy re- — restarted and making sure that — that we deal with the pandemic. And to hear that is frankly disgusting.
Q I have one more question, a follow-up on the — your topper about illegal —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that last part. On —
Q I have one more question to follow up, basically, what you said about the legal immigration system at the top of your remarks.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q There are around 200,000 American kids who came to this country at the age of maybe six months, two years. But they’re all facing deportation as they age out at 21 years of age. Around 40 senators and congressmen wrote a letter to the administration that — coming out with some legal mechanisms so that they can stay in this country, that many of them are doing quite well. What would the president be doing for them?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I — I — certainly, we don’t have any policy announcements to make at this time.
But, again, I talked about the bipartisan agreement that came together from the Senate, where we negotiated a process to help the so-called “documented DREAMers,” and sadly, Republicans, and I’ve said this many times already at this podium today, which is that they voted it down twice. They voted it down twice.
And as I said at the top, you know, we are going to provide protection to more than 500,000 people and keep families together in the U.S. That is something that the president announced back in June, and that is something that we’re going to continue to do.
Look, the way to get — to deal with a broken immigration system is to get legislative process done and move forward. We started that. Republicans voted it down twice. We had a bipartisan option that would have been the toughest and the fairest way to move forward in dealing with the immigration system, something we hadn’t seen in years, and they voted it down twice.
And so, that is how we’re going to move forward is making sure Congress gets done — the work done that they need to.
I know, I think I have to — right?
Go ahead — (laughs) — go ahead, Ed.
Q Thanks — thanks, Karine. Two topics, the —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And, Jenny, I’ll come back.
Q — the economy first, if I could.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.
Q There’s a new CM — CNN poll out that says 39 percent of adults worry most of the time or all of the time that their income will not be enough to meet expenses. Prices are up 19 percent since President Biden and Kamala Harris, the vice president, came into office. How long do Americans have to wait until this worry goes away?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, too many — too many families are still struggling to make ends meet. That is something that the president understands, and that is why he works every single day to make sure that we address these issues for hardworking Americans.
I talked about the historic accomplishments that this president has done. You think about the Inflation Reduction Act, which only Democrats voted for. Insulin is now capped at 35 bucks a month for seniors. The president wants to see that go more broadly. This goes into the question that I was asked, “What else does he want to do?” Continue to lower costs, right?
You think about — you think about what he’s been able to do to get housing assistance for Americans who are having a hard time with rent, with getting a house. And so, he’s — he is — he is — has taken actions to deal with tha- — with that issues that Americans have. We get it. We get it. Over the next six months, that’s what we want to continue to focus on as well.
And we know that Americans, again, have — are — are having a difficult time, but our stance and where we — how we see this country is very clear. Republicans want to give a tax break to corporations — a big tax giveaway to corporations and billionaires. They want to actually go after Social Security and Medicare. That’s not what we believe. That’s not what we want to do. We want to protect those important programs that Americans need.
Q So, if I could, the other topic: Last night, the president kept with the theme of “saving democracy,” alluding to the fact that maybe former President Trump is a threat to democracy. The vice president is using the same language. Is this a dangerous rhetoric?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it is important that we continue to talk about unity. It is. Saving democracy, making sure that we’re unified as a country. And he called on the country to come together. That is something that — that is a — that is a theme that he’s talked about since 2019. Since 2019. Nothing new here.
And I’ll quote, “Keep calling out hate and extremism… make it clear there is no place — no place in America for political violence” — that’s something that the president said last night — “or any violence ever, period. I’m going to keep speaking out to protect our kids and [from] gun violence.” This is something that the president truly believes in. But bringing the country together is a big part of — that is actually the theme. Unity is the theme that you heard from his — his remarks last night.
Go ahead, Jenny.
Q Yeah, but he still — but he still talks about “a threat to democracy.” I mean, there were now three public attempts that were — or threats to the former president that we know of —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — Iran, being of one of them. There was the shooter the other night. So, how many threats are enough to lower the temperature?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The president has called on lowering the temperature. But here’s the thing, Ed, it takes on all of us to lower the temperature. All of us. I hope you can read between the lines of what I mean by “all of us.” It takes all of us to take that action and to lower the temperature.
And I think when you have a president that uses the Oval address to talk about unity not just once — he did it right after — sadly, right after the former president — the attempted assass- — assassination on the former president. He talked about lowering the temperature then, and also talked about really denouncing, condemning political violence and how it has no place in this nation. He talked about it. Used the Oval Office to do just that. And we’ve been condemning political violence for some time.
Go ahead, Jenny.
Q “Passing the torch,” obviously, was the central theme yesterday of — of the address —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Many themes.
Q Okay. One of the central themes.
And you just mentioned his commitment in 2020 to run as a bridge candidate. Two weeks ago, at the NATO press conference, he was asked exactly that: And what changed, why he’s not doing this anymore. He said, “What changed was the gravity of the situation I inherited in terms of the economy, our foreign policy, and domestic division.”
Obviously, since the presser none of these factors have changed, so I think it’s a fair question for all of us to ask you if you can help us understand —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s the thing —
Q — his shift in thinking that —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — no, I’m sorry. Go ahead. No, I’m sorry.
Q Okay.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I’m sorry. Go ahead, Jenny. Go ahead.
Q — made him arrive at this conclusion that passing the torch now is the right time?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And it is a fair question to ask. I don’t have anything else to add to what the president said. I’m not going to get ahead of this president. I’m just not.
He’s — he put out a letter, and he said what he wanted to say about the situation last night.
I’m not going to get ahead of it. I’m not saying it’s not a fair question to ask. I do not have anything more to add than what the president said.
Yes, he talked about passing the torch. He talked about unity. He talked about bringing the country together. That is what he wanted to share to the American people.
If there’s more to say, he certainly — I will leave that to him to say that.
Q And — and then —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else to add.
Q — one other quick thing. Obviously, Kirby just teased that there might be opportunities for trips or legacy engagements in the next six months. Is there anything you have talked to him about, something that he wants to do before he leaves office?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think he’s still thinking through it. You know, I think that — I think that it’s going to be a process. We have a lot of things that we want to get done domestically, in foreign policy space. NSC is thinking through it. The president is thinking through it.
And when we have more to share, we certainly will share that with all of you.
Thanks, everybody.
Q Thanks, Karine.
3:10 P.M. EDT
