September 17, 2024
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
Home
Briefing Room
Press Briefings
2:06 P.M. EDT
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey. Good afternoon, everyone.
Q Good afternoon.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, thank you. All right. Happy Tuesday.
Okay. I have a — I do have a couple things at the top. So, bear with me here.
So, on September 23rd to the 25th, the president will travel to New York City to participate in the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly.
In addition to addressing the General Assembly on Tuesday, the president will meet with world leaders to discuss cooperation in tackling threats to international peace and security, advancing global prosperity, and protecting human rights.
We will have more to share on the president’s engagements as UNGA — at UNGA in the upcoming days.
Yesterday, as you all know, the White House — led by the National Security Council and Office for Pandemic Preparedness and Response — hosted a convening of federal agencies, global and domestic public health partners, advocacy organizations, and community leaders to discuss the escalating mpo- — mpox outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and also elsewhere.
The Biden-Harris administration is diligently working to combat the significant increase of mpox cases in the DRC and ensure our own preparedness and resilience here at home.
We’ve been closely monitoring the spread of mpox in DRC since 2023, working closely with the government of DRC as well as regional and global health partners to reduce the impact of this outbreak and safeguard public health.
Over the past few months, the United States has provided an additional $20 million to support mpox preparedness and response efforts in Central and Eastern Africa, and we are prepared to spend an additional $35 million on the response. We have also been surging vaccines to the response, with 50,000 doses of vaccines arriving in DRC just last week.
The U.S. will continue to be a global leader in the mpox response and bolster domestic preparedness as well.
Today, on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, Senate Democrats will once again put forward a bill to safeguard access to IVF for families across the country.
As you’ll remember, Senate Republicans have blocked this bill multiple times before, refusing to protect access to fertility treatments for women who are desperately trying to get pregnant.
As President Biden has said, the disregard for a woman’s right to make these decisions for herself and her family is outrageous and unacceptable.
Republican officials have had every chance to protect reproductive freedom since the Supreme Court’s extreme decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. And at every turn, they have refused to do so. Instead, their — their dangerous agenda is having devasting consequences for women’s health and lives.
Repubub- — Repubu- — Republican officials think they can message their way out of their support for extreme policies that cut off access to IVF and put women’s health and lives at risk.
But no attempt to rebrand can change the fact that Republican elected officials have spent decades trying to eliminate the constitutional right to choose and undermine reproductive freedom everywhere.
When Roe v. Wade was overturned, Republican elected officials got what they wanted, and they are not going to stop there.
President Biden and Vice President Harris believe that every woman should have the right to make their own decisions and access the care they need, including fertility treatment. And they will continue to fight alongside Democrats in Congress until the protections of Roe v. Wade are restored in federal law for all women in every state. Senate Republicans should truly — they should truly join us.
And today is Voter Registration Day. Without getting into politics from here, we can all recognize the importance of the right to vote and have that vote counted.
Since President Biden came into office, he has worked to protect that right by promoting nonpartisan access to voter registration and making voting more accessible for everyone who is eli- — eligible, from tuden- — students to veterans to Tribal communities.
The president and the vice president believe that to fully secure the right to vote in every state, Congress must take action and pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
We will keep working to make sure Americans can engage in the democratic process and have their voices heard.
No matter who you are or who you vote for, you have to — who you vote for, please go to Vote.gov for more information about registering to vote.
Again, this is about making it — it — this is a nonpartisan effort about making sure that people who are eligible to vote have that right to vote. So, go — please go to Vote.org [Vote.gov].
Okay. With that, Chris.
Q There has been an outbreak of exploding pagers in Lebanon. Does the White House have an understanding of whether Israel is responsible for this attack and any concerns about the escalating conflict in that region?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we have not — we have seen, obviously, the reports. I don’t have more information to — to share, and I’m not going to speculate from here.
Q Also, the president said that he wanted to see the Secret Service get more resources. What is the White House doing to make sure the Secret Service gets more resources? What will those resources look like?
And also, what is the thought on reorganizing the Secret Service to refocus on executive protection?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things you — you asked. So, just want to — as it relates to the CR, as you know, that’s a short-term CR. The Secret Service is working closely with Congress on their needs. And so, there can be many avenues to get there, to get — to make sure that we — that we actually achieve that goal. So, we’re not going to get ahead of those conversations.
As we’re talking about, more broadly, supplemental funding, just want to take a step back and walk through again what the president believes, in your — in your — in your question to me.
The president believes that Secret Service should have every resource, capability available to them, the protective measures available to them to do a mission that is indeed critical. And so, we want to make sure — the president wants to make sure that they have the resources for that.
And just to take a step back. In August, as part of our responsibility to plan for a possible short-term continuing resolution, OMB provided Congress with a list of budget — of budget needs to avoid disruption to government services through the first quarter of the fiscal year.
One of those — one of those requests submitted was for the U.S. — for the Secret Service. It would ensure Secret Service had the ability to execute its, again, critical mission, even during a continuing resolution, including its responsibilities related to the 2024 presidential campaign. Without that particular request in August, that anomaly, the Secret Service would have inefficient resources to sustain and enhance protective operations during the period of the CR.
Separately from that, again, the Secret Service has been in touch with Congress. We believe there are many avenues to get that done. And so, we’re not going to get ahead of those conversations.
But this is something since August that we’ve been talking about. The president has been always very clear: They need more resources — the Secret Service needs more resources. They need more capabilities. The mission that they are indeed doing is critical.
To your question about the change of leadership, the president has confidence in the Secret Service leadership. He commends the Secret Service for their handling of the situation and ensuring that the former president was safe — his safety.
The Secret Service has already announced a review into the incident, into what happened.
And so, as we have said many times, the men and women at the Secret Service have a hard job, a — a tireless, thankful job. And — and we have to remember: They’re protecting the president, they’re protecting former presidents, and many others.
Again, this is a mission that is critical. The president certainly has full confidence in them.
Go ahead, Selina.
Q Thanks, Karine. Donald Trump blamed President Biden and Vice President Harris for the latest assassination attempt against him. He claimed, without evidence, that their rhetoric is causing him to be, quote, “shot at.” How is the White House responding to those comments?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I love that you — you added “without evidence,” because I want to be very clear here: The president and the vice president have always forcefully — forcefully condemned violence in all forms, including political violence. And — and we certainly have never encouraged any violence in any way. If anything, this is a president and a vice president that has been pretty forceful about that.
And, you know, when it comes to differences in — in issues and policies, we believe that there should be a conversation. There was a debate just last week. Right? We — there should be a conversation and a back-and-forth about that, a healthy conversation. And it’s crucial that we do that.
And the president has also said, when it comes to, you know, violent rhetoric, we got to bring the temperature down. You heard that directly from this president. And it is not the time to tear Americans apart — we cannot do that — or divide our country. The president and the vice president is always going to call that out, but they have been very clear, very forceful on condemning any form of political violence.
Q So, do the president and vice president believe that the kind of language that Trump used in those comments I just said are contributing to the tension and divisiveness you just talked about?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s — it is — look, we’re going to be really cear — clear. We always have been. It is important to bring down the temperature — to bring that temperature down of that political, violent rhetoric. We’ve been very clear about that.
And we believe — this president believes — let’s not forget why he decided to run in 2020 was about that, was about making sure that we bring the country together, that we bring people together, and it was not about dividing.
And so, we’re going to continue to be very, very clear about that. We’re going to continue to call that out.
And they did: January 6th. The president and the vice president called that out. When Paul Pelosi was attacked — was attacked because of political rhetoric, violent rhetoric, we called that out. And when the first incident happened a couple weeks ago, at the Butler — after that aftermath, the president called that out as well.
And so, he’s very consistent. He thinks both sides should be very clear about that. It’s not just — it’s not just the president or the vice president. Every leader — national leader or any leader in this country — should be calling out political violen- — and bringing the country together, not dividing it.
Q Just to be clear — just to clarify.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.
Q So, you’re saying that the president and vice president believe that former President Donald Trump should be toning down his rhetoric?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this. President Biden has been clear-eyed about the threat that the former president represents to our democracy. He’s been clear-eyed about that, from his role — let’s not forget, from his role of January 6th, where he refused to accept the outcomes of free and fair elections. Look what happened on that day. Me- — some of you were there at the Capitol. Some of you have colleagues who were there at the Capitol, reported and saw what happened. Two thousand angry people went there to try to overturn a free and fair election.
And so, it’s not going to stop the president and the vice president to call out — to continue to strongly call out. You know, when it comes to protecting our democracy, we have to be forceful about that. We have to be very clear.
We can resolve our differences — right? — via talk, at the ballot box. Right? We can have differences in policies and issues. That is okay. It is important that we have differences there.
But when it comes to political violence, we have to condemn it.
Go ahead, Jeff.
Q Thanks, Karine. A couple follow-ups. Is the White House — is the president concerned about additional escalation in the Middle East after this pager incident with Hezbollah and Israel?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m going to be super thoughtful about this. I’m not going to get into speculation from here.
Q I wasn’t asking you to speculate.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m just not going to go beyond the reports. Just going to be — not going to get into hypotheticals here.
Q Okay. I wasn’t asking a hypothetical.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q I’m asking if the president is concerned about future escalation, which is something he has talked about a lot.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, when it comes — when it comes to the Middle East, that is something that we have spoken to before. We are always, obviously, concerned about that.
This particular incident, I don’t want to get into — speculate about it or get into hypotheticals about it.
You know, when we think about the conflict along the Blue Line between Israel and Hezbollah, it has — it has gone on for way too long — long enough. And so, it is in everyone’s interest to resolve it quickly and diplomatically. So, we contin- — we continue to believe that there is going — this should be a diplomatic resolution to this.
And — and so, I will leave it there. And — well, actually, I’ll add: This is why the ceasefire negotiation is so important. This is why the hostage deal is so important. This is why the president and his administration has been working around the clock, 24 hours, to get that done. We believe the deal would help reduce tensions along the Blue Line, and that is one of the reasons we — again, we believe diplomatic, obviously, efforts are — are critical and important at this time.
As it relet- — relate to that incident, I’m just — I — we’ve seen the reports. I just don’t have anything to say beyond that.
Q On the issue of political rhetoric. Do you have any reaction to Senator Vance’s comments, in which he noted that the difference between — in his view, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that no one has tried to assassinate Vice President Harris?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, again, going to be mindful. Obviously, he’s a candidate. But when you are a national leader and you have a community that looks up to your leadership and you have a job where you’re supposed to make people’s lives better, where you’re supposed to do the thing that is right on behalf — not just the American people but on behalf of this country, people entrust in you to do just that — entrust in you to make decisions that’s going to move this country far- — forward to make it the great country that it is.
And when you have that type of language out there, it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because people look up to that particular national leader, and they listen to you when you are a national leader. And when you make comments like that, all it does is create — or opens an opportunity for people to listen to you and potentially take you very seriously.
And so, it’s dangerous to have that type of rhetoric out there. This is why this president and this vice president has been very clear on condemning any type of political violence, political rhetoric. And that’s why, when the president called the former president, he was — was really relieved that the president was safe.
And the president has said we need to tone that down. We need to tone it down. And it should have no place in our politics. It should have no place in our country. We should not be speaking that way. We should not be saying those things. It is — it is already — we — we are living in a space right now where the political rhetoric is too high, the violent rhetoric is too high.
And we saw what happened on January 6. We saw what happened to — sadly, to Paul Pelosi. And we saw what happened at Butler — the aftermath of Butler and over the weekend. And we got to tone it down. We do.
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Karine. Just one more on the Lebanon situation. Just given that, you know, you and John Kirby, from this podium, have talked about so much that the one thing the U.S. would like to avoid is an escalation in the region — and we’re talking about at least nine people dead, thousands of people injured — I mean, can you give us a sense of whether there have been at least discussions here in the building about concerns that this could be the start of something new?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’ve always said, and we’ve always said, to your question, our concern of escalation in the Middle East — and we’ve talked about — I just went into how it’s important to have those diplomatic conversations and even talked about how enough is enough.
As it relates to this particular report, obviously, we’ve seen the report. I don’t have more information. I don’t want to speculate from here. But we’ve been very clear about the tensions in the Middle East and wanting it to — wanting to make sure that we do everything that we can to lessen the tension there.
Q And can you say whether senior officials were surprised to see this kind of coordinated, widespread —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is: If you’re asking me if the U.S. was involved, no, the U.S. was not involved. If you’re asking me if we were aware of the operation, we were not aware of this incident that hundreds of pagers, as you just mentioned, were going to explode in Lebanon ahead of time. This is not something that we were aware of. And I’m just not going to go beyond that.
Q And just —
Q She referred to it as an “operation.”
Q Sorry?
Q I’m sorry for interrupting.
You referred to it as an “operation.”
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. This incident —
Q Do you mean an Israeli operation?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — in- — I don’t have anything beyond — beyond the — the reports that are out there. I don’t have anything beyond to share.
What I can say is that we were not aware of this incident and of the hundreds of pagers who — that were — that were going to explode in Lebanon ahead of time. That is not something that we were aware of. That’s what I can confirm.
Go ahead.
Q Just in the context of what happened on Sunday with —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — the former president. President Biden said in a radio interview this morning, quote, “Everything is frightening.” Does he feel absolutely confident that he is safe? Does he feel absolutely confident that the vice president is safe when they are out traveling out and about?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, he has full confidence in the Secret Service. He understands the difficulties of the job, the tireless work that the Secret Service — the men and women of Secret Service do every day. And he also says they need more resources to be able to — capabilities, resources to be able to do the job that they’re doing.
It’s not just the president. It’s not just the vice president. It’s also former presidents and much more. And so, that is why we continue to work on Co- — with Congress to get that done.
Q So, wh- — so, when he used the word “frightening,” he was not referring to anything related to his own safety, the vice president’s safety?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, you’re — I have not — I have not spoken to him specifically of what he meant. You’re asking me about his own safety. What I can tell you: He has full confidence in the Secret Service.
I think if you look at the political rhetoric more broadly, which the president has said needs to be — the temperature needs to go down. It needs to go down. You know, you think about, you know, January 6th again; what happened to Paul Pelosi; what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania; what happened over the weekend — yeah, we need to turn it down.
It is frightening for — for everyone, for Americans, to see that. And so, we need to — we need to lower those types of — that temperature, lower that type of political violent. It has no place — no place in politics and, certainly, in this country.
Q Karine —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hold — hold on one second.
Go ahead, Nancy.
Q Thanks, Karine. I want to follow up on that, because Senator Vance appeared to call out specifically one of the phrases that you used earlier, which was “threat to democracy.” He said, “We cannot tell the American people that one candidate is a fascist and, if he’s elected, that it’s going to be the end of American democracy.”
Now, I recognize that Donald Trump has also used those phrases — “threat to democracy,” “danger to democracy” — but in light of what has happened and in light of the fact that there are going to be disturbed people who take words like “threat” or “danger” literally, is the president and is the vice president considering avoiding those specific terms: “threat to democracy” or “danger to democracy”?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look — and I answered this question. The president has always been very clear-eyed about this — about the threat of — the former president represents to our democracy. Just think about January 6th. January 6th. We have to be honest with the American people when we see those types of threats, when we see that type of rhetoric that led to 2,000 people going to the Capitol. We have to call that out.
And, look, let me step back for a second even further. You all, as news organizations, have the obligation — right? — you are all obligated to cover events like January 6th. As I mentioned before, some of your colleagues were there, some of you were there on January 6th, and you had to report that the way you saw it — the obligation to do that. And we appreciate it, because I know those were dangerous tim- — that was a dangerous day to be there.
And, you know, we have to call out any type of refusal of an outcome of an election, any type of violent rhetoric. And this administration has the responsibility to be honest to the American people.
So, look, we are — we can, as a country — right? — we can have disagreements on issues — on policy issues. It is okay to have that conversation. We had a debate, just as — as I mentioned recently. It is — it is — that is what’s beautiful about what we do — right? — to go back and forth to — about our democracy.
But once you t- — once there’s violent rhetoric, we got to condemn that. And, you know, the president is going to encourage all leaders from both parties to do so — all leaders from both parties to do so. It’s not just on one — all leaders on both parties have to make sure that we do not — we do not use that type of violent political rhetoric. Because look what happened: January 6th, Paul Pelosi, Butler, over the weekend. We got to be mindful.
Go ahead, April.
Q Karine, you just —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry, April —
Q I just — I —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — I think she had more.
Q Sorry, I just had a follow-up on —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sorry. Sorry.
Q — on another topic.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I apologize.
Q No problem.
So, this is a question about the Secret Service. And I’m wondering if the president believes that at least until
the Secret Service can — can get the resources that he says that it needs, does he believe that both presidential candidates should be avoiding unscheduled movements, particularly in open-air locations, like a golf course, that are very difficult to secure when the Secret Service and law enforcement don’t have a lot of advance notice?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, that — that is for the Secret Service to speak to. I can’t — I can’t speak to their protocol and how they do their business. Tha- — they are the prof- — professionals. So, that is for them to decide on.
I will — I will speak to what the acting Secret Service director said — Rowe — he said this — said yesterday, as it relates to, basically, the former president’s protection — and I think this is important: In the aftermath of July 13th, President Biden made it clear that former President Trump should have the highest level of protection offered by the Secret Service. And the president has repeatedly said that the Secret Service should have every resource, capability in order to do their job, which is mission cri- — critical. And since July 13th, the Secret Service has greatly enhanced the security footprint for the former president.
And so, that is something that they have said they have done. That is something that the president wanted to see be to done — to be done. And so, anything about their protocol, how they move about, how they make decisions, to your question, that is something for them to speak to.
Q Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s it? Okay. Sor- — I’m sorry about that answer earlier.
Q No problem.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, April.
Q Karine, going back to one of your — to an answer that you gave to someone about lowering the temperature when it comes to this divisive rhetoric. It’s not just about presidential
division. It’s also about lowering the temperature, do you think, when it comes to the Haitian community? Because this debunked narrative from President Trump and J.D. Vance has now created a problem in Ohio. It’s also created a problem for not just the Haitian immi- — migrants but also others.
Could you talk to me about this? And what is the White House planning to do, if they’re planning to do anything, to change that narrative and to quell all of this upset and this,
I guess, excitement over this?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, I mean, we have been very clear. The president has been very clear in the past couple of days, speaking to this directly himself — what we’ve seen in Springfield, Ohio — the hateful and dangerous conspiracy theories that we’ve heard from political leaders, and they’ve been pushing this over and over again.
But I also want to say that you’ve also heard from other Republicans — like the governor of Ohio, like the mayor of Springfield — who have said — who have debunked this and have been very clear that this is not true, what we’re hearing — the hateful smears — and have called it out. And we heard it from the local police department as well in Ohio.
And, you know, as I — I said, the president said last week: This needs to stop. He spoke about it yesterday when he was at the HBCU event in Philly. And he’s going to continue to do so. It is undignified and insulting to all of us as Americans — undignified and insulting to spread these types of filth. It is filth. It is dangerous. It puts us less safe. And, you know, it’s dangerous and it’s disruptive and it’s fearful.
Q So, when you say “it’s undignified” and the other words that you used — but you also said “dangerous.” How dangerous is this?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: When communities feel unsafe because these type of hateful smears, these conspiracy theor- — theories are being spread about them; when schools are being shut down, hospitals, the community in Springfield, Ohio, it puts them in danger. It does, and we’ve seen it.
And leaders should not be pulling us apart. They should not be pulling communities apart. They should be bringing them together in shared values. That’s what the president believes.
Q And my next-to-last question. We’re watching the news and seeing what’s happening to Sean “Diddy” Combs. With that said, he has been very political in the past. He has endorsed candidates. He has said to vote. He has said not to vote. And now this: what we see last night and today.
What does this say to the American voting public as we look to these celebrities for endorsements? And I say that in light of one of the most — the largest endorsement that this administration has received so far from people like Taylor Swift, people in the entertainment industry. What does this say to the American voter? Does a celebrity have weight, that kind of weight?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I — I’m not going to get into the politics of today and what an endorsement means. I — it — it’s not for me to do from here. I think, as you speak of Taylor Swift and other endorsements by entertainers, that is something, I think, the campaign could speak to directly.
I did at the top talk about how — and want to do this without getting into politics, right? — about today being Voter Registration Day and the importance that this — this administration has put towards that — and also lifting up, making sure that legislation — the John Lewis legislation gets passed through in Congress. We want to make sure that voting is more accessible for everyone that is eligible — everyone that is el- — eligible. That’s from students to veterans and to Tribal communities. It is important that voting is — is made eligible for — is made possible for folks who are eligible.
I’m not going to — to get into entertainers and what that means for the American public, especially as we’re in the middle of a — of an election cycle. But vo- — voting, as you know, is a sacred right. And I think we believe people should have to — the — the ability to exercise that right to vote, whoever they choose to vote for.
Q So, understanding his — Diddy’s past dabbles in politics and understanding what’s happening today, if true, does this administration condemn Diddy for what he’s done?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it’s an ongoing — ongoing situation, legal matter. I would have to refer you to Department of Justice. Everything, kind of, is happening today. And so, I’m just — we just don’t comment on ongoing legal matter. I’m not going to do that from here. So, I’m going to leave it there.
Go ahead, Anita.
Q Thank you so much. I have a quick Iran question, then a longer domestic question.
Just starting with Iran. Their new president said that he is willing to have talks with the United States. He did give some conditions. And he also said he’s willing to talk again about the nuclear program. Is the White House willing to play ball here?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we have long said — and I kind of said this in the beginning — that we view d- — diplomacy as the best way to achieve an effective, long-term solution when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. That is something that we have been pretty consistent about in the past three and a half years. And we believe that being — having those diplomatic conversation when we talk about our relationships across the globe is so critical.
However — however, we are far and away from anything like that right now. And so, we will judge Iran on their actions, not their words. Always been clear about that as well. And if Iran wants to demonstrate seriousness or a new approach, they should stop their nuclear and regional escalations.
Q And then, on domestic matters. First of all, have any figures from Ohio asked the administration for any help or assistance to safeguard the — the vulnerable communities there? Is this something you’re considering?
And then, secondly, just zooming out, looking at the world and looking at your use of the word “dangerous” so many times today. What sort of message is the combination of these threats against the life of the candidate and all of this rhetoric — what message is this sending to American adversaries about the strength and the power of democracy? What would you say to them about that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, two different things. You’re asking about Springfield, Ohio. And I — I said this last week, and I’ll repeat it here: First of all, we’ve got to condemn any type of hateful smears and conspiracy theories. And when you do things like that, it does make people feel less safe. It does make communities feel less safe and it’s hateful.
And you’ve heard from the mayor of Springfield. You’ve heard from the governor of Ohio saying this is not true. And these are two Republicans who are saying this is not true.
And we’ve seen — we’ve seen what that has done to the Haitian in — in this instance, the Haitian population. And it is not right. It is not okay.
Q (Inaudible) to them?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Going to get to your question.
So, since day one, the president has always wanted to make sure that communities across the country have the support they need, as we talk about migrants coming into — into their community and wanting to make sure that they have the help and the resources available to them.
And so, over the past two years, we have provided over $130 million to help communities across Ohio hosting recently arrived migrants, including Springfield. And since the — since this past spring, back in April, DHS has been directly engaged with the city of Springfield and local officials to make sure they have the support they need.
But, again, this goes back to something that we talk about all the time from here, which is the bipartisan border deal. It is — it is critical and important to continue to move forward with that. Republicans got in the way because of what the former president said: Do not do this; do not move this forward. They put politics over doing the right thing for the American people.
And so, we’re — certainly want to see this move forward, but they’ve gotten in the way in getting the needed assistance, a continued assistance when it comes to migrant resources in — in these types of cities.
Q Cool. And then, the world is watching. Is democracy dangerous?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, we are always going to condemn any form of political violence. That’s something that we’ve always been very clear about, whether it’s here or abroad. And I will quote what the president said when he was at the McCain Institute just last year: “Democracy means rejecting and repudiating political violence. Regardless of party, such as violence is never, never, never acceptable in America.”
Those are values he and the vice president have always stood for at home and in the world, opposing political violence at every turn and encourage all leaders to do the same.
So, we’re going to be very clear about that. We’ve been consistent. It’s not just here, domestically. We’re going to continue to condemn political violence abroad, as well as — as we — as here. And that is what the president and the vice president has done for almost four years.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Karine. A couple of questions about Brazil and then Venezuela.
Today, the president had a briefing on the wildfires in California and Oregon. I wonder if he’s watching what’s happening in Brazil. Brazil is also on fire. The Amazon is on fire. Many parts of Brazil are having record-breaking wildfires. Is the U.S. working with Brazil to help with the situation and help to mitigate the problem in the future?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Obviously, our hearts go out to — to what we’re seeing in Brazil with the wirefi- — wildfires, and we certainly are here to — to assist. We are in contact with the Brazilian government and are connecting experts in both governments. So, we’re assisting in ways that we can.
Anything further, certainly, I would refer you to the State Department and USAID. But our hearts go out to the folks in Brazil who are directly affected by the wildfires.
Q On X. Twitter has been banned in Brazil for almost 20 days now. What is the White House view or position on this matter?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that again.
Q X, a social media.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Uh-huh.
Q Elon Musk’s social media is banned in Brazil. It’s 20 days now that it doesn’t work in Brazil anymore. It was a dispute with a judge from the supreme court, and now it’s banned for 20 days. What is the position of the — the U.S. government on this matter?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think when it comes to social media, we have been very clear that we think that, you know, folks should have access to social media. It’s a form of freedom — freedom of speech. And certainly, that is something more broadly that we have always — have been very clear about.
And so, I just don’t have anything beyond that to share.
Q And just a — a follow-up from a colleague —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — about Venezuela.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.
Q So, does the White House view the detention of three Americans and two Spanish — Spanish in Venezuela who are accused of attempting to assassinate Maduro as a potential retaliation for U.S. sanctions and Spain’s decision to welcome Edmundo González?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, that is categorically false. It is not true, and U.S. involvement in a plot to overthrow Maduro is, again, categorically false.
This is just another attempt by Maduro to distract from the July 28th election results. The United States continue to support a democratic — a democratic way forward in Venezuela. And so, we are closely, as we have been, monitoring the situation. And due to privacy consideration, we have, certainly, no further comments from here.
Go ahead.
Q Karine, regarding the exploding pagers in Lebanon. Forgive me, if I missed it. Did you say if the president had been briefed on the incident?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have not spoken to the president, so I can’t speak to that. That is — I can go back and make sure that NSC was able to do this. My — my guess is he’s aware and he’s been briefed, but I haven’t directly spoken to the president about that.
Q Okay. Regard- — regarding the phone call between President Biden and former President Trump. How long did it last?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to go beyond what we — what we read out. The president called the former president and was relieved that he was safe, and — and the former president certainly appreciated the call. I just don’t have anything further beyond that.
He expre- — he expressed his thank — his — his — he was thankful for the — President Biden to call — in calling him to check in on him. I just don’t have any- — anything beyond that.
Q And down in Florida, the governor there, Ron DeSantis, said he doesn’t think it’s in the best interest of the state or the nation that the same federal agency seeking to prosecute Trump also handle the alleged assassination attempt against him. What’s the White House view on that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say —
Q He o- — he opened a — he wants to open a state investigation into the alleged assassination attempt, and he says that the feds should not be investiga- — or it’s not in the interest of the nation for the feds to investigate that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the president has complete confidence in the Secret Service. I’ve said this multiple times at this point. There is a investigation happening. We’re going to let that process move forward.
And I think until that happens, I don’t think anybody should comment on that.
Q And finally, you said that the president is heading to UNGA. Is the vice president going as well?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right now, the vice president is not planning to — to participate in the U.N. General Assembly-related events. As in the past, it is possible she meets with foreign — foreign leaders here in Washington, D.C., next week. But I don’t have anything to announce — further to announce on her.
Q Is that a conscious decision — sort of like there’s only one president at a time type thing?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. No. I would- — I wouldn’t read it that way. I wouldn’t read it that way. Appreciate the question, though.
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Karine. Staying on UNGA. The president will be delivering his final address as president before that body next week. Could you talk a little bit about what the message is that he wants to deliver about his leadership over the last four years, particularly with the fact that the wars in Ukraine as well as Gaza are still unresolved and his predecessor has repeatedly claimed that neither of those conflicts would have happened if he were still president?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you can appreciate, Francesca, I’m not going to get ahead of the president. He’s going to speak for himself. He’s going to lay out what his thoughts are when we see him deliver his address to the Assembly next week. And so, I’m going to not get ahead of the president. And I’m just going — I’m just going to leave it there for now.
Q And on the issue of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The German chancellor said last week that — that talks needed to speed up and that — at the next peace conference, that Russia should be at the table. Is it the White House’s view that the next peace talks need to take place before November?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I’ve always been clear and we’ve always been clear: Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. So, this is something, obviously, when it relate- — when — as it relates to that, certainly Ukraine has to be involved and — and be — and make sure that they’re at the table. I cannot speak to any — anything further beyond the next peace talks.
But I will say, as I’ve said many times before, as my colleagues have said many times before, this can end today. The war in Ukraine that Russia started — Russia’s aggression — could end today. It could end today. This is Mr. Putin’s war. He started this war, and he can stop it by moving his troops out, by ending the war on a sovereign territory, on a democracy. He can end this. And so, I’ll just leave it there.
Go ahead, Danny.
Q Thanks, Karine. Just going back to Lebanon. A few hours before these pagers exploded, Israel said that it was expanding the aims of its war against Hamas to focus on Hezbollah along the northern border with — with Lebanon. Do you have any indications that this incident may have been a kind of prelude to some kind of major Israeli operation?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to speculate from here. Like I said, we’ve seen the reports. I just don’t have any more information, and I’m just not going to speculate.
Q And very quickly. The other day, President Biden gave the thumbs up when I asked him if he was going to be traveling to Angola, as our friends at Reuters reported.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)
Q Do you have any more details on that? Can you confirm any details of his travels?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you asked the questions and your friends at Reuters reported it? Is that what you’re saying? (Laughs.)
Q No, I wish it was that way. (Laughter.)
No, it was Reuters’ reporting, I do — I do have to admit, so —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have anything. We don’t have anything at this time to share on any travel for the president. So, I’ll just leave it there.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Karine. It’s been only two days since somebody allegedly tried to kill Donald Trump again, and you’re here at the podium in the White House Briefing Room calling him a “threat.” How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president and the vice president and you pick a different word to describe Trump other than “threat”?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Peter, if anything from this administration, I actually completely disagree with the premise of your question.
The question that you’re asking, it is also incredibly dangerous in the way that you’re asking it, because American people are watching. And to say that — to say that from a administration who has consistently condemned political violence; from an administration where the president called the former president and was thankful, grateful that he was okay; from an administration who has called out January 6th, called out the attack of Paul Pelosi, called out and said we need to lower the temperature after the Butler incident — and now for you to make that kind of comment in your question — because it — your question involved a comment and a statement — and, you know, it is — that is also incredibly dangerous when we have been very clear in — in condemning political violence from here.
What I have said about the president — the former president about January 6th is facts that you all have reported. It is fact when you have a former president who basically says that the election wasn’t — the — the results of the election were not the results of the election, when dozens — dozens of — more than 60 Republican judges said that it was a free and fair election. Six- — more than 60 said it was indeed a free and fair election.
You had more than 2,000 people who were told to go to the Capitol. It was one of the darkest days of our democracy. One of the darkest days. There were people who — law enforcement officers who died because of what happened at the Capitol. And they were there because the former president told them to go there.
I mean, I don’t know if that’s not — if that’s not a threat on our democracy when it was one of the darkest days of our democracy — January 6th, one of the darkest days —
Q To your point —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, we — we have been very clear from here.
Now, we can have a disagreement on policies — we can — on issues. That is what we should do. It is important to have those disagreements. It is welcome to have those dica- — disagreements on the economy, on health care, on foreign policy. But when you start bringing political rhetoric — political rhetoric — that is not okay, and that’s what you’ve heard from us too. You’ve heard our differences on policies.
Q But to your point, there are people watching at home who might miss the part where you say, “Let’s lower the temperature,” and they’re just — there are mentally unstable people who are attempting to kill political candidates, attempting to kill Donald Trump, and they are still hearing this White House —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We have — we have —
Q — refer to him as a threat.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We have —
Q Is there no concern that —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We —
Q — people are taking that —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We have —
Q — literally?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re using examples. We’re not just saying that just to say it. January 6th, Peter. January 6th.
Wait — January 6th — how many times do I have to — January 6th, 2021. That is a — that is a fact, what was reported that happened on that day by some of your colleagues.
I mean — and we have, at the same time, denounced political violence over and over — political rhetoric over and over again — over and over again.
But I know your focus has to be on this side of the house. It can’t be on your side of the house. I get that. I get that. But we also have to be careful on how you’re asking me these questions.
People are watching. And is — what you are saying about us raising political violent rhetoric, whatever — however you just formulated it is — this is an administration that has denounced and condemned any type of political rhetoric or violence.
It is the reason why this president decided to run in 2020. That is why the president decided to come back. He believed that it is important to save the soul of America, of our nation. And he believed it was important that we f- — continue to fight for our democracy, fight for our freedom. That’s what you see from this administration.
I’m moving on.
Go ahead. Go ahead, Ed.
Q Yeah, I’m going to ask you about overtime. (Laughs.) So, d- — does the president and vice president support no taxes on overtime for workers?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, just a couple — a couple of things on — on that. Look, the president and this vice president has been pretty consistent on making sure that we continue to lower costs for Americans but also, at the same time, make sure that we’re increasing wages. And that’s what we have seen.
Again, the question that you’re asking me is supporting overtime pay. This is something — a proposal from — in the 2024 election, so I’m going to be really, really mindful. But we also can’t forget what the last administration did. They eliminated overtime protections for millions of workers. The Biden-Harris administration restored overtime protections to 1 million workers. And next year, we will extend protections to another 3 million workers.
That means our administration is ensuring higher paychecks and more time with family for millions of Americans after the last administration took that away.
And so, we cannot — we cannot forget that: what this administration has done and what — versus what the last administration has done.
Q So, from 20- — January 2021 to now, overall prices are up 20 percent, food at home is up 21 percent, electricity is up about 28 percent, and the list goes on. Does the president believe that Americans are better off now than they were four years ago?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. And I understand what you’re asking me. I get it. We — there’s still a lot more work to be done, and we’ve always said that. That’s why the president is always — and the vice president are always continuing to try to figure out how do we lower those costs.
And we cannot forget what happened four years ago. We cannot forget what this president and this vice president walked into, what — what they inherited from the previous administration. And so, it was an economy that was a free-for-all. There was a once-in-a- — once-in-a-century pandemic. We — there was no comprehensive plan to deal with that pandemic.
The president and Democrats in Congress passed the American Rescue Plan: shots in arms, money in pockets. And also, when we took over, you know, the last year of the former administration, violence, murder was at an all-time high. And we have been able to bring down violent crime at a 50- — it’s at a 50-year low.
And so, we’re able to negotiate lower drug prices. We are beating Big Pharma — something that former presidents, elected officials have been trying to do for some time.
And so, while we’re — still have a lot more work to do, we do believe — four years ago there was a pandemic. Pandemic. People were dying. Thousands of people were dying. There was no plan. Our economy was literally in a downfall.
Q So, one — one more, if I might. October 1st, if the dockworkers don’t get a contract, there could be a strike. Is the president, do you know, going to invoke the federal law to avoid or to block a strike?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. I’m not going to get hypotheticals from here.
All right. Thanks, everybody. I’ll see you tomorrow.
Q Thank you.
2:57 P.M. EDT
No comments:
Post a Comment