October 15, 2024 On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby Press Briefings Via Teleconference

 

October 15, 2024

On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby

Press Briefings

Via Teleconference

1:47 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  As always, sorry we’re a little bit late.  Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get through as many questions as we can. 

MR. KIRBY:  Hey.  Good afternoon, everybody. 

So, just real quick on Moldova, if you’ll indulge me.  In recent months, the U.S. government, Moldovan President Sandu, the Moldovan security services, and other allies and partners have warned that Russia is seeking to undermine Moldovan democratic institutions in the lead-up to the presidential election and referendum on Moldova’s EU membership. 

Now, with Moldova’s election just days away, we remain confident in our earlier assessment that Russia is working actively to undermine Moldova’s election and its European integration. 

Today, I’m here to reaffirm that the United States and its allies stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all Moldovans in their efforts to uphold the integrity and the security of their elections.  The U.S. government and the government of Moldova have worked hand-in-hand to expose Russian influence efforts and sanction those involved.

Since September, when we last spoke publicly about Russian efforts to undermine Moldova’s election, we have become aware that Russia is spending millions of dollars to support its preferred candidates.  In fact, in the last several months, Moscow has dedicated millions of dollars to influencing Moldova’s presidential election.  We assess that this money has gone toward financing its preferred parties and spreading disinformation on social media in favor of their campaigns.  The Russian state has authorized this effort to spend significant sums of money to influence the election. 

Additionally, known Russian influence actor Ilan Shor has invested tens of millions of dollars per month into non-profit organizations that spread narratives about the election that are in line with Russian interests.  These nonprofits have promoted pro-Russian content on traditional media, on local websites, and, of course, through social media applications as well.

As we’ve said before, we continue to have full confidence in Moldova’s ability to manage these foreign influence threats.  We are taking a range of measures to support those efforts.  We have shared the information outlined above with our Moldovan partners, of course, so that they can further investigate, further attempt to thwart and disrupt Russia’s plans, and, again, preserve their democratic institutions. 

Since Moldova’s 2021 elections, the United States has used its sanction authority to target Russia’s malign influence campaigns in Moldova. 

In 2022, Treasury designated Mr. Shor and his network of cronies, Russian businessman Igor Chayka and his Russian enablers. 

In 2023, Treasury imposed additional sanctions on seven leading members of a Russian intelligence-linked project. 

Most recently, in September 2024, the United States imposed sanctions on other entities and individuals for attempting to influence the Moldovan election.  So that’s just last month.

Our allies have implemented sanctions as well to support Moldova.  The United States has partnered with the Moldovan government, private companies, and others to offer critical expertise and technical assistance to bolster Moldova’s cybersecurity across the government, across critical infrastructure, and, of course, through independent media. 

So, look, our message today is very clear: The United States will continue to support Moldova and the Moldovan people, and to expose and counter Russian efforts to undermine Moldovan democracy. 

With that, we can take some questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Aamer with the AP. 

Q    Hey.  Thank you both.  It’s nice to hear you back, John.  I hope your family and loved ones in South Florida are doing okay. 

I wanted to ask you about Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken’s letter calling for the potential reassessment of military assistance to Israel if food and other aid to Gaza is not increased within a month.  Can you talk about why they saw the need to send this letter now?  And what does it say, that this had to be put into a letter form, about the relationship?  And can you explain the rationale in also giving Israel 30 days before facing potential consequences?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, thanks, Aamer.  And thanks for the kind words.  I appreciate that very much. 

So, look, I can confirm that Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken co-signed the letter you’re talking about, and it was sent to their Israeli counterparts. 

I would note that the Biden-Harris administration made a similar request for concrete measures with respect to humanitarian assistance back in April through a similar form, a letter.  And that letter did receive a constructive response from the Israelis. 

This particular letter that we’re talking about now follows a relatively recent decrease in humanitarian assistance reaching the people of Gaza, which is obviously something we’ve been very, very concerned about since the beginning of the conflict and through which we aim to try to get more concrete measures in place to increase that humanitarian assistance. 

So the question on why and when: Again, because there’s been a decrease in humanitarian assistance and it matters to us is the “why.”  When?  Why now?  Because, again, tied to a recent decrease.  But it’s not like we haven’t communicated these concerns in writing before to the Israelis.  We have.  And, you know, we’ll continue to stay on this very, very important topic.

As for the 30 days, I would refer you to the State Department to speak to the timeframe itself.  I really don’t have a good answer on why it’s exactly 30 days.  The only thing I would address with respect to that particular question is just the sense of urgency that we all have here about the desperate need of the people of Gaza for this humanitarian assistance.  So, when we take the step of talking to our Israeli counterparts orally or in writing about this, there’s obviously a deep sense of urgency about it.  But why 30 days in particular?  I’d have to refer you to State.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Trevor with Reuters.

Q    Hey, thanks for doing this, John.  Really appreciate it.  Just one more on the letter.  Could you talk about whether the President was aware of the letter and signed off on it?

And then, on India, could you talk a little bit about what intelligence the United States has about whether the Modi government has been involved in these extrajudicial killings and assassination attempts?  And what concerns are there about Sikhs being targeted on U.S. soil at this point?

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Trevor.  On the first question, the President has been very consistent in expressing our concerns to the Israelis about humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza, and certainly he’s mindful of our efforts to communicate those concerns to the Israelis, whether that communication is, as I said, done orally or in writing. 

So this is not an issue, this is not an effort, this is not an initiative that the President was at all surprised by.  It’s very much in keeping with the communications that he has had with Prime Minister Netanyahu and we’ve all had across the government with the Israelis.

On your second question, I would just say a couple of things.  One, the Indians have an inquiry committee that is looking into these issues.  That committee is visiting here in the United States today to deal with the U.S. case specifically.  I can’t speak to the case in Canada, and I wouldn’t speak for the Canadians one way or another. 

But we have expressed our deep concerns about this to our Indian counterparts.  They have expressed to us that they are taking it seriously.  The fact that they sent an inquiry committee here I think demonstrates that they are taking this seriously.  It is something they absolutely need to take seriously. 

But beyond that, I really can’t say much given that it’s an ongoing case, and the Justice Department is really the best place to go for that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to MJ with CNN.

Q    Hey, John.  Thank you.  Two Israel questions for you.  First, in terms of both the potential timing and the contours of Israel’s retaliation against Iran, is Israel sensitive to the upcoming U.S. presidential election?  You know, have they indicated to U.S. officials in any way that they would not want whatever actions they take to affect the politics here?

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, MJ.  I’m going to let the Israelis speak to any prospective operations they may or may not conduct, and therefore would let them speak to, you know, issues of timing, scope, scale, size, that kind of thing.  That’s not really for me to get into. 

And as for their decision-making process and whether and to what degree it’s tied to our election cycle here, again, I wouldn’t be qualified to speak to that one way or another. 

Again, whether and to what degree Israel conducts any kind of response is really for them to speak to and not us, and we need to be very circumspect about not inserting ourselves into that kind of operational decision-making by the Israelis. 

Q    Okay.  My second question was on the decision to deploy a THAAD system, along with U.S. personnel, to Israel.  Was that a direct —

MODERATOR:  Sorry, MJ, you got cut off there.  Do you want to try again?

Q    Hi.  Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yeah. 

Q    I don’t know if you heard the first part of my question, but just the decision to deploy a THAAD system to Israel.  I was asking whether that was a direct result of certain assurances that the Prime Minister offered to the President about how Israel would conduct itself going forward, whether it’s related to Iran or otherwise.  Did that come from the conversation that they most recently had last week?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, you know, we issued a readout of that

conversation, and I’m not going to go beyond that one way or another.  We’re not going to get into the details of the specific back-and-forth beyond what we issued in a readout.  So that’s sort of point one.

And point two that I think is really critical to make is that it’s not the first time that a THAAD has been deployed into the region.  We deployed one after the October 7th attacks in the region specifically. 

It’s also not the first time that a THAAD has gone to Israel.  I mean, back in 2019, we sent one there for some training and exercise purposes.  So that’s — it’s not a completely unprecedented move.

But the main point I want to make is that it is very much in keeping with our commitment to help Israel defend itself.  It’s commensurate with putting fighter jets in the air to knock out drones and missiles.  It’s commensurate with deploying guided missile destroyers that are ballistic missile defense capable in and around the waters off of Israel.  So it’s very much in keeping with the President’s strong desire that, from an air defense perspective, our ally has what they need to defend themselves against clearly a very real, present, viable threat by Iran and its proxies.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Weijia with CBS.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  And thank you, Admiral.  So, days before that conversation between the President and the Prime Minister, President Biden told us that they would speak after Israel made a decision about how to respond.  So, during that phone call, did Netanyahu brief President Biden on his intentions with how to respond?  And did the President offer any guidance with regard to how to respond?  For example, not to attack nuclear sites or oil refineries, et cetera.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I do appreciate the question, and it’s similar to MJ’s, and I hope you’ll appreciate that I’m simply not going to get into the specific back-and-forth between the Prime Minister and the President.  We issued a readout, and I’m not going to go beyond that, and certainly not going to detail operational discussions one way or another. 

Q    Okay —

MR. KIRBY:  If, when, how — wait a second.  If, when, and how Israel decides to conduct some kind of counterstrike, that’s going to have to be for them to speak to: how they do it, if they do it, when and in what manner they do it.  That’s not something that we’re going to speak to here.  And we’re certainly not going to get ahead of any of that operational decision-making and characterize it publicly. 

The President and the Prime Minister had, as they have had since the beginning of this conflict, another constructive but very candid conversation, and we stand by the need for Israel to defend itself.  They live in a tough neighborhood.  Got very viable threats against them; we saw that on the 1st of October.  They absolutely have a right and responsibility to defend themselves.  And they need to know, as I think they do, that the United States will continue to do what we can to help them — help them in that regard. 

Q    Thank you.  And just because we haven’t had a chance to talk to you since the report came out, have you ever heard the President characterize Prime Minister Netanyahu with flowery language that was reported by Bob Woodward?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the details that — you know, that are written about in the book.  I would just tell you, as I’ve said many, many times before, these are two guys that know each other very, very well, going on four decades now.  They are able to be very frank and forthright with one another.  And they, frankly, I think, appreciate the fact that they can speak plainly to one another.  I’d leave it at that. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to David with the New York Times.

Q    Thanks, John, and hope that all is well in your house in Florida.

There have been a lot of reports lately, most of them coming from the Ukrainians, a little bit from the South Koreans, both of whom are (inaudible) interested in this, about North Korean troops who are being used by the Russians in the war in Ukraine.  Should be a significant change in the North Korean approach to this.  Do you have any independent confirmation that, in fact, the North Koreans have moved from just being a supplier of missiles and other weaponry to a supplier of actual troops?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, David — no, we cannot independently confirm those reports.  That said, those reports are concerning to us.  This idea of North Korean soldiers fighting on behalf of Russia, we believe, if true, would mark a significant increase in the DPRK and the Russia defense relationship, a relationship I would remind that we’ve been talking about now for many months as burgeoning and growing and deepening.  And this, if true, would represent a significant deepening of that relationship. 

It would also, if true, David, indicate what I think can only be classified as a new level of desperation by Putin as he continues to try to make progress in Ukraine. 

And I think it’s — you know, again, I’m not confirming the reporting, but I think it’s important to put it in some context.  I mean, if it’s true, it’s coming at a time when Russia continues to suffer extraordinary — in fact, I’d go so far as to say historic levels of casualties in a modern conflict.  I mean, more than a thousand casualties per day just in recent months. 

So it would be important, again, if true, to keep it in that context. 

Q    John, I understand why you said “if true,” but has anybody been tasked to go, given the magnitude of the import here, to go figure this out?  Because (inaudible).

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, I mean, the reports are concerning, so I don’t think it should surprise anybody that we’re obviously looking into those reports to see if it’s accurate.  Of course, we’re going to do that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrea Mitchell with NBC.  Andrea, you should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Hi, John.  Let me join in saying that we’re hoping that your family is well and that you’ve done what you can in this terrible situation.  We’re sorry for what you’ve been going through, and thanks for doing this today. 

Let me ask you about Lebanon and Hezbollah.  Could you talk about the complaints by the United Nations about UNIFIL, but the strong complaints from Israel that UNIFIL permitted — which is unarmed — but permitted Hezbollah to store weapons in tunnels right under their noses in what should have been — what was supposed to be a buffer zone, and whether there is now an opening for the U.S. to try to, with Hezbollah weakened, restore or help the Lebanese restore their independence from Hezbollah, in terms of their leadership and the Lebanese army?

MR. KIRBY:  Just a couple of points on that.  First of all, the U.N., through UNIFIL, plays an important role, a peacekeeping role in Lebanon, and we respect that role.  We want everybody to respect that role, including Israel. 

And I think — you know, as we’ve said, we’ve told Israel very directly that we oppose their near-daily strikes here in densely populated areas in Beirut, and we understand that they’re conducting targeted operations that are designed to go after Hezbollah infrastructure.  And we recognize that they have a right to do that, but they also have a commensurate responsibility to do it in a way that doesn’t threaten the lives of civilians or U.N. peacekeepers or, quite frankly, members of the Lebanese Armed Forces who have suffered some casualties here.  It’s unacceptable, and we’ve pressed the Israelis for more details about that. 

I’m in possession of no information that confirms that the U.N. was witting in terms of what Hezbollah infrastructure was nested beneath their buildings.  I can’t confirm that particular allegation.  But, again, it doesn’t even — you know, I mean, again, I can’t confirm that, but it doesn’t diminish our concerns about the lives and livelihoods of U.N. peacekeepers.

Q    But can you — the U.S. is not going to challenge the evidence that Israel has provided of weaponry being stored in tunnels and homes along their border, are they?

And secondly, do you see opportunities here, with Hezbollah as diminished in its leadership, to have a diplomatic initiative, a U.S. diplomatic initiative, which we’ve been seeing evidence of, to try to help the LAF stand up?

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, I don’t want to get the cart before the horse here, so a couple of things. 

One, certainly we’re not challenging the idea that Hezbollah, like Hamas, uses hidden facilities underground for storing arms and ammunition or for facilitating the freedom of movement of their fighters.  No challenge to that allegation. 

On your second point, all I can say at this point is that we continue to believe that a diplomatic initiative is important to pursue to bring the conflict to an end — yes, up there in the north as well — and to try to prevent further escalation of the conflict in the region. 

So I don’t want to get into the guts of what that diplomacy is considering in terms of whose role and how it would be facilitated, just except to say that we continue to support a diplomatic initiative and a diplomatic resolution to this. 

Q    Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick with PBS.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks very much.  And let me add my words about your house and everything that you’ve been through.  Thank you. 

If you’ll forgive me, three quick ones.  Just to put a point on the NSM-20 conversation at the top, because we saw language from Secretary Austin and Blinken about this, is the President willing to cut off some weapons to Israel, as U.S. law would dictate, if indeed the U.S. decided that Israel was arbitrarily blocking U.S. aid into Gaza?  That’s number one.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, Nick, look, I don’t want to get into speculating here on a hypothetical.  We have made clear our concerns to Israel since the beginning of the conflict about the way in which they prosecute their operations, about the need to get humanitarian assistance in and to increase that flow.  I mean, heck, that’s one of the reasons why we were pushing so hard for, you know, a six-month ceasefire so that we could supervise or help — I shouldn’t say “supervise” — help facilitate a surge of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.  So it’s deeply concerning to us that there has been a decrease in that assistance.

And the letter just simply restates what we made clear to the Israelis back in April in a similar letter, which is, you know, we have to follow the law of the land here.  We don’t want to have to have any kind of an impact on our assistance to Israel, which is why, as friends and allies do, we have those kinds of frank and honest conversations, and we lay bare our forthright concerns about humanitarian assistance.

Q    And then, on Iran, has the U.S. communicated to Iran that if Israel only attacks military targets, this should be the end of this round?  And have the steps the U.S. taken — including the THAAD, including sanctioning Iran, including trying to get a new Lebanese president — have those helped convince the Israelis to get the conversation about the nature of their response closer to (inaudible) the U.S.?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, our deployment of the THAAD, as I said earlier, is very much in keeping with our commitment to Israel’s defense.  That’s what it’s all about.  I’m not going to get into direct communications or indirect communications that we might have with other parties in the region, to include Iran, except to say that we have spoken in deed, not just in word, about how important it is that Israel is able to defend itself and how critical we take our obligations to help them in their defense.  And there’s little doubt that the Iranians know how seriously we take that commitment and that requirement.  But I don’t think it’d be useful for me one way or the other to get into the specifics of the diplomacy.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Alex Ward with the Wall Street Journal. 

Q    Thank you, John.  A couple questions.  Just want to be sure about this letter, and then I’ll move on to another subject.  But is the intent of this letter to signal that Israel actually is at risk of losing military aid funding?  Like, is that an actual credible threat that is now on the table thanks to this letter?

MR. KIRBY:  The letter was not meant as a threat.  The letter was simply meant to reiterate the sense of urgency we feel and the seriousness with which we feel it, about the need for an increase — a dramatic increase in humanitarian assistance.  And that’s what you can do with your friend.  That’s what you can do with your ally.  And it’s not the first time we’ve communicated that to Israel, but hopefully we won’t have to communicate it again.

Q    Okay, thanks.  Appreciate that.  And then one quick follow-up on that, and then I’ll move to the last subject.

You mentioned before you couldn’t confirm the 30 days.  Does that mean that was a solely State Department decision not coordinated with the NSC?

MR. KIRBY:  No, no, no, no.  What I said was I can’t speak to why the 30 days.  I wasn’t separating myself from the 30 days.  It’s in the letter.  I just don’t know, you know, why that timeframe was chosen, and I’d refer you to the State Department to speak to that with more specificity.  That’s just really a reflection of my ignorance, not necessarily any kind of talking point.

Q    Gotcha.  And then quickly, on this India inquiry.  You mentioned that the Indians have said that they are serious about this.  What have they done to prove to you and the administration that they are serious about this inquiry and that it isn’t just a box-checking exercise where there won’t be any accountability in the end?  What specifically have they done to show you that they are serious about this, especially after what we’ve seen in Canada, where they — clearly, the Canadians are — don’t seem to believe that there’s a lot of credibility in their process?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, they got their inquiry committee here today.  We take that as a sign that they’re taking this seriously.  Sending over a team here today to talk to the Justice Department to glean and to learn perspectives from us about the U.S. case specifically — can’t talk about the Canada one, of course — but we take that as a step in the right direction. 

And I would also point to conversations that we’ve had with Indian officials at various levels, including at the leader level, about our deep concern over this and how that’s been reflected in those conversations. 

But we’re going to monitor this going forward, Alex.  We’re going to stay in close touch with them as they move forward with their own inquiry, and we’ll be watching closely.  But thus far, in the main, it appears to us that they are taking this seriously.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Akayla with Bloomberg.

Q    Hey, John.  We’ve reported that Biden is traveling to Germany this week.  Can you preview that trip at all?  And can you speak to why Angola is no longer part of that trip?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t confirm any travel for the President later this week, but I would just say stay tuned.  There’s not a lot I can do to answer that question today.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Asma with NPR.

Q    Hey.  Thanks, John.  An iteration — I realized that my question was just actually asked, but I guess I have a quick follow-up here on the letter.  We saw the VP yesterday — or the other day tweet out that the U.N. was reporting no food had entered northern Gaza in nearly two weeks.  I just want to understand: Is that the administration’s assessment as well that no food has been able at all to enter in two weeks? 

And then, if I can go back to the 30-day timeframe then.  I guess that seems like an awfully long time then, from two weeks plus 30 days, for food to come in and for folks to survive.  So I just wanted to understand that timeframe and what you all are seeing. 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m going to take your first question, Asma.  I don’t know the answer to that.  And so, rather than guess, I’ll ask the team to go look at that and get back to you on the delivery of food.

And again, on the 30 days, I truly just don’t know.  I’m not trying to be cute with you all.  I just don’t know why the 30-day limit was put in that letter.  You know, and that’s really a question I think better put to the State Department, Secretary Blinken and his team, about that particular point of the letter. 

The only thing that I would add, which doesn’t necessarily answer your second question but I do want to foot-stomp, again, is that we all have a sense of urgency here.  So while I can’t speak to 30 days, it’s not as if our messages to the Israelis are, you know, “You can do nothing for 30 days.”  We want humanitarian assistance increased now.  The letter follows a marked decrease in humanitarian assistance, which has us concerned and which prompted the expression of those concerns in writing. 

We want that situation turned around now, as soon as possible.  You know, yesterday would have been a better day to increase humanitarian assistance into Gaza.  So there’s a keen sense of urgency throughout the administration on this. 

I just — again, I can’t speak to that particular point in the letter.  I apologize — I probably should have anticipated that question before the gaggle, but I just don’t have the context for it, and the State Department’s probably the best place to go.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jihan with The National.

Q    Thank you, John.  I have a question about the letter again.  Is this concern over the entry of humanitarian aid — is there, with it, a concern for the wider conduct of the Israeli army in Gaza?  We saw over the weekend the burning of a tent camp.  There’s an image of a man on an IV burning to death.  Have you seen those images? 

And like I said, is there concern, with the no access to food to Gaza, that there’s also the targeting of civilians in Gaza that should perhaps not happen? 

MR. KIRBY:  Of course there’s concern about destruction of civilian infrastructure and civilian casualties.  And, yes, I’ve seen some of those images, and they’re ghastly.  They’re deeply troubling.  And we have asked the Israelis urgently, over the weekend, for more details about those operations specifically.  But, of course, there’s deep concern about that. 

The letter itself — I mean, again, I’d refer you to State and DOD.  It’s Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken who signed that letter.  But as you, I’m sure, have read the letter, it’s primarily focused on humanitarian assistance.  But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t deeply concerned as well about civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure in general.  As I said earlier, the way in which the Israelis prosecute their operations matters greatly to us.

Q    And so, what measures will there be in order to curb that sort of — that behavior?  I mean, is there also a time limit to the target- — to stopping the targeting of civilians, or is it a separate conversation?  I mean, in what context is that conversation being had?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I think I would add, you know, if you look at the letter — in the last paragraph of the letter, it talks about civilian harm mitigation and setting up a channel between the United States and Israel to — a channel that had been agreed to previously, and that still has not been put in place, to mitigate civilian harm.  So, no civilian casualty should be accepted, and we aren’t.

Q    Finally, on Lebanon, is there concern now that humanitarian aid —

MR. KIRBY:  You asked how long is it going to — we don’t want to see any civilian casualties.  So that is a perennial concern here with respect to this conflict, and it’s why, again, we’ve been working very closely with our Israeli counterparts to see what can be done to ensure greater precision and discriminant targeting, to improve deconfliction with aid workers on the ground and other civilian institutions on the ground, and to, again, try to develop civilian harm mitigation measures that we can help our Israeli counterparts develop and deploy.

Q    Yeah, is there a concern now that humanitarian aid and food will also now not be accelerated in Lebanon?

MR. KIRBY:  That remains a concern.  I mean, one of the reasons why we’ve been trying to prevent escalation and to bring that conflict up in the north to an end as well is because of the effect that it’s already having on the Lebanese population who have fallen victim to this conflict between Hezbollah and Israel at no fault of their own. 

So, yes, that remains a concern.  And that’s why, again, we’ve been working so hard diplomatically to try to find a way to bring the conflict to an end. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN TV.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for that.  I’d like to know if there’s any negotiations going on, on behalf of the U.S., regarding the hostages and the hostage ceasefire deal in Gaza.  Or are these talks on hold?  And if so, is there any thought in the administration to try and advance an alternative deal to release the hostages?

MR. KIRBY:  We still, obviously, want to see a ceasefire in place so we can get all them home and to get that surge of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.  I wish I could tell you that there are fresh negotiations at hand.  There aren’t.  But that’s because Mr. Sinwar has shown absolutely zero interest in continuing that discussion. 

So we’re going to keep at it.  We’re still working on it.  We still believe that that’s the best way to get those hostages back home with their families where they belong.  And we’re not going to give up on those efforts.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  That is all the time we have, but I think Kirby has a few words he wants to close with. 

MR. KIRBY:  I just wanted to thank you all for the kind words with respect to how me and my family fared during the storm.  

I just wanted to add, you know, that I’m very lucky.  This is just a — it’s a little cottage on the beach.  It’s a second home.  It’s not my primary home.  And unlike — I mean, unlike friends I know, and so many other people down in Florida, particularly the Tampa Bay area where I’m from, I mean, my losses are minuscule and insignificant compared to what so many other people have gone through.  I know people who are literally homeless, and I am fortunate that that is not my situation. 

So I do appreciate the kind words.  I really do.  But I’d ask you to throw those prayers and those thoughts to people that are much, much more in need and much more heavily impacted by the devastation of those two hurricanes than me and my family. 

But thanks again.  It was very thoughtful of you.  I appreciate it.  Very glad to be back in D.C. and back at work.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you again, everyone, for joining.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, please reach out to the NSC distro and we’ll try to get back as soon as we can.  Thanks, everyone.

2:27 P.M. EDT