December 16, 2024 On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby Via Teleconference 4:47 P.M. EST

 December 16, 2024

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

Via Teleconference

4:47 P.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining our gaggle late in the day today.  Kirby has some words here at the top, and then we’ll get into as many questions as we can. 

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Good afternoon.  Sorry for the late afternoon gaggle.  Obviously, lots going on here.  So, again, thanks for joining late.

I do want to start by expressing our deep condolences to all the victims and the families, and certainly the community of Madison, today.  Just horrific news, and news that no family, no parent, no sibling, no son or daughter ever wants to hear.  So, just terrible. 

And we will continue to stay focused on the community there in Madison, and we’ll obviously offer whatever help may be required or needed of local and state authorities. 

I can tell you that the President has been briefed on the school shooting there and that senior White House officials are, as you would expect we would be, in touch with our local counterparts there in Madison to provide whatever support that they need. 

Now, I want to address a couple of more things here before we take your questions, and first to the continued interest in drones. 

And just at the outset, I think it’s important to remember a bit of context here.  There are more than 1 million drones that are lawfully registered with the Federal Aviation Administration here in the United States, and there are thousands of commercial, hobbyist, and law enforcement drones that are lawfully in the sky on any given day.  That is the ecosystem that we are dealing with.  And it is legal.  It is proper.  In fact, in many cases, these drones provide valuable services, both on the commercial side and on the law enforcement, public safety side. 

And with the technology evolving as it is, we have every expectation that the number of drones in the skies over the United States is going to increase over time.

Now, with respect to what’s going on in and around New Jersey, the FBI has received now tips of some 5,000 reported drone sightings in the last few weeks, about 100 of which they felt needed to be followed up on.  So out of 5,000 tips, they did the analysis and determined that about 100 required following up on.

We also have federal government resources and personnel supporting state and local officials as they investigate these reports.  We’re obviously quickly working to help state and local authorities prioritize and follow up on the leads that are still being followed up on.  As Secretary Mayorkas said, we have sent additional advanced detection technology to the region, and of course, we’ve sent some trained visual observers as well.

Having closely examined the data, having closely looked at the tips and collated them as best we can from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and even stars that were mistakenly reported as drones.  We have not identified anything anomalous or any national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the Northeast. 

The work continues.  So that said, we obviously

recognize the concern among many communities.  We continue to support state and local authorities, as I said, with technology and law enforcement support.  And we will continue to follow up, as appropriate, on the leads that are still active. 

But I want to stress again: Our assessment at this stage is that the activity represents commercial, hobbyist, law enforcement drones, all operating legally and lawfully, and/or civilian aviation aircraft. 

As we continue to work through the leads that are out there, we’ll continue to share what we can.  And I would add that this assessment that I just read out is coming from law enforcement officials. 

I want to add that we urge Congress to enact counter-UAS — unmanned aerial systems — legislation that has been proposed and repeatedly requested by this administration that would extend and expand existing counter-drone authorities to help identify and counter any threat that does emerge.  There are gaps and seams, for instance, between the various government agencies — federal, local and state.  And this counter-UAV, counter-drone legislation would help us close some of those gaps and seams.  So we need Congress to act. 

And so, when Congress reconvenes in January, we’re going to be calling on them to put in place a bipartisan task force [commission] to examine congestion in the skies and to help set appropriate rules to address the public’s concerns.

Now, additionally, there have been a limited number of visual sightings of drones over military facilities in New Jersey and elsewhere, much of which is, of course, restricted airspace.  Such sightings near or over DOD installations are not new.  And DOD takes unauthorized access over its airspace seriously, as you would expect them to do, and they coordinate closely with federal and law enforcement authorities as appropriate.  And they are actively engaged with local commanders to ensure that there are appropriate detection and mitigation measures in place. 

And lastly, if I could, turning to North Korea and Russia. 

Throughout this conflict, we’ve seen North Korean support for Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war, including the transfer of missiles, artillery ammunition.  And, in October, of course, we announced that more than 1,000 North Korean troops were deployed to Russia on a purported training mission. 

In reality, Russia, due to Ukraine’s strong defense, and out of military desperation, sought additional support to facilitate and to perpetuate its war. 

Over the past few days, we have seen these North Korean soldiers move from the second lines on the battlefield to the front lines on the battlefield meant to be actively engaged in combat operations.  It’s not surprising — and of course, it’s also not surprising that now North Korean soldiers are suffering losses on the battlefield in response to Russia’s escalation, which, of course, the introduction of North Korean soldiers represents in terms of escalation.

The United States has announced new assistance, including the use of long-range capabilities to degrade North Korean and Russian forces before they attack.  And we have continued to surge security assistance, announcing two drawdowns in just recent weeks, and one USAI package.

Today, the Biden-Harris administration is announcing new sanctions on nine DPRK — North Korean — individuals and seven entities, including banks and shipping companies, all of which is over, of course, Kim Jong Un’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, as well as the DPRK’s continued ballistic missile testing. 

These sanctions contribute toward broader efforts to degrade the DPRK’s ability to continue generating revenue for its weapons of mass destruction program and for providing munitions and ballistic missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine. 

We’re going to continue to hold accountable all actors who facilitate financially and militarily Russia’s illegal and brutal war in Ukraine.  And it goes without saying, or at least I hope it goes without saying, that we stand by Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as they defend their freedom, their territorial integrity, their sovereignty, their citizens, their lives, and their livelihoods.  That’s been a consistent theme, it’s been a consistent effort by this administration since Mr. Putin decided to cross the line in February of ‘22.  And I can assure you, with every day that we have left in this administration, we’re going to make good on that commitment. 

With that, I can take your questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Nandita with Reuters.

Q    Hi.  Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yep.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask about President-elect Trump’s comments on Ukraine today.  He’s obviously raised doubts about President Biden’s strategy of sending long-range missiles to Ukraine.  Today he said Ukraine has to agree to a deal.  I’m curious what you think of Trump’s comments and what they mean for President Zelenskyy and the future of Ukraine.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to engage in a public back-and-forth here, but I do want to make a couple of points. 

There are things you’ve heard me say before, but, my goodness, if you need to hear, I’ll say it again: Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.  We’re not going to have talks about them without them involved.  We’re not going to force their hand in terms of what their next steps might be. 

President Zelenskyy was elected by the Ukrainian people to be their representative in the executive branch of their government, and he is.  And he gets to decide if and when there’s going to be a negotiation. 

Now, we all believe there should be a negotiated end to this war.  That’s probably the most likely and the best way it’s going to end.  We recognize that.  But President Zelenskyy gets to determine under what terms, what conditions, when, and how he wants to engage in negotiations.  And as we have made clear to him in the past, so I can today: When he makes that decision, as long as President Biden is Commander-in-Chief, he will find in this administration a supporter as he moves forward to negotiating.  But he gets to determine that.  And if he does do it, he gets to determine the conditions.

What we’re going to — the third thing I’ll say is that between now and that day, whenever that day is, we’re going to make sure that his army has what they need to continue to succeed on the battlefield and to push the Russians back and to make it harder on Mr. Putin to continue to fight this war. 

I mean, even as we’re talking here, it is true that the Russians have made some plodding progress in the east, and it is true that they are going after Ukrainian lines in and around Kursk, but they’re doing it with North Korean soldiers, because that’s how desperate he is.  And the progress that they’re making in the east, yes, not denying that they’re making progress, but it’s coming at a heavy cost for Russian soldiers as well. 

One of the things that Mr. Putin has had to buy a lot of in terms — and he’s bought a lot of missiles, he’s bought drones, he’s bought artillery shells, and he’s getting them from all kinds of different places.  He’s also had to buy a lot of body bags.  And I think that shouldn’t be forgotten.  And that’s it.

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

Q    Hey.  Thank you, John.  One question I had was: Did the administration consult with President-elect Trump’s team before the decision to loosen restrictions on the use of American-provided ATACMS? 

And then, just secondly, on your point about North Koreans now being seen moving up to the front lines, is there anything specific triggering this?  And is there an assessment of how many North Korean troops have been injured or lost thus far?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  So, let me take your second one first.  I don’t know that we have an exact number, but we do believe that they have suffered some significant losses, killed and wounded, but it’s difficult for me to put an actual number on it.  I would say certainly in the realm of dozens, several dozens. 

And we’re just now starting to see this movement of them from the second line to the front line.  So it’s a fairly new development, Aamer, and we might be able to have a little bit more granularity as days go on, but I wouldn’t have put it in this opening statement if we didn’t assess that these were fairly significant losses.  Again, we just don’t have a hard number on it, but just the figures that we are seeing and trying to triangulate tell us that, again, this has not been an insignificant set of losses for these guys. 

And, look, we said it at the time: If they want to enter the fight, they do so at their own peril, and now they’re learning what that means.

On your first question: Look, the conversations that we were having inside the administration about ATACMS started before the election.  All I can assure you is that in the conversations we’ve had with them since the election, and we’ve had it at various levels, we have articulated to them the logic behind it, the thinking behind it, why we were doing it, and to stress to them that this was in response, quite frankly, to the North Korean troops being put on the battlefield, which they did before the election.

Q    John, just real briefly, is it incorrect when President-elect Trump said that he wasn’t consulted?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, Aamer, I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth with the President-elect or his team.  I can only tell you the decision about ATACMS was made before the election, before we had a result, and it was made internal to this administration, as it should be.  And it was made because of a decision by Putin to use North Korean troops, which was a decision he made before the election.  So, all that happened pre-election.

Post-election, we have had the appropriate level of conversations with the incoming team about various national security issues, including the war in Ukraine, to explain what we’re doing, what we’re seeing, why we’re doing it, you know, so that, as I said the other day — I think I said this in the briefing room — there should be no decision we are taking or that we have taken in recent weeks that should come as a surprise to them.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Francesca with USA Today.

Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  I had a question about something else that the President-elect had said today.  Kirby, he said that the U.S. military and both President Biden know where the drones are coming and going from.  He indicated perhaps that you know more than you’re letting on, and said that you should stop keeping people in suspense, that you should tell them what you know.  Could you just respond to that and whether the administration does know more, whether the military and the White House do know more about where the drones are coming and going from?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve talked to you guys last week.  We did a backgrounder over the weekend.  And I’m talking to you all today.  And today, as I think you hopefully picked up in my opening statement, we are now able to tell you what our assessment is to date, and our assessment is to date, as I indicated, what we believe these things are. 

Now, again, that’s the assessment to date.  So I would say that we are making a very good-faith effort to be as open and direct with all of you and with the American people as we can.  And that will continue.  That will continue all throughout the coming days.  There’s absolutely no effort to be anything other than as upfront as we can be. 

Now, what we’re not going to do is speculate, and we’re not going to hypothesize.  We’re not going to provide content that we can’t be sure is accurate. 

So, you know, I recognize that some of the criticism over the last few days has been that we haven’t said more of what we know.  It’s because we didn’t have as much information as we do now after a few more days of extra resources, extra personnel, extra analysis. 

And so, that’s why I’m coming out here at 4:30 on a Monday to let you know what we’ve learned.  And we’re going to continue to do that, because we know there are, you know, ongoing concerns about this. 

But I want to stress again: Please, if you do anything in your coverage, please make sure that you remind people that there are over a million legal drones in the country and that thousands of them are flying around on any given day, legally, lawfully, performing valuable services, including for the betterment of citizens on the ground.  It’s okay to fly drones.  It’s legal to do it, you know, if you’re registered with the FAA, and our assessment is that the vast, vast majority are. 

And the other thing I’d ask you to please keep front and center is that we’re watching — we’re monitoring this in real time and analyzing it in dang near real time.  And still today, on Monday, we have not seen anything that indicates a threat to national security or a public safety risk.  And obviously, if we did, we would, as appropriate, take the right action, do the right things, execute the right policies, and be as transparent with the American people about it as we could.

Q    Kirby, if I just could really quickly, not to get into intelligence assessments, but is there anything that you’re seeing in the intelligence that perhaps he was referring to that you’re not able to tell us about right now?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  I mean, the short answer to that is no.

Look, you know that I’m always careful when I’m asked about intelligence assessments one way or another.  But if there was something there that would indicate — that would contradict my statement that there was no national security threat at play right now that we know of, or a public safety risk, obviously I wouldn’t say it that way.  You know, it’s not like there’s a bit of intel out there that I’m obfuscating or obscuring from you. 

If we had information, intelligence or otherwise, that told us that there was a national security threat posed by this drone activity, I would say that.  Maybe I wouldn’t be able to tell you exactly what the threat is or who it’s from or what the purpose is, but I would.  And I can’t — I just can’t say that to you honestly, because we haven’t seen it.

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

Q    Thank you.  And thank you, Admiral, for doing this. 

First, I just wanted to see if you could elaborate at all on the nature of the discussions between the White House and Trump teams on Ukraine, in which the President-elect has said he wants to see a ceasefire on day one. 

And second, I wanted to see if you could comment on the impeachment of President Yoon in South Korea, what it means for the alliance, and whether the U.S. believes, as some in the country do, that President Yoon should be charged with insurrection.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  I will defer to the incoming team to speak to whatever policies that they want to pursue from a national security perspective.  That’s the appropriate thing.  You know, they should speak to whatever decisions that they believe they’re going to make or approaches that they want to take.  I mean, that’s not for me to comment on or to go into any depth on.

I would just tell you — well, I don’t want to just repeat what I said before.  I’d point you back to my previous answer.  Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.  We want to put President Zelenskyy in the best possible position so that if and when he’s ready to negotiate an end to this war, he can do it from a position of strength, from a position of some leverage.  And that’s why we continue to flow so much security assistance to him in these closing weeks of the administration.  And that’s going to continue.

What the next team decides to do or how they want to handle that, that really would be for them to speak to.  And I just don’t think it’s useful or productive for me to go beyond that. 

Obviously, we continue to watch events in South Korea very, very closely.  A significant ally.  Remains a significant ally.  An alliance that is incredibly healthy now after the result of these last four years of really working on our alliances and partnerships in the Pacific. 

As you know, the President spoke with the acting president, Han Duck-soo, over the weekend — I think it was on Saturday evening — to congratulate him and also to reaffirm our commitment to the South Korean people, to the alliance.

I will not speak to internal domestic issues inside South Korea, your question about whether he should be charged with insurrection.  Those kinds of things are for South Korean officials, South Korean legislators, the South Korean people to determine, not the United States.  All I’ll say is that, as the President said to Acting President Han Duck-soo, this is an important relationship for us, it’s a terrific alliance.  The United States is going to stay committed to it.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Cheyenne with ABC.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for doing this.  The President-elect also mentioned changing a trip to Bedminster.  Do you have any reason to believe that Bedminster, New Jersey, has been at all at risk with any of these drone sightings?

And also, you’ve talked about the thousands of drones flying around legally on any given day.  What’s your explanation for why this became a concern just recently in New Jersey?  Do you think it’s just a chain reaction?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know the answer to that.  I don’t.  But I can tell you we’re working hard to triangulate all of these sightings.  And as I said, of the 5,000 that the FBI took in, and the local law enforcement, there were about 100 that were deemed — that required, I should say, to follow up on. 

So, I don’t know.  I can’t explain the number of sightings.  Many of them are duplicative.  In other words, you might get, like — this is an example, not — a hypothetical example — but you might get 10 sightings of a single aircraft.  So that counts as 10 sightings, but it may only be one aircraft.  So, as this has become a story locally and certainly through the media, more and more people are looking skyward, and more and more people are seeing things, and more and more people are calling them in and taking video of them.  But in a lot of instances, it turns out to be the same thing seen by multiple people.  But I just can’t explain.  I don’t know.

But your question, I think, gets to why I made those comments at the beginning: to remind people of the sheer size and scope of unmanned aerial systems that are flying legally and lawfully every day over this country.  And again, it’s to our benefit, commercially and even from a public safety and law enforcement perspective.  So, that there are lots of drones in the sky I think is without dispute, and that the vast, vast majority of them are doing good things for people on the ground also should not be in dispute. 

As for the issue of Bedminster, it is already designated as restricted air space, so it is unlawful to fly in that space, with or without it being a manned aircraft, without the FAA’s approval.  So it’s already restricted.  I can’t speak to the President-elect’s travel or what he’s decided to do or where he’s decided to go, but I think it’s important to remember that it is already restricted airspace.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.

Q    Thank you.  I have a couple of questions.  First, the mother of Austin Tice has sent a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, asking him to hold Israeli strikes outside of Damascus because she believes that Austin Tice might be held in a jail there.  Do you think that Israeli strikes might affect his chances of being found alive?  And I have another question.

MR. KIRBY:  I really don’t have anything for you on that one, Nadia.  That’s a — you know, I think that’s a question better put to the Tice family and to the IDF. 

I would just tell you that we continue to work very, very hard to try to find out where Austin is, how Austin is, and stemming from that information, what we can do to try to get him home.  And sadly, regrettably, I just don’t have additional detail to provide for you on that today.  We’re still working this very, very hard. 

Q    Okay.  Also, the President-elect Trump said today that Turkey holds all the keys to what’s happening in Syria.  In fact, he’s insinuating that Turkey is a major player of what’s taken on unfolding events in Syria, and he praised President Erdoğan as a smart guy.  What’s your assessment of Turkey’s role on what we have seen so far in the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s no question that the Turks are significant players here in whatever the outcome in Syria is going to be, as they have been over the course of the last 14 years.  And that’s why Secretary Blinken went to Turkey last week.  It’s why we continue to have conversations with them at all different levels about what they’re doing, what their concerns are.

As I have said in the past, they have legitimate concerns with a terrorist threat along that border with Syria.  Turkish citizens have fallen victim to terrorist activities there.  You can’t very well blame the Turks for being concerned about that threat. 

On the other hand, we have a relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces to go after ISIS.  We want to keep that focus of them and us, and so we have certainly talked about our concerns with respect to that mission set as it relates to Turkey’s military operations on the other side of that border. 

And if there’s a need — as there’s a need to deconflict and to work through some of those overlapping concerns, well, we’ll do that because Turkey is, as you rightly said, a NATO Ally. 

So they have had, and legitimately so, have had a large interest in what’s going on in Syria.  We recognize that.  We also recognize that sometimes their goals aren’t exactly the same as ours, and so we talk to them about that, and we’ll continue to do so.

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

Q    Thanks so much.  Real quickly — Kirby, I noticed you said that this assessment is coming from law enforcement.  Just checking if any intelligence agencies, or especially military intel, is part of what went into this assessment, knowing that some of the drones went over Langley and Wright-Patt.

And just trying to get a sense of, you know, how did the administration work to get this info.  You mentioned, you know, you didn’t have it before.  Now you do.  Sort of what went into this?  Is this like — you know, were there a bunch of meetings?  Did FBI send a bunch of folks out?  Can you just give us some detail on how you’ve gotten to this point now in the assessment? Thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  I kind of already did, Alex.  I said we surged resources, detection capabilities.  We surged personnel, including visual observers, from federal agencies, predominantly DHS.  The military, the Defense Department has surged some additional detection capabilities, certainly with respect to Naval Weapons Station Earle and Picatinny Arsenal. 

So, the assessment I was able to offer today was really the result of the collective action of all of these efforts, including continued work by local law enforcement and state officials. 

The work continues.  This is our assessment to date.  We will continue to look at this as hard as we can.  But it is really the result of an influx of resources and personnel applied to this particular problem set. 

I think the Pentagon already spoke to Wright-Patterson.  There was no — as I understand it, no disruption of operations.  I think some of the original reporting out of there was lacking some context that I think the Pentagon added to and provided. 

And, look, on intelligence, I would just say that this is a true interagency effort, and we’re all working really hard to apply the right resources to the problem set and to be as open and transparent with people as we can be.  And I think I best leave it at that.

Again, I want to foot-stomp what I said earlier.  It’s important for people to understand the ecosystem of drones over the skies of the United States.  I mean, there’s a lot of activity.  And again, the vast, vast, vast majority of it is legal and lawful.  And we believe — again, to date, our assessment is that the sightings thus far have been of that ilk.  But we’ll continue to keep looking.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We have time for one more question, and we’ll go to Robin Wright.

Q    Thank you, John.  Can I take you further afield to Syria and ask you: Has there been any more contact between the United States and HTS?

And secondly, can you give us a sense of what Iran is doing in Syria?  The head of the IRGC said that there have been evacuations of 4,000 citizens from Iran.  Do you have a sense of what Iran is doing in the aftermath of Assad’s demise or what it’s planning to do?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I can tell you, on HTS, as Secretary Blinken indicated, we have been in direct contact with HTS, as we have been with other groups.  We also have indirect ways of communicating with all those groups as well, and we’re pulling on all those levers to make sure that we can very closely monitor this transition to what we hope will be — well, we hope it will be a peaceful transition, but to a stable, secure, sovereign Syria that meets the aspirations of its people. 

But I don’t have any additional or specifics about conversations with HTS, except to reiterate what Secretary Blinken said.  We have been in touch with them and I suspect we will be going forward. 

I also think, Robin, you shouldn’t — no one should expect that we’re going to get into a detailed readout of every single conversation that we have with every rebel group or opposition leader as it unfolds.  I wouldn’t expect that you’re going to see that. 

And as for Iran, you know, I would be lying to you if I said we had, you know, perfect visibility on everything that Iranian leaders are doing or deciding when it comes to Syria.  I can go so far as to say we certainly have seen indications that the Iranians are pulling people and resources out of Syria.  That is true.  But at what scale and on what timeline, it’s difficult for us to be very granular on that.  We just don’t have perfect visibility.  But it’s clear to us that they certainly weren’t willing or able to come to Assad’s rescue.  And in the aftermath of his departure, it’s clear to us that they are reevaluating, I think is the best way to put it, their presence in Syria and have already started to move some people and some resources out. 

That’s really as far as I can go.

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

5:24 P.M. EST