| |||
| |||
Saturday, January 4, 2025
U.S: DOD - January 2, 2025 - U.S. Recognizes Child Soldiering as Human Trafficking
December 30, 2024 Statement from President Joe Biden on U.S. Support for Ukraine’s Defense (Gecikmeli paylaşım)
December 30, 2024
Statement from President Joe Biden on U.S. Support for Ukraine’s Defense
Home
Briefing Room
Statements and Releases
Today, I am proud to announce nearly $2.5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine, as the Ukrainian people continue to defend their independence and freedom from Russian aggression.
Since Russia launched its further assault against Ukraine in February 2022, the United States has rallied the world to stand with the Ukrainian people, and it has been a top priority of mine to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to prevail. Today’s announcement—which includes an additional $1.25 billion drawdown package for the Ukrainian military and a $1.22 billion Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) package—builds on this effort and will provide Ukraine with both an immediate influx of capabilities that it continues to use to great effect on the battlefield and longer-term supplies of air defense, artillery, and other critical weapons systems.
As I committed earlier this year, the Department of Defense has now allocated all remaining USAI funds appropriated by Congress in the supplemental that I signed in April, and my Administration is fully utilizing the funding appropriated by Congress to support the drawdown of U.S. equipment for Ukraine. I’ve directed my Administration to continue surging as much assistance to Ukraine as quickly as possible—including drawing down older U.S. equipment for Ukraine, rapidly delivering it to the battlefield, and then revitalizing the U.S. defense industrial base to modernize and replenish our stockpiles with new weapons. The Department of Defense is in the process of delivering hundreds of thousands of artillery rounds, thousands of rockets, and hundreds of armored vehicles which will strengthen Ukraine’s hand as it heads into the winter. At my direction, the United States will continue to work relentlessly to strengthen Ukraine’s position in this war over the remainder of my time in office.
###
January 03, 2025 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
January 03, 2025
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
Home
Briefing Room
Press Briefings
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:37 P.M. EST
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. Happy New Year.
Q Happy New Year.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Bear with me here. I have a couple of things at the top.
In the coming days, the president and first lady will travel to New Orleans, Louisiana. The president and first lady will grieve with the families and community members impacted by the tragic attack on January 1st and meet with local and state officials on the ground.
The president has been extremely focused on ensuring that everything possible be done to complete this investigation, ensure the safety of the community, and provide any and all federal assistance to support state and local officials.
Since Wednesday, the president has held regular meetings with his Homeland Security team to receive the latest information on the investigation and convey the need to do everything possible to complete this investigation and keep the American people safe.
The president has also spoken to the mayor of Lou- — New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana to offer support to both state and local officials. His team remains in close touch with their teams. And as the president said earlier today — you heard him moments ago — he has spoken with the families of the victims.
As he made clear, there is no justification for violence of any kind, and we will not tolerate any attack on any of our nation’s communities.
The president continues to receive regular updates on both the investigation into the terrorist attack in New Orleans and the truck explosion in Las Vegas. Both cases remain active investigations, and I will refer you to law enforcement to speak further about them.
Next, as you all know, steel and steelworkers who produce it are the backbone of our economy and national security, powering our autos, our infrastructure, our defense. Without domestic steel production and domestic steelworkers, our nation is less strong and less secure.
CFIUS evaluation determined this acquisition would place one of America’s largest steel producers under foreign control and create a risk for our national security and our critical supply chains. And CFIUS referred the matter to the president for his decision.
So, the president took action to block the deal to U.S. Steel remains — so U.S. Steel remains a proud American company — American owned, American operated, by American union steelworkers, and the best in the world.
The domestic steel industry is the strongest it has been in years because of the president’s actions to level the playing field for American steel and American steelworkers. And the United States remains an open economy with record foreign direct investments under President Biden’s leadership.
As foreign competitors like China distort global steel markets through unfair trade practices, such as dumping and overproduction, it is critical that we have a strong domestic steel industry that protects our national security and our supply chains.
Today, the president demonstrated once again that he will always act to protect the security of this nation, as well as the resilience of our supply.
And then — so, with that, I’m going to — before I take questions, I want to add one more thing, which we haven’t done in a while, which is talk about the week ahead — next week — and then we’ll go into questions.
In addition to his trip to New Orleans, the president and the first lady will travel to Los Angeles, California, on Monday. The president will then travel to Eastern Coachella Valley, California, on Tuesday.
On Thursday, the president and the first lady will attend the state funeral for former President Jimmy Carter. As President Biden said, “The world lost an extraordinary leader, statesman, and humanitarian.” The president and the first lady look forward to honoring a great American who gave his life to service.
And finally, on Thursday afternoon, the president and the first lady will travel to Rome, Italy, from the 9th to — from January 9th to the 12th. During the visit, the president will meet separately with His Holiness Pope Francis, the president of Italy, and the prime minister of Italy as well.
And as always, we’ll have more to share as we get closer to the trips and events to come. But before I even go to your questions, I have one more thing that I wanted to add — a personal note. Jeremy and Jacob, thank you so much for your service. They will be leaving our team. This is going to be — next week is going to be really your last week, but we didn’t have an- — another opportunity to do this in the briefing room.
So, I just wanted to say thank you to both. You have been phenomenal to work with. I’m going to miss you both and wish you the best in your upcoming endeavors in your career. But just wanted to — to thank them here in the — at the podium.
And if you guys have a chance, make sure to — to offer you up your well wishes to Jeremy and Jacob next week.
And with that, you have the first question. Fatima.
Q Thank you, Karine. I have three questions.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.
Q Firstly, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has for years talked about friendshoring and countering the ambitions of China with allies. Will the president’s decision on Nippon undercut efforts to strengthen relationships with our allies? And could this decision potentially damage the U.S.’s relationship with Japan?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This is not about Japan. It’s not. And you have watched this president, really, in the last four years, strengthen his relationship with our allies, obviously abroad.
And, you know, we have worked, certainly, together to strengthen our economic partnership with Japan. We have been in touch with Japan and conveyed — conveyed our thoughts directly to them. This is about the need — you heard me talk about how now U.S. Steel is going to stay American owned and American operated, and this is what’s important to this president, and that he’s been very clear about that.
So, this is about continuing that, making sure that we are strong domestically (inaudible) operated steel industry for our national security and for our — for our resilient supply chain, and how important that would be.
So — and I also stated at the top how if you look at the — the work that this president has done over the last four years, the steel industry is the strongest — it’s the strongest that it’s been in years because of the actions that this president has done every day since day one to make sure that we protect that.
And so, the president believes that we need major U.S. companies representing a major share of U.S. steelmaking capacity and to keep leading that fight on behalf of America’s national interests.
And so, that’s why the president made this decision. He’s always been very clear about that. We’ve always been very consistent about that.
And so, that’s going to be our focus — continuing to be our focus, obviously.
Q Earlier today, the president said he spoke with families of the victims of New Orleans attack. What did he tell them?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to get into private conversation that the president has had with families. We — we don’t do that.
We’ll — certainly, if the families choose to speak about their conversation with the president, obviously they have the right to do that.
Our hearts certainly go out to the families who lost their loved ones on a — a day that should have been a celebrated day to such — to such an act of violence. Obviously, this is something that we will continue to condone [condemn].
But as I stated at the top, the president and the first lady are going to New Orleans in the upcoming days, and they’re going to grieve with the family.
And, sadly, that is something that you have seen them do many times over the last four years. When an awful event happens, they are there. They want to be there, especially at this magnitude. They want to be there and be — be with the family and mourn with the family.
And so, again, this is — was a certainly an awful, awful event that happened on the day that we should have all been celebrating: an incoming new year. And so, our hearts go out to the families and also to the communities who are dealing with the aftermath of this tragedy.
Q And does the vice president plan to oversee the certification of the election results on Monday?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I believe that is her plans. I would have to refer you to the vice president’s office on her schedule, but I believe so. Yes.
Q Thanks, Karine. How does the attack in New Orleans and the explosion in Las Vegas increase concerns in the administration about security surrounding the certification of the vote, the Carter funeral next week here in Washington, the inauguration, and even looking ahead to the Super Bowl next month in New Orleans?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, all of the events that you just laid out is a certainly high priority for this administration.
The Department of Homeland Security and federal law enforcement have well-established safety and security protocols in place, especially as we speak to the inauguration, obviously. And so, they have been preparing for months to ensure that — the security of these events and the safety of those attending them.
So, again, this is something that we’ve worked through for months now. And so, we are working, you know, tirelessly every single day to ensure the safety and security of the inauguration, the safety and security of major events that you just laid out.
It is important to the president that we continue to protect, as I said at the top, American communities, communities across the country. And, certainly, that’s what the president is going to — wants his team to focus on, and that’s what they have been focusing on.
Q Both suspects in New Orleans and Las Vegas served in the military. Does the president find that aspect of this troubling? And is he concerned about a problem of radicalization in the military?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m going to — obviously, the FBI is continuing their investigation. So, they can speak to the FBI and the Department of Defense, as you just stated, because of their — of their status and affiliation to the — to — to their military service, I would have to refer you to Department of Defense to speak to that specifically.
I don’t want to get into — into a back-and-forth on this — on this. What we can say is: continue to condemn any form of violence and do whatever we can and continue to do the work, obviously, to make sure that there is — a security protocol continues and we protect Americans and Americ– and certainly communities across the country.
I’m not going to dive into the two — the two subjects.
Q Can you say if the president had any reaction when he heard that detail about both of these suspects, though?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is the president is — his heart is going out to the family who were certainly affected and lost a loved one that day. And what he wants to do is to make sure that his — his team is continuing to do the work to make sure that Americans are protected, communities are protected, and that’s what I can speak to.
You heard that from the president multiple times this week already, and that’s going to be the president’s focus.
Yeah.
Q Thanks, Karine. President-elect Trump, a little while ago today, seemed to take issue with the fact that American flags will be flown at half-mast at the time of his inauguration, considering the passing of former President Jimmy Carter. Is there any potential for that to not be the case? Is that a decision that the White House would change?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just say that one more time. Say that one more time. The pr- — the president-elect —
Q The flags are due to be flown at half-mast at the time of the inauguration, and President Trump seems to be taking issue with that. Is that a decision that the White House would consider reversing or reevaluating?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.
Go ahead.
Q On U.S. Steel. The U.S. relationship with Japan is strong.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q What is the national security concern the president sees by having this investment in — in an American company?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you saw the president’s statement. He — he talks about the CFIUS evaluation, how they ter- — determined that evaluation, how they got to their, again, determination that this acquisition would place one of America’s largest steel producers under the foreign control and create risk of our national security.
This is from CFIUS. They are independent. The president said he was going to let the process play out, and it has played out.
And so, if you think about our national security and our critical supply chain, you know, CFIUS, you know, referred the matter to the president to make that decision.
And so, the president ta- — took that very seriously. He’s always going to make sure that we put Americans first. And that is how you saw this decision play out from this president.
And I talked about China and how they tend to distort the global market’s steel with — through unfair trade practices. And so, you know, this is something that the president took very, very seriously, and — and took CFIUS determination.
We’ve got to remember, this is a cross-government — cross-government panel, when you think about CFIUS and the decision that they — they made.
And so, that’s how the president came to this decision. It is about making sure that a U.S. company is U.S. owned, U.S. operated; supporting, continuing to protect the — the U.S. steelmakers; obviously, a union. And that’s what the president wanted — led with, and that’s how he made this — his decision.
Q Is it political?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s not. This is — again, as I was answering that question, I said, he said that CF- — we’ve al- — always said CFIUS is an independent body. We let this process play out. We made sure that this plocess [process] play out and — and that’s exactly what we did.
And CFIUS made a determination, and they said this acquisition would create risk for our national security and our critical supply chain. And the president took that, really, very seriously. And he took a careful look — a careful look at the CFIUS evaluation. And so, he decided to block this deal.
Q One other. President-elect Trump had communicated on his social media some inaccurate information related to New Orleans early on. Is the president at all concerned about the flow of information and briefing and access to whatever intelligence or whatever he might need in terms of this transition? Are you — is he comfortable with the information flow to the president-elect on matters like this?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look — and — and I’m — I’m actually glad you asked this question, because one of the things that you all do as a — a journalist bod- — a journalist body is that you are able to fact-check and say that what was stated by the president-elect was simply false. And I think that is important — right? — which is why we respect the — the hard work that all of you do.
As it relates to the president and the information that he gets, obviously, that’s something for ODNI, if it’s — if it’s related to intelligence and specific information in that nature. I’m not going to speculate beyond that, and I’m just going to leave it there.
Go ahead.
Q Just three things. The FBI, NCTC, DHS put out a law enforcement bulletin earlier today warning of copycat attacks in the wake of New Orleans. What assurances can the White House offer to the public, many of whom might be scared of this kind of vehicle-ramming attack?
And to build on the earlier question, beyond just radicalization, you know, is there a wider concern about the mental health implications connected to service members, given the similarities?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so, as it relates to the second part of your question, I’m going to have to refer you to the Department of Defense. They can speak to that. I’m not going to litigate that from here.
Look, when it comes to — and you’re right, the bulletin was put out. And what I can say is: DHS and law enforcement remain vigilant to any potential copycat. And so, they’re going to cons- — consistently — DHS and law enforcement are going to consistently — consistently evaluate threats and going to share the latest information to disrupt any potential copycats, potential threats. And so, that is their commitment. That’s what they’re working hard to do. And so, they’re going to be vigilant — continue to be vigilant on that aspect.
Q On bird flu. The bird flu outbreak is escalating. At least 66 human infections across 10 states now. The federal government has two bird flu vaccine candidates available. Why not ask the FDA to authorize them, even for particularly vulnerable farmworkers? Why defer a decision on a vaccine to the next administration?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, look, that is something, as you know, the FDA — that is something that they decide on. They have a committee that — when they have to make decisions like this. So, I would have to leave it to them on how they move forward with that.
Look, we remain — we take this very seriously. And USDA, HHS are — are on top of this. We are in touch with them. They’re certainly in touch with local authorities on this.
And so, I do want to be very clear that CDC has been on top — have said themselves that the risk to the general public is — is still low. And so, we want to make sure that the American people are listening to CDC, and they can — and they certainly need to continue to do so. And we want to make sure, obviously, the nation’s food — food supply remains safe.
And so, a couple things that I do want to lay out that we have been able to do that the — from this administration, which is protect — directed the — we made sure that — since March, when this was detected — to protect the public health, protect animal health, protect our nation’s food supply, and monitor all trends to prevent the spread of avian flu. So, this work is going to continue.
All relevant federal agencies continue to coordinate, as I just stated, with local authorities, and so we’re going to do that as — be consistent with that as we’ve done since March. And so, that’s what the administration is going to fo- — focus on.
Q But is the president concerned about deferring a decision about a vaccine to the next administration?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about what the next administration is going to do or not do.
This is something that rests in the world of FDA. And so, we want to let them lead by science and the facts. We’ve been — that’s — we’ve been pretty consistent on that over the last four years. And so, we’re going to leave it to FDA.
But I — I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals about what the — what the next administration is going to do or not.
Q Last thing on a different topic. There have been reports that Chinese government hackers have breached a really sensitive office within the U.S. Treasury. OFAC, of course, administers economic sanctions. What more can you tell us about the scope of this and what information has been compromised?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is the president was briefed on this. We are closely tracking the incident. We’re working to identify actions to mitigate the future risk to U.S. government networks.
And anything further, I would have to refer you to the U.S. Treasury Department, FBI. They could speak to specifics on this particular incident.
But the president has been briefed, and we’re certainly closely tracking the incident.
Q Do you know of any taxpayer information or any PII —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would have to —
Q — has been compromised?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would have to refer you to the Treasury Department on that. And the FBI, as you know, is investigating this.
Go ahead.
Q Hi. Has the president signed the Social Security Fairness Act?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, he will sign the Social Security Fairness Act in the upcoming days. Once we have that information, we’ll certainly share with you on that day — particular day.
Q Can you just clarify? My understanding was it would be pocket vetoed if he didn’t sign it by noon today. Are you saying that’s not the case?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I can say to you that the president is going to sign it. I can’t speak to the specifics of what you just laid out. I know the president is — is looking forward to signing that.
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Karine. U.S. Steel has warned that — that it may or likely would have to close steel mills if the deal fell through. To what degree did the — did the president take that into consideration?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can say this — that we are confident — the president is confident that domestic steel and domestic steelworkers are going to continue to thrive because of the work that he’s done, because of the commitment that he has had to — to this industry.
As I said at the top, this is the strongest — it is i- — it’s in its strongest — the — the steel industry is the — stronger than it — that it’s been in years because of what the president has been able to do.
And you think about manufacturing investment, you think about tariffs on Chinese steel imports, that’s — has made the industry stronger, those actions that the president has taken. You’ve seen more than 100 new steel and iron mills have opened since the president took office.
So, we’re very confident that this is an industry that’s going to continue to thrive.
Q If — if there are — if there are mills that are closed, if there are layoffs, would the president need to take some responsibility for that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I mean, that’s a — that’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. What I can say is the president has taken strong actions over the last four years.
I just mentioned a hundred new steel mills that were created. What he was able to do on — on Chinese steel imports, tariffs on Chi- — Chinese steel imports. That has made — made that industry stro- — stronger. Manufacturing investments, all of that has made that industry stronger.
And so, we believe it’s going to continue to thrive. I’m not going to get into hypotheticals from here. Obviously, the president took — took this decision really — you know, he — he really took it seriously and made a decision on behalf of — a behalf of — on behalf of the American people, and that’s how he came to this decision.
Obviously, this is a president that has had a lot of — a lot of focus and wanting to continue to make sure we uplifted, certainly, union workers. And that’s what you’ve seen from this president.
Yeah.
Q Karine, a number of the — the president’s actions in recent days have — have seemed intended to undercut some of the threats that the president-elect has made or actions that he’d said he’ll put into place. You know, he awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal to Liz Cheney, who the president-elect has said should be in jail. You all have the upcoming monument declarations next week and, also, the decision that the president is expected to make on banning drilling in certain federal waters. Are there other actions that we should expect from him in the coming days that — that he’s planning to take in anticipation of President Trump — President-elect Trump taking over?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be clear. I don’t have any announcements to make on — on any of the things that you just laid out — policy announcements to make. So, don’t want to get ahead of — of where we are.
What the president is doing and what he said he would do is continue to focus on the American people, continue to deliver on critical investments that he thinks matters of the direction as — as we go — as we move forward as a country.
Look, if you think about, for example, the monuments and those decisions that he’s made on protecting more than 46 million land and water, I think that’s — shows the president’s commitment to make sure that we preserve — to preserve our — our environment, that we can really focus on climate — climate investment, climate change.
I mean, there’s nothing new there. That’s been part of the president’s platform from the beginning. He happens to really respect Liz Cheney. He happens to really respect the congressman. And that’s why he made that decision.
And, look, the president is always going to lift up Americans that have put their country first is what we have seen. And he’s done that throughout the four years, not just this past week. He’s going to always make decisions that he believes is best for the American people.
I mean, there’s nothing new there. I think that is — if you look at what the president has done in the last four years, this is all consistent to what he believes and he believes — and what he believes is the best way to move this country forward.
Q Are there other actions that we should anticipate?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get ahead of the president. We have 17 days left in this administration. The president has a jam-packed schedule, and he’s going to continue to focus on ways that we can move forward — invest in this country, invest in — in communities, and continue to lift up — lift up all the — all — you know, all what he believes this country can be.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you. President Biden has staked his presidency on the preservation of democracy and has commemorated January 6th in different ways every year. What, if anything, will he do to commemorate the anniversary on Monday? And in that context, does he still believe Donald Trump is a threat to democracy?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I don’t have anything to share at this moment. You will hear from the president on Ja- — about January 6th — his thoughts on January 6th in 2021. Nothing has changed.
And I think this is a president that has spoken multiple times in the last four years and beyond about democracy — the importance of democracy, protecting our democracy. And so, I would expect that he will continue to be steadfast on that.
Q And then, I imagine the president is reflecting on Jimmy Carter this week. And so much of Carter’s legacy is his service to both the nation and the world in his post-presidency. So, I wonder how President Biden is thinking about his own post-presidential service and what he wants that legacy to be.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get ahead of this president. He’s going to have an opportunity to speak to all of you. You’re going to hear ma- — from him many times in the next 17 days about his thoughts about his presidency. I’m going to let him speak for himself.
But I think if you look at the last four years, what he’s been able to do — whether it’s climate change, whether it’s bringing the economy back on its feet, whether it’s investment — manufacturing investment in this country — he’s had a historic presidency. He’s done more in one term than most presidents have been able to do in two terms.
And that is — that is just the facts. That is what we’ve been able to see from the Biden-Harris administration.
So, I think it speaks for itself. But as far as the president and his personal thoughts, his personal views, I’m going to leave it to him to speak to.
Go ahead, Jared.
Q One more on U.S. Steel. I guess, more broadly, what message should other foreign companies who are considering investing in the United States take away from this decision by the president?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, again, this wasn’t about Japan. It’s not about Japan. This — we have a strong alliance with Japan. We have worked together — as you know, I’ve mentioned before — to — to strengthen our economic partnership. That is something that you’ve seen this president work tirelessly on over the past four years.
And certainly, we talked to Japan about this particular decision. We’ve been in direct touch.
This is about a domestically owned, operated steel industry. And we’re talking about our for- — our — our national security, of course, but also our supply chain — our resilient supply chain.
so, that’s what the president wanted to focus on. That’s what you saw, this action from this president.
And so, that is going to be our focus. We’re going to continue to work on our relationships with our allies across the globe. That is something that we’re going to continue to do.
I just talked about the president going to Rome next week. Certainly, that is very important.
The president, in the past four years, has been able to mend many of those relationships, and you’ve seen the president on the global stage and how those relationships have really mattered to our — to our friends across the — across the world.
And so, that’s how we should — that’s how we see this. This is not about Japan. This is about what is right for — for America and what is right — and how we — how he saw the best way to move forward with this decision.
Remember, CFIUS did this — did this analysis, and they provided us with their thoughts. And the president took this very seriously.
Q So, if it’s specific to steel, that — that’s sort of an industry that is —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — really viewed differently than other — like, whether it’s IT or — or chips or any other industry that a lot of foreign investment has come into the — the country for.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say —
Q I’m saying, there’s been a lot of foreign investment in other industries —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — beyond steel.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q Those investments are not at risk, or they shouldn’t rethink those —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well —
Q — as a result of the —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let’s —
Q — U.S. Steel decision?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, let’s step back. CFIUS took this on. It’s an independent — independent evaluation and an independent agency. And they gave their thoughts. They gave their report to the president, and the president made this decision.
So, let’s not forget how we even got here.
And so, I’m not going to get into other industries. I’m focusing on what CFIUS presented to this president and the decision that the president made.
You heard from him. He put out a statement on this in his voice, obviously, so you heard from directly. You’ve heard from me on why the president made that decision.
So, that’s why we are where we are today.
Go ahead. Go ahead.
Q Prior to the announcement today about U.S. Steel, Nippon Steel had said that it was going to sue if
this decision came to be. Has there been any preparation for that? Was that involved in the decision?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not — I’m — I’m not going to get into litigation, potential lawsuits from here. That is something I would refer you to Department of Justice. I’m just not going to do that — be pretty consistent.
Go ahead.
Wait, did I call on you already?
Q You did. (Laughter.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. I’ve got to call on somebody else. I’m sorry.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Karine. Human rights and upholding international law has been made priority for the Biden administration.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: S- — say that one more time.
Q Human rights —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Mm-hmm.
Q — and upholding international law has been a priority for this administration. We’re not disputing that, right?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I’m not disputing that. You’re correct. That is something that when I’m asked about it, we say that the president brings that up when he has meetings or bilateral meetings with — with world leaders. He brings that up, and it’s always something that we certainly focus on, for sure.
Q So, I don’t know if you’ve seen Amnesty International report, but basically detailing the arrest of doctors, health workers in Gaza. And some of them has endure torture. On December 27th, Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya — he is the doctor for Kamal Adwan Hospital — was arrested. And until now, we don’t know what it is his whereabout. And there is fear from Amnesty International for his life.
What is the White House doing to talk with a close ally like yours, which is Israel, to make sure that his life is spared and he is safe?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on that particular matter, I would — I don’t have anything to share on any conversation on that specific Amnesty situation.
Obviously, when it comes to humanitarian assistance, we continue, certainly, to be concerned of the lack of humanitarian assistance.
This is something that we talk directly with our Israeli counterparts in the government, and so we will continue to do that. You’ve seen Secretary Blinken and others who have gone into the region and have those conversation with Israel about that.
I don’t have anything to share about that particular instance. I would have to talk to the team, but — but that is something that we certainly take very seriously, when it comes to humanitarian aid and humanitarian workers being able to be allowed to do the job.
But I — I can’t speak to that particular report. I have to talk to our team. I — I want to be really, really mindful on that.
Q But would you agree that arresting doctors in hospitals is a violation of human rights and international law?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: A- — again, I want to be super
mindful because you’re asking me about a particular incident that has occurred, and I just want to make sure I have all of the information. I don’t want to give you an answer without having all the information. And so, I’m just going to be super mindful and — and leave it there.
AIDE: (Inaudible) time for one more.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. All right.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you. Is the president following the House speaker election process today?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —
Q He has worked with Mike Johnson. Does he want to see the process play out smoothly?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we’ve always been very clear from here, from this administration, that we do not inject ourselves into any leadership election that is happening in Congress. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Democrat or — or Republican, we stay out of it.
The president is going to continue to focus on the job that he has ahead: 17 days of a — of a jam-packed schedule, focusing on the American people.
We’re going to let Congress do their business.
Q And why is the administration calling for cancer warning labels on alcohol now, at the end of the term, when there’s minimal political capital? Were there conversations with Congress, and was there any pushback?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we obviously take any — any report that comes ind- — from an independent advisory –obviously, we take the findings very seriously, as we do now.
It is important that Americans are informed and — about decisions that they have to make for themselves.
When it re- — w- — as it relates to this particular report, I have to refer you to the surgeon general’s office, but certainly we take any independent advisory report very, very seriously.
I don’t have anything beyond that.
Thanks, guys.
Q How about one from Fox?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, everybody. Have a good one.
Q Does the president still consider white supremacy the greatest terrorist threat to the United States?
2:11 P.M. EST
January 03, 2025 On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
January 03, 2025
On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
Home
Briefing Room
Press Briefings
Via Teleconference
11:40 A.M. EST
MODERATOR: Hey, everyone. Thanks so much for joining the News of the Day Gaggle with John Kirby.
I’m going to turn it over to him for a few thoughts at the top, and then we’ll take your questions.
Kirby, over to you.
MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Eduardo. Hey, just a short one on a programming note for you all, but I wanted to be able to announce for you that National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan will be traveling to New Delhi, India, on January 5th and 6th for a capstone meeting with Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. That will span a range of issues across the breadth of our partnership with India, from space, defense, strategic technology cooperation, all the way also to shared security priorities in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
During the visit, Mr. Sullivan will meet with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and other Indian leaders. He will also visit the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, where he will be able to meet with young Indian entrepreneurs and give a speech outlining the significant steps that the United States and India have taken together to strengthen our innovation alliance under the U.S.-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology, otherwise known as iCET.
This will be Mr. Sullivan’s final trip to the Indo-Pacific region as National Security Advisor. He’s very excited and looking forward to these conversations at this critical time.
And with that, we can take some questions.
MODERATOR: Thanks. First up, we’ll go to the line of Andrea Shalal.
Q Oh, terrific. Hey, John. Thanks so much for doing this. I have two questions for you. One on the Nippon Steel deal, which was just announced, or the decision to block that acquisition.
There are a lot of people out there who are concerned that this decision casts doubt on the reliability of the U.S. as a partner when its, arguably, closest ally in the Pacific region is denied an opportunity to buy a U.S. firm that needs help. There are, you know, concerns about that being sort of a politicized decision. And I just wonder if there’s anything that you’re doing or that Jake will be doing, particularly with some of those countries that have straddled the fence, you know, in this sort of U.S.-China competition and rivalry. So that’s question number one.
And I’ll wait, and then I’ll ask the second.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, look, Andrea, this isn’t about Japan. This is about U.S. steelmaking and keeping one of the largest steel producers in the United States an American-owned company. It is not about the extraordinary, close relationship and alliance that we have with Japan. And the President has said so and made that clear to leaders in Japan on several occasions.
I don’t think you can take a look — and I would just push back a little on the premise of the question that somehow that this or any other thing we’ve done has conveyed to people that America is an unreliable partner. And this particular administration, over the last four years, we have proven time and time again, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, that we are a reliable partner, that we do take our treaty alliances and our commitments seriously, and that we are looking for ways to innovate and advance those. I mean, the AUKUS arrangement is a great example of that.
Take a look at the Camp David summit that the President hosted with the then-leader of South Korea, but also Prime Minister Kishida, where he talked about advancing not only bilateral cooperation between Japan and South Korea, and getting past some historical animosities there to a fare-thee-well, but also to improving trilateral cooperation between our three countries.
I mean, I could go on and on. I’m not going to do that in the gaggle. We can certainly send you a factsheet with all the things that we’ve done to shore up alliances and partnerships around the world.
I would add this: that where alliances and partnerships either weren’t doing the job or couldn’t do the job or weren’t designed for the job, President Biden invented new ones. Fifty- plus nations — 50-plus coalition of nations that are supporting Ukraine, continue to support Ukraine. And I think you’re going to see another iteration of the Ramstein Group here in coming days, as well as the 20-plus nations that the President put together as a coalition in the Red Sea to beat back Houthi attacks on commercial shipping.
So I just, frankly, don’t think that this decision, or any other decision, points to anything other than solid, steady, consistent American leadership here and around the world.
But this decision, as the President said yesterday, was based, in his view, on keeping one of the most valuable, one of the largest, one of the most important steel-producing capabilities as an American-owned company.
Q Okay. Thanks, John. And also, I just wanted to ask about the attacks that we’ve seen, or, rather, the attack in New Orleans and then this explosion in Las Vegas.
To what extent — and can you just maybe outline for us who’s being briefed in the Trump transition team on this? And can you say a few words about the heightened threat through vehicular attacks? I mean, that’s a pattern that was seen, obviously, many, many years ago. And, you know, there are —
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q — security provisions in effect already. But, you know, to what extent can you do anything to ensure, for instance, that there are no attacks during the inauguration or any other events that are coming up?
And is that, you know, a big topic of discussion with the Trump people? And have enough people in the Trump transition team been vetted and have received security clearances?
MR. KIRBY: Okay, that last part is a little bit off-topic here, and I’m not going to talk about the security clearances of the incoming Trump team. You’re going to have to talk to them about their planning in terms of, you know, their readiness and the clearances that they have and that they need to take over on the 20th. I’m not going to get into that.
I will tell you that we absolutely have kept the incoming national security advisor apprised and up to speed, that those conversations continue with him and his team. I’ll leave it at that level.
On your other question about the threat of vehicle-borne attacks, you might have seen the FBI put out a notice today encouraging all state and local officials to be mindful that there could be — could be — copycat perpetrators that might want to conduct similar-like attacks than what happened in New Orleans and Las Vegas.
I think it’s safe to say that federal law enforcement, federal investigative authorities, and our intelligence community are watching this very, very closely and will continue to do so.
And I think it’s also safe to say, without getting into specific force protection measures around the inauguration, but that the security of the inauguration and of people attending it remain a high priority for all of us in the executive branch, and we’re working assiduously every single day to ensure the safety and security of the inauguration from any kind of attack, certainly any kind of attack that could result in physical harm.
So we’re working on this very, very hard. And, yes, we are keeping, as we would, as you would expect we would — across the interagency, keeping the incoming Trump team informed.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to Alex Ward.
Q Yeah, thanks, John. Very quickly. There were — there have been reports that, you know, Biden — or that there were — top Biden officials wanted this deal to go through, you know, including folks like Jake at the White House or some others. And so, I’m wondering, you know, why were their arguments — why was Biden not convinced by their arguments? What was it that, you know, made him sort of go against that advice?
And also, quickly: In the statement at the end, you know, the President says, you know, he wouldn’t hesitate “to protect the security of this nation and its infrastructure as well as [the] resilience of [its] supply chains.” But he postponed this decision until after the election. He held off on making a final call here for many months. And so, you know, did election results play a part in waiting until now?
And, you know, why, if he felt so confident about this before — I mean, obviously we’ve seen Karine and others say, you know, this was always going to be a U.S.-run company, that he wouldn’t let it fall in other hands. So why wait until now to make the final call? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Alex, on your first question, I’m not going to get into internal interagency deliberations about this one way or another. As the President said yesterday, the committee of national security and economic experts assessed that there was a national security risk at play here, and the President is acting against that risk.
And as the President said in his statement yesterday, that is the sole reason he made this decision — that he believed it was and remains important for a company like U.S. Steel, which is so critical to our own supply chains here at home — and one of the things that he’s done since coming into office in the wake of the pandemic was to shore up American supply chains and make them more resilient and, as he has said many times, having more and more of our supply chains beginning at home. And that really drove his decision-making.
It was, as he said himself, a decision based on his view as Commander-in-Chief and as President of the United States that it was important to keep this most critical company, with the capabilities it possesses, in American hands and American-owned.
And he made this decision after receiving the analysis by the committee of national security and economic experts that CFIUS represents. And after taking due deliberation to consider that, plus the views, of course, of his team — his economic team, his national security team, his domestic security team — all that weighed into what he finally ended up deciding to do.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to the line of Aurelia.
Q Hi, and thanks so much for doing this and for taking my question. I have a question about Elon Musk, who is now calling for new elections in the UK, after also weighing in on the upcoming elections in Germany, having comments about Romania, et cetera. What’s your take on his various comments? And is this in line with the national interests of the United States?
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to speak to what Mr. Musk is saying publicly about foreign elections. He can speak for his comments, and those questions are better addressed to him as a private citizen.
I’ll tell you where we have been, and there’s no change. Obviously, these are allies. These are partners. These are democracies. We respect the democratic process in all of those countries.
And as we’ve said, I don’t know, time and time again: Who the people — who the German people, who the British people decide to elect to represent them is their decision to make, and we’re going to do everything we can to work with whatever new governments are put in office, because there’s just too much on the plate, too many national security agenda items that we’ve got to continue to work out with these allies and partners, and that’s what we’re focused on.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to the line of Jihan.
Q Hi, John. Thanks. I just wanted to ask: For months, we’ve been hearing that Hamas’s capabilities have been degraded and that their allies have been essentially defeated. Why haven’t we seen a corresponding decrease in Israeli strikes and casualties in Gaza? Israel says it’s only targeting Hamas, but just in the past 24 hours, 77 Palestinians have been killed, 145 people have been injured. If anything, we’re seeing more strikes on civilians, including in safe zones. How can we square this?
MR. KIRBY: That is a question better put to the IDF and not to the U.S. National Security Council. I mean, I’m not going to — as I’ve said over and over again, I’m not going to speak to specific Israeli strikes or Israeli operations. You got to talk to the IDF about the missions they’re conducting.
No question that they have visited significant damage to Hamas’s military capabilities, their ability to resource, to operate, and to continue to conduct lethal attacks. But Hamas still exists as a viable threat. There are still Hamas fighters. There is still some Hamas infrastructure. Hamas still has some abilities. And I’ll let the Israelis speak to the actions they’re taking to mitigate the threat that Hamas poses.
What I would prefer to talk about today is the opportunity that Hamas has right now to sign on to a new hostage deal. Let’s get those people home with the families where they belong. Let’s get a ceasefire in place so that there isn’t the possibility of civilian casualties, each one being a tragedy, and that we can surge humanitarian assistance in to the people of Gaza who so desperately need it.
Hamas started this war. Hamas put them in this position. And Hamas can easily end that suffering by signing on to this new hostage deal, which we are still trying to work to conclude.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to the line of Alex Marquardt.
Q Thanks, John. Perfect segue. That’s what I wanted to ask about.
Could you bring us up to speed on the latest moves from the U.S. side in terms of trying to get to a ceasefire deal? We saw the PMO say yesterday that they’re sending a working-level team to Doha. That doesn’t necessarily indicate that we’re that much closer. Has there been any progress in the past few weeks? Is there any travel that you can read out or meetings that you can read out?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any travel or meetings to read out, Alex, but we do note that the Israelis are sending another team to Doha. We think that’s a good step. And certainly it doesn’t diminish at all our hope that a deal can be had.
We think that a new deal is both urgent and possible. And again, we welcome the Israelis’ decision to send another team to Doha. I can assure you, without speaking — I don’t have any travel to speak to today, but I can assure you that the President has made clear his national security team will be a participant all the way to the very end, and we’re going to be doing everything we can to see if we can broker a new ceasefire deal, again, that will get the hostages home.
So I don’t have any breakthroughs to speak to today or announcements to make about participation physically, but I can tell you that we’re definitely going to stay focused on this. And again, we welcome Israel’s decision to send another team to Doha, and we think that that’s an encouraging step.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to Patsy.
Q Thanks, Eduardo. Hey, John. I have a quick logistical question on Ukraine before I go to Nippon Steel, if I may. You mentioned that the Ramstein Group here will be happening in the coming days. Can you speak more about the logistics of this? Will it be leader level, and would the President attend?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any more detail to offer. I would refer you to the Pentagon to speak to that. But I do think that there will be another iteration of the Ramstein Group here, certainly before the end of our administration.
And as you saw last week, we announced yet more security assistance to Ukraine, the final USAI package and another presidential drawdown authority. I think you can also expect additional security assistance announcements coming with respect to Ukraine, you know, in coming days.
So I’d leave it at that, and the Pentagon may be able to give you more information.
Q Okay. And on the Nippon Steel, can you just elaborate a little bit more what was the CFIUS recommendation? There seems to be conflicting information on that. I mean, we can’t see the final report, but as I understand, some members of the committee seem to be supporting letting the deal go through with certain mitigation measures in place.
And then, just on that note, if you say that this is to secure supply chain, well, companies like U.S. Steel needs investment (inaudible). So how would they get that investment without this deal? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to go into the CFIUS process. That wouldn’t be appropriate at all.
As the President said yesterday, the committee of national security and economic experts assessed that there was a security risk. As Commander-in-Chief, he made a decision, as he said, based on his concurrence with that assessment and the risk that he saw, and that this is very much about keeping a critical company in American hands. And I just — I cannot get into any more detail than that.
Q And on the investment part?
MR. KIRBY: Again, that is — you know, the decision the President made yesterday, as he said, was based on concerns about our national security and keeping supply chains in the United States resilient. And I’ll let other economic analysts speak to the business implications here. I’m not qualified to do that; that is not in my lane here, in the National Security Council. I would just go back to what the President said yesterday about why he made this decision.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to Missy Ryan.
Q Hi, can you hear me?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I gotcha, Missy.
Q Okay. Just two questions, John. So, first of all, there are some reports out there that the United States offered to reduce attacks on Yemen in exchange for the Houthis reducing their attacks on Israel. I’m wondering if you could speak to whether there’s any truth to that.
And then secondly, I wanted to ask you about Guantanamo. There was a ruling a little while ago that was rejecting the Defense Department’s most recent request to delay the plea deal hearings for the 9/11 cases, and so it seems like they may go ahead next week as planned, more likely for that to happen. I’m wondering if you can tell me will the administration appeal that, and just sort of any comments on the difficulty that the United States — that the Biden administration is having in halting this deal that was made.
MR. KIRBY: On your second question, I certainly won’t get ahead of where things are in the legal process, Missy. I think your questions are better put to DOD.
You have seen, or at least I hope you’ve seen, even in recent weeks, some additional transfers of Guantanamo detainees. The President has pledged to continue those, and so, you know, we’ve acted on that commitment. But on the legal process, I’m not really at liberty to discuss that in any great detail. And again, I’d refer you to DOD.
On your first question, all I’ll say on that line of reporting is you have seen, certainly in recent days, attacks — U.S. strikes on Yemeni capabilities. As long as Yemen continues to threaten commercial shipping in the Red Sea and certainly our partners in Israel, we are going to continue to take actions to degrade their capabilities. It’s really that simple. And I think I’ll leave it at that.
MODERATOR: Thanks. We have time for a couple more questions. Next up, we’ll go to the line of Janne Pak.
Q Hi, can you hear me?
MR. KIRBY: I gotcha, Janne.
Q Hi, Kirby. Happy New Year. I have a couple of questions. In South Korea, an unprecedented attempt by the judicial authority to arrest the president, the current commander-in-chief, has occurred. The opposition party has also impeached the president and suspended most of military’s high-ranking officers from their duties. This has raised the serious concern about security vacuum.
I have a question now. How does President Biden react to this and the current chaotic situation in South Korea?
And secondly, will the foreign policy and the security commitment made under the Biden administration continue to be maintained? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: So, there’s a lot there. I’ll just offer you some topline thoughts here.
Number one, we look to the ROK government, the National Assembly, and, of course, the Korean people to work together toward a stable path forward.
Number two, we’re committed to working closely with the ROK government, including the acting president, to advance mutual interest in our shared values. And we would note, in appreciation, the focus that Acting President Choi has placed on maintaining national stability.
We also expect the ROK government to proceed in adherence with the processes set forth in their constitution.
Fourth, we’re going to maintain open lines of communication at all levels with the ROK government, as you would expect we would as treaty allies.
And finally, that commitment to the alliance remains ironclad. I know that’s a word we say a lot, but when it comes to South Korea, we mean it. It’s ironclad. We’re going to continue to stand with the ROK and the Korean people. We’re going to continue to remain committed to maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. And we’re going to stay committed to making sure that our defense posture, mutual defense posture, remains strong and ready to respond to any external provocations or threats.
MODERATOR: Last question will go to line of Hiba Nasr. Hiba, you should be able to unmute.
Q Hi, how are you? Can you hear me?
MR. KIRBY: I gotcha.
Q Hi, Kirby. Happy New Year. I have a question on Lebanon. We are nearing now the end of the 60-day ceasefire period in Lebanon. The Lebanese are saying that Israel is violating the agreement on a daily basis. And there’s a genuine fear of a return to fighting, as well as the possibility of Israel remaining in Lebanon. What are you doing to prevent this?
And also on Lebanon, my second question is: Next week, there’s a session to elect a president in Lebanon. It’s not clear if they will succeed in doing that, but is there any message for them?
MR. KIRBY: Look, on your first question, I think it’s safe to say, without getting into too much detail here, that we continue to want to see this ceasefire maintained. And through intensive and active diplomacy, we’re working to that end. And you’ll continue to see energy out of this administration to that exact outcome, to the ceasefire being maintained. We believe that it has literally helped save lives, so we’re committed to it.
I don’t have any comment today about the electoral situation in Lebanon, Hiba. It’s important for the Lebanese people to have a voice and a vote in their futures so that their aspirations for peace and stability can be best achieved. And we’ll leave it at that. But, obviously, we’ll watch it very, very closely, of course.
MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone. That’s all the time we have for today. Feel free to reach out to the NSC press team with any follow-up questions. Thanks again. Have a good rest of your day.
12:08 P.M. EST