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
No comments:
Post a Comment