JackieChina

“During this time, law enforcement agents were attacked and seriously injured. The Capitol was invaded,” said Cheney. “The electoral count was halted. And the lives of those in the Capitol were put at risk.” “In addition to being unlawful as described in our report, this was an utter moral failure and a clear dereliction of duty … No man who would behave that way, at that moment in time, can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again. He is unfit for any office.”

Many media ignoring FTX's Sam Bankman giving Biden presidential campaign a cool $5.2 million

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Q Good afternoon. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, so today in the press briefing we are saying goodbye to two of our amazing interns. I think they’re here somewhere. MS. FELDMAN: We’re in the back. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Ah, there they go. (Laughter.) Cate Howell and Molly Feldman. They have been great, great additions to — additions to our team these past several months, and they are now going back to school. Hopefully enjoying the holiday before you go back to school. But thank you so much for your hard work. And today we have a familiar face with us to talk about how the President’s Winter Preparedness Plan on COVID-19 increases — as COVID-19 increases as the holiday — as we head into the holidays. And so Dr. Jha is here to talk about this plan and take some questions as well. Dr. Jha? DR. JHA: Great. Thank you, KJP. Good afternoon, everyone. Good to be with all of you again. As expected, we’re seeing COVID rising across the country this winter. And while COVID isn’t the disruptive force it once was, we are focused on ensuring that the U.S. is prepared for this winter no matter what the virus throws at us. As you know, we have the tools, we have the infrastructure, and we have the know-how to manage this moment. And that means protecting people, preventing hospitalizations and deaths. And the key is this: We don’t want this winter to look like last winter or the winter before. And our winter COVID-19 preparedness plan helps us do just that. So how do we do that? First — and you’re not going to be surprised to hear me say this — the most important thing Americans can do is to go get their updated COVID-19 vaccine right away. Now, you heard this from Dr. Fauci just before Thanksgiving; you heard this from me. And I will repeat again: The updated COVID-19 vaccine is your best protection against the version of COVID we’re fighting right now. Second, a critical component of our winter plan is making it even easier for Americans to access the tools that will protect them this holiday season: vaccines, tests, and treatments. So let’s talk about tests. Today, we’re opening up COVIDTests.gov for a limited time this winter to give Americans another easy option to access testing when there is a greater need as there is right now. Starting today, each U.S. household can order up to four at-home tests free from COVIDTests.gov, with tests starting to ship as early as next week, the week of December 19th. And as we’ve said for months, we’re operating in a resource-constrained environment in the absence of additional congressional funding for the nation’s COVID response. And that means we’ve had to make some tough choices. Like in the summer, we were forced to suspend the COVIDTests.gov program so we could preserve our tests. Why did we want to preserve our tests? Because we knew there would be a moment later in the year when COVID cases would rise again. So we kept — we preserved the tests so we could have them on hand for exactly this moment. And if we don’t get more funding, we won’t be able to send more tests out to the American people. Next, we’re standing ready to support states and communities with medical personnel, supplies, and other resources, as the President has been committed to doing since the first day he took office. Today, Secretary Becerra is sending out a letter to all governors, underscoring that our partnership with state and local leaders has been essential to fighting this virus. But the Secretary also made clear we need them to step up right now to get ahead of this increase in COVID that we are seeing across the country. And he outlined all of the federal supports available: to set up more vaccination sites, more pop-up clinics to get more shots in arms; to expand test-to-treatment programs, including new test-to-treat programs — sites that are — that the federal government can help with; to make key supplies like at-home tests widely available; and things that the federal government can do to support hospitals and health systems as needs arise. Because the bottom line is this: We’re all in this together. Fourth, we are accelerating our efforts to protect the highest-risk Americans, building on the considerable steps we have taken. Now, I want to remind everybody that more than 90 percent of COVID deaths in the U.S. have occurred in people 50 years of age or older. And in recent months, we’ve seen COVID deaths really concentrated among those 65 and above. And while we’ve seen many older Americans step up and get the updated COVID vaccine, there are still too many older Americans who have not gotten their immunity updated, who have not gotten themselves protected. Under half of nursing home residents have gotten their updated COVID vaccine. So we are working very closely with leadership of nursing homes across America, and we have asked them to step up to do more. We’ve developed a winter playbook for nursing homes and long-term care facilities to help them take action to make it easier to get vaccines on site in nursing homes, to make sure that treatments are available on site in nursing homes, to improve indoor air quality — another strategy that can make a really big difference. And we are reaching out to governors where nursing home vaccination rates are low to offer personalized support. Now, before taking your questions, let me close with this: We don’t want this winter to look like last winter or the winter before. And it doesn’t have to. What’s different is that we have an updated vaccine that targets a version of the virus we’re fighting. But we need people to get that vaccine. It’s free and widely available. We — what’s different this winter compared to last winter is we have highly effective treatments that are widely available if people get sick. But, obviously, we need doctors to prescribe them. We need people to get them. This winter, we can keep people safe. We can prevent hospitalizations and deaths. We can minimize disruptions. The administration has been — has been planning for this moment. We are doing our part. We’re prepared. But the bottom line is we need other leaders to step up as well — governors, mayors, people who have been terrific partners throughout this entire pandemic. But here’s what I know: If every American does their part, if every American goes out and gets an updated vaccine, if every American gets treated who’s eligible for treatment, we can have a very different winter ahead. And that is a goal of this effort. So, with that, let me stop, take questions. And, KJP, I’ll turn it back to you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jeff. Q Thank you. Dr. Jha, moving out from the U.S. borders for just a second, certainly one of the risks that faces this nation is additional spread from a big outbreak in China. Can you give us a sense of whether the U.S. government was aware or made aware in advance that Paxlovid would be made available in China? And can you give us any sense of what talks are happening behind the scedes [sic] — behind the scenes, rather — to help get Western vaccines and medicines to that country? DR. JHA: Yeah. So, on the specific question of Paxlovid, the U.S. government was not involved in any way. And it was — so, really would refer you to Pfizer and — but we were not involved in that in any way, shape, or form. On the broader question you’re raising, Jeff, what I would say is this: Since the beginning of this administration, the President has been very clear that we think it’s really important for the world to benefit from the fruits of American scientific innovation. We have been the largest donor of vaccines in the world, almost 700 million doses — many bilateral, many through COVAX. And the President has been very clear: We stand ready to help any country that needs help, in terms of vaccines, treatments, anything else. So, that — that offer stands globally for any country that could benefit from it. Q Would it be fair to characterize this as the U.S. and other Western countries are encouraging China to import mRNA vaccines, but not necessarily with U.S. — or strong U.S. involvement? Does that give them cover that they may need? DR. JHA: No, what I would say is: We stand ready to help any country in the world with vaccines, treatments, anything else that we can be helpful with. We have been the biggest donor of vaccines — as I said, almost 700 million doses. And that — that stance of being helpful, being ready to help, continues and hasn’t changed. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Thanks, Dr. Jha. Looking at the most recent COVID numbers we have, it looks like COVID cases were up 45 or 50 percent week over week, last week, but COVID deaths were up 60 percent. Why are COVID — why are COVID deaths spiking more dramatically than COVID cases are? DR. JHA: Yeah, it’s a good question. So, some of that is, by the way, data — right? — irregularity, just to be clear. Data is just — we’re in a different place with data; we get data less often. So, in general, we have seen COVID cases go up. We’ve seen hospitalizations go up. Deaths are just starting to rise. I do think that that standard link we’ve seen between cases and deaths are going to be different because there’s less testing. So, we’re going to be — it’s going to be later to see cases go up. But, so far, nationally, in our analysis of the data, death numbers are just beginning to rise. We obviously want to make sure that does not go any further. We know we can prevent nearly every death from COVID if people get their updated vaccines and people get treated. So, we continue to press that message. Q And are you considering a return to other restrictions — you know, masking on planes, vaccine requirements? DR. JHA: Yeah, so I think we’re in a very different place with this virus than where we were two years ago, where we were last year. What I would say is we now have the tools that we can manage our lives much more safely than we could a couple of years ago. And the most important thing, I think, people need to be doing is, first of all, they’ve got to get their updated vaccines. And then there’s a whole host of tools that people can use to keep themselves, their family safe: testing, masking, improving indoor air quality, being in better ventilated places — oh, and treatments, of course. So we think that is the strategy of the administration, that we want to encourage people to use those tools. And given how widespread and how available those tools are, I think if people did that, we could get through this winter safely. Q Thank you, Karine. Dr. Jha, just to follow up on Jeff’s question: With China relaxing its zero-COVID policies, what specific contingency plans do the administration have to deal with a potential outbreak or new variants, particularly with the increase of travel between the U.S. and China during the holidays and in the Lunar New Year? And do those considerations, at this point, include any talks of a travel ban? DR. JHA: Yeah, so we have a very robust surveillance program that — where we use for travelers as people come in, in terms of identifying people who are infected, tracking variants. That continues. And we generally are using wastewater, using other mechanisms, constantly monitoring for variants, both here as well as with our partners around the world, in Europe and in South Africa, in other places. I think all of that is a really important part of how we have become far more effective at being prepared for new variants. And if there are new variants that emerge, I’m confident that we will be able to identify them. Q Thank you. Q Dr. Jha, are we still facing a “tripledemic” where RSV, flu, and COVID are all surging at once over the holidays? DR. JHA: Yeah, so we have seen, certainly in the last month, three highly contagious respiratory viruses, as you mentioned: RSV, flu, and COVID. Let me tell you what we know about them. RSV, nationally, looks like it has clearly peaked and is on its way down. There are still places that have a very high levels of RSV. You’re still — but — but, nationally, there’s no question in my mind that RSV is heading down. You know, flu is rising in many parts of the country, with probably the worst flu outbreak we’ve seen in a decade. There — and there are some places where may- — flu may be peaking, but it’s very early data. But a lot of flu out there. Again, the worst in a decade. And then we talked about COVID, where, clearly, it’s on an upswing with increasing number of cases. Q One other question. Back in September, the President publicly said that the pandemic is over. How has that complicated the messaging to keep Americans vigilant facing COVID? DR. JHA: Yeah, so I think the President was also very clear that COVID is not over; COVID continues to pose a challenge for us. That is true. COVID is not over. And, obviously, we continue to see people getting infected, getting sick. Unfortunately, too many Americans needlessly dying of COVID. And so I think the President has been very clear on this, even since that day, about the importance of ge- — people getting vaccinated, people getting treated. And, obviously, I’ve been out here making that same message. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Two more. Go ahead, John. Q Dr. Jha, thank you. Two questions for you. One, is there — are there particular hot spots right now you’re concerned about when it comes to COVID rise? And then, secondly, based on all three of the viruses you’ve been discussing, can you talk to us about the strain on the nation’s hospitals? DR. JHA: So, particular hospitals — we’re seeing cases increase in about 90 percent of the country. So it is really sort of rising in lots of places across the country. So there’s not one that I think is — you know, is particularly worse off. Obviously, the vari- — you know, the levels are different across the country, but it is rising pretty much uniformly. And it makes sense, right? We just had the Thanksgiving holidays. It’s getting colder. Even in the southern parts of the country, it’s still getting colder. Obviously, we tend to see more in the northern half of the country because it is colder up here, and people are spending more time indoors. In terms of hospital strain, this is something we monitor very, very closely. We look at a whole bunch of national data every day. We are talking to states and jurisdictions every day — not every state and every jurisdiction every day, but on an ongoing basis. I would say in the last 10 days, I have probably spoken to — I or members of my team — a dozen or more states and cities. And our first question is, “How are the hospitals doing? Do you need more help there?” We have a very clear plan, if a city or a state gets into trouble where they really just can’t manage, that they can reach out to the federal government. We have a whole set of resources. Eval- — we can evaluate it. We can send in equipment. We can send in personnel. So we stand ready to help cities and states if and/or when they need it. Obviously, the single-most important thing we can do to make sure that there aren’t constraints and there aren’t real problems with hospital capacity is: If people got vaccinated, they are far less likely to get hospitalized for both flu and COVID. And that’s the biggest thing Americans can do to make sure their hospitals are functional for all the other reasons we need hospitals. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Karen, last question. Q Are you concerned that Americans who are testing positive but doing so on at-home rapid tests aren’t reporting that to government agencies, so the case counts right now might be dramatically lower than what we’re actually seeing spread across the country? DR. JHA: Yeah, it’s a really good question. What I would say is, first of all, I’m a huge fan of home tests. I think, you know, they’re convenient, they’re cheap. It’s great. One of the problems of — of home tests — really, the major problem — is that they don’t often get reported. So we do have, through this NIH effort called MakeMyTestCount.gov [MakeMyTestCount.org], I think, that people can report their tests. But we have other mechanisms we use to monitor infection levels. So, for instance, wastewater gives us very good insights into how much infection there is in a community. So we have seen case numbers often be lower than what you’d might expect if people were doing more PCR tests or more public health tests. But we’re tracking infections through other mechanisms. And, obviously, we’re tracking infections and hospitalizations so that that gives us a very good sense of the burden of disease as well. The last point I will make is: When people test at home, if they test positive, the first thought every single American should have is, “Am I eligible for treatment?” The truth is we have fantastic treatments. Anybody over the age of 50, anybody with chronic disease should get evaluated. Personally, as a physician, I think it’s very clear to me that anybody in their 60s or above should be treated. Like, there should be a good reason not to treat somebody. And there are rarely a good reason, meaning most people should be getting treated right now. And that is a message we’ve been delivering to doctors and nurses. That’s the message we’ve been delivering to the American people. If you get a positive test at home, stay away from others so you don’t infect them, and get evaluated to get treated. Q And, if I can, on the funding that was — that is being used to purchase the new tests for this new round for people to get them sent to their houses, were there cuts to other COVID programs in order to pay for those tests? DR. JHA: Yeah, so let me talk about how we’re able to do this. So we paused the program, you know, at the end of the summer because we wanted to make sure that we still had supply for a winter — potential increase of cases in the winter. Second is, while we — as I have mentioned from here before — while we took a lot of the resources we had for tests to purchase vaccines and treatments, we still had some resources left; we didn’t use — deplete the whole supply. And so we had money in the American Rescue Plan to still be able to buy some more tests. That combination has allowed us to do this. It is on a limited basis. We’re not going to be able to keep this open forever. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, thank you, Doctor. Appreciate it. DR. JHA: KJP, thank you very much. And thanks, everybody. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, happy holidays. DR. JHA: Happy holidays. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, just a couple of things at the top, and then we’ll take some questions. So today is the final day of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, a summit that has underscored the U.S. commitment to reinvigorating partnerships across the continent. President Biden, Vice President Harris, and other officials across the administration have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with the leaders from across Africa over the last couple of days, including at last night’s dinner here at the White House. Now, this afternoon, the President will address the summit one more time at this afternoon’s discussion on food security and food system resilience. This week, President Biden and Vice President Harris have had the opportunity to announce new initiatives that will empower African institutions and citizens. The President reaffirmed our resolve to work collaboratively with African governments, businesses, and civil — civil society to strengthen people-to-people ties, ensure more inclusive and responsive global institutions, build a strong and sustainable global economy, foster new technology and innovative sys- — strengthen innovation, strengthen health systems and prepare for the next pandemic, tackle the food security and climate crisis, support democracy and human rights, and advance peace and security. The Biden-Harris administration plans to commit at least $55 billion in Africa over the next three years, working closely with Congress. And more than $15 billion in private sector investment deals were announced at the U.S.-Africa Business Forum. And, of course, you’ve heard the President announce this week’s plan — this — this week, plans — this week — (laughs) — wow — this week to plan to travel to Africa and to continue the work over the course of the summit and to strengthen our partnership across the continent. I also want to talk about something that affects millions of people across the country every day. And with the holiday season upon us, and in the light of the tragic — tragic news about tWitch this week, we think it’s important that we shed light on the resources available to any American dealing with mental health challenges or emotional distress. Tomorrow, the Second Gentleman — Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff and leaders from Department of Health and Human Services will visit a local 988 call center and meet with crisis counselors who are providing mental health and suicide prevention support to people from all backgrounds and walks of life. The 988 Suicide Prevention Lifeline provides free, confidential 24/7 support to Americans across the country experiencing suicidal crisis or severe emotional distress. Anyone anywhere in the country can call or text 988 or chat 988LifeLine.org to reach a live trained counselor. And thanks to the President, our administration has invested $432 million in getting the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline up and running in communities across the country, an 18-fold increase in investment from the previous administration. So before we go into questions, I’ll repeat myself one last time here: For all of you — all of those who are struggling, we stand with you, and our administration will keep fighting for you. One last thing before we — well, I say we really take questions is I want to take a — give you guys a little bit of the week ahead. Just a quick look here. This evening, the President will travel to Wilmington, Delaware. Tomorrow, the President will visit and speak at a town hall at the — at the Major Joseph R. Beau Biden III National Guard Reserve Center in New Castle, Delaware. This is a capstone on the Department of Veterans Affairs PACT Act Week of Action, with over 90 events and counting, held across the country to encourage veterans to sign up for healthcare, get screened for toxic exposure, and submit a claim if they are experiencing a toxic exposure-related condition. The President will speak with veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors to discuss the historic expansion of benefits and services resulting from the Bipartisan PACT Act. I anticipate a preview with more details will be shared ahead of the event, so please stay tuned to that. Afterwards, the President will return to Washington, D.C., for internal meetings and more holiday receptions. Friday evening, the President will return to Wilmington, Delaware, where he will remain over the weekend. On Monday, the President will return to Washington, D.C. And in the evening, he and the First Lady will host a Hanukkah holiday reception in the Grand Foyer, right here in the White House — in the Residence, to be more precise. We’ll have more to share on next week’s guidance in the coming days. But we can also confirm today that next weekend the President and First Lady will celebrate Christmas at the White House. And with that, Zeke, you want to kick us off? Q Thanks, Karine. Just a bit of housekeeping to start off with. I was hoping you could shed some light on the apparent radio miscommunication that kept the White House press pool — separated the press pool from President’s motorcade when he returned to the White House today. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Give me one second, because I do have something to share on that. So, there was no emergency, just to be clear, or a security situation. It appears that there was a radio miscommunication upon — upon departure. Vans picked up the White House staff and press that were left at the Convention Center. So, also, White House staff were also left as well. And we waited to start the press briefing until everyone returned to the White House. We share an appreciation for how important it is for the press pool to travel with the President, and this remains a priority for our entire team. We sincerely apologize for the confusion and inconvenience. And just to reiterate, we also sadly left White House staff as well at the Convention Center. So this was — this was a — it was not just the press. So, just wanted to make that clear again. But with all seriousness, we do apologize for that. Q The President, in his remarks earlier, alluded to a trip to Africa himself. Do you have details on when he might go and where he might go? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I know that Jake spoke to this when he was here on Monday as well. Look, I don’t have anything to share at this time. What I can say is — and this is basically what Jake said on Monday — is that the Vice President and a number of Cabinet officials, they’re all looking forward to visiting the African continent in 2023. Just don’t have anything to preview at this time. Q And then — I’m sorry — back on COVID, something that Dr. Jha talked a lot about — the importance of Americans getting vaccinated. The latest CDC data shows that, you know, only about 14 percent of Americans have actually gotten the updated vaccines. Does the President believe that he or his administration bears some responsibility for not being able to convince the vast majority of Americans to get these updated shots that we heard from Dr. Jha are so important in this season? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let’s not forget, Zeke, when the President walked into the administration, he put forth a comprehensive COVID vaccination plan that would — that did not exist before he stepped into the — into the administration, that helped get more than 200 million Americans across the country fully vaccinated, and also made sure that there was equity at the center of his plan. Look, we’re in a different phase, as we — you’ve heard us say, in this pandemic. And — and we are going to encourage people to get that new vaccine. We have the tools. We have the tools that we know work when it comes to COVID, when it comes to this pandemic. And — and we’re going to continue to let folks know to utilize those tools. And so you’ve seen — as I started this briefing saying we’re seeing a familiar face in the press briefing room. And that’s because we’ve been trying to be very consistent on pushing that message out and letting people know that they need to get the new vaccine. It is important. We know it works, especially as they’re going to see their grandparents, as they’re going to see families — how important it is to get that new vaccine for themselves but also for their loved ones. Look, we believe we’ve had a comprehensive message, we’ve had a comprehensive plan. But again, we’re in a new phase of this — of this pandemic. And we just have to continue to beat the drum, and we’ll continue to do that. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On immigration, we’ve talked to so many Border Patrol agents and leaders who are just really worried and anxious about the possibility of Title 42 ending next week. Big picture, what is the administration doing right now to get ready for that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things that I want to lay out. And I kind of laid this out before, but I want to reiterate it here, is that, you know, we’re doing the work. We’re going to do this in a safe and humane way. And we will have more to share on the proposed preparedness next week before the December 21st date. But, look, we also need Congress to act. It is important that they deliver the resources we requested for the border security and management. They need to pass the comprehensive immigration reform that we have put forth. On day one, the President put forth a comprehensive reform plan that dealt with protecting for DREA- — protection for DREAMers; cutting down the asylum — the asylum buildup that we have been seeing, especially because of what the last administration did, and they completely gutted the system. And we know that this has been a multidecade-long problem. We need to modernize the system. And this is something that the President has put forth. And we are looking for Congress to act; we are asking Congress to act. And so — but in the meantime, what we have been able to do is the President, as I’ve mentioned before, has secured historic funding. We have 23,000 border security agents at the border. And that is the most amount that we’ve ever had, and that’s because of what the President has been able to do. And we have worked to launch a historic anti-smuggling operations that are taking thousands of smugglers off the streets. But, look, the reality is we need Congress to take action. We need to do this in a bipartisan way, as we have done, as the President has been able to do more than 200 times during his administration. Q There’s been some reporting out there that the administration is considering changes to the asylum policy, potentially making it so that only someone can — someone only apply for asylum if they’ve already been denied from another country, like Mexico. Is that true? Is the administration considering any changes to policy? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I know there’s a lot of rumors out there about that, a lot of speculation. I don’t have anything to announce at this time, or from here at this time. What I would encourage people to do is to read — the Department of Homeland Security, they put out — they put forth a six-point plan on how they’re going to move forward with dealing — with dealing when — dealing with the post-December 21st deadline, when Title 42 indeed lifts. But don’t have anything more to announce about a — any oth- — any new plans from here. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. DHS warned in a memo obtained by CNN this week that the end of Title 42 will, quote, “likely increase migration flows immediately into the U.S.” So I’m wondering how many migrants are you expecting to try and cross into the U.S. through the southern border next week. And is the administration prepared for this anticipated surge? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you know, we have — we have an intensive all-of-government effort underway to prepare. As I was stating earlier, when I was being asked a question by Mary, we’ll have more to share ahead of the 20 — the December 21st deadline. But in the meantime, DHS is surging resources to the border, as you’ve seen — as you’re probably seeing in El Paso — I talked a little bit about this on Monday — where over the last 72 hours they’ve moved thousands of individuals out of — out of the city. They’re doubling down on the anti-smuggling operations that the President launched months ago. They’re also working with our international partners to discourage disorderly mass movements across the border. Moving forward, expect us to continue leaning in on our successful strategies like these and like our parole program for Venezuela nationals, which has drastically reduced the number of Venezuelans attempting to enter unlawfully. And we’ll continue to drive messaging in the region to counter disinformation from smugglers. So that’s another thing that we — you know, we have to keep an eye on, is how the misinformation that’s going to be going out to smugglers in the next couple of days. And so we have to make sure — we will work together with all of you, our team will, to make sure that that doesn’t happen, because that is one of the big issues that we’re seeing when it comes to migrants trying to cross the border. Q But are you aware of this warning from DHS? And do you have an estimate of how many people you’re expecting will try and cross the border when Title 42 goes away? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I don’t have an estimate to share with you. What I can tell you is that the Department of Homeland — Homeland Security has put out a six-point plan. As you all know, Secretary Mayorkas was at the border just recently to talk about this plan, put out a statement. And so we are focused. We are focused and we are prepared, and we will have more to share in the next coming days on this — on this piece. But again, we have — we have done the work from this administration by securing record — record funding. And we are asking Congress — for Congress to act. We are not — we are not asking for political stunts. We’re — we continue to see political stunts from many Republicans out there. And that’s not how we’re going to fix this issue. They want to — they want to secure the border. We’ve been doing that work on our own. And we asked — we’re asking them to — hey, you know what? There’s an immigration reform plan that the President put out on the first day. They should work with us and do this in a bipartisan way. Q And then, in terms of the funding negotiations on Capitol Hill, we’ve seen this administration, this President, at times play a more hands-on role, a more hands-off role in some negotiations, depending on the situation. What’s the case with these negotiations? How involved has the President been? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Which — which particular negotiations are you talk- — are you talking about — Q Over the spending bill. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The spending — oh, the spending — the omnibus bill — Q Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — more broadly. So, look, we’re encouraged by the bipartisanship that we’re currently seeing to — the progress that we’re seeing in Congress from leaders and the progress that they’re making. So it’s a key step on the path to a full-year government funding bill that delivers for the American people. We’re optimistic that members of both parties can build on this progress and produce a funding bill that can pass the House and Senate, signed into law by the President. But to your question, though — look, the President has been very engaged. He’s been talking to congressional members. He had the Big Four here not too long ago. And this was in the readout. This was — the government funding was the main priority that they discussed. And we have our team here. We have Shalanda Young from OMB — I’ve mentioned this before — who’s the director, who has been playing point on this, who knows how to work across the — across the — across the aisle and do things in a bipartisan way. And she is leading that effort along with our Office of Leg Affairs who have had multiple calls, multiple meetings in getting this done. Look, this was done in a bipartisan way last year, and we believe it can be done in a bipartisan way this year as well. Q And are you confident this one-week stopgap will pass in time to avert a shutdown? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We are — we — we — I mean, we have said — I said this earlier — you know, if Congress needs a little bit more time to get this done, we’re — they should take that time. But we believe there’s enough time to get the omnibus — omnibus done. And so we are — we are encouraged by what we’re seeing in that progress, and we believe that it can get done in time. Did I just — okay. Q Thanks, Karine. The President mentioned in his statement yesterday about the Sandy Hook killings, the anniversary, again his push for an assault weapons ban and also talked about a moral guilt in not having done more over the last 10 years. There’s only a couple of weeks left in the lame duck. Can you give us an update on just what the next steps are that he sees for this White House, for this administration in getting that assault weapons ban passed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we have been in close touch with Senate leadership on this. As you — as you just mentioned, this is a priority for this President. It has been for some time. He was a leader on this during his Senate days and also as Vice President. And so he’s going to continue to push for this. Whether this happens in the next couple of weeks or it happens in the next several months, he is going to really work hard to get this done. And, you know, he’s — he’s talked about it at almost every moment that he can. Every time that he had an opportunity to talk about the shootings that we have seen, how it’s destroyed our communities, how it’s destroyed families, he’s going to continue to lift that up to the American people. Again, we’re going to have those conversations with Senate leadership, we have been the last couple of days. Don’t have a timeline for you. This is indeed a priority for this President and his administration. We have seen the work that he’s done this first year and a half. He did the most — did the most executive actions on gun violence than any other President. And so, clearly, this is a priority for this President. Q And beyond him speaking about it, is it — is it really that? Is the strategy, basically, to use the bully pulpit, or are there other steps? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, that’s — that’s an important strategy. I mean — right? — the President has one of the most powerful bully pulpits in the country, in the world even. Right? And so we have seen him use it in an effective way to get historic piece- — historic pieces of legislation done. And so he’s going to continue to do that. But we’re also having conversations with Senate leadership. That will not stop or end when it comes to this issue. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Just before you came out, the President had authorized the release of documents related to John F. Kennedy’s assassination. And since you’ve been at the podium, the National Archives has started posting those documents. Can you talk about that decision to release those? And also address — 70 percent of the documents are being released; 30 percent still are not. What is taking so long in the other 30 percent, given it’s been 50 years? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you know, this was — has been a commitment of this President. Right? The President — the President’s actions have led to public release of over 14,000 records, including approximately 12,000 today, just to give everyone specifics here. As a result, we’re talking about 97 percent of the co- — of the collection is now available to the public. This reflects, again, the President’s commitment to making these records available to the public to the greatest extent possible consistent with national security. So this is a commitment that the President has been making for some time, or made some time ago. President Biden believes all information related to President Kennedy’s assassination should be released to the greatest extent possible consistent with, again, national security. That’s why he directed the acting archivist to conduct a supplementary six-month review of a — of a subset of the remaining redacted records to ensure they are disclosed to the greatest extent possible. He also directed all remaining redacted information to be disclosed to the public when the basis for the continued restriction of that information no longer outweighs the public interest. So, obviously, there’s a national security component here. But he is committed to getting that information out. And right now we’re seeing more than 97 percent of the collection that’s out there for — for folks to review. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. I have two questions for you. Congressman Cohen and Wilson from the Helsinki Commission introduced a resolution urging President Biden to take steps to suspend or terminate Russia’s rights and privileges at the U.N. Security Council. Does the President support this effort? What steps he can take? Is this goal achievable? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, we do support — we do support that effort. Can you say the question one more time? I just want to make sure — Q So, the resolution — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Make sure I have this right. Q — says that the President — asks the President — urges the President to take steps to suspend or terminate Russia’s rights in the U- — U.N. Security Council. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, U.N. Security Council. Got it. So, look, Russia’s conduct in — in Ukraine is — is a violation of the U.N. Charter and is an affront to the core mandate of the Security Council. And we see it as an outrageous — it is outrageous for a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to be violating the Charter and waging such a brutal war on Ukraine, including by trying to inflict such widespread human suffering and targeting critical infrastructure. So we successfully led a vote in the U.N. General Assembly to suspend Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Council. And we have worked to prevent Russia from taking leadership positions elsewhere in the U.N. system. So we’ve been very consistent on this. If there were a path to suspend Russia from the U.N. Security Council, we would pursue it immediately. Unfortunately, we don’t see the U.N. — we don’t see the U.N. rules changing. And so we are focused on continuing to take actions to isolate Russia, including in international organizations, and hold Russia accountable, including through sanctions and enforcement actions we announced today, as you saw. Q I have a follow-up on the Patriots for Ukraine, also. Since there was no announcement on this yet, I would like to ask if the President is even considering sending Patriots to Ukraine. And what’s the White House’s response to warnings coming from the Kremlin about possible consequences if the U.S. sends Patriots to Ukraine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, first, let me take your last question first. Look, the only — the only provocative moves are being made by Russia, and Russia is the aggressa- — aggressor here. And let’s not — we should never forget that. We should never forget who is actua- — who actually started this war, and it was Russia. So that’s — that’s point one. Point two, the United States is not now nor has it been at war with Russia. This is responding to what we’ve heard from Russia this past 24 hours. We — we’ve been doing exactly what President Biden told President Putin we would do, one year ago, if Russia attacked Ukraine: providing security assistance to help Ukraine defend itself. That’s what you have been seeing from this administration, from this White House. Finally, while I don’t have any new security assistance packages to speak of today, as you all know, President Biden has been clear about this: The United States will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, alongside our allies and partners, as the people of Ukraine defend their country, as they defend their freedom, as they defend their sovereignty. And we will continue to do that. Q Can we expect any announcement this week, as it was reported by the U.S. media? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t have anything to share with you at this time. Go ahead, JJ. Q I’m wondering if the White House has any reaction on two bills that moved through the U.S. Senate. One is on TikTok. The Senate voted to ban TikTok from government-issued phones. Let’s start with that one. Does the White House have feelings on that bill? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I’ve — as I’ve said before, you know, want to be very careful on commenting on any specific legislation at this time, so we refer you to Congress on the next steps. We don’t get involved in the process, as we’ve done in the past. But, look, just more broadly, there are a range of tech appli- — applications and products that are not allowed to be used on the White Ho- — on the White House and other federal government work equipment for security reasons, including TikTok. We will not go into any further details about security policies that we have here. But I’m not going to get into the process. I know that this just happened, so we’re going to let Congress move forward with their processes on this. Q So no official position on that one. What about the Senate bill that would essentially halt Huawei’s access to U.S. banks? The Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, was one of the sponsors of that bill. Does the White House have a position on that one? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, don’t have a position on that one at this time, from here. Go ahead. Q Thanks. America is clearly divided about immigration. From the White House perspective, though, should Americans be supportive or concerned with the end of Title 42, which obviously stops most migrants from being able to apply for asylum? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What Americans should know is that the President has done — has done the work to deal with what we’re seeing at the border since day one. What Americans should know is that the President put forth an immigration reform policy to make sure that we’re dealing with a broken system, to make sure that we’re able to protect DREAMers, to make sure that we deal with the backlog that we’re seeing with asylum seekers, to fix the gutted system that was — that has been around for some time but certainly was gutted by the last administration. And the work that the President has done, he wants to do this in a bipartisan way. But what we’re seeing is Republicans continue to move forward with political stunts. Many of them are doing this. And we continue to see this over the last several months. So, the President has done the work. He secured record funding. Again, I mentioned 23,000 agents that are at the border who are working night and day to protect and secure the border. And that’s because of the work that this President has done. And we’re working on anti-smuggling efforts as well. And so, look, what the — what the American people should know is that we have taken the steps — we’re taking the step to prepare for what is — for — for when Title 42 is lifted next week. And you saw that from the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Mayorkas was very clear about that. He laid out their six-point plan when he was at the border just a couple of days ago. And this is an administration that has taken this very, very seriously. Q But does the White House think that ending Title 42 –a Trump-era policy — is a good thing? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I am telling you is that it was a court order that was — that we are following. And we’re going to follow the law when it comes to what the court has decided to do. What I can tell you is what the President has done over the last two years to make sure that we’re dealing with border security. We hear it from many Republicans, right? You guys report on it. Many Republicans say over and over and over again that we need to do work at the border, that we need to secure the border, but yet they refuse to work with us on this piece of legislation. Instead, what they choose to do is do political stunts. That doesn’t help. Q Can I ask one question about Afghanistan? There are negotiations about including the Afghan Adjustment Act in the spending bill. There’s been a group of retired ambassadors who have been pushing towards inclusion. The Biden administration has tried to get this in the spending bill before, unsuccessfully. What is the administration doing differently this time to get to try to do that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, by your statement, we strongly support the ongoing congressional efforts to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act. And we urge Congress — we’re going to continue to do this — to send the legislation to the President to provide a path to permi- — to permanent legal status for Afghans. And we have joined our communities and resettled across — who have joined our communities and resettled across our country through Operation Allies Welcome. So that is something that we’re going to continue to ac- — ask for Congress to act. We first asked Congress to pass this legislation back in August of 2021, and have been working with members of Congress from both parties to try to pass it ever since. And we know that there’s a bipartisan support for this bill and that negotiations in the Senate are ongoing. It’s important to take care of our Afghan allies who took care of us during the 20 years of this — of the U.S. — of the years that U.S. was — was at war in Afghanistan. So we take this very seriously. We strongly support it. We’re going to continue to have conversations with members of Congress and continue to urge them to get this done. Q Karine, I know the pool has to leave — gather in a few minutes for the President’s departure. Will you take one or two more? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll take one or two more. I’ll take one from the back that I haven’t taken one. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Jake Sullivan was in here on Monday and said that an engagement with Russian counterparts was planned for this week on the Paul Whelan case. Do you have any updates on that, or can you say whether that happened? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, we want to be really mindful of — of any conversations that we have as we’re talking about negotiations. So we’re not going to, you know, speak about that in public. I don’t have anything to share. But so that you know — and I — we’ve said this before, and Jake has been very clear, the President has been very clear — we take this — when Americans are wrongfully detained or held hostage, we take that very seriously, and we are going to do everything that we can to bring Paul Whelan home. That is a priority. But certainly, we’re not going to talk about steps or any conversations in public because we want to make sure that we get this done. Q And just one other question. Can you give us an update on Mayor Garcetti’s nomination as ambassador to India? Does the President need to resubmit his name to the new Congress? Where are you guys at with that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you know, this is a priority and continues to be a priority for us. Mayor Garcetti is well qualified to serve in this vital role. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as you know, voted Mayor Garcetti out of committee unanimously after reviewing this matter thoroughly, and we’re hopefully — and we’re hopeful that full Senate will confirm him promptly. And so we’re going to continue to support him. Go ahead, Emily. Q Thanks, Karine. I have two follow-ups on Title 42. I know you said you guys were hopeful that the omnibus gets passed, but what kind of preparations are being done in case it doesn’t and communities do get overwhelmed and need some resources? And also, does the administration fear that the end of Title 42 will lead to a spike in COVID cases in the country? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just talk a little bit about the three — there’s $3 billion for border funding. So a couple of things. You know, again, if Republicans are serious about this, we put forward some $3 billion plan that we are asking for Congress to support. Here’s what it would do: It would ensure that the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security have the resources they need to secure our border and build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system. The funding will integrate surveillance towers, inspect technology, Border Patrol rotor — rotary wing aircraft and helicopter aircraft sensor upgrades, tactical marine time surveillance system, and also law enforcement radios, faster asylum claim processing, and so much more. So we believe it’s incredibly important to get that done as well. But to your question about the — the winter surge, how we’re — how Dr. Jha was talking about this from the podium: Look, because of the President’s — the President’s work and what he’s been able to do throughout his administration, the American people have tools — we know what works — and to protect — to protect themselves from COVID. And we continue to encourage them to use the tools as we always have. Now, on Title 42, we’ve inquired — we are required by the court to lift Title 42, and we plan to comply with that order. And so — but Title 42 or not, every individual encountered at the border is screened and processed by Border Patrol agents before they are placed in removal proceedings. And like I’ve said a couple of times already, you know, the Department of Health — Homeland Security has been on — has been on top of this. We are prepared. We are ready to do this in a humane way and in a safe way. And so it is something that the President has been working on since day one of his administration. Q Thanks, Karine. Q Oh, Karine — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, everybody. Q — one more? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, everybody. Q Do you have time for one more, Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Got to go. Thanks, everybody.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. I know we have some serious business ahead of us today, but as you know, sometimes a girl just want to have fun. (Laughter.) I’m — Q Ahhh — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Come on. Come on. Come one. (Laughter.) Come on, I’m trying. I’m trying, guys. But in all seriousness, this afternoon we are celebrating a truly historic moment for marriage equality. And so I brought a friend with me, who is an icon, really doesn’t need any introduction, but we are thrilled that she is here. We are honored to have her here with us today on this important day. Cyndi Lauper, who has been advocating, as many of you know, for LGBTQI+ community for decades, particularly to end youth homelessness. Cyndi will be performing this afternoon, and I thought I’d invite her to — in front of all of you all today, to say a few words. And, Cyndi, thank you so much for coming. The podium is yours. MS. LAUPER: Thank you. Hi. I just — I just want to tell you, I came here because I wanted to just say thank you to President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Vice President Harris, and all the advocates, and his team. For — for once, a lot of families — mine and a lot of my friends and people you know — sometimes your neighbors — we can rest easy tonight because our families are validated and because now we’re allowed to love who we love, which sounds odd to say. But Americans can now love who we love. And bless Joe Biden and all the people that worked on this for allowing people not to worry and their children not to worry about their future. Thank you. And thank you for being supportive. And, hey, I will sing out to you. (Laughs.) Thank you very much. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Cyndi. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you so much, Cyndi, for coming. Again, this is an extremely historic day, a proud day for me and so many of us here at the White House and so many Americans just across the country. And we’ve — truly will be looking forward to Cindy performing on the South Lawn today. I know we don’t have a lot of time, and so we’ll go straight to questions. Zeke. Q Thanks, Karine. Obviously, the news that the former founder of FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, was arrested in the Bahamas. The President received campaign donations — campaign donations from him — and many prominent Democrats did, some Republicans did as well. Will the President return that donation? Does he call on all politicians who got campaign donations that may have come from customer money to return those funds? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I am covered here by the Hatch Act. I’m limited on what I can say. And anything that’s connected to political contributions from here, I would have to refer you to the DNC. Q I mean, I’m asking the President’s opinion, though. You know, does he want those — people who — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, you asked me two questions. You asked me about will he return the donations, and then you asked me about his opinion. I’m answering the first part, which is: I’m covered by the Hatch Act from here. I am limited on what I can say. And I just can’t talk to political contributions or anything related to that. I cannot speak about it from here. Q And then, his opinion, though — if you — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I just — just cannot speak to this from here. Even his opinion, even his thoughts about the contributions, donations, I cannot speak from it — from — about that from here. Q And then — Q Are you covered by the Hatch Act? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I am covered by the Hatch Act, which I’m happy to say over and over again, because we believe in the rule of law here. Q And just on a different topic. Next week, Title 42 is coming to an end. How is the administration preparing for that? And what more is the President prepared to do to stop people from crossing the border regularly into the United States, illegally in many cases? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what we are doing to need to prepare — we are asking Congress, as you all know, for the resources. We’ve been coordinating with leaders across the Western Hemisphere. As you all know, we’ve reported on — of meetings that we’ve had and actions that we have taken. We’ve got anti-smuggling operations with Me- — with Mexico, Guatemala up and running. And so that’s been incredibly critical as well. We’re working to combat misinformation from mis- — from smugglers. And as we — as was the case before Title 42 and remained the case after it, individuals who attempt to cross the border unlawfully and don’t have a legal basis to remain will be subject to removal. And we’ll — and we’ll certainly have more in the coming days. But, look, you know, you’ve heard us say this before, and we put the question to Co- — to Congress: And what — what are they going to do here? What — Republicans are asking, you know, how are we going to secure the border. I’ve listed out on ways that we’ve tried and work — to work on that. But we’re also wanting to do this on a bipartisan way. We’re talking about — you know, we’re — the President’s about to sign this marriage equality bill, which was done in a bipartisan way. So we know how to do that. We know how to work with Republicans; Republicans know how to work with us. So why don’t they work with us on this particular issue that is important to — important to Americans across the country? And we’re asking for them to join us on this — on this issue as well. Go ahead. Q Thanks. The President said he’s convinced inflation will continue to go down, but we have, of course, seen some unexpected spikes over the last past year. So just to be clear, is the White House confident that inflation has, in fact, peaked? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I know the President was asked this question. He said — he also said, “I…” — you know, “I’m not able to predict this as well,” in his comments today. So, look, one of the things that I want to say is, like, today is a welcome news to American families. Just across the country, the annual consumer price index has fallen for the last five months, and so that’s important to note. And last week, we learned from — the producer price index, PPI, rose at its slowest annual rate since May 2021. And near-term consumer inflation expectations fall — fell. So we have more work to do, as we know. The President has been doing a lot of work on getting that gas prices down. And we have seen — seen that fall about $1.75. Millions of Americans are going to save about 100 bucks per year on health insurance because of the work that the President has done, because of the Inflation Reduction Act. And so, look, we know there’s more work to do, and we’re going to continue to do that. But, again, you know, the President said we’re not able to predict. But we have seen some good signs from the data: CPI, PPI. And so we’re just going to continue to do the work to make sure that we do what we can to lower costs for American families. Q You mentioned today is obviously a big day for this administration, for the President. I’m wondering if he’s shared with you any of, you know, his personal reflections. You know, the public has been with him as he’s, you know, sort of evolved on this issue. And for you, personally — I mean, you are the first openly gay Press Secretary. What does this day mean for you? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: For — personally, this is a big day for me, but not just me; there are many colleagues that I work with here who are allies, who are also part of the community, who are very incredibly proud. We’re going to see about two to three thousand people out in the South Lawn who have worked — we’re talking about activists who have worked on this issue for decades and people who are truly affected by what is happening today — the signing of this bill. I was just with the President as he was going through his remarks. And the thing that I remember was, 10 years ago — you all — many of you all have played this on your networks today — when he was on — on “Meet the Press.” And he said something that, really, no other national elected official was saying at the time: that marriage is a proposition. And it’s about, you know, who you love, but if you are going — I’m going to mess up his quote — but who you love, but also about if you’re going to be loyal to that person. And I think that’s important. And that is something that, again, he said 10 years ago when many people were not saying that — many people in his position. And he has always been an ally. I think I speak for many of us at the White House today that we could not be prouder to be working for this administration, to be working for this particular President, and to working on all the issues that are going to change Americans’ lives and, as we have seen, historic pol- — historic legislation over the last 22 months. Q Karine, aside from the arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried, what actions can you take to protect people from the collapse of the crypto market? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’ve taken — we have certainly — we have — this administration has consistently urged Congress to take action to address regulatory gaps posed by digital assets and support legislative efforts to enact crypto legislation to better protect American consumers. Just last month, Secretary Yellen, in fact, called on Congress to move quickly to fill the regulatory gaps. That’s a quote that she said herself. And the admin- — administration has — has identified what those gaps look like. But, again, we have urged — this is something for Congress to do. We have urged Congress to take action, and we’ll continue to do that. Q And Jake was a little unclear on this yesterday. Does the President plan to travel to Africa next year? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I don’t have anything to preview at this time. As you said, Jake spoke to this just — just yesterday — 24 hours ago. And there will be an announcement about a broad-based commitment to travel to con- — to the continent in 2023 as it relates to the President, as it relates to the Vice President, as it relates to Cabinet secretaries as well, but we’re just not going to get ahead of that announcement. But, again, don’t have anything to preview today. But we’ll — we’ll have something for you soon. Go ahead. Q Just following up on the Title 42 question. There is a bipartisan framework in the United States Senate. There’s a vehicle moving right around the time of the Title 41 — or Title 42 potential deadline. Is the administration all in behind trying to get something done in this very tight period of time? Do they feel like the Tillis-Sinema framework isn’t quite there yet? How are you looking through that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we’re encouraged by the bipartisan conversations happening on immigration reform currently in Congress. As you know, on the President’s first day in the — in the White House and in his administration, he put forth a comprehensive immigration reform because he understood how important this — this issue was. Protections for DREAMers — that’s what was in that — that legislation that he put for it — put forward. Cutting down the asylum backlog, modernizing our outdated immigration system. And so we’re — we’re going to let the process play out. I’m not going to get ahead of it. As you know, there’s negotiations happening on this framework that’s being led by Senator — Senators Sinema and Tillis. And so — but, again, we’re encouraged by it. And, you know, the President put that out there on day one — that this is important and we needed to get this done. Q And then, on another topic just real quick. There’s been some positive smoke signals on omnibus negotiations, where they’re going. Do you feel like the process is getting closer to the endgame you guys want at this point, or too early to tell? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ve been very clear on this, Phil, as you know. I think you’ve asked me this question almost every time you’ve been in the briefing room. (Laughter.) Q Love appropriations. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. You love — you love appropriation. I understand that. And our view is this — and I — I’m repeating myself here as we’ve talked about this over the past couple of weeks since — certainly since the midterm elections, which is: There was a bipartisan agreement that was done last year on this, and we believe that it could be done again this year. And there’s enough time to get this done. This is not a part- — partisan issue. We’re talking about bipartisan issues here when it — when we talk about the American people, national security, right? We talk about public health, public education — all key issues that matter for all Americans across the — across the country. And so, again, we are just going to continue to encourage Congress to act and to get this done. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Does President Biden support or oppose legislation — legislation that has stalled in Congress to create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the U.S. response to the COVID pandemic? What is the White House position on this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I think this has been asked before, I think during Jen’s tenure. I don’t have anything more to add or more to look into on this. I would have to go back to the team and see if our position has changed. But nothing new for you. Q But remind me, what was the position? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I’m just saying — Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — I — I know that this has come up. I just don’t have anything new to add. Or I can — Q But — so is it — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — go back and ask — and to see where we are on that. Q So whether you — but does the administration support it or oppose it or neutral? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I just — I just answered your question. Q Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I said, I know this has come up in the past, but I don’t know if we’ve changed our position. I have to go back to see exactly where we are on that particular question. Q Okay, thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Is there a sense today, with the President signing the Respect for Marriage Act, that that makes it settled in America? Or is there still some concern that, based on some of the comments from Justice Thomas or the potential for other litigation, that this could still be an issue that would be explored in the U.S.? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I think — a couple of things there: Look, this is an important civil rights accomplishment that achieved — that was achieved in a bicameral and bipartisan way. And it got that support, right? And when the President signs it today, it will build on gener- — it will build on generations of civil rights advocacy that — that brought us to this historic moment. So that’s important to note. But, look, we understand: In spite of this important legislation, it is also true that there are extremist conservatives who appear bent on taking away fundamental rights, including marriage equality. This bill provides an important measure of security and sta- — stability for LGBTQI+ families. But their children should se- — should — should — should see — should also — will also get the — attacked, right, as we know, sadly. And their legal tax on marriage equality will continue to persist. And so there’s absolutely more work to be done on the LGBTQI — for the LGBTQI community. And so you’ll hear from the President; he’ll talk about that, the work that needs to continue to get done. And so that is something that he understands. This is, again, an important step forward, but we also have to pass the Equality Act. That is also something that the President has called on from the beginning of his administration and will continue to do. But we cannot ignore how important today is, how important this moment is, and how it actually builds on all the work that has been done across the past couple of decades. Q Thanks, Karine. Today, the President talked about his economic agenda, you know, saying that it was part of the reason why we’re seeing inflation easing. Does he also credit the Fed and the rate hikes as a reason why we’re seeing inflation ease? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to respond to any actions that the Fed has taken. They are independent. We are never going to comment about that. They — we believe they have the best monetary policies to deal with inflation, but not going to comment on the actions that they have taken or the actions that they’re going to take. The President — look, as we know, the President has taken — has an economic policy, economic plans that we have seen him execute over the past 20-plus months that has shown to have been effective in where we are with our economy right now, to have shown that we’ve been able to grow — well, “create,” I should say, 10-point — 10.5 million jobs that matter, especially after what happened when he walked into the administration with the pandemic, with what was happening with the economy, the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, creating jobs, good-paying jobs. And so that will continue. He con- — he feels, as you heard from him today, this morning, that we need to continue to make sure that we build an economy from the bottom out and middle out, and that we don’t leave anyone behind. And so that’s what he’s going to continue to focus on. Q So is it fair to say that he thinks, in large part, it’s because of his agenda? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we have said — we have said, the — what we are seeing today, with the economy being as strong as it is and what we have been able to do with job creation and — we believe that a lot of that is because of his economic policies. Now, as it relates to inflation and what we’ve been seeing with inflation: Of course, the President has made that his top — number-one top economic priority, and making sure that we bring costs down. And that’s why he’s taken actions on gas prices. That’s why he’s — he signed the Inflation Reduction Act, because he wants to make sure that we’re lowering cost for the American — American families. But we have to remember what the President inherited here. When he walked into this administration, we were dealing with the economy that was struggling. We were dealing with Americans who were losing jobs. And so he was able to turn that around. And that’s what he means about his economic policy. Go ahead, Steven. Q Thanks, Karine. The President (inaudible) about to enact a landmark piece of civil rights legislation, but I was hoping you could speak to the concerns that some have expressed that what’s actually in the bill could be read as something that codifies discrimination. There’s a section here that speaks to the ability of nonprofit religious organizations, faith-based social agencies, educational institutions, employees of those organizations to deny services, accommodations, facilities, goods, advantages, privileges to gay couples. So how is that not codifying discrimination? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. Let’s — let’s walk through what’s in the piece of legislation that the President is signing in a few minutes. It codifies federal recognition of same-sex marriages. That matters. Technically, the Defense of Marriage Act from the 1990s was still on the books but essentially dormant because of the Obergefell decision. This repeals DOMA and ensures federal recognition of same-sex marriages. It requires states to recognize same-sex and interra- — interracial marriages performed in other states. I.e. if Obergefell or Loving falls and you get married — married in Massachusetts, Alabama still has to honor the marriage. Meaning, if your husband, wife gets sick, an Alabama hospital would still be required to let you see them. That matters for so many millions of American across the country. I know there’s questions about religious liberty. And so we believe that — you know, we believe that the RFMA contains strong protections for houses of worship and religious nonprofits. And this question was well litigated throughout the legislative process where it passed with both chambers of bipartisan support. And I think that matters, right? Bicameral, bipartisan support was had for this piece of legislation. And so, look, as the President said 10 years ago, as I mentioned, it comes down to a fundamental question of who would you love — who do you love and will you be loyal to that person. This law ensures that it — it realized for all person. And that’s why so many faith leaders and religious traditions have advocated in support for this bill. So it has gotten support in a bipartisan way across the country, in Congress, during this time — right? — where — you know, where people say we can’t get things done. Here, we have this piece of legislation that has gotten bipartisan support. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On immigration, how concerned is the administration that there will be this unprecedented surge of migrants trying to come across the border once Title 42 goes away? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you note — as — I know you guys are all tracking that Secretary Mayorkas is in El Paso today. And he’s assessing operations, and he’s speaking to the workforce down there. He’s also meeting with local officials who have been — who have been incredibly important partners as we rebuild our asylum system. The Department of Homeland Security is working to quickly decompress what we’re seeing in the El Paso area, for example, and safety and efficiently screen and process migrants to place them in immigration enforcement proceeding. Over the last 18 months, DHS has deployed enhanced automated processing system, automated surveillance towers, rescue beacons, and additional personnel to the sector. In addition to that, CBP has deployed additional agents support the sector. That’s on top of the mobile processing units, medical screening personnel, and nearly 1,000 Border Patrol processing coordinat- — coordinators DHS already had deployed in the area. So, look — look, this is something — again, the first day of the President’s administration, he put forth a — a comprehensive immigration reform bill because he understands how important this is. We have taken action. We have — we have given the Department of Homeland Security historic funding to deal with this very issue. And so, we’re going to continue to monitor this. As I mentioned, Mayorkas was down at the — at — in El Paso to talk to local officials, to — who have been great partners with us. And so, again, we’re going to do the work, we’re going to be prepared, and we’re going to make sure we have a humane process moving forward. Q There are some lawmakers who are arguing that Title 42 should be extended somehow. Does the White House believe that’s even possible? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you know, we are required by court order to lift Title 42 by December 21st. That is the court order that we have been given. And Department of Justice is going to lead that effort in what happens next, so I’m not going to get ahead of that. But again, you know, this is a court order that we’re following here. Go ahead. Q I wonder if the White House is worried that the inflation data, which came out this morning, was leaked. There was big market movement about two minutes before its — it came out, and I’m just wondering how the White House has viewed that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I’ve seen those — that reporting. Look, you know, I think — we think that it’s — it’s being a little bit — how do I say? It’s — you know, I think there’s too much — too much weight being put into that and, you know, in how the market may have moved in a minor way. You know, I don’t — I don’t really have much more to add to that, but I have seen the reports on it. And again, I think it’s just being a little bit — we’re looking into it a little bit too much, I think. Q But is the White House and Treasury looking into it at all, or are you just not worried about it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think that — look, when it — I can tell you this: There were no leaks from here. I can tell you defi- — definitively. Or at least I’m not aware of any leaks. And I know there were very strict security protocols to prevent leaks. But I think, again, people may be reading a little bit too much into this — into some of the minor market movements. And so, anything more, I would — I would refer you to the Department of Labor. Go ahead. Q Karine, thanks. Just to follow up on what Steve asked, we understand how the legislation was framed and will be signed by the President. Do you anticipate that this administration will go back or that the Democrats will go back and try to clean up the language in the legislation so it does not codify discrimination? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, what we’re saying to you today is that this — this piece of legislation was done in a bipartisan, bicameral way, and it will make a difference for millions of Americans across the country. And we’re going to celebrate this moment. We are going to celebrate the activists and the families who have worked very hard the last couple of decades to make this happen. And that is what hap- — and that is what’s important and that’s what you’re going to hear from this President today. Is there more work to do? Absolutely. There’s always more work to do. And you’ll hear directly from the President. I’m certainly not going to get ahead of him at this time. But, again, this is an important moment, a historic moment that we — that we should not forget what it means to many, many millions of Americans across the country. Q And then quickly, to follow up on that. So he’ll sign that today, and you say there’s more work to do. Or is he endorsing additional work to try and change language? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t — I don’t have anything to preview from here. As I said, there are extreme — extreme conservatives who are going to continue to attack this, who are — want to take away fundamental rights. We saw what happened just in June with the Dobbs decision. And so we take — you should take that very, very seriously. But, again, this is an important day, and we are going to celebrate this day with thousands of people who will be standing or sitting in the South — on the South Lawn and hearing from Cyndi Lauper and the President and the First Lady and the Vice President. It’s a really — it’s a really good — it’s a really good day. It’s a very good day. Q Karine, Emilie is giving us the hook in a minute. But maybe you can just get one or two more in before we go outside? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead, Michael. Q Thanks, Karine. There are reports that the administration is considering slashing the number of Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans arriving at the border who would be eligible for asylum, while creating new narrow pathways for those nationals to apply for some legal status here. The concern is this was a model that was actually designed by Stephen Miller in the prior administration. So is it true that the administration is considering this new structure for these foreign nationals? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I — I was asked this question last week, and I don’t have anything new to preview or to discuss at this time about any policy changes or any policy announcement. So don’t have anything to add. But I have heard those reportings, and I did speak to this last week as well. Go ahead. Q Oh, sorry. You go ahead. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have much time. So — Q No. I have foreign policy question. I was wondering — there have been clashes at the border between India and China, and the tensions are pretty high between the two countries. Is this something the administration is concerned about? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we are glad to hear that both sides appear to have quickly disen- — disengaged from the clashes. We are closely monitoring the situation. We encourage India and China to utilize existing bilateral channels to discuss disputed boundaries. Again, we are — we’re glad to see that there has been some disengagement on the clashes at this time. Go ahead. I think you were — you allowed your colleague to go ahead of you, so go ahead. Q Thank you. With Republicans about to take control of the House, are there additional economic policies the President wants to implement in the next couple of months? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the President has always been clear he is working for the American — American people, American families to do everything that he can to lower costs, as we were talking about the inflation that we’re currently seeing as being one of his number one economic plans here. And then, you know, as you’ve seen him act on gas prices, as you’ve seen him act on the Inflation Reduction Act, we’re going to see early next year the real effects of the Inflation Reduction Act as it relates to bringing down healthcare costs, energy costs. So the President is never going to stop. He’s going to continue to do that work. He’s always — you know, always happy to work with Republicans and looking to reach across the aisle, as we’ve done with the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, as we’ve done with the CHIPS and Science Act in order to create jobs and bring jobs back — manufacturing jobs back to — companies back to the country. And so we’re going to continue to do that. That never — that will never end or never stop. Okay. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Is the White House whipping against Senator Bernie Sanders’s war powers resolution that’s set for a vote in the Senate tonight? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we’ve spoken to this before. I don’t have anything — much more to add. I know my colleagues actually was asked this question last week. Don’t have anything more to really discuss or lean into on this. Q Bernie Sanders just said that he’s dealing with White House opposition to it right now. So just hoping for a confirmation of what all is going on there. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’ll say this: We’re in touch with members of Congress on this. Thanks to our diplomacy, which remains ongoing and delicate, the violence over nearly nine months has effectively stopped. As we have seen during this administration, the situation is still fragile and our diplomatic efforts are ongoing. So we want to make sure that this is not impacted and the people of Yemen do not suffer or that any of the progress we have made is overturned. Again, I really don’t want to get ahead of the progress. We continue to work with Congress on this. We’re having the conversations. I just don’t want to get ahead of that. Q Sounds like he might veto that if it comes to his desk. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just — I’m just not going to make a prediction. I’m certainly not going to make a prediction of what the President is going to do, is not going to do. We’re having conversations with members of Congress, and I will leave it there. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, everybody.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Q Good afternoon. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We are very thrilled to have our National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, with us today, who is going to give a preview of the African Leaders Summit that is happening later this week. With that, Jake, this podium is yours. MR. SULLIVAN: Thanks, Karine. And good afternoon, everybody. I’ll take a few minutes to discuss the summit, which will unfold over the course of the next three days. And then I’d be happy to take your questions. Tomorrow marks the start of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, a three-day summit hosted by President Biden that will highlight how the United States and African nations are strengthening our partnerships to advance shared priorities. Delegations from all 49 invited African countries and the African Union will attend, alongside members of civil society and the private sector. The President, the Vice President, and members of the Cabinet will have extensive engagement with leaders throughout the summit. Tomorrow will kick off with a focus on the vital role of civil society and the strength of our African diaspora communities in the United States. It will feature of a range of sessions on topics from trade and investment, to health and climate, to peace, security, and governance, to space cooperation. On Wednesday, the focus will be on increasing two-way trade and investment at the U.S.-Africa Business Forum. CEOs and private sector leadership from over 300 American and African companies will convene with the heads of delegation to catalyze investment in critical sectors, including health, infrastructure, energy, agribusiness, and digital. The President will close the Business Forum on Wednesday with public remarks. Later in the day, he will host a small group of leaders at the White House for a discussion on upcoming presidential elections in 2023 in Africa and U.S. support for free, fair, and credible polls across the continent. He will then host, Wednesday evening, all 50 heads of delegation and their spouses for a dinner here at the White House. Thursday is dedicated to high-level discussions among leaders, with President Biden opening the day with a session on partnering on Agenda 2063, the African Union’s strategic vision for the continent. A working lunch by Vice President Harris will follow that session. And then the President will close the day with a discussion on food security and food systems resilience, which, as you all know, is a critical issue for our African partners, who have been disproportionately impacted by the rise in food and fertilizer prices and disruptions to global supply chains as a result of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Throughout the next three days and then beyond the next three days, we look forward to leveraging the best of America — a truly unrivaled set of tools across our government, our private sector, and civil society — to partner with and support African institutions, African citizens, and African nations to advance our shared goals. The summit — just to take a step back — is rooted in the recognition that Africa is a key geopolitical player. The continent will shape the future not just of the African people but also the world. President Biden believes that U.S. collaboration with African leaders, as well as with civil society and business leaders and the diaspora, women, youth, is essential to unlocking the potential of this decisive decade. As you know, the President intends to announce U.S. support for the African Union to join the G20 as a permanent member. It’s past time for Africa to have permanent seats at the table in international organizations and initiatives. And the President also plans to underscore his commitment to U.N. Security Council reform, including support for a permanent member from the African continent. Working closely with Congress, the U.S. will commit $55 billion to Africa over the course of the next three years across a wide range of sectors to tackle the core challenges of our time. These commitments build on the United States’ longstanding leadership and partnership in develop- — development, economic growth, health, and security in Africa over the past three decades. You’ll be hearing a number of announcements over the coming days — specific deliverables in a number of different areas, new projects and initiatives, new funding streams. But our commitment to Africa extends well beyond all of that too. It’s reflected in our decades of meaningful engagement, people-to-people ties, and high-quality investments in our shared future. And, really, the spirit of this summit is not what we will do for African nations and peoples but what we will do with African nations and peoples. And I will say one other thing. In the intensive consultations we’ve had with African leaders and African civil society and other voices in the run-up to this summit, the key question has been follow-through. “Okay, you’re going to have the summit. What’s going to happen once the summit concludes?” To that end, we will have a new Special Representative for U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit Implementation. The State Department plans to appoint Ambassador Johnnie Carson for this role. Ambassador Carson is very well known to people across the continent of Africa. He brings a wealth of experience to the position, having dedicated his 37-year career to diplomacy in Africa, and we are looking forward to working with him to ensure that the announcements that get made over the next three days are translated into durable actions that last well beyond the summit. A last point — and thank you for your patience. As we ta- — as we approach the new year, I just want to take a moment to reflect on the depth and breadth of President Biden’s foreign engagements over 2022. From the Quad Summit in Tokyo to the historic NATO Summit in Madrid; to consequential G7 and G20 summits at critical geopolitical moments; to hosting, in separate summits, the leaders of the Americas, the Pacific Islands, ASEAN, and now, of course, the leaders of Africa, this year has marked one of the most high-paced, substantive periods of presidential engagement in foreign policy in recent history. And it’s a profound demonstration of the President’s approach to the world and a powerful expression of the ways in which a broad and diverse community of nations are working together to solve our shared challenges. With that, I’d be happy to take your questions. April. Q Jake, a couple of questions. The same topics — trade, health, food security, and national security — have been in the topics of presidents from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to Barack Obama and now. Why are these same issues still on the table after all of these years? And what has been the arch of success — if you can measure it — from the Clinton years, when Africa was put on the table, and then George W. Bush being considered the President who did the most for Africa? And then also, if you can talk about the lack that happened during the last four years, not focusing on Africa. Are you behind in some areas on Africa? MR. SULLIVAN: Well, first, the topics you mentioned are the essential building bol- — blocks of healthy societies, healthy economies, healthy countries the world over — not just in Africa, but everywhere. Health, economics, climate, peace, and security — these are not topics that get resolved in 4 years or 40 years. They are the topics upon which durable partnerships get built at a government-to-government level, business-to-business, and people-to-people. So it should come as no surprise that the things that matter most to the people in communities across the continent — and, frankly, to people and communities across America — are going to be the top agenda items for the summit. And in each of these areas, we feel that we do have a very strong record to stand on, as the United States dealing with Africa, whether it’s in health and the remarkable advances we’ve made against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; or, as President Biden will talk about, the support that we flowed to Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic and the work we are now doing to help Africa stand up its own capacity to manu- — manufacture vaccines and therapeutics going forward. I could walk through each of the other areas — economics and trade, investment, climate — take — tackling the climate crisis. The President was just at an African COP in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where he laid out a series of initiatives relating to adaptation in Africa. But I will just say that we didn’t set this agenda in a vacuum. We didn’t send it — set it for the topics that matter the most to us. We set it in consultation with our African partners on the issues that matter most to them and to our shared future. And I would say that we’re never satisfied with the progress we’ve made, because there’s always more work to do, more security to help bring about more mitigation of — of climate — of carbon emissions, more adaptation to the ravages of climate change, more lives to be saved through health initiatives. But we feel we do enter this summit with some significant momentum around major investments that we have already made and will continue to make and with this announcement that, over the next three years, we will be devoting $55 billion to help address these top priorities in very specific, tangible ways in partnership with African nations. So I think, by the end of this, what you will see is a genuine energy and a spirit of cooperation that will reflect the fact that the United States has unique assets and capabilities to bring to bear, and we’re going to do everything to bring those to bear in this time period. Q I want to follow up though on what I asked you. Did the United States lose ground with the continent, and particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, in the past four years when Africa was not a focus? MR. SULLIVAN: Look, anytime an administration chooses not to put as much energy or emphasis into a place, it obviously has some ramifications. But I have to say that since the President — since President Biden has come into office, whether it’s through the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, or it’s through the work we’ve done on COVID-19, or it’s through the significant announcements that we’ve made at both of the last two Conferences of Parties on Climate Change, we believe that we are not coming into this summit from a standing start, we’re coming into this summit with a head of steam around a set of issues that this summit, I think, is going to kick into a higher gear. And that is going to put us in a position not just for us to succeed over the course of next year or the following year, but really over the course of this decisive decade. And I think you will see a certain buoyancy, a certain momentum, a certain enthusiasm emanating from the course of this summit, because this isn’t all just emerging out of thin air, it’s emerging out of a very hard — ver- — very much hard work over the course of the past two years. Yeah. Q Jake, a couple questions about your deputy’s engagements in Asia right now. First of all, just with the China meetings that are taking place with the vice foreign minister, was there — was there any discussion about any support that the U.S. can provide to China as they unravel the zero-COVID policy around vaccines, around support for their medical system generally? MR. SULLIVAN: So the topic of COVID-19 and the ways in which all countries, including China, are dealing with this pandemic was on the agenda at these meetings, but I am going to refrain from getting into details of what those discussions entailed because I want to give an opportunity for us to be able to have those conversations in sensitive diplomatic channels. And we’ll see what, if anything, comes out of it. Q Okay. And then one more on that trip. I understand that Laura Rosenberger is also meeting with the Japanese delegation. Was there any discussion about an agreement between the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands about restricting this chipmaking equipment from going to China? MR. SULLIVAN: I’m going to be your favorite person ever at the podium because I’m going to give a very similar answer, which is that, of course, we have consultations with all of our allies and partners, especially those with a deep interest in the issue of semiconductor technologies, about the logic behind our own tailored restrictions and about what the landscape looks like. We’ve had those conversations with both Japan and the Netherlands and with other countries as well, and I’m not going to get ahead of any announcements. I will just say that we are very pleased with the candor, the substance, and the intensity of the discussions that are taking place across a broad range of countries who share our concerns, and would like to see broad alignment as we go forward. Q And do you have an agreement in principle with those countries? Just quickly. MR. SULLIVAN: Again, I’m not going to get ahead of anything. I’m just going to say that it is, of course, the case that a hallmark of the Biden administration has been alignment with allies and partners on every key foreign policy issue we confront. This is a priority for us. Alignment is a priority for us. We’re working towards that. And I’ll leave any announcements to when they’re ripe to be made publicly from this podium or elsewhere. Yeah. Q Thanks, Jake. There’s a meeting today about the next steps in trying to bring Paul Whelan home. Are you part of that meeting? What can you tell us about that meeting? And the State Department said today that the U.S. is going to be creative in finding ways to get Paul Whelan released. What does that mean? MR. SULLIVAN: So, members of my team and the State Department met with Elizabeth Whelan this morning virtually, over Zoom. I wasn’t a part of it today, although I did participate in the conversation the President had with Elizabeth a few days ago, where they too were brainstorming and talking through ideas about how to go forward. You’ll understand that I can’t get into the specifics of the kinds of things that we are contemplating to try to ensure that we get Paul home as soon as we can. I will just say that the conversations with Paul Whelan’s family have been substantive. They have had a number of very good questions and also a number of suggestions that they’ve put forward. And we have been working to figure out what it is going to take to ultimately secure his freedom and how we can go about getting that and being able to sit down with the Russians and work out a deal. The specifics of that are something that really have to be kept in the sensitive channels — the sensitive conversations we have with the Whelan family and then the sensitive channels that we have with the Russian government. But we are bound and determined to ensure that we work through a successful method of securing Paul Whelan’s release at the earliest possible opportunity. Q But if the U.S. doesn’t have a prisoner in custody that Russia would be willing to make a trade for, what else could you do? Is there a policy that the U.S. would be willing to change in order to get Russia to accept some kind of a deal? MR. SULLIVAN: I can’t really answer a question as general as that. I mean, if the implication is “Are we going to take a different approach to Ukraine” or something like that, the answer is, no, we’re not going to take a different approach to Ukraine. We believe that there are plays that we can continue to try to run, things that we have had in motion that we are still working on that could potentially lead to a positive result here. Again, because of the sensitivity of these issues, I don’t want to go into detail on them, but we are going to keep working at this. The big challenge we had over the course of the past several months is that what Russia was asking for to secure Paul Whelan’s release was not something that we had to be able to give. That is a problem we are trying to solve. We have various ways that we are working through solutions, and we will be endeavoring on a daily basis, from the President on down, to finally develop a formula that works. And that’s as far as I can go today, but I will just reinforce that our commitment to this is absolutely rock solid, intense. And this is as high a priority as the President has. Yeah. Q To follow on that — because the administration has said that this deal to get Griner home was “one or none.” So if you’re saying that what the Russians were asking for, for Whelan to come home, that — was there ever a push by the United States for that “one” to be Whelan, not Griner, in exchange for Viktor Bout? MR. SULLIVAN: As the President said when he announced Brittney Griner’s release: For totally illegitimate reasons, the Russians treat Paul Whelan’s case differently and so their demands related to Paul Whelan are different from their demands from other Americans, to include, for example, Trevor Reed, who we were able to secure his release earlier this year, even as Brittney Griner remained in custody in Russia. And similarly, they treat his case differently from Brittney Griner’s case. That creates a different challenge for us in terms of what it will take to get Paul Whelan home. But it is a challenge that we believe we are up to. We are going to figure out a way to do it, and that is just going to require us to come up with the right formula, as I said before, to be able to present to the Russian Federation to secure his release. We’re determined to figure out how to do that. That is what we are working on. That was the subject and substance of the conversation with Paul Whelan’s family today, and that will be the work ahead. Q And if I can do a follow-up on Griner. Can you give us an update on her condition? When do you expect that she might be departing Fort Sam Houston in Texas? And has the President spoken with her or her family since she’s gotten back? MR. SULLIVAN: So I would defer to the State Department officials who are working closely with her at Fort Sam Houston for an update on her condition, or directly to her or her family. I don’t want to speak to that. The reports we have indicate that she is in good spirits and that she is in good condition. But again, I cannot speak authoritatively to it, nor can I speak authoritatively to when she will depart because, ultimately, it’s up to her how she wants to go through this transition from having been in confinement and in a harrowing circumstance over the course of the past several months back into her life here in the United States. So, that would be up to her. The President has not had a chance to speak with Brittney again since he spoke with her shortly after her release. But he’s, of course, following her case very closely and continuing to pray for her, for Cherelle, and for the entire Griner family, that she have this opportunity in this space to heal as she comes back from this awful situation that she found herself in in Russia. Yeah. Q Thanks, Jake. I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the possible deliverables out of the summit. One thing that’s been floated is presidential travel to the continent and whether that’s a possibility. I know that you mentioned specifically food shortages and the problems that have sort of emanated out of the war in Ukraine. If there’s anything specific you can preview on that. And then, if not — I know some of it is building up suspense for the actual announcement — but to kind of echo April’s question, I think that there is concern that’s been voiced by African delegates and leaders that the U.S. kind of swoops in once every four or eight years, does one of these summits, and then exits the stage. And so, if you could talk a little bit about how you’re trying to reverse those perceptions and specifically the perception that there’s kind of a great power battle between us and China and one that we’re less committed to than maybe the Chinese. MR. SULLIVAN: So I’ve given, kind of, the very headline number, which is $55 billion over the next three years. Over the course of the next three days, the President himself, the Vice President, and various Cabinet members will lay out deliverables. And we will shower you with details about those deliverables that involve, you know, real mobilization of resources towards concrete objectives. So I’m not going to get ahead of that today. On — on travel to the continent, I will say the President and the Vice President, members of the Cabinet — there will be an announcement about a broad-based commitment to travel to the continent in 2023. But the precise specifics of that I will also leave. And then we are very mindful of this argument that says, “Okay, you’ll hold this summit and then everybody goes home, and doesn’t it just go back to business as usual?” That’s why, in my opening remarks, I made a point of stressing that we are, in fact, going to appoint a Special Representative for Summit Implementation. And that will be his full-time responsibility just to implement what comes out of the summit. And this is not just somebody off the street. This is Johnnie Carson, who is an absolute legend of diplomacy — coming out of the United States — on Africa. And he brings, as I said before, nearly four decades of experience and relationships across the continent. So we think there is not a better signal or a better person, in terms of the fact that we are going to have a real, genuine follow-up, than the fact that Johnnie Carson is going to be riding herd over that day in, day out. And if he puts his mind to something, he will get it done. And he will do so with the full authority of the President and the Secretary of State. Q Can I ask a quick follow on Trevor’s questions? Has there been any progress on Secretary Blinken’s travel to Beijing? Any updates on the timing? MR. SULLIVAN: Nothing to announce today. Although, as the two presidents indicated coming out of the summit in Bali, we have an expectation that that will be coming in the relatively near-term future. Yeah. Q Thanks, Jake. One question on the summit and one on another topic. On the summit, I wanted to ask about the invite list. Earlier this year, for the Summit of the Americas, the administration did not invite countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua because of concerns about human rights and democracy. But on the invite list this year — or this week, for the Africa Summit, you have countries like Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and Equatorial Guinea, where the administration has also expressed concerns about human rights or democracy issues in those countries. So can you walk us through, sort of, the discrepancies there? I mean, does it — does the administration have a lower bar for human rights in Africa than countries closer to here? MR. SULLIVAN: Well, we have a common bar for human rights the world over. The way that we went through the invites for the African Leaders Summit was to do so in close consultation with the African Union. And there are four countries that are currently suspended for membership in the African Union. They were not invited. There is one country with whom we don’t have normal diplomatic relations — Eritrea. They were not invited, and everyone else was invited. And we will, of course, speak to the universal values of human rights, democracy, good governance, anti-corruption over the course of this summit. But that’s how we ended up with the invite list for the African Leaders Summit. It was because of the institutional engagement we had with the African Union in designing not just who would be invited to the summit, but what the substance and the agenda would be for the summit. So, for example, the President’s first session on Thursday will be on Agenda 2063, the African Union’s vision for the continent, not on something the United States is putting forward as its — as its own vision. But, nonetheless, you will see a commitment over the course of three days to civil soci- — to lifting up civil society, to lifting up the voices of those who are seeking human rights, good governance, democracy, and so forth. And then, of course, he will have a session on elections in 2023 to speak to the importance of free and fair elections in Africa as part of this. Q And can you also detail — give any details about the — about how the Lockerbie suspect was taken into U.S. custody? MR. SULLIVAN: Well, first, I would just say it is — it is a very good thing. Today is a good day because Mas’ud will be facing — facing justice for his alleged role in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. I will say that this was done in a lawful manner, according to established procedures. And for more specifics on how it happened, I would refer you to the Justice Department, because they’re best positioned to be able to speak to that. Yeah. Q Jake, near-term question and then a longer-term question related to the administration’s ability to secure Brittney Griner’s return home. Near term, have there been any discussions related to Paul Whelan with the Russians, through the channels you guys have been operating through, in the last five days? And if not, is there a timeline for that? And then, more broadly, there was a very clear mismatch between what Brittney Griner was alleged to have done and what Viktor Bout did do — or was proven to do. Does the administration try and address that through other channels? Do you ramp up pressure to Russia — against Russia because of that mismatch? Or are these separate tracks entirely? MR. SULLIVAN: Well, from our perspective, if you look at the full spectrum of pressure that we’ve imposed upon the Russian Federation over the course of the last year — from financial sanctions, to export controls, to our very strong and sustained support for the Ukrainians in defense of their own homeland — we think that our record on pushing back on the Kremlin in all respects, and particularly insofar as Russia represents a threat to Ukraine and to our allies and partners, is unmatched in recent memory. So we take a backseat to no one when it comes to standing up against and pushing back against Russian aggression. We’ll continue to do so, but we’ll continue to do so with a single question: Is it going to make people in the United States safer, more secure? And is it going to advance our interests and values? And if there’s any move we can make that will do those things, we will do them. We have proven that over the course of 2022. With respect to the question of whether we’ve had engagement with the Russian Federation on the Whelan case, we will have an engagement with them this week. I won’t say more about it because we are trying to keep that in sensitive channels. But that’s the timetable. And we have had regular engagement, of course, along the way. And the next conversation at a high level will take place this week. Q Thank you, Jake. Real quick. Viktor Bout has said that he wants to be involved with the Russian Federation’s efforts against Ukraine. Does the administration plan to respond should he do something like that — whether either tied to weapons or his political activities, anything like that? MR. SULLIVAN: From our perspective, what we want to do is make sure that we are blunting any Russian effort to be able to gain advantage in Ukraine, whether its military advantage or advantage through brutalizing and destroying civilian infrastructure. So our focus is going to be upon those things that actually represent a genuine threat to Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, not to comments that are made on television shows. And we’ll continue to focus on that as we go forward. And, for example, just last Friday, we announced another $275 million in military support to Ukraine. We will have further announcements in the coming days. So we’re going to look at what’s actually happening in the air and on the ground in Ukraine, not so much as what’s happening on the other air — on television stations in Russia. Yes. Q Can I — MR. SULLIVAN: Sorry, yeah. Go on. Q Thank you, Jake. In Africa, we have the perception that the U.S. looks down on Africa. So with this summit, what make you feel so comfortable or confident that it will be different? So, comparing to the previous summit, which didn’t bring much results for African countries, what are you seeing in this year’s summit that you can transmit to the African people that are watching? Every African now are looking on this summit and expecting that the U.S. really, at this time, look in Africa in a different way. What makes you confident that this time will be different? MR. SULLIVAN: I would say three things make me confident that we will have a positive result from the summit. The first is: We are bringing the resources to the table in significant numbers. And if you compare what the United States is committing over the next three years to what any other country is committing, I think we stack up extremely favorably. Second, how did we design the agenda for this summit? This is not a dictation from Washington. It’s not lecturing or preaching from Washington. We went to African nations themselves and the African Union and said, “What are your priorities? What is your vision?” And, in fact, the — as I mentioned earlier, the entire first substantive session that the President will chair at the summit is on Agenda 2063. That is not an American document. It is not an American vision. It is the African Union’s document and the African Union’s vision. So we are lifting up African voices and African priorities in what we are doing at this summit. And the entire summit is designed around that basic ethos. And if you look at the dinner the President is going to host, it is going to be him with the leaders of Africa and their spouses — that small group in a room together for hours being able to engage on the issues of the day. And then the third reason is what we talked about earlier here, which is that we have put an emphasis on implementation coming out of this summit like nobody has seen from previous summits, meaning we will actually put someone forward who is well-known to Africans, respected, somebody who has a history of delivering on the major issues that are of interest to African people everywhere. That’s Johnnie Carson. And so we have not just a plan for the next three days but for the years that follow. At the end of the day though, I agree with you: It’s not about what we say; it’s about what we do. And part of the reason that I have so much confidence about this summit and what will follow is because I do have confidence that this President and this Vice President, this Secretary of State — we are intending to follow through. We’re mobilizing the resources, the people, and the process to be able to make that happen. And I think you will see, in the months that follow, that the results of all of this actually reflected in reality. Yeah. Q Thank you, Jake. Q And on Angolan investment. Recently, President Biden announced $2 billion investment for Angola. Will there be — will there be any more investment coming from Angola? Or what the President really expects from this investment that he announced many times for Angola? MR. SULLIVAN: So, I — he really expects that you will see a major deployment of solar power in Angola. That was a significant project that was facilitated by funding and mechanisms from the United States government, so he’s looking forward to seeing that actually come to fruition. At the summit, he will have a series of other announcements that benefit a wide range of countries in Africa, some of which also will come to the benefit of Angola. I will leave those to the specific session in which each of these announcements will be laid out. But you will see projects in health, in climate, in trade, in investment, in infrastructure, and in many other areas, including security cooperation, that range from, you know, every single significant region of Africa benefiting from different parts of what the President and his team will lay out over the next few days. Q On Equatorial Guinea, Jake, will finally the U.S. say something about the more than $90 million that the Equatorial Guinea paid to the U.S. government for vaccines but those vaccines were never sent to Equatorial Guinea? Will, this time, the U.S. government say something about this money that is already in the U.S. government but they never sent the vaccines to Equatorial Guinea and the people still waiting for those vaccines? MR. SULLIVAN: We will have the opportunity to speak with the delegation from Equatorial Guinea about any misunderstandings or misconceptions that may lie at the heart of your question. Yes. Q Thank you so much, Jake. Thanks for talking about Africa with us. First of all, as you know, a lot of African countries have held the line against condemning Russia. Has the U.S. communicated any possible consequences of maintaining that stance? Does any of that $55 billion play into that? What are the consequences if they continue to not choose a side in this? And I have a follow-up. MR. SULLIVAN: Look, we’re not — we’re not putting a gun to anyone’s head. We believe that the war in Ukraine is a matter of principle, and it’s not an American principle. It’s a principle we all signed up to in the United Nations Charter; it’s a principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity. So, we will make the case with passion and persistence to every country in the world that they should speak out against these flagrant violations of the U.N. Charter, but we’re not imposing conditionality, from the point of view of this summit, on decisions that sovereign countries make in this regard. We believe that we have actually been successful in pressing this case. In fact, from the first significant General Assembly vote of 141 countries condemning the invasion, to the second significant General Assembly vote where you actually had an increase — 143 countries — even after several months in which people were describing, you know, flagging international support for Ukraine, the numbers went up. And we think that that is because countries recognize there are deeper principles at stake. That’s how we’re approaching this. We’re not approaching this from the point of view of coercing other countries. That’s not how the United States is going to operate with respect to countries in Africa. It’s not how we have operated. Yes. Q Thank you — Q And then, just on elections, Jake. You mentioned the 2023 elections in Africa. Can you just highlight the ones that you’re concerned about and how the U.S. is going to work with these countries? I’m thinking of Congo, Sudan, and South Sudan that are having big ones next year. MR. SULLIVAN: So — Q What are you going to do to make space for them to have these elections? MR. SULLIVAN: I want to be clear that having a meeting about elections in 2023 is not about us raising the alarm bell or claiming, you know, we’ve got concerns and then solutions. It’s rather to say there are important elections coming up. We would like to do everything we can to support those elections being free, fair, and credible. And that goes for every election taking place in 2023, not picking and choosing certain ones and setting other ones aside. So the meeting is designed to indicate that the United States is focused on being supportive of free, fair, and credible elections everywhere they are taking place in Africa in 2023. Q And, Jake, (inaudible) on India. Q Thank you, Jake. MR. SULLIVAN: Sorry, I’ve got — I’m sorry, I’ve got — a couple questions — Q Thank you, Jake. Another protester was executed in Iran. This time, in a public square. He was hanged. And his trial was described as a “sham.” His accusation was he was “waging a war against God.” What can the U.S. do to support these protesters who are bravely participating in these demonstrations but they’ve been killed or arrested? And second, can you update us on any potential meeting between you or the President with the families of the American Iranian hostages who have been held in Tehran? And they’ve been asking for a meeting with you. MR. SULLIVAN: So, I have had a chance to meet with the Namazi family. I have had a chance to meet with Morad Tahbaz’s family. And in just the next few days, I will also have a chance to meet with Emad Shargi’s family. So, I’ve already in the past — through Zoom, in person, on the phone — engaged deeply with many people who have been personally affected by their family members being detained unjustly, unlawfully detained in Iran. And this is something that I personally, as National Security Advisor, am deeply committed to across the board. I’ve spent dozens, if not hundreds, of hours working on these cases, meeting with these families. And I will continue to do so as we go forward. And I make it a policy that any family that seeks a meeting at the White House with me will get one. Sometimes there are scheduling issues. But over the course of the past year, I have had the opportunity to meet with so many families from hostages and detainees in Russia and Afghanistan, Venezuela, Iran, and China and other places as well, and I’ll continue to do that. On the — on the question of what we are doing with respect to supporting the protesters in Iran, we have had a drumbeat of announcements relative to sanctions against those who are perpetrating these gross human rights abuses and this repression. We haven’t just done so ourselves, we have coordinated and aligned with other countries around the world, building an international chorus of condemnation against what is happening. In addition, we have taken steps to try to facilitate the ability of Iranians to communicate both among themselves and then to communicate to the outside world what is happening in their country so that we can shine a bright light on and hold accountable those who are responsible. We will continue to do these things. And right from the President — who has spoken very directly, clearly, and passionately on this subject — on down, this government has made clear where it stands: It stands on the side of the rights of peaceful protesters; the rights of women to seek, to vindicate their human dignity; and the rights of people everywhere to speak out on behalf of a better life. And we will continue to do that. Yeah. Q Thank you, Jake. Q But you pull your punches on China, and you won’t say the same thing for the protests there, will you? MR. SULLIVAN: Well, we have spoken about the protests in China and called for peaceful protests. We have spoken about Xinjiang. We’ve spoken about what’s happened in Hong Kong. And in fact, what’s just happened with respect to Jimmy Lai is a — in our view, a violation of the basic law and the commitments that China made with respect to autonomy for Hong Kong. So, this administration does have a very strong set of principles and actions that we’ve taken over the course of the past two years with respect to the People’s Republic of China and the question of human rights. Yeah. Q Thank you, sir. I wanted to ask you about the African Leaders Summit, but, first, just a quick follow-up. I’m curious, does the administration consider Viktor Bout to be a terrorist? MR. SULLIVAN: Well, he’s not listed as a “Specially Designated National.” What we consider him to have been was a convicted criminal, convicted of arms trafficking and other crimes, to serve a sentence. He’s served 12 years in detention; he was set to be released in 2029. And, of course, before we make any determination about whether to send somebody back as part of a deal to get an American home, we make a determination about the national security implications of that. We did that assessment in this case. We believe we can manage those challenges, but we will remain constantly vigilant against any threat that Viktor Bout may pose to Americans, to the United States going forward. We also — I would just point out that there is no shortage of arms traffickers and mercenaries in Russia who pose challenges and threats to the international order, to the United States and otherwise, and we are vigilant about that as well, which is why we have built — alongside our allies and partners — such a robust policy in dealing with the threats posed by Russia. Q And then, my question about the African Leaders Summit: As China looks to increase its influence on that continent, I’m curious, will the President seek to deliver any kind of message or word of warning to these African leaders that Beijing, whether it’s through their financing or economic or military aid, is not in fact a faithful ally or a partner? MR. SULLIVAN: This is going to be about what we can offer. It’s going to be a positive proposition about the United States’ partnership with Africa. It’s not going to be about other countries. It’s not going to be attempting to compare and contrast. It’s rather going to be about the affirmative agenda that the United States has to bring to bear with Africa. Q So the comparison — MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah. Q Thank you. Thank you, Jake. I went around yesterday to see how much African leaders were paying for the hotel for this trip, and I realized that some of the hotels in D.C. were charging them up to $22,000 a night. So, it’s an expensive trip. Some of them, they spend $50 million — for countries where people live on less than a U.S. dollar a day. And so, my question is: If they have to spend all this money and travel thousands of miles, why wasn’t the White House — why didn’t the White House plan one-on-one meetings with those African leaders? MR. SULLIVAN: Well, first, the President will have the chance to greet every single African leader and engage with them as they come for the dinner tomorrow night. Second, if you look at the substance of this summit, the sessions that he is going to sit with those leaders around the table and deal with, it is the things that they have asked to talk about that he will be talking about with them. And those leaders will have the opportunity to speak in those sessions to President Biden and to one another so that we can collectively come up with a common strategy to deliver for the people of Africa. And if you look at what substance this summit is going to deliver — from the business forum, all the way through to the leader sessions — I believe that it is going to be three days where you will see put on display real, tangible deliverables and results that are going to improve people’s lives. And, ultimately, as I said before, I will ask you: Judge us on the record of how that ends up playing out. But I’m confident that it is going to play out well. Yes. Q Jake, my final — Q Jake, next week — Q Jake, my final question, Jake — if I can ask — Q Jake, next week, Title 42 is expiring. Do you see a national security — are there national security concerns over the Title 42 expiration? MR. SULLIVAN: So, the team has been working very hard to ensure that we are taking steps to be able to manage the expiration of Title 42 and to put in place a process that will be orderly and humane. And we believe that in doing so we can protect our national security concerns. That is a process that others can speak to better than I can. But from my perspective, the issues related to ensuring an orderly, humane migration process at the border are being persistently and constantly addressed through the interagency process. And we are working through what the procedures will be in place at the moment of expiration on the 21st. Q Jake, does the U.S. government have any sense of how many people are coming across, if they have — that there is no visibility on how many people are crossing the — you have no idea who they are? MR. SULLIVAN: I’m sorry. I’m not sure I understand the question. Q Do you have a sense of how many people crossing the border that the U.S. government has no idea — like estimates of how many people crossing aren’t giving their name, aren’t giving IDs, aren’t able to verify who they are? MR. SULLIVAN: So, we do have estimates of how many encounters there are at the border on a daily basis. We have processes and procedures in place to identify those individuals, to process them in an orderly fashion, and then to do what is appropriate based on that processing. And we have believed that that system is a system that does an effective job of being able to determine who is coming across the border and what the right way to deal with their case is. Yes. Q Thank you. Thank you, Jake. Thank you. On the IRA issue, the last time at the CSIS conference, you mentioned that you will have some kind of a solution for the IRA, but you haven’t heard regarding the issue of a subsidy exclusion for the South Korean electric vehicles under the IRA. What kind of talks are going on with South Korea now? And what solution does the United States have for mutual benefit as an economic alliance with South Korea? MR. SULLIVAN: So we have had extensive consultations with the Republic of Korea on the Inflation Reduction Act and, in particular, the — the relevant provisions related to electric vehicles. Those have been constructive conversations. They’ve happened at multiple levels, including a discussion between our two presidents. And we feel confident that we can get to a place of understanding and where both of our countries’ economic interests will be taken into account. And we will see that unfold in the — in the coming days and weeks. This is a big, complex piece of legislation. Not everything gets resolved in a day, a week, or a month. But we believe that we will ultimately have a long-term approach that vindicates the economic interests and needs of American workers and businesses and of our ally in the Republic of Korea. I’ll leave it at that. Thanks, guys. Q Thanks, Jake. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Jake. All right. I know we’re kind of running out of time, so I’ll take a — I’ll do two things at the top and take a few more questions from folks. Many of you have been asking about plans for tomorrow’s bill signing. Tomorrow, President Biden will sign the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act into law at a celebration on the South Lawn with thousands in attendance. In May 2012, then-Vice President Biden made history when he said, and I quote, “This is all about a simple proposition: Who do you love…” — who do you love and who you — who — who you’ll be loyal to in pers- — to the person you love? “…[W]ill you be loyal to the person you love?” End quote. The Respect for Marriage Act helps ensure that proposition is fully realized in the United States. It will give peace of mind to millions of LGBTQI+ and interracial couples who will finally be guaranteed the rights and protections to which they and their children are entitled to. The legislation also enjoys support from a majority of Americans across party lines and faiths. Tomorrow, the President will be joined by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, as well as advocates and plaintiffs in marriage equality cases across the country, to sign this critical legislation into law. There will be musical guests and performances to celebrate this historic bill. And the President will also note that there is much more work to be done to protect the LGBTQI+ individuals across the country, to prot- — and including passing the Equality Act as well. And before we go into questions, I have one more thing that I — I want to address from here. Is — it’s about what the President — you’ve heard what the President has been focusing on, which is rallying the world diplomatically — you heard that from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan — and continue to reestablish Americans’ leaders- — American leadership abroad, protecting people’s constitutional rights by codifying marriage equality, as I just discussed. But what is in the incoming House Republican majority doing — one of their leaders, Majority [sic] Taylor Green — Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying, quote, “If Steve Bannon and I organized [January 6th], we would have won. Not to mention, it would have been armed.” This is what is coming from a member of Congress. And what’s more: She said to a group that lashed out against condemning Holocaust denial; they were giving her an award. You have all heard the President warn about awful conspiracy theories and violent rhetoric that used to be undermined — which — which undermine the rule of law in our democracy. It is just antithetical to our values as a country for a member of Congress to wish that the carnage of January 6th had been even worse and to brag that they would have succeeded in an armed insurrection against the United States government. Violent rhetoric like this is also a slap in the face of the Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police, the National Guard, and the families who lost loved ones as a result of the attack on the Capitol. And this is someone who is expected to have their committee positions restored. So we should let that sink in. Again, this is coming from a member of Congress. All leaders have a responsibility to condemn these dangerous, vile remarks and stand for our Constitution and also for the rule of law. With that, Seung Min. Q Who are the musical guests tomorrow? (Laughter.) You’re not going to tell us? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to — I’m not going to share. I don’t want to take away from the excitement. But it’s going to be a celebrated — a celebrated event as the President signs this historic piece of legislation into law. And, as I stated, there’ll be thir- — thousands of people there. And, of course, we’ll have musical guests. And it’ll be a bipartisan — also a bipartisan event attended by lawmakers who helped to make this happen. And this is a reminder, if I may add, how when — when we do reach across the aisle, there are things that we can get done — historic pieces of legislation that we can get done. And we have seen that under this President. So I think that’s important to note as well. Q And my actual question — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure. Q I just wanted to get the White House’s perspective on the current government funding talks. Schumer talked about doing a one-week CR. Democrats were going to release their own legislation but held off. Does the White House see these as encouraging signs for being able to get a broad omnibus by the end of the month? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we continue to encourage Congress to get the — to get a bipartisan deal done. We believe — on the government funding, we believe there’s still enough time to get that done. This is something that, clearly, Congress was able to do this time last year in a bipartisan way. But if they need extra days to get there, so be it. We got to remember this is not a partisan issue. The issues that we’re talking about — we talk about national security; we just had Jake Sullivan here, as I just noted a second ago. We talk about public education. We’re talking about healthcare. These are — and veteran — veterans — veteran health services, to be more — even more specific. These are priorities for the American people. These are bipartisan issues that are critical — critical to American individuals just across the country. So, again, we encourage Congress to reach a bipartisan deal. Go ahead. Q I had another Africa Summit question. Reuters has reported, in recent days, that the Nigerian army has been running a secret, systematic, and illegal abortion program in the country since 2013. Do you expect that to be a topic of discussion with the Nigerian delegation at the summit? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, Jake had sa- — Jake laid out how each individual African leader will have an opportunity to talk and discuss and have conversations with the President, who — he very much looks forward to doing that. I’m not going to get ahead on what may come up, what may not come up. We’ve laid out pretty extensively, at least the toplines, as you’ve just heard from Jake, what we believe our goals are. We talked about the $55 billion that we — in new funding — that we will be providing to the continent in next three — three years, which we believe is incredibly important. We talked about Johnnie Carson, who is going to be the — the leader in making sure that what comes out — the deliverables that come out of this summit is actually delivered, if you will. And so, look, we are committed to this. I’m not going to get ahead of that particular conversation. But, certainly, that’s something that we’re monitoring. Okay, go ahead. Q Jake had mentioned a little bit about discussion on trying to free Paul Whelan. Is this administration drawing a line in trading any type of sanctions relief to secure Paul Whelan’s release when it comes to Ukraine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, look, when it comes to Ukraine — and Jake said this — when it comes to Ukraine, we are pretty — we’ve been, you know, pretty emphatic about this, pretty steadfast that we are going to — as a matter of, you know, the right thing to do, as a matter of protecting a country’s democracy and lifting up and making sure that the people of Ukraine have what they need to fight for their freedom, fight for their sovereignty. This is something that we’ve been doing, clearly, with our allies and partners. That won’t change. And Jake kind of laid that out, I think, pretty clearly. When it relate- — as it relates to what we’re discussing, what is being negotiated, when it — as — you know, as it relates to Whe- — Paul Whelan and getting him home, I’m not going to get into negotiations from here. I’m not going to get into specifics, as Ja- — as Jake laid out as well. Look, we are committed to getting Americans who were being wrongfully detained and held hostage abroad home. That is a promise that this President has made. We have seen that across the almost two years of his presidency, with Brittney Griner, with Trevor — Trevor Reed just in April. And so we’re going to continue that and have those conversations But in private, certainly not going to lay them out from here. Okay. Q I wanted to ask about the attack of the substation in North Carolina and whether the White House believes that the federal government should regulate substa- — substation security. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time hearing you. Q Sure. Let me take my mask off. I said I wanted to ask about the substation attack in North Carolina and whether the White House believes that the federal government should regulate security at substations instead of leaving it up to states and the individual utility companies. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m not going to — I know the Department of Energy is looking into this, the Department of Justice is looking into this. There is a — they’re reviewing this process. I’m not going to get ahead of that. I would certainly refer you to those two agencies. But just not going to get ahead as they’re reviewing that process. Go ahead. Q What’s the President’s thinking right now about the National Defense Authorization Act and the vaccine requirement? And, clearly, his position on vaccines is well known, and there’s a long history of signing and passing the NDAA. Where is he at with that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we’ve been very clear about what we saw happen with the vaccine mandate basically being removed or — from the NDAA. We thought it was a mistake. We think that Republicans in Congress have decided that they’d rather fight against the health and wellbeing of our troops than protecting them. And, again, it was a mistake. As it relates to the NDAA, we’re not going to get ahead — the Senate is going to take this up, so we’re not going to get ahead of the Senate process. But I’ve said this before: Look, when — in the past, every year when — when the NDAA comes up, there’s some provisions we support, some that we do not. The President will judge the bill in its entirety. So I’m not going to get ahead of what the President’s action is going to be. But we’ve been very clear about how we — how we see the vaccine mandate. Go ahead. Q Can I ask you two things? And they’re kind of just check-ins on a couple of big policy issues. But one is: On Friday, the administration issued a fairly strong rebuke of a WTO decision that potentially said the steel and aluminum tariffs in place violated international rules. I just want to make sure I understand where the administration stands on steel and aluminum tariffs. And does it mean that, essentially, you all intend for those tariffs to remain in place indefinitely? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I saw that reporting. And so what we — what we say from here — so we — we strongly reject the flawed interpretation and conclusions in the rep- — in the World Trade Organization panel reports that we saw, that you’re laying out there. The United States has held the clear and unequivocal position for over 70 years that issues of national security cannot be reviewed in WTO dispute settlement. The Biden administration is committed to preserving U.S. national security by ensuring the long-term viability of our steel and aluminum industries. And we do not intend to remove the Section 23- — 232 duties as a result of these disputes. Again, we reject the fal- — the flawed interpretation that’s been laid out. Q Relatedly, I know there was a lot of talk earlier this summer about the broad-sweeping scale of China tariffs, and there was some expectation that this might be revisited after the President’s visit. Do you have any update or timeline on what’s going on, I guess, with China tariffs as they are? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I appreciate the question, and I understand. As it relates to this, I don’t have anything to preview on that particular topic. Go ahead. Q More than 70 members of Congress sent a letter to the President on Friday asking him to take executive action to guarantee the rail workers paid sick leave. Is it clear that — that there are steps that can be taken through executive action, or has the White House determined that this is something that Congress can only do? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, first, I want to say, you know, the President is grateful to Congress for taking action to avert a rail shutdown and implement the benefits he helped secure for rail workers in the tentative agreement. So we are grateful to Congress for doing that. He’s also grateful to Senator Sanders and Representative Bowman’s continued advocacy for paid — paid sick leave. The President has pressed Congress to advance the cause of paid sick leave throughout his administration. We’ve had many debates and discussions from — from the podium about that, about his efforts in — in that realm. He’s exploring all options here while working to build on existing bipartisan support in Congress to make paid sick leave a reality for all workers — all workers, including rail workers, as well. Again, we are going to look at all options here. Q So there’s potential, it is possible that executive action could be taken. You haven’t ruled that out, that it’s — it can’t be done? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to announce or lay out on how we’re going to move forward. What I can say is we’re going to look at all options. And we are very, very grateful to Congress for — you know, for helping to avert this rail shutdown, which would — as you all know, would have had an — really disturbed our economy in a way that would have been not — not great, not helpful, clearly, for American families across the country. And — and, look, this is an issue that the President has been fighting for, when it comes to paid leave for all Americans, throughout the last two — almost two years of his administration. And we’re going to continue to look at all options. Go ahead, Steve. Q Thanks, Karine. Has the President been briefed on the news coming out of the Department of Energy tomorrow on the fusion development at the Livermore lab? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, just a couple of things on that. As you know, the Department of Energy’s analysis is still ongoing, so I’m unable to provide details of confirmation at this time. Secretary Granholm will have more details to share tomorrow when the process is complete. I’m not going to get ahead of that at this time. Q Is the President going to have a end-of-year press conference? If so, when? If not, why not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that — I’m so sorry, say that one more time? Q Is the President going to have a end-of-the-year press conference? Q End-of-year press conference. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m so sorry. End-of-year conference. You’re — Q If so, when? If not, why not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to preview on that or to announce on an end-of-year press conference. If — when we do, we — and when we — if we will, certainly we’ll share that with you. Okay. Thank you for your question. I’ll take a couple of more. Go ahead, Courtney. Q Thank you. The foreign traveler vaccine requirement is set to expire at the end of the month. Is the President going to renew it? Are you going to let it expire? What is the next step? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Don’t have anything to preview on the next steps on that particular question. Once we do, we’ll certainly share that. Q And I also wanted to ask you about the ongoing negotiations in Congress about the Child Tax Credit. Can you talk about where you are on that and what some of the sticking points have been? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I said over a month ago, I believe from the podium, our position is simple: If Congress is going to extend tax cuts and tax breaks for business in the lame duck, they must include tax relief for working families. That’s the way we see this process moving forward. Some sort of tax credit for children is the most direct way to do that. And as I have noted before, there are several proposals, from both Democrats and also Republicans, to provide such a relief. It is not clear to us if Congress has an interest in pushing a tax bill in the remaining two weeks. Our point is simple: No tax breaks for businesses without tax relief for working families and children. And that’s where we’re going to continue to be on this. Q And if I can follow up with one more. Do you feel that — I know that some of the conversation has been around limits for the Child Tax Credit on who qualifies based on income. Do you feel that the IRS or Treasury would be prepared to administer such a tax credit, given all the different demands that they have and now adding on more restrictions, as opposed to it was much more broad earlier? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to get ahead of what — of what the process might look like. What I can say, you know, definitively of how we see this process moving forward, at least in Congress — and, again, we are, you know — we’re not clear if this is going to happen, but we’ve pretty much laid out our — our pr- — our — our belief for how we see this moving, which is: No tax breaks for businesses without tax relief for working families and children. Just not going to get ahead of what can potentially — how this process is going to work through the federal government, if — if and when this were to happen. Go ahead, Alex, in the back. Q Thank you, Karine. As you know, Elon Musk launched a series of attacks on Dr. Anthony Fauci over the weekend, calling for his prosecution. And then he shared some other memes about him and suggested he lied about — he’s lying about the origins of the coronavirus. What’s your response, first of all, specifically to the att

Mitch McConnell blamed former President Donald Trump on Tuesday for the Republican Party's poor showing in Senate elections this year, saying that the influence of Trump's endorsements limited the ability of the party to choose better nominees. "Our ability to control a primary outcome was quite limited in [2022] because the support of the former president proved to be very decisive in these primaries," he told reporters at his weekly press conference at the Capitol. "So my view was: do the best you can with the cards you're dealt." "Hopefully in the next cycle, we'll have quality candidates everywhere and a better outcome," he added.

Boebert said Sunday after the counties in her district completed their recounts: - All of the counties completed their recounts, and confirmed we've won this race. - Republicans have been entrusted with the majority and we must now prove we can take the temperature down in DC by leading not only with strength but grace. - Our conservative policies will help all Americans to overcome the challenges we face so each of us has the opportunity to live our very best life. - Thank you for entrusting me to help lead the way. I'll be working every day to prove I can get the job done right.

Dana Bash: "Does she [Kyrsten Sinema] have the guts to take on special interests?" Bernie Sanders: "No, she doesn't. She's a corporate Democrat!" See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2022/12/video-senator-krysten-sinema-leaves.html

MSNBC hosts Jen Psaki and Ari Melber worried that independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona could be a “spoiler” Friday after announcing she was leaving the Democratic Party. See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2022/12/breaking-aoc-shreds-sen-kyrsten-sinema.html

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. All right, Happy Friday. Okay, so we are rounding out another big week here at the White House and a lot of great news for the American people. The President traveled to Arizona, underscoring how his economic plan continues to create jobs, revitalize American manufacturing, strengthen our supply chains, and give families more breathing room. For the first time in almost two years, the national average gas price is lower than its level was one year ago. Senator Warnock will continue representing the people of Georgia. He ran on the President’s message: We must strengthen Social Security and Medicare, lower prescription drug costs, and protect a woman’s right to make her healthcare decision. The President announced historic relief to protect the hard-earned pensions of hundreds of thousands of union workers and retirees thanks to the American Rescue Plan. And yesterday, President Biden kept his promise to bring Brittney Griner home and reiterated his commitment to securing Paul Whelan’s release. The President will never give up. As Russia continues to wage its brutal war against people of Ukraine, today the Biden-Harris administration is announcing a new $275 million security assistance package to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. This package will provide Ukraine with new capabilities to boots its — to boost its air defenses and counter the threats Ukraine is facing from Iranian UAVs, which Russia is using to attack Ukraine’s critical infras- — infrastructure and kill Ukrainian civilians. Today’s announcements also includes critical equipment that Ukraine is using so effectively to defend itself on the battlefield, such as more ammunition for HIMARS and Ukraine’s artillery. And now, our favorite thing, is the week ahead, so just giving you a quick look — actually, it’s more than a quick look. We have a lot to share for our next week. On Monday, the President and the First Lady will travel to Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall in Arlington, Virginia, to participate in a United States Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots event. They will join spouses of senior Department of Defense and leadersh- — and service leadership and local military children in sorting donated toys for distribution to families in need ahead of the holidays. This engagement is part of the First Lady’s Joining Forces initiative to support those who serve, including families of service members and veterans, caregivers, and survivors. And he’ll — we’ll also have National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan right here in the press briefing room on Monday to preview the African Leaders Summit. On Tuesday, the President will host a ceremony on the South Lawn to sign the Respect for Marriage Act, accompanied by Members of Congress, members of his Cabinet, and stakeholders. On Wednesday, the President looks forward to hosting the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. This summit will underscore the value the United States places on our collaboration with Africa on the most pressing global challenges and opportunities, as well as on the Biden administration’s commitment to revitalizing global partnerships and alliances. We expect to engage a wide range of African and U.S. stakeholders to illustrate the breadth and the depth of American partnerships with African governments, businesses, civil — civil society, and citizens — partnerships based on dialogue that harness the creati- — the creativity of the peoples — of our peoples. In the morning, the President will deliver remarks at the U.S.-Africa Business Forum. Later in the day, he will host a small group multilateral meeting with leaders. In the evening, the President will host the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit Dinner in the East Room. The President will also observe the 10th anniversary since the tragic Sandy Hook shooting. We will have more details on that next week. On Thursday, the President will continue his participation in the Africa’s Leaders Summit. He will participate in the leaders’ sussion [sic] — session on partnering on the Africa Union’s Agenda 2063, the continent’s strategic framework for inclusive and sustainable development based on pan-Africa — Africa unity, self-determination, freedom, progress, collective prosperity. Afterwards, he will participate in a family photo with the leaders. In the afternoon, the President will participate in the leaders’ session on Promoting Food Security and Food Systems Resilience. And then, on Friday, the President will head to Wilmington. He will remain there over the weekend. With that, it’s all yours, Zeke. Q Thanks, Karine. Did the President get a heads up from Senator Sinema in advance of her announcement this morning that she would reregister as a Democrat? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — Q As an independent. Sorry. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I will say this: As always, we do not discuss private conversations that we have with members of Congress. Don’t have anything else to share outside of that. But we are just not going to share any private conversations that we have with Congress. Q But can you talk about the President’s reaction? Was he surprised at that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I put out a statement. And that — as you know, I speak for the President of the United States, so he sees and we see Senator Sinema as a key partner on some of the most historic pieces of legislation that you all — all have covered in this administration, when you look at the past 20 months, from the American Rescue Pan- — Plan, to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to the Inflation Reduction Act, to the Respect for Marriage Act, from the — also the PACT Act. All of these piece of legislation have been historic, and we have partnered with Senat- — Senator Sinema. And so, look, we understand her decision to register as an independent in Arizona. The way we see it and understand it, it does not change the new Democratic majority control of the Senate. And we have every reason to expect that we will continue to work with her successfully. Q And on a different topic: yesterday’s prisoner swap. Does the President believe that the deal that was struck by his administration with the Russian administration to free Brittney Griner was a fair one — that that was a fair arrangement? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, and when I’ve talked about this yesterday as well — the — here’s the way that we have seen this: You know, when you talk about “fair,” Brittney Griner is an American citizen who was being held unjustly; she was being held unjustly under intolerable circumstances. That was what was happening to Brittney Griner. And so that means something to the President. He believes, you know, the — when you have an American passport, it means something. And so he wanted to do everything that he could to make sure that he brought her home. And we were presented with an option, as you know — we’ve laid this out; you’ve heard from my NSC colleagues as well — where it was either Brittney or no one. That was the option that we were pro- — were given. And so the President wanted to keep his — his promise in making sure that he brings American citizens home who are being wrongfully detained abroad. That is a promise that his administration is continuing to — contin- — continuing to fight for. And so that’s what you saw. You saw the same action that he took with Trevor Reed, he took with Brittney Griner and others. Almost a dozen other — other wrongfully detained Americans have come home under his administration, and he is going to continue to work very hard — and his administration — to work very hard to bring Paul Whelan home. Q So is it fair or not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The way that we see it is that this was an opportunity to bring an American home. That’s how we saw the deal that was presented to us. And what was — what was occurring is, in the past week or two, we saw that from — the Russians were — were willing to release Brittney Griner for Mr. Bout. That was what was presented to us. They were not willing to — and I said this yesterday — to negotiate in good faith for Paul Whelan. And so it was either Brittney Griner — one American — or no American. And so that’s how we see the negotiation that was presented in front of us. And that’s the very difficult decision that the President had to make. And we were able to bring her home safely. Go ahead. Q I understand you’re not — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead. I was going to — Go ahead. Okay. Q I understand you’re not going to detail private conversations, but just to be clear: Was the White House given a heads up that Senator Sinema was going to be — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — I’m just not going to go into details. Q Did you learn of this from public reporting? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to go into details on any private conversation that we have. Q But when did you learn? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m — I’m just not going to go into details or layout any private conversations that we have with Congress. That’s something that we normally do. Just not going to do that. Q But that suggests that a private conversation did occur. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m not — I’m — (laughs) — Mary, I’m just not going to go into details on this. Q Well, let me try this then: Just two days ago, you said that Warnock’s win gave you a little bit more breathing room, a little bit more ability to deliver for the American people. Does Sinema’s decision to leave the party take away some of that breathing room? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, as I said — and I — and I put out a statement on this, as you all know — as I said — that we see — we understand Senator Sinema’s decision to resi- — register as an independent. The way that we see it, it does not change the majority, or it doesn’t change the complexion of what our Democratic majority is going to look like in the Senate. Q How, then, does it impact you? I mean, you’re saying that this decision won’t change at all how you work with her? Or you said that you expect that — or you’re — you have every reason to expect that you will continue to work successfully with Sinema. Where does that expectation come from? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because she has voted with the President 93 percent of the time, because she has worked with us on key priorities of this administration. When you think about his economic policy — I just laid out all of the different historic pieces of legislation that we have been able to get done, and she has played a key role in that. When you think about the CHIPS and Science Act, when you think about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, those are pieces of legislation — there are other — there’s other long list of other things that she’s worked with us on — that’s 93 percent. And so we think that partnership will continue. We do not see a change in our Democratic majority, as it relates to the Senate. So we are very confident. I’m going to call, actually, on Alex, in the back, because of what ha- — occurred yesterday. I know Brett is not here, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to ask a question. Q I appreciate that. Thank you. I wanted to ask about if the President has spoken with any gun violence prevention advocates or victims’ families ahead of the Sandy Hook anniversary, and also if he has made plans to talk to lawmakers next week about his call for an assault weapons ban. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have anything to preview at this time on any calls that the President might — might make or will make. The President has talked about Sandy Hook being the worst day in his — in his eight years as Vice President. And you can expect him to mark this sad day next week, as I laid out in the Week Ahead. On Wednesday, as you all saw, the President joined survivors and families impacted by gun violence to deliver remarks at the 10th Annual National Vigil for All Victims of Gun Violence, organized by the Newtown Action Alliance. The vigil was a service of mourning and loving remembrance for all who have fallen victim to the ongoing epidemic of gun violence in America. And as you all know, the President has done more than speak about gun violence; he’s actually taken action. He fought relentlessly to take action as well. He has done more executive — taken more executive action at this time in his presidency than any other President. And so — look, and let’s not forget, he signed the most significant gun safety legislation in 30 years, this summer. But he feels that is not enough and we need to do more. And so he continues to call for the assault weapons ban. He did that on that day — on Wednesday — when he — when he was there with families and friends, speaking of — of this moment. And he’s never going to stop showing up and speaking out. And I have said this before: He believes his role as President is to make sure that we continue to put this — continue to push this into the dialogue, so making sure that the American people understand how important it is to talk about getting the assault weapons ban. Go ahead. Q Karine, thank you so much. I want to follow up on Mary’s question when she asked you why you feel confident that you’ll be able to continue to work with Senator Sinema successfully and you cited her voting record. But just to put a fine point on it, has the administration been given assurances by anyone within the senator’s office or the senator herself that she is going to continue to work with you? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to divulge or speak to any private conversations that we have with members of Congress. That is something that is not unusual. That’s something that I’ve said many times before. Understand the question. What I’m saying is her actions speak to what we’re trying to lay out here. Right? Ninety-three percent that she’s voted — she’s voted with the President over the last 20 months. I’ve listed out the historic pieces of legislation that she has been — played a significant role — that she’s played a key partner role with us. And so — and, you know, we don’t see a change in the Democratic majority with her deciding to — to register as an independent. Q Do you expect her to caucus with Democrats? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — we don’t see a change in the Democratic majority. And so we see this as a decision that she has made, but we do not see a change in our Democratic majority. Q And let me ask you this way — and then I do have one on Brittney Griner. Does Senator Sinema have the support of the President in this decision and moving forward into 2024? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, cannot speak to 2024. I’m covered by the Hatch Act. And as far as I understand it, she hasn’t announced her plans for 2024 yet. So I — just not something that I’m going to speak to. Q Does she have the support of the President right now — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, absolu- — Q — in this decision? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we see her as a key partner. We don’t — we understand her decision to register as an independent. Q Let me ask you about something that Vladimir Putin said today. As you know, he held that press conference, and he said more prisoner swaps may occur between the U.S. and Russia. He said, quote, “Everything is possible.” What does the U.S. make of that? What does the administration hear in those words? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’re just not going to talk about any ongoing diplomatic conversations. We’ve been very clear that we want the American people to know that their safety and security is among our highest priority when — when it comes to aggressively doing everything that we can to bring Americans home who are being wrongfully detained — bringing them home safely. But I’m not going to get into any diplomatic conversations from here. Go ahead. Q Karine, thank you. Now that Brittney Griner is back on U.S. soil, has President Biden spoken to her or does he plan to? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any — any calls to preview. As you know — as you know, the President spoke with her, Brittney Griner, yesterday morning in the — in the seven o’clock, eight o’clock hour, right before he came out to speak to all of you and to give the announcement. And in the room was her wife and the Vice President and Jake Sullivan and also the Secretary of State. And you — we’ve also — we’ve already read out what — what that conversation was like. I do want to give a little bit more of — a little bit more information on where we are this morning. We can confirm, as you all know, that Brittney Griner arrived at Saint — at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston early this morning. She has been reunited with her wife, Cherelle. U.S. officials who met her on the ground said she was in very good spirits, appears to be in good health. She was immediately taken to Brooke Army Medical Center where she is being offered a range of support options following her time detained in Russia. Q Do you know if she’s home or when she might go home? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’m not going to get ahead of what’s going to happen next. What I can tell you is where she is currently today. Every individual is different, and those decisions are up to them and their families. They’ll take as much time as they need. What we can say, typically, upon arrival, people are offered a wide range of additional support, including full medical checkup, a mental health checkup, and additional means of support. All of this is voluntary, so it is up to her and her family. Q Can you confirm the report that Russia wanted Vadim Krasikov, who is a Russian assassin being held in Germany, in exchange for Paul Whelan? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I ca- — I cannot go into any specifics or any negotiation’s information from here. As you know, we are working very hard to secure Paul’s return. And so I don’t want to get — don’t want to get ahead of what’s currently happening. And I just want to leave it there. Q Okay. Well, did the U.S. have any conversations with a third party when they were negotiating the prisoner swap? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to get into specifics on any of the negotiations. What I can tell you was that we realized — and I think I — I said this a moment ago — we realized about a week or two ago that Russia was willing to do a negotiation to release Brittney Griner, and that was grit- — grittney — Brittney Griner for Mr. Bout. And that’s what they offered. They were not — they were not negotiating in good faith when it came to Paul. They categorized him very differently — and we’ve talked about that — unfortunately, in an illegitimate — illegitimate charges that they levied against Paul. And so at this — at this time, we were not able to — we were not able to secure his release. I don’t want to get into any specifics about negotiations as we continue to have those conversations to secure Paul. Q And just one more quick one. In order to get an American back, is the U.S. only willing to swap a Russian national, or would it consider trying to work with another country to get someone else? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I — I get your question, and I understand. I just cannot get into what we will or will not do — any of the negotiations. We have Americans out there who are wrongfully detained, being held hostage, and we want to make sure that we get them home safely. And negotiating from here or giving information on the internal mechanics or process certainly would not be — be prudent. Q Okay. Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. China is easing its COVID-zero restrictions. I’m wondering if you could talk about whether that’s something that the White House supports or doesn’t, and, specifically, how you see it playing out for U.S. manufacturing that has operations in China. Do you think it will sort of improve supply chains because there’ll be less restrictions on workers, or is there concern, both medical and economic, about if there are wide-scale outbreaks of COVID in China now that they have eased this policy? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, any PR- — any policies of the PRC — I’m certainly not going to comment about them from here. What we have been very clear about is: China’s COVID policy is not a policy we are pursuing here. In the United States, we are focused on what works, like encouraging Americans to get their updated vaccine — which we try to do as often as we can from here and also just more broadly in the administration — and making testing and treatment easily accessible. That is our — that is our — going to be our focus. We’re just not going to comment on PRC’s policies. Q And then Fox Business had a report today that Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan is on a shortlist to replace Janet Yellen if and when she decides to leave the administration. I’m wondering if you could comment on that at all. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as Secretary Yellen said herself just last month, she has no plans to leave. It seems to be — that report, to us, seems to be pure speculation. I’m going to go — go ahead. Q Merci, Karine. Two — I have two questions. The first one is on — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: At first, I thought you were going to talk to me in French. Q I was going (inaudible) — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was going to be like, “Oh gosh, I hope my mom is not watching.” (Laughter.) Q First thing is on the statement that came out today about Canada and the U.S. taking coordinated act- — sanction against Iranian officials connected to human rights abuse. I’m trying to figure out why this coordination with Canada in this very instance. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: First of all, it’s good to see you. It’s been a while — a long time. Q Thank you very much. It’s been a while. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know I made a joke, but it is good to see you. So I just want to say at the top, the United States is committed to supporting the Iranian people and imposing costs on those responsible for the brutal crackdown. We continue to coordinate with allies and partners and find ways to confront Iran’s human rights abuses, both in public and also in private. The joint U.S.-Canada statement today is an example of this effort. We took coordinated sanctions against — actions, pardon me, today against Iranian officials connected to human rights abuses, including those committed as part — committed as part of the ongoing brutal crackdown aimed at denying the Iranian people their human rights and their fundamental freedoms, their fundamental rights. So we’ll continue to support the Iranian people. I can’t speak to, you know, Canada. You would have to speak to their government, as I’m sure you do often. But I can’t speak to a different country’s reasoning for — their own reasoning for taking action. But clearly, this is an important action that shows support for the Iranian people as we’re seeing this truly brutal crackdown on the civilians there. Q Thank you. My other question is on the — next week’s summit, the African Leaders Summit. I’m just — I mean, we’re going to get into details, but I’m trying to figure out how much do the Chinese intense economic involvement and the Russian — through Wagner — military involvement is playing a role in the President’s willingness to engage even more intensely with the leaders? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say: Our focus next week is going to be on Africa. That’s going to be the focus of the summit. This summit is an opportunity to deepen the many partnerships we have on the African continent. We will focus on our efforts to strengthen these partnerships across a wide range of sectors, spanning from businesses to health to peace and security. But our focus will be on Africa next week. Okay. Go ahead. Q Can you provide any updates on what the President is doing to push forward the government spending bill? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So look, we — I’ve talked about this many times, and we believe, you know, getting the government funding done is critical. And it’s going to be important. And this is something that we encourage and continue to talk to Congress about getting this done. I talked about how Shalanda Young is leading — certainly leading that effort — our OMB director — and she knows how to get bipartisan deals done here. And look, we were able to get government funding done in a bipartisan way last year. We believe it should be done in a bipartisan way this year. There is enough time to get this done. We are talking about critical resources that the American people need. When you think about public health, public education, our national security, these are all incredibly important, and it should be done in a bipartisan way. And there’s enough time to get that — get that moving. Q And as families are facing rising school lunch debt, can you also provide an update as to what the President is doing to push forward free school meals for all? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President, as you’ve heard him say, is proud that his American Rescue Plan provided additional emergency food and nutrition assistant for those in need, building on our $60 million investment in farm-to-school initiatives. Our National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, which we released in September, includes a provision on creating a path to free healthy school meals for all children. As a first step in reaching this goal, the administration is committed to working with Congress to expand access to healthy, free school meals to an additional 9 million kids over the next decade. But, obviously, this has been a priority for this President since the beginning of his administration. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Just a follow-up on Iran and human rights. Iran just executed a man for his involvement in the anti-government protests. Other detainees also face the possibility of the death penalty related to the protests. Can you speak more specifically on those instances? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we denounce these draconian sentences in the strongest terms. These sentences are meant to intimidate people and suppress diss- — dissent, and so they will not work. And Iran’s leadership continues its violent crackdown. As they do that on peaceful protestors, they should know that the world is watching. I just talked about a letter that — that was signed by our allies calling — calling — really calling that out — continuing to do that. So the United States is committing to supporting the Iranian people and imposing costs on those responsible for the brutal crackdown. Just today, again, we announced the sanctions to hold Iran accountable for human rights abuses. We continue to coordinate with allies and partners and find ways to confront Iran’s human rights abuses, both — again, as I said earlier — in public and in private. We will stand with Iranian civilians as they are fighting for their basic freedom, their — their basic human rights. And we will continue to denounce that. Q Okay. And another question on Saudi, please. Does President Biden plan to follow through on his statement that there will be consequences on Saudi Arabia following their oil production cuts? Or is the understanding now that gas prices have stabilized, so perhaps it’s not as urgent for those consequences to happen? And just more broadly speaking, does the growing ties between Saudi and China — does that play a role in the administration’s reassessment of relations with Saudis that were promised to us? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So there’s a couple of things there. You kind of laid out a couple of items that I’ll touch on. So, look, the gas prices that we’re seeing currently, that are going down, is because of the work that this President has done. It’s because he took historic action to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And because of those actions, we’re seeing prices go down. So I want to be very, very clear on that. So, as far as the relationship, the review that you’re asking me about: We are assessing our relations with Saudi Arabia methodically and strategically — as we have done over the last, you know, 80 years of this relationship — in a bipartisan way. And it’s — we’re going to do this in line with what’s in our interest. And we will judge the way forward based on their actions, as well as our ongoing consultations with partners and allies and also the new Congress that is going to be before us very soon, and the Saudis as well. I don’t have anything more to share. But, again, remember, this is an 80 — as you know, an 80-year history. And as — we have reevaluated, over the course of those eight decades, in a bipartisan way, and that’s how we’re looking to move forward. Q And just really quickly — last one — on Taiwan. Can you comment on the timing of the $425 million arms sales with Taiwan earlier this week, which happened on the same day that the President went to Arizona to visit the TSMC plant, which is, of course, part of the effort to get ahead of the strategic rivalry with China? Is there any kind of messaging here that these two events happened on the same day? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So there’s no connection. I can say pretty affirmatively there’s no connection there. This was a package of upgrades on pre-existing sale. I think we’ve talked about that here before, in the — in — in the briefing room. We continue to support Taiwan’s self-defense, consistent with our long-standing One China policy. So no change there. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. I’ve got two questions for you: the first about the coronavirus pandemic and then one about Twitter. On the pandemic, the former vice president of the EcoHealth Alliance has a new book out, and he says that he’s convinced that COVID-19 leaked from a Wuhan lab. To my knowledge, he hasn’t produced any direct evidence, but he speculates that risky U.S.-funded research caused the pandemic. Does the U.S. government have a response to that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I would refer you to the NIH on that. But a couple of things — and EcoHealth as well for specifics here on the question that you have. But we do not know the origins, as you know, of COVID because of the — of China’s lack of transparency. As I’ve said before, you know, this is something we, including the President, have pressed China on repeatedly. NIH has exhaustively communicated the oversight of its scientific work and its purpose to ensure pandemic preparedness. It quite — it’s quite wonky, as you know. And so, again, I would refer you to NIH. Again, it’s very in-depth, and this is — that’s the place that I would refer you to to get more specifics. Q And just a very brief follow-up before turning to Twitter. Dr. Fauci’s agency recently resumed funding for the EcoHealth Alliance. Is there any concern about that, given its past risky — risky research in Wuhan? And if you’re not able to speak to that, I was wondering if you could perhaps invite Dr. Fauci back here to take some more questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I would refer you to NIH. They would provide you with the information directly. So, I’ll just leave that there. Q Okay. Then on Twitter, Elon Musk this week fired the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, who was serving as a top Twitter lawyer. Musk alleges that he may have been involved with countermanding his attempts at transparency. And I was wondering if anyone in the Biden administration was in touch with Baker, either regarding moderation decisions that critics call “political censorship” or regarding his transparency efforts recently. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, it’s up to private companies to make these types of decisions. We were not involved. I can say that. We were not involved. And as I’ve said several times this week already, we’ve talked — we’ve had this conversation many times in this briefing room just the past couple of days. You know, of course, it’s up to these companies to make their own decisions about the content on their platform and to ensure content flows their on standards and — on their own standards and policies. Don’t have anything more to share. Q Just very briefly on the not involved — not involved in speaking with Baker about this transparency effort by Musk. Is that what you’re saying, that the Biden administration wasn’t involved with that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We were just — we were just not involved. Just answering your question: We were not involved. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. This is, I think, probably a process question to some degree, but the official commutation order for Viktor Bout was signed by the President on December 2nd, which was, I think, five days before everything actually transpired. Why five days? Did that mean, like, the deal was done then, or you — you did it in preparation for a deal? How did — how does that actually work? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I’ve stated before — well, you just stated it — that — about the clemency. Look, we knew about a week or two ago that there was going to be a deal for Brittney Griner and that was what the Russians had presented to us. And they wanted — the deal, right? — the — to secure her return was Mr. Bout for Brittney Grin- — Mr. Bout for Brittney Griner. And so that was the deal that we — was presented to us, and that’s how we moved forward. Because we wanted to make sure we brought one American home. It was either no American or one American. And so that — that process was about a week or two ago. I can’t go into details, specifics on the five days or when things were signed. I don’t have that information to provide for you at this time. But we learned that about last — a week or two ago. Q But preparatory, nothing was final until Brittney Griner was in the custody of U.S. officials? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, I kind of laid out, kind of, the process yesterday or on how that all worked. I don’t have that in front of me to share with you at this time. But what I can say is in the past week or two we learned from — from the — from the Russians that they were willing to release Brittney Griner for Mr. Bout. And we tried throughout the past several months. As you know, the past six months, since we heard from Secretary Blinken back in July saying that we were in intensive conversation to get — to get Brittney home, to get Paul Whelan home, in every — in every conversation over the last several months, we worked very hard to get the both of them home. That was always a priority. And, again, it wasn’t until very recently that we learned that they were only willing to make a — make an arrangement for Brittney Griner. And Paul Whelan, as I’ve stated many times before, was just seen differently, in an illegitimate way. And so the President wanted to make sure that we brought — we brought an American home. And that’s what we saw yesterday. Q Karine, just one quick one. In terms of — legislatively, I know you guys are very much in the lame-duck zone right now. But has the week either changed or kind of spurred the planning for the next Congress — legislatively, how you guys approach the next Congress? And has — was that shifted at all by what happened this morning? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What happened this morning? Q Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. I mean, that’s — that’s the point that I’m trying to make here. You know, you have a –you have someone, Senator Sinema, who has, you know, voted with the President 93 percent of the time on key, important, historic pieces of legislation. And I listed them out earlier. I’m not going to bore you by doing that again, but they were important legis- — pieces of legislation that you all covered and we’ve talked about in this briefing room. And so, we do not see — we understand why she would want to register as an independent, but we do not see the Democratic majority changing with this decision that she’s made. Go ahead. Q I just want to ask you on the oil price cap. So, there’s 20 oil-laden tankers now sort of stuck trying to get out of the Black Sea into the Turkish Straits. I know that Treasury officials have been in touch with Turkish officials on this. And are you looking at escalating that conversation, you know, to a higher level? Are you frustrated with Turkey’s reluctance to back away from this rule — (Laughter from the Press Corps offices.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Somebody is having a good time. Okay. So, as you said, we’ve been in touch with Turkey about how the price cap only applies to Russian oil and explained that the cap doesn’t necessi- — necess- — nessitate [sic] — necessitate additional checks on ships passing through Turkish waters. Our understanding is that virtually all of the delayed tankers are not carrying oil from Russia and are not affected by the cap. So, Turkey has made clear they share our interest in a well-supplied market, in allowing a seaborne oil to transit the — transit the Turkish Straits. They have made clear their goal is to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. And so, again, we’ve been — we’ve been in touch with Turkey, and this is how we — how we’re moving forward. Q But it doesn’t seem to be resolved at all. I mean, there’s 28 tankers now. And now, on top of it, you know, you’ve got the Turkish officials saying they don’t see any reason to rescind that rule. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, in our conversation they want to resolve this issue. And we are, again, having those conversations with Turkey. And we feel like we are going to get into a place where this will get resolved. Q Okay. And then let me follow up on the oil production. The Russians have said they could cut oil production to sort of avoid, you know, having to sell below the cap. You know, are you at any — in any way sort of considering that this oil price cap was not a success or will not be a success because of these various responses? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the — we’re not surprised by Putin’s reaction and response and what Russia is saying. Look, the price — the price will lock in a discount on Russian oil, especially in light of the $100 per barrel they earned just a few months ago, and it can be adjusted over time to prevent Russia from further profiteering from its war. And we see this as an opportunity. This is an unprecedented action; demonstrates the unity of the United States and our allies and partners. So, again, you know, I’m not going to be — when it comes to, you know, slowing, limiting their flow, we’re not in the business of responding to a hyb- — hypothetical as well, but wanted to lay out how we see this process moving forward. And we don’t — and we don’t know what will happen. But as we have said, we are focused on limiting Putin’s ability to profit from rising prices to fund his illegal war, while promoting stable — stable global energy markets. This is not about — this is not about Russian oil of the market. This is about the cap — the cap at this level maintains clear incentives for Russia to continue exporting, and we believe that it should. Q Can I just ask you a domestic question? So, Maxwell Frost was denied, you know, an apartment — or an application because of really bad credit. Are you — I know that you’ve looked at housing inequities and problems facing people of color, in terms of getting housing and just fairness in the housing market. This practice of, you know, requiring credit applications and then fees — that carry a fee — seems to be something that’s happening all over the country. Is there anything that the White House or that the Biden administration can do to curb what, you know, seems to be a predatory practice in some cases where people are, basically — you know, they — in order to even get a chance to getting an apartment in this very tight and difficult housing market, you have to pay money upfront? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President and the administration understands that Americans are struggling with the high cost of housing. That is something that we have seen throughout these past several years, and that’s why the President released his Housing Supply Action Plan that we have talked about. And it’s to ease the — that burden — that burden of housing cost over time, by using a mix of administrative and legislative actions to boost the supply of quality housing in every community. Just last month, the White House hosted a range of tenants and tenant advocates for listening sessions along with federal agencies. And we’ll have more to — more conversations like these, and we’ll add — you know, we’ll add to the topics that you’re just laying out. But again, that’s why the President took initiative with his plan. I’ve talked about the different specifics of the plan and how it’s going to help folks who feel that burden, because we also understand that housing costs, again, is one of the things that has a big effect on people’s lives and livelihoods. So, this is a priority for this administration. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. I wanted to ask an earlier Russia question another way. So when Putin says that nothing is off the table with future prisoner swaps, what, in your view, is the best way for the American people, who may just be turning into this issue based on what happened with Brittney Griner, to actually think about what Putin is saying? Should it be seen as a substantive offer to engage? Should it be viewed with skepticism? Should it heighten hopes that Paul Whelan could be brought home? I’m wondering if you can just set expectations based on the current state of play between our two countries. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can say this, and the President said this yesterday: He is committed to getting Paul Whelan home. That is a commitment that he has made to his family, and that is the commitment that he’s made to the American people. And more broadly speaking, the President, since the beginning of his administration, has said that his — one of his top priorities is making sure that all Americans who are — who are being wrongfully detained and held hostage are brought home. And, you know, we have seen this multiple times throughout this past 20 months: again, Trevor Reed we saw, in April, the President bring home; Brittney Griner, clearly, yesterday; and about 12 other American citizens. And so, the President is going to stay committed to that. I’m not going to get into what President Putin says or did not say or — I’m just not going to get into his head. That’s not something that we do from here. What I will say is that we are going to continue to negotiate in good faith to get Paul home. Go ahead, Karen. Q To follow up from the other day on the NDAA: The House has now passed this legislation. It does rescind the military vaccine mandate, which you made clear the President does not agree with. Will the President sign this legislation or veto it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I’m just not going to get ahead of the President. This is something that the President decides on. We’ve been very clear where we stand on the vaccine mandates. And we have said it many times before: You know, Republicans in Congress have decided that they’d rather fight against the health and wellbeing of our troops than protect them. And we think that it’s a mistake. Look, I’m not going to — again, not going to get ahead the — any final votes that may occur. You talked about the House. Every year, the NDAA has some provisions we support and some we don’t. So, the President will judge this in its entirety. I note — again, I noted that the House is moving on this, but I’m just not going to get of — of any decision that the President is going to make. Q So, he has not yet made a decision (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just haven’t — I have not spoken to him about this, and so I’m just not going to get ahead of him. Q Thanks, Karine. Senator Sinema didn’t travel with the President earlier this week to Arizona. So, do you know when the last time that they spoke was? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have — I don’t have a — the last time that they spoke. So, don’t have anything to share with you at this time on that piece. Q And while he was in Arizona, he called her, quote, “a tremendous advocate for the people of Arizona and a leader in so many issues important to the state.” End quote. Does he regret making that statement, which could — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Not at all. Q — be viewed as an endorsement, given today’s news? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, he says this about many congressional members when he visits a state. I’ve — I’ve been on many trips with him. You’ve been on trips with him where he says that. He thanks them for the passport to their state, and he actually talks about the work that he’s done with that congressperson or senator in Washington, D.C. That is very, very common. You can look at almost any — every speech that he’s made while he’s visited a state, and he talks about and lists how these congressional members and senators, House members have — he’s worked with them to deliver, whether it’s the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, whether it’s the American Rescue Plan, whether it is the Inflation Reduction Act, or all. So, that is not uncommon. He does that pretty — very regularly. I would say every time he goes to a state, he lifts up the congressional members who — who are — who are, you know, who represent that state. Q And on another topic: This is the point in the administration — I think, to Justin’s point — where people do start thinking about leaving. Have any members of the President’s Cabinet informed him of a decision to leave in the next few months? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As far as I know, no. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Has the U.S. reached out directly to Syria to seek Austin Tice’s release? His family issued a statement saying the NSC has failed to meet with the Syrians to work with them. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, I don’t want to get — again, I’m trying to be very careful here. I’m not going to get into any negotiations or personal conversations that we may be having with — with a wrongfully detained or someone who is being held abroad. We want to be very careful here. Don’t want to get into diplomat- — diplomatic conver- — diplomatic discussions. What I will say is that this President is committed — as I’ve said many times, as he has said — to do everything that he possibly can to bring home Americans who are wrongfully detained and held hostage. And that is a commitment that you have seen — he, you know — he has, you know, promised and kept over the past several months. Q And following up from earlier in the week, do you know if the President has counted the votes to determine if he will seek an assault weapons ban during the lame duck? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything more to share beyond what I said a couple of days ago. Q So you don’t know if he’s counted the votes yet? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t — I haven’t — I haven’t — I don’t have an update for you at this time. Okay, go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On the — on the economy. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Of course. Q So, we saw the — we saw the Producer Price Index come down a bit, but it’s still above 7 percent. The Federal Reserve Chairman says that core inflation may be moving sideways. We get a CPI inflation reading again next week. So if Americans don’t see significant progress on inflation, does that mean the Inflation Reduction Act — early next year — hasn’t worked? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, it — okay, let’s step back for a second. So, near-term inflation expectation fell this month, so that’s important. We saw that in the data, so it’s important to call out. The Producer — the Producer Price Index rose at its slowest annual rate since May 2021. So that is data points that we saw in — in the index today. Americans are beginning to see a much-needed break in inflation, but we have more work to do. And so gas prices have fallen about $1.70 since June and are lower than they were a year ago, before Putin’s war. That’s because of the work that this President has done to bring gas prices down, to deal with an issue that matters to the American people when it — when we look at the economy, which is inflation and cost. So, millions of Americans shopping for health insurance plans continue to save $800 per year thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. So, yes, it’s been beneficial, and we see that it is working. And in six weeks, President Biden’s plan to bring down prescription drugs, predic- — prescription drug prices and energy costs goes into effect. And that’s going to matter for the American people as they think about — when they sit around their kitchen table — you hear the President talk about this — at the end of the month, trying to figure out how they’re going to pay for items in their house. And these — what I just listed out — or in their lives — is going to matter: lowering costs — healthcare costs, lowering energy costs. We’re already seeing that it’s going to have a real effect on American families. And so I will leave it there. Q Yeah, but you had said the inflation — before the midterms, you told me that the Inflation Reduction Act should bring down inflation early next year. So if it doesn’t do that significantly, is that seen as, then, a failure? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, that — first of all, you’re — that’s a bunch of hypotheticals that you’re asking me. I’m — what I laid out was something that economists said by looking at the Inflation Reduction Act, by examining it and know- — understanding what it’s going to do for the American people. You’re bringing up a hypothetical. What — what I said was, again: What we — what was — what was the analy- — analysis that was done by economists. And I just laid out also how we see the Inflation Reduction Act is actually going to help the American people, and that matters. And, you know — you know, I have to say, Ed, you — and just going back to the past several months as well — look, the Inflation Reduction Act was a piece of legislation that was signed by the President that was only passed by Democrats. And what you saw from Republican officials over the past several months is how they wanted to get rid of it because they were upset about Social — Social Security. They wanted to put Medicare on the chopping block, and they have no plan to lowering costs. So what you’re seeing from this administration, what you’re seeing from this President, what you’re seeing from Democrats in D.C. — in Congress, is that they are taking action to lower costs for the American people. And that matters. And that’s what we’re going to continue to do. Q An end-of-the-year housekeeping question, following up on what I think Karen was asking about: The House has already voted on the NDAA; the Senate will most likely take it up this week. Should the Senate expect to know what the position of the President is on the bill before they vote on it? Will — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we’ve been — I mean, we’ve been very clear, when I’ve been asked about the vaccine mandate, we thought that was a mistake. You know, and it wasn’t just from the President. It was also from — you — we — the Senate and Congress received a letter from Secretary Austin saying how important — how they — he believed in how important the vaccine mandate was. What I’m saying is: We want to look at — and the President — and not just this President, other presidents — have been able to judge the package in its entirety. And so that’s what we’re looking to do. And — but we’re also going to be very vocal, as we have been, on what happened and occurred with the vaccine mandate in the NDAA. Q And then on another end-of-the-year item: Obviously, there’s the spending package, which was discussed earlier. Is there anything else beyond the spending package and the NDAA that is on the list that the President has for things that he would like the House to accomplish before control turns over to the Republicans in January? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we’ve — we’ve actually laid that — laid that out a couple of times. You know, we — we believe that — the President believes that we should get the government funded, as I just mentioned, including what we need to respond to the disasters, continue to defend democracy in Ukraine, and fight — and fight the new COVID variants. We’re going to — we’re going to sign the Marriage — he’s going to sign the Marriage Equality Act, which is something, clearly, that the President supported. And so, look, we’re going to continue to work with Congress and continue to encourage Congress to get this stuff done. He also believes we should pass the Electoral Reform Act. He believes we should pass the Defense Authorization bill — right? — and that the permitting bill should be also something that we should move forward with. So we kind of listed out some of the things that are important. We hope to finish confirming the judicial nominees the President made earlier this year. So those are just a few of those items that I’ve listed out before that we are certainly focused on. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. All right, thanks, everybody. Have a great weekend.

Forbes has released its list of the World’s 100 Most Powerful Women. Ursula von der Leyen of Germany is number one for the EU’s sanctions of Russia after the Ukraine invasion. Also honored: Iran’s Mahsa Amini, and Americans, Nancy Pelosi and Taylor Swift.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s almost like you guys were not expecting me to be out. (Laughter.) Q You caught us off guard. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t know. Q Day 625 of the administration — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t know, right? Q — and it finally happened. Q Shockwaves. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As we go into 2023, you know, just going to do things a little different. All right, good afternoon, everybody. I just have a couple things at the top, and we’ll get started. Today, on the 81st anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the President met with a group of 23 World War Two veterans, family members, and volunteers, and thanked them for their service. The veterans traveled to D.C. on an Honor Flight from Austin, Texas, to attend the Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day Observance at the World War Two Memorial on the National Mall. These veterans served on the homefront, across the Pacific and European theaters. Today we remember and pay tribute to the 2,403 service members and civilians that died during the attack on our forces at Pearl Harbor and honor the extraordinary contributions that these veterans made to guide our nation through the world’s darkest moments. I’d also like to offer an update on open enrollment. As of today, nearly 5.5 million signed up for healthcare through the ACA Marketplace since the start of open enrollment last month — a continued record-breaking pace for enrollment in quality, affordable healthcare. The Biden administration has made expanding access to health insurance and lowering healthcare costs for America’s families a top priority. And under their leadership, the national uninsured rate reached an all-time low earlier this year. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which congressional Republicans want to repeal, four out of five consumers can find a plan that costs $10 or less a month. Additionally, 13 million Americans will continue to save an average of 800 bucks a year on coverage. Open enrollment continues until January 15th, 2023, for states using the HealthCare.gov platforms. Americans without health insurance or those who need to renew it for 2023, should go to HealthCare.gov between now and December 15th to ensure that their coverage begins on January 1st, 2023. We’ve also got some really good economic news and I know you all are excited about. Gas prices have now hit lowest levels since January. The national average is 3.36 bucks per gallon, down about $1.66 per gallon since June and about 18 cents below where they were when Putin invaded Ukraine. In 11 states, the average gas price is $2.99 or less. That — that decline is saving Americans’ families with two cars about $170 a month. President Biden committed to addressing Putin’s tax hike at the pump, and he is doing just that. Finally, this morning, the President signed the Speak Out bipartisan legislation — Speak Out Act — I should be clear there — bipartisan legislation that will enable survivors to speak out about workplace sexual assault and harassment, increase access to justice, and make the workplace safer for everyone. Today’s bill was passed thanks to part of — to the extraordinary leadership of Gretchen Carlson and other survivors and advocates, as well as Congress- — Congressmen [Congresswomen] Lois Frankel and Cheri Bustos and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Mazi [sic] — and Mazie Hirono. One in three women report having sexu- — having faced sexual harassment in the workplace, and people of color, low-wage workers, and LGBTQI+ individuals are also disproportionately impacted — individuals are also — I’m sorry, disproportionately impacted. The threat of legal retaliation can silence survivors while allowing predatory workplace behavior to continue unchecked. The Speak Out Act creates a critical national standard, empowering survivors by prohibiting the enforcement of pre-dispute nondisclosure agreements — those are NDAs — and non-disparagement clauses in cases of workplace sexual assault or harassment. This bill builds on the Ending Forced Attribu- — Arbitration of Sexual Harassment — of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which the President signed into law earlier this year, which made it easier for survivors of sexual assault and harassment to bring suit in court and to avoid being forced to arbitrate their legal claims. Together, these laws help protect the safety and wellbeing of Americans — American workers and make our workplaces safer, fairer, and more just. With that — oh, hi, Josh. How are you? I haven’t seen you in a long time. Q I know, you said that last time. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I feel like I don’t see you enough. Clearly — clearly, I miss you. Q Well, I have a thousand questions for you. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go — go for it. Q Let’s just go. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Shocker. Q Two subjects. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Okay, Josh. Q On the Georgia Senate election: With Senator Warnock’s re-election having 51 Senate seats, what does that mean for possible changes in how the White House approaches its policy agenda and confirmation process? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just — I want to give you a little bit of color on the call. I know some folks had some questions about how the call went. So, Senator Warnock — well, first, as you know, the President called Senator Warnock last night when we got back from Phoenix, Arizona. And — and Senator Warnock thanked the President for the call, and they talked about their partnership and the importance of their continued work together in the months and years ahead. Look, what I would say to your question, Josh, about what this means for moving forward, when it comes to the President’s legislative agenda, when it comes to Democrats’ legislative agenda, it’s that it gives us a little bit more breathing room, a little bit more ability to deliver for the American people. The President has been very clear these past almost two years that his main priority, his main objective is to make sure that the American — the American public, the American people — when it comes to the economy, we build it from the bottle — from the bottom up, middle out — giving people real opportunities. You see that in his economic initiatives and priorities, his plans. When you see the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, the infer- — inflation — Inflation Reduction Act, which I just mentioned at the top, and when you think about the American Rescue Plan, the first big piece of legislation that this President passed with only Democratic votes, which met the moment that he walked into with an economy that was really tanking, and he helped make sure that people got shots in arms, helped the economy get back on its feet. And we’ve seen these successes, which in the last two — two — two years. Again, this is going to give us a little bit more of that breathing room to get things done, to continue to move forward with what the American people want. And they were very clear in the midterms. What the American people want is they want to continue the agenda that the President has had the last two years. Q And then secondly, on the National Defense Authorization Act, it doesn’t include a military COVID vaccine mandate. Is the President’s objection to removing that mandate so strong that he’s willing to veto the NDAA? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just first say — I’ll answer that question, but I do want to make a few points here. So I don’t want to get ahead of the process. As we know, there’s the — there — we know there’s the conference language. There’s still the legislative process that has to move ahead on this. And so, again, I’m not going to get ahead of the — of the vote, or I’m not going to get ahead of the President. But every year, as you know, the NDAA has some provisions we support and some we do not. And what the President is going to do is he’s going to judge this piece of legislation — this bill — on its entirety when that occurs. Again, there’s a process moving, there’s a process that’s happening, and so we’re going to let that happen in Congress. I will note — just to be very, very clear here — what we saw, what we think happened here is Republicans in Congress have decided that they’d rather fight against the health and wellbeing of our troops than protecting them. And we believe that it is a mistake what we saw — what we saw happen on the NDAA, as it relates to the vaccine mandate. Making sure our troops are prepared and ready for service is a priority for President Biden. The vaccination requirement for COVID does just that. I’ll add one more thing. Just a — just a little bit of a point — a data point here so all of you have this. Look, before COVID vaccine existed, nearly 700 Department of Defense personnel and service members died of COVID. Almost 100 of them were active duty. And so, since this past spring, there has been one death due to COVID. So vaccinations work and save the lives of our service members. So we believe that it was a mistake. Go ahead. Q I just want to go back to your comment on “breathing room” that you just said. If you could, with a look ahead, going forward, lay out for us where you think you’ll have the most breathing room. Is it specifically judicial nominees? Kind of, what’s the list of what — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’ve been very clear — Q — what you get out of this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — that judicial nominees is a — is a priority for this President. That’s something, clearly, that we want to move forward on and continue — continue our successes. We’ve — you’ve seen the success of judicial nominees as it relates to this President’s first two years, making sure that we have put forth a historic amount of Black women to — you know, to judgeships. And so the President wants to continue to do that. Our nominations, as well — moving forward on that. So that is something that we have said. Those are clearly priorities. Don’t want to get too far ahead of what the President is — wants to do or what that legislative process. He’s going to continue to have those conversations — congressional leadership. But, again, look, we saw — we saw the results. All of you reported on the results of the — of the midterms. And, you know, Democrats — and not just Democrats, pardon me — but the American people were very, very clear on what they wanted to see. They wanted — they want Congress and the President to continue to fight for women’s rights and our freedoms. They want to protect our democracy. They don’t want our Social Security or our Medicare to be put on the chopping blocks. And that’s what Republicans officials were putting out there as their plan. And so we’re going to continue to deliver for the American people. What you saw Senator Warnock do and what you saw Democrats do this past — this past election is run on the President’s agenda, run on an agenda that was successful. And — and so that’s what — this was a success for Democrats but also for President Biden. Q Why not lay out that agenda now, given that the results are in? If you could walk us through the thought process behind that, and when we then might hear the President. Are we going to hear some kind of speech on that? And then just quickly, what is sort of the thought process in terms of bipartisan agreement? The President, after the midterms, had said that working with a divided chamber would be — make life for Democrats more difficult. Does he still believe that? And what areas were there — are you going to pursue? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Can you say that last part again? Q That the President had said that a divided chamber in the Congress would — would make the reality for Democrats in Washington working more difficult. It would be tougher to do your job, get things passed, if you don’t have the House. What — going forward, kind of, where — where are the areas of bipartisanship that you could (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, there’s so many areas of bipartisanship that the President sees. When it comes to delivering for the American people, on the economy, on healthcare, on issues that they truly care about, we can do that in a bipartisan way. There’s no — there’s no reason that that couldn’t be done. You know, when we talk about the government funding, last year, it was done a bipartisan way. This year, it should be done in a bipartisan way, because when you think about what’s in the — what’s — what the specifics are in that funding, you think about public education. You think about public health, right? You think about our national security. All of those things are not partisan issues. But I will also say, when the President has his meeting with the Big Four, the Republican and Democratic leadership on Congress — in Congress, just last week, he was very clear. You saw the readout. And you heard me say this as well, which is, you know, this past almost two years, there were more than 200 pieces of legislation that the President signed into law that were bipartisan. That is — so it is possible to get things done. The President was in Phoenix, Arizona. He talked about the CHIPS and Science Act. That was done in bipartisan way to bring back jobs to the U.S. — manufacturing jobs in the U.S. And under this presidency, more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs have been created. So there’s ways to do that. The bipartisan infrastructure legislation — a historic piece of legislation that’s going to fix our infrastructure and our roads, our — you know, our roads, our tunnels, our bridges — and that was done in a bipartisan way. So, there’s many ways that we can do that. The President is willing to reach across the aisle, as he has been during out — throughout his career to get things done for the American people. Q And a timeline he’ll lay out the legislative agenda? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I don’t want to get ahead of the President. I will let him, you know, speak to that when the time comes. What I am saying is the President is going to continue to have conversations with congressional leaders. He did just last week, just — just a week ago or so. And he wants to make sure that we can continue doing — moving the country forward in a way that helps the American people. Q Thanks, Karine. So, the deadline for Biden to decide whether to declassify thousands of documents related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy is looming. It’s December 15th. Is that declassification still on track, or will the administration seek to extend? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have an update for you on that particular question on declassify- — declassification of those documents. Once we — once we have more to share, we certainly will. I don’t have anything to preview at this time. Q Oh, one more thing. I wonder if you can preview some of the remarks Biden is going to make tonight at the vigil for victims of gun violence. And he’s spoken frequently on the campaign trail in public about the desire for an assault weapons ban. Does — is that out of the water now that there’s divided government? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, there’s 51 Senate — Democratic senators now. So, that — that matters. Like I said, it’ll make things a little bit easier. But, yes, to your point, it is a divided government. But, look, far too many Americans are losing their lives and loved ones to gun violence. We are seeing communities being broken up, families being destroyed because of gun violence. And so, tonight, the President will join survivors and families impacted by gun violence to deliver remarks at the 10th Annual National Vigil for All Victims of Gun Violence. The vigil is a service of mourning and loving remembrance for all who have fallen victim to the ongoing epidemic of gun violence in America. As you all know, as you just mentioned a little bit about the assault weapons ban, but also, the President signed the most significant gun safety legislation in 30 years this summer. But it’s — he feels it’s not enough. He believes that we need to do more, and he’s been very vocal about that these past several months. He continues to call for an assault weapons ban to be passed by the Senate and send it to his desk. So, he’s never going to stop showing up. He’s never going to stop talking about this. He believes that speaking up and making sure that the American public is aware what his priorities are is important as well, and, look, in fighting for the scourge of gun violence that is killing our kids, leaving holes in our families and tearing up communities — tearing our communities apart. So, he’s going to keep continue to speak to that. Go ahead. Q In the wake of the midterms, the President has traveled to two states that were critical to 2020 but also where Democrats did quite well, in Michigan and Arizona. Should we expect a trip to Georgia anytime soon? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, don’t have anything to preview at this time on any trips that the President will be having in the next couple of weeks. You know, of course, we’ve been to Georgia many times during even this presidency and always look forward to going back. But don’t have anything to preview at this time. Q Can I ask on the funding negotiations? Republican Leader McConnell yesterday made pretty clear that they hadn’t made any significant headway on any of the major issues, including a topline, and said that that would likely lead to CR if it didn’t change soon. How does the President view his role in these negotiations? I understand the critical role Shalonda plays. I understand there are House Democrats, Senate Democrats, House Republicans, Senate Republicans. Given the timeline here, what does the President view as his role, his necessity here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Well, look, just last week, as I was mentioning when he met with congressional leadership — that was part of the readout that we provided to all of you, is how important it is to get this government funding done. He believes — and I just stated this moments ago — he believed that we were able to do this in a bipartisan way last year and we should be able to do that in a bipartisan way this year. We have the time to get that done. And to your point, yes, our OMB Director, Shalonda Young, is leading the process. She was — she knows how to get this done. She knows how to reach across the aisle to get to make sure that we deliver for the American people. These are not partisan issues. These are real critical issues that we’re talking about. We’re talking about the different specifics of the government funding that matter to the American people. So, like I said, the President spoke to leadership last week. It was part of the readout that we provided to all of you. And he’ll continue to have those conversations. Q And just real quick: Is the administration, at this point, opposed to any CR into next year? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to get ahead of what’s happening right now in Congress. What we believe is that, you know, we should be able to have an omnibus bill, like we have done in the past, and it should be bipartisan. And we have enough time to get that done. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Is the White House following the events in Germany in which 25 members of a far-right group were detained for planning to overthrow the state? And is the U.S. offering any help or intelligence-gathering on that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we applaud the German government and its law enforcement and special forces for their diligence in combating violent extremism and keeping their citizens safe and their government facilities secure. We would refer you to the German government specifically and law enforcement authorities for questions about the investigation specifically on that. We remain in contact — in close contact with our government counterparts and are standing by to assist if asked. Q Also on foreign policy: Is the White House concerned about Belarus moving troops? Is there concern that that might be the opening of another front in Russia’s war against Ukraine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you know, we’ve been very clear about — about what is — what Russia is doing. Right? We’ve been very clear that it is important to stand with the Ukrainian people. It is important to — for us to help the Ukrainian people fight for their democracy, fight for their freedom. And that’s what we have done. That’s what the President has done along with our partners and allies, and bringing NATO together in a historic way. And so that’s what we’re going to continue to do. And we’re going to be very clear and loud about that and — and say — and say that we applaud what Ukrainian — what the Ukrainian people are doing. And when it comes to what we’re seeing from Russia, they are — they are — you know, they are the ones who are attacking another country. They are the ones who are stepping on — on their — on their freedoms, on their democracy. And we have to continue to call that out. And we have to continue to make sure that we’re providing the assistance to the Ukrainian people to continue to fight. So, we’ve been very clear on that. We’ve been very clear on — it’s important that folks stand on the right side of history on this when it comes to fighting our — for democracy. And I’ll leave it — I’ll leave it there. Q But on Belarus specifically? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, don’t have — look, I don’t have anything specifically on that. I have not seen the reporting on Belarus. It would not be surprising, as I remember you all reported on Belarus very early on in this — in this — in this continuous war. But, again, the President has been very clear: Like, we — it is important to stand with the — with the Ukrainian people as they’re fighting for their lives, as they’re fighting for their democracy and their freedom. And being on that side of history is — is incredibly important. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. I want to follow up on the vigil that the President is going to attend tonight. In the wake of the mass shootings in Colorado and Virginia, the President said he wanted to revive his push for the assault weapons ban. Where does that stand? Is he going to push for that in the lame duck? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I just — just to speak a little bit to why the President continues to talk about this, and I talked — spoke about it just moment ago: He believes that it is incredible — incredibly important, as President, for him to continue to speak to this, for him to continue to put this at the forefront, the importance of getting the assault bans weapon — weapons ban. And so — and he — he is grateful for the bipartisanship that we saw just months ago on getting that gun reform to really fight gun violence — something that we hadn’t seen in 30 years. But he believes we need to do more. And he — it’s not just legislation, it’s also the work that he has done throughout his administration. The President put out the Safer America Plan, which is a roadmap for additional actions needed to reduce gun — gun crime. As part of that, the President continues to call, again, for an assault weapons ban to be passed by the Senate. And he believes that is one of the best actions we can take to reduce gun violence and save lives. And the President feels very strongly about that. And whether it’s in the next three weeks or beyond, the President is not going to take his foot off the — off the gas pedal on getting that done. You know, again, he’s going to continue to talk about that. He’s going to continue to make sure that it is a priority for his administration and be very clear with Congress on how important it is to move forward with this. When we saw the assault weapons ban in place 30 years ago, in 1994, when the President was very much a big part of getting that done, we did see crimes go down as it relates to that particular bill. And once it sunset 10 years later, we saw an increase. So, he’s going to continue to fight for it. Q And I hear what you’re saying in terms of the timing. I guess part of me is curious about the mechanism. I had a chance to interview incoming Congressman Maxwell Frost who, of course, made it a key part of his platform to fight against gun violence. And he ca- — has called for a vote on the assault weapons ban in the Senate saying, quote, “I think it’s important to put it up for a vote even if it doesn’t pass because it gets people on the record.” And I wonder if the President shares that perspective, that it is worth putting it on the floor for a vote — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The President — Q — even if you don’t have enough votes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I understand. I understand what — what is being laid out and said to me. Look, the President believes that we need to get something done. That’s what he wants. He wants to make sure — Q He wants to see a vote in the Senate? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, he wants to see — he wants to see the Senate get it done. He wants to see, obviously, a vote in the Senate. He wants to make sure — he wants to see the assault weapons ban get done. And he believes that is what’s going to save the lives of families and communities across the country. Q And I just wanted to ask you about the antisemitism forum. The Second Gentleman said today, “There is an epidemic of hate facing our country. Let me be clear: Words matter. People will no longer say the quiet parts out loud; they are screaming them.” Obviously, very powerful words. I’m wondering what, if any, actions the White House, the President thinks can and should be taken to deal with this issue. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the President has been very clear. You know, I was talking to him about this earlier today. And, look, he said — he said what I’ve always said here — is: Silence is complicity. Right? And that is true. And we need to speak out against hate, bigotry, antisemitism, and Holocaust denial — are disgusting and have no place in America — period. Let’s not forget, in 2017, the President put out — put forth an op-ed that — that talked about what he saw in Charlottesville, and the hatred, the antisemitism that we saw, that we — that you all reported on. And so he’s been consistent on calling that out, talking about the soul of our nation, talking about how important it is to really speak out against this type of hate that we’re seeing. Q Given how critical it is to the President, why didn’t he attend today? Why didn’t he make remarks? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, here’s the thing that I want to be really clear about. Again, I just talked about 2017, how the President has been out front; he was out front as a former Vice President. He put out, again, an op-ed being out front on this critical issue and what we were seeing. And someone lost their lives — right? — someone lost their life on that day. When he decided to run in 20- — in 2019, to be President, he talked about the soul of a nation. He talked about the increase of hate and what he was seeing. And there’s been many times at this podium and many times this President himself has called out the bigotry, the antisemitism that we have been seeing, and he’ll continue to do that. I talked about this — how important it is for the Second Gentleman because of his stor- — his historic role and how he belongs to that — to the Jewish community and how important it was for him. And, again, he represents the administration. He is the Second Gentleman. But look, just a couple of things. I do want to lay out what we have done: At September’s United We Stand Summit, our administration announced a series of actions and commitments to take on hate-fueled violence. President Biden has established the first ambassador-level Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism and appointed the renowned Holocaust expert to the role. So these are actions that he has taken most recently, in the last almost two years, and I think that shows his commitment to this issue. That shows his commitment in fighting antisemitism and fighting hate. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Senator Manchin now has an amendment to the NDAA he’s hoping to advance on the floor for his permitting reform provisions. Does the White House support — continue to support the effort at this stage? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President believes we must pass the permitting reform bill so that the — that the U.S. can realize the benefits of the historic investments in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. He supports permitting reform. As I said just a couple of days ago, we will continue to work with Congress and find the best path forward so we can enact a bill — enact this bill. So it is a priority for this President. Q If I could just follow up to your answer to Josh’s question — and I think John Kirby said the same thing this morning — that it was a mistake for the provision rescinding the vaccine mandate to be included in the NDAA. But specifically, Josh asked you if the President would veto the NDAA if the provision remains. Is the President threatening to veto the NDAA? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just answered that question, which was: There’s a process in place. We talked about the conference language. There’s a legislative process that it has to go — go — go forward, right? I’m not going to get ahead of votes. I’m not going to get ahead of what that process is going to look like. The President is going to look at the NDAA in its entirety and make his judgment on that. And I’m not leaning any way here. I’m just laying out the facts of how this works. Go ahead. Q Thanks. Karine, following up on Kristen’s question about the assault weapons ban push from the President, he said specifically, on Thanksgiving, that he was going to count the votes to see if there were enough votes to do anything during the lame duck. Has he counted the votes? Has he made any determination? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I don’t have any determination to share with you at this time. What I can say is the President is committed and believes that we need to get an assault weapons ban. He has been very, very clear about that. He is — he’s appreciative of what Congress was able to do with the — with the — the piece of legislation that got passed just a couple of months ago on making sure that we deal with gun violence in our communities. That was something that we hadn’t seen in 30 years. But he believes we need to go further. Again, I exp- — I — you know, I tried to explain a little bit about his thinking, about how — why he continues to talk about this. He believes it’s important for him, as the President of the United States, to have this conversation, to put this at the forefront and continuing to do this, because we’re seeing what gun violence is doing and how it’s destroying our communities and what it’s doing to our communities. Q Do you expect him to make a determination on votes in the lame duck in the near future? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, there’s — there’s a lot happening — right? — in the next couple of weeks. I just said whether this happens in the next three weeks or beyond, this is — continues to be a priority for this President. Q And then, is the administration following the situation in Peru, where the president has said that he is going to dissolve the congress before a third impeachment vote? Do you have any response or comment to that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we — we’ve seen the reports, and I — I believe the NSC — the NSC team is looking at that. Of course, this is a developing — developing news, and I don’t have anything to share on that today. But, again, we’ve seen the reports, and NSC is certainly looking at this. Go ahead, JJ. Q Georgia elections official Brad Raffensperger said yesterday that he’d like to see Georgia lawmakers take a look at ranked choice voting or runoff alternatives. Does the White House have any thoughts on the structure of state elections or whether archaic election systems need to be updated or changed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So don’t have any position from the White House to share on this today. Of course, I read the reports. I just don’t have anything to share at this time. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Karine, sorry to push again one more time, to follow up on Kristen and Catherine. I hear what you’re saying, that the President has always and will always push for a ban on assault rifles. I think the difference is that he himself went a step further and said — in response to whether that would happen during the lame duck session, he said, “I got to make that assessment as I get in and start counting the votes.” So I guess my question is: I know you said a determination hasn’t been made, but has he started counting the votes? Are there conversations between him and lawmakers about where they stand? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President has always been very clear to lawmakers that he has conversations with how important it is to get the assault weapons ban done. That is something that has been continuous, and that has happened across his administration, across a couple of months of his administration. That will never stop. You know, I get the question. And I just answered — kind of answered it and said, “Don’t have a determination for you at this time.” But what I can say is, it doesn’t matter if it’s the next three weeks or beyond, the President is going to continue to fight for this. Right? This is something that is very personal to him. This is something that he worked on as a senator and got done. And let’s not forget, you know, we were able to see a gun reform legislation — or gun violence — a piece of legislation that’s now into law get done. Something that we hadn’t seen in 30 years. And it was done in a bipartisan way. So the President is going to continue to fight for this. He believes that getting this done, getting the assault weapons ban is going to save lives, and it’s going to — it’s going to save communities. And so he’s going to put this at the forefront, continue to talk about it, and work very hard to get that done. Q But the question to him was specifically about these next three weeks. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I hear you. Q So I know there’s no determination, but I — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I — I actually — I just answered that question. (Laughs.) Q But I just — can you just tell us whether that process has started, to count the votes? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I — look, I don’t have a — I don’t have anything else to preview — Q Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — for you or if that process has occurred or happened. I hear what you’re saying. I am telling you it is a priority for this President. He’s going to continue to fight for this, whether it’s in the next couple of weeks — right? — of this — of this — of this legislative session, as we’re, you know, coming to the end of the year or beyond. And what I can tell you for sure — what I can tell you for sure is, he has prioritized this. It is a — it is important for him to get this done. And — and, again, it could be the next three weeks or beyond. We are going to — we’re going to work very hard to get — to deliver this for the American people. Q And then one more on the new margin in the Senate. Now that the Vice President won’t have to break the tie as often, in theory, and she has more flexibility in her schedule and time, will that impact her portfolio, travel schedule at all? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I don’t believe so. No. Q Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would reach out to her team specifically, but I don’t believe so. The Pres- — let me just say: The Vice President has been a great partner of the President this past two years. You know the successes that they both have had in the, clearly, Biden-Harris administration on getting things done for the American people when it comes to the economy, when it comes to lowering costs, when it comes to fighting inflation. And that is something that we’re going to continue to do. We just talked about the gun violence reform legislation that was passed just a couple of — couple of months ago. All of that was done in partnership with the Vice President. And he appreciates all the work that she has done on — on these issues. Go ahead, Jacqui. Q Thank you, Karine. The White House and the President were very vocal about Georgia’s new election law when it was signed in March of 2021. The big argument from the White House was that it would suppress voting. But there was record turnout in the primary, there was record turnout in the general, record turnout in the runoff in early voting, absentee ballots, and in-person voting. So is the DOJ going to drop their lawsuit against the state? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can’t speak to DOJ’s actions and what they’re going to do. Q The President, though, called it “Jim Crow in the 21st century” and a “blatant attack on the Constitution.” So does he still see it that way? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll say this: I’m not going to speak to the Department of Justice legal actions. That’s something for them to — to speak to. What I can say — and not — not going to get into specifics of your question, but you guys — you all have reported this, that there was suppression, that — that we saw that throughout — through that — throughout the Georgia election. So that is something that was reported on. So I leave it to those reports. But, look, even with that, the American people came out. They came out in a historic fas- — fashion to make their voices loud and clear. When it comes to democracy, when it comes to protecting our democracy, when it comes to making sure that we’re protecting our economy, we’re protecting Social Security and Medicare, this is something that the American people spoke very loud and clear. And they did that because of the success that this President has had on his legislative agenda, because of the — of what the President has been able to deliver, because of what Democrats has been able to do and making sure we had a sharp message for the American people to see the contrast, right? Republicans wanted to put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. That’s what they wanted to do. That was their plan. And, you know, people have said — I’ve heard some of your colleagues say earlier this morning — that stunning- — it was a stunningly bad cycle for Republican senators. And a lot of that is because of their agenda. It is because they embodied the ultra-MAGA ideas. And even with all of that, the American public came out, and they put a lot of that to rest, a lot of what the pr- — what the Republican officials were putting forth, their plan, to rest. And they said it very loud and clear: We want to — we want the special interests to pay their fair share. We want Social Security, we want Medicare to be protected. And we want women’s rights to be protected as well. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Q Just one more. On Twitter, Karine. The Twitter Files had released that the company typically required an official or law enforcement finding that materials were hacked in order to exercise their company policy to restrict certain stories or reporting. And the journalist who released the material noted that, in this case, around the Hunter Biden laptop story, there was no official or law enforcement finding that appeared in the material that he was given. So my question to you is: Did anyone from the Biden team communicate to Twitter that this material was — was from ha- — or this reporting stemmed from hacked materials? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Are you talking about the campaign? Q It would have been the campaign or anyone around the family. Just wondering, because the — in the Twitter Files released and what Matt Taibbi said, he noted that, typically, the company would require a law enforcement or official finding that something was hacked in order to exercise their hacked materials clause, and that they didn’t — he didn’t see that in what had been given to him. So, I’m wondering if it was communicated, even informally, by someone around the President or the President’s family or the campaign that this was hacked material or could have come from hacked material, given that there was so much concern, especially after the 2018 foreign interference situation, that that could be something that we would see in that election. So I’m wondering if there was that communication there surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop story. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I can’t speak to decisions made by — by the campaign from here. That is not — it is a political campaign, so I can’t speak from that from here — to that from here. I’m covered by the Hatch Act. And so I’m just not going to comment on the question that you’re asking me. But what I can say more broadly is: Of course, it’s up to these companies to make their own decision about the content on their platforms and to ensure content follows their own standards and policies. But I’m just not going to comment on a decision that was made during the campaign. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. I have two questions for you. Following the explosion near the border with Ukraine, Poland just accepted Germany’s offer to deploy Patriot missile defense systems to Eastern Poland. But initially, the Polish government said that Patriots should be delivered to Ukraine. So can you comment on the deployment? And I’m wondering if the President sees a need to transfer Patriots to Ukraine, either by NATO and the — or the U.S., considering continued Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, to your first question — so we would leave it to Germany and Poland to speak about the specifics of what is being provided. That’s for them, their own governments to speak to. As a general matter, we welcome Allied efforts to bolster NATO’s collective defenses. And to your — to your last question about NATO and how this could be provided: Look, we’re in close — close contact with Ukrainians about their security assistance needs, as you’ve heard us speak to many times from this podium, and have been working to provide Ukraine with air defense systems to help them protect their country. But I — again, I don’t have anything to preview today — for you today on this — on that particular issue. Q One more, if I could. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said recently that Hungary will ratify Sweden’s and Finland’s membership in NATO early next year. Does the President have any update from Turkey, which, it looks like, will be the only holdout? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I would refer you to the Turkish government to speak about their own position. Certainly not something that we’re going to do from here. But what I can say is that we have been a strong supporter of Finland and Sweden’s applications for a NATO membership and worked with the Senate to move quickly to ratify their applications. And so we have welcomed the rapid ratifications by our Allies, and we urge all remaining Allies to compete — complete their own ratification process as quickly as possible. Q Thanks, Karine. Are you guys confirming reporting from Bloomberg today that the President will travel to Mexico and meet with the Mexican president on January 9th and hold a trilateral with López Obrador and Trudeau on January 10th for the North American Leaders’ Summit? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re — we’re still working through the plans. Nothing has changed since I was last asked this question. And we’ll let you know if we have anything more to share. Q And on the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, are there any details you can share about any bilateral meetings he’s holding? And given the focus of competition with China and the National Security Strategy, do you expect it to be a big topic at next week’s summit? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any bilateral meetings to share at this time on — on the Africa Summit — Leaders Summit that’s happening next week, as you just stated. We — and I mentioned this a little bit at the end of our — of the briefing on Monday: We’ve invited 49 African heads of state to Washington, D.C., for a three-day summit to highlight how the U.S. and African nations are strengthening our partnerships to advance shared — shared priorities. The summit reflects the U.S. strategy towards Sub-Saharan Africa with empha- — which emphasizes the critical importance of the region to meet this era’s defining challenges. We will have more, as we do normally, background calls and more to share on — on what is to be expected during those — that three-day summit. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. My colleague had asked you on Monday about the drug shortages question, and I just wanted to follow up on that. Is this something that the President has been engaged in? Has he been briefed on medicine shortages? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just say this and a lit- — share — share where we are. So, as I’ve said — as you mentioned, on Monday, I was asked by your colleague — I believe, Ben — the administration is closely monitoring for the possibility of any national shortages. Medicine shortages are — are not uncommon and is closely monitored and led by FDA and HHS, who are experts on this. Right? This is their focus. Health officials are in close communication with manufacturers around these medicines. While we cannot force a manufacturer to make more of any drug, the conversations have been focused on understanding their supply and production levels, as well as if there — if there are any needs that we can assist with to ensure steady supply. We stand ready to help if there is a need. As — also as part of these conversation, FDA and HHS are in touch with manufacturing associates who continue to tell the public that they are seeing strong supply chains for these products. So that work, again, is ongoing. And as a reminder, we stand ready to help states and jurisdictions as they face the confluence of winter illness. But, also, importantly, we are aggressively pushing everyone to get their flu and COVID shots. I said this on Monday. It is important to do. That is how folks are going to protect themselves and their families, especially as we’re going into — continuing the holiday season. So, we stand ready to provide resources to states, like ventilators and PPE, as well as personnel to help in hospitals. Just last week, Secretary Becerra sent a letter to the nation’s governors reminding them to request those resources if they need to — if they need it. Again, this is something that FDA and HHS is managing. But as I just stated, we are — we are ready to help when needed, when those requests come in. Q The FDA and agencies don’t have much visibility into the supply chain issues. They’ve said that they’re really dependent on the industry to give them information on any issues and whether there are shortages. Does the White House think it’s time for the FDA to get more involved so that they can get better information from companies? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I just stated in my — my layout here that FDA and HHS are in touch with manufacturing associates who continue to tell — to tell the public that they are seeing strong supply chains for these products. So, that’s what they’re hearing, that’s what we’re all hearing from these manufacturing associate — associations. So, I’ll leave it — I’ll leave it there. But, again, I would refer you to FDA and HHS, as they are indeed the experts on this. But I’ve been very clear — you saw Secretary Becerra’s letter that I just laid out — we are ready to help, and we have told states to certainly ask for help if they need it. And we’ll be ready to act. Q Following up on the question about whether concrete actions are expected out of today’s roundtable on antisemitism, one of the Jewish groups that participated is calling for a national strategy to address the issue, and another wants the President to appoint a task force charged with creating a national action plan. Is the administration looking at anything like either of those proposals? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, that meeting just occurred, I think, at 11 o’clock. I don’t have any — a clear readout on what — on what was actually asked or talked about. I know you just laid out a few things. So, I would just need to go back to our teams and see how we’re going to move forward. Don’t want to get ahead of what — you know, of what could be — what could be put forward on the next steps. Just don’t want to get ahead of that. In the way back. Q Thanks. Thanks, Karine. On TikTok, I want to ask you about — so Maryland and South Dakota became the latest two states to ban TikTok on state devices. Is the federal government, is the President considering doing something here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to comment on TikTok while a CFIUS — the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — review is ongoing, as you know, to address concerns posed by this particular app. Generally speaking, the Biden administration is focused on the challenge of certain — of certain countries, including China, seeking to leverage digital technologies and America’s data in ways that present unacceptable national security risk. But, again, I’m just not going to comment on — on a ongoing review. Q Just one more on — President Xi is now in Saudi Arabia speaking with the King and the Crown Prince. There was much fanfare around his visit. Does the President feel slighted at all with his visit, which didn’t get as much pomp and circumstance? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sorry, say that one more time. Q So, there were dances and fanfare around the visit from President Xi coming, and the President didn’t get the same kind of reception in Saudi Arabia. I’m wondering if there’s any slight — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: They met in Bali — right? — with — with — Q They met in Bali, but I’m talking about when the President went to Saudi Arabia to visit MBS and — the Crown Prince. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, your question is — Q My question is: Does he feel slighted that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Q — there wasn’t the same kind of fanfare? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. We’re going to keep moving. Go ahead. Q Thank you. I have two questions. The first on NDAA. Something that wasn’t in the draft that got released today is legislation to prevent a future president, or President Biden, from imposing a Schedule F and moving gobs of civil servants into the excepted service. Would the President — I won’t ask you if he would veto the NDAA without it, but would the President support or encourage adoption of an amendment to prevent this from happening in the future? It was one of the first things he did as President. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I want to be very clear. It’s still — you know, this is still in process. We know — you know, one thing very clearly with this — the vaccine mandates and there’s still a process going — a legislative process going. I don’t want to get ahead of that. So, I’m just not going to comment right now as there’s negotiations, and — and this piece of legislation is still moving through the process. Q And then, second, there are reports in the last day or so that the President is poised to appoint a new Northern Ireland envoy, but that envoy would focus more on economic development than the Brexit, Northern Ireland Protocol border situation. If the envoy will not be focused on that, does the President plan to get more involved to ensure a smooth implementation of the Good Friday Agreement? The 25th anniversary is coming up in a matter of months. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get ahead of the special envoy and what their — what their purview is going to be or not be. I’m just not going to get ahead of that. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. I just wanted to follow up on TikTok. I know you said you can’t comment, but the U.S. business operations of the company have effectively been in question for nearly three years. And I’m wondering at what point you think there might be an outcome, one way or another, on whether it can operate here. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to comment on an ongoing review that CFIUS is doing. And, as you know, the review is — is ongoing to address the concerns posed by the app. I’m just not going to comment from here. Q But the FBI Director has said publicly on Capitol Hill that it does pose a national security concern, but company executives said just yesterday they believe they’re on a path to resolve those concerns. So, does the administration have a view on whether those concerns can be resolved? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I talked about the challenges that we — that are certain, that we — that we’re currently seeing. So, I can say this more broadly: that we’re taking the steps we can to address these types of challenges. For example, President Biden issued the first-ever as — presidential directive, defining additional national security factors for CFIUS to consider in — in line with this administration’s national security priorities, like protecting America’s sensitive data. And last year, President Biden put forward an executive order to protect Americans’ sensitive — sensitive data from collect- — collection and utilization. The Commerce Department, with interagency support, is working to implement this EO and utilize other related authorities. And we will continue to look at other actions that we can take on this — on this matter. But I’m just not going to comment on this specific issue. Q And finally, on voting rights: Are there any specific elements of either the Electoral Count Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act that the White House is seeking to add on to any year-end spending bill? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Can you say the first part of your question? Q On voting rights — voting rights has obviously been a huge priority of this administration, and there’s a suggestion that there could be some type of voting rights push here in the final weeks of the year, that some elements of existing legislation could be added on to a year-end spending bill. Has the White House been discussing this with leadership? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ve — I’ve spoken to this a little bit, about the — about the importance of — of the President supporting the electoral — the electoral piece. I don’t have anything else to share on that. We’re going to let Congress continue to negotiate and move forward with how they’re moving the next couple of weeks, but don’t have anything specific. I haven’t seen any language or anything specific about what you’re asking on voting rights and others. All right. I’ll see you guys tomorrow. Thanks, everybody.

Fighting back tears, Celine Dion shared in a video to fans she has been diagnosed with an incurable neurological disorder. Speaking out on Instagram, the 54-year-old Canadian native said, "As you know, I've always been an open book. And I wasn't ready to say anything before – but I'm ready now. I've been dealing with problems with my health for a long time. And it's been really difficult for me to face these challenges and talk about everything that I've been going through." Dion then revealed she had been diagnosed with Stiff Person Syndrome (SPS), which she explained "affects something like one in a million people." SPS is defined by the Cleveland Clinic as "a rare autoimmune movement disorder that affects the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord). People with this condition first experience a stiffening of the muscles of their trunk followed, over time, by the development of stiffness and rigidity in the legs and other muscles in the body." Dion detailed the specific problems she has been having – including mobility issues. "While we're still learning about this rare condition, we now know this is what has been causing all of the spasms I've been having. Unfortunately these spasms effect every aspect of my daily life, sometimes causing difficulties when I walk and not allowing me to use my vocal cords to sing the way I'm used to." The mother of three shared one pre-taped video in English and one in French, explaining to fans that she will be focusing on her health, and will therefore have to postpone the European leg of her tour. "It hurts me to tell you, today, that this means I won't be ready to restart my tour in Europe in February. I have a great team of doctors working alongside me to help get better and my precious children, who are supporting me and giving me hope." In January, the "My Heart Will Go On" singer canceled the remaining North American shows from her "Courage World Tour," citing a "recovery from recent health issues" as her reasoning. "I'm working hard with my sports medicine therapist every day to build back my strength and my ability to perform again. But I have to admit it's been a struggle. All I know is singing. It's what I've done all my life. And it's what I love to do the most," she admitted. The five-time Grammy Award winner was most emotional when speaking directly to her army of fans. "I miss you so much. I miss seeing all of you - being on the stage, performing for you. I always give 100 percent when I do my shows. But my condition is not allowing me to give you that right now. For me to reach you again, I have no choice but to concentrate on my health at this moment. And I have hope that I'm on the road to recovery. This is my focus. And I'm doing everything that I can to recuperate." "I want to thank you so much fo your encouraging wishes of love and support on my social media. This means a lot to me. Take care of yourselves - be well. I love you guys so much. And I really hope I can see you again, really soon. Thank you."

"People understood that the Republican Party was not the Republican Party of 10 or 15 years ago. It had become a MAGA party, and frankly, one of our successes in messaging was calling it the MAGA party," Schumer told MSNBC's Chris Hayes in an interview Wednesday. see also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2022/12/democrat-rep-debbie-dingell-says-biden.html

If the Republican midterm debacle was the final nail in Donald Trump's political coffin, Tuesday night's loss in Georgia is just heaping on the dirt. Republican Herschel Walker lost in the Georgia Senate runoff against Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock. 'Thank you, Georgia. We did it again,' Warnock tweeted moments after his admittedly close victory was projected. He should be thanking Trump. Nearly every single Trump-endorsed, MAGA-acolyte Senate candidate running in the 2022 midterm elections lost -- except one. 'Hillbilly Elegy' author, J.D. Vance, in what can now be called the red state of Ohio, limped across the finish line, aided by millions of dollars from billionaire Silicon Valley backer Peter Thiel. Most other MAGA-inspired candidates went down: Blake Masters for Senate in Arizona, Kari Lake for Governor in Arizona, Dr. Mehmet Oz for Senate in Pennsylvania and Tudor Dixon for Governor in Michigan to name a few. Some of these races were close, but as they say in Talladega Nights, if you're not first, you're last and that is particularly true in politics. If you even need to be reminded – in a year in which nearly every political pundit predicted a red wave, Republicans achieved the impossible. They blew it. Democrats actually expanded their Senate majority with Warnock's re-election giving them a 51st senate seat. See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2022/12/from-backlash-over-hosting-both-ye-and.html

From backlash over hosting both Ye and Nick Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago to the Jan. 6 Committee closing in on making criminal referrals, former President Trump is having a horrific month. See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2022/12/msnbc-contributor-jen-psaki-blasted.html

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) on Tuesday's edition of 'America Reports' on FOX News said it is not necessary for President Biden to visit the U.S.-Mexico border to know the country has a problem. "I think the president is fully aware of the problems that we have at the border," Dingell said. "As you know, he is stepping up and making, I think, very important personnel changes. I think that addressing the border has got to be a number one priority for all of us, and it gets too political up here, and hope that it’s one of the things that we can somehow, in a bipartisan way, actually address in the next Congress" "I mean, it gets very political on both sides, and the president knows the problem has to be addressed," the Congresswoman said. "I think it’s why he knows the current director has resigned under pressure, and you are seeing the president change personnel, and he knows it’s got to be a priority for the next two years." "Congresswoman, would you like to see him visit the border?" anchor Sandra Smith asked. "I don’t care if he visits the border or not," Dingell said. "He doesn’t need to visit to know we have a problem. Sometimes we fixate on little issues. You think the president doesn’t know we have a problem at the border and what the issues are? I know he does. I think he knows it’s got to be addressed. He’s gotten the reports. He’s seen the photos. So, I mean, at some point, he may or may not go, but he knows what has to be fixed, and you have seen him begin that process."

MSNBC host Joy Reid is not a fan of Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker‘s campaign surrogates appearing with him, claiming it proves Republicans don’t respect Black men. Tranganhnam reported that Walker has been making the rounds to give his final pitch to Peach State voters before Tuesday’s Georgia Senate runoff. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has sat alongside Walker during most of those appearances, which Reid and Democratic strategist LaTosha Brown find “insulting.” “Black people are upset,” Brown said, according to Mediaite. “They feel insulted. They feel insulted that here the Republicans would actually pick a candidate and because he was a ballplayer, that in some way, and if they planted this narrative that Black men were not going to vote and are upset with the Democratic Party, that those two things would be enough for us to be fooled.” Brown added Black voters are too “sophisticated” to be wowed by a former athlete, adding that Walker’s campaign is “racist,” which Reid responded to by saying Graham is “walking” the former running back around. “I have heard this from a lot of Black men even if they’re not in Georgia,” Reid said. “There’s a certain disrespect that a lot of Black men, in particular, feel about particularly the way that Walker has been walked around by people like Lindsey Graham and sort of used and put forward. They don’t seem to respect him, and they don’t seem to respect Black people.” Many have criticized the candidacy of Walker, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump, including Georgia Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan, who said in an interview with CBS that Walker was the wrong choice for the Republican Party. “This wasn’t the right brand for Republicanism. I think Herschel Walker will probably go down as one of the worst candidates in our party’s history,” Duncan said, according to People. One of the reasons Graham might be touring with Walker is because of the numerous times the former running back has put his foot in his mouth, including recently, when he compared werewolves to vampires. According to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, early voting in the Georgia runoff has broken two single-day voting records in a week as more than 1.85 million residents have voted early.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News yesterday morning, “We will secure lifting that vaccine mandate on our military.” Asked if the vaccination policy would be definitively removed from the NDAA, the California Republican said, “Yes, it will. Otherwise, the bill will not move.”

At the Supreme Court, the conservative majority seems to have a new mantra that half way is no way. From the beginning of oral arguments on Monday, it appeared the Supreme Court’s conservatives had come to the bench with their minds set. They sidestepped the lack of clear facts in the case, brushed off worst-case consequences and diminished past rulings that would seem to disfavor a Colorado website designer who has refused to serve same-sex couples. Justice Samuel Alito was even prepared to invoke lines from Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 landmark that gave same-sex couples a right to marry, for the proposition that certain business owners can refuse gay couples. He noted that the author of the opinion, the now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, had referred to “honorable” people who might object to same-sex marriage, and Alito suggested “religious objections to same-sex marriage” could be differentiated from other discrimination, for example, based on race. Other justices on the right wing highlighted the expressive dimension of website designer Lorie Smith’s work, downplaying that she runs a commercial enterprise subject to the state’s public accommodation laws. “You’re on your strongest ground,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Smith’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, “when you’re talking about her sitting down and designing and coming up with the graphics to customize them for the couple.” Conservative justices seemed unpersuaded by the fact that, as liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, if they rule for Smith, “this would be the first time in the court’s history that it would say … a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.” The right-wing majority that coalesced with former President Donald Trump’s three appointments has shown a single-minded focus to transform certain areas of the law, notably those that touch on religious liberty. Individual justices have made clear that they believe religion is under siege and that Christian views have been suppressed. They have ruled broadly, even when the facts of the case might suggest that believers have not been victimized. Last session, the court by a 6-3 vote (the conservative majority against liberal dissenters) ruled in favor of a football coach who had been suspended by a Washington state public school district for praying at midfield after games. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, portrayed coach Joseph Kennedy’s conduct as modest and solitary, far from disruptive to players or people near the field. Dissenters contended the majority had misconstrued the facts of the case, ignoring how Kennedy’s behavior could affect students and breach the Constitution’s separation of church and state. Dissenters took the rare step of including in their opinion photographs of Kennedy surrounded by kneeling players in prayer. In the most consequential dispute of last session, over a Mississippi ban on abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy, which carried some religious overtones, conservative justices went beyond the legal question presented to unflinchingly reverse a half century of precedent, striking down the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that first made abortion legal nationwide.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone. Apologies for being late. I had a — my meeting with the President in the Oval went long, so I apologize. Okay — Q Is there any chance we can go straight to questions? (Inaudible.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I have a — I was just about to say — just give me a second, Darlene — I have a super, super short thing at the top. Q Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And then we can get straight to questions. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, today, marks the first day of National Flu Vaccine week. As flu and COVID-19 continue increasing in circulation, we have two safe and effective vaccines that are — are our best way to stay protected this winter. The simple message from our health and medical experts is this: To be protected this winter, get your flu and COVID shots. Today, Dr. Walensky held a briefing with the American Medical Association to tic- — to kick off a week where she and doctors across the country will be blitzing the airwaves about the importance of getting your COVID and flu shots. And, with that, Darlene, go for it. Q Thank you. Can you give us a rundown on what is being done at the federal level to speed up the restoration of electrical power to the folks in North Carolina? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, the White House is monitoring — has been monitoring the situation and is in contact with local officials. Local law enforcement is receiving federal support on the investigation. We will continue to let that investigation play out. President Biden has made, as you all know, critical infrastructure secure and resilience to all hazards, both natural and manmade, a priority since the first day of his administration. While we still have a long way to go, through initiatives like the bipartisan infrastructure bill and also the infer- — the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden-Harris administration is already flowing through on its prom- — following through on its promise to deliver those results to protect against the limit — and the limit of the impacts of incidents like this. We’ve closely worked with private sector to strengthen resilience against this — the full spectrum of potential threats, including through utilizing new technologies and improving how government communicates and shares threat information with the private sector, which owns the majority of our nation’s critical infrastructure. Department of Energy, Department of Justice, including the FBI, are — will be your best place to get more specific information. But, again, we’re going to let — we’re going to continue — let the investigation play out. Q But on the issue of restoring power, authorities there are saying it could be until Thursday before power is restored. And so — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Understood. We have been — we have been in touch with local officials, and we are — we’re going to provide any assistance needed to help them on the ground. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Yeah, thanks, Karine. On Friday, you said there were no plans of going to Congress for any legislative changes to the IRA for France and Europe. Over the weekend, there were some French officials who said that one way of making tweaks that President Biden proposed to the IRA was through executive orders. And we’re wondering if the administration has already started working on, you know, certain EOs or if you’re planning to work on them going forward. Can you offer any specifics? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, there’s two things. The first thing is, the President was clear that there are ways that we can address Europe’s concerns — right? — the concerns that they actually have. This is a matter we are working through a substantive consultation with Europe — our European count- — counterparts. We don’t want to get ahead of that process, but we’re going to have those conversations and find ways to, again, address their concerns. I was speaking to specifically, like, glitches that might be — that we have talked — that we have heard about in particular — in this particular piece of — this law now. And so, what I was saying — no, there are no — there are — there — we don’t have plans to go back to Congress on that — on that. But when it comes to their concerns, of course we’re going to have conversations with our European allies. Q And specifically on that, I mean, the administration did say during the French President’s visit that — you know, that it had worked on overcoming French objections to whatever it is that they were talking about in — with respect to the IRA. But the administration has, again, of course, not released any specifics on that. And I know you’re talking about, you know, having future conversations with them, but could you talk about the work that has gone in so far? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to get into specifics. Again, we want to have this conversation. There’s a process that’s happening. Don’t want to get ahead of that. But I also just want to say, and you’ve heard us say this many times — look, the Inflation Reduction Act was a historic piece of legislation. It’s going to help Americans — millions of Americans across the country, as we talk about lowering costs, as we talk about really attacking one of — the number-one priority when you think about the economy for the President, which is lowering costs on healthcare, lowering costs on energy, doing that — doing that historic investment on fighting climate change. So, this is something that the President is very proud of. And it’s going to really, truly change lives. When it comes to the concerns of our European partners and allies, certainly we’re going to do our best to have those conversations, but I’m just not going to get ahead of the process that’s currently happening. Q And a quick one on Russian — on the oil price gap. Obviously, Russia has said that, you know, they’re not going to abide by it, even if that means cutting production. Ukraine is saying $60 is way too much. You know, Russian oil blends is selling in Asian markets at $79 a barrel, which is like $20 higher per barrel and which kind of shows that there’s willingness to buy oil from Russia at that price. I mean, given all the work that is going in, how confident are you that this is going to actually have any impact at all on Moscow and President Putin’s oil revenue? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. You — you just asked me a couple questions all at once — or made a couple of statements all at once. So, when it comes to Russia’s reprom- — response, look, we’re not surprised by that. We’re not surprised by what their reaction of — their reaction has been, and what they’re saying. Look, the goal of the price cap has always been to ensure that discounted Russian oil continues to flow onto global markets, and — even as we limit the energy revenue that Russia is using to fund its illegal war in Ukraine. And so we — we believe — we believe that the cap at this level maintains clear incentives for Russia to continue exporting. Not doing so would have serious repercussions for Russia. And so, that’s how we see this process moving forward. I know you were mentioning, “Why 30 and not 60?” And I know that there’s been some comments out there. And so, look, the price — the price will lock in a discount on Russian oil, especially in light of the $100 per barrel they earned just a few months ago, and it can be adjusted over time to prevent Russia from further profiting from its war. And so, this is — we believe this is an — you know, this is an unprecedented action that we’re seeing right now. And it demonstrates the unity that United States and our allies and partners have. And I think this is — we think this is an important step forward. Okay. Q Thanks, Karine. In your meeting with the President, did he indicate that he’d made any headway in his lunch with Senators Leahy and Shelby about reaching an agreement on the topline for the omnibus? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So don’t have a — don’t have any readout for you on the President’s — the President’s lunch. As you just mentioned — just first, for folks who may not be aware — the President had lunch today with Senators Leahy and Shelby of the Senate Appropriations Committee to toast their long careers but also, to your point, Phil, to discuss the funding bill. Look, the President believes that Congress needs to and has to reach a deal, a bipartisan deal. This is something that they were able to do just last year around this time in a bipartisan way, and he believes that they should be able to do this again. This should not be about partisanship. We are talking about critical, critical funding. When you think about public — public education; when you think about our national security; when you think about — you know, about health, these are important things that are im- — that are critical to the American people. So, he believes that we should — that Congress should move forward in getting this done. But more broadly speaking, and I said all this last week, when it comes to our efforts and — and the funding, we — and how we’re moving forward, we believe that process is in good hands with our OMB director, Shalanda Young. She knows how to get this done. She knows how to get a bipartisan deal — get that done. And also, you know, we have our Office of Leg Affairs, who is working on this as well. They have been — we’ve had, you know, multiple conversations with members of Congress. And we’re continuing to make calls. We continue to do briefings. But, again, this is something that the President believes needs to get done. It was done last year in a — in a bipartisan way; we should be able to do that this year. Q Just one follow-up on that. Is the President — has he shown any openness to the idea of dropping the parity between defense spending and non-defense domestic spending, which is currently the Republican proposal on the table? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’ll say this: You know, I’m not going to get ahead of any discussions that are currently happening right now. And so, I know the Congress is moving forward, having those discussions. I’m certainly not going to be negotiating from here — from the podium. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Two topics, if I can. The Supreme Court heard arguments today about a graphic designer who objected to designing websites for gay couples. The justices seem to be sympathetic toward her in today’s — on the Court today. We’ve heard the White House talk about the potential ripple effects after the Dobbs ruling. Do you have a comment on this specific case? And any concerns from the administration about the potential wider implications of this particular case? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I want to be very careful here. Don’t want to weigh in or pre-judge the Supreme Court — the Supreme Court’s outcome. You know, that’s something I’m [not] going to do here at the podium. But to your point, more broadly speaking — and we’ve talked about this — we recognize the — the right to free speech, and we support ensuring that no one is discriminated against or refused services because of who they love and who they are. And so, as you know, we’ve been very clear about that. The administration believes that every person — no matter their sex, race, religion, or who they love — should have the equal access to society, including access to products and services on the same terms as other members of public. Look, the Department of Justice said in its brief that, for decades, non-discrimination public accommodations laws have coexisted with the First Amendment. Courts have recognized that we can recognize — that we can require businesses open to public — to service people, regardless of their backgrounds, even when that means businesses must incidentally engage in speech which they are — which they disagree upon. So this is no reason to upend this balance right now. As the — as the Department of Justice just laid out — as I just laid out what their — what they said in their brief. But, again, I don’t want to weigh in. I don’t want to get ahead of what the Supreme Court’s decision will be on this. Q And then on the yearend wish list and to-do list: Is there a push right now by the White House to renew the expanded Child Tax Credit? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything new to share on that particular piece of legislation — or piece of a plan that — that’s incredibly important to the President. As you know, he included it in the American Rescue Plan, and it was — it was able to cut child pov- — child poverty in a historic way. So, again, an important issue for this President. Don’t have anything to share — to share further on — on that particular plan moving forward. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. I wonder if you could give more detail about the Wednesday event about the rise of antisemitism that’s hosted by the First Gen- — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The Second Gentleman. Q The Second Gentleman. I messed that up. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Were you going to call him the First Gentleman? Q I slipped up. (Laughter.) How long has it been in the works? And what do you hope Mr. — what does the White House hope Mr. Emhoff adds to the debate? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things, just to give you some insight of what’s going to be happening with that — with the roundtable talks — the antisemitism roundtable talks that the Second Gentleman will be — will be hosting. So, first and foremost, President Biden has consistently spoken out — I just want to make sure that’s clear — against antisemitism — its rhetoric, it’s hate, and all of the vile language that we have been hearing, which is incredibly dangerous — these past couple of weeks. And so, we’re going to continue condemning antisemitism and hate wherever it exists. It does not have — it should not have a place in our society. And so, you’ll — you’ll continue to hear that. The President says, “Silence is complicit- — complicity.” And so, you know, that is something that we will make sure that we continue to condemn. Now, as it relates to Wednesday, the Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff will convene a roundtable with Jewish leaders from across the country. The roundtable will include leaders of Jewish organizations fighting antisemitism that represents the wide range of Jewish community from students to seniors, and including Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox denominations. And the Second Gentleman will be joined by Ambassador Susan Rice, White House Domestic Policy Advisor; Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism; and Keisha Lance Bottoms, Senior Advisor to the President for Public Engagement. He felt it was important to host the roundtable given the rise, as I just was mentioning, of antisemitism that we have seen over the past several months and even longer. This is something the Second Gentleman takes very personally. He is the first Jewish person in this role, the first Jewish individual married to a President or a Vice President. He has said himself that he is in pain and that this is something we cannot normalize. And that’s one of the reasons, as I just laid out, that he wanted to do this personally. Q Just a — just to follow up. Is it something that he asked for or something that the President directed him to do? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I just laid out: The President has — has been very clear in condemning antisemitism, the hate that we have been seeing — racism, the increase of hatred that we’ve been seeing just the past several months. So, this is something that his administration more broadly is going to continue to do when we talk about condemning that type of speech. But, look, I just laid out: This is something, when it comes to this roundtable that the Second Gentleman is holding — it’s something that is very personal to him and important for him that he believed that he needed to do. And clearly, you know, it’s part of the — our administration’s response. And certainly, we welcome — we’ll welcome it. Q Thanks, Karine. To follow up a little bit on that — the week ahead. After Wednesday, there were no public events for the President. Is that so we can take a more hands-on approach to the spending deal if necessary? And can we expect him to drop by that antisemitism roundtable on Wednesday? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s a good question. I don’t have anything to preview at this time on — on if he will able to stop by. Clearly, we’re always working through the President’s schedule, as you know. But just to lay out the President’s engagement on — on the — as we’re discussing the government funding bill. Look, as you know, he had the Big Four here last week — and leadership — to talk about — they talked about this. You saw it in the readout. He met with President Leahy — President — pardon me, Senators Leahy and Shelby to have the discussion about the omnibus bill. And so, the President is going to continue to have those conversations. He’s going to continue to be involved. I don’t have anything to preview at this time on — on what the rest of his schedule is going to look like for the week. Q And as it pertains to Wednesday also, could we expect remarks from him regardless of what happens in Georgia on Wednesday? And then, lastly, the President, he didn’t end up going to Georgia during the campaign to campaign for Raphael Warnock. He hasn’t been during the runoff election. Why is that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I need to be careful — the Hatch Act — this is an ongoing, as you know, election with this particular — what we’re seeing — the runoff in — in Georgia, so I want to be really careful here. But I have said many times before at this podium that the President will do anything that that he can do for Senator Warnock to be helpful to him. As you all have seen on the President’s schedule, recently he’s done a high volume of fundraising; attended several political events, including phone banks and unions, and much and — with unions; and much more. Look, the way that we see this, if you think about the midterms that just occurred: The President played a big role here. He set the narrative on how Democrats were going to move forward in the midterms, how they were going to talk about the successes that they had, how they — how they were going to talk about what was important to American families. Right? They made that contrast with Republican electives, Republican officials who were talking about getting rid of Social Security, putting that on the chopping block, putting Medicare on the chopping block. He talked about the freedoms of — the American people wanted, as it relates to Roe v. Wade and how we saw the Supreme Court get rid of Roe. And we talked about that and how Republicans wanted to put a national ban — they were pushing for a national ban. And it didn’t matter in which states, if you’re a red or a blue state. And this is the thing that the President talked about, and others followed. So, the President played a big role in setting that narrative, setting that contrast. And let’s not forget: The successes that we have seen — his economic policy successes, as we talk about the Bipartisan Infrastructure legislation, the Infl- — Inflation Reduction Act — those are the things that the President was able to get done, and Democrats were able to run on it. Go ahead. Q This has, of course, been a harsh season for respiratory illnesses in children. There continue to be anecdotal reports that some drugs are in short supply in certain places, like children’s Tylenol, ibuprofen, amoxicillin. The supply chain is clearly under duress, and some Americans are struggling to find the drugs they need. What’s the administration doing about it, and how big of an issue do you believe it is? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, first, I would refer you to the FDA who is keeping a close eye on this, and they will share more on any details about supplies as it relates to concerns on drugs, which you’re laying out to me, Ben. But what I’ll say more broadly on this is — for context — is that drug shortages are not uncommon, and it’s something the administration is regularly monitoring. The FDA is always tracking shortages at the national level and works closely with manufacturers to understand their production and supply. And while FDA does not manufacture drugs and cannot require a pharmaceutical company to make — to make a drug — make more of a drug or change the distribution of a drug, FDA is in touch with the various manufacturers and stand ready to provide support with — where possible. Again, this is something that we are monitoring. I would refer you to the FDA on any specifics. Q Are you considering stepping in and working with companies in any way, similar to how you all did with the baby formula shortage? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything more to share on — on any type of outreach. But, again, FDA would be the best place for you to get more details on how they’re moving forward with this. Go ahead, Weijia. Q Thank you, Karine. Has the administration decided whether to appeal the court ruling the ends Title 42, because the deadline is this week? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ve been asked this question a couple of times in the briefing room. This is something that –because it’s a legal matter, it’s something that the Department of Justice will decide on, and I would leave it to them. Q We understand that the administration is considering a proposal that would bar certain migrants from receiving asylum here in the U.S. if they don’t seek asylum in other countries first. Is that a proposal that you’re moving forward with? Or are there any other alternative measures to Title 42 on the table? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we are committed to continuing to secure our borders while maintaining safe, orderly, and humane process- — processing of migrants. That is something that we are committed to under this administration. This will remain the case with Title 42 — when Title 42 is lifted. Any suggestions that we might be changing a policy or looking at a different policy is inaccurate at this time. I know there’s been conversations about that. We haven’t made any — no such decisions have been made yet. But, again, we are committed to securing our border. Q And I have a couple questions on this Chinese hack by the group APT41. The Secret Service says that this state-sponsored group of cyber criminals stole at least $20 million in COVID relief, including Small Business Administration loans — (A cellphone rings.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know that ring. (Laughter.) Q — unemployment, insurance funds. What safeguards are in place to prevent this sort of fraud? And why did they fail? — is my first question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we — we don’t comment on specific law enforcement cases. So, clearly, not going to do that from the podium. But the President has continually embraced and called for strong oversight and enforcement against potential fraud. The President made clear that, in the State of the Union — in his State of Union just earlier this year, and when he announced the Justice Department’s appointment of a chief prosecutor for pandemic fraud as part of the interagency COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force. So, for more on any specifics on this or any more details — like, again, this is a legal enforcement matter — this is something that the Department of Justice would speak to. Q Will China face any consequences? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, this is something that the Department of Justice would be dealing with, as it is an ongoing law enforcement matter. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On the trip tomorrow, President Biden has visited a lot of semiconductor plants. What — can you just talk about what makes this one special? Is it, you know, based on that it’s run by Taiwan — a Taiwan company? Is it advanced chips? What’s kind of differentiates this trip? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, it’s a very good question. We are going to be having a background call this evening at 6:30, which is going to be led by Brian Deese. And so, I would encourage all of you to join that background call and you’ll have more specifics. Q You’re sure it’s on background, because — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sorry — a backgrounder. Backgrounder. Yes. It’s a backgrounder. And it’ll — as you know, it’s usually lifted the next morning. So, yes, it is a background call with Brian Deese that’ll happen at 6:30. So, again, I’ll encourage all of you to join. But, look, you know, as you know, he’s going to be going to Phoenix, Arizona, to be discussing American manufacturing. Under this President, we have seen manu — American manufacturing coming back to the U.S., and a lot of that is because of the President’s economic policies. We’ve seen more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs created under this President. And he is going to continue to talk about that, talk about the CHIPS and Science Act, and that historic piece of legislation that was, as you all know, a bipartisan piece of legislation that is going to continue making sure that we have manufacturing jobs right here in the U.S. So, again, you’ll get more details on that. Don’t want to get ahead of that conversation that will be had by Brian Deese at 7:30. It’s a background call. I, again, encourage all of you to join. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Two questions for you. First, on the North Carolina power outage, the local authorities have said they believe it’s an intentional attack. Is the White House aware of any motive that might have been behind that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I’m just not going to get ahead of the process. It is being looked at, investigated currently. Not go- — I’m going to let that investigation play out. I would refer you to the Department of Energy, Department of Justice, FBI to get any more specific details on that. Q And then, Democratic leaders in the House are discussing attaching Senator Manchin’s permitting bill to the annual defense policy bill, which is a must-pass. Is the White House urging that, too? And if so, how are you doing that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, yes, the President believes we should pass the defensive authorization bill and that the permitting bill should be included in that legislation. So that is something that we support from here. Go ahead, Steven. Q Other things on the to-do list: the antitrust tech bill. Does the President want to see action on that in the lame duck? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything more to say than what I shared last week. I refer you back to — I was asked about this a couple times last week, so I refer you back to those comments. Q Thanks. The Electoral Count Act reform. Is that something that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is something that is indeed important to the President, and he wants to see that move forward. Q Okay. The — there was word today of an agreement in principle between Senators Tillis and Sinema on immigration reform. Is that something? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we haven’t seen all of the — kind of, the language on that particular bill, so don’t want to comment from here a- — don’t want to get too far ahead. I know there’s a drafted proposal. But, look, the President has repeatedly called on Congress to permanently protect DREAMers, farmworkers, essential workers, and others and to provide them with the pathway to citizenship. Remember, the first day of his — his administration, he put forth a comprehensive immigration bill. So, we are committed to working with members of Congress from both parties on real solutions to modernize and — our outdated immigration system. So, that is certainly a priority for the President. But we haven’t seen the detailed proposal, so I can’t comment from — about that from here. Q One last thing. Senator Shaheen has a statement. She’s apparently not coming to the ball tonight. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. Okay. Q She’s upset that the President endorsed a proposal to put South Carolina ahead of New Hampshire. And she says that New Hampshire is now vulnerable for her party, which — does the President have a response to that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we honor — we honor the Hatch Act, as I mentioned many times before, here, as we are talking about a potential election — a 2024 presidential election. But, looking backward, it is the ultimate irony, you know, that the 2020 election was — was proven by the Trump administration’s Homeland — oh, sorry — I think I got ahead of myself there. (Laughs.) We take the law very seriously here. And so, that’s the number one thing. And again, I want to be very careful because of 2024, and it places strict limits on what I can say, because of the Hatch Act, about future elections and, of course, political party processes. I know I was asked this question many times before about the DNC. And so, I’ve always referred folks to go to the DNC. But again, as a candidate in 2020 and, as we have heard the night of New Hampshire primary, Joe Biden was very clear that, to him, respecting our diversity as a nation and breaking down barriers for our people is a fundamental principle. And — and so, he believes that what Democrats in office stand for — and he has upheld that principle as President. And so, again, you’ve seen him do that throughout his almost two years in administration, making sure that we see the diversity within his administration that is represented clearly across — across the country. And he wants to honor those values. And so, that’s as far as I’m going to get from here about the specific calendar. Again, don’t want to get into po- — politics as it relates to political parties. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Can you talk about with Congress considering repealing the COVID vaccine mandate for service members in the NDAA? John Kirby spoke earlier about President’s position, Secretary Austin’s position of wanting, obviously, to keep it. So, what is the White House prepared to do for that aspect of it? And is the President personally engaging with lawmakers on this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, when — when the President met with the Big Four just last week, as you all know — as you know, Leader McCarthy raised eliminating the requirement that service members be vaccinated against COVID-19. So, clearly, they had a conversation, as you asked me about talking to members. The President told him that he would consider it, but also made clear that he wanted to consult with the Pentagon. And since then, as we’ve all heard, the — the Secretary of Defense has recommended retaining the mandate. That’s because the COVID vaccination requirement was put in place to keep our service members safe and healthy and prepared for service. And I would remind, you know — remind all of you that the Pentagon has a range of vaccines it has long required, so this is nothing new. Again, this is — you know, there’s history here. There’s precedent. So, with respect to NDAA, those discussions are ongoing. I don’t want to get ahead of it. But clearly, as I just mentioned, it was me- — it was brought up in their conversation that he had with the Big Four yes- — last week. Q Has he had conversations about it since then? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else to preview at this time for you on conversations specifically on the NDAA. I can tell — I can say that we’re just not going to get ahead of the process that’s currently happening in Congress. Q And you’ve said from the podium that the White House isn’t going to respond to every single thing that former President Trump says or does. But the White House also did put out some statements over the weekend about his calls to essentially overturn the 2020 Election and put aside the Constitution. So I’m wondering if you can elaborate on that and share more about — in response to his comments. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — you know, and, again, he is a — he is a declared candidate, so I want to be very careful on how I respond to someone who has declared in 2024. But, you know, this is what I was trying to say earlier — you know, as it relates to, you know, 2020 — 2020 and election conspiracy. Look, it’s an irony — right? — that the 2020 Election was — was — that he says this, because ultimately it was proven by the Trump administration’s Homeland Security officials to be the most secure of all time. And not just the Homeland Security officials, it was also upheld by Trump’s administration’s attorney general and by over 80 federal judges of whom were nominated by Donald Trump himself. And so, in 2022, the American people came together — just the past midterms — and utterly rejected the dangerous conspiracy that we have been hearing — the Big Lie that we have been hearing from the former President but also many Republicans. And so, look, they have been — American people have been very clear, they — they are — they oppose the way that Republicans have talked about this. They oppose the violent rhetoric that extreme MAGA officials have engaged in. And so, we should listen to what the American people had to say just a couple of weeks ago. Go ahead. Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, and then I’ll go back. Q Okay, thanks. Just on Arizona again, is there another side to this trip — a political side — and beyond the CHIPS aspect? Because he’s done a lot of similar speeches in future or current plants. Probably to a lot of Americans, Arizona, politically speaking, might sound like that place where they have a lot of election deniers. So it’s kind of a hot — a hotspot for politics. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to get ahead of the background call that’s going to happen at 6:30. I’m going to let Brian Deese speak to why this trip is so important, why — what TS- — TSMC’s semiconductor material manufacturing facility is a big deal. And so don’t — again, don’t want to get ahead of it. I will encourage you to join the call, and you’ll hear — you’ll hear more about the President’s trip tomorrow. Q Okay. But I mean, I’m not talking on the CHIPS side, right? Just on — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. You’re asking me if there’s — there’s — Q — on the political side, is there a message, politically — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re asking me — Q — he wants to send to folks in Arizona? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, because it’s in Arizona? Q Yes. Yes, yes. Why — you know, because he’s been to a bunch of places that are, you know, relatively similar. Right? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — look, I put — no, I hear your question, but the President is — Q It’s a very different part of the country. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — I hear your question. But the President has said this over and over again: He’s a President for — for everyone. Whether you live in a, you know, red state, blue state, purple state, this is about delivering for the American people. This is about keeping his promises as he moves forward with his economic policies. Look, the CHIPS and Science Act is a historic piece of legislation that is going to bring — and we’re seeing this already — manufacturing back to the U.S. and has created hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. And so, that’s why this is a — this is an important — this is an important move forward that we’re seeing in this — with this particular facility in Arizona. And he wants to highlight that. He wants to lift that up. And so, I don’t want to get ahead of what — what the announcements are going to be or what he’s going to talk specifically about — about what we’re going to see at this facility tomorrow. But as you think about politics, as you’re asking me this question: Again, this is a President who has been very, very clear he’s going to deliver for all Americans. Q Okay. And a very, very quick one about the medical. I think you’ve said previously that the part of the medical has been done already — the physical exam — but when will the rest of it be done? Like very roughly, is it by the end of the year or — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any — any specific dates to layout or a timeline to lay out. I can say — I think I said this last week — it was going to be in the next few months. We will — we will release the President’s physical in the same fashion — in the same transparent fashion as we did last year. Go ahead. Q Karine — thank you so much, Karine. This morning, the National Security Advisor met with the President-elect of Brazil, Lula, for about 1 hour and 30 minutes. What would you highlight from the meeting? And also, Mr. Sullivan invited Lula to the White House before Lula’s inauguration January 1st. Is that visit happening? And why is the White House extending these very — not very common invitation to Lula even before he’s the president? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, to your first question, they — the two of them had a wide-ranging and productive conversation about how the United States and Brazil can continue to work together to address common challenges and deepen our strong bilateral relationship. And we will have a fuller readout of the visit — his — the — Jake Sullivan’s visit to Brazil later today, and you’ll — you’ll have more details on that. To your last question, look, we will have more to share on that soon, as — your question to a visit. Look, this is really important to — to the President. We have said before, we — we’ve been working with members of incoming Lula’s administration for a face-to-face engagement — that’s nothing new; we’ve talked about that — and we — at high levels so that we can hit the ground running once President-elect Lula becomes president in January. So this is something that we have been very clear about, very transparent about. Again, as I just stated, we want to hit the ground running with that relationship, that important bilateral relationship that we have with Brazil. Q And did the White House decide who are you guys sending to the inauguration? It’s going to be the Vice President — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The delegation — the U.S. delegation. Q Yes. Who’s going to be leading the delegation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ll have — we’ll have more to share on what that’s going to — what that makeup of the delegation might look like. I don’t have anything to share for you at this time. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Thank you. The administration said they’re going to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under $70 a barrel. The Russian price cap went into effect today at $60 a barrel. Could — is the President considering putting Russian oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, because it’s been banned. Q Okay. What about the — in Arizona — I just want to ask you — he’s going to that chips factory. Any plans in Arizona to go to the border and see for — the situation for himself there? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I want to be very clear here. The President’s trip tomorrow is about the American manufacturing boom we’re seeing all across the country thanks to, again, his economic policies — again, more than we have seen in his — his, you know, almost two-year term; more than 700,000 jobs — manufacturing jobs that have been created just here alone in the United States. So, he’ll be visiting at TSMC, a company making a major investment to manufacturing cutting-edge chips in Phoenix. This investment will bring new jobs and economic opportunity to Arizona — very important to the people in Arizona. And it’s in large part thanks to the CHIPS and Science Act the President signed into law — and a historic — let’s not forget — a bipartisan piece of legislation. And, look, we should be able to reach a bipartisan — you know, a bipartisan agreement on immigration too. And that’s what we’re calling for. Right? We’re asking for Republican officials to come and work with us and let’s have a bipartisan agreement on immigration, instead of doing political stunts, instead of doing what they’re doing: going to the border, not actually coming up with any real ideas about that. That’s where I will leave it. That’s what the President is doing tomorrow. He’s going to go to Arizona to talk about an important initiative that’s going to change Americans’ lives, specifically in Arizona. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Just a follow-up on Edward’s question. If the President is not going to make time to visit the border during his trip tomorrow — during his trip tomorrow to a border state, will he do it in — in the new year? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I addressed this last week about the President visiting the border. I’m not going to go beyond what I just laid out. I think and we believe the question, again, as I was just answering to your colleague in the back, is that: What are congressional Republicans going to do to actually deal with this issue instead of doing political stunts — many of them political stunts that hurt families, that hurt kids, that hurt children — right? — that hurt people who are — who are coming here to try to seek asylum — leaving a, you know, leaving a dictatorship? Instead of going to the border and talking about — you know, about things that — not going to actually deliver and keep our borders safe, why don’t they work with us? Why don’t they actually do something? Why don’t they actually, you know, help the President get the funding that he requested — historic funding to — into homeland — into the Department of Homeland Security? That’s one way of doing that. But again, they’re playing political games and doing political stunts. Q But the reason I ask is just because the President had said previously that he hadn’t had a lot of time to get to the border. He’s going to a border state tomorrow, so you’d think maybe there would be time there. If there isn’t tomorrow, can you say, at this point, that he — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I’m saying is: Tomorrow, he’s going to actually focus on an issue — a bipartisan issue that was voted in Congress — the CHIPS and Science Act — something that is going to deliver for the people in Arizona, creating jobs and making people’s lives better, and making sure that we are bringing manufacturing back into the U.S. That is critically important. Now, what I’m saying — the second part of that, to your question: If Republican officials truly, truly want to deal with immigration — if they truly want to deal with the border, then they would stop doing political stunts and actually work with us on the plan that we have put forward, which they are not. And that’s what we want to make very loud and clear. There’s ways to deal with this. Again, they can come and actually do this in a bipartisan way, just like we did with the CHIPS and Science Act. Q So the trip is obviously to Phoenix, not to the border, not to Georgia, which is sort of a pressing issue for Democrats, for the President. Have Democrats determined that a visit to Georgia would not help Senator Warnock’s reelection bid? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The President actually — and I actually already answered this. And I’ll just repeat what I just said: The President — when — and I want to be very careful about talking about an election that’s happening tomorrow, because it’s an ongoing — it’s an election, and I’m have — I’m covered under the Hatch Act, so I’m not going to comment on that specifically. But when I — when we look back on the President’s role during the midterm elections, he played a significant role for Democrats. It was because — again, I just answered this question — it was because of the way he made the contrast with Republican officials, again, who wanted to put — who talked about putting Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block because they were upset about the Inflation Reduction Act — which is a historic piece of legislation, is going to lower costs for American families — that’s what they were upset about; because we were saying we wanted to make sure big corporations pay their fair share and not put it on the little guy. And — and that’s what they put forward. And the American people were very — spoke very loud and clear. That’s not what they want. They want us to continue to fight for their freedoms. They want us to continue to fight for democracy. And, you know, that red wave never happened. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Real fast, Karine? Just real quick, on Twitter, because you guys said you’re keeping a close eye on Elon Musk’s ownership. And I’ve — this is the first time we’ve talked to you since he released the files a few days ago. Is it the White House view that decisions at Twitter were made appropriately in terms of decisions to censor this reporting ahead of the election? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me — you see — you mischaracterize, actually, what I — what I actually said, and took it out of context when you asked your question. Look, when I answered the question — and I already — I actually already addressed this — about how the White House and the administration is seeing what’s happening on Twitter, we were — we follow also what’s going on just like you guys are reporting it, just like you guys are seeing. And what I was commenting to is like, yes, we’re seeing what is happening, just like you all are seeing what’s happening with Twitter. So, just want to clear that up because you definitely mischaracterized what I said or put it out of context. And so, can you ask your question again? Q Yes. My question was that you had said, I think, six or so days ago that the White House was watching closely the situation at Twitter after Elon Musk’s ownership of it with respect to misinformation. And because these files were released on the basis of, you know, hacked materials clause at Twitter, decisions were made to censor reporting leading up to the election. My question was: Is it the White House view that these decisions were made appropriately, in light of what has come out? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Which decisions? By whom? Q By Twitter. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: By Twitter on — okay. So, look, we see this as a — an interesting or a coincidence, if I may, that he would so haphazardly — Twitter would so haphazardly push this distraction that is a — that is full of old news, if you think about it. And at the same time, Twitter is facing very real and very serious questions about the rising volume of anger, hate, and antisemitism on their platform, and how they’re letting it happen. And, you know, the President said last week: More leaders need to speak out and reject this. And it’s very alarming and very dangerous. And what our focus right now is helping the American families — I just talked about what the President is going to be doing in Arizona — talking about the CHIPS and Science Act; talking about how we’re bringing manufacturing jobs back here to the U.S.; talking about, under this administration, more than 700,000 jobs have been created in manufactur- — manufacturing jobs, to be more specific. Look what is happening, it’s not — frankly, it’s not healthy. It won’t do anything to help a single American improve their lives. And so, look, this is a — we see this as interesting, you know, coincidence. And — and, you know, it’s a distraction. Q Karine, just one more on the NDAA. Some members of Congress are talking about providing security assistance to Taiwan in the range of about $10 billion over five years. Does the White House have a position on that? And is there any concern that providing additional security assistance to Taiwan might act as an irritant in the relationship with China? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, not going to get ahead of the process as it relates to — in Congress or the NDAA. I’ll say this more broadly: We continue to work with Congress on ways we can reinforce deterrence across the Taiwan Strait and build Taiwan’s resilience in meaningful ways, including the self-defense capabilities. But, again, I’m not going to get ahead of the process that we’re currently seeing in Congress at this time. All right, everybody. Thanks, everybody. Oh, what do I — what’s going on? Q You have a visitor — Arizona. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I — okay. Q Karine, are you going to take a question on U.S. Africa Summit? There’s a (inaudible). MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, I’ll take that. Let me just do this, and I’ll — Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, we have a guest. I forgot. (Laughs.) Okay, so we are pleased to have a local reporter from the Arizona Republic and Arizona Central join us in the briefing room today and — ahead of the President’s trip, as we’ve been talking about Arizona and the CHIPS and Science Act. His name is Ronald J. Henson. He is the paper’s national political reporter and has been a member of their team for about 15 years. And, Ron, thank you for joining us. Hello. Q Yeah. Hi, thanks, Karine. As you know, the TSMC plant was announced in 2020. So, I wanted to note a couple things. Number one, what should ordinary Americans expect that is attributable to the CHIPS Act? How soon should they be seeing the effects of that in Arizona or elsewhere? And also, in the long run, should the government be playing any greater role in providing more water resources to a place like Arizona in light of this water-intensive industry? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on your first question, Ronald, I would refer you to the Department of Commerce as timeline. They’re working on this and they’re playing point when it comes to the CHIPS and Science Act. On your final question, it’s important that these facilities are built sustainably and in a way that doesn’t harm the environment of a region. We know that these chip fabs can be water intensive, but both TSMC and Intel have taken steps to reduce water usage at their facilities in Arizona. In the case of TSMC, they have planned on a site in- — industrial water reclamation plant that will significant reduce — significantly reduce liquid discharge. Within the Biden administration, it is an issue we take very seriously, as evidenced by funding for Arizona drought resiliency resources, including — included in the Inflation Reduction Act, as you know, Ronald. And as these projects continue, state officials, local officials will need to take this issue seriously as they work with chipmakers and build in their region. And so, there you go, Ronald. Thank you so much for joining us on — I know there was a question on the summit. Q (Inaudible.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We will have more — we will — we will have — we will have more to share in the next couple of days. Yes, the U.S. Summit is incredibly important. We have invited 49 African heads of state to Washington, D.C., for a three-day summit to highlight how the U.S. and African nations are strengthening our partnerships to advance shared priorities. The Summit reflects the U.S. strategy towards Sub-Saharan Africa, which emphasizes the critical importance of the region to meet this era’s defining challenges. Again, we will have more to share on the upcoming days. I got to go guys. Thank you so much.

Democrats and Republicans should not underestimate the impact of Donald Trump's "evil charisma," which could help him win the Republican nomination come 2024, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Welcome to the Office of. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Read about Hillary's life · See Hillary's current projects · Learn about Hillary's vision for America. See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2022/12/at-summit-on-womens-rights-at-clinton.html

“We need to be standing with the people of Iran,” says HillaryClinton . “I would not be negotiating with Iran on anything right now – including the nuclear agreement. I think that, frankly, the horse is out of the barn.” “The Taliban have so clearly demonstrated they are not going to abide by any agreement,” says Hillary Clinton. “They too, like the ayatollahs in Iran, seem to think that their legitimacy depends in large part on keeping women out of sight, out of any kind of public role.” “Iran is assisting Russia, particularly with drone technology, to reap even greater destruction on Ukraine. I now believe it should be understood to be in Israel’s interest to try to undercut and prevent Iran from succeeding,” says former US Secretary of State HillaryClinton . “It’s time for the US & NATO to take another look at providing more defensive weapons” to Ukraine, says HillaryClinton. “Anything that can be done to give the Ukrainian military more means of rebuffing these brutal bombing attacks, we need to be looking… at doing that.” “In a democracy, when things don’t go your way, when you suffer setbacks, you need to remember that there is no permanent political victory or defeat,” says former US Secretary of State HillaryClinton. “You have to keep fighting for these fundamental rights.”

Elon Musk says he’s revealing the whole story behind Twitter’s ‘suppression’ of the Hunter Biden story Elon Musk says he will release details on Friday afternoon about Twitter’s decision to censor The Post’s scoop about Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. “What really happened with the Hunter Biden story suppression by Twitter will be published on Twitter at 5pm ET!” the new CEO tweeted. “This will be awesome,” he added in a separate tweet alongside a popcorn emoji. The world’s richest man, who purchased Twitter last month, has previously insisted full disclosure was needed to determine why the company decided to block the bombshell report about President Biden’s son in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election. The 51-year-old, who has vowed to turn Twitter into a bastion of free speech, had been teasing the release of the internal files for several days, arguing the “public deserves to know what really happened.” “This is a battle for the future of civilization. If free speech is lost even in America, tyranny is all that lies ahead,” he tweeted Monday after vowing the files would “soon to be published on Twitter itself.”