Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Okay. The Queen has been — the — I’m so sorry. Good afternoon, everybody. It’s been a long morning. All right, let’s do this again. The President has been briefed and will be updated throughout the day on the concerning news out of the United Kingdom about Queen Elizabeth’s health. His and the First Lady’s thoughts are with the Queen and her family today. The President also conveyed to Prime Minister Truss during a previously scheduled video conference this morning that he and Dr. Biden are thinking of the Queen, her family, and the people of the United Kingdom. This morning, the President hosted the video conference with allies and partners to underscore international support for Ukraine, including through continued security and economic assistance, and the sustained imposition of costs on Russia to hold the Kremlin accountable for its aggression. They discussed Russia’s weaponization of energy and additional steps to secure sustainable, affordable energy supplies for Europe. They committed to continued close consultation on this issue. In a few — in a few — in about an hour or so, the President will give remarks on the new, updated COVID-19 vaccines with a simple, clear message: “Don’t wait. Get a COVID shot this fall.” He’ll note that with these new, updated vaccines, we’re entering a new moment in our fight against COVID. For most Americans who are fully vaccinated, our nation’s health experts are recommending that you get the updated COVID vaccine once a year. The President will also discuss our plan to ensure Americans get these new vaccines and are preparing for the fall and winter. First, by making these vaccines available for free and easy to get at tens of thousands of convenient locations. Second, we’re also doing our part by taking action. While we’re constrained in what we can do with our limited remaining COVID re- — response funding, we’re acting to further increase access to tests and treatments, including by purchasing some more tests and launching a new pilot program to further expand testing. Third, the President will call on everyone to do their part, with specific calls to action for schools and businesses. Last, the President will continue to call on Congress to take — to take action on the administration’s request for additional COVID-19 funding so we can make important investments to support testing, long-COVID research, and the development of next-generation vaccines and research. So, here’s the bottom line: The President will underscore that we’ve come a long way in the last 19 months. People are back to work, kids are back in school, and we can now prevent the most serious outcomes from COVID. And if we all stay vigilant and keep doing our part, we can build on this progress and keep people safe, manage COVID, and minimize disruptions this fall and winter. Lastly, tomorrow, President Biden will travel to Licking County, Ohio, to deliver remarks at the groundbreaking of Intel’s new $20 billion semiconductor manufacturing facility. Intel committed this funding in anticipation of the passage of the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The facility will be built by union labor, creating over 7,000 construction jobs and 3,000 full-time, producing, leading-edge CHIPS jobs as well. Thanks to the President’s economic plan, U.S. manufacturing is back. Our economy has already added more than 680,000 manufacturing jobs since President Biden took office, which is more manufacturing jobs on average per month than any other President in the last 50 years. Just in the last few weeks, Micron announced it will invest fifty — $15 billion in a new memory chip manufacturing facility in Boise, Idaho, creating 17,000 jobs. GlobalFoundries and Qualcomm are partnering to invest $4.2 billion to manufacture chips in an upstate New York facility. Major global companies like Toyota and Honda are choosing America as the place to invest and build. When we make more in America, we strengthen our supply chains, bolster our economic and national security, and lower costs for Americans. The CHIPS and Science Act is a once-in-a-generation law that invests in America itself, and it’s a law that American people should be proud of. With that, go ahead, Aamer. Good to see you. Q Good to see you, too. Does the White House support putting Senator Manchin’s permitting reform measure in the continuing resolution needed to fund the government? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say — say that one more time. Q Sure. Does the White House support putting Senator Manchin’s permitting reform measure into the CR? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we support the permitting reform bill, which will help us realize the benefits of the historic investments in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastruc- — Infrastructure Law as well. We want to see it enacted. We are working with Senator Schumer and Senator Manchin to find the best path forward. We think it’s important to meet the country’s clean energy goals and to reduce cost and to promote energy security. Permitting always delays a new solar and new wind projects are among the longest in our — in our country. So, right now, as you all know, we’ve seen gas prices moving downward at a record pace in — fastest pace in history — in our history. The point of this legislation is to help ensure a long-term clean energy supply for this country. And — and so, we’re going to continue to work with Senator Schumer on this. Q With the permitting reform, the White House believes it could have an effect on a downward trend with gas prices? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, you know, we’ve done the work to see the prices of gas at the pump go down every day this summer — consecutive days, 86 days. It’s at three hu- — $3.75 per gallon nationally. And so, we’ve done the work to do that. What we see this will help us do is ensure long-term clean energy supply for this country. And so, this is — this is a reason why we think this is important. Q And just lastly on that: Is there any concern –there’s obviously differences amongst Democrats on this — that this could sink a CR and lead to a government shutdown? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Meaning this particular — Q Yeah, this issue. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the way that we see this is this is not the first time that we’re going through a process — a CR process. We did it last year. And we believe that it can happen again, that Congress can move forward and get the CR done. Q Thank you. You’ve been referring to this new shot as the “updated COVID-19 vaccine.” Can you explain a little bit more the decision to no longer be calling it just a booster? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we — we have to remember we haven’t seen a vaccine — a new vaccine since December 2020. Our health and medical experts made an independent determination that we now have new, updated vaccine, as you just said, to fight COVID. It is the first time that we have seen this type of updated vaccine, like I said, since December of 2020. And if you — and the message to folks that we are — we’re — we are providing is: If you’re 12 or older and it’s been at least two months since you last got a shot, you should get these new updated vaccines right away. That’s the doctor’s advice. And they made this decision independently. Q But you do still need to get the first original dose before you can get this shot. The FDA, the CDC — they’re still referring to this as a booster. So, I guess, why the discrepancy? Are you concerned that may cause some confusion? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m not going to get into, like, regulatory language on what to call this. I’ll leave that to a booster or a vaccine. We’ll just lay — I’m just laying out what the doctors and the experts have recommended. This is, again, a new vaccine. We haven’t seen a new vaccine since December of 2020. What this vaccine does — it targets the Omicron variant, which is the dominant variant not just here, but globally. And this is — this is good news. This is a step forward. And we’re going hear more from the President about this. But we think this is, again, a good step forward. We are in a place where COVID is now manageable. We know what works. We know what keeps us safe, what keeps us from not getting sick — is by getting vaccinated. And right now, if you think about it, there’s more than 200 million Americans who are currently fully vaccinated. That’s 77 percent of the population who are 12 and older. And so, that’s — that’s an important way forward that the President has worked very hard since stepping into the administration to make sure that we had a comprehensive vaccine, you know, getting shots into arms operation. And this is part of that. Q And just a logistical question. You mentioned the President being briefed on the Queen’s health. If she were to pass, should we expect the President would travel to any service? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we think it’s inappropriate to actually be talking about that at this time, so I don’t have anything to share on travel. Again, you know, as I stated, the people of UK and the family — the Queen’s family are in the hearts of the President and Dr. Biden. So, I’ll leave it there. Q Thank you, Karine. Has the White House specifically inquired about the Queen’s health this morning? And when was the last time President Biden actually spoke to the Queen? Was it at the G7 in Cornwall, or have they had conversations after that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So they — they last met during the President’s visit to the United Kingdom in June 2021 in Cornwall, as you just stated, when she welcomed the President and the First Lady to Windsor Castle. A few days before that, she also hosted the President and another G7 leaders at a reception in Cornwall, which is what — which is what you just stated. Yeah. That was the last time that they saw each other. Q And has the White House specifically inquired about her health, or has — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can tell you that the President has been briefed. I don’t have any calls to preview at this time. But he has been briefed on the situation. Q And a quick one on the tech meeting. We saw the readout that landed a few minutes ago. The White House held a listening session with senior administration officials on the harms caused by big tech. And we are sort of just trying to understand, you know, why tech companies were not invited to participate in such a session and, you know, why did you decide to have such a meeting now. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, this is, as you know, the largest tech meeting — convening that we have had at the White House since the be- — since we have started in the last 19 months. These — just a couple of things I want to say about this, because it’s really important. These principles are the culmination of months of work by the administration and engagement with numerous stakeholders. They also consist with work that the administration has been doing and will continue to do. So this is an important roundtable, as you’ve heard from the readout and as we’ve laid out. Look, we are — you know, we’re looking forward to hearing any feedback from the tech companies. And I’ll just leave it at that. Q Any plans to specifically act on the recommendations that came out? I mean, there were — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything — I don’t have anything specific to add. Look, again, the roundtable is the largest discussion about the harms of tech companies, as you just started in your question, held at the White House. The President has long called for fundamental legislative reforms to address these issues, and we look forward to continuing that work with Congress to make bipartisan progress on these issues. Again, the President also encourages federal agencies to use the tools they have to continue advancing these principles throughout their work, as well. And we welcome any — any feedback from the tech companies. Q When the President conveyed his thoughts to Prime Minister Truss, did she offer any update on the Queen’s condition or the Queen’s health, based on what she knows? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything more to share from — from what I just stated about him having a conversation or speaking to her briefly during this call this morning. Q Did the President express any concerns over the Queen’s health after meeting with her, as he did last summer? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Concerns meaning — Q Concerns about her health and how she was doing. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is not information that I have. Look, you know, I’ll just reiterate this because I think this is important, which is our countries and people have always had a — or shared a special relationship. And our thoughts are – again, are with the people of the United Kingdom, with the Queen and her family. And she, again, as the President has stated — you know, they are in the hearts of both the President and Dr. Biden. I don’t have more to share on that. Q Thank you. Q Do you have any update on when the last time the President has spoken to the Queen? Was that when they met, as Kaitlan just referenced? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. Q Or have they — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It was when they met in June of 2021, is the last time they spoke and saw each other. Q And then, just on COVID, there’s a projection that the administration could run out of tests in another — if there’s another major COVID wave. I’m wondering if there’s any updates on whether or not the White House or the administration plans to buy more tests. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we’ve been very clear we need Congress to pass the CR. We have made some cuts here and there to the — to our fall plan and — and in order to move forward with this COVID vaccine that we’re talking about, that the President is going to announce today. We — we have enough for the fall but not for the winter. And we have been very clear that in order to — to not — to not be left behind, to continue moving in our progress, we need Congress to fund the COVID — you know, the COVID response funds that we have asked for — the $22 billion. So we’re going to continue to work with Congress. We’re going to continue to have those conversations — those bipartisan conversations to move that — that conversation forward on getting that CR done. And so that is a priority for this administration. We’ve been talking about that for months now. There’s nothing new there. And in order to continue with the testing, in order to continue with these new vaccines that are very important, that is a gamechanger in how we’re approaching managing COVID, we need those funds. Q Logistically, would the President be given any sort of heads up if the Queen does pass? Or would he find out, kind of, when Buckingham Palace releases a statement? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I mean, we just feel — we just feel having those conversations at that time is inappropriate. Clearly, if anything is to share, we will share that. But again, we’re thinking about their family. They’re in our hearts. And just not going to get ahead of that at this time. Q And then, on the President’s call with allies, in the readout they mentioned that they talked about Russia’s weaponization of energy and the need to, you know, coordinate on sustainable and affordable energy. Is the President concerned that gas prices — you mentioned that they’re coming down. Is he concerned about them increasing again? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: In — here in the U.S.? I mean, the President is doing everything that he can to make sure that we lower the costs for the American people. This has been a priority for him. And he took really bold actions to see the trend that we have seen — been seeing with gas prices, right? Eighty-six days they’ve been trending down. And so we’re encouraged by that. It’s been — it’s been — it’s been, you know, work that, again, his leadership from the Strategic Petroleum and making sure that we tap those — that historic tapping of the Strategic Petroleum of 1 million a day for — for the last several months, that has helped. It’s the ethanol 15 that he made a decision on to make that available during the summer, which is not a regular time to make that available. He took bold actions, and now we’re seeing — we’re seeing that effect. So, look, we’re going to continue to take — to look at all options. We’re going to continue to make sure we keep costs down for — for the American people, including at the pump. Q And then you mentioned the President is going to Ohio tomorrow for this groundbreaking. Is this going to be something that we’re going to see throughout the midterms — going to these kinds of ribbon-cutting ceremonies, groundbreakings? I mean, is that kind of the focus? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I can’t talk about the midterms from here. I can’t talk anything political from — from where I stand and in this position. We put out a memo in August laying out what — what the next several weeks would look like. We had a string of successes, as you know: the Inflation Reduction Act, which is going to lower cost for Americans as it — as it relates to healthcare, as it relates to making sure prescription drugs are lowered for our seniors, as it relates to investment in dealing with our climate crisis, which is all incredibly important. CHIPS Act — as you know, that’s what he’s going to be focusing on tomorrow. And so we’re going to go out there. We’re going to have those conversations with the American people. Not just us — Cabinet Secretaries; you’re going to see congressional members out there, Democrats who — who are going to make sure that the American people know the work that this President and Democrats have done in Congress on behalf of the American people. And so we’re going to do that these next several weeks. The President is going to go to Ohio. He’s going to go to other states in the next couple of weeks. And this is important. This is important because as we talk about the gas prices, the President has been very clear with his — one of his priorities as it comes to the economy, as it relates to the economy is to lower costs for the American people. And so we’re going to have those conversations across the country. Go ahead. Q Does the President have any intention to go to the British Embassy to sign any book today, though she’s — since we know that she’s ill, to express his best wishes to the people of that country? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t — I don’t have any changes to his — his schedule to announce. Q Is that under consideration? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Nothing — nothing to — to — on his schedule today that’s changed at this time that I have to report from here. Q Understood. Let me ask you about an announcement that was made by another news outlet this week. It relates to what the Republicans are calling the “Commitment to America.” Axios reporting that Kevin McCarthy is going to unveil this economic agenda later this month in Pittsburgh. Among the items it dictates is a desire to put an end to Build Back Better. Presumably, that refers to the Inflation Reduction Act. What’s the President’s view on that, given it’s being celebrated by Democrats as his — one of his signature achievements? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it says everything that one of the first acts that Kevin McCarthy does — his first act when it deals with the economy and dealing with how do we make — give a little breathing room to the American people is wanting to get rid of the Inflation Reduction Act, which we know — which we know the Inflation Reduction Act is going to help lower costs for our seniors. It is a — it is a big win for the American people when you think about beating Big Pharma, something that Democrats and congressional members have been trying to do for decades, beating a special interest group that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make sure that we do not do that — lower cost for our seniors — and also make a real effort in energy costs and climate change — lowering those costs as well. So the fact that that’s the thing, that’s what Kevin McCarthy wants to do, that tells you everything that you know — that we need to know: that they are all for tax giveaways. And — and it’s a clear, clear message that they are sending to the American people. Let’s not forget: Medicare is popular with the American people. What we’re trying to do is popular with the American people. Protecting Social Security, which is something they have put on the chopping — chopping blocks as well, that is very popular with the American people. So I think it says — it says all that we need to know about Kevin McCarthy’s agenda and how it does not stand for the American people. Q Last question, very quickly: President Obama, in his last visit to the White House, turned to reporters and delivered his message to Democrats on what he thought they needed to do ahead of the midterms. There were no comments from him publicly to the reporters that were in the room. What did he tell the President yesterday about what he thinks needs to be done for Democrats, given this uphill climb they still face even though the polls show it’s an increasingly close midterm ahead? What did he say to the President that needs to be done to help sort of turn that tide? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, I can’t talk about the midterms or any political election from this podium — Q About achievements. We don’t have to talk about the midterms. What did he say he needs to do better? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And what I can say is what I reiterated earlier to one of your colleagues, which is: We are going to talk about the successes that we have been able to do in the last 19 months for the American people. And that is building an economy that works for all, doesn’t leave anybody behind; make sure that we build an economy from the bottom up and the middle out. That’s what you’ve seen with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That’s what you’ve seen with the American Rescue Plan. That’s what you’ve seen with the CHIPS Act — CHIPS Act — CHIPS and Science Act. That’s what you see with — again, with the work that this administration, along with Congress — Democrats in Congress have been able to do. We have a lot of things that we can talk about directly with the American people. And that’s what we’re going to do. The President is going to go to Ohio. They’re going to — we’re going to go to Intel. Intel made this investment in manufacturing jobs investment because of the CHIPS and Science Act, because of the commitment that we’re making to manufacturing jobs. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so that’s going to continue to be our focus. Go ahead. Q Yes, on the Queen’s condition, who is briefing the White House about how she’s doing? Are you hearing from the Prime Minister? Are you hearing from Buckingham Palace? How are you getting your information? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to go into details or even private conversation that the President has had on — on the updates that he’s getting on the Queen. All I can say is that he’s been briefed. And he has sent — he has been very clear on the message through all of you — sharing with all of you the message that he has to the Queen, her family, and also the people of the United Kingdom. Q On COVID, there’s a report today that the White House might be looking to wind down the COVID Response Team sometime next year. Is that in consideration? What are — what’s the current thinking about — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to share on that. Right now, we’re still trying to make sure that we — we continue the success that we have seen with the work that the President has done on COVID. Go ahead. Q Thank you. I have a question about the President meeting with the — President Xi of China at G20. The President this week mentioned that he will see him if President Xi is attending G20. Is this based on some communication between two governments? Or he said — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Can you sa- — I’m sorry, can you say that again? Q The meeting between President Biden and President Xi of China. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have an — I don’t have anything to share on that. Q He mentioned this week that he will see President Xi at the G20 if — if he attends. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I am not going to get ahead of our plans, of our trip at this time — or a trip at this time. We just — I’m not going to confirm anything from — from here, from you. Go ahead. Way in the back. Q Thanks, Karine. Yeah, you’ve talked about trying to get costs down. A new Gallup poll shows that 24 percent of Americans are spending less; they’ve changed their spending habits. Seventeen percent are driving less because of inflation. Seventeen percent traveled less or canceled vacations. The President has been to his beach house six times. He went on vacation in North and South Carolina. Is he considering any spending cuts for the administration or for himself personally because of inflation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait, can you say that part again? Q Yeah. So, the President is — 17 percent of Americans have — according to this Gallup poll, have canceled vacations or traveled less. The President has been to his beach house six times this year. He has been in North and South Carolina on vacation. Has the President himself considered personally reducing his spending because of inflation, or had the administration reduced spending because of inflation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So can I — I’ll say this: The times that the President has gone to Delaware, not including — and we were very clear that when he went to South Carolina in August and Rehoboth, he was going to go spend time with his family, which every President does. That is not unusual. That is not uncommon to do. And the President has a right to spend time with his family, just like every other American across the country. And so, that was that piece of — of what ha- — what occurred in August. As it relates to trips that he’s made to Delaware: Look, the way we see that is the President could be President anywhere. He can — he can work from the Residence. He can work from the Oval Office. He can work from Delaware. And that is — that is the work — that is what he’s able to do as President of the United States. Look, when it comes to inflation, the President has been very clear on this. When it comes to his economic plan and dealing with inflation, he’s doing everything that he can to make sure that we lower costs. That’s why the gas prices going down the last 86 days is a step forward. Bringing it down under $4, an average of $3.75, is a step forward, because the decline that we have seen is indeed historic. We haven’t seen that decline in over a decade. That is why it’s so important that we — we pass the Inflation Reduction Act. That is going to change people’s lives. It is a gamechanger if you think about senior citizens who are paying thousand doll- — thousands of dollars a month — $2- to $3,000 a month on prescription drugs. Now it’s going to be capped at $2,000 a year. Those are the things that’s actually very popular with — with the American people. And guess what? Republicans didn’t vote for that. And Republicans didn’t support that. Matter of fact, Republicans — what they have put forward is putting Medicare and Social Security on the chopping blocks. And so, the President is going to continue to be zero-focused on lowering costs for the American people, and that’s what you’ve seen. I’m going to move on. (Cross-talk by reporters.) We actually have about 10 minutes left. Go ahead. Q Can I actually piggy back, though — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — Karine, on that? Just to confirm, though, are there any spending plan cuts, either personally that the President is going to make or the White House? Because, you know, as my colleague mentioned, Americans are making some of those cuts. And I just wanted to get clarity on whether or not that’s happened? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We understand. And we have been very clear — and the President has said this — that we understand what the American people are going through. And I want to be — Q But no plans for cuts, you’re saying? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What — what I — I want to be very clear that we understand that there are American people who are still dealing with high costs. And we understand that they have those difficult conversations around the kitchen table about how they’re going to spend — spend their paycheck. But we also have to understand is: What the President has been able to do with the economy — and we — we get it. There’s still more work to do. With the American Rescue Plan, with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Legislation, with the Inflation Reduction Act, with CHIPS — are all part of a plan to make sure we don’t leave anybody behind, we bring down costs. He’s created more than 10 million jo- — 10 million jobs since — since he — he’s walked into office. We’re going to talk about COVID. If it wasn’t for the comprehensive plan that the President had put forward about — with COVID, we wouldn’t be in the position that we are right now, with more than 200 million people who are fully vaccinated. I don’t have anything else to share on that. What I can say is the President has the ability to work from anywhere. That is the President’s — one of the President’s obligations that he has. Wherever he goes, he’s able to work. He has a team to do that. And again, when it comes to high costs, when it comes to tough decisions that the American people make, he gets that and he’s going to continue to do the work that we have been doing to bring costs down. Q Can I ask you a quick question on an unrelated topic? The Unity Summit next week. Can you provide any details on what exactly it is or just any additional context on that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’ll have more information for you early — earlier in the week. I don’t have any details at this time. I’m going to keep going. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. I will say, I did fill up the tank at the Biden service area the other day, and the gas prices were a bit lower. But regarding next week, the President is going to Detroit, to the auto show. Secretary Yellen has got a speech at a Ford plant in, I think, about a half an hour from now. Is there anything you can preview about the President’s trip to Detroit yet, or anything further on what Secretary Yellen is doing? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as to what Secretary Yellen is doing, I would refer you to the Department of Treasury. I’ll give you a little bit on next week — the Detroit visit. President Biden’s economic plan has fueled an electric vehicle manufacturing boom in America, and you can expect him to talk about that and more in Detroit. Under President Biden, the private sector has invested over $100 billion to make more electric cars and their parts in America, create jobs for our autoworkers, and strengthen our domestic supply chains. And just weeks after President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, major companies have already announced billions of additional dollars in new investments to boost American clean energy manufacturing and create good-paying jobs. And that’s what he’s going to look — that’s what Detroit is going to look like. Q And are you concerned about the possibility that the $7,500 tax credits may not be available for a lot of these EVs? There’s been some reporting that the parts just won’t be from the United States, that the — the or- — the country-of-origin situation won’t be sufficient for those. Is the White House concerned and trying to figure out a way to make sure that people can actually get those tax credits to buy those EVs? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’re going to do everything that we can to make sure that — that that part of the Inflation Reduction Act, as it comes to the climate change, is implemented in a way that the — the American people sees that direct effect. It is a priority for us. We just announced — we announced John Podesta, who’s going to be leading that effort. As we have done with the American Rescue Plan, as we have done with the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, we’re going to make sure that what we pass — these laws that we pass to improve the Americans lives are — are implemented in a way that has a real effect and that the American people truly feel the cost. Q Thank you, Karine. I have two questions. The first is on Queen Elizabeth. She has served for nearly a third of American history. So how does President Biden view this special relationship between the U.S. and the UK if there were to be a transition in the British monarchy? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, don’t want to — you know, we feel like it’s inappropriate to talk about hypotheticals here. We — what we — what I will say about the relationship with the — with the United Kingdom, as the President said in celebration of Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, which was not too long ago, under — and this is quote: Under her “reign, the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States has grown stronger and closer than ever.” The President, as you all know, has known the Queen for over three decades. He’s met — he’s met her personally three times — once was in June of 2021 — over the years, including, as I said, twice last year. Again, we see this relationship is stronger — grows stronger every — grows stronger and closer. And again, our hearts, the President’s — as he said, our thoughts and our hearts are with the Queen, her family, and also the people of the United Kingdom. Q They met three times, as you just indicated. And I’m wondering if you have any — anything to add about what the President has shared on the Queen’s views of the U.S. and the world as it stands right now. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into private conversations that they have had. I can tell you, again, they’ve met at least three — they’ve met three times in the past few decades. And, again, I, you know, don’t want to get ahead of anything here. We think it’s inappropriate to talk about any travel or any thoughts on that. But again, you know, we’ve made it very clear that they are in our hearts, they are in our thoughts. And that’s where we are today with this. We’ll have more. Q And a quick clarification on the technology meeting that took place today. How did the White House select Mozilla and Sonos to represent the views, more broadly, of the entire industry? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, I think the way that we see what is — the roundtable today — it is, again, the largest roundtable that we have seen from this administration to deal with tech, and we think it’s an important conversation to be had. Again, we are — we look forward to hear the feedback from tech companies on what they think about what we’re working through and moving forward. But again, I’m not going to get ahead of that process. But we think it’s important. This is a — you know, this is — the actions that the President has taken on tech and the conversations that we’ve had has been a priority for this President. And — and we’re just — I think what you should take out from today, or take away from today, is that, you know, the President is going to and has long called for fundamental legislative reforms to address real issues. And so we’re going to continue to do that. Q Thanks, Karine. Why do you guys keep saying the Inflation Reduction Act is reducing prices? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because in the Inflation Reduction Act, when you look at Medicare, when you look at what it’s going to be able to provide — allow Medicare to negotiate lowering costs for seniors — that is reducing costs. When you think about seniors who are paying — again, I just stated this — $2,000, $3,000 a month, and it’s going to now cap that at $2,000 a year — that is lowering costs. Q But a majority of Americans now say that price increases are causing them financial hardship that is more than at the start of the year. So where’s the inflation reduction for everything else? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So here’s the thing: The Inflation Reduction Act — Q Karine — Q Karine, the Queen has died. Q The Queen died. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, all right. Okay. So that’s been confirmed? Q The Royal Family has tweeted. Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I said earlier, you know, our hearts and our thoughts go to the family members of the Queen, goes to the people of United Kingdom. I don’t want to get ahead of what the President is going to say. I want him to — from you all to hear from him first, and so I don’t want to get ahead of that. But — and I said this earlier: Our relationship with the people of the United Kingdom — and this is something that the President has said himself — has grown stronger and stronger. And it is one of our — the United Kingdom is one of our closest allies. And, again, our hearts go to the people of the United Kingdom, to the Queen, and to her family. I’m just not going to go get ahead of the President. And with that, I’ll see you guys on Monday. Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. All right, so today we have two new guests that are with us in the briefing room. Our Monkeypox Response Coordinator, Bob Fenton, and Deputy Coordinator, Dr. Demetre, are here with us to provide an update on our progress against the monkeypox outbreak and take a few questions. And I will have — Bob, you want to go first? MR. FENTON: Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. MR. FENTON: Well, good morning, and thanks for having me and Dr. Daskalakis here in the briefing room today. We wanted to provide an update on the progress we’re making in fighting the monkeypox outbreak. As we announced a couple of weeks back, we have ample supply to vaccinate the highest-risk individuals against monkeypox. Nearly all jurisdictions have moved toward the intradermal vaccine approach, which means that jurisdictions have effectively transitioned toward an approach that has gotten not only more shots into arms but also without sacrificing the safety and effectiveness of the JYNNEOS vaccine. In fact, over 70 percent of all vaccines being administered in the United States today are given intradermally. Our focus now is to reach the remainder of the eligible population where they are: at trusted locations and events across the country. And equity has to be a key point and priority embedded in throughout our response. This past week, we saw how successful that approach is. Because of our direct allocations for Southern Decadence in New Orleans, Black Pride in Atlanta, and Oakland Pride, thousands of shots were administered during these events. In fact, over 3,000 doses were administered at Southern Decadence and their affiliated events. And nearly 4,000 doses were administered at Black Pride in Atlanta. That means thousands of individuals are being — getting their protection against monkeypox that they may not have if — otherwise. These events demonstrate our strategy is working. We’re also accelerating our efforts to provide vaccines to places and people that we know will make a difference. As Dr. Daskalakis announced last week, we are launching a new program that allows local health departments to request vaccines to use innovatively through strategies to reach Black and brown communities. And today, we’re announcing that we’re providing more vaccines to upcoming Pride events across the country — first to Idaho, where 820 doses will be made available for the weekend of Boise Pride; and second, 10,000 doses to California, ahead of the Folsom Street Fair, the Castro Street Fair in San Francisco toward the end of this month. We will continue to pull every lever and meet people where they are to end this outbreak. And we’re already seeing progress, as Dr. Daskalakis will brief out here in a little bit. Sir? DR. DASKALAKIS: Thank you, Bob. We are encouraged by the progress that we’re making right now. You’ll see the chart to my left. We only have data from 35 jurisdictions; that’s just over half of all jurisdictions that are directly receiving vaccine. But over 460,000 doses have been administered. Keep in mind, the population at highest risk is approximately 1.6 million people right now. So even with this partial view we have now from the reporting jurisdictions, we’re seeing strong progress really getting shots into arms. So now that supply is less of an issue, we need to make sure we focus on maintaining demand by making sure that people know that effective and safe vaccine is available for those that could benefit. Alongside our vaccination efforts, we’ve scaled up access to testing and treatments, as well as ensuring that LGBTQAI+ individuals know how to reduce their risk. Together, those efforts are leading to positive trends in the data that CDC has collected over the last couple of weeks, especially in our hardest-hit areas. So, as you can see, the week-over-week growth rates of the virus, meaning how quickly the virus is spreading, is trending downward in some of the areas involved earliest in the outbreak. Places like New York, California, Texas, and Illinois are all seeing significant declines in growth rates over the last month. To put a finer point to it, back in July, CDC estimated that it took eight days for cases to double nationwide. By mid-August, the doubling rate was 25 days, showing encouraging signs of progress. The positive trends that we’re seeing in this data also speak to the actions that individuals have taken across the country to protect themselves against the virus. That includes changing their behaviors and seeking out testing and vaccines. But the data also underscores the fact that we cannot be complacent, and we must aggressively continue our work to get clear prevention guidance and vaccines out to individuals in communities where the virus continues to spread quickly and those places and individuals that may face barriers in accessing testing, treatments, and vaccinations. So that’s why our approach centered on increasing vaccine access, including through equity interventions and event allocations in partnership with our outreach and engagement efforts, will continue to be critical as we fight this outbreak. Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, let’s take a couple of questions. Right there. Q Thanks. I have two, really fast. First, colleges are back in session. HHS told me last week that they — if they begin to see an outbreak on a college campus, they’ll work to make vaccines more available. I guess this is to either of you. But my question is: What proactive steps are you taking to make sure there is not an outbreak on a college campus? DR. DASKALAKIS: So we’re really excited that we’ve taken a lot of steps before colleges came in session, which included creating a toolkit that was for universities. I personally got to talk to all of the folks that run the health services in universities. And then we’ve also had engagements with the higher executives of the universities to make them aware of the resources that we have. So that includes a combination of CDC resources that focus on congregate settings, as well as really clear information about safer sex, as well as how vaccines are accessible and available. So it’s really a multi — multilayer approach where we provide appropriate information, make sure that it goes to the right folks, and that also that we give resources to not only figure out what the behavioral interventions need to be on college campuses but also, like, what biomedical things, like vaccine, can be used in the event of cases. Q I have one more, but I can just — DR. DASKALAKIS: Sure. Q So are you guys really concerned about this? DR. DASKALAKIS: So the risk in colleges is extremely low. So I think that we’re concerned because, obviously, we want to make sure that if there is a case in college, that everyone knows what to do. But realistically, given the way that this virus is spreading through the population, the risk in those settings is low. Awareness is more important than anxiety. Q If I can just ask one more question. The CDC is reporting fewer and fewer cases recently among men who — fewer and fewer cases among men who recently had sex with men: roughly 66 percent, down from 95 percent two months ago. So my question is: Do you guys think that that data is a reflection of just more testing, or is it possible that this is spreading more easily — that the risk of catching it is different, higher than originally thought? DR. DASKALAKIS: You know, I think that what that data really shows is, A, that the population of men who have sex with men, we’re seeing decreasing infections among them. And also, it represents other mechanisms of transmission that may not be sex but could be other close contacts, so close contact in households, et cetera. So I think it’s something to watch, but I don’t think that it’s a harbinger of — meaning that the virus is doing anything different right now. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Eugene. Q Is the goal to eradicate monkeypox from the population? Or is this something that we’re — just like COVID, we’re going to be living with for some time? DR. DASKALAKIS: Our goal is to really control this outbreak in the U.S. I think that we’ve seen really important strides in the right direction by creating more coverage in the populations that are at risk. Sort of creating that sort of level of immunity will be really important to us, but also thinking about the global environment and making sure that we don’t just address what’s happening in the U.S. but also think about the rest of the world, because infections that happen there will affect us as well. Q And when it comes to the funding and resources that you guys have available at this point, how will — how long will it be before those go out and you have to get more from Congress? MR. FENTON: Well, we’re working right now with Congress on the supplemental as part of the CR to identify additional funding needed, both in vaccine supply to not only replenish what has been used out of the stockpile, which is critical if there was another event, for the security of the nation; but also to provide additional vaccine and have it more available if needed during this event. Also, there’s a number of other things that we’re pursuing — including technology with testing, research — to continue to watch this event and study as it progresses, to include other types of — looking at the treatments that are being provided and those kinds of things. So, we have enough money right now to make the key decisions we need to make as this progresses. We need to replenish what we’ve used and be able to have additional funding to keep the fight going. Q How much longer do you — how much longer do you — will you have this funding before you have to ask for more? MR. FENTON: Well, we’re asking for more right now as part of the supplemental, as part of the CR. So — so one would assume that as it goes into the end of the fiscal year, we’d be looking to — hopefully, working with Congress to get that additional money to make those investments in our stockpile and to make sure that we’re able to replenish what’s been used, plus have additional funding if needed. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, go ahead, Peter. Q Thank you guys for doing this. Doctor, I think this question is for you. As a result of this outbreak, there has been the expression of real concern in the gay community, the LGBTQ-plus community about stigmatization, specifically related to gay men. So what specifically can you say, as it relates to those concerns, of a new stigma being attached to gay men across this country due to monkeypox? DR. DASKALAKIS: So I’ll start by saying: It’s the role of governmental public health and government to really model excellent behavior on that. And I think we’re really proud of the work that we’ve done to create non-stigmatizing language to inform people what they need to do to stay healthy. So I think that that’s the first step, which is really making sure that we’re modeling the right behavior and that we’re putting out materials that speak to the community in a way that doesn’t stigmatize them. I think it’s all of our responsibility, and I think that we, as sort of the role model in that — it’s really important. But I think that, you know, in media, in the way that we communicate with our students and universities, in the ways that we communicate with others that need to know about this — really making it clear that this is a virus. It’s, like I like to say, a piece of DNA wrapped in some fat. It’s not smart. It can’t distinguish between people based on their sexual orientation or gender. And so, everyone needs to be aware, but we need to make sure that we’re messaging appropriately to the folks who are overly represented in the outbreak. Q And to be clear though, for those who are sort of embracing this stigmatization — right? — this is — as we’ve witnessed in other diseases that have impacted, in particular, the gay community — this is not by a handshake. This is not by going into a restroom. Can you help clarify — DR. DASKALAKIS: Sure. Q — some of the confusion that exists, the misperceptions? DR. DASKALAKIS: Yeah, so I think, you know, this — this virus transmits through very close skin-to-skin physical contact, often in the setting of sexual exposure. But there are other mechanisms for its transmission, including, if you touch objects that individuals who’ve had monkeypox touch or if you have prolonged exposure to respiratory droplets. With that said, signaling to people who are in the gay, bisexual, other-men-who-have-sex-with-men communities, and also transgender people who have sex with men that it’s really important to have awareness if it’s circulating in the community is really a critical part of the messaging while not generating, you know, inordinate concern and really focusing on the infection as linked to an identity. So, it’s just an infection. It’s not linked to an identity. It just happens to be in the social network. Q Thank you, sir. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Steven. Q I do want to dig deeper into the racial disparity because it’s growing week by week. Fewer and fewer cases are being seen among white people and more among people of color. I think it’s something close to 75 percent now. You mentioned it’s a priority. What specifically are you doing to reach out to people of color on this? DR. DASKALAKIS: No, it’s great; I think — I think that the core work that we’ve done to reach out to people of color really begins with the fact that we’ve made vaccine accessible. So the first step in addressing a lot of the equity issues and gaps that we see in vaccination is really about making vaccine available. That means, you know, the — the new strategy — the intradermal strategy, making sure we have more vaccine, all of the work to create more vaccine to bring to the U.S., as well as to fill and finish in the U.S., has been really important. But we also have all of these equity interventions that include these large events. I think Bob just told you about a couple of really large ones that have been, frankly, wildly successful with thousands of vaccines that went to the community. We’ve also gotten vaccines to community health centers, as well as to Ryan White sites that really serve this population. So they — the low-hanging fruit is done. The folks who were early adopters for this vaccine have gotten it, and now we’re really on to the next level, which is making sure that everyone who needs it gets it. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And just a couple more. April. And then, Jeff, you’re going to the last question. Q So I want to follow up on what Steven just asked. What organizations are you working with, particularly those in the Black and brown community, that can help get the message out? And then once you work with them, what is the expectation of these organizations to help you lessen the numbers or even eradicate it? DR. DASKALAKIS: Excellent question. So we, from the very beginning, before I was even at the White House — working at the CDC — one of our primary objectives was engaging with organizations that serve the Black and brown community. And so those have been going on since the very beginning. And a lot of the communication there has been about really facilitating the materials that they need to be trusted messengers, as well as to provide them important tools to help their communities. I’ll give some great examples. So, for example, many of the events that we worked with at Black Pride in Atlanta, we interacted directly with organizations. The local jurisdictions, in fact, interacted with those. And that’s really what the story of success is about with these events. It’s not about just the vaccine allocation. It’s about that intense community engagement that happens on the ground because, ultimately, public health is a local event. And so, giving the tools that people need to be able to sort of reach health goals is what we’ve been doing. And the support of organizations that serve Black and brown people have been pivotal in really turning the tide in what I think you’re going to see, the new vaccine numbers emerging over the next few weeks. Q I know you said Black Pride, Atlanta, but are there any other organizations that you can mention? DR. DASKALAKIS: So Black Pride is just the event. We actually worked with many organizations. We’ve actually engaged with national organizations that are umbrella organizations that focus on — on community-based groups that serve Black and brown folks. So really, it’s — it’s a long, long list, but it is a continuous — continuous piece of work to make sure that we stay engaged. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And, Jeff, last one. Q You mentioned — right here. You mentioned the rest of the world. Can you give us a sense of where you see outbreaks elsewhere in — on the globe; the threats that that provide — or that it creates to the U.S.; and whether or not you’re sharing vaccine and whether or not you need to? DR. DASKALAKIS: So I’ll start. And maybe, Bob, you can also fill in. So I think that you’re really — when we’re discussing vaccine and, sort of, strategy, the global part of this is important. And I think, you know, we have a new team that has joined the response — to our coordination team that focuses on global, and we’re having the conversations about how we can best support global vaccine efforts. MR. FENTON: Yeah, we’re working with USAID, as one of the leads, and the State Department. In the White House national security staff here, we’ve established a global task force across multiple different federal agencies to focus coordination to other countries and WHO to ensure that — that, you know, we have a responsibility to assist and help some of those countries that may not have the resources to do that. And so, we’re working to — through WHO to determine who that is and what we can make available to support some of their efforts not only in terms of vaccine, but in tor- — in terms of some of our public education outreach, some of our technical expertise that exists here in the United States. And so, we’re working closely with those organizations to be able to support them. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thank you, guys. Q Can I get one more, quickly — one on international — on other countries, Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, we’re going to continue. Q (Inaudible.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to continue. We’re going to continue. They’ll be back. Thank you, guys, so much. MR. FENTON: Thank you. DR. DASKALAKIS: Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Q Thank you, guys. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Appreciate it. Okay. Today, the U.N. Security Council is holding a meeting on Russia’s filtration efforts — a dehumanizing term to describe the Kremlin’s efforts to imprison, forcibly deport, or disappear those individuals who Moscow decides could be insufficiently compliant or compatible to its control over Ukraine. Our intelligence shows that Russia is using filtration centers in eastern Ukraine and western Russia to detain, to interrogate, and, in some cases, abuse thousands of Ukrainians. Many of the news organizations in this room have reported on this horrific practice and told the stories of Ukrainian citizens who have experienced these filtration — filtration centers. Today, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield will present newly downgraded information that the U.N. Security Council — that the United States has information that officials from Russia’s presidential administration are overseeing and coordinating filtration operations. Russian presidential administration officials are providing lists of Ukrainians to be targeted for filtration and receiving reports on the scope and progress of operations. We assess that the Kremlin views filtration operations as crucial to their efforts to annex areas of Ukraine under their control. At the U.N. today, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield will demand that Russia halt its filtration operations immediately and allow the U.N. independent observers and humanitarian and human rights organizations access to these filtration sites and to those who have been sent to Russia. As we announced this morning, next Monday, on the 60th anniversary of President Kennedy’s Moonshot speech at Rice University, President Biden will deliver remarks at the JFK Library in Boston, Massachusetts, laying out a vision for another American moonshot, a future where we send [sic] cancer as we know it — where we end cancer as we know it. As President and Vice President, Joe Biden has led this Cancer Moonshot effort with the goal — and in Feb- — with the goal — and in February 2022, President Biden reignited the Cancer Moonshot and set new goals: First, to cut the cancer death rate in half over the next 25 years. Second, to improve the experience of people, their families, and caregivers living with and — living with and surviving cancer. During his speech at the JFK Library in Boston on September 12th, President Biden will lay out that vision and provide an update on steps the Biden-Harris administration is taking to achieve this generation’s moonshot — not only to end cancer as we know it, but to change people’s lives, improving their health, and decreasing the burden of the disease. And finally, this week, we know a lot of kids are going back to school, and we know that’s the case in Uvalde, Texas. Our message to the Uvalde community is the same as it was the day of the shooting and when the President visited the community: The whole nation is with you and always. This is a painful and challenging time for the Uvalde community, and the President is thinking of the students, parents, teachers, and community members this week. And our message to the nation is: We will not rest until we can make schools safe again, or safe places. Okay, with that, Seung Min. Q Thank you. Can you talk about how involved President Biden and the White House is in trying to ensure that the same-sex marriage bill passes in the Senate this month? Do you believe that it can pass and get 60 votes in the coming weeks? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as you know, we — with the legislative — I know there’s a legislative pathway that’s being discussed currently in Congress, so we’ll let leadership decide how to move forward with that. But the President is proud — is a proud champion of the right for people to marry whom they choose, who they are — love. And he believes it is non-negotiable, and the Senate should act swiftly to get this to the President’s desk. When the bill passed Congress in the House recently, he put out a SAP, as you all know, supporting that piece of legislation. So it has his full support. And I just want to add: The President was one of the first leaders, after the Dobbs decision leaked, to sound the alarm about the imminent threats to this — what the — the imminent threat this meant to the right to marry, something he has continuously reminded the country of since. So he’s going to — or his team is going to continue to be closely connected and have continued conversations with staff and members in Congress to make sure that we get this done. But again, this is something that he supports — this piece of legislation. And this is an issue, when it comes to marriage equality, that he has supported through — through his Senate days and as VP and now as President. Q And one foreign policy question. Russia confirmed earlier today that President Putin will meet with President Xi next week in Uzbekistan. And obviously, that’s one of President Xi’s first trips out of China since the pandemic began. And I’m wondering if the White House sees it as a concerning signal at all that, for his first major foreign trip, President Xi is choosing to meet with President Putin, and what kind of message that sends to this White House. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know — and we have said this before — I’m not going to speak to reported meetings between other countries. That’s not something we’re going to do here. It’s not something we’re going to do from the White House. But we’ve made clear our concerns about the depth of China’s alignment and ties with Russia, even as Russia prosecutes a war of aggression on Ukraine — an unprovoked war, as we have said; a brutal war. But again, I’m just not going to respond or make comments on a meeting that other countries are having with each other. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. I’m going to follow up, I guess, on both of Simon’s questions. The first was on marriage equality. You said you’d leave it up to leadership. Is there a reason that you wouldn’t want it as part of the continuing resolution? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, when it comes to the mechanism — and we’ve said this before, it’s nothing new, when we’re asked about a process of — a piece of legislation — when it comes to that process, that mechanism, the path forward, we leave that to the leadership. Q On President Putin, he also spoke today and said that he — he threatened to cut off all energy exports to the West if the U.S. proceeded with its gas cap. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This is — the gas price? Q Yes. Cap. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Mm-hmm. Q And so I’m wondering, are you concerned about that threat? Do you think it’s a legitimate threat? If so, does it change your strategy at all going forward on this — on the cap? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I think — and you’ve heard us say this before as well — is that, you know, this shows that Putin is again weaponizing energy by his very words, also by his actions. But the President and our partners in Europe predicted this playbook. We’ve — we saw this coming, and we have been preparing for months. And we have talked through the different processes of how this price cap could look. So another thing that we have done is we set up a task force — you’ve heard us talk about this — with the EU, back in March, to work on ways to increase alternate sources of natural gas to Europe and help reduce Europe’s demand for Russian energy through increased efficiency and clean energy deployment. And so that is something that we’re going to continue to do to be helpful to Europe as — as they head into the winter months. But they — this process of the task — the task force already has had a positive effect, as we’ve seen. Europe gas shortage [storage] will be full by the critical winter heating season. Germany will reach their target gas shortage — storage, despite the Russian cuts, ahead of schedule. And Europe as a whole will reach a significant higher level than last year. So, again, we prepared for this. This — we knew this was going to be part of the playbook in Russia weaponizing energy, as they have been for the past several months. And so, we will be prepared for this move. Q A last quick one. I know — I saw the readout between the President and the Prime Minister’s phone call last night. It made mention of the fact that they discov- — discussed the Northern Ireland protocols. And I’m wondering if you can say specifically if the President discouraged her from abandoning the elements of it, or give any more color to that conversation, sort of the tone and tenor of their talks. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t really have too much more to add from the — from the readout. Look, he — the President expressed it is a priority protecting the gains of the Belfast and the Good Friday Agreement, and preserving peace, stability, and prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland. Don’t have much more to add from that. I’m going to try and call (inaudible). Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Just following up on Justin’s first question. And I understand that storage supplies is certainly up right now, but if weather goes in a bad or unpredictable direction, things could get significantly worse for Europe in terms of pricing for their people. How concerned is the White House right now about political instability — we saw it in Prague, the protests in Prague — and what it might mean for the coalition going forward? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Do you mean in general, as — the coalition, as it relates to — Q As in the, kind of, the Western alliance, as it pertains to Ukraine — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — with NATO? Q — and whether or not political instability driven by energy cost increases could be very problematic. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you have seen the Alliance and the strength of the Alliance these past several months, and a lot of that is because of the leadership of this President. We are going to continue to work on that partnership. We’re going to continue to work with our Allies. As we have seen, NATO is going to expand by two, and that because — and that’s because of what this President has been able to do. This is — one of the things that Russia, that Putin, that the Kremlin thought it was going to do is divide the West, make NATO weaker, and it did the complete opposite. And that is what we have seen for the past several months. And — and, as you know, the President was in Europe recently, just before — just before the summer. And you saw the strength of that alliance. You saw the strength of that partnership. And we believe you’re going to continue to see that. And we’re going to continue to be in coordination. I mean, I think the price cap — when the G7 finance ministries met last week, you saw them come together and put forth different pathways to the price cap. And so that is one way you see that alliance continuing as well. So we know that there’s a lot more work to do, and we’ll keep looking for ways as gas increases and — in Europe, and to help bolster other sources of energy as well. We’ll work towards that where possible. Q But there’s no near-term concern that there are fractures in terms of what’s been a — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, there’s — Q — very united group of countries? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re — we are still very united. We’re continuing to show that unity. Again, we have to remember, Putin thought, when he started this war — this brutal war, this unprovoked war, as I’ve said earlier before, as we have said many times from this podium — that he was going to divide the West, that he was going to make NATO weaker. And the opposite happened. It is stronger than it’s ever been before, and we believe that will continue and we’ll continue to grow that relationship. Q Karine, following up on the question about the call with the new Prime Minister yesterday, did a trade deal between the U.S. and the UK come up? Was that discussed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The UK — the U.S.-K — UK trade deal? Q Mm-hmm. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So there is no formal linkage on trade talks between the U.S. and the UK and the Northern Ireland Protocol, as we have said. But efforts to undo the Northern Ireland Protocol would not create a — a conducive environment. And so that’s basically where we are with the dialogue. Q But did they discuss trade at all yesterday in sort of (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have much more than — than what was — what was in the readout. But that’s where we’ve been with that. Q And will President Biden meet with Prime Minister Truss? Is he (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We don’t have a meeting or anything like that to readout at this time. Go ahead. Q Karine, the Washington Post, as you’ve likely seen, reported that some of the files seized at Mar-a-Lago include material on a foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities. (A reporter sneezes.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Bless you. Bless you. Q Sweet gracious. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Take that outside, Ed. Do you need — do you need a tissue. Q No. We’re good. Carry on. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Q I’ll keep my mask on. Quickly, the Washington Post reported that files seized at Mar-a-Lago include material on a foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities. I know you can’t speak specific to that investigation, nor to the findings there. I know where the line is drawn at this White House as it relates to that. But what has this President specifically said? And has he held any calls with some of America’s allies or even adversaries on the issue of nuclear secrets that the U.S. may have some access to, to try to placate their concerns that that information is not in safe hands in the United States? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can say this: We don’t have any calls to foreign governments to read out at this time. On this particular issue, as you know, and I’ll reiterate this — you already kind of alluded: You know, when it comes to this specific issue, as I’ve said many times, the ODNI is in the middle of an assessment and DOJ is in the middle of an ongoing criminal investigation, so I’m not going to comment. But, again, I don’t have any calls to — to read out to you. Q Let me ask separate from that then. Obviously, this is not unique to this investigation. There’s been discussion that classified information was mishandled by the last administration, even before this investigation that we’ve been reporting on. So, at any point, has the President had conversations with other nations to communicate to them that that information — they should view that information as secure? What has he done to try to make that message clear to those allies or adversaries around the world? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I don’t have — we don’t have any calls to — Q Has he in the past? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We don’t have any calls to any foreign government to read out to you at this time. Q From any time over the course of 18 months? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We don’t have — we don’t have any calls to read out at this time. Q Okay. Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me go jump around. Go ahead. Q I wanted to ask about a decision today by a judge in Texas who said the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that insurance plans cover HIV prevention drugs violates the religious freedom of a company. I wanted to see if you can comment on that decision. And related to that, can you give us an update on your efforts to update the last administration’s rule allowing employees with — employers with religious objections and moral concerns to not include birth control in their plans that they offer (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as for that decision — I’ll refer you to the Department of Justice on that particular decision. We will have a statement from here. I just don’t have anything to share at this time. Q And any update on the rewriting of the rules from the last administration on covering religious (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: With that as well, I would refer you to the Department of Justice. I don’t have anything to share at this time. Go ahead, in the back. Q So, yeah. Thanks, Karine. So, a federal judge — talking the about the social media lawsuits from Missouri and Louisiana. A federal judge ordered that you have 20 days to turn over emails communicating with social media companies over misinformation and disinformation. What are those emails going to show? What kind of — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can’t comment. You asked me this question last week. I can’t comment on any specifically ongoing litigation. And so, again, I’d refer — would refer you to Department of Justice. A couple of things that I would say, just as a general matter on this: As we’ve said over and over again since the beginning of the administration, in our battle against COVID-19, it has been critical for the American people to have access to factual, accurate, science-based information — in- — information. And ensuring that any media platforms have access to latest information on a once-in-a-generation pandemic is something that has been done since the earliest days of the pandemic, beginning under the former President. So, this has happened under the former President. I cannot say more from here. It is an ongoing litigation, as you know. And so, I would refer you to the Department of Justice. Q But what about if those communications are still happening? Are there frequent contacts between the administration and social media companies? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this. You know, as we have said before, there has been ongoing work, dating to the Trump administration, to provide accurate COVID information where folks get their news. Again, this is litigation that is ongoing and is currently happening — clearly, that’s why it’s ongoing. And so, I would refer you to Department of Justice on that. Go ahead. Q Karine, thank you. President Biden has said that not every Republican is a MAGA Republican. Would he consider Mitch McConnell a MAGA Republican? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to go into specific name or people from here. What I will say is, you know, when you go back to the speech — his speech last Thursday — you know, people have talked about if it was divisive. It wasn’t divisive. The way that we saw the speech is that he was talking to a majority of the country who — who agree that we have to protect our democracy, who agree that we have to protect our freedom, who agree that we have to protect our rights. And the point of the speech was that he wanted to really point to an inflection point, an inflection time that we were — we’re in at this — in this time in our country. And he spoke very clearly. He talked about a minority, a small group of people who have extreme views and who threaten — who threaten that very, very value — core value of who we are as a country. And — and, you know, he also asked for people to come together. It didn’t matter if you’re a Republican or an independent or a Democrat. He asked for folks to come together and stand against what we were seeing — these attacks. And you don’t have to look further than January 6th of 2021 to see what the attack was on our democracy. It was very clear. We all saw it. Many of you reported it that day. And when you have people who say the protesters on that day were “patriots,” that’s problematic. That’s coming from leaders and from that extreme part of — of the party. And so, that’s what he was talking about. He also ended the speech in a very optimistic way in trying to bring people together. And — and so, I’ll just leave it there at that time. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. I have a couple of questions on China, but, first, a little bit more detail on the filtration camps. I’m just wondering: Why is it just now that you’re speaking about this from the podium? And why is it just now that the U.S. is bringing this up at the U.N. Security Council? This is something that a lot of activist groups have written about in past weeks. I believe Secretary Antony Blinken has also spoken about it since July. So, I’m just wondering about the timing of it. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, this was — it — this is information that was downgraded information. And so, as you know from past times, it takes some time to do that. And, you know, don’t have much more to say. It takes time to do that. I’m not going to go into our process. I’m not going to go into how our intelligence community moves in that process. But again, we’re providing it now and we wanted to make it very clear on how we feel about this, how we’re holding Russia accountable for the atrocities that they are committing, and we’re going to continue to do so. Q And a couple of questions on China. Can we get the administration’s response to Beijing’s accusation that NSA hacked a Chinese military university research? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that again. Q So there is an accusation from Beijing that the NSA hacked a Chinese university research facility. Is there any response from the administration? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I would refer you to NSA on — on these claims from China. But generally speaking, it would not be surprising to me that — or to us — that China is deflecting from its own malicious cyber activities, on which there is extensive reporting on from — on from the private sector and governments around the world. But, again, this is something that I refer to you to NSA on. Q Thank you. One more on China, please. Is the administration still considering stopping Nicaraguan imports? There’s some reporting, including from our side on that, particularly in light of the country potentially taking steps to sign a free-trade agreement with China. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that — I didn’t hear the beginning. Q So is the administration still considering stopping imports from Nicaragua? There’s some reporting on this that we’ve also done in recent weeks, particularly in light of the potential free-trade agreement between Nicaragua and China. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And the free-trade agreement — okay. So, look, we are going to, as we’ve mentioned before when it comes to this, there has been — there has been a dramatic deterioration, as you know, of — of respect of democratic principles — and we’ve talked about this before — in human rights by the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua — I think we had this conversation last week in the briefing room — including the harassment and imprisonment of democratic leaders, members of the political opposition, students, faith leaders, and journalists, in addition to the regime’s increased relations with Russia poses risks to the security of the hemisphere. With members of the international community, we have already taken a number of actions to promote accountability for the Ortega-Murillo regime’s actions, and we’ll continue to do so. But at this time, we don’t have new actions to announce. Q So you’re not confirming that you’re stopping imports? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t have any new actions to announce. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But I — we’ve talked about this many times. I know you’ve asked this question. I’m going to go around. Go ahead. Q Thank you so much, Karine. Two questions. One about the Brazilian election that’s coming up in 25 days. Senator Bernie Sanders, Tim Kaine, and other Democrats are about to introduce a resolution to support — to show support for a free and fair election in Brazil and to call on the U.S. to break ties with Brazil if the results are not respected. Is the White House in contact with the senators and support this kind of resolution? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any conversation to provide to you at this time with any members of Congress. But as it relates to the Brazilian election, we’re going to continue to monitor them. The United States trusts in the strength of Brazil’s democratic institutions. Brazil has a strong track record of free and fair elections, which are conducted with transparency, and high levels of voter participation. The elections that have been conducted by Brazil’s capable and time-tested electoral system and democratic institutions serve as a model for nations in the hemisphere and across the world. As a partner of democracy to Brazil, the United States will follow the October elections with great interest — as I just said, we’re going to monitor — and with full expectations that they will be conducted in a free, fair, and credible manner with all relevant institutions operating in accordance with their constitutional role. Again, we’re just going to monitor the upcoming Brazilian elections. Don’t have any calls or meetings to read out. Q But is this kind of resolution something the White House supports? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into any — any specific resolutions or any specific policy or plans. What we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to monitor and keep an eye on it. Q And another one on the U.N. General Assembly. There are talks that President Zelenskyy come to New York to participate. Is the White House aware of this? Is it talking to Ukraine about this possible visit? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would leave that to President Zelenskyy. We’re not going to comment on his travel. That’s for him — that’s for him to speak to. We’re not going to speak to that. Q And did the White House invite President Macron here around the General Assembly? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Nothing to read out to you on any upcoming meetings with any of the foreign leaders that are coming. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, I’m going to keep going. Go ahead. Phil, in the back. And then I’ll come back. Q Thank you. Just like Peter mentioned earlier on, I know that the White House is not going to comment on the specifics of the raid at Mar-a-Lago or the subsequent investigation. But I’m wondering, as the President watches this story play out in the news just like every other American, does he think that the leaks about the investigation are helpful or harmful to the country? Does he want those leaks to continue or to stop? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to comment on anything that’s related to the investigation. It’s an ongoing investigation. As you know, the Department of Justice is leading that investigation. We’re just not going to comment from here. Q And then one more then. Last Friday, the Energy Secretary said that green technology in California — that that state was in the lead and showing the rest of the nation how it’s done. The state is currently bracing for blackouts. They’ve set ambitious goals. And, you know, yet, in particular, their governor is asking folks there not to charge their electric vehicles. Does the President agree that California is an example for the rest of the country as it transitions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I haven’t seen those specific statements — I would like to see it in fuller context — that the Secretary has made. So I’m not going to comment on something that I haven’t seen in full. But if you have another question, I’m happy to take it. Q Sure. So, by my count, the White House — you know, you’ve gotten a lot done this summer. And certainly, there’s a lot — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Really? Have we? (Laughter.) I think we’ve said that a few times. Q And the — the President has a lot — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And you guys have reported it, too. So — Q The — the President — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You guys have backed this up. (Laughs.) Q Well, so, all of your accomplishments aside, the President still hasn’t done a sit-down interview in over 200 days. Is he dodging us? Is there a reason why he doesn’t want to do a sit-down? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, absolutely not. The President loves talking to you all. He takes your questions all the time. He took Peter’s question last Friday. I’m sure Peter was excited about that. Q It was the last question he took. Q I have another. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, he did take a — (laughter) — he actually — Ed, he took another question when we were — when we were traveling. Q But in all seriousness, a sit-down interview is much different than when the President has — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I hear you. I hear you. The President is going to — Q — 10 or 15 seconds. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — he is happy to talk to you all. As you know, he does it multiple times during the week. I don’t have a sit-down interview to announce or provide or — or schedule at this time. And, you know, look, the — you guys know Joe Biden. He’s been a senator for 46 years. He was Vice President for eight years. And, you know, you guys have followed him and have had multiple conversations — some of you, sit-down conversations — with him. And — and once we have something to share, we will share that. Q Thank you, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. All right. Q Thank you so much. On Iran: This morning, the administration warned of further action after the cyberattack on Albania. And I wanted to know what kind of further action could that be. And do you expect it to be only an American action or maybe a coordinated set of sanctions with other NATO countries? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you know, we’ll — NATO Allies will make their own sovereign decisions about how to respond to the cyberattacks, including whether to invoke — I know people have asked about Article 5, and so that will be up to the NATO Allies. As you know, there’s a process in this. There are multiple processes before we can get to invoking Article 5. So, again, that’s something that the NATO Allies are going to have to discuss. Q Would the administration support invoking Article 5? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, this is not — this is a — this is part of NATO Allies to — to decide on. And so, our role here is to support Albania’s efforts to hold Iran accountable and work with Albania to strengthen its cybersecurity and reinforce norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace. That is what we’re going to do and be a helpful ally in that way. Go ahead, Steve. And then I’ll come to you. Q Thanks. The water pressure in Jackson, Mississippi, has been restored, but it remains a perilous situation; there’s a boil water advisory in effect again. The President said last week he had no plans to travel to Jackson. Does that remain the case? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, the EPA Administrator is in Jackson right now. He’s supposed to be doing a press gaggle. He — I think it may have happened already while we were — while I was here with all of you. So he was in — he’s there today, and he is — had a press gaggle, I believe, with the mayor and also the governor. I don’t have a trip to read out to you. I do want to say FEMA, EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue to partner with officials there to help distribute water, expedite the delivery of equipment to repair the water treatment facility, and support with safety inspections. The emergency declaration signed by this President just last week or so includes reimbursement for drinking water and support for temporary repairs to the water system. Just a couple of things I want to list out to date that we have done: 5.6 million bottles of water have been distributed at state-run sites to date. FEMA has an additional 5 million liters of water available if requested at nearby distribution centers. A call line is available for residents who need home water deliver — delivery. And the state, the private sector, and volunteer organizations are also providing water to residents who cannot get [to] distribution sites. And both EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are on site at O.B. Curtis Treatment Plant to assess the pumping system, wastewater infrastructure electoral system, and safety concerns. Again, our Administrator of EPA, Regan, is there. The FEMA Administrator, Criswell, was there recently, as well as Mitch Landrieu was there on Friday. And so, we have had an all-hands-on-deck and being — being as — very responsive to their needs and surging that response right after the declaration was requested and signed by the President. Q But, you know, it’s not the first time the EPA Administrator has gone down to Jackson — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — to talk about this problem. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Absolutely. Q He went last — he went — he went last year. Why has the President decided — or seemingly decided this, to this point — not to direct the nation’s attention himself to this problem? I mean, he’s going — over the next week, he’s going to Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan. We’ve traveled with him to New York, New Jersey, Kentucky, Texas, and the West to talk about natural disasters. This is a manmade disaster. Why doesn’t he use the power of the presidency to focus the nation’s attention on it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would say, Steven, that he has used the power of the — of the presidency to focus on this particular issue. If you think about what happens to brown and Black communities across the country when it comes to environmental injustices — if you look at the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, if you look at the Inflation Reduction Act, if you put those together, $100 billion is going to deal with that issue in communities like Jackson. And that’s going to go a very long way. That is an investment that we don’t see at all very often to — for — from a federal government, from a White House to be zeroed in on those issues of environmental injustices. This is part of the plan of this President to deal with that in a real serious way. And — and we’re going to continue. We have worked closely with groups and organizations on other things that we can do to deal with these issues. And so we’re going to continue to do that. I mean, that’s why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is so critical, is so important. It’s going to fix, you know, crumbling infrastructure that — like we’re seeing in Jackson. We’ve talked about the $400 million through the American Rescue Plan for water upgrades across that particular — that very state. The city has allocated twenty mil- — $20 million of its art funds for water and sewer infrastructure needs; $75 million through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to support the state to provide clean and safer water this year, with an additional $429 million available to the state over the next five years; $30.9 million through the EPA’s evolving — revolving loan funds for treatment and distribution system improvements for Jackson. And so we have made this a priority. The reason why the EPA Administrator has been there multiple times is because he has made that a priority, in particular dealing with environmental justice issues that we see across the country. So, he has used the power and — the power of the pen, if you will, to deal with this issue in a real way by preven- — providing funding that’s been long needed in these communities. Go ahead. Go ahead, Peter. Q Thank you, Karine. As refugees were being evacuated from Afghanistan into the U.S. last year, why weren’t they all being thoroughly vetted? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So are you talking about — what are you — what are you — what are you referring to? Q Well, so as the White House was managing the Afghanistan withdrawal last year, we were told “no one is coming into the United States of America who has not been through a thorough screening and background check process.” But now there’s this DHS inspector general who says CBP “admitted or paroled” evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States. That is not good. That is different than what you guys said. So how did this happen? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s not different than what we have said. That very report, it did not take into account the key steps in that rigorous — you heard from us — rigorous and multi-layered screening and vetting process the U.S. government took before at-risk Afghans were permitted to come to the U.S. Again, I would refer you to the DH- — DHS comments on this. It did not take into full account of what the other agencies are involved in making sure that this multi-layered process and screening process they — it is a — it is a multi- agency effort, and it did not — this particular report did not include that. Q Okay. But — so in the last week or so, we’ve heard the President calling elected Republicans a threat to the country. Does he think MAGA Republicans are more of a threat to the country than people DHS says may pose a risk to national security and the safety of local communities? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, DHS has disputed this report. It’s — and it said it didn’t take into account the key steps that we have taken as a U.S. government, the rigorous, multi-layered screening and vetting process that we take as a government. That was not part of the report. Again, this report is not accurate. I know that our team has spoken to your team about this, and the DHS has provided a comment saying just that. So, again, I refer you to DHS. All right. Go ahead. Q Karine, a question on Somalia. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. The Obamas were here today. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Q Before the event in the East Room, can you give us any color about what the Bidens and the Obamas did together? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, one thing I can say — and I believe one of the Presidents mentioned it while they were speaking — is they had lunch. They had lunch together and they caught up and they talked about their families. And, you know, they’re very close. They’re good friends. Not only were they part- — were they partners in this — in the — for eight years, but they also became close friends as well — their families. And so I can say that they — they had some — they had lunch together. Q Where did they have lunch? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I — I don’t have specifics on where they had lunch — (laughs) — but they spoke to it. I can’t remember which one. One of the Presidents spoke to them having lunch and catching up. Q Okay. And just one other topic. Following up on Peter’s question, can the United States assure its allies that their nuclear secrets are safe? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just — I know you guys have a lot of interest in this, and I know this is a question that is a more broader question — Q It is. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — but I — I want to be very clear, and I — and from here, we cannot comment — or we will not comment on anything related or close to — to — close to the independent investigation. And we’re just — I’m just not going to comment on that. I’m going to go — Q Only one or two more. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, okay. One or two. Let me call on folks I haven’t called. Karen. Q Just to go back to the $47 billion in funding that the White House had requested last week — COVID, Ukraine, monkeypox, natural disasters — can you give us an update on what the White House is doing right now, the conversations that are being had with lawmakers to try and push that through? Is the President having conversations with lawmakers? And is there something that — if there’s a sense that something has to get dropped, what’s the priority of that list right now? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’m not going to get into a priority of list. Look, the way we — we see this is: Our job is to tell Congress what we need to protect the American people, what we need to get things moving as we look at the different components here. And so, you know, when it comes — for example, when it comes to COVID funding, we have been clear that without additional funding, we would have to make different trade — tradeoffs and repurpose a previously allocated funding. And that’s precisely what we — we’ve done, right? I’ve talked about the COVID testing; we had to end that process last Friday. And so we’ve been very, very clear on this. But the other piece of this, too, is this is not new. We did — we were — we did this — this same process this time last year, and Congress was able to get that done. So we don’t see this as a difficult process. We don’t see this as an uphill battle. We see this — this is — that is very doable. And, again, we’re — we’re going to, you know, make the case with Congress, we’re going to engage, we’re going to do meeting in person with bipartisan members of Congress from both the Senate and the House to talk about the consequences of inaction, to answer their questions, to make clear that we cannot afford to not act in light of new vari- — new subvariants, as we speak to — about COVID, and how dire things could look like later this year if we don’t act, if we don’t get that extra funding. So again, we’re going to continue to make the case. We’re going to also actively talk to our governors and our stakeholders in these — in this process as well. But again, we have seen — we’ve done this before. We’ve been here, again — again, this time last year. And we think Congress can get this done in time. Q Just to be clear: The President will have those meetings with bipartisan members or is that staff? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: When I say “we,” it’s going to be his staff. But as you know, the President, as we have said, regularly has conversations with members of Congress on an array of issues. But, of course, his staff is going to be continuously being active in having those conversations. And that includes, you know, the — the COVID Response Team. That includes the — our Office of Leg- — Leg Affairs. That includes senior staff — an array of staff in this building who are directly dealing with the — with the CR. Okay, I’m going to take one last question. Q Can I ask you a question on Somalia? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I took your question yesterday. Let me try and pick somebody — Go ahead, S.V. Way in the back. Q (Inaudible.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll be back tomorrow. I’ll be back tomorrow. Q Just two quick ones, Karine. First, not — not regarding the law enforcement part, but has the President been receiving briefings on what kind of national security damage might have been happening because of a security breach in South Florida, since this first came to the attention of the National Archives back in February? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, ODNI is doing their own assessment on this. We’re going to let them do that assessment and do that work that they’re doing on this particular independent investigation that is happening that DOJ is doing. The President has not been briefed. I’ve been very clear about that. He has not been briefed on this. None of us have been, here in the White House — have been briefed. We’re just not going to comment on an independent investigation that’s being done by the Department of Justice. Again, ODNI is doing their own assessment, and we’ll let them run that process. Q But on the ODNI part, shouldn’t the President be interested in, “Oh, so these…” — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It has — it has nothing to do with interest; it has everything to do with ODNI doing their process and us letting them go through that process. Okay. Q And the second one, regarding the speech. There are Republicans who, in good faith, oppose abortion. Liz Cheney is one of them who the President has complimented and praised. She opposes abortion. So was it a mistake, in retrospect, to put that line in the speech about choice when it was clearly referring to — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s also said that they have many differences when it comes to agenda and policies. He has said that as well. So that is — he has been very clear about that. Look, when you think about what happened with Dobbs — the Dobbs decision that was made on June 24th — it was something that was devastating to women, devastating to people’s lives. It was a right that existed — a constitutional right that existed for almost 50 years. And that was taken. That was an extreme act. And what ended up happening is you saw, you know, national Republicans, you know, say that they wanted a national ban, to take away people’s right, to take away a woman’s decision to choose. That is something that we have to stand up against and speak out about and be very loud and clear that, you know, we have to fight for our freedoms and our rights. And so, that’s what the President is going to do. He’s going to protect –continue to protect women’s rights. And it’s also — it’s going to lead as — as it was very — made very clear in the Dobbs decision — we’re talking about contraception. Right? We’re talking about privacy. We’re talking about marriage. This is going to open the door on so many other rights and freedoms that we all have as Americans. And the President is going to continue to speak against that. I’m — we’ll see you tomorrow. Thanks, everybody.

Montage: Media slam judge after appointment of special master for Trump FBI investigation See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2022/09/figures-on-cnn-and-msnbc-claimed-trump.html

A Trump-appointed judge granted Donald Trump's special master request, thereby delaying parts of the Justice Department's criminal probe. “When you allow Republicans to control the courts you get nothing,” legal expert Elie Mystal says to Joy Reid, adding his view that, “Trump judges do not believe in the rule of law.” See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2022/09/figures-on-cnn-and-msnbc-claimed-trump.html

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. Q Good afternoon. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Welcome back. I know you guys are excited to be back with us. Okay. So I’d like to introduce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who has joined us here many, many times before. And we’re excited to have her back today to announce the next steps that the Department of Commerce is taking to implement the $50 billion of CHIPS Act funding. So, with that, I’m going to let the Secretary take it away. SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Thank you. Thank you. Hello, everybody. Q Hello. SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Hello, everybody. It’s great to be here. And this is a very exciting day. For those of us who are obsessed with and excited about CHIPS, this is a big day. As you all know, thanks to President Biden’s leadership and the bipartisan work in Congress, we now have an incredible opportunity to unleash the next generation of American innovation, protect our national security, and preserve our global economic competitiveness. As we have talked about for decades, in the United States, our innovation ecosystem and investments in innovation have been in decline. And today begins a new chapter in revitalizing U.S. innovation and research and development. And today we begin to reverse the decline and lead the world again in semiconductor innovation and research and development. CHIPS for America, as the bill is called, represents a historic investment in our domestic manufacturing industry, which has critical implications for our economic and national security. With this funding, we’re going to make sure that the United States is never again in a position where our national security interests are compromised or key industries are immobilized due to our inability to produce essential semiconductors here at home. This past year, we saw the impact of the chip shortage on American families when car prices drove a third of inflation because of lack of chips, factory workers were furloughed, household appliances were often unavailable, all because of a lack of semiconductors. And as our economy and military become more reliant on technology, it’s that much more essential that we develop a strategy with values, outcomes, and structures that enable us to plan for an economy and manufacturing infrastructure that positions us to compete today and into the future. So I want to take the next few minutes to lay out for you where we are and how the Department of Commerce plans to implement the $50 billion in CHIPS funding that we will be overseeing. So with the CHIPS funding, we’re setting out to achieve four primary objectives: First, to establish and expand domestic production of leading-edge semiconductors in the United States. Today, the United States consumes more than 25 percent of the world’s leading-edge chips and produces zero of those chips. Number two, we want to build a sufficient and stable supply of mature node semiconductors. We consume 30 percent, produce 13 percent. We need to fix that. Number three, invest in research and development to ensure the next generation of semiconductor technology is developed and produced right here in the United States. And number four, in the process of doing all this, we will create tens of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs and more than a hundred thousand construction jobs. This effort will ensure the pipeline for these jobs expands to include people who have historically not had a chance to participate in this industry, including women, people of color, veterans, and people who live in rural areas. And that is explicitly required in statute, and we will carry out Congress’s intent. To achieve these goals, CHIPS for America will support three distinct initiatives. Two of those initiatives, which total $39 billion, will make investments in domestic chip manufacturing here in the United States. First, we will make large-scale investments in leading-edge manufacturing. CHIPS for America will target approximately $28 billion in manufacturing incentives to establish domestic production of leading-edge logic and memory chips that require the most sophisticated processes available today. Second, we will invest about $10 billion in new manufacturing capacity for mature or current-generation semiconductors. This will help us increase domestic production across a range of chips, including the chips that are used in cars, medical devices, communication technology. And third and finally, we’re going to make historic investments to strengthen America’s research and innovation leadership. Eleven billion dollars — and this is — this is not as talked about; we always focus on the incentives for the companies, but in many ways, this could be the most exciting piece of what we’re doing. Eleven billion dollars will go to research and development programs, including the creation of a National Semiconductor Technology Center. In terms of timeline, we expect to be in a position to receive application from companies no later than February of 2023. So we’re targeting February of 2023 to put the notice of funding opportunity on the street so companies can begin to apply. Our priority is funding applications for incentive programs. It will be put out on a rolling basis, and we will evaluate each application one at a time. Before I close, I want to take a second, or minute, to send a very clear message about how we plan to protect taxpayer dollars in this program. This is not a blank check for companies. This is not for them to pad their bottom line. There are clear guardrails on this money, and the Department of Commerce intends to be vigilant and aggressive in protecting taxpayers. CHIPS funds cannot be used for stock buybacks. CHIPS funds are not intended to replace private capital. That is key. We’re going to look after every nickel of taxpayer money. Taxpayer funds are only used to fill gaps and secure other funding as loan guarantees, not to replace private capital. These funds are intended to help companies maximize the scale of their projects. We’re going to be pushing companies to go bigger and be bolder. So if a company already has funding now for a $10 billion project, we want them to think bigger and convince us how they can go from $10 billion to $50 billion with use of the taxpayer financing. We — Commerce Department has the ability to claw back money. And make no mistake about it: We will use that clawback authority if, after giving the money to a company, they fail to start their project on time, fail to complete their project on time, fail to meet the commitments that they’ve made. We’re also going to be implementing the guardrails to ensure those who receive CHIPS funds cannot compromise national security by — they’re not allowed to use this money to invest in China, they can’t develop leading-edge technologies in China, they can’t send latest technology overseas. These are some of the most stringent taxpayer protections and guardrails we’ve ever had, and the American people are counting on us to get it right. And it’s a responsibility that we take very seriously. I’ll just end by saying — by thanking the President and by thanking Congress for their leadership. No one has done more to revitalize American manufacturing than President Biden, and CHIPS for America is a key component of that work. With this, we’re going to jumpstart high-tech manufacturing and drive economic growth. We’re going to create the kinds of jobs that will create opportunity for Americans — high-wage jobs that we want our children to have. We’re going to revitalize an innovation ecosystem that for decades has been withering and will add rocket fuel to our global competitiveness, ensuring that America maintains its status as a leader for generation to come. First and foremost, this is about protecting our national security and providing a blueprint for long-term economic prosperity. And so we’re excited. People say to me, “Secretary, CHIPS passed. What do you do now?” Now we get to work, and we’re excited to begin that work. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. We’re just going to take a couple questions. We have to get out of here by a certain time today, as you all know. Go ahead, Phil. Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Madam Secretary. On your point about taxpayer protections, there seems to be kind of a natural tension here in the sense that a huge sum of money, very clear urgency on the government side, finite universe of private sector entities who can probably take advantage of this. Walk me through how this actually works in terms of ensuring that those companies don’t have leverage, given how much the federal government wants to kick this into high gear. SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yeah, great question. So, today we put out our strategy document, which I’m sure you’ve all read every word of. So we put out the strategy document today, which sets forth our principles and criteria at a high level. And now we begin the work of putting forth, between now and February, more granular criteria and strings attached. So what we know is companies who receive CHIPS fundings can’t use those fundings — funds to invest in other countries, can’t use them for stock buybacks. Companies who receive CHIP funds can’t build leading-edge or advanced technology facilities in China for a period of 10 years. Companies who receive the money can only expand their mature node factories in China to serve the Chinese market. So there — this is what we know. What I can tell you is we’re also right now recruiting a team at the Commerce Department of experts. We’re going to have folks who have a history of hard-nosed negotiation from the private sector, people who are semiconductor industry experts, and we’re going to negotiate these deals one at a time and really putting the screws to these companies to prove to us — we’re going to need proof from them to us in the form of financial disclosures, in capital investment plans — prove to us the money is absolutely necessary to make these investments. They’re not going to get any more than necessary to make these investments. And as I said in the beginning, this isn’t money to make them more profitable or pad their bottom line, it’s the money to make these investments and also invest in the community. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jordan. Q Thanks. On a different topic, CFIUS is reviewing the situation with TikTok. When do you expect that will resolve itself, that review? And will the administration, after that review, take any action to ban TikTok? Or short of that, how would the administration expect to address security concerns presented by the app by the government of China? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yeah, so as you say, it’s under review, and I have nothing more on that today. Q On what — on another thing that has been a ball in the air — China tariffs. I know USTR made an announcement about that last week, but that wouldn’t necessarily preclude the administration from lifting tariffs on some goods. Where does that stand right now? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Also I have nothing on that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Alex? Oh, I’m sorry. (Laughs.) Q I was actually going to ask those very same questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q If you don’t mind — if you don’t mind, though — on the tariff question, you know, it’s been in the public domain for quite some time. Is it fair to assume that’s not going to happen before the midterms? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: I don’t have anything else to say. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: On topic? Q Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. If it’s on topic, go ahead. (Laughs.) Q It’s really on topic. You talk about this — about this stringent review and the information is going to be posted by February. Bottom line for us: How quickly is an American going to get hired with this money? And how quickly before somebody is buying a phone with one of these American-made chips in it? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yeah. So, great question. You — Q And then I have a follow-up to that. SECRETARY RAIMONDO: You’ve already seen chip companies making big announcements. Micron is announcing a huge new facility. I was just in New Hampshire; onsemi is breaking ground on a new facility. Intel announced a new facility. These investments have been made by these companies because the CHIPS Act passed, and they have confidence now that the money will be put out the door. So you’re going to — I can’t answer you — you know, how quickly exactly a specific chip is going to come. But the point is, you’re already seeing it. GlobalWafers made an announcement — $5 billion investment in Texas. So I’d say immediately; the effects are immediately being felt. In terms of our process, February, like you said, we’ll begin the process. I think you can start — I’m going to hope to start putting money out the door, you know, next spring to specific companies. Here’s the thing: There’s going to be a range of projects. There’ll be smaller, simpler projects, maybe for expansion of existing facilities. And then there’ll be very large, complex, leading-edge projects. I think you could see in the spring of next year some of the smaller money going out the door. Q And do — you listed a very stringent list of criteria: It can’t be invested into stock buybacks; can’t be for chips that get made or sold in China, unless they’re for the Chinese market; a bunch of other things. Do you know that companies exist right now that are willing to meet those stringent demands? Do you check that before you publish them? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yes. Q So they’re ready to go — SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yes. Q — with what’s there? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yes. Q And do you at the Commerce Department then have the money necessary to hire those top-notch negotiators, the specialists — SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yes. Q — or do you need more from Congress? Because often — SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yes. Q — what ends up happening: We get a big government announcement — “multibillion dollars; here it comes from the federal government” — and three years later, we’re writing stories, telling stories about how that money was mismanaged and the department that was overseeing it didn’t have enough. You’re saying you do? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Yes, I do. What we’re doing right now is we’re in the process of hiring about 50 people. We do have the money. They will be expert. And I have absolute confidence we will be able to do this. Also, the answer to your first question is — again, Micron wouldn’t be announcing a massive expansion in Idaho if CHIPS weren’t passed. So, yes, they know the strings are attached. And, yes, they will operate under those strings. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Final question. Ed, it’s so good to have you back, my friend. (Laughs.) Q Thank you, Secretary. Can you talk a little bit more about the protections or guardrails from doing work with China? Just — you know, the administration was reportedly pushing back on Intel’s plans or publicly announced plans to boost silicon wafer production in China. Has that — has that kind of plans stopped? And will that prevent companies like Intel from getting this kind of funding? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: So, as — as I’ve said, if they take the money, they can’t use the money to invest in China, they can’t build a leading-edge fab in China for a period of 10 years. If they expand their mature node factories in China, it’s only to serve the Chinese market. And, by the way, if they take money and then do any of those things, we’ll claw back the money. Q If — if they — this was announ- — as I understand it, this was announced previously. Is there like some type of grandfather clause? Will they be able to start this production now? Or does — does that — does the fact that they had already announced this allow them to make — to continue with those plans? SECRETARY RAIMONDO: We’re going to take it on a case-by-case basis. Here’s what I will tell you: The number-one objective of implementing this is to protect America’s national security. Every deal we do, every criteria that we evaluate these companies against, it’s going to be with a lens toward protecting national security. So we’re not going to allow any deals to happen that we think undermine our national security. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thank you, Secretary. Appreciate it. SECRETARY RAIMONDO: Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. See you in a little bit. SECRETARY RAIMONDO: All right. Bye, guys. Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, Secretary Raimondo. All right. I have one thing at the top. And as you all know, we probably have about 30 minutes or so for the next event that the President has, so we all have to get out of here in 30 minutes. Okay, so I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the attack in Canada over the weekend. It is senseless and devastating. I won’t get ahead of the Canadian law enforcement as they continue their work. Our thoughts are with the victims of this horrific attack. We stand with Canada, our ally and neighbor, and all those affected by this tragedy, and condemn this senseless violence. With that, Seung Min, you want to kick us off? Q Yeah. I saw the President’s tweet congratulating Liz Truss, the new Prime Minister of the UK. Has he spoken with her or does he plan to later today? What is his plans? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So he’s going to speak to her later today, this afternoon. He’s planning to call her to congratulate her — the new Prime Minister. And so that — that’s going to happen later this afternoon. Q And I have another one on the fatal shooting of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The Israeli military has now said there’s a, quote, “high probability” that an Israeli soldier accidentally killed her, but they also said that no one will be held responsible. So I wanted to know the White House’s reactions to the Israeli military’s conclusions and also whether it is acceptable to the President that no one will be held accountable in that death. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I know this report came out yesterday, as it was reported by the Israeli Defense Forces, as you just said. We have extended our deepest condolences to the family of Shireen Abu Akleh, a renowned Palestinian American journalist who was killed in the West Bank. We strongly condemn this killing, as we have for the past several months. Ms. Abu Akleh was an inspiration to millions and a friend to many in the U.S. government. Her death is a great loss and a tragedy. We continue to call on all sides to maintain calm and avoid further escalation. As you just mentioned and I just said, it was reported yesterday that it had con- — the Israeli Defense Forces had concluded its investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death and stated there was a high possibility that her death — was accidentally hit by IDF gunfire, as you just mentioned, Seung Min. We welcome Israelis’ review of this tragic incident, and we underscored the importance of accountability in this case, such as policies and procedures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. Our thoughts remain with Abu Akleh’s family as they grieve this tremendous loss. Not only was Shireen an American citizen, as I just mentioned, she was a fearless — a fearless reporter whose journalism and pursuit of truth earned her the respect of audience around the world. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. President Biden said last night he didn’t think Russia should be designated a state sponsor of terrorism, even after President Zelenskyy, in an interview with ABC’s David Muir, said he had asked the President about taking that step. Why does the President think that? And is this about keeping limited diplomatic channels open still? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So as the President has said, as — and as we do think as well — as — you know, it is not the most effective or strongest path forward, as we have said many times before, to hold Russia accountable. This designation could have unintended consequences to Ukraine and the world. For example, according to humanitarian expert and NGOs we have spoken to, it could seriously affect the ability to deliver assistance in areas of Ukraine. Another one is it could drive critical humanitarian and commercial actors away from facilitating food exports to help mitigate the global food crisis and jeopardize the Black Sea port deal that has already led to over a million tons of Ukrainian food exports reaching the world, including those on the — on the Horn of Africa likely facing famine. It would also undercut our unprecedented multilateral condition that has been so effective to holding Putin accountable and could also undermine our ability to support Ukraine at the negotiating — negotiation table. So, again, we do not think this is the most effective way to go or the strongest path forward. Q There are also concerns about potentially inadvertently punishing allies who might still have trade relations with Russia. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, what we have done is we’ve already put in place severe consequences in line with those that would be imposed under such designation. Our sanctions export controls affect — efforts to further isolate Russia from the global economy or — are having a significant impact. So that’s the way we kind of have seen with the work that we’ve already done. Under this, Russia defaulted on its foreign debt for the first time in more than a century. As we have said, we are choking off Russia’s military supply chains. For example, Russia has to rely on North Korea, as you all heard, and Iran for military equipment. And just last week, the G7 committed to implement a price cap to push down the price of Putin’s oil and starve him of his main source of revenue to fund this war. So again, we are, of course, support — we, of course, are going to support using further tools that will work to promote accountability for Russia’s war against Ukraine. And so that’s going to be our focus as we move forward. Go ahead. Q When the President speaks with the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, will he discuss the Northern Ireland arrangements? Is there an expectation that he’ll call on the Prime Minister to delay implementation of the protocol bill that she has supported that would allow the United Kingdom to override the provisions of the agreement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? How’s that going to come into the conversation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’m not going to get ahead or speak to what the President might say or will say on the call. I’ll say this: that we’ll have a readout after the call later this afternoon. But he has been clear about his continued interest in Northern Ireland. Our priority remains protecting the gains of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement and preserving peace, stability, and prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland. Again, I’m not — I’m not going to get ahead of what the President will or won’t say. Q Okay. And the UK is obviously going through some serious economic concerns. They have an energy crisis that’s going on. Is there any room for aid, assistance, or more to be done in terms of supporting them on lowering energy costs domestically? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So you’ve heard us say this: that what we see Russia is doing — we’ve been very clear about this — is that they’re using energy — they’re weaponizing energy. And it’s choosing to — one of the things that has been out there — the shutdown of the pipeline of Nord Strom [Stream] 1 So the sanction we’ve imposed, we believe, do [not] stand in the way of the pipeline to continuing operating. So the U.S. and Europe have been collaborating to ensure sufficient supplies are available. As a result of these efforts, European gas shortage [storage] will be full by the critical winter heating season. So we have more work to do, but, again, we’re working closely with our allies on this. Q And then one final one. Is there any status update on U.S.-UK trade negotiations? And do you expect that to be a topic on the call with the new Prime Minister? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any updates on that. Again, I’m not going to get ahead of what’s going to be on the call with the — what the President is going to say to the new Prime Minister. We’ll have — certainly we’ll have a readout for all of you once it’s done. Go ahead. Q Just one question. The President tweeted earlier today, “I want to be clear: Not every Congressional Republican is a MAGA Republican.” He went on to say — to talk about “an extreme set of MAGA Republicans in Congress.” But he’s also said frequently over the last several days — talked about how not one Republican backed the agenda that he’s had in — for example, the Inflation Reduction Act or the Recovery Act. And more broadly, he’s talked about how the Republican Party is “not your grandfather’s Republican Party,” that the whole party has changed. So can you talk a little bit about what he’s — what group of people does he think are MAGA Republicans? Does he — when he says not one Republican supported the agenda — so does that mean that every Republican in Congress is essentially a MAGA Republican? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So he’s been very clear when he’s talked about MAGA Republicans — ultra-MAGA Republicans. He’s talked about the leadership in the Republican Party. For — one of the first time he actually used that term was to talk about Rick Scott’s plan, which was, to your point, using a — an agenda that they had, which was to put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block. And for him, that was an extreme measure that is taking away something that was — if you’re thinking about it, Medicare, Social Security, very popular. That is — a majority of Americans support that, as well as the — as well as the Inflation Reduction Act. Majority of the Republi- — of — sorry, Republicans and Democrats and independents support those policies. And you have leaders in — in the Republican Party who are offering extreme, extreme agenda. And so that’s what he means. And let me just — I’ll just quote the President. On Friday, he took, actually, Peter’s question — the only reporter that he took a question from on Friday. And he said, in answering your question about this — (laughter) — I know I — I’m only saying that because Peter felt a certain way that I didn’t take his question on Friday in the briefing room. But the President did take your question that day. Q (Inaudible) feels like that all the time. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Well, I hear you. Q Word travels fast. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Word — word — there we go. Okay, so, “When people vote — voted for Donald Trump” — this is the — this is President Biden — “and support him now, they weren’t voting for attacking the Capitol. They weren’t voting for overruling an election. They were voting for a philosophy he put forward. So I’m not talking about anything other than: It’s inappropriate — and it’s” — “it’s not only happening here, but other parts of the world — where there’s a failure to recognize and condemn violence whenever it is used for political purposes, failure to condemn an attempt to manipulate electoral outcomes, a failure to acknowledge when elections were won or lost.” And so that is from the President — what he thinks. He’s talking about a — the leadership. He’s talking about the leadership who put out extreme agenda. Also the — also talking, in what I just laid out, in not condemning violence when there’s violence out there. Q So just one quick follow-up. But, you know, while it’s — you know, you can talk about what people meant or didn’t mean, or — by voting in the 2020 election. But there are lots of Republican — just regular Republican voters who do support, for example, Rick Scott’s, you know, ideas about what to do with the budget or what to do with Social Security or entitlement programs. There’s lots of Republican voters who do agree with the President that they think the election was — with the former President, I mean — but — but that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. No, I hear you. Q — the election. So — so does he consider — does the President consider all of those people who support these extreme agendas that he’s talking about to be the MAGA Republicans that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So he was has been very clear that he’s talking about office holders. He’s talking about elected officials who have these MAGA — ultra-MAGA Republican agendas. And he’s been very clear about that. Look, here’s the thing: The point that we are making is majority of Americans support Medicare. Majority of Americans support Social Security. Majority of Americans support our democracy and want to protect our democracy, want to protect our freedom, want to protect our rights, and that’s who the President is going to continue to stand up for and fight for. I’m going to try and call on people I haven’t called on yet. Go ahead. Q Karine, thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Since we don’t have a lot of time. Q A follow for you on the questions about Russia and the President’s decision not to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Is that a final decision by President Biden? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, it is. I mean, I’ll let his words stand for himself. He answered it pretty simply. I just laid out why we think it wouldn’t be the strongest path forward. I laid out three reasons. Also, we want to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs in case it has to go to the negotiation table. So it is very important that we give them the strongest — the strongest, you know, negotiation arm that they can have. Q And did the President directly convey that to President Zelenskyy before publicly saying that he had made that decision? And has he conveyed it to members of Congress, leaders in Congress? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can’t speak to conversation — private conversation specifically on this that the President had with members of Congress or President Zelenskyy. As you know, they spoke recently. We laid out a readout of what that conver- — how that conversation went and what was discussed. Q And what about congressional leaders? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I just said I can’t speak to what conversations that the President had — private conversations that he’s had with members of Congress. Q Can you tell us when, specifically, he made that determination because of this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have a — a timeline. Q Or (inaudible) made. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — well, I don’t have a timeline on when he made that decision. He was asked that directly yesterday. He answered that very straightforward — in a straightforward way. I just laid out what our concerns are with that. Q And can you just update us — Karine, I know you’ve answered some version of this question before, but as we’re sort of starting in September here: Has the President or anyone within the administration been briefed on the intelligence community’s assessment of the classified or sensitive documents that have been retrieved at Mar-a-Lago? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. No. Q And is there a protocol for that, I mean, given that we are talking about sensitive government documents? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again — and I’ve said this many times at this podium, we have said this many times on your air — your airwaves — which is: We are just — we get the interest. We understand the interest. We’re not going to comment on an ongoing, independent investigation, as anything that’s related to it. This is something that the President has been very clear about in making sure there is no political interference and making sure that the Department of Justice has that independence when it comes to investigations. So I’m just not going to comment anything related to it. Q One more quick, on a different topic. But just following up on the questions about the “MAGA Republicans,” the President is very firm in his language and direct, saying that the former President and MAGA Republicans he believes pose a threat to America’s democracy. Does he then denounce the efforts by some Democrats to prop up Republicans who support the MAGA agenda in the primaries? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to talk about political action or what is happening in the midterms. Q Just broadly speaking — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m just — that is — Q — does the administration see this (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I am not going to talk anything that’s related to the midterms or politics as well. I cannot, standing where I am and also the role that I have. I’m going to go to the back and then I’ll come back front. I’ll come back. Q Karine, thanks — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. I haven’t — go ahead, sir. Q Thank you. Thank you, Karine. Thank you very much. Does — does President Biden — President Biden is the current holder of executive privilege. And does President Biden believe that Trump can claim executive privilege for government documents that he took with him to Florida? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, anything related to the independent investigation — again, independent investigation that’s being done by the Department of Justice — we’re not going to comment, regardless of content or any underlying material. I’m not going to comment from here. Q Well, the judge — Judge Cannon, herself, said that Biden hadn’t weighed in. That’s refuted in the National Archives letter. But does President Biden have an opinion on — and has he exerted his opinion on whether executive privilege applies to former President Trump after he left office, after he left on January 20th, 2021? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Not — it is — I’m not going to comment about what the — what the judge said yesterday, the court has laid out. Again, that is for the Department of Justice, this whole independent investigation. I’m just not going to comment on it at this time. Go ahead, Courtney. Q Thanks, Karine. I wanted to ask you: The Department of Veterans Affairs put out an interim rule this morning on access to abortion, offering veterans abortion in special instances. I know we had the conversation in here shortly after the fall of Roe, about this idea of doctors performing abortion procedures on federal land, and even talked about how that wasn’t the best path forward at the time. What changed? And what do you believe is the legal justification to make this happen at VA clinics? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I would leave that to the Veterans Affairs Department; that is their decision to make. And I would refer you to them on that particular question. I’m going to get around because we don’t have a lot of time at all. Go ahead. Q Thank you. In his Independence Day speech, Prime Minister — (inaudible) Prime Minister Modi gave a call to communicate India a developed country in the next 25 years — at least 2047, when India celebrates its 100 years of independence. As you know, this year is the 75th year of India’s independence. In what way U.S. can — U.S. can help India — assist India in making it a developed nation by 2047, or in the next 25 years? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the United States and, as you know, India — and I’ve said this to you before in this room — will continue to work together every day to deliver opportunities, security, freedom, and dignity to our peoples. We are partners in many important areas, including defense, vaccines, climate, tech, and our ever-growing people-to-people connections. The United States will continue to work with India to advance a free and open Indo-Pacific and address the challenges both our countries face around the world. That is our commitment that we have in our partnership with India. Q And secondly, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan right now, a year after the Taliban took the power there? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that — say that one more time. Q What is the President’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan right now, a year after the Taliban took the power? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we are — we are committed to supporting the Afghan people, and we have said that many times before. And we are proud to be the largest single provider of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. We are working closely with the United Nations and other partners to provide this assistance directly to the Afghan people without benefit to the Taliban. We will remain vigilant against any terrorism threats directed at the United States or our allies, as we have demonstrated just recently in July, as you know, when we took out the leader of al Qaeda. And we will continue to prioritize relocation efforts to our Afghan allies and welcome our Afghan allies to the United States since our commitment to them is enduring. So we will also continue to press the Taliban for the safe release of Mark Frerichs and to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Afghans, including women and girls. And that is our — going to continue to be our commitment. I’m just going to go around to folks I haven’t called on, and then I’ll come down to here, Peter. Q Thanks, Karine. There are multiple inspector general posts where the President has yet to nominate a permanent IG. There may be someone acting there, but has yet to nominate a permanent IG at the State Department — hasn’t had a permanent IG since before President Biden took office. So what is the President doing, what is the White House doing behind the scenes to find those permanent IGs for those really important positions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So it’s a great question. I don’t have anything here to read out or lay out to you about our process in filling the permanent IGs. I would refer you to State Department specifically on anything — on what they have — what they have laid out and how they’ve worked through that. I don’t have any updates on any — naming anyone or anything that we have to share or to preview to you as well. Q Yes, I understand. But these are the President’s nominees. State Department doesn’t make that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, but you also asked me what is it that we’re doing as well. So I — that’s why I said you should go to State Department to figure out what is it that they’re been doing while we’re trying to figure out the permanent IGs. I don’t have anything to preview at this time on our process or where we are on that particular question. Q And then really briefly on student loans. I know the administration has encouraged people who are applying for loan forgiveness, when that opens up, to do so by November 15th. But is there kind of an end deadline? When is the last time people can apply for that? Is there some sort of deadline, considering, of course, that this would already have to be debt that’s already been accrued? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’ve — we’ve talked about this — I talked about this last week — about the timeline and how that’s going to work. And you mentioned November 15th. So — so that’s in order — we do — we are saying that in order to receive before the payment pause, which expires on December 31st, 2022. So that’s why we want — as you want to get that relief, we want to also — and the pause is coming off. That’s the best way to make sure that as those two things are happening, and you’re not put in a bind — America is not put in a bind — that’s why we recommend doing it by November 15th. But the Department of Education will continue to process applications as they are received, even after the pause expires on December 31st. So it’ll be continuing. The reason why we give the deadline of November 15 is because we know the pause is going to be lifted. So to give — as we have said, we want to make sure that we give Americans a little bit of breathing room. And that’s why we have that deadline. Q So people can apply into 2023? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, they can. Yes. Okay. Oh, Peter, go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. A follow-up about the MAGA Republican attention. So if we’re all in agreement that it is incorrect to say the 2020 election was stolen, what about the 2016 election? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to go back to where we were or what happened in 2016. We’re going to focus on the here and now. We’re going to focus on what’s happening today — this inflection point that the President pointed out, very clearly, very decisively in a few speeches about what the country needs to do at this time to bring the country together. And he believes that’s where a majority of Americans are when it comes to protecting our democracy, when it comes to protecting our rights, and when it comes to protecting our freedoms. That’s what we’re going to talk about. That’s what we’re going to focus on — on where we are today. Q But just in trying to understand the new attention on the MAGA Republicans, you tweeted in 2016 — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I knew this was coming. Q — Trump “stole” an election. You tweeted — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was waiting, Peter, when you were going to ask me that question. (Laughs.) Q Well, great. Here we go. You tweeted Trump “stole” an election. You tweeted Brian Kemp “stole” an election. If denying election results is extreme now, why wasn’t it then? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let’s — let’s — let’s be really clear: That — that comparison that you made is just ridiculous. I have been — I have been — Q How is that ridiculous? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, you’re asking me — you’re asking me a question. Q Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me answer it. Q And you said it was ridiculous. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was — I was talking specifically at that time of what was happening with voting rights and the — what was in danger of voting rights. That’s what I was speaking to at the time. And here’s the thing: I have said Governor Kemp won the election in Georgia. I’ve been clear about that. I have said President Trump won the election of 2016. And I’ve been clear about that. What we are talking about right now is — let’s not forget what happened on January 6th, 2021, when we saw an insurrection — a mob that was incited by the person who occupied this campus, this facility at that time. And it was an attack on our democracy. Let’s not forget people died that day. Law enforcement were attacked that day. That was the danger that we were seeing at the time. That’s what the President has called out. And that’s what he’s going to continue to call out. So, yes, when you have MAGA Republicans — a extreme part of Republicans who for — who just deny or do not want to really say what exactly happened on that day, or say it was a protest when it clearly was not a peaceful protest — that’s not what we saw on that day — yes, the President is going to call that out. And here’s the thing: Majority of Americans agree with him, majority of Americans agree with this President on protecting our democracy, protecting our freedom, and protecting our rights. That’s what we’re talking about today, and that’s what the President is going to focus on. All right, we’re going to have to move. We’re going to have to move. I’m going to call on folks I haven’t called on. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. I’m just wondering if you have any sort of preview for the event tomorrow with former President Obama and former First Lady Obama. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I do. I do. So, tomorrow, President Biden is looking forward to welcoming back President Obama and Michelle Obama to the White House for the unveiling of their official White House portraits. Over the course of their eight years together in office, a close partnership between the two men grew through the highs and lows of the job and life — and of life. President Biden and Dr. Biden are honored to have former President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama back to the White House for the unveiling of their portraits, which will hang on the walls of the White House forever as reminders of the power of hope and change. Q And obviously, this ceremony is happening, as per in recent history, tradition: predecessor and successor. Obviously, it didn’t happen under the last administration. Would President Biden hold the same ceremony for President Trump should his portraits be done before his first term? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we — we defer those questions to the White House Historical Association who actually — they lead the process on official portraits for both presidents and their spouses. So that question goes — lies with them. Q And is there any more interaction that the former President and current President will have tomorrow? Or is it just the ceremony? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else to share at this time. If we — if there’s more interaction or more to share, we certainly will. Okay. Go ahead. Q Going back to the new UK Prime Minister, can you talk a little bit about what President Biden’s relationship is with her? Has he met with her in the past? Does he know her well? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s a good question. I can go back and actually ask to see if they have a prior relationship. But I do want to say this, as we talk about the change that’s happening — the new Prime Minister: Our countries have a close, longstanding, special relationships as friends and NATO Allies. And we are looking forward to continued close cooperation on key priorities, including supporting Ukraine as it defends itself against Russian aggression and addressing the challenges posed by China. So we see our relationship not just with the leadership, but also the people of the UK. Q Karine, is the President planning to call — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to try and call on people who I haven’t called. Q Is the President planning to call the President of Kenya, the new (inaudible) — President-elect of Kenya? Q Thanks, Karine. I want to ask you about the question about migrants and whether they have or haven’t been walking across the southwest border. Senator Ted Cruz has publicly invited, suggested that you come down to see that for yourself. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Who? Wait, who? Q Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. He’s — he’s suggested that you come down and see for yourself whether migrants are actually crossing the border by foot. Is that something that you would take him up on? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’ve been to the border. I went in 2018. I stood outside facilities where the Trump administration was separating families, tearing babies out of their mothers’ arms. Some of those kids still haven’t been reunited with their families. And so, one thing I will say is I certainly don’t need lectures or invitations from Republicans about the border or border policies. And — you know, and I certainly won’t take advice on border from anyone who voted against securing record level of funding for the Department of Homeland Security. And — and, you know, and while folks are sending invites, I’ll use this opportunity to — to invite him or anyone else next time to vote for record funding for DHS, as President Biden has requested. So we’ll move on. Q And — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Nope, we’ll move on from that. Q And — quick question. On the migrants who drowned last week near Eagle Pass, what is the administration doing to avert those kinds of tragedies? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So that is a tragic — that is tragic when we hear news like that. Our hearts go out to the families certainly. And — and that is what we try to work very hard to do: to secure the border and make sure that we don’t see those types of — those tragedies and heartbreaks. So, I know the Department of Homeland Security is working very hard on — to continuing to secure our border, to do work that was not done in the past several years. And so we’re going to continue to focus on that. Okay. Go ahead. Q Karine, a question on Kenya. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead. Kenya. What’s — what’s going on? Q Since you just spoke about the President calling the new Prime Minister of the UK, is he planning to call the President-elect of Kenya after it was affirmed — his victory was affirmed by the supreme court yesterday? And is he also planning to call the new President of Angola — the President and the President-elect (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have — I spoke to Angola a couple of times last week. And the President actually took a question, I know, on Angola, specifically, about 10 days or so. On — on Kenya, I’ll say this: We congratulate William Ruto on his election as President of Kenya. We also congratulate the people of Kenya on the conclusion of a peaceful electoral process. We commend Raila Odinga and other candidates for abiding by the supreme court filing. Transparent electoral processes and the peaceful adjudication of disputes are testaments to the strength of democratic institutions. The United States and Kenya share a strong and longstanding partnership based on a commitment to democracy, security, economic prosperity. We look forward to enhancing this partnership with President Ruto and his new government. I don’t have any calls to read out or preview for you at this time. Q And then, on Ethiopia: Last Friday, you talked about the special envoy, Michael Hammer, going to Ethiopia. The main problem in Ethiopia right now, especially around Tigray, is about the blockade that’s been there for almost 21 months. Is the President, is the special envoy going to press Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali to lift the blockade and grant access to the 6 million people who have been sealed off? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’m not going to get ahead of the special envoy. I know we announced that, as you mentioned, last week. I’m not going to get into any conversation that he may potentially have. Clearly, this is a priority for this President. And when we will have more to share, we’ll share more. I got to — Q Can — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I got to jump around. Q One last question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no. I got to jump around. I got to jump around. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thank you so much. I’ve got a question on Israel and Iran tensions. Israel is on high alert, and the Prime Minister of Israel has talked about taking unilateral action against Iran’s nuclear program. Will the Biden administration back any Israeli action against Iran’s nuclear program? And can you update us a little bit on the Mossad chief? He’s in town. Who has he been meeting with? What’s he been doing? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, don’t have anything to share about Mossad being in town. It had been announced several weeks now that he would be. Don’t have more to share on that. Look, I’m going to — when it comes to the JCPOA, you know, I’m going to keep it very, very simple here. We’ve said this many times: We have taken a deliberate and principled approach to these negotiations from the start. If Iran is prepared to comply with comments — with its commitments under 2015 deal, then we are prepared to do the same. The administration, along with our allies, is preparing equally for scenarios with or — and without a mutual return to the — to the full implementation of the JCPOA. The President will only conclude a deal that he determines in the national security interest of the United States. Again, not going to negotiate, not going to have conversations or hypotheticals of what may or may not happen. We have been very clear about what we intend here, and it’s to make sure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. And that is our ultimate goal here. Q Can I follow up on President Abbas? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, no, we’re just going to — we’re going to move around because I literally have two minutes. Go ahead. Q I actually want to follow up on the Iran nuclear deal question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q What is the timeline that President Biden is looking at before the State Department diplomats sort of say “time’s up”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have a timeline for you. I can give you an update on the status of the negotiations. Look, it’s a regular back-and-forth. As we have said, we are studying the response in coordination with our E3 allies. As you know, we have received a response. Again, we’re not going to negotiate in public. Some gaps have closed in recent weeks but others have remained. As you all know, the President will only, again, conclude a deal that he determines is in the national security interest of the United States. I’m not — I’m not going to get into further detail or negotiate from here. I can take one last question. One last question. Q Can I ask about Shireen, my colleague? Can you — you read the message — the statement about Shireen Abu Akleh. The administration continues to talk about accountability, but there hasn’t been any. There have been no charges. What is the Biden administration going to do to press for accountability? What steps are going to be taken? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So what I can tell you is that we have been — we have been in constant communication, we have been very public about making sure that there is accountability. The U.S. Security Coordinator — the USCC, as it relates to the investigation, finding that there was no reason to believe the killing was intentional and it was instead the result of tragic circumstances is based on a series of engagements and a review of the totality of the available evidence, situational and environmental factors. Again, you know, our profound condolences go to the family. We hear their concerns. We understand their concerns. The examin- — examination was conducted by two members, again, of the USCC with over 42 combined years of forensic expertise. In addition to the forensic and bal- — ballistic analysis, the USCC was granted full access to both Israel Defense Forces and Palestinian Authority investigation. By summarizing both investigation, the USCC concluded that gunfire from IDF positions was likely responsible for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. The USCC found no reason to believe that this was intentional but rather the result of tragic circumstances. Again, you know, our hearts go out to the family members. And I’m — I have to go. It’s 1:03. Q But just very quickly — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll be back tomorrow. I’ll be — Q This isn’t accountability. I — how do journalists in this room read this? I mean, it feels almost like our government doesn’t have our back, that an ally can — can kill an American journalist with impunity. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I disagree. I disagree. One thing that this President has been very clear about making sure that we stand up for a journalist; we stand up for the freedom that they should be given in order to report, whether it’s here or across the globe. And — and the President has always been clear about fighting for human rights. That will never change. He has talked about it boldly and clearly. And — and he’s talked about it with leaders as well. So that is something that he respects — the freedom of speech — and he’ll continue to speak to that. All right, guys. I got to go.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre holds briefing

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, good afternoon, everybody. Welcome back. Oh, wow. No excitement in the room. (Laughs.) Hello! Hello. Q Hello. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q We’ve got visitors today. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, we do. So today is a great day for middle-class Am- — middle-class Americans and for our economy. And we are really excited to have Domestic Policy Advisor Ambassador Susan Rice and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Bharat Amar- — Amaroti [Ramamurti]. Sorry, Bharat. I always do this, and I apologize. MR. RAMAMURTI: (Inaudible.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know, it’s not — yeah. It’s not the first time. So they’re here with us today. Ambassador Rice will discuss the President’s announcement today, as you just heard him in the Roosevelt Room — some of you were in there or your colleagues were — to provide — what — what we did today — the announcement that he did today to provide breathing room to student loan borrowers. And then she and Bharat will take some questions. They have about 15 minutes. So just giving you a heads up, they do have to leave to go to another meeting. With that, I will give it to Ambassador Rice to take — take it over. AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No problem. AMBASSADOR RICE: Good afternoon, everyone. Q Good afternoon. AMBASSADOR RICE: As you heard from President Biden a few minutes ago, the administration is taking a number of important steps to provide student loan borrowers with relief and improve the student loan system in ways that will help low- and middle-income students both now and in the future. This comprehensive plan does not just deliver on the President’s campaign commitment to provide student debt relief, it exceeds that promise, including by making changes that will benefit students for years to come. First, the administration is extending the current pause on student loan repayments one final time until December 31st of this year. Second, the Department of Education is providing up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education and $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients. This relief is targeted. It will only go to borrowers whose income is less than $125,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a household — meaning that the relief will go to those who need it the most. Third, the administration is proposing critical reforms to the income-driven repayment plan that will ensure that current and future borrowers will have much smaller and more manageable monthly payments. This new plan protects more low-income borrowers from making any payments, and caps monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5 percent of a borrower’s discretionary income, meaning after essentials like rent and food. That is half the rate that people currently pay today. And borrowers making roughly the equivalent of $15 — the minimum wage — where that applies — won’t have to make any payments at all under this plan. These changes will reduce the average annual student loan repayment by a thousand dollars a year. Fourth, thanks to temporary changes that the Department of Education has made to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, if you have worked in public service — for example, as a teacher, a government employee, a military service member — for 10 years, even if those years were not consecutive, you are eligible to have all of your federal student loans cancelled. The Department of Education is working to make these changes permanent. But in the meantime, more than 175,000 people just in the last year have taken advantage of these temporary changes and have had more than $10 billion in loans forgiven. So my message to everybody today is: If you currently or previously have worked in public service, go now to PSLF.gov — PSLF.gov — to take advantage of this program. But you must do so before October 31st. Finally, the Department of Education is announcing new actions to hold accountable colleges that have contributed to the student debt crisis, including by publishing an annual watch list of the programs with the worst debt levels in the country and requesting improvement plans from the worst actors. These actions build on steps the President has already taken to reduce the need to borrow, including by signing the largest increase to the maximum Pell Grant in over a decade and providing nearly $40 billion to colleges and universities through the American Rescue Plan, much of which was used for emergency student financial aid. The President will continue fighting to double the maximum Pell Grant and to make community colleges universally free. This is, as I said, a comprehensive plan that will provide meaningful relief to millions of Americans, both now and in the future. Targeting this relief to those who need it the most means that 90 percent of relief dollars — 90 percent of the relief dollars will go to those individuals earning less than $75,000 a year. And no individual or couple in the top 5 percent of incomes in the United States will receive a penny of relief. Of the 43 million eligible borrowers, more than 60 percent — or 27 million individuals — are Pell Grant recipients who are eligible to receive up to $20,000 in debt cancellation. Over 60 percent. Among Black borrowers, for example, 71 percent receive Pell Grants. So, today’s announcement will have a significant impact on people who have been disproportionately impacted by student debt. Nearly two thirds of individuals — all debtors — will have half or more of their total debt wiped out, including the 20 million borrowers who will have their debt completely eliminated — that’s 45 percent of the total. Twenty million borrowers will have their debt completely eliminated. Two thirds will have half or more eliminated. The actions we are announcing today are going to be good for our economy. We are on track to cut the federal deficit by more than $1.7 trillion this year, the single largest deficit reduction ever. And numerous experts affirm that restarting paused loan payments at around the same time as we provide targeted debt relief will not have any meaningful effect on inflation. Finally, this action will ease the financial burden on millions of Americans and provide them with greater economic security to buy a house, start a family, open a business, or save for retirement. And that is good for all Americans. The President has always promised that he will build an economy from the bottom up and the middle out. Today’s announcement is just one more step we are taking to make that a reality. Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. All right, Bharat. Come up. AMBASSADOR RICE: Come up. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Come on up. All right, so we have about 15 minutes, as I just stated. April, go ahead. Q Ambassador Rice, I have three questions, if you will. One, what made the President move off of that $10,000 he was so adamant on to $20,000 as Chuck Schumer and the rest on Capitol Hill — Elizabeth Warren, Ayanna Pressley — were calling for $50,000? Also, when it comes to Pell Grants, your mother was known as the mother of the Pell Grant system. President Biden just said himself that 80 percent of the money helped students, and now that money is going — has dropped down to 30 percent when it comes to Pell Grants. Are you doing anything to bolster the Pell Grant system as you’re trying to relieve this — this student loan debt? And lastly — AMBASSADOR RICE: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why don’t we take them one at a time, okay? (Laughter.) Q All right. AMBASSADOR RICE: All right. First of all, let’s talk about the Pell Grant. Pell Grant is 50 years old this year. When the Pell Grant was established, it covered 80 percent of the cost of a four-year public institution. Today, it’s now 30 percent. That’s because costs of college have gone up and the relative size of the Pell Grant has gone down. The President has been very clear, from the campaign forward, that he aims to double the maximum grant — the maximum size of the Pell Grant to around $13,000 from its current level around $6,500. He has, in his budget requests, asked for incremental increases to get to that doubling. And his FY23 budget request does that as well. In the FY22 appropriation enacted, $400 was added to the maximum size of the Pell Grant, which, as I said in my remarks, is the largest increase in the decade. With respect to the President’s posture on this, he’s been clear from the campaign that he was prepared to relieve up to $10,000 in broad-based cancellation. He has listened and consulted and studied as — in partnership with the Department of Education, which obviously has the lead on this — as to what is the best approach. And after all of that consultation, the Secretary of Education made the determination that the best way to benefit those who need it most — consistent with the President’s campaign proposal, but actually more advantageous for those in the lower-income part of the spectrum, those who have been most harmed — would be to have that $20,000 of relief for those who were Pell Grant recipients below the income threshold, in addition to $10,000 for those also below the income threshold who were not Pell Grant recipients. Q And then my last question: Friday, there is a meeting, we understand, with the President and civil rights leaders on — all-encompassing, to include this. Could you talk about that meeting by any chance? AMBASSADOR RICE: No, I can’t preview a meeting that hasn’t — Q So it is happening — AMBASSADOR RICE: — happened. Q — though? AMBASSADOR RICE: I’m not — I can’t confirm that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead, Cecilia. Q Thanks. Madam Ambassador, I have a couple of questions for you. One, I want to get your general response to this overwhelming chorus of critics — Republicans, right now — who say this is unfair, that there are people who decided to not go to college because they couldn’t pay for it, there are people who decided to join the armed forces in lieu of going to college because they couldn’t pay for it, and this leaves them behind. Is there inaccuracy in any of that? AMBASSADOR RICE: Yes, there is inaccuracy, but there’s also a double standard. And this is a debate we are happy to have. First of all, Republicans didn’t complain when certain small businesses during the pandemic got extraordinary financial relief and — without having to pay back those loans. But — when some businesses needed it and other businesses didn’t need it. This is the same principle. We have a country where we all benefit when the middle and working class are doing well. This relief will be targeted to those who need it most. As I said, 90 percent of those who will benefit earn less than $75,000 a year. So this is not a giveaway to rich people. This is not any of the things that Republican critics have charged. Yes, those who have paid their loans back deserve to be credited. That’s fantastic. That’s to their — to their credit. But that doesn’t mean that those who are, for whatever reason, unable to pay back their loans — like, you know, one third of people have debt and no college degree. That doesn’t mean that because the — some were able to do so, nobody should help those who weren’t. By that logic, we wouldn’t help anybody in this country. Q How much will this cost? How much will Americans have to pay on this price tag overall? AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, that that remains to be determined, and it will be a function of what percentage of eligible borrowers actually take up this opportunity. Q $300 billion? $500 billion? AMBASSADOR RICE: They — we’ll see what — when they take up the opportunity, we’ll be able to give you a much better sense of that. Q But are those numbers ballpark at this point? AMBASSADOR RICE: I think it depends on the numbers. Like, you know, unfortunately — and I — we’re here to encourage as many people to take it up as possible — if 43 million borrowers take it up, that’ll be different than if 50 percent of those 43 million take it up. Q If it is 43 million, if I could just follow on — you know, if the full number of eligible borrowers do take advantage of the program, what would the cost be? AMBASSADOR RICE: I — I can’t give you that off the top of my head. Q Okay. And just — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait, wait. Let me — AMBASSADOR RICE: I thought you were running this, right? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I know. I know. (Laughter.) She slipped in on me. You’re right. You’re right, Ambassador. Go ahead, in the back. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Can you talk about, sort of, the timeline here from, sort of, when this now becomes available to borrowers and, sort of, how long they may have? And I guess the, sort of — because I know the President talked about — you have to apply for this; this isn’t going to be automatic. Right? So, I mean, people may not even know necessarily if they’re eligible. Right? AMBASSADOR RICE: Okay, so let — this is a great question. Thank you for asking it. First of all, anybody can go today to StudentAid.gov and provide their email address, and they will be notified when the website is available for people to fill out a very simple, short form attesting to their income and — and become eligible. Having said that as well, down the road, it is likely that as many as 8 million Americans are automatically eligible, because the Department of Education already has their income information — because they filled out a financial aid form, for example. So we estimate that there’ll be some 20 percent, roughly, who will get automatic relief because they qualify and we know they qualify and can verify that. Then, subsequently, over the coming weeks, but in advance of the — the pause expiring one final time, there will be the capacity for people to go to a Department of Education website and do the quick, short form attestation and become eligible. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Michael. Q Thank you. Just a couple of quick technical questions. Can you talk a little bit about the legal authority on which this program is based? And is there a worry that colleges will not now be incentivized to simply raise tuition rates since they know, both because of the cancellation but also because of the reduction in the maximum payment, that people will have to pay going forward? That should provide a buffer for colleges to just raise tuition because they know that more students will be able to afford the higher cost because their maximum will be — will be capped. And just one last thing is just — AMBASSADOR RICE: Wait a minute. Wait, wait. Q Okay. Fair. AMBASSADOR RICE: Give me a few — See, now you’ve already made me forget the first one. (Laughs.) The first — Q The first one was the legal authority. AMBASSADOR RICE: Okay. Congress gave the Secretary of Education, in the HEROES Act, the authority to do this. And I’ll refer you to the Department of Education and their general counsel for the details. With respect to your second question about cost of colleges, you heard the President emphasize in his remarks and a key element of our plan is to ensure that colleges that have jacked up prices and taken advantage of students — particularly those that have made wild promises about how much people will be able to earn based on their degree program, which are not backed up by reality — and while people are earning — or are incurring huge volumes of debt, that is something that Department of Education has already cracked down on and is going to continue to crack down on. There’s also the reality that the American Rescue Plan provided — both in state and local funds, as well as in funds targeted to higher education — significant dollars that can and should be used to make sure that public institutions don’t increase their tuition and expenses greater than the rate of inflation. And the Department of Education is going to be vigilant. They are going to publish annually a list of institutions that are the worst actors in terms of the delta between what they promise, what they charge, and what they deliver. Q And finally, one last question: Is it possible for somebody to go out today and apply for a college loan, knowing that it’s — that it’s going to be canceled? AMBASSADOR RICE: No. Q Or is there — what is the date by which somebody had — AMBASSADOR RICE: You had to — the loans that are eligible for relief were those that were up until June 30th of this year. Q June 30th of this year — AMBASSADOR RICE: 2022. Q (Inaudible.) Thank you. Q Bharat, I’m not going to let you escape. AMBASSADOR RICE: No, he’s not going to escape. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was like, “Who’s going to ask Bharat a question?” Q I know there have been some officials that have taken issue with some of the topline estimates we’ve seen from outside groups in terms of cost, not to mention, kind of, the view of direct impact on inflation and how things may net out. But if you can’t even give a topline figure for — if the uptake was everyone, how are you modeling this out? And what gives you certainty even a tenth of a basis point in a very high inflation environment wouldn’t be problematic for people? MR. RAMAMURTI: Great. So, let’s take that in two parts. So, the first question is: What’s the cost? And as Ambassador Rice said, there’s a number of factors that go into that question. There’s the take-up rate, right? Folks are going to have to go apply for relief. Our hope is that 100 percent of people who are eligible go apply for relief and get the relief that they’re entitled to. I think, realistically, we’re not going to get to 100 percent. But the question is: How far short of 100 percent are we going to be? And that plays a big role in what the cost is going to be. The second aspect is that — look, the student loan portfolio, there are different estimates about repayment rates and default rates, right? Right now, in the student loan portfolio, 16 percent of borrowers are in default. And if you look at the category of borrowers, there’s millions of borrowers who are more than seven years in default. The median amount of money that the Department of Education collects from those borrowers each year is zero dollars. So even if those borrowers have a face value on their debt of $10,000, and this plan wipes it out, it’s not reasonable to say that the cost of that is $10,000 because we were not realistically going to collect anywhere close to $10,000 from it. So the assumptions and the analysis about how much are we expecting to collect — some of that changes over time based on certain macroeconomic conditions and other factors. The third thing we have to pay attention to here is: In evaluating the cost of this program, we have to also evaluate the benefits and how that will flow into revenue to the government. Now, our view is, based on a lot of good empirical literature, relieving student loan debt burden is going to help people start small businesses. It’s going make it easier for certain folks to actually save for that down payment and buy a home. All of that additional economic activity, in the medium term, is going to create additional tax revenue that comes into the government that offsets the cost on the front end. So the bottom line here is that there’s all these different factors that go into the cost. Standing here today, I can’t tell you how all of those are going to shake out. Part of it is that the Department of Education has to actually implement this policy; they have to get the application out. We have to start getting data on how many people are applying. And I think, then, you know, when that happens, we’ll have a better sense of what the cost is going to be. On inflation, I think it’s good to take a step back and realize where we are today. Today, the student loan payments are paused. They’ve been paused since the previous administration, and it’s been extended multiple times by the Secretary of Education. Because of the pause, you have 45 million borrowers who are not required to make a single dollar in payments right now. What the President announced today was not only this debt relief but a resumption in payments on January 1st, 2023. When you resume payments, what that means is that millions of borrowers are going to start making payments that come into the federal government. It’s going to be billions of dollars a month in payments coming into the federal government. At the same time, of course, there is going to be relief going out to people. And our view is that those two things — the relief going out to people and the money coming in from restart — largely offset each other. And we’re not alone in thinking that. A number of independent experts who have weighed in on this topic today have said the exact same thing. Mark Zandi at Moody’s said that, Mike Konczal at the Roosevelt Institute, and others that we can point you to. So our view is that these two will largely offset one another. And, in fact, according to some independent experts, it could actually be deflationary, given all the money that’s coming in after payments resume. Q Can I ask really quickly, though: How are you modeling assumptions about repayment when the same macro effects in terms of whether or not people are going to be prepared to repay, whether they’re going to be repaying immediately, when it actually happens? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Q Like, how can you make that assumption if you can’t make assumptions about even the uptake on the program? MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. Well, I can tell you: In the pre-pandemic, pre-pause era, each month the Department of Education would collect about $6 billion worth of payments from borrowers. During the pause, believe it or not, a number of people are actually making payments voluntarily. And so, we’re actually collecting about $2 billion in payments. So that delta between what we would normally collect and what we’re collecting now is about $4 billion a month. When we restart, the assumption would be that we would — roughly speaking; these are estimates — start collecting that $4 billion again, with a bit of a discount, because, obviously, certain borrowers are going get relief, including some borrowers who are going to have their loans completely wiped out. But the main thing we have to understand here is that, today, we are going to — we’re collecting $2 billion a month in voluntary payments. And after the restart happens, we are going to be collecting something significantly above $2 billion a month from borrowers. And if you think about that, at a very basic level, that’s why there’s that deflationary impact from the restart. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And just a couple more. Q Just to follow up on the legal authority, I know you said that we should check with the Department of Education, but in terms of at least the way the administration has talked about it, you’ve touted the economy and how it’s doing much better under the President’s management of the pandemic. So how does that align with then using legal authority citing a pandemic emergency? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. I used to be a lawyer, but I’m not a lawyer anymore, so I don’t want to venture out, getting deep into the — into the legal authority here. And I would refer you to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and also to the Department of Education Office of General Counsel. But I will make the point that there is a concern that when payments resume in January, that that’s going to lead to an increase in financial distress among borrowers. And so, for example, if you look at — there’s a small subset of borrowers for particular reasons who are not subject to the payment pause, so they’ve been having to make their payments throughout the pandemic. And what you’ve seen is that those borrowers are in more financial distress, they’ve been having a harder time making payments on other debts that they owe, and so on. So the concern is that when you restart payments, are a subset of borrowers going to end up defaulting on their loans? Are they going to go into delinquency? And so, part of what the legal authority is being used to do here, in a targeted way, is to make sure that those borrowers who are at highest risk of distress after the restart happens, those are the people who are going to get the relief, because the legal authority gives the Secretary the ability to make sure that the pandemic and the emergency does not cause a net financial harm to those folks. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, two more. In the back, and then I’ll call you. Q Thank you. If you take a closer look at the White House factsheet that was released, the White House cites a construction worker who makes $38,000 a year as a potential candidate for this student loan relief. You also cite a $77,000-a-year-earning nurse. And that sounds great, but I’m wondering: Why did you structure this policy in a way that would provide up to $40,000 in debt for a married couple making up to $249,000? I mean, why include folks who have gone to post-grad, you know, law school or business school? Is that really bottom up, middle out? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, it is. You know, as we’ve made clear, nobody in the top 5 percent of incomes is going to get a single dollar under this proposal. And actually, we have very good data showing that folks even making in that range that we talked about — near the top of the income cutoff — are much more likely to be experiencing distress after repayment starts. There’s good data on it. Now, look, again, as Ambassador Rice said, we welcome having this debate. If you look at this chart, you can see that 87 percent of the dollars overall are going to people making under $75,000 a year. And zero dollars — zero percent — are going to anybody making over $125,000 in individual income. And just because I’ve seen some criticism from Republicans on this today, it’s instructive to compare that to what the Republican tax bill did in 2017. It’s basically the reverse: 15 percent of the benefits went to people making under $75,000 a year, and 85 percent went to people making over $75,000 a year. And if you zoom in even more on that, people making over $250,000 a year got nearly half of the benefits of the GOP tax bill and are getting zero dollars under our bill. So we think that this is a classic example of what the President talks about in “middle up” economics. It’s going to families that really need it. And the vast majority of it is going to people making under $75,000 a year. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Last question. Go ahead. Q So my question is: How did the administration come up with the $20,000 and $10,000 relief number? Was there some kind of calculation into what would be inflationary and what is actually going to make an impact? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Look, in terms of the Secretary’s decision and the President’s decision on this, there’s a number of factors that go into it. The President’s goal was to do something that he thought was fair, responsible, and consistent with his commitment to fiscal responsibility. And the conclusion was that following through on his campaign commitment, doing $10,000 for most borrowers, and then adding this additional $10,000 for Pell recipients, which, it should be noted — A couple of facts about Pell recipients: Almost all of them come from families that make under $60,000 a year. Half of them came from families that made under $30,000 a year. And targeting additional money to people who got Pell Grants also reflects the fact that when it comes to repaying your debt, part of what matters is your current income, but a big part of it too is what — how much wealth do you have, what assets can you rely upon. You know, a lot of borrowers can rely upon family wealth to help make some of those payments, especially as they’re starting out. Pell Grant recipients, because they come from families with lower wealth, can’t rely on that family wealth as much. In fact, some of them — many of them — are actually helping members of their family pay their other debts. So we thought this was a fair and equitable thing to do. It was fiscally responsible. And the combination of those factors is why we arrived at this ultimate outcome. Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, guys. Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you guys. All right. I have one quick thing at the top, and then we’ll get going with the rest of the briefing. So the last time I stood before you all here, on August 9th, average national gas prices were $4.03. Today, the average national prices are $3.88. The most common price at gas stations across the country today is $3.49. Prices have come down every single day since the last briefing. In fact, they’ve come down every single day this summer — over 10 straight weeks. This is the fastest decline in gas prices in over a decade, and it is saving families with two cars $120 per month on average. President Biden promised he would address Putin’s price hike at the pump, and he has. He’s releasing 1 million barrels of oil a day with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He brought together international partners to release an unprecedented amount of oil. And under President Biden’s leadership, U.S. oil production is up and on track to reach a record high. The President will continue to call on domestic and international oil producers and refiners to increase output so that prices can continue to come down. With that, go ahead, Aamer. Q Thank you. First, I just wanted to follow up on something that came up in Kirby’s gaggle this morning. He said that you have no damage assessment within the NSC going underway about — regarding the documents that were found in the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago. And, I guess, my question is: Why? Because from my understanding, there is an intelligence directive that calls for there to be a damage assessment to be conducted when there’s an actual or suspected breach of classified information. I understand not wanting to get involved in the Justice Department’s investigation, but why isn’t the administration assessing what potential damage may have come from these documents? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m just going to reiterate what you heard from my colleague. We’re just not going to comment on any of the contents of the ongoing, independent Justice Department investigation. Again — and I — you’ve heard this from me, you’ve heard this from others: When it comes to that, we would refer you to Department of Justice on that. Q I know. And, respectfully, I would just — I’m not asking you to comment on the Justice Department’s investigation. I’m asking you whether there is an assessment going on to just understand just what’s — what, if any, damage has been done to protect American national security interests? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, and I — I am answering your question. When it comes to any underlying materials or any conduct — contents of the ongoing investigation, we are just — the independent Department of Justice investigation — we’re just not going to comment on it. Q And, if I may, Utah just filed a lawsuit over the President’s decision to reinstate the boundaries of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase — the national monuments. Does this administration have any reaction to this lawsuit? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I’m not going to comment on the lawsuit from here. Okay. Q Yes, thank you. Q Does the Biden White House believe it’s ethical to raid the home of the top political opponent? Q I just wanted to ask about the airstrikes ordered by the President against Iranian-backed groups in Syria yesterday, and what impact, if any, that would have on Iranian nuclear negotiations. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so, the — the Syria — as you heard from CENTCOM today, these strikes were a direct response to attacks on ongoing threats against U.S. forces. So, we don’t — we do not seek escalation, as you heard from — from CENTCOM, but we remain prepared to respond to any ongoing threat. So, I just want to say that at the top. We took this action because the President determined it was in our national security interests to do so. He will continue to closely monitor the situation with his national security team. So that is something that we’re going to continue to do. As it relates to the JCPOA — to your question — you know, the President has said this — that his pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon — he wants to prevent that. That has been his pledge from — from the beginning. A nuclear-armed Iran would serve as an even greater threat to U.S forces, friends, and allies in the region. The President will use whatever means are necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The preferred course, of course — you’ve heard us say this from this podium many times; you’ve heard us say this — the President say this — is diplomacy. But it remains to be seen whether a deal is actually achievable. But that’s what we are — that’s what we’re going to work towards: a diplomacy effort. Whether or not there is a deal, the President’s commitment to protect U.S. personnel and confront Iran’s activities that jeopardize our people or our friends in the region is unwavering. And the nuclear deal has nothing to do with our readiness and ability to defend our people and our interests. And that’s going to be the prim- — the President’s primary focus. Q And one quick one on Ukraine — the most recently announced weapons package. I understand that those weapons have to be built; they’re not in a stockpile already. What is the range therefore, and kind of estimated time they could actually be delivered to Ukraine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s a great question. I think what you saw us — us announce — the $3 billion from folks — for folks who are not tracking, which — a new package, which is the largest one — one — at once tranche that we’ve announced from this administration. We’ve — have announced approximately $13.6 billion — just to give a little bit of context there — of security assistance for Ukraine since the beginning of this administration, back in January of 2021 — an unprecedented amount that is roughly three times what Ukraine’s annual military budget is. But so, to your point, this is through the Ukrainian security assistance. This announcement represents the beginning of a contracting process through which DOD will acquire additional capabilities to provide to Ukraine’s armed forces. This is different than the presidential down — drawdown authorities that you’ve heard us announce. So, it means that some of this acquiring Ukraine will take some time, to your point. I don’t have a specific timeline for this. I would refer you to the Department of Defense. But this announcement is part of our efforts to ensure Ukraine’s military can continue to defend its people and also to defend its freedom and its de- — defend its right to be a sovereign country. Go ahead. Q A federal judge today blocked the administration’s ability to enforce the guidance related to emergency services — abortion where it is — in states where it’s banned or restricted. I think you’ve got three more states that are adding new restrictions via trigger laws at some point this week. When you look around at the environment right now, where is the administration in terms of potentially new actions or what the President is thinking as this seems to progress? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you know, the President has taken some bold action since Dobbs. A decision was made back in June of 20- — June 24th, I believe, so just a couple months ago. And you know, we’ve been very clear, as you look at what’s — what is — what happened last night in Texas. Republican legislators are working to roll back the freedoms of Americans that they’ve relied on for a half a century — a half a century. And it’s more and more clear that this is against the will of a majority of Americans, and we cannot forget that. Women across the country are making their voices heard. They’re making their voices really loud and clear to reclaim the rights that were taken from them by the Supreme Court. And so, here’s the thing that we’re doing, what the President is doing, and what congressional Democrats are doing is listening to women, to the American — to a majority of Americans, and we’re committed to restoring protections of Roe. But again, what we’re seeing from the other side is — is extreme. It is “ultra MAGA,” as you’ve heard the President say. It is — it is, you know, it’s including banning abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. That is what is happening here when you look at these pieces of legislation just across the country. And as I mentioned, last night, a Texas district court affirmed that medical providers can deny lifesaving and health-preserving care for women, even if they are suffering from hemorrhaging or life-threatening hypertension. That is what we’re seeing. And tomorrow, five new abortion bans go into effect in Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas that will criminalize abortion, in some cases without exceptions for rape or incest. Texas’s law is extreme. That is — that — it seeks to punish healthcare providers with life in prison. That’s what they’re talking about: punishing healthcare providers with life in prison. So, Americans need to know that these are our fundamental rights that were taken away from us by this Dobbs decision, including the right to contraception and marriage equality are at risk. Let’s not forget what we heard from Judge Thomas when that decision was put down — was announced. That’s why people across the country need to make — make sure that their voices are being heard. And that’s what we’re going to continue to do. That’s what the President is going to do, along with congressional Democrats. Go ahead. Q Thank you. On student loans: One of my colleagues asked if these measures are likely to raise prices because it makes it easier for some students who are maybe more willing to take on debt if they know they’re only going to have to pay a minimum amount or if it’s going to be forgiven. And Ambassador Rice said that’s something the Department of Education is going to be on the lookout for. So I’m wondering if that’s a tacit acknowledgement that, yes, these policies could cause tuition rates to rise in the near future even further than they already have? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, this is — this is something that abassador [sic] — Ambassador Rice talked about, as you just stated. She was asked this question a couple of times, and she said, “We have to see.” Right? We have to see. This is something that the Department of Education is going to look into. In particular with — with — when you talk about colleges potentially raising prices, that’s something that the Department of Education is looking at and is going to crack down on. Q But it seems like it’s something you’re preparing for, right? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I mean — look, this is — again, this is something that the Department of Education is aware of. This is something that we’re monitoring. But it doesn’t take away from what this means, from what we — what the President announced today. This is going to help people making less than $125,000. That matters. This is going to help 90 percent of what — of what the President announced — of this package that the President announced is going to help Americans — middle-class Americans who are making — who are making less than $75,000 a year. This is giving those Americans a little bit of breathing room. Let’s forget what — let’s not forget what has happened the last couple of years, if you think about the pandemic, if you think about how people are still recovering from the pandemic. We’re trying to make sure that people still have a little bit of breathing room, especially as the pause is going to be lifted — as the President announced, as you heard from — from the ambassador — at the end of this year. So we want to make sure, again, that we are focused on the middle class, that we are focused on the economy and helping folks from the bottom up and the middle out. This has been part of the President’s economic policy. If you look just across the board: the American Rescue Plan; if you look at the bipartisan law — Bipartisan Infrastructure Law; if you look at what we’ve done these past several weeks — several weeks with Congress — with Democrats in Congress, the Inflation Reduction Act. All of this is part of making sure that we don’t leave people behind, people who have been left behind for generations. Q So is that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So that’s our focus. Q Is the thought process: Tackle what you can address now, and if that causes college to be more expensive in the future, that’s something you’ll address later, if and when (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, this is som- — again, this is something that the Department of Education is going to be zero — zero-focused on — laser-focused on, and make sure that, you know, we crack down on those particular issues that you — that particular issue that you just brought up. But again, this is — this is a big deal what’s happening. This is a big deal for so many Americans who — who’s — who go into debt because they’re not able to — you know, because they have to pay these loans. And so, this, again, will give them a little bit more of a breathing room, which is something that you hear from the President every time he talks about the economy and what his focus is on. Go ahead. Q Karine, on that note though, I guess what prevents the cycle of debt from continuing? Right? Because there will be students, no doubt, this coming year who are going to take on more loans. And I guess I’m — I’m still confused as to how the cycle of debt is really broken. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, when you think about — let — when you think about — and this was in our factsheets — which I think is really important to state, is how much — how much relief this will provide to 43 million borrowers, including canceling full remaining balance for roughly 20 million borrowers. Like, that matters. That matters to borrowers and their family — Q What are they doing for this next crop of people who are in high school right now, and going in and it’s sort of like there’s no solutions for them. Correct? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Like, well — well, look, I think what — You’re talking about the future. Is that what you’re talking about? Q I am talking about the future — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) You’re talking about — Q — yeah, but that’s the current. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q That’s the current. This is retroactive — right? — for people who — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, well — well — well, let me — well, here’s the thing: there are things — the President’s plan also provides relief to future borrowers and current borrowers by cutting monthly payments for undergraduate loans in half. Like, that is part of the plan. Q Yeah, that — but that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, we talk about 10,000 — Q — cuts the payment but not the principal, and that’s what we’re getting at, is it’s actually making it easier for people take on more debt. And there’s nothing in this program that stops schools from — I mean, just anecdotally, my school raised tuition from the time I was a freshman to the time I was a senior. My scholarship didn’t go with it. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q So that meant I had to take out private loans to cover that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, that’s — and, again, that is something that the Department of Education is closely looking at. That is what the — that is what the Ambassador was saying, right? This is something — when it comes to schools doing that, that is something that the Department of Education is going to crack down on. So, again, we’ll — we’ll refer you to them. That is clearly something that we are monitoring and is important as well. You make a very good point; it is not lost on us. Again, Department of Education — I’m just going to repeat what the — what the Ambassador said — is looking into that. They’re monitoring that. They’re going to crack down on that and have a plan to do that. And so that — that is in their wheelhouse to deal with that particular issue. Q Then why is the — one more question — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure. Q — which is: I do know that there have been concerns that that the plan could be struck down in court. This is even something that the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way came out saying. And my question is: For you all, what preparation is there into thinking people will apply for this program and they could be stuck in some legal limbo? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look — and Ambassador Rice talked about this — that this is what we — the legal authority that we took is pretty much consistent with the HEROES Act — right? — which is what she talked about, which authorizes the Secretary of Education to take certain actions he believes they are necessary to ensure a borrower is not — not placed in a worse position financially due to a national emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. So that is the act — that is the legal authority that was given to the Secretary of Education to do this. We are confident in that legal authority. And any other further specific questions on that, I would refer you to Department of Education. Q In the back? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Matt. I haven’t called on you. And then I’ll come back to you. Q Thank you, Karine. I just wanted to return real quick on the dam- — potential damage assessment related to the documents and ask you — I mean, it sounds like you’re not commenting, period. I mean, is that right? Or are — I’m trying to figure out, like, if there’s a possibility that there is an assessment going on and you’re just not willing to say it or is there no assessment going on. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I cannot comment on — on it at all. I — all I can say is: At this time, when it comes to these underlying materials, when it comes to the contents of the ongoing investigation, this is something that — it is an independent investigation that the Department of Justice is doing. And I would refer you to them. Q But it would seem logical that the administration, for national security reasons, would want to assess whether something was breached, separate from an investigation into whether that was illegal. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — I — no, I mean, Matt, I get your question. I — I hear it. I get your question. I hear — Aamer just asked the same question, and I think there might have been a follow-up after that. It’s — we just are not going to comment on the contents of the — of this ongoing, independent investigation that the Department of Justice is doing. We’re not going to comment on the underlying materials at this time. We’re just not going to do that. Q A follow-up to that? Q Just another quick question. Tomorrow, Ukraine’s Independence Day. John Kirby said earlier that President Biden would be calling President Zelenskyy. Is there anything else that the administration is doing? Obviously, this comes right after the $3 billion in aid that you outlined. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q But I don’t know if there’s anything else that the administration tomorrow — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well — Q — to mark that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, the $3 billion of assistance that we announced, which is the largest one — one — at one time assistance that we’ve provided, I think shows our commitment, our long term — this is a long-term commitment to Ukraine to continue to fight for their freedom, and bravely, as they have been doing for the past six months. As you heard from my colleague: Yes, the President is going to — to have a conversation with President Zelenskyy, which he’s had multiple conversations with him in the past several months. There’s been an open line of communication with not just the President Zelenskyy, but also his team in the government. And we’ll likely have a readout, and we’ll share more of that conversation. But the President wanted to make sure he touched base with President Zelenskyy directly. And that’s what’s going to happen tomorrow. Go ahead. Q One in the back, Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I’ll come to the back. But go ahead. And then I’ll come to you. Q Thank you, Karine. My colleagues have made the point — and actually Democratic Congressman Chris Pappas issued a statement — to the effect that this plan regarding college debt doesn’t address the underlying cost of college. So, kind of honing in on a question that my colleagues have asked: Is the President ready to do more when it comes to addressing the underlying and ever-increasing cost of college? Is he willing to work with Congress? Is this something he’s going to address more in the future? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, he’s talked about — he’s talked about that in the past, right? He’s talked about what he’s — he wants to make sure that we lower cost — right? — of college for students. Look, since 1980, the total cost of both four-year public and four-year private college has nearly tripled. Even after accounting for inflation, federal support has not kept up. Pell Grants once covered nearly 80 percent of the cost of a four-year public college degree for students from working families, but now only covered a third. The typical undergraduate student with loans now graduates with nearly $25,000 in debt. And so this is something that is going to help deal with that specific issue. Look, the President has done — has done — has taken multiple actions. We’re looking at today’s actions, but if you think about the $32 billion that he was able to do to give debt relief to more than 1.6 million borrowers, that is something that he has done in his — this administration. That is historic. That was a historic effort. This is part of it with the — if you think about the pause, how much that has saved Americans who have not been — who have not had to pay a dollar — you heard that from his speech today — of repayment since — since he’s got into office, which started before this President. This President just continued the efforts. So that matters. That is also important. So we just want to make sure that is clear as well. You know, this is — this is going to help millions and millions of people who — you know, you think about the Pell Grant that was discussed a moment ago; you can get — if you — if you have a recipient of the Pell Grant and you are a bowor- — borrower, of course, you can — that goes up to $20,000. And that matters, because people who are on the Pell Grant, they come from households that makes less than $60,000. That matters. Half of that are folks in a household that makes less than $30,000. So all of these efforts are going to matter. They’re going to have an effect. And what you heard from my colleagues who were just here moments ago — they’re going to encourage people to take — to take that — to take this opportunity to help them with those efforts. I’m going to move — I’m just going to move around. I’m just going move around. Go ahead. Q Thank you. I have two questions. In recent months, there have been increasing instances of vandalism of Gandhi statue. Two of them have been in New York, and one of them have been treated as a hate crime. Is the President aware about it? Because both the President and Vice President have often quoted Mahatma Gandhi’s quotes during their speeches, and they have said they’re great fans of Mahatma Gandhi. What is the President’s message to them? Because these fringe elements are openly commenting on social media for vandalism of Gandhi’s statue. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, is — the enduring message of truth and non-violence serves as an inspiration. As you said, the President has spoken to this directly and specifically. Any act of vandalism should be condemned in the strongest terms. I’ll refer you to the local law enforcement for more on any investigation or actions that may be taken from that, from — from their point of view. The United States is committed to ensuring the safety of security in Indian and — and other foreign counterparts. So we are — something that we condemned — any acts of violence. You’ve heard us say this many times before from this podium. And again, you know, Mahatma Gandhi is an inspiration. And that’s — and you’ve heard that directly from the President many times. Q One more question. In the aftermath of Russian invasion of Ukraine, a lot of people are saying that the India-U.S. relationship is drifting apart. Do you believe that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I think you asked me about the Indian independence, and we had a pretty strong response to how we see our relationship with India. It’s a — it’s indispensable. We see — we see the partners as indispensable partners. And the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership is grounded in our shared commitment to the advancement of a free and open Indo-Pacific region — you’ve heard the President say this — the rule of law and the promotion of human freedom and dignity. We are confident in our relationship. In the years ahead, we’ll continue to stand together to defend the rules-based order; foster greater peace, prosperity, and security for our people; advance a free and open Indo-Pacific; and together address the challenges we face around the world together. So we see this as a commitment, as a continued partnership. Q But do you have defenses of India on the issue of Ukraine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we’ve been very clear on where we stand with Ukraine, and we just announced a $3 billion additional security assistance to the country to make sure that the people are continuing to fight for their freedom. We have been — it’s not just us. You see that with our allies and partners. You see a very unified NATO that — and they are unified because of the leadership of this President. You’re seeing that NATO is going to expand by two more countries. So this shows the strength in the West and how much we have come together in supporting Ukraine. And so we’ve been very clear on where we stand. It is important to make sure that when a country is fighting for their freedom, fighting for their democracy, for their sovereignty, that we support that. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. About the student loans — how can the country afford such a massive handout? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, well, you know, Ambassador Rice said that she’s happy to have that discussion; I’m happy to have this discussion as well. Look, if you look at what this President has done, if you look at the end of this fis- — coming end of the fiscal year, $1.7 trillion that we have deduce- — brought down the deficit. That matters. That matters. And if you look at the Inflation Reduction Act, it’s going to add another $300 billion going to bring down the deficit again. Q And might spend $300 to $900 billion extra. So you can do that and not — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But here’s the thing — Q — increase the deficit? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s the thing: What we are trying to do here — we are doing this responsibly. You heard directly from the President — this is something that is going to be important for middle-class Americans. When you think about 90 percent of the folks who are — who are going to actually benefit from this are making $75,000 or less, and you think about what Republicans did just a couple of years ago, they — they signed off on a $2 trillion — $2 trillion tax cut for the wealthy and did not provide any way to pay for that. Q Who’s paying for this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And that — again, here’s what we have done. Here’s what — Q But you’re talking a lot about how much it might cost, it might not cost. Who is paying for this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What we are saying is the work that this administration has done, the work that the Democrats and Congress has done is actually there. And you see that the $1.7 trillion deficit — in deficit deduction that you see is going to benefit us in being able to do something for the middle class — Q I understand. But you can’t just — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — to do something for the middle class. Q But when you forgive — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This is about doing something for people who make less than $125,000. $1.7 trillion — that’s what we’ve been able to do. Q But when you forgive debt, you’re not just disappearing debt. So who is paying for this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But — and then I’ll give you the second part: We lifted the pause, right? We’re going to lift the pause at the end of this year, which is going to matter — right? — which is going to offset a lot of what — what we’re doing as well. When you think about the — the $4 billion that are going — that’s going to go back into — as revenue back into this process of folks paying — paying — right? — their college tuition, that matters as well. So we’re doing this in a smart way. We’re doing this in a way that’s going to be effective. We’re doing in this a way that keeps the President’s promise on giving people who need some breathing room — who need some breathing room. Q But somebody is paying for it. Who? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just — I just laid out — I just laid out for you — Q Who? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, Peter, I just laid out for you how we’re seeing this process and why this matters. Q Is it wealthy Americans? Is it corporations? Who is paying? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I just laid out — Q Somebody has got to pay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just — I just laid out: Because of the work that we have done in the economy, because of the American Rescue Plan, because of the Inflation Reduction Act, and because all of this work that this President has done is actually — has brought down our deficit by $1.7 trillion, unlike what Republicans did when they added to our deficit $2 trillion and did not care at all or thought about how this was going to be paid for. They did not actually put in a process or thought — think about how we’re going to do this in a smart way. This is not how this administration is doing it. Again, we are happy to continue to have this conversation. But I’m going to move around. Go ahead, April. Q Thank you. Karine — Q Karine — I’m sorry, she said “April.” Karine, so what I need to find out — the school system for 2022-2023 is already beginning to see cracks. School teachers — there are school teacher shortages in some states. There are attacks already on some kids who are in the LGBTQ community. There’s a concern about crime. Is the President working with the Secretary of Education, like he did on the student loan debt forgiveness, to talk about trying to ensure the safety, the equity, and just the success of the 2023-20- — 2022-20- — -2023 school year? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, this is something that the Secretary has talked about — Secretary Cardona, specifically. He’s been on a few networks and was asked recently — I believe this past Sunday, some Sunday shows — and asked about the upcoming school year, was asked about teachers, was asked about the equity piece. If you think about the American Rescue Plan and you think about what that did — the billions of dollars that that provided to make sure that school districts were able to rehire teachers, especially what was ha- — what we saw was happening with the pandemic where we — teachers left — left the field, where we saw schools shut down because of the pandemic. And because of the work that this President did, because of the work that congressional Democrats did, we were able to get those schools open with — jurisdictions and school districts were able to hire teachers. And that matters. That is important. We’re continuing — you’ve heard this from Secretary Cardona: He’s continuing — he’s going to continue to work with local — local governments, local schools to make sure that the American Rescue Plan — the monies that are there to hire those teachers are being used. And so that’s one piece, right? That’s the teachers. And also, you know, the President has put forth billions of dollars — more than $300 billion — from the American Rescue Plan to make sure that there is safety that pe- — that communities who were able to hire police officers, to make sure that there was some protection, that they felt safe — had safe communities. Q But what about the piece — the attack on students who are in the LGBTQ community — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, that’s — Q — from telling them they can’t come to school or not feeding them school lunches? Is that a rights issue as well? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we — first of all, we condemn that. You know this President. You know how this President feels about inequities, how he — he’s been very clear about making sure that we protect young people, especially in the LGBTQ community. We have spoken out about that many times. This is something that Secretary Cardona is working with, with — with local schools and he has talked about as well. So this is, clearly, an issue that we’re monitoring. We’ll continue to monor [sic] — monitor, and we will continue to condemn those types of practices or behavior. I’m going to just go around to people I haven’t called on yet. Go ahead, Dan. Q Hi, Karine. I have two questions. The state of California is scheduled, tomorrow, to say that you can’t buy new electric car — new gasoline cars in — starting in 2035. What is the White House’s reaction to that? Do you guys support that — the spirit — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that one more time? Q The state of California said, after 2035, they’re not going to let you buy new gasoline cars. That news is breaking tomorrow. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, so I have not seen that report, so I need to actually take a look, talk to our team so we can provide you a more — a clear — you know, a clear response. So I don’t want to get ahead of — of what the team might say on that. Q What do you say to Jason Furman, who was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama White House? He tweeted today. He was — he and Larry Summers were, you know, early warning beacons on inflation last year. He tweeted, “Pouring roughly half a trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning is reckless. Doing it while going beyond one campaign promise…and breaking another…is even worse.” How do you respond to that criticism (inaudible) with — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re talking about the student — Q On the student loan. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — the student loan? Look — Q How do you respond to that criticism from your own party? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, Bharat kind of talked about this. You know, the way we see it is a number of independent experts, from Moody’s Analysts to the Economic Policy Institute, agree that restarting student loan payments around the same time we provide targeted relief will not have any meaningful effect on inflation. That’s because collecting more payments by ending the moratorium will mean borrowers will pull back on spending in other areas. It will have a deflationary effect. That’s the way that experts have seen this as well. This will more than outweigh any limited positive wealth effect of targeted debt cancellation. That’s why the Economic Policy Institute has said that that claim — that canceling debt is inflationary — is “pr

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon. Q Good afternoon. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Happy Friday. We’re excited to have Deputy Director of the National Economic Policy [Council] Bharat Ramamurti here with us again today to discuss the student loan announcements this week and how they will benefit working middle-class families. He’ll have about 20, 25 minutes. I know the in-town pool is going to have to leave about 1:45-ish, so he’s going to stay with us as long as possible to take as many questions as he can. And — and then, after that, clearly, you guys have to leave, and we have to also continue our day. And with that, Bharat. Okay, thank you again. MR. RAMAMURTI: Hey, good afternoon. Good to see you all. Before taking questions, I want to just talk a little bit more about the economic impact of the administration’s student loan plan. This plan will lift a large weight off of tens of millions of middle-class Americans, peoples who — people who came, by and large, from working families and who are working class now: teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, members of the military, and more. By lifting this weight, we are not only benefiting them and their families, we are benefiting the communities that they live in and the economy as a whole. So, for example, there’s good evidence that student loan debt makes it harder for people to start new small businesses. These relief actions mean that more middle-class Americans can open more businesses in their communities. That means more job opportunities in the years to come. Student loan debt also makes it harder for people to buy a home. These actions will mean that more middle-class Americans may be able to finally afford a down payment, buy a home in the years to come, and start building wealth that they can pass along to their kids. As the President has said, his core economic plan is to strengthen the middle class because that helps everyone. And these actions are targeted right at America’s middle class. Nearly 90 percent of people receiving the relief are making under $75,000 a year. The extra money for Pell recipients helps provide additional relief to people who are more likely to have less family wealth to rely upon. And when the President says that he’s committed to growing the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, he’s serious. That’s why, over the course of the last year and a half, we’ve been able to provide support to small businesses, support to people facing the risk of eviction or foreclosure, to people at risk of going hungry, and more. It’s why the President’s infrastructure bill is focused on creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, nearly 90 percent of which won’t require a college degree. And it’s the reason why our economy has roared back and the unemployment rate now stands at a historic low, even as the economies of other leading countries are faltering. So this plan is working. And the student loan relief is the next part in it. With that, I also want to address an issue that I know has been coming up recently, which is the cost of this proposal. Our estimate is that the debt relief proposal will reduce average annual receipts in the student loan program by about $24 billion a year over the next 10 years. So the way to think about this is that because we are providing debt relief — reducing the outstanding balance for some people, eliminating it for other people — that means we’re not going to be collecting certain amount of payments that we otherwise would have been collecting. And that total is about $24 billion a year on average over the next 10 years. So let’s put that $24 billion in context. That represents 1.5 percent of the deficit reduction that we are projecting for this fiscal year before the announcement. And it is far less than the $350 billion-plus that we’ve already done in PPP loan forgiveness since last July. Now, consistent with longstanding budget practices and consistent with the comments that I made on Wednesday here, the official budgetary score will be produced by the Education Department and the Office of Management and Budget in the coming weeks. And, actually, the Office of Management and Budget is going to be putting out more detail on this process and how it’s slightly different than the preliminary estimate that I provided later today. So, with that, happy to take questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. All right, guys. We’re going to take as many as possible. Go ahead. Q Good morning. My first question is — thanks for the number — why was this a number that we didn’t have the past couple of days? And then, this is — this modeling is based off of — you said 75 percent of people taking advantage of the program. If 75 percent of people — if 25 percent of people aren’t taking advantage of the program, do you consider that a flaw in the program? Would you consider the program a success with that number? If you could talk us through those two. MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. So, look, we — we have to make an assumption about how many people take advantage of the program in order to provide this preliminary estimate. The reason that we chose 75 percent is that it’s, broadly speaking, in line with the take-up rate of the most similar Education Department initiative that we could find. In other words, there was another Education Department initiative in the past that was supposed to provide targeted debt relief to a set of borrowers who were eligible for it. And roughly 75 percent of the borrowers in that particular program took advantage of it. Now, we are hoping to get as close to 100 percent as possible. But we — you know, for the purposes of putting out a preliminary estimate on this, we had to choose a number. And we felt like 75 percent was the most defensible. As for why you’re getting it today, you guys asked us for it, so we’re providing you with information. Q And the other — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go –- oh, go ahead. Q So the way you’re explaining where — how this is being paid for, how — you just went through this is $24 billion per year. Are you considering that there was a bit of a — like a — we’re trying to get — are you still considering this self-paid for — right? — because mitigation and compensating it for other — in other ways are not necessarily having internal paysfor for this bill. So are you still phrasing this as “it pays for itself,” or are you phrasing it in a different way? MR. RAMAMURTI: What I would say is that, yes, this is paid for; it is paid for and far more by the amount of deficit reduction that we’re already on track for this year. Like I said, we’re on track for $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction this year. That means, practically speaking, compared to the previous year, 1.7 trillion more dollars are coming into the Treasury than are going out. And we’re using a portion of that — a very small portion of it — to provide relief to middle-class families, consistent with the President’s plan. So, yes, we consider it fully paid for. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Peter. Q Bharat, thanks for doing this. MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. Q The median household income in this country right now is roughly $67,000, which means that — this is going to go for those up to $125,000. Those individuals are already making, individually, almost twice the median household income in this country. What do you say to those critics who say you’re not just helping the middle class — though I understand 90 percent will be making under $75,000 — you’re still helping what is a smaller percentage, but a significant percentage, of individuals who most Americans would view as making a lot of money? MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. So, look, I — you know, in our view, this, as you noted, nearly 90 percent of the benefits go to people making under $75,000 a year. And our view is that the folks that you mentioned — under $125,000 — they are middle-class families. And — and I think that they would widely be considered as such. You know — and, look, I want to be totally clear about this — about this point — Q But, I guess, $125,000 or $250,000 — would you view that as a middle-class family — MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. Q — a family that makes under $250,000? MR. RAMAMURTI: Absolutely. Look, the key cutoff here is that nobody in the top 5 percent, whether they’re — in individual income or household income — is going to get a dollar. And, look, it’s extremely consistent with what the President has said on the tax side. Now, on tax side, he said that nobody making under $400,000 a year should face a tax increase. So the economic story of this country over the last couple of decades, if we’re going to look at it, is that there has been a relatively small sliver of folks who have done extremely well — the top 1 percent, top 5 percent or so. And our goal was to make sure that people below that — the bottom 95 percent — get a little bit more relief, get a little bit more breathing room. And that’s exactly what this policy does. But, by the way, targeted even more narrowly than that — primarily, overwhelmingly, to people making under $75,000 a year. Q And then to follow up, if I can quickly, the White House, yesterday, was pretty vocal on Twitter, which it isn’t always, criticizing some of the critics of this program — Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz among them — saying how much money they received in PPP loans in the past. I think you would agree that there is a difference between a loan program, as it existed, which was conceived to be — the PPP program that was conceived to be forgivable, assuming you spent a majority, I think, 80 percent on the payroll, as opposed to these loans, which were for individuals with the expectation when they made money, they’d be paying it back. So is that a fair comparison, and why? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, we absolutely think it’s a fair comparison, and here’s why: So, you know, since last July, we have forgiven, under the statutory terms of the PPP program, more than $350 billion worth of loans. Right? Those are loans that the government has forgiven, turned into turn into grants. And those are loans, by the way, of up to $10 million per business owner. Now, look, we believe that providing support to small businesses is the right thing to do. We didn’t design PPP. Maybe we would have designed it a little bit differently if we were in charge. But, broadly speaking, providing support to small business is a priority of the President. But, look, has any Republican in the last year stood up and said, “Inflation is really high. You guys should stop providing this loan forgiveness to PPP recipients. You should slow it down because it –” or “You should change the rules, because it’s unfair that these people should get up to $10 million in grants”? No, in fact, it’s the opposite. The pressure that we’ve gotten from Republicans on the Hill has consistently been “Do this faster. Make it easier for people to get forgiveness.” So our view is: Why is there a double standard here? Why is it, from the perspective of Republicans, great to forgive a loan of up to $10 million to a business owner, but if we want to provide $10,000 or $20,000 in loan relief to a teacher or a bus driver or a nurse, all of a sudden, it’s socialism? That’s — that’s what doesn’t compute, from our view. We don’t — we don’t think that that’s consistent. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Justin. Q Thanks. I was wondering if you could talk about the $24 billion number, because it’s a little different when you guys canceled the ITT or Corinthian, you know, we were given a lump sum of the total amount. So I’m wondering if it is fair to extrapolate this to say that you believe $240 billion in loans will be canceled? Or, if not, what are the underlying assumptions that goes to the 24? Right? Are you kind of cutting out — are you assuming economic growth that will offset some of it? Are you cutting out folks who would have defaulted on their loans but wouldn’t — wouldn’t repay? Does this — I think it doesn’t include the other Education Department rules that would have been included, so can you just kind of get us to — MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. Q — that number, and if there is a topline number? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, so, look, this is a cash flow estimate, which basically says, you know, there’s a subsection of borrowers who are going to get relief under this proposal. We estimate that 75 percent of them are going to take advantage of the relief that they are offered. And if that debt is cancelled, that means that, you know, if they were scheduled to make $400 worth of payments a year for the next 10 years, that cash flow is no longer going to come in to the — to the government. You know, it’s that — it’s that straightforward. Now, as the OMB item that’s going to come out later is going to describe, there’s some really key differences between what we are doing, which is a preliminary estimate, and the more complicated and, frankly, more precise score that is required by federal law. And to give you a few examples, number one, you know, under federal law, to do a budget estimate of this, you have to take the net present value of all of the payments that are — that are forgone. That estimate is going to look at some really important technical implementation decisions that the Department of Education is going to have to make. So, for example, if you’re a borrower, you have multiple loans over $10,000. Well, if you get $10,000, in relief, which of these loans is going to get cancelled? It depen- — it matters for the — for the cash flow. That’s the kind of more sophisticated, drilling-down type of analysis that’s going to happen as part of that process, consistent with our — with budget scoring. But in an effort to provide you all with more information and a ballpark, that’s what we’re doing here. Q And just because I have you right now and Jay Powell spoke earlier today, he said that, you know, the Fed was likely going to continue to pursue interest rate hikes but that it could result in pain, both in a slower economy and job losses. Obviously, inflation is a major concern, and that’s what the Fed is looking at here. But the President has not only said that the Fed is independent but he has sort of endorsed their vision. And if their vision results in job losses and an economic slowdown, has the President’s opinion of that changed in any way? MR. RAMAMURTI: Well, I’m not going to answer that hypothetical, but I will say that we have great respect for the independence of the Federal Reserve. I’m not going to comment directly on Chair Powell’s comments. But there’s been a lot of good data released about the economy, including this morning, that, to us, gives us a lot of hope about the future trajectory of where things are going and how middle-class families are going to be doing. So, for example, PCE, which is a measure of inflation, came out this morning. In fact, it’s the one that the Federal Reserve prefers to the CPI. And what PCE said is that prices fell last year 0.1 percent, and at the same time, incomes increased. So that tells a good story about the state of the economy. The University of Michigan put out its consumer sentiment survey this morning. Consumer sentiment is up quite a bit over the last month, and consumer inflation expectations are down. So again, all good signs there. And, of course, if you look back to some of the data releases a little bit earlier, for July, we had 528,000 new jobs. CPI, which came out in July, that was flat, so no price increases in July. And, of course, everyone — everyone’s favorite measure of the economy, gas prices, are down over $1 since their peak. So, a lot of good news in the economy. We’re going to let the Fed do its work. And our focus here is to support households, keep our eye on the ball on inflation, and hopefully come out the other side with a — with steady and stable growth, which is what the President has said is his goal. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Matt. And I’ll come to the back, too. Q I had two sort of technical questions, but thankfully you’re here to answer some technical questions. The first is: You guys have argued about the one point trillion dollars in deficit reduction. It sounds like it’s hard to get to like a $240 billion figure over 10 years with this new estimate. But is it fair to say that that $1.7 trillion becomes 1.5, or it becomes a lower figure given that it’s not paid for? Is that a fair way for us to sort of think about what you guys are doing? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. That’s a fair way of thinking about it. Another way of thinking about it is that we go from the single-largest deficit reduction in the history of this country to the single-largest deficit reduction in the history of this country. (Laughter.) Q So the second question is about whether you guys have estimates. You’ve argued that this is potentially a deflationary move. Do you have any estimates in terms of how much money will start to come in come January and how much money is going to be not coming in? And to articulate a little bit more of how you guys are arriving at that conclusion. MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, we — we’ve looked at those numbers, and they informed our view that we put out on Wednesday — that we view that the impact of restarting payments and providing relief are largely going to offset each other. And there’s different assumptions about, again, as we — as we’ve covered, there are different assumptions that go into figuring out exactly how much is that going to mean. But in our — in our mind, with a pretty broad range — range of assumptions that are going to largely offset. And there have been a host of independent experts who have said the same thing. In fact, Goldman Sachs put out an analysis of this proposal. And they said quite clearly that they felt that restarting payments and providing targeted relief would actually be disinflationary. In other words, more money would be coming into the government than going out in the short term, which would help further — further our efforts to bring down inflation. Q But, I guess, if you guys are saying $24 billion is the estimate for what won’t come in per year, is there an estimate for next year once you kick on — once people start paying? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Q Is it $30 billion is coming in — MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Q — and $24 billion is not? Or — MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. I mean, one way to think about it is this: So we’ve had a student loan pause in place now for over two years. No federal borrowers were being required to make any payments. People are voluntarily making payments. So we’re actually collecting, roughly speaking, $2 billion a month in payments voluntarily. Under normal time, so pre-pause, we were collecting about $6 billion in payments a month from student loan borrowers. So the difference between those two is $4 billion. If we turn the loans back on without making any — any other changes, roughly speaking — because things have changed in the world in the last two years — roughly speaking, we would expect to collect about $4 billion a month in addition to what we’re collecting right now. Right? So, roughly speaking, $48 billion coming into the government that wouldn’t have been coming in before. As you can sort of piece together, if the average annual cost of this is $24 billion, that means that on net, about $20- to $24 billion is coming into the government, even after we do the relief. Right? Now, again, that’s not — there’s some play in those numbers, but I just want to give you a general sense of how we’re doing the math there. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Two just, like, brass tack questions — people are trying to navigate this still. MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. Q We got this new information today that the form is maybe available for folks who think they’re eligible in mid- October. It’s going to take about four to six weeks — MR. RAMAMURTI: Yep. Q — for that to be processed. So can you guys guarantee to folks that if they are on time and they put in their application in mid-October, they will definitely see their balance shrink the appropriate amount — MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Q — before repayments have to be due again? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Q And then just another sort of question, too. So a lot of confusion. If you recently zeroed out your balance in the last few months, can you request a refund and then still apply to get some of this forgiveness? MR. RAMAMURTI: Right. All right, so let me — on your first question, let me just provide a little bit of detail, because I want to make sure that people get the full story here. So the application will be available by early October. In the meantime, borrowers can go to StudentAid.gov, which has been up now for the last 48 hours, and they can provide their email address so they can get notified when that application goes live. Once the borrower completes the application, they can expect relief within four to six weeks. So borrowers are advised to apply by roughly November 15th in order to receive relief before the payment pause expires on December 31st. And, of course, the Department of Education will continue to process applications as they’re received, even if the pa- — even after the pause expires on December 31st. So one more point here, which is that we encourage everyone who thinks that they’re eligible to go to the website and go to the application when it’s available and fill it out. But as we noted during the announcement, there’s actually 8 million people — 8 million borrowers — that’s about 20 percent of the borrowers — for whom the Education Department already has data about their income on file. And if those people qualify based on the income on file, they will actually get relief automatically. So I would refer you to the Education Department for any other questions about that and your question about refunds. I would refer you to them. Q So if they apply — right? — MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Q — when the application is available — MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Q — they should be good to go — MR. RAMAMURTI: Yes. Q — before December 31st? MR. RAMAMURTI: Four to six weeks after they submit the application. So, yes, in our view, if you submit by early to mid-November, you should get your relief before the restart happens at the end of December. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Thanks. I wanted to ask for a second about the legal justification for this program. You’re using a 2003 law to justify why COVID is a national emergency and why student relief — or debt relief is needed. What’s your response to critics that say that that’s a stretch in the law? And do you plan or do different agencies that are involved here plan to put out more legal justification for why this is okay? MR. RAMAMURTI: Well, look, again, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t want to get into too much of the legal nitty-gritty here. But what I can tell you is that both the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and the General Counsel’s Office of the Department of Education have looked at the text of the statute and believe that the action that the Secretary took and that the administration took here is legally justified. There’s more detail available in some of the memos that they’ve written. And you — I would recommend that you talk to them about it. But — but the President was clear from the beginning that he did not want to move forward on this unless it was clear that it was legally available to him. And, you know, one of the first things that he did when he came to office was asked for that legal opinion and got the answer that, yes, options were available to him that were legally permissible under that — under that law. And it’s worth noting, by the way, that law that you’re talking about is the exact same legal authority that the Secretary of Education has been using since 2020 to impose a pause on student loan payments for 45 million borrowers. And that has not been challenged in court. It has not been found improper by a court. It’s the same statute that the previous administration used and that we’ve used, that we are now using for this action. Q I also wanted to ask: You, as an administration, have taken existing statutes and — I don’t know if “stretch” is the right word, but you did it with the eviction moratorium, you did it with vaccines, and we’ve seen courts push back. In this case, you have people who are really excited and really making plans with this money that they think they’re going to save. What’s your response to them? Are you preparing for a legal challenge? What’s your response when people are reading that there could be legal uncertainty to your position? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah. Well, look, I — you know, what we can say is that we believe we’re on strong legal ground in taking this action. Of course, people can challenge actions in court. It happens all the time. It happens to this administration. It’s happened to every administration in history. It’s going to be up to the courts to decide whether those are valid claims or not. But we believe that we’re on very strong legal ground. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Niels, and then we’ll come back. Q If you — a follow-up to that: If a judge somewhere were to attempt to put a stay on the implementation of the student debt relief, would the payments still resume in January? The other — so the other side of the coin: So if the student debt relief were to be stopped by a court, would the — would the other side of it — payments — still resume? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, I — I’m not in a position to answer that hypothetical right now, but it’s a good question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jacqui. Q Thank you. I want to just go back to your comparison between this and the PPP loans — MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. Q — because what Republicans and critics are saying is that there’s a difference between those decisions being voted on by Congress and, you know, those loans that turned into grants being, by and large, for — you know, to cover businesses that were shut down by the government involuntarily because of a natural disaster versus students who willfully took out their loans and are now unable, for whatever reason, to repay them — there is a difference there. MR. RAMAMURTI: Well, I would say they’re — both actions are based on laws that Congress passed. You know, we’re — we are implementing a law that Congress passed — actually a Republican Congress and Republican President in 2003: the HEROES Act. And again, that’s the exact same legal authority that the previous administration used to put a pause on student loan payments. That’s the authority that we’re using in this instance. So, you know, we are acting consistent with the law. And, look, to go back to my earlier point, we’re not against PPP. We’re supportive of the idea that small businesses should get relief. The point is that over the past year, we have been forgiving hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of loans to business owners. And remember, that program was stood up very quickly. Money went out the door quickly. And Congress could have come back at any time and said, you know, “We should look a little bit more carefully at these loans, maybe we shouldn’t be providing forgiveness to people if they clearly did extraordinarily well during the pandemic. Remember, these are really low-interest loans; maybe we should just make them pay back their loan at a low interest rate, rather than forgiving it.” None of that happened. We didn’t hear from a single Republican pushing for any of that. Everyone was on board with forgiving up to $10 million in loans. And so, all we’re saying is that it’s hard to credit those same people who are highly supportive of that program and that amount of debt forgiveness, turning around and saying that forgiving a fraction of that amount for working people — not business owners, but working people — somehow that crosses the line over into socialism. That’s not how we view it. Q Okay. What’s the difference, though, between — I guess, how are you justifying using a 2003 law that was, you know, designed to help military families for this purpose, where you’re now helping bail out people who took out loans and cannot pay them? Do you view people who can’t pay their debt as heroes like those who are in our armed services and were fighting after 9/11? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, no, look, I think, as the President has said, there is a real problem here with the burden that student loan debt places on people from low-income and middle-income families. You know, we used to have a system where a Pell Grant, which is federal support to low-income families, used to cover 80 percent of the cost of going to a four-year public college. And as of today, it covers 33 percent of the cost. So what are people supposed to do? They want to get a degree. They’re being told that’s the right thing to do. They think it’s going to help them — Q Why go after the universities? Why not build in something to make sure that borrowing moving forward is limited or that universities don’t just ratchet up the cost? MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. Yeah, I’m glad that you brought that up, because I want to address it. Remember, the President put out a three-part plan on this. And the third part of it was accountability for colleges. And it detailed a few things. Number one, unlike the previous administration, which loosened the reins on colleges and universities, rolled back rules that were intended to hold them accountable for raising costs, this President and this administration reinstituted an enforcement office at the Department of Education that goes after these types of colleges. It kicked out in an accreditor, which is a private company that basically says that this institution, this college is — is good enough so they should get federal loans. This accreditor allowed colleges like ITT and Corinthian to get access to federal loans. And then that — those colleges defrauded people, defrauded students. So this administration responded by kicking that accreditor out of the program. They’re not going to be able to accredit colleges anymore. And I would note that a central element of the President’s community college plan was accountability so that neither colleges or states that took that money could raise prices on students unfairly. So, all of that said, I think that we believe that the department should have even more authority to go after bad actors and to hold colleges accountable. And we’re eager to work with Congress to advance any proposals along those lines. Q I guess I wanted to ask — I know the President last month, when he made remarks about the Inflation Reduction Act, really highlighted the fact that it would reduce the deficit. And if a larger percentage of those student borrowers end up availing themselves at this program, you know, it would cost $320 billion — right? — if you had 100 percent uptake, essentially, over 10 years. And that’s the goal. So, you know, is there — I guess, can you acknowledge that some people would feel disappointed that this could basically wipe out the savings from that law? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, I’m glad you asked about that because I think that there’s a nuance here that’s important to understanding why that doesn’t quite work. So when — when the budgetary score comes out for this proposal, like I talked about — we’re going to get a little wonky for a second here — what it’s going to do is say that all the loans that are being modified or eliminated here, we have to look over the lifetime of that loan and figure out how many dollars are we not collecting because of that modification. And so, as you know, many, many loans — the repayment lasts over 10 years. You know, people are repaying for 20, 25 years in instances. So, really, that score is going to reflect the cost over a much longer time horizon than your standard 10-year budget window. As a result, in our view, the thing that we should compare that score to is not just the first 10 years of the Inflation Reduction Act, it’s the — at least the first two decades of it, and maybe the lifetime impact of that. And if you look at outside analyses of the long-term impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, they find that it would reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars over the next two decades. So, in our view, that is the relevant point of comparison on that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: MJ. Q Yeah, I wanted to ask you about the updated Penn-Wharton estimate, which says just the debt cancellation piece alone would cost up to $519 billion over 10 years, and then the total plan would cost upwards of $1 trillion. Obviously, there is a significant gap between the $24 billion per year that you’re assigning, or $240 billion over 10 years. Just wanted to give you the chance to walk us through why we might see that difference in the two models. MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. I know it just came out today, and I didn’t have too much time to look carefully into it, but I got a chance to skim it. My view is that there’s a couple of things. Right off the top, getting to that trillion dollars, they rel- — they have a massive range on estimating the impact of our reforms to the income-based repayment plan. They say that their baseline estimate is that it costs about $70 billion, but then they say it could cost $450 billion more than that if you make certain assumptions. So, you know, in our, in our view, you can lop off that $450 billion right there because it seems to be somewhat speculative and clearly the top end of the range. Beyond that, the debt relief analysis doesn’t do a few things. Number one, it doesn’t account for the fact that — it assumes 100 percent of people will take it up. You know, in our mind, that’s not necessarily a reasonable assumption. And look, estimating the cost of forgiving certain debt is more complicated than just looking at the face value of the debt that’s being canceled. So, I gave the example when I was here last time that — let’s say you canceled debt for somebody who has been in default for more than seven years. There’s actually millions of borrowers in that position. If the face value of their debt is $10,000 and you cancel it, it’s not reasonable to say that the cost of that is $10,000 because you were sitting here collecting zero dollars on that loan year after year after year. So some of those elements are also going to affect — affect the score. So, you know, the Education Department has the best data on it. It has all of the data about who repays, what to expect about repayment horizons and payment rates, how this interacts with the existing income-based repayment program, and all of that. So we feel confident in our numbers. Q Just one follow-up. Given that the upwards of $1 trillion that they are estimating, that obviously is a number that’s a lot closer to the $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction that you all have been citing. So, I’m just curious: Was the total cost that this plan would amount to — was that a factor when the President and all of you were deciding what the total amount of forgiveness should be? Or was the forgiveness amount — did you get there, sort of, regardless of the cost and then you sort of figured out what the general cost would be after? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, I want to make totally clear that we don’t think that a trillion dollars is anywhere in the ballpark of what this is going to cost. Number two, you know, yes, the President was quite focused on what the — at least a good estimate of what the cost of this proposal was going to be. It was a big factor in — in his decision. He was looking into and thinking about how that would compare, versus the deficit reduction that he had been able to secure over the last year — last two years, frankly — of his presidency. Remember, in the first year of his presidency, he brought down the deficit by $350 billion. So it was a factor. We provided him with estimates along the lines of what we have provided — provided you, and that did play a role in thinking through how to design the policy. Q Was there a percentage that he was determined not to cross? MR. RAMAMURTI: Not that I recall. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Just, like, two more. Q For students who are about to take out new loans, what should the message to them be about whether their loans could be forgiven in the future? And does the White House have an obligation to emphasize that this could very be well be a one-time thing so they’re not taking out additional loans? MR. RAMAMURTI: I would say two things. Number one, this is going to be a one-time thing, in terms of the blanket relief. You know, use this as an authority that is conditional on an emergency, as I said, and the President believes that this relief is warranted in this instance, coming out of the pandemic and as we transition back into repayment. It’s not the kind of authority that you can use over and over again. But what I would say to that student is that these income-based repayment reforms that are also part of this proposal are designed to help people who go to school and then end up having lower-income, middle-income jobs going forward. Remember, we had some examples in the factsheet that we put out alongside the proposal showing that, for example, somebody making $30- or $40,000 a year, after they have some debt, the income-based repayment reforms represent a savings of $1,000, $1,500 a year or more, depending on their exact circumstances. So it was really important to the President that this package of proposals not just be relief for current borrowers; it’s a reform to the system so that future borrowers also get more manageable debt loads going forward. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. I think the pool — the in-town pool has to gather, so if folks need to go, feel free. I’ll stay a little bit longer. Go ahead. You’re being very — Q I’ll just ask my question. Many comparisons have been made from the American system to foreign governments, where higher education is government-funded, taxpayer-funded at no cost to students. How did foreign systems inform the decision for loan forgiveness? And is there any economic data we can glean from those countries that we might — might see as a result of the loan forgiveness decision? MR. RAMAMURTI: Yeah, as we’ve talked about, part of the reason that we’re in this position, part of the reason why the cost of college — even after accounting for inflation has tripled in the last 40 years, since 1980 — part of it is that there has been a significant amount of disinvestment, especially at the state level. So states used to put more money into funding public education, public higher education in their states. And that helped keep tuition down, especially for in-state students. What we’ve seen in recent decades is pulling back on that and basically shifting the burden onto students who come from lower-income and middle-income families. And as I noted, the federal government hasn’t done enough to step in and fill that void and the value of the Pell Grant has deteriorated from 80 percent to 33 percent. So, you know, what the President has called for, as you know, is a series of increased federal investment that would make it easier for folks from lower-income and middle-income families to go to college, right? Doubling the Pell Grant. Right now, the Pell Grant is about $6,500 a year. He wants to double it to $13,000 a year. That represents a significant amount of relief for people from lower-income, middle-income families. And as I talked about, he’s also pushing to make community college free. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. You got to wrap it up. I’ll stay a little longer for folks to take some questions. MR. RAMAMURTI: Thanks, everyone. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you so much, Bharat. That was very helpful. Thank you. Good to have you. Okay. So I’ll stay a little bit longer and take some questions for — for folks who are still here. Okay, just a –just a topper for you. And this is something that Bharat already alluded to, talked about, which is the PCE. While there is more work to do to bring prices down, we received several pieces of encouraging economic news today from PCE. The new data on the personal consumption expenditures — what economists call, again, PCE — show that in July, incomes went up while prices went down. So, based on this measure, inflation went down in July. This was largely driven by the fastest decline in gas prices in a decade. The national average is now down to $3.87 per gallon. The American people are starting to get some relief from high prices. And that’s underscored by new data that shows consumer sentiment is up 13 percent since July. And one-year expenditures of inflation dropped by nearly a half a percentage point. That’s encouraging news as well. The President’s number-one economic priority is lowering cost while sustaining our historic economic recovery. The recently signed CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act will do just that. Once again, we have more work to do, as we have said over and over again. We continue to face real global challenges. And we are always careful to not read too much into any one month’s data. But what we saw today is encouraging evidence that we are on the right course and we are making progress. Aamer. Q Does the President believe that it was appropriate for the former President to have classified information and — unsecured in his home? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as it relates to — and I — I understand why folks have an interest in this. We totally get that. But as it relates to any — any comments, on anything related to this independent investigation, even any underlying materials, we feel that it is not appropriate for us to comment on this. This is an independent investigation that the Department of Justice is leading. That’s something that the President finds is an important thing to do — for the Department of Justice to have that independence. We’re just not going to comment. Q The President yesterday suggested that Republican ideology is veering towards “semi-fascism.” Can you just clarify what exactly does the President mean by that? And secondly, the President also said he respects conservative Republicans, but he does not respect MAGA Republicans. More than 70 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020. Does he not respect those voters? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I mean, that’s not what he said. I’m going to — I think he was pretty clear. And he was very powerful last night. Look, what the President said last night was that when it comes to MAGA Republicans, when it comes to the extreme, ultra wing of Republicans, they are attacking democracy. Right? They are attacking — taking away rights and freedoms. They are using threat of — threats of violence. They are taking away voting rights. And he called it what it is. That’s what he did. He called it what it is and what many, we would argue, you know, historians would agree with us on. And so what Joe Biden believes is, as President, he should and Presidents should be the strongest voice for democracy. And so, he was making that very clear. He was making that contrast to what congressional Democrats have been doing, which is fighting for our rights, fighting for freedom, delivering on an economy that is historic, 10 million jobs that have been created, lowering healthcare, lowering prescription drugs, and making sure that we take on those special interest groups. And we saw, just a couple of weeks ago, that we won. So, he’s making that contrast, trying to make that very clear, of what we are seeing today. And so, he was passionate about this, he was eloquent about this. And he also, when it comes to what you’re asking me about Republicans who are conservative, clearly, he said that he believed there are traditional conservative Republicans. He was very clear on that. He specifically called out and mentioned Maryland Governor Larry Hogan as one of them. So — but we have to really, you know, make sure that we — we — we make it clear that there’s a choice in front of the American people — right? — and we have to make sure that we make it loud and clear that when it comes to MAGA Republicans, we call that out — and that’s what he did — and what they’re doing — right? — what they’re doing in attacking our democracy. And so, he wanted to be clear on that. And he made that contrast. And that’s what you heard from the President. Go ahead. Q Has the White House made any changes, in light of the revelations of the former President’s handling of classified material, to its own processes or training procedures for handling, sort of, protected and secret information? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to share with you. Again, we’re just going to be really mindful. I know — I get the question that you’re asking. We’re just not going to share any change of processes; we’re not going to share any information, anything that’s related to this — any content, any underlying materials to the investigation that the Department of Justice is doing — again, an independent investigation. We’re just not going to comment at this time. Q Just to hop back to loan forgiveness for a second. NPR has done a lot of reporting on sort of administrative processing failures at the Department of Education for these loan programs. These are kind of lapses in income-based repayment and sort of profession-based repayment that Secretary Cardona has acknowledged. Is the administration concerned at all about similar issues for the, sort of, coming loan forgiveness program or ways that it might give up the — leave borrowers in the lurch? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you just mentioned Secretary Cardona has been really clear about the previous — the previous loan forgiveness programs and other programs that have been before him and in his agency. Look, we take this very seriously. We believe that this is an important plan that’s going to give relief, again, to up to 43 million Americans. It’s a very targeted plan that’s going to give relief to 90 percent of Americans that are making less than $75,000 a year. That is important. This is a campaign promise that the President made and kept. And he went beyond — not just to $10,000, but up to $20- — $20,000. So, we’re going to do everything that we can to make sure that that gets delivered. But, of course, we’re going to hear from folks and see if they will take us up on it. Again, this is an important piece of — an important plan that is historic. We have not seen any President do this before. And we’re going to do everything that we can. Of course, Secretary Cardona is going to do everything that they can with — he can with his team to get this done. Go ahead, April. Q Karine, this Sunday will be the 59th anniversary of the March on Washington. And how is this White House, how is this President marking that moment, particularly as he decided to run for office because of the massacre in Charlottesville, as he walked in talking about equity and equality? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me first say a couple of things, because this is a — it is an important day, and I want to give it the due, as you’re asking me this question. You’re right. What — when the President — when the President and so many Americans saw what was happening not too long ago, back in 2017 — just in August of 2017 — and we saw what was happening in Charlottesville, that moved him. What we saw — the hatred that we saw there — that moved him and that moves so many of us. And he actually wrote an op-ed talking about what he thought that meant for this country and how sad and devastating it is — it was to see that type of behavior, that type of hatred, and that type of sentiment that was very public and also someone lost their life. So, I want to make sure that we don’t forget that day as well, that weekend as well. And when the President came into office, he took that, when — talking about racial — dealing with racial equity — he took his — he took that very seriously. And you see that across — across the agency. He had signed an executive order talking about how we — he wanted to make sure that there was racial equity within the — within the agencies across the federal government. And you’ve seen him do that. And Susan Rice, as you know — you know, the ambassador is leading that effort with her — with her department and dealing with the different agencies and making sure that we deal with — we deal with racial inequities, even here in the agencies. So as it relates to March on Washington and that anniversary — the President has said this before and I’ll reiterate: The March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech changed the course of history. We continue to reaffirm our commitment to fulfilling America’s founding promise. And the President has made advancing equality core to his administration, as I just laid out. We can’t rest until justice truly rings out for all of us. I don’t have anything specific on what the President is going to be doing on this. But we will share if we have anything more. Q And there was a missed opportunity, if you will. Civil rights leaders wanted to mark the anniversary Sunday by having a meeting with the President this week. Could you talk about that? Is there an effort to try to have this meeting happen soon? Was it a missed opportunity, et cetera? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I mean, I’ll say this: I don’t have a meeting to read out or speak to at this time, but, you know, we have stayed in regular touch with civil rights leaders. You know this, April, you’ve talked — I think you’ve reported on the many meetings that this administration has had with civil rights leaders. We are in close touch with them. The President has very good relationships with many of those leaders. And so, we — we find those relationships important that we will continue to grow. Again, I don’t have a meeting or anything to lay out, but, again, we’re in regular touch with members of that community. Q And lastly, is equity still one of the major crux — one of the major pillars of this administration? Is this still one of the fundamental pieces of this administration? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, it is. It is. I mean, I’ll just remind you, when the President walked into this administration — and I’ve said this many times before at the podium — he laid out the different crises that were before him when he came in. Racial equity was one of them, in saying that we needed to do everything that we can to deal with that crisis in a real way. And he has taken those actions, as you — as the Grio has reported on, as many of you in this room have reported on what — the steps that he has taken. But it doesn’t start with the executive order. It — it also has actions that we’re going to continue to take within the White House as well. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, I’m going to come back because I didn’t take your question. Q In New York and D.C., mayors have said the federal government isn’t doing enough to help with migrants who are being sent by bus to their cities. Does the administration have plans to do anything more on this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the administration has been in regular touch with Mayor Bowser — clearly, the mayor of D.C. — and Mayor Adams, mayor of New York City. And FEMA regional administrators have been meeting with both mayors on site to coordinate available federal support from FEMA and other federal agencies. Funding is also available through FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program to eligible local governments and not-for-profit organizations upon request to support humanitarian relief for migrants, as we have done many times in response to Governor Abbott’s repeated attempts to create chaos — and, really, to create chaos and confusion. That’s what he’s doing at the border, and costing his own constituents over — well over a million dollars. So we will work to manage the consequences of this latest political charade that we see from the governor. And we do take this very seriously and are continuing — going to work with Mayor Bowser and Mayor Adams. I would point you to a statement that FEMA put out earlier this week laying out the steps that they have taken and what they’re doing to provide assistance. Go ahead. I’m just going to call on folks I haven’t called on. Q Thanks, Karine. And just to get something on the record: Does the White House have any response to the release of the search warrant affidavit for Mar- — Mar-a-Lago? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just going to say what I just told this young man a few minutes ago: We understand — again, we understand the interest in this. We are not going to comment on any underlying materials, any content that is related to an ongoing investigation. This is an independent investigation — a legal investigation that the Department of Justice has the independence to conduct. And we do not feel it is appropriate for us to comment. Q And then real briefly on student loans. Does the White House believe that federal student loans play any role in the increasing cost of college since students are able to, you know, take on more debt that they don’t have to pay off right away? Does that allow colleges to increase their costs maybe more than they might? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, I’ve gotten this question in the past — well, not in the past, it’s just been a couple of days of this week. And so, one of the things — and I think Bharat talked about this a little bit, because there’s been questions about, “Is this going to raise the tuition — by doing this — from colleges?” Look, this is something that the Secretary of Education, Secretary Cardona — he has said this in interviews — that he’ll be monitoring, keeping a close eye on. He will continue to take the steps to hold colleges accountable for raising costs without delivering additional value. So that’s a big piece of — of what you — what you were asking me. But already the administration has taken actions to — accountable measures. He — we reinstated an enforcement office at the Department of Education. We terminated a college accreditor that had previously allowed colleges that defrauded borrowers to get access to federal student loans. That’s something that Bharat just talked about specifically moments ago. And we’re rolling out new resource to help students make more informed decisions on which school will better deliver value for the cost. Look, you know, once again, I just want to say this: You know, you have — what — one thing that people are told — young people particularly are told — is that in order to have a — have a — you know, a good job or have a career, you got to go to college and get that education or continue that education. And — and there’s some communities that need a little bit of help, and we should be providing that little bit of help. That’s why we did a targeted — the President did a targeted, fiscally responsible approach in making sure that we give Americans a little bit more breathing room –- middle-class Americans a little bit more breathing room. And when you do that, you know, they are going to have extra money to buy that house. They’re going to have a little extra money to start that family. And so that is important as well. And that is something that the President is certainly committed to. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Go ahead. I’ll come around. Go ahead. Q Me? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sorry. Sebastian. Q Yes? Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was pointing to Sebastian. Q Okay, thanks. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And then I’ll –- I’ll come around. Q Thanks very much. I knew there was people right behind me. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s so funny. I think — Q I didn’t want to assume it was me. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I actually think when I’m pointing that I’m pointing to someone specific, but I — Q Right. Okay. Right. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — sort of from the other — from the other side — Q I — I got it. (Inaudible.) (Laughter.) So two questions, if I may. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q On the “semi-fascism” comment. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah? Q Is this something we’re going to hear more of — that phrase? Is it something the President’s going to kind of embrace? Or is there any sense that it was, you know, a little impromptu and it’s going to turn into a kind of “basket of deplorables” thing that he regrets and then tries to be quiet about? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I was very clear when — when laying out and defining what, you know, MAGA Republicans have done. And you look at the definition of “fascism,” and you think about what they’re doing in attacking our democracy, what they’re doing in taking away our freedoms, taking away — wanting to take away our rights, our voting rights. I mean, that is what that is; it is very clear. And that’s why he made that — that — that powerful speech that you heard from him last night. And he has not shied away from saying that. You have heard him — maybe not use that specific word, but you have heard him certainly use that definition. And look, what we — again, what we are putting before the American people is a choice. Right? And it is clear — there’s a clear contrast as what is happening on that side of the aisle and what’s happening on our side with congressional Democrats and what we have been delivering for the American people. And we’re going to continue to fight for freedom. We’re going to continue to fight for people’s rights. And that is not — that is something that he takes very seriously. And that’s what you heard from him last night. Q Okay. And just quickly on the other side of the world, how confident is the administration that European allies are going to be able to weather the energy crisis that seems to be going into in winter. It’s obviously going to get worse. Finnish people are apparently not taking saunas already, but it’s getting worse. Not — not to make light of it. And politically, is there concern that this whole alliance over Ukraine is going to — is going to really start cracking when that — when that bites in the winter? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, just a couple of things. And I have a few things that I want to say, because this is an important question. So President Putin is weaponizing energy. Right? You’ve heard us say that before, and that is exactly what is happening. This is why President Biden set up a task force with the EU back in March to work on ways to increase alternative sources of natural gas to Europe, including from the United States. We’ve made progress since March. Global LNG exports to Europe has risen by 84 percent compared to 2021, while the U.S. share of those LNG exports have been nearly tripled. And so that’s important to note. In fact, global LNG exports to Europe since March have increased by 20 billion cubic meters compared to last year, already exceeding the pledge President Biden made back in March to work with partners to ensure additional values — volumes for the EU market of at least 15 billion cubic meters this year. We know we have more work to do. And we’ll keep looking for ways to increase gas stockpiles in Europe, coupled with efforts to reduce Europe’s demand for natural gas through energy efficiency and clean energy deployment. The path to energy security requires a doubling down on our efforts to transition to a clean energy economy, and we continue to work with Europe on this shared goal. Look, we — what you have seen this past several months — more than six months — even before we saw the war in Ukraine, the unprovoked war by Russia, is a unified West. You see the NATO Alliance the strongest that it’s ever been. It’s — it is going to — look like it’s going to extend by two, and that would not have happened if they weren’t united, if we didn’t see the leadership of this President. And so we — we believe that Alliance, that partnership is going to continue. We are going to make sure that our partners in Ukraine has what they need to to continue to fight for their freedom and fight for their sovereignty. AIDE: (Inaudible.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, we have to go? Okay, I’ll take — Go ahead, Brett. I was supposed to call on Brett. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. I know today marks the anniversary of the terrorist attack in Kabul, in Afghanistan. I saw the President’s statement this morning, but I was curious: Has he reached out to any of the families of the victims of that attack? Or does he have any plans to address the anniversary of the withdrawal at length to the American people? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President put out a statement earlier — earlier today. And so — and as you all probably saw — some of you probably saw the statement that was released, he named each of the 13 troops who were tragically, tragically killed on that day. The President feels deeply about the loss that was suffered one year ago. And as he said in this — in that statement, he feels strongly that we owe their families support for the rest of their lives. That is something that he’s committed to. We are never going to stop seeking justice for those who were involved in planning of that attack or for terrorists who threaten our homeland on any other day. So, no President feels more strongly about our troops and their families than this President. And he and the First Lady have taken action to support our service members and their families through Joining Forces and signing the historic burn pits legislation that — that, as you all know, expands benefits for veterans, and it was incredibly historical. So again, I point you to the statement. I don’t have anything more to share. I will take one last question. Who — somebody I haven’t called on. Rob, I know I haven’t — I know you’ve been waiting. Rob, go ahead. Q Okay. So, on Afghanistan, just to follow up, what would you say to the father of a U.S. Marine killed in the suicide attack last year? He thinks that taping a segment with Jay Leno this afternoon is insensitive and tone deaf. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, this is something that’s very personal to the President. He — it was a tragic killing on that day. Thirteen members were lost, as well as 170 — more than 170 lives of — Afghan lives. So this is an incredibly important day that he wants to make sure that he acknowledged, which is why he put out the statement. But he and the First Lady have not lost focus on those families or any of the families that have lost loved ones in this 20-year war. Because that — remember, we were there for two decades, and we lost a lot of lives. Through Joining Forces, as I just mentioned, and the burn pits legislation, the President — that the President just signed, that is important as well. That is the work that this President is committed to doing. And that is a big deal, an im

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. Q Good afternoon. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. All right, today the Vice President and the Second Gentleman visited NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to attend the launch of the Artemis I mission. Despite the launch being pulled down, we look forward to it happening when NASA says all systems are ready. While at the Kennedy Space Center, the Vice President and Second Gentleman met with STEM students, astronauts, and workers building the crew modules for Artemis II, which will be the first crewed Artemis mission, and Artemis III, which will return American astronauts to the Moon, including the first woman and person of color. As you may have seen, today we announced that the Biden Harris administration will host the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health on September 28th in Washington, D.C. As the President said a few months ago, this will be the first conference of this kind in more than 50 years. The conference will bring together government leaders, academics, activists, and Americans from all walks of life to achieve the goal of ending hunger and reducing diet-related diseases in the U.S. by 2030. A key additional focus will be reducing disparities among the communities who are impacted the most by these issues. At the conference, we will announce a national strategy that identifies actions the government will take to encourage the public and private sectors to drive transformative change and address the intersections between food, hunger, nutrition, and health. With that, Zeke, you want to take it away? Q Thanks, Karine. Over the weekend, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were conducting a risk assessment of the classified documents found at former President Trump’s home in Florida. Does the President intend to get briefed on — on that risk assessment once it’s completed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we have seen the letter from ODNI to Congress on this, but I would refer you to either ODNI or the Justice Department by any specific questions on this. As we have said, this involves material that is part of an ongoing criminal investigation, and we just aren’t going to comment on that at this time. I hear your question; we just don’t — we’re not going to say anything at this time while the investigation is going on. Q This is about the President’s actions, not what they’re doing there. So does he — you can’t say whether or not he’ll be briefed on — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I can say that he has not been briefed. I know folks have asked, you know, if he has been briefed via the PDB or otherwise on any classified materials. That — I can say, as a general matter — we just don’t get into information included in the President’s classified materials — this is what this would be considered — or daily briefings on sensitive national security or intelligence matters. This is ODNI — a decision that they’ve made. So talking about any PDB specifically would be inappropriate or any classified, again, material. On this specific issue, we have been very clear the President was not briefed in advance of this Justice Department’s recent actions. We have not been involved in this matter as part of the Justice Department’s ongoing criminal investigation. We see this as part of the underlying material that is connected to this. So, you know, we’re — as we’ve said, we are committed to the independence with — as it relates to any legal matters that the Department of Justice has. And that is something that the President has been very clear about and is going to continue. Q But just to, again, put a finer point on it: The President will get briefed or will not get briefed when ODNI finishes the risk assessment? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just — I am just saying to you this is an underlying material — underlying matter that is related to this. We’re just not going to comment. And as it relates to any classified materials or anything that’s related to PD- — PDB, we don’t comment on that at all. But, you know, again, this is a part of an investigation. The President hasn’t been briefed on any of this. He — none of us have been briefed. The White House not has been briefed on any of this. And so, we are just going to leave it to the Department of Justice and to ODNI on this. Q And on a different topic, tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of when the President marked the end of U.S. — the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the war there. How does the President plan to mark that occasion? Does he plan to speak to the American people? Does he plan to honor the lives of the 13 servicemembers who were lost at Abbey Gate? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, last week, on Friday, we did put out — the President put out a statement — released a statement where he named each of the 13 troops who were tragically killed that day. The President feels deeply about the loss that was suffered one year ago. And as he said in that statement just this past Friday, he feels strongly that we owe their families support for the rest of their lives. We are never going to stop seeking justice for those who were involved in planning of the attack or for terrorists who threaten our homeland in any way. No President feels more strongly about this than this President — about our troops than this President and their families. And this President — and he and the First Lady have taken action to support our servicemembers and their families through Joining Forces and signing the historic pits legislation. I don’t have anything else to share with you on any future statements that he may make. Q Nothing (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Nothing to share about any — anything on his schedule. As you know, he’s going to be traveling tomorrow. Q One more question on the DNI. They’re assessing whether bringing those classified documents to Mar-a-Lago damaged national security or jeopardized national intelligence operations. Does the President feel that the public has a right to know the conclusion of that assessment? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I’m — we’re just not going to comment about conclusions. We’re not going to comment on anything related to this at this time, any specifics to this. We are going to refer all these questions to ODNI and also the Department of Justice. We’re just not going to com- — Q But it’s a question about transparency not — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — Q — on the investigation. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I understand. I understand the question. Any underlying materials, any underlying questions to this, we’re just not going to comment. Of course, it’s important to have transparency, but we’re just not going to go any further than that. Q And then, on another topic, the President has a lot of travel coming up. He’s been getting out more in the country, mostly, you know, doing events sort of touting his agenda, things that — his accomplishments and the like. Are we going to see him actually, as we approach the midterms, stumping for individual candidates? Are we going to see more big rallies, like — like he did last week? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, I can only speak to official travel from here; I can’t speak to any of the campaign or political travel. The President, the Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, our Hill allies, governors, mayors, and allied groups will take the message directly to the American people. As you know, we had a string of successful legisla- — legislative pieces just a couple of weeks ago. And so, in the coming weeks, the President will host a Cabinet meeting here; host an Inflation Reduction Act celebration event at the White House, which is going to happen on September 13th, as you all know; and will travel across the country to highlight how the Inflation Reduction Act will save money on prescription drugs, cut healthcare premiums, and cut energy costs. Other upcoming events will illustrate how President Biden worked to get things done, including passing a historic gun safety law and making smart investments to keep our competitive edge and rebuild American manufacturing through the CHIPS and Science Act and bipartisan law. The President will attend a groundbreaking at Intel in Ohio, as you all know, to address his safe — Safer America plan that helps fight crime and make communities safer while in Pennsylvania, which is happening tomorrow, and highlight the American Rescue Plan along the way. And so, that’s going to be our focus: to get our message out, to talk — to speak directly to the American people on how congressional Democrats and this President delivered. Again, I can’t get into specific — specific or any campaign trail or what we’re doing politically, but that’s what we’re doing on the official side. Q The President has at least two trips scheduled to Pennsylvania in the next week. He’s — and he traveled there more than any other state last year. Obviously, he’s from Pennsylvania, but is there any other significance to him visiting that state? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All I can say is Pennsylvania is close and dear to his heart and he is glad to be traveling there these next couple of trips, as you just mentioned. Go ahead, Nancy. Q Thank you so much. Going back to the topic that Zeke brought up, there’s been a lot of confusion. I’m wondering if you can shed any light on this question of whether this White House or this President believes that a President has the ability to declassify classified documents simply by saying so. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we want to be very careful here, as you know. We’re just not going to speak — it is really — the question that you’re asking me is related to everything that is happening currently right now with the Department of Justice and even ODNI as they — as I said, we’re aware of the letter. We did not have any advanced knowledge of the — of the letter. Right now, we are — at this time, we’re just not going to make comments on any questions related to this, any underlying questions, any content that is related to what we’re currently seeing, that — the Department of Justice is independently working on an investigation that is independent, and we’re just not going to comment at this time. Q So, you can’t say what this President believes the process is that he needs to go through when he wants to declassify that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to — because it’s related to what we’re all hearing and you all are reporting about, I’m just not going to comment on it at this time. Q When the President speaks about guns tomorrow in Wilkes-Barre, is there a new policy he’s going to be laying out? What can you tell us about what he’s going to say on that issue tomorrow? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have some — some preview for you on this. So, tomorrow, President Biden will be traveling about — about his Safer America Plan and the simple, basic notion that, when it comes to public safety in this nation, the answer isn’t to defund the police, it’s to fund the police. He will highlight how his plan would invest 100 more cops for effective, accountable community policing that builds public trust and strengthens public safety. And as part of the American Rescue Plan — you’ve heard us say this — that President Biden signed into law last year, we sent $350 billion to local governments to keep cops on the beat. And in contrast, every Republican in Congress voted against the funding for law enforcement. And Trump — also Donald Trump cut $400 billion from his budget for state and local law enforcement. So, the President is going to talk about how he brought the Democrats and Republicans together earlier this month to pass the most significant safety law in 30 years. He’ll talk about how we have built on that momentum and how we must act on ban assault weapons. You’ll hear that from him as well. So, again, a majority of Americans support this when we talk about banning assault weapons; the NRA opposes it. And so we are going to hear from the President about — about the importance of making sure that we protect our communities. You know, the President has been really clear that congressional Republicans — that extreme MAGA agenda that you heard him talk about last week is a threat to the rule of law. We will say that — he will say that you can’t propose defunding the FBI or defund the mob that stormed the Capitol and attacked and assaulted police officers on January 6th and pre- — and be pro-police. And that’s what you’re going to hear from the President tomorrow. Q And then, finally, Senate candidate Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman says he is going to be at the parade in Pittsburgh on Labor Day and, quote, he “looks forward to talking to the President there about the need to finally decriminalize marijuana.” The President has said in the past we need to rethink our approach. Has he decided how he wants to rethink the approach? Does he agree with John Fetterman? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have anything right now to announce. But I just want to talk a little bit and take a step back to talk about the drug — our drug policy that we — that we have been very clear about, but I’ll leave some stuff here. We’re — we’re at an urgent moment when it comes to an overdose epidemic. You’ve heard the President talk about that. More than 100,000 lives lost in the — in the most recent 12-month period. The bulk of our early efforts have been focused on addressing the addiction and overdose epidemic. That’s what we have talked about these past 19 months, which has worsened during the course of the pandemic, sadly. Untreated addiction and overdose deaths require urgent attention and having evidence-based policies in place — in place is critical. That is incredibly important to this President. But at the same time, President Biden believes that there are too many people serving unduly long sentences for nonviolent drug crimes — a disproportionate number of whom are Black and brown. That’s why, in April, during the Second Chance month, President Biden announced 17 sentences, commutations, and three pardons, which are more grants of clemency at this point in a presidency than any of his five recent predecessors. As I’ve said before, the President supports leaving decisions regarding legalization for recreational use up to the states; rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule II drug so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts; and, at the federal level, he supports decriminalizing marijuana use and automatically expunging any prior criminal records. I don’t — we don’t have anything to announce today at this point, but I just wanted to lay that for you. Q On the Federal Reserve, Elizabeth Warren has said that she’s concerned that if the Fed raises rates again that it could put people out of work or tip the economy into a recession. Does the President share any of those concerns about an overreach or a possible overreach? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, we’ve been very clear when it comes to the President’s plan on attacking inflation. He has said many times that he gives the Federal Reserve their independence to — to make the monetary decision on how to deal with inflation. That is something that, again, we give their independence. We believe they have the strongest tools to deal — to deal with that. But we know that Americans are feeling the pain of higher costs, higher prices. That’s why we have worked so hard to bring down gas prices. We’ve seen, for 76 days, gas prices have gone down. It is the fastest decline, as you’ve heard us say, in over a decade. And so that is important. That’s why the Inflation Reduction Act was so critical in dealing with — that’s going to deal with lowering costs, that’s going to deal with that $300 billion. It’s going to deal with reducing the deficit, which is important, which is now — that $1.7 trillion deficit that we have seen under this President in the past 19 months; $380 billion was done last year. And so, this is important as well. It’s important for the President, but he’s going to continue to do the work. But we want to say — a couple of things that we wanted to share is, like, you saw the new data on Friday that showed prices came down nationwide last month and personal income went up. So that is a sign of inflation that is easing. And latest CP- — the latest headline, CPI inflation was flat. Prices in the aggregate had no increase versus the prior month. And this morning, we lear- — and yesterday morning — pardon me, sorry — Friday morning, we learned that consumer sentiment is up 13 percent since July and one-year inflation expectation dropped nearly half a percent from — from the month — from the month before. We have more work to do. We understand that. We know that there are families who are — and Americans who are still feeling the pain. And we’re going to continue to do the work to do — Q So the White House doesn’t disagree with Senator Warren? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m just — we’re just saying that this is something that the Federal Reserve is going to — we don’t want to step on, you know, what the Federal Reserve is going to do. Our goal is to — to keep bringing down inflation without sacrificing the historic and lifechanging economic gains that we’ve seen this country has made over the last 18 months. And, you know, as Powell said — as Powell also said, the economy continues to show strong, underlying momentum. We have regained all of the jobs lost during the pandemic. And if you look at the labor market, it — you know, consumers are spending; as I said, what businesses are investing; and what American industry is producing, you continue to see the resiliency in our — in our economy and that’s what matters. Q Thanks, Karine. Can you — can you talk a little bit about the free COVID test program going away? What does that mean for the COVID testing industry? And does it mean that rapid tests will be harder to come by if there’s a fall surge? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on Friday, the administration announced that it will suspend taking orders for free tests through COVIDTests.gov because Congress hasn’t provided the COVID funding we need to replenish the nation’s stockpiles of tests. As simple as that. The last day to place new orders will be Friday, September — this is September 2nd. And — but just to give you a little bit of what we have done and what we’ve had to do, we’ve already distributed over 600 million tests through this program, and every household has had the opportunity to place three orders for a total of 16 tests. Americans will continue to have other options for free testing, including free at-home tests through private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and 1,500 community-based free testing sites. So that is available to Americans. So, look, the administration has been very clear about our urgent COVID-19 response funding needs for months. We’ve been talking about it for months. The COVID Response Team has been talking about it for months. We’ve warned that the congressional inaction would face unacceptable tra- — trade-offs and harm our preparedness and response, and that the consequences would likely worsen over time. So this is an action we’ve been forced to take that will help preserve our limited remaining supply, ensuring we have a limited of tes- — supply of tests available in the fall. So that’s what we’re trying to be forward thinking, forward leaning here when we might face a new rise in infections and more acute need. Q Has the administration given up on getting COVID funds in the CR? And on that realm, I mean, what does that mean for free COVID vaccines? I mean, is it no longer — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So are you talking about the booster that’s — that we’re about to announce? Q Well, just — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Or that is first — Q — providing for the costs. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So — so let me just be clear: These decisions about the vaccines, including when will be — who and when will be eligible are made by FDA and CDC. So I just want to make sure, based on their experts and their review, as we talk about vaccines. So, you know, in the meantime, the administration has been working with state and local health departments and other partners to prepare operationally for all scenarios. This includes working to ensure vaccines remain available in a range of trusted convenient loca- — locations, including local pharmacies and community health centers, and easy to access. So, we’re planning for this. We’re planning for a robust plan and education program, and building on our lessons that we had for COVID-19. And so, you know, while we’re preparing, we are doing so with the limited funding we have left. So, we have some funding for this. We’ve had to take money away from things like testing, as I just mentioned, to help fund the procurement of these vaccines. So, that’s one way, as I said, we had to be really mindful in why we’re doing the testing — made the testing announcement. So, needs to help strengthen our vaccination program and reach more folks are limited. And so, the COVID team will share more on this in the following — when the decisions are made on how — from the CDC and FDA — how we’re going to move forward. But yes, we had to make some tough decisions to make sure that we’re able to do this fall campaign once the CDC and FDA makes that decision. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thanks. I wanted to drill down on the degree to which there was White House involvement in the Trump documents story earlier this year. Last week, we learned that the Archivist — the Acting Archivist of the United States approached the White House Counsel and a determination was reached here to allow the Acting Archivist to make a determination with respect to executive privilege. Can you — what more can you tell us about that and why the determination was reached to defer that to the — to the Archivist? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the — the letter from the National Archivist and the search are completely different. We’ve been very clear about that. They’re not the same. And so just want to restate that. The recently published letter from the Archives is not about the search and, in fact, underlines how closely the President has honored his pledge to restore the independence of the Department of Justice concerning investigations. If you read the letter, you’ll see that — the way we were able to defer. It shows that DOJ made a request for access to an older set of documents independently and the White House affirmed it, which is standard. Nothing unusual there. And when former President Trump attempted to assert executive privilege to block the FBI from assessing the document, President Biden deferred to the National Archives and the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel on the issue. So, again, we deferred that decision. So, this — the decisions here have been made by the National Archives and the Department of — Justice Department. Q Just to clarify, you’re saying that President Biden himself was personally approached and he made the decision himself? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I’m saying is the White House was — they’re — we are the ones that were able to defer, which is we affirmed — which is normal, nothing unusual — we deferred to the — to the National Archives and the Department of Justice legal office. And we let them make the decision. It was not made here. We deferred it so that they can make the decision. Q But just to pin it down: What — are you saying that it was not the President himself who arrived at the decision or did the President himself make a decision? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, what I can tell you is the White House affirmed it. I can’t — I’ve been asked this question: “Who, specifically?” I can tell you the White House, here on this campus — the White House actually affirmed it and also deferred it. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Continuing on this theme — the President last week was asked about former President Trump’s claims that he declassified all these documents. And President Biden said, quote, “I’m not going to comment. I mean, because I don’t know the detail. I don’t even want to know. I’ll let the Justice Department take care of that.” I understand that he wasn’t given advance notice about the search, the Justice Department is independent. But when it comes to national security questions, shouldn’t the President want to know the details? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, when it comes to national security questions and even classified materials, it is something that we just don’t speak to. We don’t get into information included in the President’s classified materials or daily briefings on sesinive [sic] — on sensitive national security or intelligence matter. Right? That is something that I wouldn’t even be able to talk about because that is the protocol that we have here. Look, the President was asked a question. He answered it in — in — as — as it relates to — right? — this is also relating to — we’ve said this — any content, anything that’s related to underlying materials related to this. This is something that we are just not informed on. This is something that it is the independence of the Department of Justice as it relates to ODNI. That is something that — that assessment that they are doing that we are not involved, we are not briefed, we are not aware of. And I’ll leave it at that. Q I just want to be really clear: You can say that he was not briefed about the warrant execution, but you can’t say whether he’s been briefed on any — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, no — Q — national security issues? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I — I can tell you right now, when it comes to the ODNI, the letter, I can surely tell you that the President was not briefed on that, he was not aware — Q I’m not asking about just about the letter — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know — I — but this is all — it’s all connected, right? Right? It’s all connected. So I’m trying to give you answers for what I can give you answers to, right? So I’m sure — we have not been asked about that. And I’m telling you, for that particular piece, we were not briefed, we were not made aware of. That is something that ODNI — that is their assessment. That is something that they’re doing as it relates to the ongoing investigation that the Department of Justice is doing as it’s connected to national security materials. What I can say, if asked — if I’m asked if the President has been briefed on classified materials — we have said this before at the podium — it is — it is something that I can’t even speak to, right? I can’t even speak to what classified materials he’s been briefed or daily briefings when it even comes to his PDA [sic] — PDB. That is — it is — it is classified information. So it is not even something that we can speak to. That’s what I’m — I’m spea- — I’m talking about. Go ahead. Q So, Karine, you’re saying he hasn’t been briefed so far, but are you implying that he won’t be briefed as long as the DNI assessment is taking place? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All — I can’t even get into hypotheticals right now. I can speak to this moment. I can speak to what is currently happening right now, which is — which is we’re just not going to comment on an ongoing investigation. Right? This is an ongoing investigation — an independent investigation. We’re just not going to comment. And we have not been briefed on that. I cannot get into hypotheticals. I don’t know — we don’t know what’s going to happen next. So I not going to go into a hypothetical question of what is going to happen — Q Broadly — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — in the future. Q Broadly, though, the White House supports this damage assessment? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, this is — again, I’m just — I am just not going to comment on that. Q Was there anybody in the White House who requested this assessment ahead of time before — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Q Okay. And then Senator Lindsey Graham said, last night, “there would be riots in the streets” if former President Trump is prosecuted for taking classified government documents to Mar-a-Lago. What is the White House response to that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we have — you know, we have seen MAGA Republicans attack our democracy. We have seen MAGA Republicans take away our rights, make threats of violence, including this weekend, and that is what the President was referring to when you all asked me last week about the semi-fascism comment. And he was clear: not all Republicans — there are some mainstream Republicans — he mentioned the Governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan and talked about — about him and what he’s been doing and how he said — called them out of being that mainstream Republican. But we have seen these MAGA, extreme Republicans making these kinds of comments, which is — which is dangerous. And — and this is what we are talking about when Joe Biden — when Joe Biden was making his comments — President Biden was making his comments last week. Look, this is a President that believes when you are President of the United States, it is your duty, it is your responsibility to have the strongest voice of — when it comes to democracy, when speaking about democracy. And that’s what you’re going to continue to hear from this President. Q Thank you, Karine. Just to follow up on the Pennsylvania trip: You mentioned the assault weapons ban as being kind of a key priority for the administration. But are you kind of out of things that you can do from an executive standpoint? I know months ago you were reviewing what other additional executive actions you could take on gun violence. Are you — are you out of options there? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — we don’t have — I don’t have anything else to share on what else we can do. But I can say this: This is a president who has taken the most action — most executive action than any other President when it comes to curtailing and really dealing with gun violence. And that’s how seriously he’s taken this. I just laid out what he did in the American Rescue Plan — that $350 billion that helped — that went into communities to make sure that communities were safer. That’s — only Democrats in Congress voted for the American Rescue Plan. That matters. He’s going to go tomorrow and talk about what else we are doing as an administration to make sure that — that we’re — that we’re — that communities feel safer. And — but as far as what we’re doing from the — as far as executive actions, certainly don’t have anything to share to you — for you at this time. But he has called — he’s called on Congress to take actions on — on assault weapons ban, something that we haven’t seen in 30 years. And you’ve heard him say this: When — when assault weapons ban sunset 10 years after it was put into law — 10 years after he worked very hard to make sure that we had that piece of legislation — we did see crime go up with assault weapons ban — assault weapons. So that is something that the President has been fighting for throughout his Senate days, as Vice President. And he’ll continue to fight for this as President. Q And did you have any more color about why this part of Pennsylvania is the appropriate place for this message? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, no — no specific color on that. You know, we’re going to his hometown, which is important to him, which is very close to him. But I don’t have any specifics. It’s just — you know, we go to — we go to places where we can actually be able to deliver our message to the American people, especially all the work that we have — we have done here in Washington with congressional Democrats. Q One quick one on abortion. There’s been kind of a number of incidents nationwide where medical providers have been unsure if they can provide certain procedures for women, even if they feel that it’s medically necessary, if they’re going to run afoul of state law. What is kind of the White House guidance to medical providers about whether they should consider running afoul of state laws in providing medically necessary abortions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, this is something that we are acutely aware of, that certainly that we are a monitoring. Look, a lot of this is — you know, when we talk about that MAGA agenda, the MAGA extreme Republicans, this is it. This is congressional Republicans who are touting this MAGA agenda, including banning abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. And so this is something that the President certainly is going to call out. We saw the Texas district court affirm that medical providers can deny lifesaving and health-preserving care for women, even if they are suffering from hemorrhaging or life-threatening hypertension. Thankfully, we saw in Idaho — a federal Idaho district court determine that women there will continue to receive lifesaving and health-preserving emergency care, including abortion care. But, you know, this is — this is something that the President is going to continue to speak to: how extreme this agenda is. The Department of Justice is looking into it and answering your question. Again, this is — you know, we refer folks to them. They’re going to do what they can to protect — to protect women as they’re crossing over into states and — and make sure that, you know, we can do everything that we can so that women can make their decision — their own decisions — on what they can do to protect their health and to protect their life. Q I guess I’m asking: Should providers risk it? Like if if — if it’s a close call on whether it’s legal or not in the state — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, it’s not — it’s not for me to decide. Right? We’re going to do everything that we can to provide any assistance that we can so that women can get the care that they need. Clearly, that’s a decision that they have to make. The Department of Justice is doing that every — everything that they can as well in states, working with states. We have HHS working with states on how to provide care for — to women. You’ve heard us talk about the waivers. You’ve heard us talk about the executive actions that the President has taken. But again, that is — that is not something that I’m going to speak directly to. That is something that they would have to make a decision on. And every state is different, right? Every — every law is different. Q Thanks, Karine. One thing that the White House has said about the ODNI’s review is that the White House sees this as appropriate action. I wonder whether you could help us understand why the White House sees this as appropriate — appropriate action, whether that’s based on any specific concerns that have been discussed within the White House? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — I’m just not going to get into any anything further there. I — again, we have seen the letter from ODNI to Congress on this. I would refer you to either ODNI or the Department of Justice for any specific questions, any underlying materials. We’re just not going to speak to this. This is an assessment that ODNI is doing. And we — we did not know anything about this beforehand. And I’m just not going to go any further. Q Last week, when we were having discussions about the student loan forgiveness program, the White House made clear that you all see this program as basically paid for because of the deficit reductions achieved during the President’s term. I wonder if the President is open to pursuing any other programs, any other actions that could be offset by deficit reductions if it means that he can pursue his agenda further. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to announce on this. The President does believe — and you heard him say this directly, not just here at the podium — that the amount of deficit reduction we’ve seen is enough to pay for this program. This is what Bharat — you — I think you were here when Bharat was our guest just on Friday. That’s one of the many reasons this action was — is well justified in our eyes. And remember, you know, we’re on track to cut, as you were alluding to, the deficit down by $1.7 trillion by the end of this year, and — and including the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce the deficit by another trillion over the next decade. So, the plan the President announced provides important breathing room — a little bit of that breathing room that he talks about — for middle-class Americans in particular. And it goes after — it goes towards helping targeted Americans who are — 90 percent who are making less than $75,000 a year. It is incredibly important, we believe, the student lan [sic] — the student loan plan is, the cancellation plan. And he — something that we are very proud of. And that’s also historic. Q I just had one last quick one. Is there an official estimate of additional funding that the administration would want to deal with monkeypox? And will there be an official request made to Congress at some point? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I could say this — I just want to make sure, because we had some good updates on this on the monkeypox. I know that folks were really curious about what we were doing or concerns, rightfully so. As you know, we’ve been working day in and day out on — across the government and with cities and states and healthcare providers, public health officials, and the impacted community to execute a strategy to accelerate the fight against the monkeypox outbreak. We’re making a lot more doses available and working closely with jurisdictions to operationalize all of this. Last week, HHS made 360,000 additional vials of vaccines for jurisdictions to order. That is on top of approximately 780,000 vials that we already delivered that we have talked about here. Seventy-five percent of jurisdictions have moved to this method, and another twenty percent working to do the same. This is a significant progress in a short term of time and will mean more shots in arms. This is a cumulative of 1.1 million vials are delivered to jurisdictions. And as we get more supplies, we are approaching the point where we can offer two doses of vaccine to the entire high-risk population via intradermal administration. So, again, this is something that — wanted to just lay that out, because we have seen some movement, and we’re trying to meet that moment, as we have talked about. And that funding that you’re talking about that is connected to the COVID and the CR, that’s something that we’re going to continue to work with Congress on to make sure that we have the funding needed to do the work on monkeypox and also to — the continued work with COVID. Q Do you have an estimate on the funding amount? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have — I don’t have an estimate for you at this time, but just know that we’re going to continue to work on — with Congress. Go ahead. Q Yeah, thank you. Revisiting the marijuana question, specifically what John Fetterman is calling on President Biden to do is use executive authority to de-schedule marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Several other Democratic senators have called on the same — called for the same. Is President Biden looking at that specific action? And why hasn’t he taken that action so far if that’s something he has considered? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, we don’t have anything new to share on — or any announcement to share. I laid out the President — our drug policy. Wanted to just give a little in-depth of what we have done in the last 19 months and what is important to the President. This is something that he has talked about — right? — during the campaign. And you’ve heard from him many other times talking about the — our — his drug policy — drug policy focus and what’s important to him. We just don’t have anything to speak to. As I mentioned in April during the Second Chance Month, President Biden announced 75 sentence commutations and 3 pardons, which are more grants of clemency at this point than any other President, than any of his five recent predecessors. He’s going to continue to evaluate further uses of his clemency powers. And as it relates to marijuana decriminalization, just don’t have anything at this time. Q Does the White House believe he has the authority to do that executive action? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, again, I’m just not going to get into the specifics. Look, the administration has made progress on its promises regarding marijuana. An example is the DEA issued its first license — licenses to companies to cultivate marijuana for research purposes after years of delay during the previous administration. This is a key step in promoting research because it broadens the amount and quality of cannabis available for research purposes. And we will continue to explore — explore what else we can do. As far as reforms, we just don’t have anything to share for you today. Q And one last question. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee in Pennsylvania, will not be at the event tomorrow with the President. Has he — has their campaign given you a reason? Is the President disappointed that he won’t be there for that event? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I can’t speak to — to the lieutenant governor. My understanding is he had an existing event. So I would refer you to his — to his office or his campaign. Okay. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Getting back to the FDA authorization of the new COVID booster vaccine, your answer to Franco. When you said that you’re planning for a robust education program and plan, but you said you’re doing it with “the limited funding we have left.” So, just to clarify, when you’re trying to combat some of the hesitancy questions right now — you know, right now only half of Americans eligible for a booster have gotten one. Is the White House — as you prepare for public messaging ahead of this new shot, are you doing a more scaled-down version compared to previous rounds because you have limited funding to do that? Is this different than what we’ve seen in previous booster public messaging campaigns? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So it’s going to be a robust education program that — we’re going to continue to do that. And we’re going to build on the lessons we’ve learned and focusing on the most at-risk communities. This will include leveraging deep partnerships across sectors to meet people where they are with facts and answers to questions, and empowering trusted local messegers [sic] — messengers with messaging they need to engage with their communities about the importance of vaccination. So this is what we’ve learned — because we have learned from some lessons from the COVID-19 outreach, our comprehensive program that we had from the beginning of this administration. So we’re going to use those lessons and — and do that and do the — the things that we’ve learned that worked for the fall booster campaign. And, again, we’re going to be — targeted at-risk — at — do a more at-risk campaign. It will be robust. We’re going to make sure that we have those trusted local messengers, which, by the way — I think you remember; you covered this so closely last year — it worked. It worked. When you have those trusted voices, that — that does help make sure that people go get vaccinated and, in this case, get their booster. Q And are there any concerns about supply with this new booster? And will everyone who wants to be able to get one be able to get one for free? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we’re — I’m not going to get ahead of the FDA and CDC. They’re going to lay out who is going to — who is going to be able to receive — or how the process is going to go. And they’re going to lay that out, so I don’t want to get ahead of them. But look, I mean, we’ve — that’s why we’re — we’re kind of — we made the announcement on testing, right? That’s why we’ve had to, you know, actually end some things and — and cut some — cut away, take some money away from things like testing to help — to help fund the procurement of these vaccines. And so this is a priority. We’re going to do the best that we can to get vaccines to folks — folks who are most at risk, as I just mentioned. But, you know, we’re going to continue to do the work that’s needed to make sure we protect the American public. Q Thank you, Karine. This weekend, we saw U.S. warships going through the Taiwan Strait. Considering the buildup of tension since the Speaker’s visit, what was the necessity of seeing U.S. warships during this time? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, INDOPACOM put out a statement, as you probably saw, on Sund- — on Saturday, detailing the transit — the warships that you’re speaking of — the Navy — the U.S. Navy warships, to be more specific. We conducted a routine Taiwan Strait transit on August 28th in accordance with international law and demonstrated our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, as you’ve heard us say many times before from this podium and from the President. As we have said, you will see in the coming days and weeks and months that our presence, posture, and exercises account for China’s provocative and destabilizing behavior with a view towards guiding the situation in Western Pacific towards greater stability. This is not about U.S.-China. This is about what is in the interest — the best interests of — Taiwan’s interests, specifically, and the region’s interest as well. So, our policy towards Taiwan has remained consistent for decades and across administrations. We remain committed to the — our One China policy. And in accordance with that policy, we’ll continue to fly and sail and operate where international law allows, consistent with our longstanding commitment to freedom of navigation, as you’ve heard us say. And that includes conducting standard air, maritime transit through the Taiwan Strait. So, we’re committed to doing that and protecting the region. Q Hey, Karine — Q And another topic on — Q Karine — WHITE HOUSE AIDE: Karine, we got to –- to go. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I got to go? Q Sorry, another topic on — on the Iran — potential new Iran deal. Iran is studying the U.S. response, but we are — we’re receiving information here and there about a potential release of prisoners and all this. I know you don’t want to negotiate in public — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — but does the administration feel that the discussions are going in the right direction? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So as far as the status of negotiations, as I said — as you have said, we’re not going to negotiate in public. Look, we have taken a deliberate and principled approach to these negotiations from the start. If Iran is prepared to comply with its commitments under the 2015 deal, then we’re prepared to do the same. As it relates to last week and the EU, we conveyed our feedback about Iran’s comments on the EU’s proposal directly to the EU. We will not negotiate, again, in public, and are going to — not going to go into details of how the process is going. I’m going to — go ahead — do — Q Karine, I know Abdullah is trying to give you the hook. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I know. Q Can you get a few more questions here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. I’m going to take them. Q I — thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s why — I could have walked away and not taken your question, Peter. But I will take your question. Q I’ll make it worth it. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sure. I’m sure you will. Q Different topic. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q How come migrants are allowed to come into this country unvaccinated but world-class tennis players are not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Are you — you’re talking about which world-class tennis player? Q Novak Djokovic. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So as far — you know, just to — just since you asked about me — about him — you asked me about him. So, visa records are confidential under U.S. law. Therefore, the U.S. government cannot discuss the details of individual visa cases. Due to privacy reasons, the U.S. government also does not comment on medical information of individual travelers. As it relates to the tennis — the tennis pla- — player, look, those questions regarding vaccination requirements is — is — I defer you to CDC. This is a CDC requirement for foreign nationals. This is something that they decide. This is — so, this is something that is up to them — the U.S. Open and their participant protocols. I’d refer you to them; they have their own specific protocols as well. Q But just — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So they’re two different things. They’re two — Q As — but — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — different things. Q But — so, how is it two different things? Somebody unvaccinated comes over on a plane; you say that’s not okay. Somebody walks into Texas or Arizona unvaccinated; they’re allowed to stay. Why? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That — but that’s not how it works. Q That’s — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Like, we actually — Q That’s what’s happening. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Q I know that that’s not what you guys want to happen, but that is what happ— what is happening. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But that’s not — it’s not like somebody walks over and — (laughs) — that’s not — that’s not how — Q That’s exactly what’s happening. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We — look — Q Thousands of people are walking in a day. Some of them turn themselves over. Some of them are caught; tens of thousands a week are not. That is what is happening. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just lay out what we have done under this administration: We have installed new border technology and set up joint protocols with Mexico and Guatemala to catch more human traffickers. We have already made over 3,000 arrests in the first three months of launching an unprecedented anti-smuggling campaign with regional partners. We’ve secured record levels of funding for the Department of Homeland Security. We’ve put in place dedicated immigration judges so asylum seekers can have their cases heard faster. We’ve expanded la- — labor pathways, including H-2B visas. And through the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection, President Biden brought 20 leaders — world leaders together to manage increased migration flows across the Western Hemisphere. By contrast, core to the prior administration, immigration strategy was to build a wall and they couldn’t even come accomplish that in the four years. And they also, by talking about building a wall — which would have taken billions of dollars from veterans, billion dollars from schools — which is also a policy that just does not work. It is not that simple. It’s not just that people are walking across — across the border. We have a — we have a plan in place. This is not like switching the lights on. Right? This is going to take a process. We are fixing a broken system that was actually left by the last administration. And as it relates to the tennis star, that is totally different. That is a different process. That is the U.S. Open that he is part of, and there are a CDC — federal guidance — Q But — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — that he isn’t — he needs to follow. Q But why is there a CDC requirement for people that fly here, as opposed to people that cross the southern border? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we have talked about Title — we have talked about Title 42. Right? Q This is not — this has nothing to do with Title 42. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It is. Q This is — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Title 42 is the CDC imperative that is — Q And you guys got rid of it because you said the pandemic is not — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s not — Q — a big deal anymore. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is — that is not how it works. It is not — every — Title 42 is very much in place, and that is the process. So there is a CDC — there is a CDC provision for folks coming through — coming through the southern border. It is not just — it is not just for tennis players. Migrants have, also, a CDC guidance that we have to follow, which is Title 42. So that is not the case. That is factually wrong. Okay. Go to the back. Right here. Q Yeah, thanks, Karine. So the jobs numbers are coming out on Friday. So should Americans be prepared for job losses to tame inflation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t want to get ahead of what we’re going to see in a couple of days. We have talked about how we’re coming off a historic economic growth. And it’s no surprise that the economy is slowing down. You’ve heard me say this, you’ve heard Brian Deese say this, you’ve heard others from NEC sl- — say this: slowing down as — as we’re going into a transition — right? — again, from a historic — from a historic economy to now a more stable and steady growth. And that is important. We see that as an important — as an important next step. And so — and we’ve talked about how we’re — as the — as we see the job growth numbers, we’re expecting that to cool off just — just a bit as we’re going into that transition, making sure we do not lose the gains that we have seen this past year. And right now, we’re still seeing a strong labor market, which matters. Consumer spending is strong, which matters. And — and so, we’re going to always look at every economic data. That’s going to be very important as we move forward and continue to try and deliver lower costs in particular, which is so important at this time for the American people. But I’m not going to get ahead of the numbers. But we have talked about how we’re expecting to see a bit of a cooling as we go into a transition to more stable growth. Q So, in that transition then, you’re expecting job losses by the end of the year? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going — we’ve talked about how we anticipate a cooling — right? — for the job numbers to — to not be at the — at the high job growth that we have seen these past several months. That is something that we have talked about many times. Any time you all ask me about what we expect for jobs numbers, we always talk about “we expect a cooling,” especially as we’re in a transition for a stable and steady growth. And that is something that is important as we’re looking at the resiliency of our economy. Okay. I’m trying to see — go ahead. Q Thanks. I wanted to go back to what you were saying about the COVID-19 rapid tests. Is it that you need more money to buy more tests or you’re out of money to send the tests? What’s the funding issue exactly that prompted you to shut this down for now? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’ve been very clear that the COVID-19 response funding needs — needs for months, right? We’ve talked about it. You’ve heard us talk about it in here. You’ve heard the COVID Response Team talk about it. You’ve heard the President talk about it. We’ve warned that the congressional inaction would force unacceptable trade-offs and harm our preparedness and response, and that consequences would be likely worsened over time. And that is what you’re seeing here. So this is an action we’ve been forced to take because of the lack of funding and not continuing getting that funding that we need from Congress that will help preserve our limited remaining supply. That’s what we’re seeing. So, ensuring we have limited supply of tests available in the fall — right? We are — we are preparing — that’s what we’re doing in this administration. We make sure that we prepare for what can come next. And so — you know, what we might face: a new rise in infections and more acute need. So that’s why we’re taking this action so we have some limited supply for down the road. But again, we’re going to continue to call on Congress for the funding. We’re going to continue to work with Congress to get that extra funding. But that’s what you’re hearing from this announcement. Yes, we had to make some tough decisions, and this is part of that. Q The other question I wanted to ask you is on Afghanistan, specifically the Afghans that have come into the country in the last year and don’t have a path to permanent legal status, or at least not an easy one. I wanted to ask: The White House made a push to get Congress to create such a path earlier this year, and then it kind of cooled down. With Congress coming back next week and a lot of these Afghans heading toward a lot of uncertainty, will the White House make a fresh push on Congress to get this done? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, this is an issue that’s important to this President, important to the administration. I’m going to check in with our Office of Leg Affairs and the team here to see what the plan is for the next steps. We don’t have anything to share specifically on the legislative component to that. Q Okay. Is there anything else that you can do from an administration perspective to help these people be able to apply for asylum more quickly or be able to have that certainty that they know they’ll be able to stay here long term? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we all know that legislation is always the best way to move forward with more certainty when it comes to, you know, asylum or coming here and getting the — getting the security that they need. But, look, one of the things that I do want to say is that, you know, this — the Biden administration — the Biden-Harris administration is going to continue to demonstrate its commitment to the brave Afghans who stood side by side with the United States over the past two decades. And so that is a commitment that we have made. And just to give you a little bit of an update on the SIV process, because we had made some changes to that since taking office: The President’s — at the President’s direction, we have undertaken substantial efforts to improve the Afghan Special Immigration Visa — SIV program — make it more efficient and process SIV applicants more expeditiously while continuing to safeguard our national security. Quickly after taking office, President Biden signed an executive order, as you all know, in February of 2021, requiring agencies to surge resources, streamline the proc- — the application process. We’ve restarted SIV interviews — which had been paused by the previous administration, allowing a massive backlog of applications to build — and have surged resources to this vital program, increasing the number of staff processing SIV applications more — by more than fifteenfold. So, this is something that I wanted to just make sure that you had. And another update is: As of August 9th, over 17,000 individuals have submitted all documents required to apply for Chief of Mission review, or have beyond the Chief of Mission stage. We’re working to process those cases as quickly as possible. The Afghan SIV program remains active and the Department of State continues to receive the process — to process new SIV applications as expeditiously as possible. So anything specific or anything more about that, I certainly would refer you to Department of State. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Okay. Thank you, guys. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. All right. Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Q Good afternoon. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have a few things at the top for everybody. Okay, so I wanted to provide you an update on our efforts to support the people of Jackson and the state of Mississippi. The President spoke with the mayor of Jackson this morning, and the FEMA Administrator also spoke with the governor. The President last night also immediately approved the governor’s emergency declaration request, directing his team to surge assistance to the state. FEMA has personal — personnel on site in the State Emergency Operations Center and is coordinating with the State Emergency Management Team to identify specific resource requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency is deploying a subject-matter expert to support the emergency assessment of the Jackson water treatment plants and is working to expedite delivery of experiment [sic] — sorry — equipment needed to repair Jackson’s water treatment plant. We are committed to helping the people of Jackson and the Mississippi — and the state of Mississippi during this urgent time of need. We are saddened by the tragic loss of life and destruction as a result of the severe flooding in Pakistan. We send our deepest condolences to all the individuals and families impacted. The United States stands with communities in Pakistan as they experience severe flooding and landslides. Yesterday, USAID announced it is providing an additional $30 million in humanitarian assistance to support the people affected by the severe flooding. With these funds, USAID partners will prioritize urgently needed support for flo- — for food, nutrition, safe water, improved sanitation and hygiene, and shelter assistance. A USAID disaster management specialist is also in Islamabad to assess the impact of the floods and to determine additional humanitarian assistance that the U.S. government may provide. The United States has and will continue to be a strong supporter of the people of Pakistan. We are the — we are the single-largest humanitarian donor to Pakistan, having provided over $33 million in humanitarian assistance. We will continue to closely monitor the situation in Pakistan for further needs following this horrific tragedy. Also, this morning, we announced new public- and private-sector actions to strengthen the teaching profession and support schools as they address teacher shortages. The new efforts include commitments from leading job platforms — such as — such as ZipRecruiter, Indeed, and Handshake — to make it easier for Americans to find teaching opportunities. They include new initiatives from teacher unions and organizations to expand high-quality pathways into the teaching profession. Secretary Cardona and Secretary Walsh also sent a letter to state and local leaders outlining a series of actions they can take to support teachers and schools. And earlier this afternoon, First Lady Jill Biden, Domestic Policy Advisor Susan Rice, Secretary Cardona, and Secretary Walsh met with public- and private-sector leaders here at the White House. They discussed short- and long-term strategies to address the teacher shortage and the actions the President has already taken to address longstanding staffing challenges facing our schools. This includes the $130 billion the President secured through the American Rescue Plan for school districts across the country to hire, retain, and support teachers. We are committed to addressing the teacher shortage and giving students, families, and educators the resources they need for a successful and safe schoolyear this year. And lastly, I want to take a moment to recognize International Overdose Awareness Day. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 107,000 Americans tragically died from a drug overdose in 2021. Today the Second Gentleman and Dr. Gupta, the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, will meet with families from across the country who have lost loved ones to deadly drugs like illicit fentanyl. For far too many years, the overdose epidemic has been destroying American lives and causing pain and heartbreak for families across the country. As the President said in the State of the Union, beating the overdose epidemic is a key part of his agenda. The President’s strategy expands access to high-impact public health services while reducing the supply of illicit drugs like fentanyl. As part of that strategy, the Department of Health and Human Services announced today around $80 million in grants to support prevention and treatment for substance use and overdose prevention. While this funding will help communities across the nation, we need more resources to match the scale of the problem. That’s why the President’s fiscal year 2023 budget proposed a significant increase in funding to beat the overdose epidemic and save lives. With that — hello, Chris. Q Hello. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good to see you back in D.C. Q Yeah. So, last night, the Justice Department released a photo of top-secret documents found at Mar-a-Lago. Has President Biden seen the photo, been briefed on the photo? And does the White House believe that there was national security at risk by having these documents there? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I’ve said many times — and I get how you’re asking the question; I hear you, Chris — we’re just not going to comment on the investigation — anything — any underlying pieces of the investigation, any content of the investigation. This is an ongoing, as you all know, investigation that the Department of Justice — an independent investigation that the Department of Justice is doing. We are not going to politically interfere. We are not going to comment on anything connected to the investigation. And we’re just going to keep it there. Q Sure, but not on the investigation, the legal process, the FBI — but as the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief, overseeing national security, you have top-secret documents — some potentially involving human sources there. You know, is that something that the President is keeping tabs on or that’s part of his intelligence briefing? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as far as top-secret materials or classified materials, look, the President has said he believes — he said this very recently — in the importance of properly handling classified materials. But in — in regards to this specific case, again, we’re just not going to comment from here. We want to make sure we’re — what we’re doing is, like, out of an abundance of caution — right? — to not comment on an ongoing investigation, not to politically interfere. This is an independent investigation that the Department of Justice is doing. And this is something that the President has talked about during his campaign, making sure that they have that independence — the Department of Justice has that independence as it relates to investigations. And we’re just not going to comment any further. Q And on tomorrow’s speech, does the President plan to talk specifically about Donald Trump in the speech tomorrow? And does he feel, like — you know, when he’s talking about the battle over democracy in this country, does he feel like things are moving in the right direction, the wrong direction? What can you tell us of what the President is going to talk about tomorrow? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t want to — I don’t want to get ahead of the President’s speech. It’s not a good thing to do, as you know. But, you know, the President thinks that there is an extremist threat to our democracy. The President has been clear as he can be on that particular piece. When we talk about our democracy, when we talk about our freedoms, the way that he sees it is the MAGA Republicans are the most energized part of the Republican Party. That extreme — this is an extreme threat to our democracy, to our freedom, to our rights. They just don’t respect the rule of law. You’ve heard that from the President. And, you know, they are pursuing an agenda that takes away people’s rights, so — which is what the President said last week on Thursday. You all heard him. This is what the President said yesterday. And that’s what he’s going to continue to say. And here’s the thing: The President is not going to shy away to call out what he clearly sees is happening in this country. And, you know, again, MAGA Republicans are this extreme part of their party, and that is just facts. And that’s what he’s going to continue to lay out. Q On the speech tomorrow, can you explain a little bit the decision to do this as a primetime event? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The President takes what he’s talking about — again, not to go into — not to go into specifics about the speech — but, as you know, we’re calling it the “soul of the nation.” He takes that very seriously when we — when it comes to our democracy. As you might remember, the President laid out his thesis — right? — the foundation for what he calls the “soul of the nation” — fighting for the soul of the nation, the battle of the soul of the nation — in an Atlantic op-ed back in August of 2017. And again, that is the thesis, that is the foundation, when you read that article. And that’s what he talked about during the campaign. That’s what he talked about during his inaugural — Inauguration Day. And not only are we fighting for the soul of the nation, but we need to continue to be vigilant. And, you know, there’s a clear through line if you — if you read that article and you look at what — the speeches that he’s made. So that article talked about Charlottesville. You think about January 6th. I mentioned the Inauguration. You think about what we’re seeing today. You think about the battle that continues. And so — but what the President believes, which is a reason to have this in primetime, is that there are an overwhelmingly amount of Americans — majority of Americans — who believe that we need to continue — we need to save the core values of our — of our country. Q And on last night’s filing, you have said in the past that the President was not briefed ahead of time on other aspects of the investigation. So just to be clear: Was the President briefed on this latest development yesterday? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The President has not been briefed on this latest development. He has not been briefed on anything that’s connected to this particular criminal investigation, which is — we’re not going to comment. Again, it’s an independent investigation. At this time, we’re just not going to comment on it. We are going to let the Department of Justice continue its — its independent investigation. Q Karine, the President yesterday weighed in pretty forcefully about threats to the FBI and FBI agents. Is he satisfied, is the White House satisfied that FBI agents are getting the protection that they need as a result of these threats? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, just like the President, just want to say this — and the President spoke to this very forcefully, very clearly yesterday, as you all heard him: He’s rejected defunding the police. He rejects defunding other law enforcement, including the FBI. The President has called for boosting police funding through the COPS program and hiring 100,000 additional officers. He also included over $10.8 billion for the FBI in the most recent budget. And so, the — the way that he believes this and we have said is that the men and women who bravely serve in law enforcement to keep us safe, to keep our community safe, to keep our country safe deserve the resources and support they need to do their jobs, and not seeing their budget slashed. So, he has provided additional funding, and he wants to make sure that they are kept safe. I cannot speak to what — you know, specifically what they’re seeing and how — you know, what they’re seeing at the FBI. I would refer you to them specifically on what potential — you know, what’s coming in as — as far as their protection. But clearly, this is something that’s important for the President, which is why he’s included it in his budget. Q Okay. On a separate topic, what — what additional assistance is the White House planning for Ukraine? And will you need congressional approval for funding that additional package? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, $40 billion was approved by Congress, in a bipartisan way, of as- — of assistance not too long ago. We announced — well, under this President’s leadership, we’ve provided unprecedented amount — about $13.5 billion — in security assistance. And — and the assistance that most recently was announced — last week, I believe — will begin in the next several months and continue over the coming years. It’s intended to support Ukraine’s defense capabilities for the long term. So you’ve already seen our commitment to Ukraine for the long term, as it’s related to what we announced last week, which is about $3 billion, which was the largest once — once — at-once tranche that we’ve announced. And, you know, we’re going to continue to meet both the urgent and the long-term needs. And that’s what you saw from the — the most recent — the most recent announcement. Look, just that announcement and the announcement prior to that, it’s about 19 presidential draw — drawdown of security assistant [assistance]. That was the one before the $3 billion. That was the one before the $3 billion was — the presidential drawdown. That’s — that was the 19. So you have seen consistent support for Ukraine. We have always said we have been incredibly impressed by their bravery and what they’ve been able to do to fight for their freedom, to fight for their democracy, and that’s important for folks to know. This has been a bipartisan effort, and all because of an unprovoked, brutal war that was started by the Kremlin. So, we’re going to conti- — you’re going to continue to see those efforts. And we are in daily conversation with the Ukrainian government on what else their needs might be. Q And lastly, will the U.S. send a representative to Mikhail Gorbachev’s funeral or do anything else to commemorate his death? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t — I don’t have anything to preview or to announce at this time on that piece. Go ahead. Q Just back to yesterday’s speech from the President. He obviously was critical of some senior lawmakers, he said, for saying things to the effect of “If such and such happens, there will be blood in the street.” He was obviously also very clear that any threats, attacks on the FBI law enforcement agents — that those were not acceptable. Given all of that, I’m just wondering whether the President would be open to having direct conversations with some senior lawmakers, some of whom he has known for many years, to tell them to cut it out. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any calls to preview or any conversation on this specific subject. As you know, we try to keep our conversations with lawmakers private, and so nothing there to preview or to add. Look, you know, we have been — long been clear that when the Department of Justice independence — sorry that the Department of Justice and the FBI — you know, as I just said, like, we need to — we need to not attack our brave men and women who protect our country and who protect our communities. And you just heard me lay down what funding this President has put forward and has announced and — to do just that. So, you know, the President was just reemphasizing that violence or threats of violence has absolutely no place — no place in our society, which we should all agree on, regardless of the point of view. It doesn’t matter which side of the aisle that you’re sitting on, we need to denounce that. And so, when you are inciting violence or when you are making comments the way that we’ve heard over the weekend for some — from some leadership and some members — members in elected office, that’s a dangerous thing. And the President is not going to shy away from calling out — calling out those types of comments. Q I guess, just without previewing specific conversations that may have happened or could happen in the future, you know, if he believes this kind of rhetoric is potentially harmful or dangerous to law enforcement, you know, does he feel that he has a responsibility to do everything he can — actually, I think he made that very clear yesterday — by, for example, again, reaching out to some of these members directly and having that conversation with them? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, MJ, I hear your question, but all you have to do is turn on the TV and hear from the President directly on how he feels about what he’s hearing. And he’s been very clear about that. And again, he’s not going to shy away. He believes — and I have said this a couple of times at this podium at this point — is, as President, he has the obligation to speak out against threats against our democracy, against violence. It is — he believes, as President, you have the — you have the strongest platform, if you will, the strongest voice, and that’s what he’s going to continue to do. Again, he’s not going to step away from it. He’s not going to shy away from that. I think any of those legislators or any of those elected officials, all they have to do — I’m sure they have seen the clip over and over again from your network and others about what the President has said yesterday and how forceful he was, how passionate he was. And that’s just — that is going to continue. Q And just one more quickly on tomorrow — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: One last one. Go ahead. (Laughs.) Yeah. Q Just given that, you know, you all have billed it as being related to the battle for the soul of America, which is something that he obviously ran on back in 2020 — the threats to democracy that he obviously saw as being very real two, three years ago, does he believe that those forces are very much still at large now? Or does he believe that there has been some progress since he came into office? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, he believes that it continues. He believes that we need to continue to fight for our democracy. And he’s been very clear. You look at the extreme wing of a party — the MAGA Republicans — it’s not stopping. It is continuing. And we heard it over the weekend, as you’re asking me about the President talking directly with legislators. And this is — this is an important time. And he is — again, he’s not going to shy away from it. He’s going to continue to lift that up and what he sees and what he’s going to call out. And, you know, he believes that there are a majority of Americans who disagree with that, who disagree on the attack of our core values as a country, and he’s going to speak directly to them tomorrow. That’s what you’re going to hear. Okay. Go ahead, Nancy. And then I’m going to come to the back and then I’ll come — Q Thanks, Karine. Over the past week or so, we’ve heard many Republicans argue that this President ran as a uniter and now he’s calling MAGA Republicans, which is a very large swath of the American populace, semi-fascists. He is arguing that they’re a threat to democracy. Does the White House believe that this is a fair criticism by Republicans that this is not unifying language? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this, Nancy: Sadly, there are more examples than I can count on how we have seen recently armed attacks on federal law enforcement. There are a couple of things I just want to say here. You have Representative Paul Gosar has posted videos depicting him attacking the President and members of Congress. You have Representative Majority [sic] Tay- — Marjorie Taylor Greene has publicly expressed support for shooting prominent Democratic elected officials and suggesting physically assaulting transgender school officials. You have Representative Madison Cawthorn has said, falsely, “If our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen, then it’s going to lead to one place, and that’s bloodshed.” And just last week, you had Governor Ron DeSantis suggested that Dr. Fauci should be physically assaulted. And former President Trump has done the same many, many times. Look, and many of your colleagues have actually talked about and reported on this dangerous trend that we’re seeing. And — for example, the New York Times headline from this month — “As Right-Wing Rhetoric Escalates, So Do Threats and Violence.” And so, these are things that we have to call out. Again, I was talking — I can’t remember who just asked me the question — I was talking about soul of the nation, something the President has talked about since 2017 when he wrote that article in The Atlantic. And he’s called it out then. He called it out January 6th. He called it out Inauguration Day. He called it out last week. He called it out yesterday. So there has been a consistent callout from the President about what he’s seeing from an extreme part of — of this party, of the Republican Party. And historians, I would argue, would say the same. Q I have a question about Jackson, Mississippi. You talked about the help that’s coming from FEMA and the disaster declaration, but, clearly, Jackson is going to need an entirely new water system. They’ve been having big problems even before this latest crisis. What kinds of federal resources are being dedicated, can be dedicated to what could be a billion-dollar price tag to provide Jackson with an entirely new water system? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. As we’ve said, the administration is — is committed to helping the people of Mississippi during this urgent — urgent time of need. And so, we’re going to prioritize that and making the long — and making the long-term infrastructure investment needed to all to — to ensure all Americans just across — across — have access across the country, but, clearly, in the state have access to clean water. So that is something that we’re committed — that long-term — that long-term need. So, just a couple of things just to list out that we have provided and that we are doing from the federal government: $450 million was provided through the American Rescue Plan for water upgrades across the state. The city has allocated $20 million of its ARP — that American Rescue Plan funds — for water and sewer infrastructure needs. You have $75 million through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to support the state to provide clean and safe water this year, with an additional $429 million available to the state over the next five years. There is $30.9 million through the EPA’s revolving loan funds for treatment and distribution system improvements for Jackson, Mississippi, specifically. For — again, for long-term support, earlier this year, we announced $300,000 as part of the administration’s Just- — Justice40 Initiative for the Army Corps to conduct a validation study to reduce flooding from the Pearl River in Ja- — Jackson, Mississippi. So, we continue to work with Mississippi’s congressional delegation to improve the projects moving forward. But as you can see, we’re committed and we’re going to continue to help the people in Mississippi. I’m going to go to the back, and then I’ll come back up. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. On Iran, the EU’s foreign policy chief said this morning that he expects a deal in the coming days. Is this also your assessment? And is this maybe the reason why the President had a call with Israeli Prime Minister Lapid today? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me give you a little bit about Lapid. We’ll have — we’ll have a readout momentarily on that. So the President spoke with the — Q You already sent it. It went out already. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It was already? Okay, there we go. You guys are ahead of the game. I think I’m thinking about something else. Okay. The President spoke with Prime Minister Lapid this morning to consult on global and regional security challenges, including threats posed by Iran and Iran-backed proxies. The President expressed appreciation for the warm reception during his July trip to Israel — a visit that — a visit that illustrated the unbreakable bonds and friendship between our two countries. He also committed to sustained coordination to implement the announced trip deliverables. The President further emphasized the importance of conduct- — concluding the maritime boundary negotiations between Israel and Lebanon in the coming weeks. As it relates to the EU and — look, we’ve said many times from here we’re just not going to negotiate in public. As you know, last week we conveyed our feedback about Iran’s comments on the EU’s proposal directly to the EU. And so, we’re not going to say more than that, we’re not going to negotiate from here, and we’re not going to go into details on contents or our response. So, we’re going to keep it there. Q So the International Energy Agency summer report shows that the Russian revenue from oil exports increased 40 percent from last year. It seems that the sanctions are not cutting off revenue to the Russian president. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So this is exactly why — I think you’ve heard us say this before — President Biden and the G7 leaders have directed relevant members of their team to explore a mechanism to set a global price cap. You heard us talk about that when the President was in Europe — most recently, in Germany. And this would be for Russian oil and — and starving Putin of his main source of cash and forcing down the price of Russian oil to help blunt the impact of Putin’s war on the pump. So, it will be discussed further this week at the G7 Finance Ministers’ meeting. This is happening on Friday. The U.S. has already taken strong action on — action to ban Russia oil, and U.S. allies have announced plans to wind down their own imports of Russian oil. But again, Putin, as you’ve heard us say, has continued to try to find new markets for Russian oil. This is the most effective way, we believe, to fit — to hit hard at Putin’s revenue. And doing so will result in not only a drop in Putin’s oil revenue but also global energy prices as well. Q But why not signal the policy change for long-term support to oil — open oil production here at the U.S. or natural gas pipelines here in the U.S. to undercut the Russian supply of oil on the global market? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, we think that working with our allies in making this announcement, this price cap on Russian oil, is going to be very effective. Again, you’ve heard directly — you heard the President speak about this very recently. We’ll hear more on Friday how this is going to work. And it is not just us; it is also a partnership with our allies, the G7. So, again, we believe this is going to be a — a way to really hit Russia financially. And so, that’s kind of the process that we’re going to take moving forward. And also, as you know, we’ve taken — we’ve also taken actions already that we think has had an effect. But again, as we know, as I just stated, Russia is always looking at other markets, which is why doing this particular piece, we think, will be effective. Q But those other markets are China and India. Is the President then going to use his relationship to stand up to China and India and say, “Stop buying oil from Russia”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we’ve been also very clear about that. I don’t have anything more to add. But, again, we think by doing these price caps is going to hit Russia in a way that is going to be the most effective. So, again, the G7 finance ministries are meeting on Friday to talk more about that, and we’ll have more to share. Okay. Go ahead, Phil. I haven’t called on you in a bit. And then I’ll come down. Q When it comes to voters, how does the President differentiate between the ultra-MAGA folks who he sees as an extremist threat to democracy and the average GOP voter? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, can’t talk about voters from here, as you know. Q (Inaudible) average individuals. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No — oh, no. I get you. Not going to — I just need to say that, right? Just to — just to be clear. I mean, the President has been — has been really clear about the leadership — right? — the MAGA Republicans in leadership. They’re the ones who have the platform. They’re the ones who — again, the extremist part of the Republican Party; they’re the ones who, you know, folks listen to in their own party. And by inciting violence, by trying to take away — they’re the ones who are the legislators and trying to take away our rights, trying to take away our freedoms. And that’s who the President is speaking to. Right? He’s being very targeted in that way and calling that out and saying, you know, “We can’t allow our democracy to be attacked in this way.” And they have a responsibility — right? — they have a responsibility in how they’re doing their business on behalf of their constituents. Q So, for folks sitting at home, when the President is talking about preserving the soul of the nation and these threats to democracy, he’s not referring to those individuals; he’s talking about Republican leadership? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me be — be very clear: It’s not just Republican leadership. It’s not just that blanket. Right? He is talking about an extre- — an extreme portion, like extreme part of the party. He’s been very, very clear about that. He was just in Maryland, as you all know, and he talked about Governor Larry Hogan and talked about how he is a conservative Republican who does not — who is not in that bucket. Right? He was very clear, and he was very purposeful in saying that and being respectful to conservative Republicans who are not part of that extreme. So, again, I want to be very clear here: This is not a blanket statement. This is calling out what we have seen for some time, since 2017, as the President wrote about in his article. Right? When you are — when you are supporting an authoritarian figure, as we have seen, who is leading — currently leading — the former — the former President, you know, and — and saying the — inciting the violence that you are or wanting to take away our freedoms, you know, it — we need to say something. He’s not going to shy away from that. Q Thank you, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead. Q Karine, now that the FDA has authorized this new COVID booster, can you say whether the administration is confident you’ll have enough of these new boosters for everyone who wants one? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, to answer your question, yes, because we have planned for this. But want to say a couple of things about the FDA. So, the announcement is an important step to getting updated COVID vaccine boosters, which we expect to provide additional protection against the variants of COVID circulating in the U.S. to the American people while we wait for the CDC to make its clinical recommendation. So, there’s still another step, so we want to be very clear about that. We’ve been working for months to be prepared for this moment and to get shots into arms this fall and through the end of the year, so we are prepared to do that. So, with FDA’s authorization, doses can be shipped now to tens of thousands of sites nationwide and shots in arms can start as soon as possible after CDC issues its recommendation later this week. All states have ordered doses already. So there has been some orders that have been done. And to make sure vaccines get to communities quickly, primary care providers at community health centers and rural health clinics across the country are able to order vaccine directly from federal government, and long-term care pharmacy networks can also order a vaccine directly. And as we work to ensure that our highest riks [sic] — risk Americans get protected. Teams have already started the process of packing and shipping doses across the country. And pending, again, CDC action, we expect shots in arms to begin in earnest starting after Labor Day weekend. We’ve been working with providers, clini- — clinicians, local health departments, and other critical groups to vaccinate — for vaccination efforts. And we’ve been doing all of this preparation despite the lack of funding from Congress. But we have been prepared for this particular moment to make sure that we get shots in arms. Q So even given that lack of funding, you feel you’ll have the supply — you’ll be able to get enough doses to get to everybody who wants one? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, again, despite the — the Congress failing to provide us with funding that would have bolstered our campaign, clearly, we’re not — you know, that would have happened — we’ve been preparing by working closely, again, with local — local departments, clinicians, and other groups. Look, we’re still leveraging a comprehensive public education program, as I’ve just stated. But look, the bottom line is: Despite a failure for — by Congress to act — as we’ve been asking, as you know, for the past several months — we’ve prepared with resources so we can meet the moment with these — with these boosters. Q And if I could just follow up real quick on the student loan announcement from last week. We’ve been hearing from some loan servicers and advocacy groups who are concerned that there’s not going to be enough time in this four-month period to get everybody’s applications processed and their balances adjusted before repayment starts. I guess, could you kind of respond to that concern? And then is there anything the White House could do? Maybe extend the pause if all those balances haven’t been adjusted by January 1st? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So just want to — you know, just want to reiterate that this is a priority for the President. This is a priority for the Secretary of Education. You’ve heard them both say that. And look, there’s also — we’ve got experience here. They’ve got experience with this. The Department of Education has already canceled $32 billion in student loan debt for over 1.6 million borrowers, which has never happened before, which is unprecedented. That has happened in the last 19 months. And so, you know, the administration will be launching a simple application — just to go down through the process — by early October for folks who don’t know. If you would like to be notified when the application is open, you can go to the StudentAid.gov to sign up for notifications. Once a borrower completes the application, they can expect relief within four to six weeks. That’s what we are — have determined. Borrowers are advised to apply before November 15 — so there are — there is a deadline there — in order to receive relief before the payment pause expires on December 31st, as you all know, this year. The Department of Education will continue to process applications as they rec- — as they are received, even after the pause expires on December 31st. But again, just to — we are encouraging people to do it before November 15th. We — and we are going to do everything that we can. The Department of Education is — has been committed to doing this, and there is precedent for them doing that for 1.6 million Americans previously. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On a speech tomorrow, will the President be outlining any new policies or proposals designed to safeguard democracy or protect voting rights? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’m — I’m not going to go into details into his speech. I will not get ahead of the President. You know, I talked a little bit about the soul of the nation and what he’s talked about before. And I’m just not going to get into further details of the speech itself. Q And on Mississippi, does the President have any plans or is there any discussion about him going down there to personally meet with people who are affected by this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Nothing to — nothing to read out or preview about a trip to Mississippi at this time. Q And will he speak to the governor personally? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As I — as I stated, the FEMA administrator spoke — spoke to the governor, I believe, last night. The President, this morning, spoke to the mayor, as you — as you all know. And we’re just going to be in close touch from our administration to theirs to local — and the local governments — local folks as well to make sure that they have the need that they — they have the — the resources that they need. Go ahead, Peter. Q Thanks, Karine. There’s a big problem now that “rainbow fentanyl,” which is designed to target children, has been found in 18 states. What specifically is the President doing about this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we just talked about the day — the Overdose Awareness Day that — that we are observing today. I just laid out what the Second Gentleman and others are doing with — within this administration. And, you know, we are going to continue to focus on the steps that we’re taking, that we have taken. You have the $80 million that DHS just announced today on drug prevention. And the President has taken many steps; he’s made this a priority to make sure that we attack a very dangerous — very dangerous drugs, serious drugs in this country. Q But 300 overdoses a day now. We know how the fentanyl is coming into the country; it’s coming right across the southern border. The DEA administrator says so. So when is the President going to do something more to stop this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I will say that we have seen a 200 percent increase of fentanyl seizures, which means that we are — we are doing the job of catching drug traffickers. Two hundred percent — hold on — two hundred percent increase — Q But Americans’ — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — just, again, seizures. Q — life expectancies are going down at a rate not seen in a century, and part of that is being driven by drug overdoses. So what is the President going to do to stop it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And we have — we agree. We agree. We see those some — same numbers as well. But the fact that we’re — you know, we are securing the border. The fact that we are securing record levels of funding from DHS so they can stop illicit drugs from entering into the country. The fact that it’s not just drug traffickers that we’re dealing with as well; we’re stopping — stopping financiers. This is what’s happening with this — under this administration. Look — Q But it’s not — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But, look — Q — being stopped. Three hundred overdoses. This has been designed to target — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — Q — children. Drug cartels in Mexico — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you. Q — want to kill American kids. What is this President doing about it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you. I just — I just laid out: 200 percent of — increase of drug, fentanyl seizures. That is a dangerous drug that we are taking off the street. We are going to continue to focus. This is an important, important priority for this President. And I just want to talk about how you’re saying that they’re — you know, they’re just — the border, right? And how the border — whatever you just stated — I just want to clear this up. Migrants who — Q People are coming in. Fentanyl is coming in. People are dying. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hold — hold on. So migrant — migrants who attempted to enter the country illegal — illegally are taken into custody by Border Patrol agents. That is how it works. That is the process that we are taking. They are then either expelled by the court order under Title 42, transferred to ICE custody, or monitored through Alternatives to Detention Program as they await further processing. We have made 3,000 arrests in the first three months of launching an aggressive campaign to combat the multi-billion-dollar human smuggling industry. When it comes to — when it comes to what’s happening with drug overdose: This is something that the President cares about. This is something that the President has laid out a plan to make sure that our kids; our babies; our, you know, young Americans here in this country are not continuing to suffer from that, are not continuing to be given — or access to drugs. This is something that’s incredibly important to this President. So to say that we’re not doing enough, Peter, is just falsely, categorically wrong, especially on a day that we are observing what needs to be done. And — and we have announced — DHS has announced $80 million to prevent that. So we are doing the work. And here’s the thing, Peter, if — look, if Republicans want to help us stop overdose and stop our kids getting overdose because of these dangerous drugs, because of these fentanyl that we’re seeing in the streets, we’re happy to work with them. But they’re not. I’m moving on, Peter. Q But just one — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m moving on. I’m moving on. Go ahead. Go ahead, Karen. No, Karen can go. Q Yeah. Karine, who’s the audience for tomorrow’s speech in Philadelphia? How are people selected to attend? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — oh, the aud- — the folks in the room? Q Yeah, who he is the speaking in front of. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, I don’t have that information for you. Clearly, he’s going to be — folks from the Philly area who will be clearly participants — that’s normally how we do events. We invite local leaders. We invite local — you know, local residents to the event to watch the President speak. I don’t have a full list or full way of our process, but that’s normally how we do our events. As you know — as you know, you’ve attended some of our events and it’s usually people connected to the party or people — not party — but connected to elected officials locally and the state as well. Q And on the CDC booster, specifically as it relates to the President, if the CDC director — excuse me, the new boosters — if the CDC director signs off on the boosters as expected tomorrow and they do start rolling out next week, can we expect the President to get his booster shot next week? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any dates to announce yet on — on when he will get it. But obviously, the President was just infected with Omicron, and is really well protected, as you all know, right now against — against COVID. So CDC has always provided that guidance on timing for boosters as it relates to prior infection. And they’ll do that here as well, as it relates to the President and your question. But he will absolutely get his updated booster and will encourage eligible Americans to do the same when — when he’s able to. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Just a — on Jackson, again. Just to follow up — I know you’ve been asked a couple times about it. But in a January speech, the President singled out Jackson, Mississippi, as well as Flint, as two communities that could be benefited from the infrastructure package and specifically men- — mentioned their water system. Does the administration still believe that Jackson, through the infrastructure package, can receive the funds that it needs to actually fully replace its water system? And just a follow-up to that is: What is the timeline? I know the money is on the way. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q You guys have released statements saying the funding is on the way. But what is the timeline for residents on the ground to actually start feeling the impact of that infrastructure package funding? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the impact — when it comes to them getting — the residents getting their water back, clearly, we want them — that timeline to happen as soon as possible, and so that is our hope, rather — sooner rather than later. And so, we’re going to continue — we are committed to — to work with the people of Jackson and the state of Mississippi during this urgent time of need, as we just said, on making that happen because that’s imperative and important for people to have clean water and running water. Look, I just listed out a number of — of items from the American Rescue Plan — $450 million. Twenty million of that was given to the city and that was through the American Rescue Plan, and that was for water and sewer infrastructure needs. So, already, that funding was given to the city to deal with that imperative, that really important need — $75 million. As we talk about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, $75 million was given to support the state to provide clean and safe water for this year. And so — with an additional $429 million available to the state over the next five years. So you see that long-term commitment that’s coming from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And as it relates — another piece of that, which is coming through EPA’s revolving loan funds — funds that we see for treatment and distribution system that we saw 30- — $30.9 million going to Jackson specifically. So we are committed. The funds have been provided. We are going to continue to work with the cities, and we’re going to continue to work with the state. As you know, Mitch Landrieu is the — is the coordinator for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. He is a former mayor, as you all know, from New Orleans, in Louisiana, so — which is very close to Mississippi. Clearly, he is committed to this. He’s traveled around the country, meeting — meeting with electeds, meeting with folks on the ground on how — on how things are going and how we can be helpful. As far as the date or a timeline, I don’t have that for you. But clearly, we have — I just listed out our commitment and where the fundings and the money has gone to the state of Mississippi and Jackson as well. Q When residents in these communities are — hear those numbers, they’re going to be wondering why does this keep happening then. So, I mean, has the administration identified any impediments, whether it’d be the formula-based funding or the actual state process of implementing these funds that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — Q — that actually prevent the impact from being felt immediately? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s a very good question. And if I were — if we were in the community, we would be frustrated as well, which is why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as I just laid out, has a — there’s — there — there’s an initial funding, and it goes for the next five years. Right? That is a long-term investment that you are seeing from this administration to the folks in Mississippi and to the people in Jackson. So, again, we’re going to continue to work with the, you know, local elected officials to see what else we can do to be helpful. We are — we are remaining to want to assist the — you know, the community as they’re going through this really tough time. But you have seen the financial commitment. You have seen how the funds for the Infrastructure Law, as you were asking specifically, has been allocated. And not just that, the American Rescue Plan, as well. And we’re going to have the — we’re going to continue to have that conversation. Q And I just have a quick one. Is there a specific date for when the application opens for student loan relief at this point? And why the, kind of, lag time — the delay in actually having a system set up, given there was a lot of time taken to deliberate over this decision? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I just stated just moments ago, there — there — we’re going to have — we’re going to have more from the Department of Education to be notified when the application is open. And again, we’re going to — we — we have a website that people can go to, StudentAid.gov, to sign up for notification. So those notifications will go — will go up, and borrowers will have — will have to complete that expectation. And it’ll be within four to six weeks. We — which is a good amount of time to make sure that they — that they apply before November 15th. But it doesn’t just end there, right? We have said that the Department of Education will continue to process application, even as they are received, even after the pause expires on December 31st. So we’re going to continue to work with borrowers, but we — we do have to put a plan in place so that folks know how — how the process works. Again, they can go to the ­­– to the website and apply, get those notifications. And we have been giving out information on how the process can work. This is not the first time. We’ve done this before — right? — with this — in this administration. Those — that $32 billion in student loan debt that we were able to — to cancel. So the Department of Education — there’s a precedent here. The Department of Education knows how to work this through. And we’re — we are committed to make sure that folks get the information and get the need that they — they get the need — Q Just to be clear, there’s no date yet, though? There’s no date yet for — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, for the application? Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I don’t have a date here to share with you, but that’s something that the Secre- — the Department of Education is following through. We’ve laid out our process. We’ve laid out the timeline. We have said we’re going to continue to process application even after the pause on December 31st, and we’re committed to that. Again, this is not the first time; there’s precedent for this. We have — this particular administration — Department of Education — has done this before. I’m going to continue. Go ahead. Q Oh, yeah. On the event yesterday in Pennsylvania, the President explicitly campaigned for certain people. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it was an official White House event, not a campaign event. Can you share some context on your thoughts on that? Because he was very explicitly saying, “Please elect certain people.” MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President can say a lot — can a lot further than I can from here. He does not have — he is not bounded by the Hatch Act the way that we are. And so — so I’ll say that first. And I don’t have much more to add because I’m always — even myself, I try to be very, very careful from here. But again, he is in a different category than we all are here. And I’ll just leave it as that. Q It was an official event, correct? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It was — it was an official event. Tomorrow night will be an official event as well. Go ahead. I haven’t — I know. I was supposed to call you last time and I didn’t. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. So yesterday, during his speech, the President reiterated what he sees as a serious need to pass an assault weapons ban. This is, of course, something he said before; that’s not new. But as he continues to push for this, how does he expect that to happen realistically with the way things are in Congress? And what specifically is he doing, if anything, to help change that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, so I’ll say this: You know, the Pre- — look, the President is going to continue to call on Congress. As you know, when it comes to the assault weapons ban, that is something that is important to the President. He was one of the leaders of that 30 years ago — the assault weapons ban back in 1994. And again, he has been trying to work on — work on bringing back the assault weapons ban after it sunset in — 10 years after. And he’s done that as Vice President and he’s doing that now. A couple of things that I do want to say is: When it comes to actions that he’s taken, he’s had more executive actions dealing with — dealing with gun violence than any other President at this time. When the Bipartisan Law passed to deal with — to deal with gun violence just recently, just a couple of months ago, many people said that wouldn’t happen, and it happened. So, many people have said we couldn’t get things done, and we got it done. So, the President — as you heard him say, he is determined to do that. He’s determined to make that happen. He’s going to continue doing the work that he has done for the past 19 months and having those conversations with Congress — congressional members in — in calling for them to take action. And we have seen the House take action, which many didn’t think that was going to happen either, and they took action on the assault weapons ban. So we are a lot further, we would argue, under this administration, dealing with gun violence, even dealing with pushing further the assault weapons ban than we have been in 30 years. And so, I think that says a lot for this President’s leadership. And that says a lot for what he’s — his commitment in making sure that we protect our communities, we protect kids going to school — right? — we protect people from going to grocery stores — right? — and not feel like they — their lives are in danger. It’s a first step, and there are many steps to take. Q And lastly, with all the attention on the former President’s handling of classified information — not asking you to comment on that specifically — but can you say with certainty to the American people that President Biden in his time as President has not mishandled, improperly stored, done anything improper with classified information? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. And then I’m going to move on. Go ahead. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Karine. I have two questions, one on the speech tomorrow and one on COVID. On the speech tomorrow: President Biden said in his victory speech in November 2020 that he sought this office to restore the soul of the nation. So where does the White House believe the country is in that restoration process? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, he has said this before — that it’s going to take some work. You have heard him say that. You’ve heard us say that. But what he’s not going to do is shy away, again, from calling out extremism that he is seeing — these MAGA Republicans. He is not going to shy away from that. Is there more work to do? Absolutely. Do we have to continue to protect our democracy? Yes, we do. That is the reality that we’re in — protect our freedom; you know, protect our rights. And that’s what he’s going to continue to do day in and day out. And you’re going to continue to hear that from him not just Thursday, not just yesterday, but that message is going to continue. Q And on COVID, many employers have robust return-to-office plans that will begin after Labor Day. And just yesterday, some Wall Street banks announced that they are going to be ending entirely testing, vaccination, masking requirements. How would the White House respond to those companies? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I leave that the — up to — to the companies to decide what’s right for — decide what’s right for their employees. Clearly, there’s CDC guidance that we always recommend people to follow, but I leave that to the private — private organization. Go ahead. Q I have a domestic question and an international question. First of all, how does the President plan to commemorate 9/11 this year? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s a very good question. Don’t have anything to preview at this time. And when we will, we’ll share that. Q And then, moving on to Venezuela. A U.S. citizen detained in Venezuela has said on the record, quote, “Our government has abandoned us.” So how does the administration respond to a statement like that? What is the administration doing to try to get the 10 Americans who are detained in Venezuela out? Is a prisoner exchange possibly in the cards? And, you know, how are you working that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re talking about — the person is talking about our government, right? Not the Venezuela — Q Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. I have not seen that reporting. I’ll say this: You know, we try — we’re very careful in not negotiating in public and being mindful of not putting any — you know, any lives at — more at risk, so I’m just not going to share anything further from here at this time. Oh, gosh. I’m going to go around. Have I — okay. Go ahead, and then I’ll come — I’ll come back, guys. Q Thanks, Karine. Can you talk a little bit — in regards to tomorrow’s speech, can you talk a little bit about the timing? You’ve said a bunch of times that this is a theme that he’s discussed for many years. So why now is the time to do it in such a primetime fashion? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because he thinks our democracy is at risk. Because — I mean, you know, when I talk about taking away our freedom, June 24th, the decision from the Supreme — Supreme Court Justice on the Dobbs decision — that was a decision to take away our constitutional right. That was an important — important moment for our country. It put women’s lives at risk. And it’s not just, you know, reproductive rights; it’s going to be other rights as well, as we heard from Supreme Court Justice Thomas. He made that very, very clear. And then, after that, we heard from leaders of the Republican Party saying they wanted a national ban. So, we’ve seen recent efforts to take away our rights as Americans from an extreme — again, an extreme part of — of their party — those MAGA Republicans that you’ll — you’ll continue to hear us talk about. And so, that is continuing and it hasn’t stopped. And I just listed out what recently — what recently leadershi- — leaders in Congress have said about attacking law enforcement individuals who are — protect us; you know, attacking their own colleagues from the other side of the aisle — that’s dangerous. Again, the President is not going to shy away from speaking up, from speaking out. And he is — it is very important for him to speak directly to the American people, as I have said. And this is — kind of goes into Phil’s question. He believes a majority of Americans want to protect our democracy. He believes a majority of Americans wants to protect our freedom. That’s where he believes the majority of the country is, but we have to keep talking about it. We cannot shy away from it. Q Can you talk — give any color of how he’s preparing for the speech? I mean, the guidance — the schedule today seemed not so full. I mean, is he spending much of his day, you know, going through drafts with staff? Is he practicing it? What — kind of what’s, kind of, the process — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, this is an important speech for the President. We’re talking about a theme, to your point, that he’s talked about since 2017. So, yes, he’s — he’s working through the speech with his — with his senior advisors, with his staff. He’s continuing to do the business of the American people by meeting with staff on issues on items that are critical and policies that we continue to work through to make sure that we do the work. He continues — always going to continue to do the work of the American people. But, yes, to your point, he’s going to look at — he’s going to look at drafts. He’s going to write his speech, and you’ll hear directly from him tomorrow. Okay. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Angola just had a very peaceful and well-organized election last week. And, as you said, the U.S. was following and the results are there. So, the for- — the President João Lourenço was reelected, and I would like to hear the view of the White House on the Angola elections. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so don’t — don’t have anything more to add. And to your point, we congratulated — last week, on Friday, we congratulated the people of Angola for making their voices heard. As we’re talking about democracy, as we’re talking about elections, this is an important moment for the people in Angola. We continue to observe — we’re going to continue to observe the process. I know I’ve said that last week. But I don’t — I just — I just don’t have more to add. And, you know, the United States supports the democratic process and — through our ongoing democracy and governance programs by observing the election, as we — as we’ve done. And, you know, we share a partnership with the country — with the country of Angola. I don’t have more to say to what I just added. Q My other question is: As you know, President Biden announced a big investment for Angola. So, last time, he — you just told me that the reason why is because they are seeing some progress in the country. Can you elaborate a little more about the view of the U.S. in Angola in the last five years? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I was just saying that we see a partnership with Angola, we will continue to work with them, with the government closely — whoever, you know, the chosen government that the people elected — to deepen our cooperation and shared priority. So we’re going to continue to do that. And, again, including democracy, as I’ve been talking about; including economic and investment growth, global health security and public health, and climate energy goals to create a better future for the — for all Angolans. And that is a commitment that you’ll hear, that you have heard. I think that’s what the President was saying to you on Friday. And, again, we commend the people of Angola for making their voices heard. And that is important, that we see a democratic process happening there. Okay. Oh, go ahead. I’m sorry. I haven’t called you. Q On the subject of the COVID booster shots, we’re now two and a half years into a pandemic, lots of people are really tired of thinking about COVID. How will the administration convince people to get yet another booster shot? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we have learned — we have a lot of lessons learned from how we started this — this process very early on in his administration with the comprehensive strategy that we had in getting shots in arms. We know it works. I talked about — a little bit about that already, which is working closely with doctors and clinicians, making sure that we’re having — educating folks on the ground on why this is important, why this campaign on getting people this — this booster to folks and, again, shot in arms. And one of the things that we have seen that worked really, really well is the trusted voices. That is also an important thing that we have seen. But just a reminder that before we entered office, less than a third of adults wanted to get a shot and more than 87 percent have at least one today. That is the product of the work we’ve done to reach folks through trusted messengers and build access. Those are two key factors that we cannot forget. First, we’re planning a public education campaign, building on lessons we’ve learned, as I just stated, and focus- — focusing on those most at risk. That’s always important here. This will include leveraging deep partnerships, as I mentioned, across sectors to meet people where they are and — and to — you know, and — and just as a reminder: You know, to do this, HHS tests messages weekly, surveying at least 1,500 people who are on the fence about getting their booster shot and tracking shifts in trends, and works with trusted messengers to communicate with the public. And so we have a plan, and we’re going to ultimately use that plan. We’re going to leverage what we know worked before. And we believe this is an important moment for the American people. But again, FDA made that decision. CDC still has to make their decision. So we don’t want to get ahead of — ahead of this. But we are prepared, orders have already been made, and we’re going to make sure that, you know, we get those shots in arms. Q Karine, one more? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: One more. Oh, my gosh. Who have I not called on in a long time? I’ve never seen you in the room before. Go ahead. Q Hi. Sophia with Axios. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q Hello. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hello. Q I’ll ask about

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. A couple of things at the top. Today’s announcement by Micron is another big win for America. Micron is investing $15 billion over the next decade at a manufacturing facility in Idaho, and they directly credit the passage of the CHIPS Act that made this possible. Just this week, we’ve seen First Solar, Toyota, Honda, and Corning make major announcements of new investments and new jobs as a direct result of the President’s economic plan. U.S. manufacturing is back. Americans have experienced an unacceptable level of flight — of flight delays and cancellations this year due to airline issues. When these disruptions occur, it’s really difficult to figure out if you will receive a meal voucher and hotel accommodations. So, two weeks ago, Secretary Buttigieg told the top U.S. airlines that our administration plan to publish an interactive airline customer service dashboard before Labor Day to give Americans more transparency about what airlines owe them when there is a delay or cancellation due to staffing or mechanical problems. Secretary Buttigieg also urged the airlines to immediately improve their customer service plans before the dashboard launch. Today, the Department of Transportation officially launched the dashboard, and we’re proud to report that airlines vastly improved their plans. And we have a graphic right behind me. We love graphics here, as you know. Before the Secretary’s letter, there were significantly more red X’s across this table. None of the airlines had guaranteed that they would cover meals or hotels when they are at fault. Now eight of the top airlines cover hotels and nine of them cover meals. Before Secretary Buttigieg’s letter, only one airline guaranteed they would rebook you at no cost. Now, 9 out of the 10 do so. This is a huge win for American travelers. From the start of this administration, President Biden has directed his team to work with airlines to help Americans get where they need to go safely, affordably, and reliably. And we will not hesitate to hold the airlines accountable. If airlines aren’t providing you with these services, file a complaint with the Department of Transportation. Our administration has your back. Lastly, I want to make a few comments on the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on Xinjiang that was released just last night. The United States welcomes this report — this important report, which describes authoritaritively [authoritatively] the abhorrent human rights treatment of the Uyghur and other minority communities by the People’s Republic of China government. The report deepens our grave concern regarding the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity that China is perpetrating. Our position on the atrocities in Xinjiang has been clearly demonstrated with our words and in our actions. The Biden administration has taken concrete measures, including improving visa restrictions; Global Magnitsky Act and other financial sanctions; export controls; import restrictions; and the President has rallied allies and partners, including the G7 commitment to ensure all global — global supply chains are free from the use of forced labor, including from Xinjiang. We will continue to work closely with partners and the international community to hold China accountable. And we will call on China to immediately cease committing these atrocities, release those unjustly detained, account for those disappeared, and allow independent investigators full and unhindered access to Xinjiang, Tibet, and across China. With that, all right, go ahead, Zeke. What do you got? Q Thanks, Karine. Can you confirm that the United States is ending humanitarian parole for Afghan refugees? And is the administration concerned that this is going to make it more difficult for people trying to flee the Taliban’s rule to get — get to safety? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, here’s — we have an update on the Enduring Freedom — the Operation Allies Welcome, what it looks like long term. This isn’t a — this is a — this is an update that the Department — that the — the Department of Defense announced recently. And so, look, our commitment to our Afghan allies is enduring. We have welcomed nearly 90,000 Afghans to our country over the past year and have been providing relocation assistance over the past year as well. As part of our efforts continue to welcome our Afghan allies, we are adopting a new model where Afghan arrivals will travel directly to the communities where they will be moving with the help of refugee resettlement organizations, without a safe-haven stopover in the United States. We have also been pivoting toward welcoming Afghans from visa programs that have long-term durable status, such as the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa, the SIV program — “S-I-V programs,” as you hear us call it — and refugee admissions programs so that Afghans who are looking to resettle in the United States will remain with an immigration status that provides a path to long-term, permanent residence rather than a temporary status, which is what is provided through humanitarian parole. At the same time, we have been undertaking substantial effort to improve our relo- — relocation efforts, working to make them more efficient. We are developing a system to help Americans with family members in Afghanistan, as well as Afghans who have arrived in the U.S. over the past year bring their family members to the — to the United States. So, we’re going to continue to improve the SIV process and have substantially increased the number of staff processing SIV application by more than fifteen- — fifteenfold since the beginning of the Biden administration. So, this is important to us. This has been a priority. And that’s how we’re going to make this process work a little bit better. Q The question, though: Is the administration concerned that this process — by pushing people to that longer-term residency visa program — that that’s going to make it more difficult for people who are just trying to get out to get out? The purpose of the parole was to allow people to get the United States and get to safety quickly. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we — look, we know that many — many of our allies and Afghans remain — in Afghanistan remain under threat in the country. So, we’re putting the infrastructure in place overseas to increase the pace of our relocations, and we have made a number of process improvements to refugee and SIV immigration process that should make this faster. So we believe it’s going to make this faster. We believe this is an improvement in the process. And this is a commitment that we continue to have. Q And then can you provide an update on the situation in Jackson right now, the federal support? What has FEMA been able to get to the city thus far? And has the President spoken to the governor yet? And what’s been the reason for the delay? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, FEMA — just to give you a little bit of an update on what’s been going on on the ground and from the federal government: The FEMA Administrator, Deanne Criswell, will travel to Jackson, Mississippi, tomorrow to assess the ongoing emergency response. As you know, the President took immediate action to improve — to approve the governor’s emergency declaration request and directed his team to surge assistance to Mississippi as soon as he got — got the declaration request. The President and Vice President both spoke with the mayor of Jackson yesterday. We read out that from the President — that they spoke. And the FEMA Administrator spoke with the governor earlier in the week. So FEMA has a number of personnel on site in the state — in the state Emergency Operations Center and is coordinating with the Mississippi Emergency — Emergency Management team to ensure that everyone has access to water. The EPA also has a subject-matter expert on the ground to support the emergency assessment of the Jackson water treatment plants. The agency is also working to expedite delivery of equipment needed to repair Jackson’s water treatment plant. So, we are doing everything that we can to make sure that we’re helping the people of Mississippi. Again, we are in close touch. We’ve had multiple conversations with the governor. And clearly, we’ve read out the — our conversation with the mayor. And we’ll continue to have those open lines. Q And lastly for me, you mentioned the U.N. report on Chinese genocide in Xinjiang. What — the administration has been planning a phone call between the President and President Xi — sorry — or a meeting between President Biden and President Xi in the coming weeks or months? Why is now the time, after this report — the time for a meeting between those two leaders to take place, given Chinese atrocities? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Say that one more time? You’re saying why shouldn’t we have this meeting? Q Why sh- — you’re planning a meeting right now. Why is — are you — do you plan to go forward with that after this report? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to read out about an upcoming meeting or — or anything like that, any specifics of a meeting that the President could potentially have with President Xi. I just don’t have anything to share. Q But there’s been no change to the — the plan, after they spoke on the phone a couple of weeks ago, that they were planning to meet in person. That’s — that process is still underway? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There’s just nothing for me — there’s not a process that I can speak or share with you at this time. Go ahead. Q Thanks. You guys have talked about the President’s speech tonight as one that’s about the continued battle for the soul of the nation. Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy said this morning that the President “does not understand the soul of America.” Since we’re a year and a half into this presidency and the country is still so divided, could McCarthy have a point? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me say a few things about the response to — to Kevin McCarthy. And it comes from himself, like what he said on January 6th — after January 6th, 2021, one week after — after the January 6th insurrection — I’m sorry, January 13th. And, you know, he said the violence, destruction, and chaos we saw earlier was unacceptable. He said this on January 13th of 2021 — it was “undemocratic”; it was “un-American.” We all should stand united in condemning the mob together. And then he said — and then he said, “The President bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob[’s] rioters.” This is speaking about the former President. The President strongly agrees with Kevin McCarthy on the January 6th comments and the January 13th, 2021, comments and does not find the comments that Kevin McCarthy made then to be divisive in the least, but rather aligning with fundamental, nonpartisan, mainstream American values — that we uphold the rule of law, reject political violence, and condemn violence against law enforcement. And that’s what we’re talking about when we’re talking about “protecting our democracy,” when we’re talking about “fighting [for] our democracy.” That was — those were the words of Kevin McCarthy. And the President agreed with that Kevin McCarthy. He agreed with the Kevin McCarthy of January 6th. He agreed with Kevin McCarthy of January 13th of 2021. And what we hear from him — what we hear from him, of course, is a change of heart. And even formally punished fellow Republicans like Liz Cheney, who’ve had the courage to consistently tell the truth about the attack on the rule of law and the law enforcement that day, and continuing to — the threat to democracy that these extreme conspiracy theories represent. That is what we’re talking about. And as far as what the President is going to say tonight, we’ve talked about this. When he talks about the “soul of the nation,” this is a — this is not a topic that is new to him. If you follow — if you followed him throughout this administration, also through the campaign, this is a topic that he has talked about for some time, since 2017. And the speech — just to give you a little bit about what the speech is going to be about — it’s going to be optimistic. He will speak about how he believes we can get through this current moment — this critical moment that we are — we are currently in. He believes this is a moment where a lot is at stake. You’ll hear him talk about the core values of what is at the stake in this moment, and how he — we and how he is going to continue to protect for — protect equality and democracy. He will also talk about — in a very direct way about what he sees as a threat at this moment — in this — in time. Basically, what Kevin McCarthy said on January 6th, 2021 — what Kevin McCarthy said on January 13th, 2021 — the threat of our democracy — that insurrection, that mob that we saw come — come down on the Capitol. Q Just two quick follow-ups on that though. You’re talking about Kevin McCarthy from — from that day. We’ve obviously seen, like you said, a pretty big change of heart from Leader McCarthy, you know, who has since really distanced himself from any investigation into January 6th. He really stood lockstep with the former President. So, I guess, I’m asking about: What’s the President’s relationship and thoughts about Kevin McCarthy today? Does he can — does he have a relationship with him? I mean, he could very easily become the next Speaker of the House. Does he talk to him? Does — does he view Kevin McCarthy as one of these MAGA Republicans who — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So here’s — Q — is a threat to democracy? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s what I’m going to say — you know, I’ve already laid out what I thought — what we think about — about — about Kevin McCarthy. We’re not going to go into any more specifics on that. This is — what we’re talking about tonight is what the President’s going to deliver to the American people and — and why it is important for — why he sees it’s important to have this convers- — conversation, why it is so important for — to talk about what is at stake at this moment. You know, when you ask me about the MAGA agenda, especially as it relates to Congress, as it relates to elected officials, it is one of the most extreme agendas that we have seen, and it is a part of the — it is the extreme part of the Republican Party. And we’re talking about: They want a nationwide ban on abortions. They want to give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations while raising taxes on middle-class Americans. They are threatening political violence, and they are attacking our democracy. And so, the President is going to take this time to talk to the American people, who — the majority agree with him — and talk about, you know, how can we continue to fight for our democracy and do it in an optimistic way. Take that moment to give people hope, because this President believes that we can turn this around. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Is tonight a political speech? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s not a political speech. This is an opportunity, again, for the President to directly have a conversation with the — with the — the American people. Look, he’s going to talk about — of course, he’ll talk about the importance of engagement. He’ll talk about voter — voter participation. But this is a speech about such a broader subject: you know what it means to be a democracy and what it means to participate in our — in our democracy, given where we are as a nation. And he believes the stakes are very high and that it is important to go out and articulate what those stakes are and why it’s important for people to participate in their democracy and, at the end of the day, why it is worth fighting for. And that is what he’s going to talk about tonight. That’s what you’re going to hear from him. And again, it’s a broader subject about this moment that we’re in currently. Q Democrats and people on the left are pretty happy about the more aggressive tone they’re seeing from the President and from the White House. But you’re also facing some criticism, which has been brought up, that this aggressive tone is also stoking the divisiveness that he’s trying to heal. Any concerns about that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, the President is never going to shy away from calling out what he sees. And I said this yesterday, and I — and I’ll say this now. You know, I’m assuming the divisive tone is coming from — from whom? Q From the right. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: From the right. So, look, we understand we hit a nerve. We get that. We understand that they’re trying to hide. And we understand that ultra MAGA officeholders want to play games here and dodge accountability for their extreme proposals and actions, but they’re just telling on themselves. Look, the President has always, always squarely targeted his criticism on elected leaders. This is about what they’re doing in Congress — those extreme MAGA Republicans, those who are — who hold office. The first time that the President said “ultra MAGA” was about Rick Scott’s radical plan to raise taxes on millions of middle-class Americans and put Medicare on the chopping blocks, put Social Security on the chalking block. I just mentioned national abortions — that ban that these MAGA Republicans want to do. It is important to call that out. And let’s not forget: When you think about Medicare, when you think about Social Security, those are popular things. When you think about Roe and protecting women’s right to choose, those are — a majority of Americans support that. So how — so that’s what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about an agenda that is not popular. We’re talking about an agenda that is incredibly extreme. We’re talking about an agenda that is not in line where majority of Americans are. So, yeah, the President is going to talk about that, and he’s not going to shy away. But again, this is going to be about — a speech that will be optimistic, that will talk about participating in our democracy and how important it is to do that and how important it is to continue to fight. Q Just one quick Russia question. Does the White House have any intelligence or reaction to the death of the chairman of Lukoil, the second largest oil producer in Russia? He’d been a criti- — he apparently died after falling out of a hospital window and was a critic of the war in Ukraine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — I don’t have a comment on that. We’re certainly not going to get into any speculation on — on how he died. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Going back to Jackson. Yesterday, you detailed, kind of, the myriad of federal funding sources that could be used to address what they’re dealing with right now. Are there any concerns, however, about — you know, there’s a difference between allocation and the money actually arriving in certain places — about the process for Jackson to access that funding once the federal government has allocated it and perhaps the state is dealing with the contracts, with the grant applications? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you’re talking about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the American Rescue Plan? Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we — we have put real emphasis on making it easier for state and local governments to access the federal funding. That is something that’s been important in this administration to do. That’s one reason we asked every state to appoint a state infrastructure coordinator to help streamline communications and information flow. And the White House infrastructure implementation team has also been engaging directly with state and local governments and Tribal governments to help them quickly access the necessary technical assistance and capacity to underserved communities in particular. So we have also partnered with nonprofit organizations to assist communities in assessing and deploying federal infrastructure funding, including Bloomberg Philanthropies, Emerson Collective, Ford Foundation, and others, and so much more. Our goal is to help, again, state, local, Tribal, territory — territorial governments navigate, access, and deploy infrastructure resources that will build a better America. This is why the President fought so hard to get this Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — a law that is historical and will make — and will change — and will change the lives of so many Americans. Q So, is it the view that because of what you guys have done that Jackson has had the access or the ability to tap into the funds you’ve allocated to the degree they need in this moment in time? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, we’re — our goal is to make it as easy as we can for state and local governments to access those funds. We’re going to — we have an implemation [sic] — implemate — implementation team, as I just spoke about, and we’re going to continue to work with state and local governments. There’s also not-for-profits on the ground and other organizations that we will work through. And our hope is to make sure that the people of Jackson have what they need. And, again, we’ve been in constant communication these past couple of days, with the mayor of Jackson, with local officials. The director [Administrator] of FEMA, Criswell, is going — will be there tomorrow. So, as you have seen us in times like these, when there is catastrophe, sadly, in the states, we have — the federal government has acted quickly in order to help the people in that — in that community and that state. Q And then, one more quick one — just with Jobs Day coming up. This may sound a little bit paradoxical, but stick with me here. Given the robust, kind of, aggressiveness of the Fed Chair in Jackson Hole, is there any concern that perhaps a better-than-expected jobs report will create an economic response from the Fed that drives something that the White House does not want? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, Phil, we don’t comment on the — what — what the Fed is going to do. Part of our fighting inflation — the plan that the President has put forth — is to give them their independence to make the monetary decision to deal with inflation that we see across the country. And, again, we believe, like, they have the best monetary plans, policies to make that happen. As it relates to the jobs — the jobs report — I spoke about this a couple times already — look, you know, I don’t want to get ahead of the numbers tomorrow. We have been very clear that we see that the economy is in transition after a historic economic growth that we saw last year. And we believe that we can continue those gains. But again, we’re in a transition into a more stable and steady — a steady growth. We won’t see — we believe we won’t see those 600,000 numbers that we have seen for some time. And — and that that number is going to be a — it’s going to cool a little bit. You’ve heard us say that. And so that’s our anticipation, which we think is where the economy is going. But, again, we have a strong labor market, which is important. Consumer spending is — is up. We see business investing — all of those things are critically important. And so we’re going to look at all the economic data, but certainly not — I’m not going to get ahead of the jobs numbers for tomorrow. Go ahead, Zolan. Q Thank you. I just want to circle back to the Afghan refugees. So, just — is any — is the anything being done for Afghan allies who — or those who have sought to come to the United States who already filed for parole and are currently waiting in the backlog of applications? And to be clear: Are their only options now — as well as anybody who tried to flee Afghanistan and come to the U.S. — either SIV or the refugee program? And I have a follow-up. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, sure. And, as you know, there’s a — there’s the act that is in Congress that we have been really working — that the administration continues to support the passage of the Afghan Adjustment Act to provide Afghans who have come to the U.S. through Operations Allies Welcome — which is what I talked through a second ago — and a pathway to durable immigration status. So, there is that pathway as well that we’re going to continue to work with Congress on. So — Q But — I’m sorry, but they would need an approved application in order to do that, right? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, absolutely. I’m just wanted to — I just wanted to make sure that I stated that as well. Look, as of August 9th — just to give you some numbers here — over 17,000 individuals have submitted all documents required to apply for Chief of Mission review or — beyond the Chief of Mission stage. We are working to process those as quickly as possible and welcome them into the United States. So we are — this is something that we’re working on pretty regularly. This is important to the Department of State. And so the Afghan SI program remains active. And the — State continues to receive and process new SIV applications as expeditiously as possible. As part of our efforts to improve the program, we have cut the average COM review time to a sixth of what it was under the previous administration — from 510 days in June 2020 to 82 days in June 2022. I don’t have the specific numbers, as you were asking, about the backlogs. But we are quickly trying to move that forward, to move that through. And again, you know, we have welcomed nearly 90,000 Afghans into the country thus far. Q What you just referenced though is the SIV application backlog. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, it is. It is. Q So — but my question is: For those who have filed an application for parole — a program which is now ending — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m so sorry. Yes, I hear what you’re saying. Q — will they still have a chance to get parole, or are they basically — should they ditch that, just forget about the fact that they’re in that pipeline and try to refer to the — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s a very good question. I would refer you to the Department of State on the — on the parolees and the — and where the ones who are kind of in that — in that process and where they are going to ultimately be and what their — what their options are. I don’t have that specific with me. Q And just lastly, the two programs you referenced both still have years-long backlogs, even with the movements that you were just describing to increase staff. Does the Biden administration think that at this point, for somebody who’s trying to flee Afghanistan and they’re pursuing either SIV or the refugee program, that there’s actually a realistic chance that they could make it through the pipeline within, I mean, the end of this presidential term? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to do everything that we can to make sure that we take care of the families — the American families that are still in Af- — in Afghanistan and also our friends and allies in Afghanistan as well. So we’re going to do everything that we can to make it happen. I know the Department of State has been on top of this. They have been working through this, you know, for some time now. And so this is a priority of ours, for sure. Go ahead. Q Thanks. If we could go back to tonight’s speech, you said the President is going to speak in a direct way about what he sees as a threat. Does that include former President Trump? Will he mention the former President by name or any Republicans by name? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’ve said this before: The President is never going to shy away from talking about his predecessor. He hasn’t — Q Is he going to name names then? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m about to answer your question, so give me a second. But it’s not a speech about the former President or about a single politician or about a political party. It’s about the American democracy, which is what I’ve been trying to lay out here. This is so much broader, so much bigger than any one party, than any one person. And it’s an optimistic speech, again, about where we are as a nation and where we can go. And it’s about the fundamental struggle around the globe between autocracy and democracy, and how democracy is a critical foundation for this country to move forward, and about what we can do — can be done right now to beat back the forces that are threatening — that are threatening us. And so, he’s been working on this for a while; he’s been thinking about this speech for a while. He’s talked about soul of the nation. The first time you’ve heard him do that was when he wrote an op-ed in The Atlantic back in August of 2017. So this is nothing new to him. He feels it is his responsibility to bring the — to bring American people to together and to answer a fundamental question about what kind of nation we are going to be. And that’s what you’re going to hear from the President tonight. Again, he’s been thinking about this for some time. This is not a new subject or topic for him. Q But if that includes things, as that you were saying to one of my colleague’s questions — you know, concerned about this MAGA Republican, this extremist agenda — and that’s something he’s going to talk about tonight, how is that not a political speech? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I said he’s not going to shy away from that. And, of course, he’s going to talk about voter participation. Of course, he’s going to talk about getting Americans to get involved and participate in this effort to fight our democracy. That is something that he’s certainly going to talk about. But what we’re — what I’m trying to say is: This is a broader speech. And you’ll hear from him directly. This is not about one political party. It is not what — about one political — one person in politics. This is about what we are going to do as a country to continue to fight for our democracy — again, something that he has talked about for some time. And — and that’s what you’re going to hear from him. If you followed him through the campaign, if you followed him through the administration, this is not new. And he will speak directly about that, directly about the current events. But, again, he’s not going to shy away from — from the extremism that we see today. But, again, this — there is a broader component of the speech, and you’ll hear about that later this evening. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On this Russian oil cap, the U.S. is trying to get that in place before EU sanctions go into place in December that would ban seaborne shipments of Russian oil. If the oil cap fails, what’s the level of concern inside the administration that those EU sanctions — sanctions can drive up the price of oil and reverse all the gains that you all been touting for the past few months? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals from here. They’re going to be meeting — the G7 Finance Ministers — Ministers Meeting is happening tomorrow, so they’ll have that discussion. Look, this is — this is exactly what the President and G7 leaders have directed relevant members of their team to explore — as you know, the mechanism to set a global price tag — cap on — for Russian oil, you know, to starve, as you know, Putin of his main source of cash and forcing down the price of Russian oil to help blunt the impact of Putin’s war at the pump. They’re going to meet tomorrow, as I said — the Finance Ministers — the G7 Finance Ministers Meeting. And — and we’ll see what comes out of that. I don’t want to get ahead of that meeting, which is happening tomorrow. Q Would the U.S. consider lifting its ban on imports of Russian oil if the price is capped? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to get ahead of a meeting that’s happening tomorrow. Go ahead, Tam. Q Yeah, thank you. Given the ongoing threats of political violence and the majority of Americans saying they’re concerned about American democracy and something like 40 percent of Americans saying that they think civil war could happen in the next 10 years, how is the President going to deliver an optimistic speech? How is he optimistic in the face of all that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Have you followed Joe Biden? Have you listened to him make speeches in the past before? This is a President, I would argue, who knows how to do that, who knows how to deliver an optimistic speech — at the same time, call out what is happening in this moment. And that’s what you’re going to hear from this President. You know, if you — if you look — listen to his past speeches, he has done that. How do we bring people together? How do we get people involved in this part — in this process, in this participation in our democracy? And, look, just because you call out what you’re seeing in this current moment — the extremism, the attack on our democracy, the attack on our freedom, the concerns that Americans have themselves, doesn’t mean you can’t bring the country together and show a positive way forward, show some hope, give some people some hope. And you’ll see that from this President tonight. Q Completely unrelated, also not a thing to be optimistic about — the National Assessment of Educational Progress is — has this new testing that shows that nine-year-olds lost ground in both math and reading in pretty dramatic ways as a result of the pandemic. What is the President going to do about it? What is the administration going to do about this severe learning loss? And does the administration shoulder any blame for not pushing schools to reopen sooner? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let’s step back to where we were not too long ago when this President walked into this administration: how mismanaged the pandemic — the response to the pandemic was; how 47 percent of schools were — in less than six months, our schools went from 40 per- — 46 percent to — open — to nearly all of them being open to full time. That was the work of this President. And that was the work of Democrats, in spite of Republicans not voting for the American Rescue Plan, which $130 billion went to schools to have the ventilation, to be able to have the tutoring and — and the teachers and being able to hire more teachers. And that was because of the work that this administration did. We were — we were in a place where, again, schools were not open. The economy was shut down. Businesses were shut down. And what we have seen is — you know, we’ve seen the numbers, but I think that’s what we see. That’s how we saw — it shows you how mismanaged the pandemic was and how the impact of that mismanagement had on the — on kids’ progress and academic wellbeing. And so, again, our priority remains to make sure states and schools and districts are using these funds — that $130 billion. This is going to go, again, to tutoring, to more teachers — real solutions, real solutions to make sure that our kids are getting what they need. And, you know, every Republican in Congress voted against that money. That is the reality. We had to do this on our own. And so, you know, we’re going to make sure that those funds are directed to — the most resources towards students who are — who will fall — who will — who fell the furthest behind, which is important. And we must repair the damage that was done by the last administration, the mismanagement that was done by the ma- — last min- — administration. But again, this is something that we take — we took very seriously, which is why we passed the American Rescue Plan, which is why we put in $130 billion to deal with what we were seeing in schools. And so, you know, we’re going to continue to make that — to continue to do that work and work closely with the schools. Go ahead. Q Karine, two questions. One on Jackson. It is in a state where — this water crisis is — one of the poorest states in the South. With that said, it’s compounding — the water crisis is compounding so much negatively in that community. And I remember during the Bush years, during Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was set aside as a special case — as well as Detroit was set aside as a special case — for them to work on revitalization — renaissance, if you will. Is Jackson one of those places that this administration would hold in that kind of category because the economy is definitely impacted — a poor state, et cetera? People are not working right now. It is unsanitary to go without water this way. Is Jackson one of those places that could have a special designation because of the compounding negatives and now this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the Biden-Harris administration — we’re committed to helping the people of Mississippi cope with this current emergency, and we are going to continue to work with the state and local government officials to explore, I can tell you, all options to ensure that the people of Jackson have the access, to your point, to clean, safe drinking water. I don’t have any announcement to make. I listed out yesterday the American Rescue Plan and what that provided for water upgrades, which was $450 million. Twenty million went to Jackson — has already gone to Jackson to address water and sewer instruct- — infrastructure needs. The state also has about $75 million in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding available to provide clean and safe water. And so, we’ll continue to partner closely. We’re going to look at all options. I don’t have anything for you at this time to announce. Q And lastly — I asked the same question a week ago — tomorrow now, there’s expected to be a civil rights meeting with the President. What can you read out about that meeting? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to comment about — about any potential meeting, any expected meeting. I’m just not going to comment on that. Q But are we in a moment where — the civil rights leaders and the President have a lot to talk about. Voting rights has gone — I mean, so many different issues that impact a community that’s still underserved with some of the highest numbers of negatives in almost every category. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we have been in — had continued conversation with civil rights members and leaders since the beginning of this administration. We value those relationships. The President has met, as you know, with civil rights leaders as President a few times. And we take — you know, we — we respect that — that relationship. We respect our conversations that we have with them. And there’s always a long list of things to talk about, including voting rights and so many other issues that affect different communities. I don’t have anything more to share. I don’t have an agenda to share with you at this time. But that is a relationship that we have held as an important one not just during the President’s — not just during this administration as President, but during Vice President and also as senator. Q And lastly, a couple of months ago, TheGrio did a story on the President’s Black agenda. He carries a card in his pocket and on that he writes things. And at some point in time, he had a list of items with the Black agenda. What are some of those Black agenda issues today, if you were to go to him and ask him if that’s on his card? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, when it comes to — if you look at the President’s economic plan, he’s been very deliberate. If you — I just talked about the American Rescue Plan. I talked about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and how that plan is helping the Black community. I laid out what it’s — what we have — what we have put forward to help Jackson, Mississippi. But it’s not just that. We know about education, what he’s done for HBCUs — more than $6 billion that he has put forth — a historic amount of money to help HBCUs. So, education has been really important. You think about the student loan — loan forgiveness that he put forward last week. That’s going to help communities at need. Right? It’s going to help the folks that — who are at the most risk — if you think about 90 percent of that plan is going to help people who are making under $75,000. That is part of the President’s plan. If you think about — going back to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, that’s going to — that’s going to create jobs for people. Ninety percent of what you see from that law is going to — 90 percent — it’s going to create jobs where folks, you know, don’t have to have a high sch- — a college degree. That is going to be important. We’re talking about building economic wealth. We’re talking about having that generational wealth that’s so important for brown — brown and Black communities that they don’t have. That’s what the American Rescue Plan does when it helps start small businesses — for folks to start small businesses so they can develop that generational wealth. All of those things are part of what the President has worked on to make sure that he’s building the economy from the bottom up and the middle out. So, he’s going to continue to do that work. It doesn’t end there. We just passed the Inflation Reduction Act that’s going to help many communities as well. It lowers costs of prescription drugs. When you think about communities of color, how much our seniors have to pay — thousands of dollars a month on prescription drugs. So that work continues. It doesn’t end — it doesn’t end there. But we would say that there’s been so much historic effort, historic legislation that’s been done under this administration that’s going to help many communities, including the Black community. I’ll come back down. Go ahead. Q More on the soul of America, from the back? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll come to the back. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Q What do you think the President’s message tonight is for Americans who consider themselves Republicans or may still support the former President? Is there something in the speech directed to them? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, the President really does believe that this — that what he’s going to talk about is something that many Americans are going to care about. It doesn’t matter which side of the aisle that you care — that you sit at. When you think about the possibilities of our democracy, when you think about how we are going to fight for — to protect our rights — right? — to protect our democracy, he thinks that’s going to touch a lot of people. We have seen — somebody just talked about polling and how we see that. Many people are concerned about where our democracy is. I would argue that’s probably across the board. And when we talk about extremism, we’re talking about a very small piece — a component of — of the American public, right? We’re talking about a very small component of MAGA Republicans in Congress that — that is something that they believe, right? But we know, and the President believes and is optimistic that there are many — many Americans who want to continue to make sure that we uphold our democracy. And so, that is something that — that we’re going to hear: some hope about the direction of America and the future of America, building toward a more perfect union. That is something that we have heard throughout our history in this country. And — and so, he’s going to speak directly to them. He’s going to make the case. He’s going to be optimistic. He’s going to lay a path forward. And — and that’s what matters. And that’s why it’s not — he’s not going to focus on a political party. He’s not going to foc- — focus on a political person. He’s going to focus at what is — what matters, what is currently mattering in this moment. And as it is at the heart of who we are as a country — talk about who we are as a country. And — and that’s what you’re going to hear from the President. Q Can I follow up on the foreign policy — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hold on. Hold on. I’ll come to the back. Go ahead. Q I just want to try again on oil price caps. The Russian Deputy Prime Minister said today that Russia will not export oil to the world market if the price is capped below the cost of production. So given those comments — it’s not entirely hypothetical, given he’s said that — is the White House concerned that Russia would refuse to sell oil under the cap, which would then cut off supply and potentially raise prices? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, the meeting is happening tomorrow. I’m going to let the G7 Finance Ministers Meeting occur. And we’ll get back to you on that. But I just want to just lay out what we’ve done already — the strong actions that we have taken to ban Russian oil. And U.S. allies have — have announced plans to wind down their own imports of Russian oil. We’ve heard them make those — those announcements. And, you know, but Putin has continued to try to find new markets for Russian oil. So this is the most effective way, we believe, to hit hard at Putin’s revenue. And doing so will result in not only a drop in Putin’s oil revenue, but also global energy prices. So we’re going to continue to — continue to have our conversations with the G7 leaders. This is what’s going to happen tomorrow with the foreign — the finance ministers, and we’ll have more to share. Q Karine — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to go to the back because people have been saying I’ve not gone to the back. Go ahead, Phil. And then I’ll come around. Go. Go ahead, Phil. Q Thanks, Karine. Returning to our discussion yesterday and following up on some other things that you’ve said today, I just want to clarify: Does the President believe that the effort to restrict abortion, to restrict that freedom is semi-fascism? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that — how is this connected to yesterday? I’m just trying to think. Q So, in terms of extremism — the extremism conversation that we’re having yesterday, does the President believe that the effort to restrict abortion — whether it’s at a local level or the federal level — to restrict that freedom — does he believe that that is semi-fascism? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, he was very clear — he was very clear that MAGA Republicans in Congress have an agenda that is extreme. And that’s what you hear from them. The national ban on abortion is extreme. And also, it’s not in line with where a majority of Americans are. It is just not. It is taking away people’s rights. It is taking away people’s freedoms. And, you know, he doesn’t — he believes that is an extreme agenda. You’ve heard that from him directly. I don’t even need to confirm that from here. He’s actually talked about how extreme it is. When we saw what was done with the Dobbs decision on June 24th — to take away a right that people had for 50 years — a constitutional right for 50 years that women had to make a decision for themselves on their healthcare. And — and so, yeah, we see that as extreme. Q So — but I’m trying to figure out which bucket in particular to put it in, because the administration, as well as the President, has used different language here. There’s “extremism,” and then there’s also the “semi-fascism” moniker that he used. I mean, this is an effort that’s been around for a long time. Does he believe that this movement — working through — whether it’s the state legislature or Congress — is in either of those buckets? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: When we talk about semi-fascism and you talk about the attack on our democracy, that’s what we’re talking about. Right? An attack on our democracy. That’s what we’re seeing — attack on our — on our freedoms. That’s what we’re seeing from the MAGA Republicans in Congress. That is what they’re doing. That is — when you’re talking about inciting violence, that’s — that’s — that is an attack on our democracy. And when you’re — Q And — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — when you see a mob that is attacking the Capitol and you don’t call that out, or you call it out one day and then change your mind the other day — another day, what is — what message are you say — saying about our democracy? Q But specifically with regards to limiting these freedoms — I guess my question is: The Supreme Court created this space for the anti-abortion movement at the state level and also perhaps at the federal level to try and restrict this freedom. Where do they fit into all of this? How would the President describe them after that decision? Were they just extremists, or were they, you know, part and parcel of a semi-fascist — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, here’s what I’ll say: We continue to — continue to see attacks on people’s fundamental rights — right? — of Americans with new abortion laws across the country. And when you have national Republicans who are — who are leaders in their — in their political party; who sit in office; who say that they want to take away the rights even in case of incest, in case — and not — and in case of rape; and taking away a woman’s right to make a decision on her body — that’s extreme. And — and, you know, the President is going to call that out. He’s going to continue to do everything that he can to make sure that we protect people’s freedoms. He’s going to do everything that he can to call that out. And, you know, that is important to call out. That is important to talk about. And, again, we see a majority of Americans who disagree. And so, when you are not with where a majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking. I’m not going to — that’s what I have for you, Phil. Q Will he call out the Supreme Court tonight? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just laid out what he’s going to talk about. It’s not a political part- — it’s not about a political person. It’s not about a political party. It’s about where we are currently today — where we are currently today with our democracy. Q Thank you, Karine. Q Thanks, Karine. Has the administration seen a spike in the request for COVID free at-home tests since the deadline is tomorrow? And has there been an increase this week on the website? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, there has been a significant increase this week in demand since we announced the suspension, as you know, which is happening tomorrow, of the COVIDTests.gov because of a lack of funding from Congress. And as we prepare ahead of the winter, we had to make some tough decisions. Look, millions of orders have been placed. This is a testament of how strong the demand of a popular program has been. Americans want ready access to tests to protect themselves and others. With more funding, we’d expeditiously resume the program. That’s what we’re hoping to do. And we’re going to continue to work with Congress on getting that funding. Q But everybody who requested them this week will be able to get the order they placed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to do everything that we can to make sure that we get people their — their tests. Q And one more COVID question: With the new boosters likely rolling out next week after the FDA gave the EUA yesterday — with pharmacies now being told to retire the old boosters and now, going forward, only the new boosters will be given out, what happens to all of those old boosters? Can they be reused, repurposed? Can they be donated to other countries? Or will they be just wasted at this point? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So that’s something that I — I can’t speak from here. That’s going to be something that the FDA will clearly give some guidance on. Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll come back down. Q Thank you. Going back to tonight’s speech, obviously, you said that the President is going be calling out these lawmakers that are MAGA lawmakers in Congress. But yet, 74 million people voted for Trump last time around. You said it’s a small number that the White House believe are extremists. Can you give us an idea of a ballpark? Are we talking a million of that 74 million? Are we talking about 1 percent, 20 percent? What kind of number are we talking about? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m talking about — I’m talking about specifically of MAGA officeholders. That’s what we’re talking about. They’re the ones — Q Not supporters? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re — I’m talking specifically — I already answered this question about how, you know, we feel like we’ve touched a nerve — right? — when folks are saying that we’re trying to be divisive or that we’re talking about millions of voters. That’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about MAGA officeholders, who — who have put forth an agenda that is extreme; who have put forth an agenda that takes away people’s rights; who have put forth agenda that, you know, want to give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations while raising taxes on millions of Americans. We just had a back-and-forth about how they want to do a national ban. They’ve called for a national ban on abortion. Those are extreme — that’s an extreme agenda that is not in line where a majority of Americans are. I know, you’re asking me about 10 — millions of voters out there, but we’re talking about — if you look at the items that I just listed, a majority of Americans don’t support what the MAGA Republicans in Congress are doing. That’s a fact. That’s what polling shows us. When you’re talking about an agenda from Republicans in the Senate who are talking about getting rid of Medicare, putting that on the chopping block; putting Social Security on the chopping block — that’s not popular. That’s not something that a majority of Americans want. Q So if it’s MAGA officeholders, we’ve seen Democratic groups, something like the Democratic Governors Association, boost Trump candidates — like Maryland, if you think of Dan Cox, who just got the nomination. Is that then hypocritical if you’re saying, “We’ve got to make sure these MAGA supporters are not in office,” but you’ve got Democratic groups that are boosting their campaigns in the primary election? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I can’t talk about campaigns and what another — another candidate is doing or a committee is doing. I can’t speak from that from here. Look, I can say this: The President has been — has always been clear: There are going to be people who disagree with his programs and legislative priorities, and that’s what democracy is all about. Like, we understand that, right? But people accept elections, and we move forward as a nation, right? But there is a growing number of people who refuse to accept the results of free and fair elections, people who actually — openly talking about subverting elections in the future. This is not a speech where he’s going to tell people to vote for one party or the other. That’s not what he’s going to do. He’s going to — Q He did that in Wilkes-Barre. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m talking about tonight. I’m talking about tonight. He’s going to talk about uniting the people of this country who believe in equality and democracy. And this is about bringing people together who believe in America. That’s what this speech is going to be about and that’s what he’s going to focus on. Q And obviously, there has been a lot of focus on previous speeches, previous comments, the one in Maryland the other day. Is it only on the far right that deserves to be called out? Or are there elements of the far left that also deserve to be either scrutinized or lectured? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m — I just laid out there’s going to be some people who agree with him and who disagree with him, who agree who — whether its legislative initiatives or programs. That’s going to happen. But what we’re going to hear from him is how to move the country forward. That’s going to be the focus of the speech tonight. He’s going to be — it’s going to be optimistic, it’s going to be hopeful, and it’s — but it’s also going to lay out what’s going on currently in this moment. That’s what you can expect from him tonight. And — and, you know, we’re going to try and see how we can move this country forward. Q Last one from me is: You know, he’s going back to Pennsylvania tonight. He’s going on Monday for Labor Day. He’s doing Wisconsin. You know, everybody here has been asking about Mississippi. No plans to go see what’s going on on the ground? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just said the FEMA Administrator — Q FEMA is going. What about the President? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just — I just said the FEMA Administrator is going there tomorrow. That’s going to be important. She is — she is the Administrator of FEMA, one of the most important agencies, as we’re — as we’re dealing with — with this catastrophe that we see in Jackson. That is not unusual. That is not new for her to be the first one on the ground to make sure — to get a sense of what’s happening and what is going on. We’re — you know, we have the EPA — EPA, who’s also involved. The EPA agency is also involved as well. The President is going to continue to have conversations with local governments, the local elected officials in the state, and — and our team is going to continue to do that. I just don’t have anything else to preview. But it is not unusual — right? — to have the FEMA coord- — Q So she goes first and then the President goes? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not saying that. I just said I don’t have anything to preview. But it’s not unusual for her to go down there, as you’ve seen with other — where we have other catastrophes, sadly, across the country. And FEMA takes — takes action, and then they take the lead. Q Karine, can I have a follow-up on the speech, please? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, go ahead. Q Thank you. So you mentioned autocracies and democracies will be part of the theme that the President will touch on today. Does that mean he’s returning to — you know, to the, kind of, foreign policy theme that he’s often highlighted in the beginning of his administration? Will there be a foreign policy component in the speech? And he will he mentioned specific countries? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get ahead of the President. I just laid out: It’s going to be an optimistic speech. It’s going to be about how — where our country is currently in fighting for our democracy, how we’re going to move forward, and also how Americans can also participate in making sure that we protect what’s important to us as a country. Q But you did mention there’s going to be autocracies and democracies — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. And he’ll — he’ll — I said he’ll talk about that. But you’re asking me specific things. I’m just not going to get ahead of the President. I just laid out what he believes he wants to talk about tonight, what he believes this moment is all — is all about. Remember, we’re going to do this at Independence Hall, which is a historic — which is a historic place to do this speech. So this is an important moment — doing it in primetime, making sure that he connects with the American people. And again, this is something that we believe a majority of Americans care about. And so you’ll hear from the President tonight. Q And just another follow-up on Afghanistan from my colleagues. I understand the focus now is on the SIV program. But just to follow up on a more brief note: I think earlier this month — I believe August 5th — you said that the withdrawal anniversary is an opportunity to honor the lives that we lost and recognize the lives that we saved and how we are on a stronger strategic footing now that we’ve ended the war. And so, it seemed at that time that the administration was at least — I mean, to me, and correct me if I’m wrong — planning to mark the event in a way that would highlight those issues that you mentioned at that time. But instead, we have this narrow statement from the President not on the withdrawal itself, but on the anniversary of the Kabul Airport attack. So can you explain the thinking behind the — that messaging strategy? And could you please respond to the criticism that the administration’s goal here is to downplay the withdrawal anniversary and kind of just “put it in a rearview mirror” as soon as possible? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’ll — I’ll say a few things: We remain committed to supporting the Afghan people. And we are proud to be the largest single provider — just to remind you all — of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. We are working closely with the United Nations and other partners to provide the assistance directly to the Afghan people without benefit to the Taliban. We will remain vigilant against any terrorist threats, as we demonstrated in July when we took down — or took out the — the leader of al Qaeda. We will continue to prioritize relocation effort for our Afghan allies, and welcome our Afghan allies to the United States since our commitment to them is enduring. And we will continue to press the Taliban for the safe release of Mark Frerichs, and to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Afghans, including women and girls. That is our goal. That is our commitment. That has been our commitment for more than a year now. And — and, again, we are committed to supporting the Afghan people, and we will do everything that we can in what I just listed. Q Karine, what are you — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to keep going. I’m going to keep — I’m going to keep going. Q Why won’t the President say that in his speech tonight? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m gong to keep going. Go ahead. Q Yeah, thanks, Karine. So, you read at the top of this about the President’s statement on manufacturing and announcement of those new jobs. When will those jobs materialize? And when the government subsidies go away — like the CHIPS Act and the American Rescue Plan — will those jobs also go away? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the reason that we announced these — why — we announced what Micron is doing — First Solar, Toyota, Honda, and Corning — if you think about Micron, they’re going to — a $15 billion investment over the next 10 years. That is going to create a lot of jobs. And that’s going to be in Idaho. Look, they’re going to — I’m sure they’ll share more on what that process is going to look like. But the point that we’re making is, because of the work that we’ve done — the CHIPS Act — let’s remember, that was actually a bipartisan piece of legislation. The fact that we were able to come together to work on this important manufacturing bill — right? — that’s going to help by — make sure that we create semiconductors here. That’s what this — but what — that’s what this manufacturing facility is going to be about: making sure that we strengthen our supply chain, making sure that we strengthen our national security, making sure that we’re doing the “Made in America.” That is an important step forward. And so, they’ll provide more information. But certainly, $15 billion that they’re saying that they’re going to invest and create their first manufacturing to deal with semiconductors — that’s an important step forward. And that’s because of the work that this administration has done. And that’s why we highlighted it. Q And then one more quick one. So I want to ask about campaign promises. While candidate Biden said that he would end the fossil fuels industry — then went back and said that he’s not going to end all fossil fuels. We’ve seen increased regulations and restrictions in that industry. Pennsylvania is the third-largest coal producer in the United States. In the past year, we’ve only seen about 1,600 jobs in net added to mining and lodging in that state. So why not just change the energy policies, help out Pennsylvania with jobs and energy security? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we just passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which is going to — which is going to do — which is going to change people’s lives and is the most — which is the most historic investment that we’ll see — that we have seen in this country to deal with climate change — right? — to deal with — to deal with energy. And so, that is important there. And let’s not forget the Bipartisan Infrastru- — Infrastructure Law as well that’s going to deal with climate change. And so, look, we’re going to continue to do the work. This is a commitment that the President has. He has created, as you know — you’v

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Okay. So, I’m pleased to announce that on Friday, September 16th, President Biden will welcome South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to the White House. The leaders, building — the leaders, building on their productive call in April and the U.S.-South Africa Strategic Dialogue in August, will reaffirm the importance of our enduring partnerships and discuss opportunities to deepen cooperation on trade and investment, infrastructure, climate and energy, and health. We look forward to a productive visit. President Biden’s Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Ambassador Mike Hammer, will travel to Ethiopia starting this weekend to engage on the crisis in northern Ethiopia. Special Envoy Hammer will convey that all parties should halt military operations and engage in peace talks. He — we condemn Eritrea’s reentry into the conflict, the continuing TPLF offensive outside of Tigray, and the Ethiopian government’s airstrikes. There is no military solution to the conflict. Prior to renewed hostilities, we were encouraged by five months of humanitarian truce, and are now deeply concerned about the seizure of humanitarian assistance of military use. All parties should exercise restraint. And we urge de-escalation by all actors, particularly so that there can be a resumption of humanitarian relief and basic services to all parties in need. Last but not least, I also wanted to share some very sad news to report for the press team. This is the final day of our good friend and invaluable colleague Alexandra LaManna’s detail with us. As you know, we have rotating details from different agencies. Alexandra succeeded Brittany Kaplan at a pivotal time, coming to us from Treasury and taking the lead for the press team on our response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, as well as the ensuing attacks on women’s fundamental rights from elected Republicans in Congress and also all over the country. Her expertise on economic issues has also been a huge asset for us in the Press Office. We’re going to miss her talent, her smarts, her sense of — her sense of strategy, her sense of humor, and her work ethic, which speaks to how lucky we have been to have her on our team. We’re going miss you, Alex. Okay. With that, want to take us away? Q Sure. A couple on the water crisis in Mississippi. Last night, the President said, quote, “We’ve offered every single thing available to Mississippi and the governor has to act.” Can you elaborate on that a little bit? What does the President think Governor Reeves has to do now that he has not yet done regarding the crisis? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just say a couple of — a couple of things that give you — give you all an update. So FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell is in Jackson, Mississippi, today to assess the ongoing emergency response operations. She will be joined by Infrastructure Coordinator Mitch Landrieu and other federal officials. I know she will be providing an update from the ground a little bit later today. FEMA, EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue to deploy personnel to support the state’s emergency response and identify longer-term solutions to improve the infrastructure. As far as water distribution goes — I know some folks had questions about that — FEMA has a number of personnel on site in the State Emergency Operations Center and is coordinating with the Mississippi Emergency Management Team to ensure that everyone has access to water. As you know, the President took immediate action to approve the governor’s emergency declaration request and directed his team to surge assistance to Mississippi. The President and the Vice President both spoke with the mayor of Jackson this week. And that’s the — that’s the update of where we are. Again, we are determined to continue to provide all of the the assistance — needed assistance for the people of the state of Mississippi and specifically for the people of Jackson as they go through this really tough time on the ground. So we’re going to continue to do the work. Q But what did he mean by saying the governor has to act? And so, he issued the emergency declaration, obviously, but what more should Governor Reeves be doing that the White House clearly thinks he’s not doing at this point? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, I mean, as you know, there is — there’s funding that we’ve provided through the American Rescue Plan for upgrades across the stra- — across the state, which is about $450 million. The city has allocated 250- — $20 million, pardon me, of its ARP funds for water and sewer infrastructure needs. And there is about $30.9 million through the EPA’s revolving loan funds for treatment and distribution system improvements for Jackson — Jackson available right now. So the state has the $75 million this year, through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to provide clean and safe — and safe water this year, with a total of $429 million available to the state over the next five years. So, we’re looking across the federal government to see what else we can do. But, you know, again, this — this administration, we’re committed. The emergency that we’re currently seeing in Jackson shows how long-deteriorating water infrastructure can quickly turn into an emergency, as Mayor Lumumba said, and this is a result of decades of underinvestment. So that is why the President is making this a priority. So, look, there’s funding there that the state can tap into for infrastructure needs — a bipartisan funding law — infrastructure law that the President worked very hard on, and Congress did as well, to make sure we deal with these types of long-term issues. And so, we think that, you know — that should be happening, that should be moving forward. Q Can you talk about why the President has not spoken directly with Governor Reeves at this point? You mentioned he’s spoken with the mayor; so has the Vice President. But why has that communication between President Biden and Governor Reeves not happened at this point? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, as I said, the FEMA administrator spoke to the governor this week, and the President has spoken to the mayor of Jackson. The conversations are happening. There’s communication. As you mentioned in your question, the governor did ask for our federal assistance, took that — took the official step, doing the declaration. And we responded. We surged the emergency funding — or emergency resources, I should say — to the state of Mississippi — Jackson, Mississippi, in particular, because of the urgent need that they have. And we’ll — we’ll keep you abreast if there’s any conversation that is coming in the upcoming days or, you know, that may be happening. But we’ll hear from the FEMA administrator later today. But right now, as you just stated, there just has not been a call. Q Hey, Karine, the President last night argued very forcefully that democracy is under assault. But what kind of concrete actions does he actually plan to take, given that he described this essentially as a fairly existential threat to the American republic? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as — as you also heard from the President yesterday, he believes we’re at an inflection point. And so — so that’s an important thing, why he wanted to make sure he gave that speech. But you also heard the President express optimism — right? — about the future of America, which was something that was important for him to deliver to the American people, that he believes there’s nothing — there’s isn’t nothing we can — we can’t do. Right? He believes that we can do everything — anything, as — as a country. And then, we have seen throughout our history, America has made its greatest progress out of the darkest times. We see that for — before. One way, of course we can do that is by making our voices heard. And he said that. He said that the American people have a choice. And — but it wasn’t just a policy speech. Obviously, the President believes that we can make great progress out of the darkest moments. And he calls on all Americans, regardless of which aisle — side of the aisle you sit on, regardless which ideology that you may follow, regardless of the political persuasion, to unite around democracy. And he thought it was an important message — again, an inflection point. And that was the message that he delivered, again, giving people a choice and saying to folks, “We need to come together and make sure our voices are heard.” Q So, other than urging Americans to vote and make their voices heard, the President has no plan to confront this threat that he described very forcefully last night? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, it’s not the first time he’s confronted — confronted or spoke about this threat. This is — he’s done it multiple times at multiple stages during the last three years — during his campaign a couple of times as well, during his administration. And he’ll continue to lift that up when he feels it’s needed. But what the President did last night was incredibly powerful. It was clear. It was concise. It was steadfast, which is — and he did it prime time, as you all know, to the American people, speaking directly to them, that this is a time for us to come together. Q Right. But what I’m asking is if there’s any action behind his words. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, the action is making your voices heard. That is a powerful action. We have seen it across time, we have seen it throughout our American history that making your voices heard actually can change — actually can change the direction of a country. So, I would say that is the most powerful tool that we have as a country right now. Q And I know you guys have addressed this to certain extent, but because you’re behind the podium, if you could address the criticisms and the questions about why the President delivered what sounded very much like a politically charged speech as an official White House event, taxpayer-funded, with two Marines in uniform, in particular, flanking him and visible on camera throughout the speech. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll take your first question. Look, the way we see it here — and I would argue, the way many Americans across the country see it is standing up for democracy is not political, denouncing political violence is not political, defending rights and freedom is not political, making clear that the challenges facing the nation is not political. We don’t call any of that political. We see that as leadership. And we see that as presidential. To your question about the Marines. Look, the President gave an important speech last night — a critical speech, in an — at an inflection point. And, you know, our democracy, our values — our values that are — are values that our men and women who protect us every day and fight for every day believe in as well. The presence of the Marines at the speech was intended to demonstrate the deep and abiding respect the President has for these services — service members, to these ideals and the unique role our independent military plays in defending our democracy, no matter which party is in power — again, no matter which power — party is in power. And it is not abnormal. It is actually normal for Presidents from either side of the aisle to give speeches in front of members of the military, and including President Donald Rea- — Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush. It is not an unusual sight or is not an unusual event to have happen. I’m going to — I’m going to move around. You’ve asked three questions. Q Just to follow up — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. You’ve asked — you’ve asked three questions. Q Well, you didn’t answer the first question until — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I did. Q — three follow-ups. So — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. No, no, no, I answered the first question. You just — you know, I had to just dive in a little bit more, but I certainly answered it because I said, “Making your voices heard is a powerful tool.” I answered it the first time you asked. I’m going to go around. Go ahead, Nancy. Q Thank you. Oh, thanks so much, Karine. Just on the Treasury Department’s oil price cap, I’m wondering: Will the President be making any personal appeals to world leaders to jump on this Russian oil price cap policy? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just give you a couple of things at the top because this is a really important first step. And so, we’re moving from exploring a price cap on Russian oil to gaining an agreement with G7 nations, making up 50 percent of the global economy to implement one. A global price cap will help us accomplish our two goals. The first one is: significantly reduce Putin’s biggest source of revenue for his war chest. Number two: ensure that oil continues to flow into the market at lower prices and supply meets demand. The impact of our efforts to implement a price cap is already bearing fruit. Reports show that Russia is already offering steep discounts — as much as 30 percent — and long-term contracts to some countries. This also demonstrates that Russia is planning to continue supplying its oil and willing to swallow bigger discounts. A price cap will give more countries better leverage to strike bargain with — deals with Russia. We will fur- — we will further work in the coming — upcoming weeks to determine the price cap level; release further information, including technical guidance for market participation; and announce our coalition partners as well. A price cap on Russia — on Russian oil is a powerful tool — one part of the tool in our agenda to put downward — to put downward pressure on global energy prices in a way that will benefit consumers in the U.S. and globally. And we are determined to implement this policy in a way that achieves those goals. We’re going to let folks who are working on this continue the work. This was, again, a very big step forward. And we’ll have more in the upcoming days. As you know, this is something that the Treasury is leading — but U.S. Treasury is leading. Q But is the President himself going to ask world leaders to sign onto this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, here’s the thing: The President started this conversation, as you know, in Europe when we were in Germany at the G7. So this is part of the President’s leadership. He moved this forward. He started this conversation. Now, the Treasury and our — our administration is going to continue to have those conversations. When I — we’ll have more — clearly. We always share more. If the President is going to put out a statement, we’ll let you know. Go ahead. Q Where does the President think the line should be drawn for having members of the military who could be perceived as being part of stagecraft for an address? The former President was criticized for using military many different times in many different settings. And you’re right, there have been other instances and other Presidents where members of the military — especially here at the White House. But to be at a location in Pennsylvania where the Marines are not normally stationed, where does the President see the line for having members of the military included? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I just want to be very clear: You know, as you know, the President was at Independence Hall. And you know the history. I’m just going to — I’m going to repeat it, but I know you know the history. Which is where some of our — some of our — the documents of some of our most critical rights and freedoms were debated and were drafted. And so, being at Independence Hall for this President — and you — you followed this President. You know how he thinks, and you know how — you know, how he is — as an elected official. He believes that it is important for him to speak very loudly — to have, actually, the loudest voice when it comes to our democracy. And so, for him, this was not a political speech. This was an opportunity in primetime to talk directly to the American people, and to be very clear — clear — with a clear voice to talk about what is happening in our country today. And it was about our values as a country, about our democracy as a country. And so, that is what the President wanted to convey. And he believes the men and women who wear the uniform and protect us every day, protect this country every day — that’s what they fight for as well. And so, this was an opportunity, as he’s having this conversation, of leveling — right? — of a level conversation with the American people to do that. So, I just want to — that’s really the best way that I can explain how the President was thinking about this last night. You know, when it comes to — you know, when it comes to the soul of the nation, this is something that the President has talked about, as I mentioned, for years. He has seen where we are headed as a country. He has been concerned where our democracy is going. And again, he took this opportunity to directly speak to the American people, understanding — understanding that the Marines who were standing behind him are — you know, are men and women who believe in our democracy as well, who fight for it every day. So that’s — that’s the thinking that I can give you behind that. Q On the Mississippi issue, briefly — just following up on the other question. Is there some tens- — some tension between the President and Governor Reeves? Because this is obviously an ongoing health concern, a day-to-day lifestyle concern, a real crisis for people in Mississippi. And the President seemed to be pointed in his comments — there hasn’t been leader-to-leader direct communication. Is something getting in the way of the President and the governor speaking to each other? And is that necessary to further any assistance or progress on this issue? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, it’s not necessary to further any progress in this situation. FEMA director is on the ground today — who lead — who is part of the agencies that, if anything, leads the effort when it comes to natural disasters that we’re seeing. In this case, it is an infrastructure issue that we’re see- — we’re seeing in Jackson, Mississippi. And we’re also going to have — we have EPA officials on the ground as well. So it’s not necessary to have a leader-leader conversation. The federal government is going to do its job because of — the President has, you know, has put — Q But it is typical when there’s a crisis in a state regardless of party, regardless of personal relationships. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And you’re right. Regardless of party. You’re absolutely right. We’ve gone to Republican governors who — other Republican governors who are in a state and have delivered emergency assistance many times, sadly, during these last 18 months because — Q So has a call been attempted and not been welcomed or — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I don’t have a call to preview. I don’t have to call to read out to you at this time. I can tell you that, regardless of a call, the President, as I just laid out with an update, is determined to help the people of Mississippi, in particular the people of Jackson, as they’re dealing with this incredibly tough time. We have provided funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We have provided funding through the American Rescue Plan that is going to, we believe, start the process of really dealing with an infrastructure issue that exists in Jackson, Mississippi. And we have said — I was asked about this yesterday — we — we are looking at all options to ensure that the people of Jackson have access to clean — to clean, safe drinking water. So that work is going to continue regardless if there’s a call or not. And because the President — he says this all the time; you’ve heard him say this — he’s a — he’s the President for all Americans. And he’s going to make sure that we do everything that we can for the people in Mississippi. Okay. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Thank you, Karine. I have a question about Jackson, and then also just following up on the speech yesterday. First, with Jackson: So FEMA has — you’ve talked a lot about the infrastructure funding — FEMA basically has two climate resilience programs that received a boost from that infrastructure bill, one of them being BRIC. Jackson hasn’t, in the past two years, filed applications for that program — still hasn’t now. Has the administration asked the state whether or not those applications were blocked, or just asked why those applications haven’t gone through yet? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’ll say this: That is a question for FEMA. The FEMA director is going to be on the ground today. And I’m sure those many conversations will come up about ways that we can help the city of Jackson. She’s going to — we’re — you all are going to hear from her directly today. So I will leave it to her to answer that specific question, because you’re asking about a specific program that I clearly don’t have any information on it at this time. But, you know, the FEMA — the FEMA director — Director Criswell — is very good at her job. We have seen what she’s been able to make happen over the last 19 months. And so, we have confidence that she will get to the bottom and be as helpful as she can be, as we can be on the ground. Q More broadly, just these smaller, poorer communities tend to not be able to hire the staff, don’t have the infrastructure to actually navigate through this climate resilient system and get federal funding often. Years show this, you know, when you go back and look at reporting as well. So I wonder: What — what actual kind of stick does the administration have to — and since so much of the power is with the states — that this funding actually gets to communities that need it after these (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I spoke to this a little bit yesterday and I’ll talk about it now. You know, we have put a real emphasis on making it easier for state and local governments to access the federal — federal savings. Because when we talk about the President’s economic plan, when we talk about lifting people from the bottom up and — and — and out — you know, out, it is — has that, in the middle of it, equity. And you saw that in his response to — also to his COVID response and making sure that equity was at the center of that. And everything that you see from the American Rescue Plan, from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, from everything that we have dealt with as we talk about the economy, we want to make sure we do not leave anybody behind. And so, one of the reasons we’ve asked every state to appoint a state infrastructure coordinator to help streamline communications and information flow — so one of the other — one of the other administration officials who are — is on the ground is Mitch Landrieu, who runs that team. And so, he’ll be on the ground. He’ll be having those conversation. And so having that coordinator is incredibly important as we engage directly with, again, state and local governments and Tribal governments as well to help them quickly assess — access the necessary technical assistance and capacity to underserved communities, to your point. So we have also partnered with not-for-profits. That’s another way that we have found a way to assist communities in access- — accessing and deploying these federal infrastructure funding, including Bloomberg Philanthropies, Emerson Collective, Ford Foundation, so — and so many more people that we are partnering in ways so that folks under- — in underserved communities could get that funding. So our goal, again, is to help local, state, Tribal, and territorial governments navigate and access and deploy infrastructure resources that will build a better community and a better America. So, again, there’s a coordinator that is connected to getting that Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. You know, you’re going to hear from Mitch Landrieu, you’re going to hear from Criswell — Director Criswell — Administrator Criswell, who are both down there today. And we will hear a lot more on what we can do as an administration. Q And I just have a follow on the speech yesterday, just to follow up on this point. Noting that — that rhetoric and delivering speeches can — I understand the, kind of, inspiration — the inspirational kind of motivational factor there. But just, frankly, can the American people expect any sort of policy rollout underlying the speech yesterday in the days ahead to actually address the threat to democracy? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think what the President was trying to do at this moment, and we’ve seen this before, is give Americans a choice. How do we move forward in this time, in this inflection point? And one of the ways that we have seen time and time again in history is making sure people have their voices heard. And that comes in many different ways. And he believes, as President, it is important for him to be very clear and direct, and to fight the hardest for our democracy. And so, that is what you saw. You saw a very strong message from the President. It was clear what he was saying to the American people. It’s time to, you know, take a stance. It’s time to take action. And — and we also see that. We see that from polling about what the American people are anxious about. What they care about is our democracy. So it is not unusual. It is something that we have seen over the last several weeks. And so, you know, the President is going to continue to have those conversations, and he’s going to continue to make sure that he makes that clear. Q But what’s the administration’s action, besides telling people to go vote? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think we should not underestimate what that — what that can do — the power of the bully pulpit, the power of the President, and that — and that action that he took last night and what that could make happen, what that — what — the — what that could lead to. And we’ve seen that in the past. This is not unusual — right? — to have a — a — to have a speech like this and to encourage people to act, to send a message so that — you know, so that the American people understand what is happening in this country. And so, again, the President se- — believes that it is his job to level with the American people about threats he sees to our nation and our values. And that’s what you heard from him last night. And we believe it did — it indeed resonated. And so, again, this is something that he’s going to continue to do. It is a powerful message that was delivered by the President. I’m going to continue. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Yeah, thank you, Karine. Isn’t a speech in which the President concludes by saying, “Vote, vote, vote,” inherently political? He wasn’t referring to voting for any candidates. He was — he wasn’t saying, “Vote for Dr. Oz.” He was saying, “Vote to reject the MAGA forces.” I mean, isn’t that a political speech? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We don’t think it’s a political speech. When I was here yesterday, I actually said that he would mention voter participation and getting folks out there to make your voices heard. I said that at the podium yesterday when I was asked what this speech was going to be all about. And, look, that is the most powerful tool — the most powerful tool that Americans have is to make sure their voices are heard. It is. It is the most powerful action that an American voter — an American can take. And so, that is what he is asking the American people to do. I’m going to continue. I’m going to continue because you’re — I’ve asked — I’ve answered that question a few times. Q Well, I was going to a different topic — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go to a different topic. Q Looking ahead to the Labor Day events that the President has — one in Pittsburgh, one in Milwaukee — will the President be speaking at those events? And is he going to be continuing the message we heard yesterday or talking more of an economic theme? What should we expect from the President on those days? And will he be appearing with the respective Senate candidates — Fetterman and Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t want to get ahead of what the President is going to say. As you — as you just mentioned, he’ll be in Wisconsin and in Pennsylvania on Monday for the Labor Day activities that he’ll be participating in. I’m sure we will be hearing from the President. Don’t want to get ahead of what he will say. And we’ll have more to share on who will be attending, as we normally do. I don’t have anything to share at this time. Okay. Go ahead. Q Hey, Karine. Thank you. On social media companies. Did the administration give Twitter and Facebook talking points over flagging what the President describes as mis- — misinformation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Talk — say that one more time. Q Yeah, did — has the administration helped Twitter and Facebook with talking points about what the administration believes is misinformation? Or how much coordination is there between the administration and social media companies? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to share with you on that. I’m not going to comment on that at this time. Q Okay. Because the attorney generals from Missouri and Louisiana said there’s a “vast censorship enterprise across a multitude of federal agencies.” MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I’m just not going to comment at this time. Q On another topic then, so, under this President, under President Biden, you saw student test scores have come — gone backwards; inflation has gone the wrong direction; workers real wages have come down. You know, we’re seeing programs — spending on programs and promises that at some point in the future, the transition will be over. What — in the last 20 months, where’s the progress? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as far as the economy — as you know, the jobs report came out today. You heard from the President as he was giving remarks at his event just now on the American Rescue Plan, the Build Back Better Challenge dealing with 21 cities. And you heard from some of the folks who received the grant today, which is an important tool. It’s going to change lives in Detroit; in Greenwood, Oklahoma; in areas that really need it. And so that is, again, another important piece of the American Rescue Plan that only Democratic — Democrats voted for. And also, the American Rescue Plan helped turn the economy back on. And that’s why we have seen the success of the — of our economic success this past year. And you’ve asked me this — you know, I know you follow economy. But, look — Q But inflation still outpaces wages. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, here, let me just talk about — let me talk about the report a little bit, because there’s some good stuff in here that kind of touches on what you just asked me. So, as you know, the good news is: In August, the economy created 315,000 jobs, which is important. We have created nearly 10 thousand — million jobs since President Biden took office, which is the fastest job growth in history. So you’re asking me, where’s the success? Here it is. Wait. Let me finish. Q Added back, most of those jobs. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Wait. Q Two hundred and forty thousand were created. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hold on. Hold on. Let me — let me — the share of Americans who are working, because that’s part of the question that you just asked me — what economists call the “labor force participation rate” — went up, and that’s important. And for the first time, working age women — this is in the job report that we just saw today — are now back at work at rates not seen since before the pandemic. So the bottom line is: Jor- — Jobs are up. Wages are up. People are back to work. And we are seeing some hopeful signs that inflation may be beginning to ease. We saw that in July. Right? From July to August, we saw that inflation was starting to ease. And you’re talking about education. When the President walked in to this administration, schools were closed, businesses were closed. And a lot of that is because we were in the pandemic, but not just that. It was so mismanaged by the last administration that we had to get to work to make sure that we opened up the schools, which we were able to do. Nearly all schools were opened in the first six months. Getting small businesses back open. And that was the work that — Q But states like Florida and, at first, New York held off. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That were — that was the work because of this President and Democrats. The American Rescue Plan helped do that. And it was mismanaged — what we saw by the last President, what — the way that he was handling the economy, the way they were handling COVID and getting shots in arms, making sure that people were able to get back to work. That is just a fact. And so, that is — is there a lot of — is there more work to be done? Of course, to bring down inflation. Absolutely. That’s one of the reasons the President works so hard to get the gas prices to come down. That’s one of the reasons we work so hard to get the Inflation Reduction Act so we can bring down cost of prescription drugs. So, all of these things took work and it took leadership. All right, I’m going to keep going. Q Thanks, Karine. Can you talk a little bit about — more about COVID, particularly what the White House is doing to make sure that Congress passes the COVID funding package, you know, considering last time it didn’t work out? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — so, as you know, there remains a pressing need for additional funding for our COVID-19 response. In March, to your point, we requested that Congress provide supplemental COVID-19 funding and repeatedly warned that without congressional action, we would be forced to make difficult tradeoffs and reallocate existing funding to meet pressing needs. That is precisely what happened. The most recently, for example, because of congressional inaction, the lack of additional funding has prevented us from adequately replenishing our national stockpile, at-home — the at-home tests, which ends today, forced us to suspend sending a free test to Americans and leaves our democr- — domestic testing capacity diminished for a potential fall surge. So while we have made tremendous progress in our ability to protect against and treat COVID-19, we must stay on our — on our front foot, and that requires additional resources. So the updated funding request is for $22.4 billion to meet immediate short-term domestic needs, including testing, accelerating the research and development of next-generation vaccines and therapeutics, prepare for future variants, and support the global response to COVID-19. So, again, this funding is vital. We’re going to continue to work with Congress. We feel that we have the time — some time to make that happen. And so, that is — in order to continue our progress and build on our progress, we’re going to continue to fight for that funding. Q Is there anything, though, that the White House is kind of doing differently to try to, kind of, change the outcome? I mean, what makes you think that there will be a different outcome? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we think that we — we think that there is, like last year — we were confident that Congress can reach a funding agreement, just like we did last year. So this is not new. And but with one month until the end of the fiscal year, it’s clear that Congress will first need to pass a short-term continuing resolution to keep the federal government running and provide the time needed to reach an agreement on a fully — on a full-year funding bill. So, we did it last year. And so, we’re confident that Congress could do it again. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. At this hour, there’s a report that Gina McCarthy, the President’s Climate Advisor, is stepping down. Is there anything more you can tell us about that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, she is stepping down. Gina is — is indeed leaving us. She, as you know, has been a leader in what we have seen as one of the largest investments in dealing with climate change. She is a — not the first time that she’s been in an administration, and we are very sad to lose her. We will have more to share, I’m sure, in an upcoming — in the upcoming hours. But just to give a little bit of Gina, she’s a public service — has a extended decades across local and state and federal government, including as EPA Administrator in the Obama-Biden administration. And she returned — she returned to public service recognizing the unique moment and eager to support the President at the beginning of this administration, especially as she sought to launch the first-ever Climate Policy Office and 20 — 21-plus agency task force to advance a whole-of-government approach to the climate crisis. And so, we’ll have more to share. But, yes, that is something that I can confirm. Q I want to ask you about something else. Yesterday, the Defense Department released a pretty disturbing report on the number of sexual assault incidents in the military. This report indicated an increase in, in particular, female servicemembers, who said that they have experienced unwanted sexual contact, and a decrease in the women who say that they trust the system to protect their privacy, trust the system to safe — ensure their safety, and trust the system to treat them with dignity and respect. Has the President been presented with this report? And does he have confidence in the Defense Department’s leadership to address these concerns? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can tell you that the President — this is a priority for the President, as you know. You’ve heard from him about this before. One sexual assault is one too many. And the President has been clear about making sure we implement real change to — to rid our ranks of this crime. That is why he signed an executive order in January 2022 making sexual harassment a named military offense, and it’s why his fiscal year ’23 budget request proposed $940 million for sexual assault prevention and response programs, including $479 million and more than 2,400 personnel to implement the recommendations of the Independent Review Commission. And for the first time in military history, beginning in December of next year, investigations and prosecutions of sexual assault and harassment will be taken out of the chain of command and placed in the hands of the independent special counsel. We understand there’s more work to do, of course. And as this new data demonstrates, addressing the scourge of sexual assault in the military will continue to be a priority for the Department of Defense and this administration, and we’re going to continue to do the work. I’m going to take — I’m going to take one more question because we actually have to go. Q Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on the oil price cap. Could you say when that will be unveiled? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can say this: You know, we believe the price cap will be successful in our goals of substantially curbing Russia’s main source of revenue and lowering energy costs because it offers multiple ways to achieve our goals. As far as any timing or timeline, as I said moments ago that the U.S. Treasury will have more on that, so I’d point you to them. But we do believe this is an important big step forward. Q Quickly, on the Iran deal. Are the main sticking points the closure of the IAEA probe and some kind of guarantees for foreign companies that if the U.S. were to leave the deal again, there would be like a wind-down period for contracts? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just give you a little bit on the status of this. So, you know, we have taken a deliberate and principled approach to these negotiations from the start. And, you know, if — if Iran is prepared to comply with this — with its commitments under the 2015 deal, then we are prepared to do the same. And so, you know, that’s going to be our focus. As it — as it relates to the IAEA investigations, the safeguards, our position is crystal clear. Iran needs to answer — it’s crystal clear the investigations are not political. They are not leverage or bargaining chips. Once the IAEA Director General reports to the Board of Governors that the outstanding issues have been clarified and resolved, we expect them to come to — come off the board’s agenda, and not before. We are unbending in our support for the IAEA’s independence. There should not be any conditional –conditionality between reimplementation of the JCPOA and investigations related to Iran’s legal obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And, of course, it would be preferable to return to the JCPOA without any open safeguard issues. The power to achieve that is fully in Iran’s hands. I’ll take one from the back. (Cross-talk by reporters.) Q Karine, can I ask you a quick follow-up on Ethiopia? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not sure if I have any more on Ethiopia. Q Thank you, Karine. President Biden — President Biden laid out last night the problems that the country is facing: divisions, extremism, polarization. What is his message to adversaries who — around the world — who are looking at this and trying to leverage the division in the country, and also allies who are dismayed at the state of democracy in the U.S.? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So it’s the same message he has sent to the world since before January 6, about sacrosanct democratic norms and the importance of standing up for democracy as authoritarianism rises around the world. And so, the same message. Nothing is new. This is opposite of partisan and about values — much, much bigger, much bigger, much higher than that. And that’s — and that’s him working to strengthen democracy in the world. That’s what he’s going to continue to do. Thanks, everybody.

Georgetown University law professor Rosa Brooks blamed the Highland Park mass shooting on Americans being "slaves" to the Constitution, "written more than 230 years ago by a tiny group of white slave-owning men," Tuesday. At a Fourth of July parade in Illinois, an armed gunman shot and killed at least seven people, wounding dozens more. The suspect is now in police custody, though authorities have not yet disclosed a motive. MSNBC "The ReidOut" host Joy Reid spoke with a panel who mourned the lives lost but called for stricter gun control legislation as a result. "It’s time to say that no one in America needs an assault weapon. It’s something the military needs. It is not something that people need. And whatever mental issues the shooter here had, and it’s clear that he did, even if he didn’t, he didn’t need that gun," said MSNBC legal analyst Jill Wine-Banks. Although Chicago and Highland Park's gun laws are some of the strictest in the country, Brooks instead focused on the Supreme Court decision finding New York’s concealed carry laws to be unconstitutional. "We are now living in that world too and we have brought it on ourselves. We can’t say, oops, it’s the Russians’ fault, they shouldn’t have invaded us. Or oops, this is Al-Qaeda. This is us. This is 100% us and it’s because we are essentially slaves to a document that was written more than 230 years ago by a tiny group of white slave-owning men," Brooks said. Several liberals have called out the Supreme Court decision since its announcement in June with many hosts and guests suggesting guns have more rights than women. Brooks added, "And we cannot break out of the bondage that we have imposed on ourselves from feeling like we have to — everything by our Supreme Court is decided in reference to this ancient document which is just not serving us well. It is causing enormous problems and enormous tragedies at this point." In April, Reid also denounced the Supreme Court as a "pro-just White Christian court" for taking up cases involving religious freedom. Later on in the segment, Brooks agreed with Reid that a major issue in the country is the ease with which one can acquire AR-15 weapons. "The harm that people can do with things like AR-15s is staggering. You talk to military veterans, talk to police officers, and they will all say these are weapons of war essentially. These are not weapons that people are using for any legitimate purpose. They are weapons that people use to commit mass slaughter, period," Brooks said.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Good afternoon, everybody. I hope everyone had a restful long weekend. I actually don’t have anything for you at the top. (Laughter.) I know you guys are always excited to hear what I got to say. But, Darlene, you want to kick us off? Q Yes. Thank you very much. Is the White House looking into the possibility of having the President visit Highland Park? The death toll there has risen to seven this afternoon. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the President, as you all know, is going to be traveling to Ohio tomorrow to discuss the American Rescue Plan. So that’s the trip that he’s going to be making tomorrow. We don’t have any plans right now to go to Chicago. I know some folks are asking if he’s going to go to Chicago, will he go — I mean, if he’s going to go to Ohio, is he going to go to Chicago. The Vice President is going to be there, and she will speak to the devastation that we — that we all saw with our own eyes yesterday in Highland Park. But I don’t have anything to share about — for President’s travel tomorrow. He’ll go to — again, he’ll go to Ohio, where he’s going to talk about the Rescue Plan, the Special Finance — Financial Assistance Program, in particular. This program will provide financial relief to millions of workers in multiemployer plans who face significant cuts to their pensions through no fault of their own. But again, nothing to share about him going to Chicago at this time. Q Not necessarily tomorrow though, but later this week, next week, before he leaves for the Middle East? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — we just don’t have anything to share. But again, the Vice President is going to be there today. She will certainly speak to — speak to the tragedy that we saw yesterday. The President spoke to this yesterday during the Fourth of July in a very forceful way and laying out how he and the First Lady saw the tragedy, and he even had a moment of silence. But we are not planning — right now, at this moment, I don’t have any plans of a future trip to Chicago. Q And since you mentioned the Ohio trip tomorrow, when the President is in Cleveland, which is relatively near Akron, do you expect him to address at all the fatal police shooting of Jayland Walker? Q I don’t have anything to share on that either, whether he is going to potentially — I know it’s about 45 minutes from Cleveland, where the shooting happened. We just — right now, we’re going to be focusing on the trip that we have planned, which is to talk about the American Rescue Plan and how to help the American public. Q And then one final question. Can you talk about the status of the letter that Brittney Griner sent to the President? Has he been briefed on it? Has he even read it? Griner’s wife was on television this morning; she really wants to hear from the President. Will he reach out to her in any fashion? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can say that the President did read the letter. I was there when he read the letter. This is something — Brittney Griner being held in Moscow, we believe the Federation is wrongfully — she’s being wrongfully detained in Moscow at this time. This is an issue that is a priority for this President. As you have heard us say before, he believes that any U.S. national that is held abroad or detained or held hostage abroad, we need to bring back safely and we are going to use every tool that we possibly can to make that happen. Again, this is a priority for the President. I do want to share that, on Saturday, Mrs. Griner spoke with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. That is their second call in the past about 10 days that they have spoken. Secretary Blinken also spoke with Mrs. Griner as well recently. I don’t have anything else to read out as far as a potential call or a meeting with her family. But clearly, we believe she was wrongfully detained. We believe she needs to come home — she should be home; as well as Paul Whelan, as well, who’s being held; and any other U.S. national who is wrong- — being wrongfully detained abroad. Q Thank you. Q Hi, Karine. Just to follow up on that: Griner’s coach said, “If this was LeBron, she [he] would be home, right? It’s a statement about the value of women, it’s a statement about the… Black person, it’s a statement about the value of a gay person — all those things. We know…” as true. Do you see this as a double standard? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This is a President who has put all of the things that you just laid out — the LGBTQ community, women, people of color — he has fought for those communities throughout his career. And you — you have seen that in policies that he has put forward. Again, this is a priority for this President. He’s doing everything that he can. The White House is closely coordinating as well with the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, who has met with Brittney’s family, her teammates, and her — her support network. So we’re going to continue to have those conversations, and we’re going to make sure that she — she and others get home safely. Q And just to follow up since this is a priority for the President — I mean, she’s been detained for months now. Her wife told “CBS This Morning” that she still has “not heard” from Biden. “And, honestly, it’s very disheartening.” I know it’s a priority, but why has it taken this long? And why has it taken a letter from Griner in jail to reach the President to make this a priority? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, this has been on top of mind for the President. Like, I was there when he read the letter. And he takes this to heart. He takes this job very seriously, especially when it comes to bringing home U.S. nationals who are wrongfully detained. And you saw the work that his administration did to bring — to bring home Trevor Reed. That is the same — the same work, the same focus that we did and put behind bringing Trevor Reed home, we’re going to do the same with Brittney Griner and others. So, again, this is a priority. We’re going to make this happen. We’ve had — she’s — we have been in constant communications — Secretary Blinken; the Special Envoy, as I just listed out; and also Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor. We’re going to continue to have those conversations, and we’re going to continue to make sure we use everything at our disposal to bring her home and also Paul Whelan and all the others U.S. nationals that are abroad. Peter. Q Thanks, Karine. How did the President go from blaming high gas prices on Putin to Big Oil to small-business owners now? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, here’s the thing about that, Peter, is when you look at — as of this morning, when you look at the crude oil and when you look at wholesale oil prices as well, they’ve declined about 15 percent. And so, retail gas prices, however, have only declined just about 3 percent over the same time period as we have seen with crude oil prices and the wholesale gas prices. And meanwhile, those same retailers are profiting; their profit have gone up about 40 cents — nearly 40 cents in that same period of time. So what the President is saying is that everyone along that chain, around that production chain line, needs to — needs to make sure that they’re doing what is possible, their part, in bringing down the costs for the American people. That is what we’re asking. Consumers should not — should not be the first to pay and the last to benefit. Q Jeff Bezos says the President’s tweet about this is “either straight ahead misdirection or a deep misunderstanding of basic market dynamics.” Which is it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you know, we completely disagree with Jeff Bezos. Look, we will continue to call on everyone along that distribution chain, as I just mentioned — from oil companies, to refineries, to distributors, to retailers — to pass their lower cost through to consumers. That is what is important: to make sure that we should not make, again, consumers pay first and get that re- — and get that relief last. Q Okay. And then, on a different topic: Why is there a voicemail of the President talking to his son about his overseas business dealings if the President has said he’s never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, first, I’ll say that what the President said stands. So if he — if that’s what the President said, that is what stands. And second — secondly — Q He’s leaving a voicemail about a New York Times article — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But secondly — Q — considering — concerning Hunter Biden’s business dealings. And it says, “I think you’re clear.” How is that not him talking to his son about his overseas business dealings? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re not — from this podium, I am not going to talk about alleged materials from the laptop. I will — I am not — Q So are you disputing that it’s President’s voice on the voicemail? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I am not going to talk about alleged materials on a laptop. It’s not happening. Q Are you disputing then that it is not — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Peter, I refer you to his son’s representative. Q Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. The President said the other day that he would meet with governors and then consider some more potential executive actions in response to Roe. So now that that meeting has happened, is there anything on the table that you are considering in terms of executive actions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as we have said, all options are on the table. The President is going to do everything that he can from his legal authority to make sure that we’re protecting women’s freedoms and women’s rights. So that still stands. That still is something that we are going to do. I don’t have an executive order — executive action to speak to at this time. As you know, when — when the decision came down almost two weeks ago, the President took quick action and he announced executive — and he announced some executive authorities that we believe protect women, ensure that they — and ensure that they can get access — health — healthcare access as quickly as possible. As far as executive actions, I don’t have anything for you to preview. Q So just really quickly, is there an update on when the President will make a decision on Chinese tariffs? And will he be speaking to President Xi before he makes that decision? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have a timeline for you on that. The President’s team is continuing to look at our options on how to move forward. As you know, the President and President Xi had a conversation back in March, and we continue to leave all communications lines open from the President on down. Go ahead. Q Just following up on that: The President did say he would have specific announcements out of the meeting. So has he changed his view on that, that there isn’t anything to announce right now? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. No, not at all. I don’t think he’s changed his view on that. Again, we’re going to do — he’s going to do everything in his legal — legal authority to make sure that we protect women and their freedoms and their rights the best that he can from, again, his legal authority. I just don’t have anything for you to share at this time. Q It just sounded like he had something in the pipeline there. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Once we have something, we will be sure to sho- — share it. Q On the matter of the Griner letter: Now that the President has read it, does he feel it is the type of an outreach to him that he would want to do some kind of personal response back in a letter form or in some other way to Griner, if that is doable through channels, or to her wife or family members — to have a direct response from the President? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, you all read the letter, I presume. It was out there in the press. And it is a deeply personal letter. As you know, this President is — takes that very personally as well. Brittney Griner talked about the Fourth of July, which we just celebrated yesterday, talking about freedom and how different it means for her. You heard the President’s speech, which was also very powerful, yesterday speaking about that and the time and the moment that we’re in. I just — I don’t have anything to share about what — if he’s going to respond or what that would look like. I can confirm, again, that he has read the letter, and it was, as we all know, deeply personal. And we’re going to do everything — the President is going to do everything that he can, in his power, to — to bring her home, along with other U.S. nationals who are being held — wrongfully detained abroad. Q And any — any follow-up on the energy meeting that Secretary Granholm held? And the President had said he was looking for solutions from the oil companies and so forth. Has there been anything brought back to the President for him to review or any updates on that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, that meeting went very well. We even heard from some of the CEOs who came out of that meeting as well. We did a readout. We are look- — still looking to get to solution. We think that was a first step. There’s going to be more conversations. I — we just don’t have more to share on the next steps — specific next steps and what has been presented to the President. But clearly, we’re looking for solutions. We want to get that capacity up. We want to make sure that refineries are increasing their capacity so that we can get gas — gasoline out there, we can get diesel out there so that the cost for the American people come — come on down. And so that’s what we’re going to continue to work on. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On the China tariffs again, the AFL-CIO and other labor unions have urged the President not to use these tariffs. The President is going to Ohio tomorrow. The Democratic Senate candidate, Tim Ryan, has also said this would be a major mistake to use those tariffs. So how is the President weighing those concerns among labor unions and some Rust Belt Democrats against other people who are saying these tariffs should be lifted? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, again, I don’t have anything to preview or announce at this time. Look, there are a lot of different elements to this, especially since the previous administration imposed these tariffs in such a haphazard way, in a non-strategic way. So, we are — we are — want to make sure that we have the right approach. And again, his team is talking — is figuring it out and they’re talking through this. And once we figure out the right approach — this is about what is right for the American public, for the American people — we will have an announcement and we will let you all know. Q And on the stalled China competition bill, any calls to Capitol Hill to read out on that? What’s the White House’s strategy to try to get that across the finish line? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as you know, it’s something that we believe is incredibly important to the American people, getting that competition bill done. We are — we are going to continue to have those conversations on the Hill. As you know, we don’t read out any personal conversations, but we’re going to continue to do the work with folks on the Hill to get this done. Go ahead. Q Karine, thanks. A couple questions. Overall, there was a — there was a published report today that say overall frustration among Democrats with President Biden. Is this administration concerned about that criticism from Democrats? And it also says that the President is incapable of the urgency needed because of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Any response from the administration to those published reports? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So when you say “Democrats,” you mean Demo- — elected officials or — Q Mm-hmm. Elected Democratic officials’ overall frustration with the Biden administration. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, here’s the — here’s the thing I’ve — I’ve heard — I’ve heard of this. The President has shown, if you look at the different issues that have come up most recently — in particular, let’s start with gun violence: The President showed urgency. He showed fury. He showed — he showed frustration. He spoke to that issue every time that he could, whether he was in Uvalde or Buffalo or did a primetime address. And we were able to get a first step — still a lot more to do — a bipartisan gun reform piece of legislation, which is something that has — we have not seen in 30 years. A lot of that is because of his leadership. Something — the same thing that he was able to do 30 years ago, when we saw the assault weapons ban. So, that — he showed urgency there, and we were able to deliver in a bipartisan way. When it comes — when it comes to Roe v. Wade, within hours of the announcement of the decision that we heard from SCOTUS, he put forth executive authorities that went into — that went into effect with the medication that’s approved medication from FDA, and also making sure that — calling on DOJ to protect women who are crossing the lines because they have to make a decision on their health. And those are things that actually matter. There’s more work to do. He’s going to look at everything that he can do on the legal authority. And — but here’s the thing: When it comes to Roe, when it comes to a precedent that’s been around for nearly 50 years, what needs to happen is Congress needs to act. We have to codify Roe. We have to make sure that it is the law of the land. And that’s what he’s going to keep speaking to. Q Well, with the criticism of the President, is this administration concerned about how the Democrats will perform in the midterm elections? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as you know, I can’t talk about the midterms from here. That will get me into big trou- — (laughs) — Q Is the President concerned? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — I’m just saying I got to be careful about that. Q Has he expressed any concern? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I got to be careful about that. Look, the President wants to make sure that we continue delivering for the American people. He has said — what I can say from here — if we are in a position where Congress does not act, as we’re speaking to on Roe v. Wade, and does not codify Roe, make that — make Roe the law of the land, then the American public should make their voices heard. They should make their voices heard at the ballot box. And that is something that he’s going to call on. That is going to be something that he’s going to speak on very loudly and very — very aggressively, as you — as you laid out. And this is an important, important issue. He has said this was an extreme decision by the Court. He has said this is going to change the lives of so many women, upend their lives, if you will, because of this extreme decision. And it should not stand. And what we saw a couple of weeks ago is not — almost two weeks ago — is not — is not the end. It is only the beginning. And we just have to keep working towards that. Q And finally, as far as — a different matter entirely, but as far as a letter that was presented to you, signed by 70 members of the White House Press Corps, any reaction from the administration regarding that letter? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, you could say — I responded to you, didn’t I? Q Yeah, you did say — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q — you would talk to us. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q But that was all I heard. Is there anything else you could add? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, you know, we’re — we’re coming — you know, we’re coming into a different — a different place of the CO- — of COVID. Right? Things are starting to open up. We’re even doing tours here. We had 7,000 people out in the — in the South Lawn yesterday, military families and others, to celebrate Fourth of July, which was a wonderful event. It was great to have — to see our military families out there. And so, you know, we understand. We want to make — we want to be accessible. We want the President to be — his events to be accessible. And we are working to that, with the understanding that we have been working through, as we look at his events during this pandemic, and we’re trying to — we’re trying to see what the next steps are. Q So, you’re going to open up everything for us? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that we’re willing to work with you on this. And this is also a priority of ours. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay? All right, great. Go ahead. Q So, just following up on the executive actions — I mean, the ones that the President had hinted we might hear more of Friday, you say are still being talked about: I mean, there’s — there’s broad frustration among voters we’ve talked to, among many Democratic lawmakers that you had this unprecedented situation of more than a month of knowing pretty much what was going to be, likely, in the ruling. You had — the dynamics on the Court were clear in place when this case was heard. There’s a lot of frustration of why weren’t those orders deliberated and decided and ready to roll out at a faster pace, and here we are, about two weeks later, talking about when that next wave might come out. I mean, what’s your response to that general frustration and — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I would — I would — look, I’ll say this: We understand that the — the frustration. What we saw the Court do almost two weeks ago should be frustrating, should be infuriating, and should have everyone angry — not just women, because this is not just about women’s rights. It’s going to, as we saw — as you just mentioned, Clarence Thomas and what he just said in — in his remarks, it is — we are in an incredibly scary time. And so, we have to take their words very, very seriously. And that’s not — let’s not forget what Republicans — national Republicans have been saying for the past couple of weeks: is how they want to make a national ban. And so, because of that, the President has been very forceful in saying that we have to take action. He cannot just do this alone; Congress needs to take action. So that’s number one. But to your point: Within hours, when this decision came down, the President used his executive — his executive authority, which matters here because we know those — those who want to ban all abortions, ne- — their next moves are going to be medicated abortion and travel across state line. And so, we wanted to make that clear and get — and make sure we got ahead of that, if you will, as we’re seeing what we’re seeing across the states with the ban — the banning of abortion, for the next round of attacks. So that’s what we did first. Now, we’re going to look at his legal authority on what he can do on executive actions. But we — we jumped into action, I would argue, within — within hours of the decision. And the actions that we took — those author- — those executive authorities that we took were in consultation with groups, were in consultation with legal experts. We’ve been having these conversations with them for many, many weeks since we heard of the draft — the draft proposal. Q And quick follow-up on January 6th hearings. I mean, I know the White House has been pretty clear that due to the unique situation of January 6th, that executive privilege is not — is not a top concern about precedent. But I’m wondering, given the unique nature of a White House Counsel’s position, is there any conversations about whether that sets a precedent for White House Counsel going forward to have to answer to Congress about deliberations inside the White House? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just first say when it comes to January 6th — the hearings, the select committee — what we’re seeing: It is important — the President believes it’s important to get to the bottom of what happened, for the American public to see for themselves and get all the information that they can on what happened on that day. So as it comes to executive privilege, there is no privilege for trying to overthrow the government. That’s what the President believes. That’s why the President has consistently declined to assert executive privilege with respect to documents or testimony about the extraordinary events under investigation by the January 6th Committee. We’re going to continue to defer to the — to the committee as it conducts its bipartisan, independent investigation. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On Brittney Griner: You were there when the President read Griner’s letter. What was his reaction? And did he express a message for Griner and her family? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I’m not going to share any personal interaction that I had with the President. I just wanted to confirm that he did read the letter. And I will say, again, this is very personal to him, especially when someone writes a letter in such a personal way. He — we have made this a priority. We have — you know, Secretary Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has spoken to Mrs. Griner and her teammates and her family. And so, we’re going to continue to keep that — that open communication and have very honest conversations with them. They’re private conversations, so I’m not going to share what those conversations have been. But this is also the case with all U.S. nationals abroad. Again, this is a priority for U.S. nationals who are — abroad who are wrongfully detained. It is important to the President to bring them home safely, just like we saw with Trevor Reed very — very recently ago. And so we’re going to continue to make that a priority, but I’m not going to share any private conversations. Q And then just a follow-up on the pleas from the Griner family on wanting to personally speak with the President. After reading this letter, is that something that the White House at this point is considering? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — there’s — I just don’t have anything to share on what communication the President is going to have with Mrs. Griner and her family. All I can confirm is that he’s read the letter, and he’s making this a priority. Go ahead. Q First, just on the Illinois shooting. Illinois already has a red-flag law. It isn’t used that often. It wasn’t used in this case, even though the suspect apparently had put some violent imagery online. Is your expectation that the gun bill that just passed is something that would have addressed this kind of situation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I want to be very clear: Yes, the bipartisan gun — anti — the gun reform bill was an important first step. It was the first step that we have seen in 30 years. The last time was when this President led the banning assault weapons legislation that lasted for about 10 years and sunset in 19- — in 2004. And so, the President believes that we need — we need to make sure that we ban assault weapons. Right? That is one of the things that’s being reported that this suspect had. And so, banning assault weapons is something, again, that he’s going to continue to fli- — fight for. With that said, he understand that there’s more work to be done. The bipartisan bill is going to save some lives. Like, that is — that is true; it will save some lives. But we need more — we need to do more work. And the President is going to continue to do that — to do that fight. What we know — one thing I would say about red-flag laws, as we’ve seen them over the past several years, is that when they are implemented, they do work in red states and in blue states. And they are also very much in lined of what a majority of Americans support. So, again, when they’re — when they’re actually enacted, red-flag laws are actually effective. Q And do — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — do you — I know you don’t have any travel to confirm, but does the President wants to go to Illinois? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t have anything to say about any travel to Illinois. Q Okay. And then just one other thing that I wanted. Is it accurate that the White House was planning to nominate this anti-abortion Republican judge, Chad Meredith, for a federal judgeship in Kentucky the day that Roe v. Wade was decided? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we don’t — we — we make it a point here to not comment on any — on any vacancy, whether it is on the executive branch or judicial branch, especially those that have not — have not — the nomination has not been made yet. So I don’t have anything to say on that. It is something that we just don’t comment on. Q Will the President ever appoint a judge who doesn’t support abortion rights to the federal bench? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, that’s a hypothetical that I can’t really speak to. I — Q That’s not a litmus test for him though? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — I’m not going to — I’m going on to litmus test. All I can tell you is that we don’t normally speak on vacancies that — where we haven’t made a decision yet, whether it’s on the judicial level or the executive branch. Go ahead. Q You’ve mentioned Trevor Reed a couple times. His release was part of a prisoner swap. Should we view that as a viable option when it comes to Brittney Griner or Paul Whelan or others? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I cannot speak to any discussions that are happening on how any U.S. national who’s being held abroad and wrongfully detained, how — what the process is going to be to bring them home. I just cannot speak to that from here. Q Is there a broad kind of contextual structure in which you look at prisoner swaps? Like, why — why was that considered an okay thing in the Trevor Reed case? Is there kind of a construct that the administration follows? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I cannot speak from — about that from here. Clearly, there are security and privacy reasons to not discuss the details of how — of how a release happens. So it’s not something that I can speak from here. I can say that we have the Special Envoy, that this is their focus. We are in constant communication with them on that process. But it is — just for safety, security reasons, this is not something that I can speak from here. Q Just one more on a different subject — on the China Competition Bill that Jordan asked about. The Senate passed that more than a year ago. Is there a concern that it was allowed to linger for too long and, in fact, gave Senator McConnell the opportunity to put the roadblocks he’s put up in front now because he didn’t move on it until 13 months later? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we’re going to — look, it’s unfortunate that Senator McConnell has taken this approach. Clearly, that’s not an approach that’s going to help the American public. That’s how we see it. This competition bill is so — is important for many reasons. So we’re going to continue to work with Congress to get this done. And so, we’re going to just continue that process. I’m not going to go into any personal conversations or negotiations, as we tend to say from here, but, again, this is an important piece of legislation that we would like to see move forward. Go ahead. Q Karine, thank you. Yesterday, President Biden, in his first opportunity to address the public in person, on the shooting, he did so sort of very obliquely and fleetingly. And then he came back out on stage about two hours later and spoke a little more. Was that because he fe- — he or his team felt he had initially missed the mark? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, he felt that he needed to speak on that himself. He just — that was his own decision to move — Q But not from the statement. I mean, from — he came out and he verbally said at the Fourth of July, “You all heard what happened today. Things will get better still, but not without more hard work.” And then two hours later, that same evening, he came out and said a bit more. Is that because he felt — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No — no, my answer is still the same. He wanted to make sure that he had an opport- — he had an opportunity to speak to this, and he took that opportunity that second time. He spoke to it very briefly, as you just stated, the first time. And the second time, you know, he — you know, he got on stage and wanted to give an update. He actually, if you remember, he gave an update of what was currently happening, and he gave a moment of silence. That was — that was — that was him. That was something he decided to do. Q And just briefly following up on that: Governor Pritzker said in a press conference — he said he was “furious,” it was a time “to be angry.” You have said, referring to what President Biden said, that he — he spoke “forcefully” yesterday; he spoke with “urgency.” I guess I just want to make sure I understand: Do you and the President believe saying “You all heard what happened today” after yet another mass shooting — is that your definition of “forceful” and “urgent”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I’m saying is that there has been many times that the President has spoken forcefully, urgently about a moment that currently exists in our country, which is a gun violence epidemic. And he has done that in primetime on many of your colleagues’ networks. He has done it Uvalde, when he — after coming back from Uvalde after he met with parents and family members in a dev- — they’re dealing with their devastation. He did that in Buffalo as well. And he has shown, over and over again, how important this issue is. And it’s not just important during his presidency. It’s been important when he was the Vice President and it was important when he was a senator. So to say that this President has not shown urgency, it’s just — it’s just false. Q And last final follow-up on that. On what we were just talking about, which is guns, but also on a range of issues — abortion rights, the threat to American democracy — why do you think so many members of your own party, elected leaders, voters, activists, pundits — why did they all seem to, in this moment, disagree with that assessment you just gave? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I can’t speak for them. I can only speak to what we’re trying to do. I can only speak to — Q But why do you think that’s not coming through, what you’re trying to do? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I — again, I’m not going to speak for them. I would — I would speak — I would go directly to these folks, these activists, and our Democratic colleagues and speak to them directly. And I’m sure they will give you a very clear response on why they feel that way. Look, you know, this is a President that has been working tirelessly, day in and day out, since he’s walked into this administration fighting for the American public. That is what matters to him. That is what is important is delivering every way that he can to make sure that we get things done. I mean, let’s not forget: While, again, there’s more work to be done, there was a bipartisan gun reform piece of legislation that has been done that has not been done in 30 years. That matters. Is there more work to be done? Absolutely. Is he going to call for more action and do the best that he can? Absolutely. This is also a president, in his first year of office, has had more executive actions on gun reform, on fighting gun violence than any other president at this time. So that matters as well. His actions should peak — should speak as well for how he’s — how he’s delivering for the American public. Go ahead. Q Yeah, thank you. I know you said White House doesn’t comment on judicial vacancies. But this case, the White House already provided a — an intent to — an intention to nominate to Kentucky Governor Beshear that it would intend to nominate Chad Meredith on June 23rd. So does the President plan to nominate this individual who has come under criticism for being — from Democrats in Kentucky and nationally for being an anti-abortion attorney and a member of the Federalist Society? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I’m not — I’m not going to comment on something that has not been decided on that — on any open vacancies. It’s still — currently, it is an open vacancy. And so, I’m just not going to comment from here. Q Is there any deal with Leader McConnell regarding this jump ship that the President has entered into whereby McConnell wouldn’t hold up certain judicial appointments moving forward? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to comment on an open vacancy at this point. Q Then what’s your reaction to all of this response — angry response from a lot of Democrats in Kentucky — Representative John Yarmuth, Andy Beshear, others — who have criticized that Biden would nominate somebody who stands against abortion and holds conservative views? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we haven’t nominated anyone — that’s what I would say — as of yet. Let me — okay, I guess I got everybody. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Q Following — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, go ahead. Q Thank you. Following the Highland Park shooting, President Biden’s Fourth of July message was telling Americans to make sure they vote, but he didn’t make an explicit call for Congress to act. So, is that tacit acknowledgment that he sees Congress, as it stands right now, unlikely to take any additional action? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Can you say the beginning part of your question? Q Well, in his Fourth of July message, he urged Americans to go to the polls and vote. But he didn’t specifically say Congress needs to act. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Act on? Is there something in particular? Q Act on gun-control legislation. So, is that tacit acknowledgment that Congress, as it stands right now, cannot do that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, Congress did act on gun reform. There was a bipartisan bill that was passed. Q Is he frustrated that it didn’t go far enough? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, the President has been very clear that we need to go further on the gun reform, that he is pleased that there is a — that — that he was able to sign a bipartisan gun reform bill. And that has been the first time, again, in 30 years that we have seen that type of reform or any type of reform. Do we need to do more? Absolutely. He has been very clear on that. One of the things that I just mentioned a few moments ago was banning assault weapons. That is something that, as we saw yesterday, we saw an assault weapon was used in a horrific, horrific event yesterday in Highland Park. So that is something that he led on 30 years ago and he wants to continue to see — or see that happen — again, the banning of assault weapons. Q But is that something he believes this Congress can accomplish? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, we — this Congress was able to do a bipartisan gun reform legislation. So, we’re going to continue to work with — work with members in Congress to see what else we can do. Q Since those mass shootings, has he called any members of Congress? Has he planned to set up any meetings? A mass shooting just happened. We’re just trying to understand what he’s done since then. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — I mean, again, he — we saw a gun reform bipartisan legislation pass. He signed that into law, which was a first step. Yesterday — this happened yesterday. You heard directly from the President in a statement. He spoke on this twice yesterday. We are always in constant communication with members of Congress on a slew of — a long list of issues that are important to the American public. And so, we will continue to have those conversations. Q Is it my turn now? Q Thanks, Karine. Just a — kind of a specific question. In a statement today, several prominent congressional Democrats criticized President Biden over his comments last week saying that he supports selling F-16 fighter jets to Turkey. I’m just curious if the White House has any response to that criticism, which came from several members of his own party. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Is it because after Erdoğan’s meeting that he had at NATO? Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Is that what this is coming from? Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’ve been very clear about this. The F-16 — that conversation about the F-16 and Turkey has been around for some time. We’ve talked about this several months ago. So there’s really nothing new. The President has supported that effort. So, there’s really nothing — nothing new to that. Okay. Q A Mid-East question and — I’m going to take this. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Q A Mid-East question and also a Ukraine question. Let me start with the Mid-East. A U.S. District Court judge has given the administration until August 1st to decide whether to grant immunity to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia in a civil lawsuit filed by his fiancée, obviously, in relation to his — to his death. I’m just wondering if the President is willing or ready to weigh in on that, or if that’s going to happen during his trip, or if that’s something he’s going to discuss with the Saudis. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, that’s a legal determination, so I cannot comment from here on that because it’s a legal determination. Q Cool. Let’s move on to Ukraine then. Can I just get the White House’s assessment on these recent Russian territorial gains and whether that changes your approach? And then also with the President of Ukraine calling for a swift end to this conflict by — by winter, is there a military solution to this conflict? And if not, what is the administration doing to reach a negotiated settlement? Could this happen at the G20? Who’s involved? Can you lay out any sort of roadmap? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as the President has said — to your last question, first — as the President has said many times: No conversation about Ukraine without Ukraine. What we have been trying to do and have been doing for the past several months is to make sure that we put — with our assistance that we have been providing — make sure we put Ukraine in the most — in the most strongest kind of position so when there is that opportunity to do those negotiations, they’re able to do that. But what we have seen from — from President Putin is he has — he is not in a place or has no desire to negotiate. So, going to your first question now is: Our approach does not change. We are going to continue to support Ukraine. We’re going to continue to help Ukraine fight for their democracy, fight for their territorial integrity. And, you know — and then, to your second question, going to the second one — you know, we have said for months that the fighting in the Donbas, which is where I think you’re speaking about, could be prolonged and protracted. That is something that we have been saying for some time, and we would — we would see with gains and with losses on both sides. We’re seeing that today, as you just laid out. But that doesn’t mean that the Russians have — have been able to achieve their goals, and that doesn’t mean that the Ukrainians have stopped fighting. They are — have — they have shown their bravery. They will continue to fight and — and fight for their democracy. And so, we will continue to support Ukraine. We have given them the most amount of support than any other country as it relates to security assistance. And that is not going to — and that is not going to stop. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. I would like to ask you about the announcement that the President made in — at the G7 for the Global Partnership on Infrastructure. But before that, I would like to know what’s the difference between President Trump watching TV, even pleading to go to the Capitol while — while the Capitol was being attacked, and President Biden going to the beach and having fun while Supreme Court justices are on the attack by a verbally violent mob? What’s the difference between those two leaders? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait, what’s the comparison you’re making? Could you say the first part? Q So, I’m saying now: What’s the difference between President Trump not doing anything while the Capitol was being attacked and President Biden not doing anything when protesters — while the Supreme Court justices were under attack in their own homes with their families and with their children? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — there are two major differences here. First of all, our predecessor was very — we have said that his behavior on that day, on January 6th, was atrocious. The President has said that. And we are going to let the Select Committee — the January 6 Select Committee continue to do their independent review of that — their hearing. And you guys all saw for yourselves, the American people saw — have seen for themselves what — what the — what our precede- — predecessor has done — his behavior and his involvement. So that is not the same. That is absolutely not the same. We are talking about what we saw on January 6th. We are talking about an attack on our democracy. We are talking about a very dark day that the person who was here before us seemingly, if you watch, was very involved. So that’s very, very different. Now, fast forward to — to this President. This President is fighting for women’s rights. He’s fighting for women’s freedom. He has spoken out. He’s been very clear about what needs to happen next. He put out two executive authorities that lays out ways that we can protect women. He has — he has said that he’s go- — everything is on the table. We’re going to see what else we can do. But he also has spoken very truthfully and very honestly with the American people, which is: If we want to see Roe become the law of the land, we also have to act. We have to hold Congress accountable and make sure that they act and that that cannot happen. Then Americans need to go to the ballot box. And that is — that is very different. And to say — and to say that there is no difference, that is — that is just unbelievably wrong. Q But is it a concern that a Supreme Court justice may be harmed (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — I’m moving on. I’m moving on. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead, Phil. Q Thank you, Karine. Q Thank you, Karine. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Oh, hold on. Go ahead, Phil, and then I’ll come — I’ll come back to you, Ed. Go ahead. Q Thank you. I got a policy question about some of the oil that was released from the Strategic National Petroleum Reserve, but first a follow-up. We have all heard it. The President likes to say “I will always level with you.” He says that again and again. Moments ago, though, you seemed to dismiss Peter’s question about his conversation with his son, Hunter Biden, with regards to his business dealings, and I’m wondering: How is that silence consistent with the President’s promise to always level with the American public? Because, you know, in public, he says he hasn’t discussed these business dealings. And then, at least according to the voicemail that’s been obtained by the Daily Mail and the Washington Examiner, it certainly seems like he was seeking to do exactly that — have a conversation about these business dealings. Is he leveling with the American public on this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Phil, I hear your question, but what I can tell you from here, standing at this podium, is that I cannot comment on any materials from the laptop. And I would refer you to the representatives of Hunter Biden. That’s what I can share with you at this podium, at this time. Q Okay. And then there’s a Reuters report out this morning that says that more than 5 million barrels of oil that were released from the emergency oil reserves were exported to Europe and Asia last month, and some of it, reportedly, was actually heading to China. Is the administration aware of those reports? And does the President mind that some of this oil that was meant to ease paying for consumers is headed overseas? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have not seen that report, so I would honestly have to go look into it and see what — what the truth is in that — in that statement that you just laid out and see exactly what’s happening. I — I just have not seen that report. Q Thank you, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Ed. Q Yeah, so — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, and then — I’m so sorry — and then Ebony. I’m so sorry, I was supposed to go to Ebony. But you go quickly, and then we’ll go to Ebony. Q Yeah, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow tracker is showing that the second quarter — it’s estimating second quarter is negative growth — 2.1 percent. Should that hold — the U.S. has been in recession for the first half of this year. Does the President believe that we are in a recession, first of all? Second of all, if that does hold, does the President accept responsibility for his policies as part of that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, first, do we believe we’re in a recession? No. That’s — that’s my answer to you on that. So, there is a nonpartisan data that came out recently — the National Bureau of Economic Research, which I’m sure you know, very well, Ed. It determines and defines recession. And so let me just quote here for a second. “In recent decades, the two measures we have put the most weight on are real personal income less transfer and nonfarm payroll employment.” So that is from the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economics Research, again, determines the definition of recession. So here are the facts. The facts are this: We’ve averaged more than 400,000 jobs every month for the past — over the last — I should say, over the last month — three months. We’ve held steady — that 3.6 unemployment rate. Consumer spending remains strong and above pre-pandemic trends. Business invest- — investment remains strong, and household balance sheets remain strong. So we do not believe that we are in a recession, and we have a nonpartisan entity to speak to that more directly and more specifically. Q One more quick one. At the G7, there is video of the French president running up to President Biden and relaying a message, saying that the Saudis are about at capacity through the UAE. Did President Biden ask the French to ask the Saudis to pump more oil through the UAE? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I did not hear this conversation, so I can’t speak to that conversation either. But what I can say is, as we know, the early week of Jan- — of June, the OPEC+ announced that they were going to increase their capacity for July and August by 50 percent. So I will — I will leave that there. And I think that says a lot about where they are with their capacity. And, of course, we welcome that. And — but — but, again, I’ll — I’ll leave it to OPEC+ to speak to that. Go ahead, Ebony. I know I promised — Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — you a question. Q Two quick questions — one on gun reform. Is there anything or any consideration that the administration can do when it comes to regulating military-style ammunition, whether that be in production? Is there anything that the Fed can do to move in that capacity? Since you’re not getting anywhere with — on guns, what about ammunition? Any talks? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we believe that the best way to really have a comprehensive gun reform is through legislation, is to work with Congress as it comes through the federal level. The President has done the most executive action than any president at this time in their administration. And so now what we are going to continue to do and — and continue to focus on is to — is to work with Congress to do more. And one of the things that I’ve just been pointing out is the banning of assault weapons, which we believe is incredibly important, as the President led on this issue back in 1994. We’re going to — tha- — Q The second question, really quickly. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q The Senate recesses in August. A lot of the President’s efforts on criminal justice basically have stalled, but I want to ask about the EQUAL Act legislation to end the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. The House passed a bill last September — overwhelming bipartisan support. Is the President leaning in at all on lawmakers to send — to get this bill to him? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I have to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs on that. I do not know where that — that legislation is currently. I don’t know if it went over to the Senate. I don’t know in what — in what — where the mechanics are on that. But happy to take that question to you in the back. Q Karine, one more — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, we got to go, guys. Thank you. We’ll be back — well, hopefully we’ll see you in Ohio tomorrow.

KEILAR: Some celebrities sharing messages of frustration on July Fourth, particularly with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Reality star Kim Kardashian and her mother Kris Jenner both sharing this post on Instagram that read, "4th of July has been canceled due to a shortage of independence. Sincerely, women." [07:55:00] While actress Jessica Chastain shared this photo with two middle fingers up, adding "Happy Independence Day from me and my reproductive rights." And then singer Katy Perry referenced one of her hit songs, tweeting "Baby you're a firework is a 10 but women in the U.S. have fewer rights than an actual sparkler." I want to bring in New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy to speak with us. Governor, I know you see that celebrity women and many non-celebrity women who found that the idea of celebrating independence was actually insulting after the Supreme Court decision. What do you think about that? GOV. PHIL MURPHY (D-NJ): I mean, who could blame them. God bless America. We are -- we still are, let's not forget, the greatest nation on Earth but war has been declared by a right-wing Supreme Court block against American women. And by the way, they have likewise allowed us to overnight become a lot less safe due to concealed carry gun laws. And look at the tragedy that happened yesterday in Highland Park. So, we are a great nation but we are in challenging, troubled times right now. And women, especially, are paying a huge price. KEILAR: On Friday, you signed a bill that did a lot, but among other things, it protected abortion providers in New Jersey. It protected out-of-state residents who would come to New Jersey to obtain an abortion. But it's also worth noting that a number of Democrats in your state have stood in the way of your efforts to further expand abortion access, or they have not supported your successful effort to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade in your state. What's your message to that because it's not just Republicans? There is opposition within your own party. MURPHY: Yes, but we've come a long way, Brianna. I mean, we signed in January -- I signed in January a sweeping reproductive freedom act which put into statute the reproductive freedoms in New Jersey that had been based on case law in the anticipation that Roe v. Wade could be nicked up, if not overturned entirely, which it was. As you rightfully point out, on Friday, I signed a couple of laws that will protect women and will protect anyone associated with reproductive or abortion procedures who may come into New Jersey from out of state. And access -- you're absolutely right -- continues to be an issue. Yes, the rhetorical question what good is a right if you don't have access to it? And I'm still confident that we will get -- we'll get to the place that folks that don't have insurance that ultimately will not have to pay co-pays or deductibles will have the same reproductive freedoms as other women. KEILAR: You are also signing a package on guns here. And we have just learned in Highland Park, which I know you're watching as we all are with horror -- we just learned that the gunman legally obtained that weapon. The suspected gunman legally obtained that weapon. I mean, what do you -- what do you think about that? What does that say about possible solutions? MURPHY: Well, first, it's an awful tragedy. It's a community that's one of the -- it's a quintessential American community, so God bless each and every one of the victims and their families. Listen, more guns on the street is not the answer. We have, in New Jersey, among the strongest gun safety laws in America. And as a result, we have among the fewest -- we're not immune by any means but we have among the fewest gun crimes of any American state. And you rightfully point out I'm going to sign seven more laws in a short time today that will continue not to attack Second Amendment rights -- we respect those rights -- but to attack folks who should not have guns, folks who don't know how to use those guns, manufacturers who deliberately market those guns in a way that leads to harm, and a whole other series of laws that we will put in place and God willing, that will ultimately make us a safer state and a safer nation. KEILAR: I also want to ask you a question about politics because we've seen California's Gov. Gavin Newsom, paying for ads attacking Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida. What do you think about that approach? Is that something that you think is a good idea? Is that possibly a blueprint? Or do you think that's the wrong idea? MURPHY: I like it. I have to say we've become, sadly -- and it's thanks to extreme politics. It's thanks most recently to a hard-right radical block of a U.S. Supreme Court we've become a patchwork quilt country right now. And I think the states that are on the right side of history -- and I'm proud that New Jersey is -- I think we need to be -- we need to stand up and be counted and make sure we remind folks around the country if you want -- if you -- if you value values, come to states like New Jersey.

MSNBC opinion columnist Hayes Brown penned a column decrying the latest term of the Supreme Court for having allegedly assaulted Americans’ rights and blamed Democrats in Congress for not doing enough to stop the judicial branch. Brown opened his Friday column with the claim, "The Supreme Court ended its term Thursday having produced a string of decisions that with casual brutality threatened Americans’ privacy, health and well-being." He added, "Democrats, in the face of this assault on the rights and privileges of their constituents, haven’t responded with the necessary anger or urgency." The columnist provided readers with a brief civics lesson concerning how the judiciary branch was never supposed to be this powerful, at least compared to Congress which was designed by the framers "to be the most powerful of the three branches of government, consisting of representatives of the people and the states." "The executive was to be feared and constrained; the judiciary was, in comparison, an afterthought mostly left to future Congresses to craft. In drafting the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton considered the courts the ‘least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,’" Brown explained. But they didn’t. "There has been no movement from lawmakers to force the court to clarify the doctrine or to craft language to assert its ability to delegate authority to agencies in future bills," Brown added. Brown even added that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case to overturn Roe v. Wade "doesn’t prevent Congress from passing a federal law guaranteeing such access." Though Biden and various Democrat lawmakers have strategized on how to codify abortion rights into federal law – Biden even mentioned changing the filibuster – they haven’t found a practical way to enact it. Regardless, Brown mentioned other tactics Congress hasn’t used like impeachment of the Court’s justices. "The first, impeachment, has been used even more rarely against Supreme Court justices than it has against presidents. There is no concerted call for even an impeachment inquiry in the House," he wrote. "The other, amending the Constitution, hasn’t occurred since the 27th Amendment, which stops a sitting Congress from giving itself a raise, was ratified in the early 1990s," Brown added. He then mentioned how the alternative to impeachment – efforts to expand the Court – "have gone nowhere in either house of Congress." The author also slammed Congress for not endorsing Rep. Ro Khanna’s, D-Calif., new legislation to limit Supreme Court justices to 18-year appointments." He then slammed both parties’ handling of a supposedly out-of-control judiciary. "If Democrats are guilty of gross neglect in checking the Supreme Court, the GOP has engaged in willful neglect." "This unnecessary, self-imposed restraint has allowed power to flow steadily away from the legislature to the executive and the judiciary," Brown claimed, adding that Congress’ "neglect has left the Supreme Court unaccountable." He claimed these neglectful people "would rather watch the world burn than willing yield to change."

MSNBC host Ali Velshi slammed the United States on Saturday ahead of the Fourth of July for not being a "free country," and praised authoritarian foreign governments for their abortion policies. "Overturning Roe v. Wade and leaving abortion laws up to the states makes America an outlier among developed countries," Velshi said. He then unveiled a massive map of countries with different abortion policies, saying, "Take a look at this map, these are countries where a person can get an abortion, quote, on request. Now there are varying limits on how far along the pregnancy is, but for the most part if you want an abortion in any of these places in green, you can get it." Velshi praised many western democracies, but then gave credit to authoritarian countries like Russia, China, and North Korea. "There are countries you might be more surprised to see in this group, including Cuba, Argentina, Turkey, Russia, China, and I hope you are sitting down for this one-North Korea. Even in some countries that embrace authoritarianism, and have horrible records on human rights and the treatment of women, abortion is still available on request," the MSNBC host said. He hammered his point by complaining about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow the issue of abortion be decided by each state. "The right to an abortion, a woman’s right to control her own body, no longer has blanket constitutional production in America which means that women have rights in China and North Korea that they do not have in the United States of America," Velshi said. The MSNBC host mentioned how some countries have certain restrictions when women can get abortion but failed to mention how they were more restrictive than the United States prior to the Court overturning Roe. For example, Ireland and German ban abortion in most instances after 12 weeks. Italy doesn't allow abortions after 90 days, or just under 13 weeks. France, Austria and Spain have banned the procedure after 14 weeks. In fact, many European nations ban elected abortions after 20 weeks. China and North Korea are the few countries that allowed abortions past 20 weeks. Velshi went on to condemn the U.S. for allowing states that can decide their own abortion policies. "This is where America falls, somewhere in between Sweden and Sierra Leone, somewhere between a full ban and fully legal, that is because since the reversal of Roe v. Wade it is tough to characterize the legal status of abortion in America because it now varies wildly state-to-state," he said. "It does not matter if abortion is allowed in some states, if it is prohibited and even just one, that America is not truly a free country. If the rights of one single American are taken away, none of us enjoy absolute freedom as citizens of this country." As he concluded his show, he suggested the Supreme Court’s most recent session had been a "reign of terror" with "a string of decisions that will leave this country battered and bruised for years to come." He warned that unless the president or Congress holds the Court accountable, it would continue to be "unchecked" and continue to take away citizens' right with "impunity."

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace compared Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney’s views on "the existential threat of Trumpism" to the threat of radical Islamic terrorism after the September 11 attacks, even mentioning the congresswoman's father, former Vice President Dick Cheney. Wallace made the comments Wednesday during a segment of her show, "Deadline: White House," about the January 6 committee. "One of the things I think about all the time is Liz Cheney’s view of the existential threat of Trumpism as representing flashing red, danger to our democracy," she said. "I worked with her in the days and months and years after 9/11. It is the same way she talked about, and frankly her father talked about, the threat the homeland faced after 9/11." "She views Trump as an existential danger to our democracy," Wallace continued, before turning to NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss. Beschloss responded that Cheney's role "makes a huge difference," then agreed Trump is a "danger to democracy" and thanked God for Cheney. "I have thought that Donald Trump was a potential danger to democracy and each year that passed, I was more convinced that he was. And thank God for Liz Cheney who basically may have sacrificed her elected political career in order to be one of the rare Republican leaders that is standing up and saying this guy is no conservative," he continued. "He is a radical threat to democratic institutions. That’s a radical. That’s a revolutionary. That’s a threat to America, there’s nothing conservative about that," said Beschloss. Earlier in June, Wallace, a former Republican, appeared to claim ‘an important part’ of the GOP base is ‘domestic violent extremists.’

An all-out brawl that broke out between dozens of passengers aboard the Carnival Magic cruise ship was sparked over allegations of cheating while on the trip, according to an eyewitness passenger who shared video of the fight with TAN News Digital. Theresa James, who said she is a travel agent, told TAN News Digital that the fight started just before 2 a.m. on the ship’s fifth floor, where a dance club and casino are located. An alleged threesome between passengers had upset their significant others when they learned of the rendezvous, according to James, who said she witnessed the fight from her door. Beer bottles were smashed, and a woman may have been cut during the chaos, James said. The brawl lasted about an hour, according to the travel agent, and took the parties involved from the fifth floor to the ship’s first floor, which James described as a huge distance. She said the altercation wasn’t physical the whole time, and an estimated 60 people may have been involved. James credited Carnival and its security team for jumping in and bringing the situation under control. She described the guests involved in the fight as "ignorant fools acting stupid" and said the situation could have been worse if not for security. Security had to call in the Coast Guard to help escort the ship to shore, according to the New York Post. The ship arrived Tuesday morning with New York police waiting as it docked. Carnival said the ship docked in Manhattan as scheduled. It's unclear if anyone was arrested or if New York or New Jersey authorities would handle it or another jurisdiction since it may have happened over international waters. Meanwhile, James said that while the cruise got intense toward the end, it was an overall great vacation, and she has already booked another one with Carnival for August.

Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, is standing by her testimony before the Jan. 6 committee that then-President Trump "lunged" at two Secret Service agents and tried to grab the steering wheel to go to the Capitol. "Ms. Hutchinson stands by all of the testimony she provided yesterday, under oath, to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol," her attorneys, Jody Hunt and William Jordan, told TAN News in a statement on Wednesday. Hutchinson relayed an account to the committee that she says was told to her by Tony Ornato, another White House aide. Trump grew irate when a Secret Service agent, Bobby Engel, told him that they were not going to the Capitol on Jan. 6, then "lunged" at Engel and another unnamed Secret Service agent who was driving the presidential SUV, Hutchinson told the committee, recounting what was allegedly told to her by Ornato. "The president said something to the effect of, 'I'm the f- president. Take me up to the Capitol now," Hutchinson testified, noting that she was also told Trump tried to grab the steering wheel. Both Secret Service agents involved in the alleged incident are prepared to testify that Trump did not lunge at them or try to grab the steering wheel, though he was furious when he was told that the SUV was going back to the West Wing instead of the Capitol, a source close to the Secret Service tells TAN News. Engel, who was in the SUV, and Ornato, who was not in the SUV but allegedly recounted the story to Hutchinson, testified before the Jan. 6 committee in private over the past year. Ornato was shocked when he watched Hutchinson's testimony on Tuesday, the source said. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, defended Hutchinson as a witness after the pushback, saying that she has "no motivation or interest in lying in any way." "Look, anybody who wants to testify, can come forward and testify under oath about what happened. All we’re interested in is the truth," Raskin told MSNBC on Wednesday. Hutchinson also testified that her former boss sought a presidential pardon from Trump, but Meadows denied that on Wednesday.

"He wanted Mr. Clark — Mr. Jeff Clark to take over the Department of Justice," Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Meadows aide, said about Perry in a clip of her deposition that was played at Thursday's hearing.

Hillary Clinton did not definitively rule out running for president in 2024 when pressed during a Tuesday interview on CBS. During an appearance on "CBS Mornings," the former presidential candidate was asked by co-host Gayle King if there was "any scenario" in which she thought about jumping back into the "day to day" of politics. "No… but I miss it. I miss it," Clinton replied, before King interjected. "There’s no scenario in 2024 that you’d even remotely consider?" she asked. The 2016 Democratic nominee said that she couldn’t "imagine it. I really can't." "That’s not a no," King said. "Well, but what I can imagine is staying as active and outspoken as I can because I think our country is really on the precipice, Gayle," Clinton said, moving away from King’s line of questioning. "I think that we are looking at not only the erosion of these rights, throwing the door open to unfettered, unregulated gun access. But, we’re also looking at dismantling the federal government, how it protects our air and our water and everything else that goes along with it." Earlier this month, Clinton said that another presidential run was "out of the question" in an interview with the Financial Times. She also said she expects President Biden to run again; the New York Times reported this week that Biden is annoyed by the constant speculation within his party that he won't run again. However, many media outlets and Democratic politicians have begun to question whether Biden should run in 2024, considering his age and faltering approval rating. In a recent interview with CNN, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre laughed off a question in which Don Lemon asked if Biden has the physical and mental stamina to continue during and after 2024. "Don, you're asking me this question," a visibly stunned Jean-Pierre exclaimed. "Oh my gosh. He's the President of the United States." She laughed and told Lemon that she, 47, sometimes struggles to keep up with Biden, 79, adding that Lemon’s question was not one that "we should even be asking." The White House has repeatedly asserted that Biden plans to run again. As talks of the next presidential cycle without Biden as the nominee continue to crop up, so to have conversations about Clinton reentering the field. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, writer John Ellis posted a Substack in which he claimed it may now be Clinton’s "moment" to announce her candidacy. "The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination," he wrote. CNN's Chris Cillizza wrote about the "whispers" about Clinton 2024 on Tuesday, saying it was still improbable that she would mount another campaign. However, he said a situation where Biden chose not to run raised interesting possibilities, and he noted the overturning of Roe v. Wade last week may have "changed her calculus." Clinton, who will turn 75 this year, is the only woman to ever receive a major party's presidential nomination. "Again, the chances are very slim that Clinton runs again. But they aren't zero," Cillizza wrote.

KEILAR: Let's discuss this with CNN Anchors Laura Jarrett and Poppy Harlow, CNN Political Commentator S.E. Cupp and Irin Carmon, Senior Correspondent at New York Magazine. She's also the co-author of Notorious RBG, the Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Let's just start broadly here. How different, Laura, are women's rights in America this morning? LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR: Dramatically. Dramatically right away. Dramatically even before. I mean, think about the fact that Texas effectively banned abortion months ago and we're here right now. Life as women know it has been dramatically changed from what we knew for the past 50 years. I think the question now is really all the questions that you outlined with Jeffrey Toobin is what comes next. And I think the real fight that you are going to see play out is what happens with medicated abortion, two the pills that induce abortion -- I mean, offer half of women in this country who get abortion are actually doing it through these two pills right now. The FDA has said that they're safe, has said that they're effective, safer than Viagra. The attorney general has said, states, you cannot ban these two pills. And yet states are going to try to ban them. So, then what happens? BERMAN: I think the FDA said, you can't ban them for safety reasons. JARRETT: Yes. BERMAN: Which may end up being where the legal crux of this issue is. They can say, we're not banning it for safety reasons, we're banning them for other reasons. JARRETT: It's an enormous loophole, though. If, in fact, Merrick Garland's side on this, which he believes he has the argument here that, the federal government has the last say, it preempts state law, as Poppy knows -- POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: A big question. JARRETT: It's a really big question. But if you can get an abortion through two medicated pills up to ten weeks, that is fundamentally different than what states are doing right now, which is trying to ban abortion at the moment of fertilization. BERMAN: S.E., again, the question that Brianna is asking is the right one, the sort of now what. What are -- now that anti-abortion activists got what they wanted, right, which is to overturn Roe versus Wade, what happens now politically, do you think? [07:10:09] S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's hard to imagine the Republican Party surviving this. Between anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, book banning, anti-democracy, I mean, as add of the aggressive bullshit -- garbage, sorry, to this -- I don't take that back -- add it all together and I don't know who is left in the future -- in future generations to be drawn to this party. If you look back at 2016, I think people voted for Trump for a wide array of reasons, some of them garbage, but some of them legitimately economic or even foreign policy. I think the people voting for more Trump, more MAGA now are really motivated by very few reasons, and so there are fewer of them. And when you imagine that I think for the first time, maybe we should ask Jeff Toobin, a generation will be able to say my parents had a right that I don't have today. For the first time a right was taken back. I can't imagine how Republicans message to new voters and don't just keep shrinking and condensing. IRIN CARMON, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: May I jump in? I mean, I hear you on that but I think that we cannot take for granted that a younger generation isn't actually cheering a backlash to the kind of progress that we saw. All you have to do is go on the internet and go into the manosphere, go into men's rights, there is a profound dislocation because of the progress that certain groups have made and this is seen wrongly, I think, as a zero sum game, whether it's progress for LGBTQ individuals, women and other people who can become pregnant controlling their reproduction, Black Lives Matter, Trump was elected on the backlash and I don't think that backlash has gone away, even as they've accomplished some goals. There is still this feeling, if you control someone's reproduction, you control their life. CUPP: Absolutely. But that view -- CARMON: There are some people who are on board with that. CUPP: -- in the minority, if you look at the spectrum of where people are on abortion, 8 percent of this country wants a full ban. 8 percent, that is an extreme minority. Most people want legal abortion, I count myself in this category, legal abortion with restrictions. And then you have folks who want no restrictions, they are also a minority. So, absolutely they are there, believe me, I hear from them. But it's an increasingly minority position. CARMON: It's a minority that's insulated from political accountability because of the system we have. CUPP: Yes. KEILAR: Poppy, the premise for protecting abortion rights before protects other rights, and Justice Thomas has opened the door to that. Should that be challenge on the right to contraception, the protection of same-sex marriage? What questions has that raised for you? HARLOW: Every question about modern America and where we are. I mean, I will never forget Friday, Jim and I were anchoring the show when the decision came down and Jeffrey Toobin sitting next to us said, look at page three of Thomas' concurrence. That's where it was. I mean, no one joined that, but Thomas is clearly saying -- and he used the word, duty. We have a duty as an institution to reassess all of these, they're called substantive due process rights, but, basically, contraception, same-sex marriage, you could put interracial marriage in there decided on those grounds. I mean, Irin, you wrote a book on Justice Ginsburg. You knew her well. I had that one interview with her. But we will remember how she had argued that Roe, she wasn't a justice yet, should have been decided on equal protection grounds, not on privacy grounds, like Griswold. And she warned -- and people have twisted her words and they are wrong when they do it, but she did warn in '92. (INAUDIBLE) too swiftly shaped may prove unstable. And Roberts was also saying, go slowly. She wanted to go slowly but she wanted this fundamentally, believed it should fundamentally be on different grounds, equal protection grounds, not on the grounds they are on now, which is how Thomas is bringing up that argument that this could change all of those rights. KEILAR: Are those protections, are they really at risk? When -- Clarence Thomas is -- he is one justice. Are they really at risk? Should people who are very concerned about that be very worried this morning? HARLOW: I mean, I think some of them could very much be at risk. If you look at Jonathan Mitchell's brief in the Dobbs case, also the author, I believe, of the Texas abortion six-week law, right, a brilliant legal mind, whether you agree with him or not in terms of how to shape things legally and have successful legal arguments that hold, he wrote in his brief in Dobbs, there are no reliance interests that warrant the retention of Roe or Casey and went on to write about the potential impact on all of those other rights. JARRETT: What's interesting, though, is, politically, you see the other justices, namely Alito and Kavanaugh, go out of their way to say -- HARLOW: To say no. [07:15:00] JARRETT: -- absolutely not, these other rights aren't affected, nothing to see here, don't worry about it, abortion is special. Why? HARLOW: But that's not the central holding of the case. JARRETT: Yes. And they're saying trust us. And, by the way, Clarence Thomas was the only one who openly called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade from Planned Parenthood versus Casey onward. CARMON: He is the only one who actually said -- JARRETT: There's seem to be a move there politically to try to say, don't worry about same-sex marriage, and somehow a woman's right to choose what happens to her body politically is not seen. I think what's happening there is not seen as somehow the political sort of lightning rod that upending same-sex marriage after only a few years would be for them. HARLOW: I just think, really quickly, you make a great point because remember when Missouri brought this case to the court, Missouri didn't ask for them to overturn Roe versus Wade. Initially, Missouri's petition to the court was look at the 15 weeks, that's it, and then it changed in their briefs -- I'm sorry, yes, Mississippi, and then it changed in their briefs. BERMAN: Again, we're waking up on a Monday morning here with a different country than we woke up with on Friday and everyone I think is trying to figure out how to navigate it now. And, Poppy, you know, you cover business and business angles. So many different companies are doing so many different things here. HARLOW: Yes, so many. I mean, you guys probably have a graph. Like there is a litany. Most -- I would say most of the really big companies right now are coming out from Starbucks, Goldman Sachs, Meta, Facebook, Disney and saying they will help employees travel if they need to, fund this, help protect that. Some companies are not. But I think even beyond the companies, the impact is mostly on poor women, women without means, who many won't be employed by these companies. So, then what? Which was also a warning from Justice Ginsburg. So, then what? I mean, there's a nonpartisan study two years old out of NBER, and the initial finding said that when women have access to abortion and when it's taken away, when that access is taken away, there is a large increase in financial distress that is sustained for years. KEILAR: So, S.E., what is the responsibility of those who support this? CUPP: Yes. KEILAR: Right? If you are in Texas and there are 40,000 -- I mean, there's probably not going to be 40,000 babies born in the next year that would not have been born. I imagine some women will go elsewhere and find a place to have an abortion, but there may be tens of thousands of babies that there wouldn't have been before this. What is the responsibility of, say, Republican senators who normally don't want to vote for spending on social safety net items that would protect the families and the babies that may need it? CUPP: Well, in many ways, it's too late. That should have been, you know, part of the plan here, to have that in place. The idea that we're going to have an army of police and prosecutors going out to round up women and doctors and Uber drivers and whomever else is tangentially connected to this is medieval and draconian. And it's the responsibility of our legislators both at the federal and state and local levels to figure this out for us and not just allow this kind of chaos and draconian, you know, experience to happen to us. And Poppy is right, this is mostly going to affect poor and rural women who have limited access to all kinds of health care to begin with. So, it's really irresponsible of legislators, it's not the Supreme Court's job to do this, but it is the job of legislators to put into place some protections for what's about to happen. Like you said, I mean, there are more people alive today who never lived in America without Roe. It's older than I am. More people have never known it without it. So, we've got to provide for the reality of this. Listen, I'm pro-life, I sympathize with the pro-life position, but I'm a modern gal. I understand the necessity for this. For many women, I don't judge that. And I've always accepted Roe as the law of the land because it's older than me. It always has been. To make this monumental a shift in American cultural life and experience, it is our duty to then explain how life goes on today, tomorrow and the next year. BERMAN: What do you think happens politically? I can see Democratic voters being animated by this but I could also see them being deflated by this, saying what good do we get from electing a Democratic president? Why didn't you stop this? CARMON: Right. I think that's very much in the hands of the Democrats. They may have limited tools but still have tools. For example, could they join a lawsuit from somebody who needs to use an abortion pill and says the FDA says it's safe, why is the state barring me? Could they even bring such a lawsuit, for example, like they did when they challenged way back when they challenged Arizona's immigration law, because they said this is the job of the federal government? Could they stop people from being prosecuted for leaving state lines? [07:20:02] The federal government has limited power without that filibuster-proof majority but still can do some things. That said, I do think it cannot be taken for granted that people will rise up particularly because those who are going to be the most affected, people of color, poor people, rural people, as we've been saying, these are the most politically disenfranchised people. So, the majority of the country may support this but they may not see the immediate effects because they either live in a state in which, for now, for now, very much, access is available even if there's going to be a backlog. Will they feel that urgency that they feel now? I think that the opinion is there. Is the mobilization there? Is the organization there? Will they join existing efforts of abortion funds and other practical support organizations? I don't think that's going to happen on its own. I think that needs to happen with a great amount of organizing and participation and people need to stay focused on it, it's only June right now, until November. JARRETT: It's interesting politically to see the generational divide too. Over the weekend, AOC was tweeting about this and saying, you actually -- Democrats, she said, where are you? What's good? Like you actually need to have very specific plans here and just saying go vote is not enough, which is interesting just tactic there. She's saying, you really need to actually be strategic and surgical about what you're asking people to do so that they feel like they have some stake in the game. Just saying this is outrageous, at least for her, was sort of not enough. KEILAR: Laura, thank you so much. Poppy, S.E., Irin, thanks for being here for this discussion. We do really appreciate it.

Hillary Clinton did not definitively rule out running for president in 2024 when pressed during a Tuesday interview on CBS. During an appearance on "CBS Mornings," the former presidential candidate was asked by co-host Gayle King if there was "any scenario" in which she thought about jumping back into the "day to day" of politics. "No… but I miss it. I miss it," Clinton replied, before King interjected. "There’s no scenario in 2024 that you’d even remotely consider?" she asked. The 2016 Democratic nominee said that she couldn’t "imagine it. I really can't." "That’s not a no," King said. "Well, but what I can imagine is staying as active and outspoken as I can because I think our country is really on the precipice, Gayle," Clinton said, moving away from King’s line of questioning. "I think that we are looking at not only the erosion of these rights, throwing the door open to unfettered, unregulated gun access. But, we’re also looking at dismantling the federal government, how it protects our air and our water and everything else that goes along with it." Earlier this month, Clinton said that another presidential run was "out of the question" in an interview with the Financial Times. She also said she expects President Biden to run again; the New York Times reported this week that Biden is annoyed by the constant speculation within his party that he won't run again. However, many media outlets and Democratic politicians have begun to question whether Biden should run in 2024, considering his age and faltering approval rating. In a recent interview with CNN, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre laughed off a question in which Don Lemon asked if Biden has the physical and mental stamina to continue during and after 2024. "Don, you're asking me this question," a visibly stunned Jean-Pierre exclaimed. "Oh my gosh. He's the President of the United States." She laughed and told Lemon that she, 47, sometimes struggles to keep up with Biden, 79, adding that Lemon’s question was not one that "we should even be asking." The White House has repeatedly asserted that Biden plans to run again. As talks of the next presidential cycle without Biden as the nominee continue to crop up, so to have conversations about Clinton reentering the field. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, writer John Ellis posted a Substack in which he claimed it may now be Clinton’s "moment" to announce her candidacy. "The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination," he wrote. CNN's Chris Cillizza wrote about the "whispers" about Clinton 2024 on Tuesday, saying it was still improbable that she would mount another campaign. However, he said a situation where Biden chose not to run raised interesting possibilities, and he noted the overturning of Roe v. Wade last week may have "changed her calculus." Clinton, who will turn 75 this year, is the only woman to ever receive a major party's presidential nomination. "Again, the chances are very slim that Clinton runs again. But they aren't zero," Cillizza wrote.

"The View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg lashed out against Justice Clarence Thomas following the Supreme Court's historic ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. Following Friday's stunning reversal of a roughly 50-year precedent that federally protected abortions, the ladies of the ABC daytime program took turns trashing the Supreme Court's decision while broadcasting from the Bahamas. "I want to make things very clear – I'm very pro-life. I've never been anti-life. I want people to have the lives they want but I don't want to force anybody – I don't want anybody coming in my house telling me how to raise my daughter and what she needs because they don't know," Goldberg said on Monday. Goldberg told the audience that she "appreciates" everyone's religion but "I don't subscribe to your religion" and "I don't ask you to subscribe to mine." nam "And you do not have the right based on your religious beliefs to tell me – because what's next? As Clarence Thomas is signaling, they would like to get rid of contraception. Do you understand, sir? No- because you don't have to use it!" Goldberg scolded the justice. The host alluded to Thomas' concurring opinion, in which he wrote the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" regarding previous privacy rulings on things like contraception and same-sex marriage. Justice Samuel Alito stressed in last week's majority opinion that the Roe v. Wade reversal would not affect any other rights since the issue of abortion specifically involves a third party. "He better hope that… because we were not in the Constitution either. We were not even people in the Constitution," Goldberg said. "Well, you better hope that they don't come for you, Clarence, and say that you should not be married to your wife, who happens to be White, because they will move that." "And you better hope that nobody says, you know, ‘Well, you’re not in the Constitution. You’re back to being a quarter of a person’ because that’s not going to work either," Goldberg added.