Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre

"The View" bashed the Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade before several liberal cast members declared they were actually "pro-life," although not all of them appeared to have the same definition for the term. The hosts first learned of the news that Roe v. Wade, a 1973 landmark decision that granted federal protections for abortion, was overturned while on a flight to the Bahamas to tape their show this week, and they were shocked despite knowing it could come. "We want to recognize right off the bat that not everyone agrees with this particular issue, but it is, at its core, about whether you have the right to make decisions about another person's reproductive choices," co-host Whoopi Goldberg said. After spending the opening segment railing against the decision, reliably liberal co-host Sunny Hostin reminded viewers that she is personally against abortion. "I don’t believe in abortion at any time. I don’t believe in any exception to it," Hostin said. "That’s considered very radical for many people, and it’s because I’m Catholic… so this has always been a very difficult discussion for me, but what is not difficult for me is the fact that this is an activist Supreme Court, and they should not be deciding the law based on their faith." Advocates generally prefer to be identified as "pro-life," as opposed to "anti-abortion," to highlight their belief that abortion is the taking of human life. They believe life starts at the moment of conception and ends with natural death, while opponents, who identify as pro-choice, characterize them as restricting women's reproductive rights. Co-host Sara Haines, another liberal, also declared that she is "pro-life," but not in the same way as Hostin. "I would say that I am rabidly pro-choice, but I’m also pro-life because I don’t see a 9-week-old fetus equal to a baby, equal to the mother," Haines said. Goldberg then made a similar claim, telling viewers she’s "very pro-life" but doesn’t want people to be forced into making decisions. "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. The ruling came in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place. Since the ruling was announced on Friday, pro-choice advocates have protested the decision that stunned the nation and raised discussion of how it will affect this fall's midterm elections.

Pro-life activists took issue with Planned Parenthood news content director Kate Smith's declaration on CNN Sunday that equal media coverage of both pro-life and pro-abortion protests following the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade ruling is a "distortion of the facts" because a majority of Americans support legal abortion. "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter asked Smith, who formerly worked for CBS News, to comment on split screen coverage of individuals cheering and jeering the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling that legalized abortion. "That 50-50 split. Isn't that actually misleading? Isn't that actually distorting?" Stelter asked. "Absolutely, Brian," Smith said. "That is a complete distortion of the facts that we know about how people feel about abortion access, and specifically the legality of abortion." "We know that 8 in 10 Americans want abortion to be legal," she said. "So when you put that split screen up, you know one person who loves it, one person who hates, well that's completely ignoring the facts." Eight in 10 Americans approve of legalized abortion, but the "vast majority" also believe there should be at least some restrictions on the procedure, a Gallup survey from September 2020 found. Pro-life activists pushed back on Smith's narrative surrounding the statistic, as well as her assertions about the media. "The problem with statements like that is the lack of a follow-up question because if you like any limits on abortion, you never liked Roe," Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, told Fox News Digital. "Abortion will be not the Democrats' ticket out of the electoral mess they’ve created, because ending innocent life isn’t really a positive agenda. And with the Supreme Court now out of the way, a vigorous debate will be engaged to go past unsupported statements about so-called support for all abortion." Hawkins pointed to a Marist poll commissioned by the Knights of Columbus in January that showed at least 7 in 10 Americans want abortion limits. The poll found that 17 percent of Americans want abortion available any time throughout pregnancy, while 12 percent said abortion should be allowed only during the first six months of pregnancy. Twenty-two percent said abortion should only be available during the first three months of pregnancy, and 49 percent of Americans responded that abortion should be only allowed in rare circumstances, or never. Hawkins added that Students for Life’s Demetree Institute for Pro-Life Advancement Poll of Millennials and Gen Z found that 8 in 10 wanted a voice and a vote on abortion, which Roe "did not offer as it put the power in the hands of courts." nam Penny Nance, CEO and president of Concerned Women for America, found it funny that Smith was complaining about supposedly skewed news coverage when, she said, the media has been "complicit" in its abortion coverage for decades. "It’s laughable for a Planned Parenthood spokesperson to complain about news coverage, when for almost 50 years the news media has been complicit in the lie of abortion, calling abortion advocates euphemistically ‘pro-choice’ when we know it’s the worst possible choice a woman can make for her and her child," Nance told Fox News Digital. "The majority of Americans know the truth and are pro-life, 71% believe in restrictions on abortion and have since Roe v. Wade became law in 1973." "Not only have abortion advocates had the media on their side, Planned Parenthood has received billions of dollars from the federal government paid for by hard-working Americans," Nance continued. "The government funding of abortion giant Planned Parenthood needs to end immediately, and we are calling on Congress to direct those funds to pregnancy care centers, adoption and foster care resources at the Department of Health and Human Services, and more help for women in need." Eric J. Scheidler, executive director of Pro-Life Action League, cited his group's own data to also dispute Smith's take. He said that her claim a large majority supports the Roe "regime" is "simply false." "All the survey data we have shows that Americans are deeply divided on abortion, with about 20% at either end of the spectrum saying abortion should either always be legal or never be legal, and the remaining 60% supporting some legal abortion and some restrictions—including many restrictions not allowed under Roe v. Wade," he told Fox Digital. "The Mississippi law upheld in the Dobbs ruling, banning abortion after 15 weeks, is actually more permissive than the laws of most European countries, and is supported by a majority of Americans. The claim that a huge majority of Americans support the abortion regime under Roe is simply false, and doesn't fit either the actual polling data we have, nor the political movement in half of American states to limit abortion, which would not be succeeding without significant public support in those states." Smith quit CBS News in July 2021 so she could speak out more forcefully on abortion rights. She had been covering "abortion access" for CBS since October 2018, where she was criticized by conservatives for appearing biased. "Now that I’m not a reporter I can be candid about my own opinions on reproductive rights," Smith tweeted of her decision. "I’ll say this: With or without Roe v Wade access to abortion is disappearing across the South and Midwest for low income women. And it’s happening more or less under the radar." Smith didn't respond to a request for comment.

first person CNN had on to immediately discuss this landmark ruling restricting women's rights is jeffrey toobin

Vice President Kamala Harris gave a rare one-on-one interview with CNN’s Dana Bash Monday following the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The first clips of the interview aired on "The Lead with Jake Tapper" where Harris largely condemned the Supreme Court decision from Friday. "The court actually took a constitutional right that has been recognized for half a century and took it from the women of America. That’s shocking. When you think about it, in terms of what that means, in terms of democratic principles, in terms about the ideals upon which we were founded on, about liberty, about freedom," Harris said. She added that she thought about this decision "as a parent" as well as a woman. "You know, I thought about it as a parent. We have two children who are in their 20s, a son and a daughter. I thought about it as a godparent of teenagers. I thought of it as an aunt of pre-school children," Harris said. "And a woman yourself," Bash added. "And a woman myself, and the daughter of a woman, and a granddaughter of a woman," Harris remarked. This comment was roundly mocked on social media as a contrast to previous progressive confusion over what a woman is. "I’m pretty sure she’s not a biologist," Media Research Center associate editor Nick Fondacaro tweeted, referring to the past comment by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson. Independent Women’s Network Director Julie Gunlok joked, "Oh…so NOW everyone knows what a woman is. Got it." Townhall.com managing editor Spencer Brown similarly noted, "Kamala Harris is qualifying her opinion on the Dobbs outcome by explaining that she's a woman, her mother was a woman, and her grandmother was a woman." Later on in the interview, Harris claimed that "everyone," including men, has "something at risk" with the decision. "When we think about it, everyone has something at risk on this. First of all, if you are a parent of sons, do think about what this means for the life of your son and what that will mean in terms of the choices he will have," Harris said. Twitter users also attacked this comment as "gross" and inconsiderate. "You mean like they might have to take responsibility as fathers instead of paying for an abortion or coercing the mother of their child to get one?" National Review writer Alexandra DeSanctis Marr asked. Hillsdale radio host Scot Bertram tweeted, "This is beyond gross. With a knowing nod and grin, the Vice President asks you to think about what it means for the life of your son if he doesn't have the opportunity to convince the mother of his child to kill it in the womb. Yes, let's think about that, shall we?" College Fix editorial assistant Christopher White wrote, "Eww. Not a good way of framing that issue." Harris was previously attacked by liberal social media users over the weekend for her photo tweet reacting to the Roe v. Wade decision.

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Jake Tapper live from the G7 summit in Krun, Germany. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is stepping on the world stage today with his standing at home weakened after COVID-related scandals prompted a no-confidence vote in his leadership, a vote that he survived. I spoke with him earlier this morning. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TAPPER: So, you had a very strong reaction when you heard about the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade. You called it a big step backwards. JOHNSON: Yes. Look, I want to stress that this is not our court. It's not our jurisdiction. So, in a sense, the -- anything I say is -- it's for the United States. It's not for the U.K. But Roe-Wade -- the Roe v. Wade judgment, when it came out, was a huge -- important psychologically for people around the world. And it spoke of the advancement of the rights of women, I think. [09:30:08] And I regret that -- what seems to me to be a backward step. But I'm speaking as someone looking in from the outside, and... (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Do you think it hurts the United States as a representative of rights and freedom? JOHNSON: No. I want to be very clear about that. I think that the United States is a -- for me, it remains a shining city on the hill. And it's an incredible guarantor of values, democracy, freedom around the world. You know, we're going to talk about G7 in a minute, but if you look at what Joe Biden is doing to stick up for people's rights in Ukraine, it's quite extraordinary. So I don't see -- I don't see it that way at all. But what I -- just on the -- a woman's right to choose, which I have always backed, and which we back very much in the U.K., it seems to me to be a step backwards. TAPPER: So, we're here for the G7 summit, where addressing skyrocketing inflation and energy costs is going to top the agenda. Inflation in the U.K. just hit 9.1 percent, the highest of any G7 member. But, obviously, inflation is high across Europe and the United States. Do you think that we are headed for a global recession? JOHNSON: Look, I think that we've got a lot of headwinds right now. And if you think back to the last G7 in Carbis Bay, we were coming out of COVID. Everything was looking a cautiously positive. We could see a way for the world economy to grow. We've now got a big problem with -- what Putin has done in Ukraine is driving prices of commodities, energy, obviously. And that's driving food and fertilizer as well. And that's causing problems around the world. And we need to fix those things. And I don't think there's any -- any point focusing on how bad things might get. Let's look at what we can do to address it. So, we need to be working together to ease problems in global supply chains, fix those inflationary pressures, fix pressures in labor markets, and do what we can to help people through tough times. I think it will get better. I think that inflation will start to abate. But, right now, we've got to use the fiscal firepower we have in the U.K. Particularly, we have got -- I'm focused on helping people with the cost of energy. We're using the cash we have to tide people through, 1,200 pounds for eight million of the most vulnerable families. TAPPER: Is there realistically anything serious that Western countries can do to bring down inflation and energy costs, as long as the war in Ukraine, as long as Russia keeps attacking, continues? JOHNSON: I think that OPEC plays a role. I think that the -- there is an opportunity for other sources of supply to come forward. And I think, if there were to be -- the taps were to be turned on by some of our other partners around the world, that would unquestionably help. But, in the meantime, what we've got to do is find the alternative suppliers ourself. So, in the U.K., we're making huge progress towards more wind power. I mean, we are the -- one of the biggest producers of offshore wind power the world, I think, if not the biggest. We're going to be building a nuclear reactor every year, rather than every 10 years. And you've got to do that. And I think that, here in the G7, I think what we're all realizing is that the party's over for Russian hydrocarbons. So -- and everybody's finding new ways of adapting. In the short term, we're going to have to find hydrocarbons from elsewhere. And I think some countries are being heroic in what they're -- in what they're doing. But, in the long term, we've got to work together on the green solutions that we all believe in. TAPPER: You were in Ukraine last week. You met with President Zelenskyy, yes? And you -- it was -- you warned against what you call Ukraine fatigue... JOHNSON: Yes. TAPPER: ... in the West. How do you combat Ukraine fatigue at a time when so many Western nations are struggling with real issues at home? And do you worry at all that the tying of the war in Ukraine with higher energy prices might cause people in the U.K. in the United States to say, you know what, it's not worth it? JOHNSON: But it is. And I would just say to people in the United States and -- that this is something that America historically does and has to do. And that is to step up for peace and freedom and democracy. And if we let Putin get away with it and just annex, conquer sizable parts of a free, independent, sovereign country, which is what he is poised to do, if not the whole thing, then the consequences for the world are absolutely catastrophic. It means he -- we're legitimating further acquisition by him by violence of other parts of the former Soviet Union. We're legitimating aggression in other parts of the world. And you can see the read across in East Asia. You can see the consequences, the lessons that will be drawn. [09:35:03] And that would be... TAPPER: Taiwan? Hong Kong? JOHNSON: Correct. TAPPER: Yes. JOHNSON: And that is -- that is what is ultimately disastrous, not just for democracy and for the independence of countries, but for economic stability. So, remember what America -- you remember when America came in -- in 1941, 1942, the United States came in, in the middle of last century, it came in twice in the last century, as the arsenal of democracy. And what Joe Biden is currently spending, I think $46 billion to help Ukraine, I would argue that that is a price worth paying for democracy and freedom, because when you think about the postwar period, when that argument was conclusively settled in favor of democracy, against the violent changing of borders by aggression, think what that achieved, the decades and decades of peace and freedom. So, all I'm saying to people is, sometimes, America is asked by the world to step up. Again, getting back to your first question, I think America is still the last, best hope of peace and freedom. TAPPER: But are you worried about what's happening in Ukraine right now? JOHNSON: Yes. TAPPER: The Russian defense minister just visited for the first time in the five-month war. There are reports that key cities in the east are falling to the Russians. JOHNSON: Yes. TAPPER: Are countries like France and Germany doing enough to help? JOHNSON: Look, I think if -- both of those countries have done an astonishing amount, when you consider where they were before the conflict began. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Ukrainians complain about that they're not doing enough, though. JOHNSON: Yes, but you've got to look objectively at where the -- how far Olaf Scholz has moved his country, to much bigger defense spending. Never in my lifetime did I expect to see direct German military contribution to supporting another European country in the way that they're doing right now. And that's coming at a -- don't forget also the price that the Germans are paying in terms of moving away from Russian oil and gas. So, could we all do more? Yes, we could all do more. And we're going to do more. But, right now, I think the most -- the most effective thing that the G7 have brought to this thing has been our unity. TAPPER: So, you've long advocated for a stronger economic and business relationship with China. Do you worry at all that you're making the same mistake that Europe did with Russia 20 years ago, thinking that you can use economic ties to bring a partner in and influence their bad behavior, and, ultimately, it doesn't work? Because that's what happened with Russia. JOHNSON: The United States has a free trade deal with China, which we don't have, so, you know, just... TAPPER: I don't represent the United States. JOHNSON: I know that. (CROSSTALK) JOHNSON: So, look, the -- every country in -- China is a gigantic fact of our lives. China is a massive and growing economy. Every country gathered here today at the G7 does a huge amount of business with China. The question is, can we continue to do that? Can we continue to advance projects of mutual economic benefit, whilst, as G7, protecting our values, protecting our critical national infrastructure -- and you remember all the arguments about Huawei -- and making sure that we stand together and stick up the democracy and freedom? And I think -- I think we can. I think there is a balance to be struck. You may be right. It may be difficult, but that's what we've got and try to do. (END VIDEOTAPE) TAPPER: Much more in my interview with Prime Minister Johnson coming up, including the pressure he's facing back home in the U.K. and his take on the state of the U.S. democracy, after this quick break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [09:43:33] TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Jake Tapper live from the G7 summit in Krun, Germany. Here's more of my interview with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TAPPER: So while you're here at the G7, as you know, there's a lot going on back home for you, some scheming going on perhaps by Tory M.P.s. You're the first sitting Prime Minister found to have broken the law, because of the parties at 10 Downing that broke your own government's pandemic rules. You narrowly survived a no-confidence vote, and your party just lost two critical elections. What is your message to members of your party who say you're a drag on your ticket? JOHNSON: I think the great thing about democracy is that leaders are under scrutiny and that I do have -- you say I have got things going on back home. That's a good thing. I've got people on my case. I've got people making arguments. I'm -- by the way, I've got a new mandate from my party. And I'm very happy to... TAPPER: You survived, yes. (CROSSTALK) JOHNSON: Yes, I got a higher percentage of the parliamentary votes than I did the first time. So I'm very happy. We will move forward. But the positive thing is that it means you have a government that has to respond, has to think about what the public wants. And if -- just make a serious point about the G7 countries vs. the -- or contrasted to the autocracies. Both of -- both China and Russia, I think, make big mistakes because they don't have those democratic checks and balances. [09:45:07] Do you really think that Vladimir Putin would have launched an invasion of another sovereign country if he had had people to listen to probably, arguing, if he had had a committee of backbenchers, the 1922 Committee on his case? And he did it because he is so -- his ego was so personally invested in the project, and continues to be so personally invested. And there's absolutely nothing to stop him. That's the problem. Second, look at the zero COVID approach in China. And whatever the arguments, it's clear it's a very, very difficult and burdensome policy. But it's being driven by the president, because that's the policy that he's invested in, without checks and balances. So, you know, what I'm saying to you is, it's the... TAPPER: That criticism is good. Democracy is good. JOHNSON: It's the worst system in the world, apart from all the others. TAPPER: Right. Well, you don't have to convince me that democracy is good. But let me just ask you, because... JOHNSON: Well, it's not -- whoa, whoa. I mean, we... (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: No, but as part... JOHNSON: But it's a point that needs to be made. TAPPER: You were recently asked about criticism from your party about Partygate, and you said that you were not going to undergo a psychological transformation. That's a quote of yours, psychological transformation. Some Tories are upset. They say that it -- that suggests you don't get how much there are members of the public that feel betrayed by the parties that are going on during the strict COVID rules, and that it shows that you're out of touch. JOHNSON: Yes. I think -- when you're taking your country through a tough time -- we went through a tough pandemic. We've now got obviously serious economic headwinds. You're bound to come in for a lot of criticism and a lot of scrutiny. And that is fine. But I have to decide what is the stuff that I need to change and the stuff that will make a real difference to people. And the stuff we need to change that really matters is the way our energy markets work, the way our housing markets work, the cost of our transport systems, the burden of taxation that people face. That's where the change is coming. That's the program that we've had. It's our plan for a stronger economy. And I think that's what people want to see. So we've got some good things going for us right now. We've got unemployment very low. We've got huge investments coming in. There's lots of reasons to be confident. TAPPER: Right. JOHNSON: But I think the thing people need us to focus on and to change is the way things work for them. TAPPER: Well, let's talk about that, because Thursday marks six years since the U.K. voted to leave the European Union. That was a cause that you were right on the forefront of. The U.K. is grappling the skyrocketing inflation, low unemployment, but skyrocketing inflation, cost of living crisis you alluded to, labor shortages, supply chain disruptions, slow wage growth. Is the U.K. better off than it was six years ago, when you left the E.U.? JOHNSON: It is. And we've got -- look, we've -- what we've been able to -- let me give you an example. Thanks to the position that we took, we had an independent medical agency that was able to make sure that the first COVID vaccine in anybody's -- first approved COVID vaccine in anybody's arms in the world was in the U.K. We then had the fastest vaccine. And that was because we were outside something called the European Medicines Agency, which is... TAPPER: So... (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: ... you couldn't have done if -- otherwise? JOHNSON: Correctamundo. TAPPER: OK. JOHNSON: Yes. TAPPER: Correctamundo? JOHNSON: Jake, correct. TAPPER: You're quoting Fonz? (LAUGHTER) JOHNSON: That is right. (LAUGHTER) JOHNSON: Secondly, we've been able to do a lot of free trade deals around the world. We're able to change some of our regulations. We've taken back control of our borders. We have -- we're no longer spending shedloads of money on projects that we couldn't control. And... TAPPER: So, it was a good decision? JOHNSON: Yes. And I will give you one other result, back to Ukraine for a second. I don't think that the U.K., within the European Union and within the kind of matrix of the common foreign policy and security policy that we then had, I don't think that we would have been out in front as the first European country to arm the Ukrainians, to give them the wherewithal to protect themselves. And I think that speaks to a country that is thinking about things differently, that is thinking about the world with a more global perspective, and is ambitious. It doesn't mean we're less European. TAPPER: Right. JOHNSON: We're still European. But I think we have a more global -- a more global approach. [09:50:00] TAPPER: So, we're here at the G7, a gathering of the world's leading democracies. When I talk to friends in Canada, the U.K., Australia and elsewhere, people express concern about the United States as... JOHNSON: The United States? TAPPER: About the United States in terms of our ability and our institutions to thrive and continue, after what happened with the election of 2020. They're worried that democracy is on life support in the United States. People might not know this about you, but you were born in the United States. And until recently, you... (CROSSTALK) JOHNSON: I was. TAPPER: And... JOHNSON: I was. I was born in New York City... TAPPER: As was I. JOHNSON: ... a fantastic place. Jake, where you were born? Where you were born in New York? (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Where was I -- Staten Island. JOHNSON: All right. I was born in New York General Hospital. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Are you worried at all? Do you look at... JOHNSON: No. TAPPER: You're not? JOHNSON: I want to say this to the people of the United States. I'm not. I think that -- I just get back to the -- what I have been trying to say to you throughout this interview. I think that reports of the death of democracy in the United States are grossly, grossly exaggerated. America is a shining city on a hill. And, for me, for my -- and it will continue to be so. And I think that the mere fact that Joe Biden has stepped up to the plate in the way that he has shows that the instincts of America are still very much in the right place. And, yes, look, I mean, there were some weird and kind of unattractive scenes back in the -- you know, back in... TAPPER: People died. I mean, it was pretty serious. JOHNSON: It was -- it was pretty weird. I won't deny that. TAPPER: It was worse than weird. I mean... JOHNSON: Looking from the outside, it was pretty weird. But I don't believe that American democracy is under serious threat, far from it. I continue to believe that America is the greatest global guarantor of democracy and freedom. TAPPER: Joe Biden talks about the world in terms of autocracies and democracies, and it's -- this is the big struggle. You talk about it that way as well. He also talks about the United States is going through that, that struggle, and he sees Donald Trump as autocratic, as somebody who didn't respect the will of the people, who -- there are hearings going on right now. I know you're familiar with them, bipartisan hearings, about all the ways to Donald Trump -- Trump tried to undo the election... JOHNSON: Yes. TAPPER: ... undo democracy. (CROSSTALK) JOHNSON: Jake, I'm going to -- I'm going to take the Fifth on this, because this is -- the convention in... TAPPER: You don't have a Fifth. That's... JOHNSON: Well, OK. Well, OK. I was born in New York. But I had to give up my citizenship because it was just so expensive. But, look, the fact is that we, as friends and partners -- and there are no two closer friends and partners than the U.S. and the U.K. -- we don't talk about domestic -- in principle, we shouldn't talk about each other's domestic politics. And it's -- that's for the people of U.S. TAPPER: Thanks so much for your time today. JOHNSON: Thank you. TAPPER: I really appreciate it. JOHNSON: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. TAPPER: Nice to meet another New Yorker. (LAUGHTER) JOHNSON: Yes. (END VIDEOTAPE)

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin argued that the government was becoming more "involved with religion" after the Supreme Court decided that a public school district didn't have the right to stop a high school coach from praying alone after football games. In Monday's ruling on Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court agreed that the Washington state school district had violated the First Amendment rights of former high school football coach Joe Kennedy by firing him over post-game prayers from the field. Reacting to the breaking news on Monday, CNN's Toobin blasted the decision as the court "allowing more state involvement with religion." Last week, the court ruled in favor of First and Second Amendment rights and struck down the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade. "CNN Newsroom" host Jim Sciutto suggested the court had gone rogue and "eroded" precedent. "Is precedent dead on the court? We heard every justice when they were asked repeatedly talk about respect for precedent. Are we seeing that eroded here?" he asked the network's legal analyst. "Yes," Toobin declared at once, blaming the Trump-appointed justices. He went on to say that by arguing that Coach Kennedy shouldn’t have been fired for exercising his free speech and religious rights, the court was allowing the state to become "more involved" with religion. "This is not like Dobbs where they are explicitly overruling a case in Roe v. Wade, but this is a case where they're moving the law incrementally in a very clear direction, to allow more state involvement with religion. You know, it can be with regard to prayer in schools, it can be in regard to money going to religious organizations, or it can be exempting religious organizations from government mandates like in the Hobby Lobby case about contraception. All of that is part of a package, and that's what Donald Trump promised he would deliver to the Supreme Court, and that is precisely what he did deliver to the Supreme Court," Toobin claimed. Toobin reacted in the same way to the court’s ruling last week upholding the rights of religious schools in Maine. He complained that the "Free Exercise Clause" in the First Amendment had trumped the "Establishment Clause."

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said Sunday that the Empire State will be a "safe harbor" for those seeking an abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, arguing there will be a referendum on former President Donald Trump’s nominees come November at the polls. In an appearance on MSNBC’s "The Sunday Show," Hochul said she already earmarked $35 million to abortion providers to beef up their services in anticipation of a flood of people coming to New York to receive abortions. "We’re going to get a flood of people. I have declared this as our safe harbor," Hochul said. "This is where we have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people who are oppressed. Women who cannot receive the fundamental right to control their body or receive an abortion. They are oppressed. They are welcomed here in the state of New York." In New York, where late-term abortions are already legal, the governor said she already signed legislation a week ago that protect providers from being sued in patients come from out of state for an abortion and noted how measures prevent anyone from being extradited from New York to be prosecuted elsewhere over an abortion. "This is New York. These rights are not going away. This is a place where we had abortion access three years before Roe v. Wade," Hochul said. "Roe v. Wade is now a part of our state law, but we’re looking to find any other ways we can strengthen. We protected our providers. We gave them immunity already." Though the Supreme Court ruling says the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to an abortion and hands that decision back to state legislatures, Hochul speculated it could mean more federal government overreach when it comes to other reproductive issues, such as contraception. "It is reprehensible that we have to have this conversation. Is this a police state? Is this where we cherish people’s freedoms? Or are we going to have government telling us what to do not just in our bedrooms and maybe take away the access to even contraception which they telegraphed they would do. This is not wild speculation on our part. They said they would do that. As well as talk about making it a national law to ban abortion. My God. How have we fallen so quickly?" Hochul also said abortion would be a big issue at the polls in November, and blamed Trump, who got three nominations to the Supreme Court approved during his four years in office. They were Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. "So, all of these are going to be mobilized at the polls, I guarantee It," Hochul said. "This is going to be a motivation to people who were complacent in the past. We saw what happens when you get a Donald Trump in and three Supreme Court justices who should not be there. This is a direct correlation to people exercising their right to vote." "Chicken Little was right. The sky just fell on all of us," the governor added. "And if that’s not a motivating factor. For my daughter in her 30s, this was the plight of my generation, my mother’s generation. I just had a brand-new granddaughter. I did not think this would have to be the fight of her generation. So, this is deeply personal." The governor also said she called a special session of the state legislature after the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that New York state’s restrictions on concealed carry permits were unconstitutional. She and other Democrats, including New York City Mayor Eric Adams, decried the decision, arguing it would contribute to even greater gun violence in the state struggling with crime despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Stacey Abrams on Fox News on arguments that legal abortion results in the loss of too many "Black lives that matter": "I think that's a very specious argument that's used to cloak what is I think a deeply disturbing approach to this conversation."

Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams once again hinted that businesses should consider boycotting Georgia over state abortion policies. On Sunday, Abrams appeared on CNN’s "State of the Union" to discuss the recent news of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion, on Friday. Host Jake Tapper noted that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp previously signed into law a six-week ban on abortion that can now go into effect. He questioned Abrams on whether major businesses should consider relocating or avoiding Georgia in response. "Many businesses such as Disney and Netflix have expressed their opposition to the so-called heart-beat abortion ban in Georgia when it was passed in 2019. Do you think those companies should pull their businesses from Georgia when and if this abortion restriction goes into effect?" Tapper asked. "I would tell every single business and every single woman that they should do what is best for the women that work for them. They need to make certain they are accommodating the very real health challenges women will face in the state of Georgia," Abrams answered. Her comments echoed an op-ed she wrote for USA Today in 2021 in response to Georgia’s voter security laws where she appeared to justify boycotting the state and its businesses. "Until we hear clear, unequivocal statements that show Georgia-based companies get what’s at stake, I can’t argue with an individual’s choice to opt for their competition," Abrams wrote at the time. Shortly after the article, Major League Baseball announced it would move its 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta. This cost the state approximately $100 million in revenue. Although Abrams stopped short of calling for an actual boycott of her state this time, she emphasized the harm that Kemp has brought upon Georgia. "It’s my hope we’ll be able to reverse this law by passing new legislation in 2023 because we also know Brian Kemp intends to make it more difficult for women. He intends to add incest and rape as prohibitions. He has already broken our health care system by refusing to expand Medicaid and Georgia already has one of the highest maternal rates in the nation," Abrams said. "And so I would tell anyone whether they are a business or a citizen thinking about being in Georgia to take into very real consideration the danger that Brian Kemp poses to the life and welfare of women in this state," she closed. Abrams is again the Democrat candidate for the Georgia governor election race in November. She will face off against Gov. Brian Kemp for the second time after she refused to conceed in their 2018 matchup.

QUESTION: Here with me now exclusively is the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. Thank you so much for joining us, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate it. SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thanks, Jake. QUESTION: So we’re here at the G7. France and the UK, who are here, as well as other world leaders from Belgium to Mexico to Chile, have all expressed concern about what the U.S. Supreme Court did on Friday reversing Roe v. Wade. They say it sends the wrong signal globally. What signal does it send? SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, Jake, I’m not in the habit of commenting on Supreme Court decisions, getting into U.S. politics. This is one occasion where I did because there are so many questions being asked around the world, questions being asked by our workforce. So I put out a statement to make it clear that we’re going to continue to do the work that we’re doing around the world to advance access to reproductive health services for women and girls around the world, and at the same time, make it clear to our own employees that, consistent with the law, we will do everything we can to make sure that they have access as well no matter where they live. QUESTION: Including if – as many businesses are saying they’re going to do, paying for their travel to states where they can get abortions if they want one? SECRETARY BLINKEN: We are looking into whatever we can do consistent with the law to make sure that irrespective of where any of our people live, they have access to reproductive health care services. QUESTION: So there are a lot of things that you’re focusing on here, but one of them is Ukraine and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And Russia does appear to be edging closer to taking over all of the Luhansk region – Sievierodonetsk has fallen, apparently. And just overnight, many missiles were launched at Kyiv, including residential areas. Russia state media says the Russian defense minister just visited Russian troops in Ukraine. Is Russia winning? SECRETARY BLINKEN: Jake, let’s not confuse the tactical with strategic. When it comes to Putin’s strategic objectives, he’s already failed. His strategic objective was to end Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence, to erase it from the map, to subsume it in Russia. That has failed, and a sovereign, independent Ukraine is going to be around a lot longer than Vladimir Putin is on the scene. Meanwhile, there is a tactical, ferocious battle going on in eastern Ukraine with the Russian aggression, with Ukrainian forces pushing back, and that line has shifted. There are gains one way, gains another way, but what’s really important is the strategic proposition that Putin will not succeed in what he’s tried to achieve. Not only that, he’s also tried to divide NATO. We’re about to go to a NATO Summit where the Alliance is going to show greater unity, greater strength than in my memory. In Ukraine itself, here at this meeting of the G7, as well as at NATO, we will continue to do collectively everything we can to make sure that the Ukrainians have what they need in their hands to repel the Russian aggression. QUESTION: Do you think the attack on Kyiv overnight and this morning was part of a direct provocation against the meeting of the G7? SECRETARY BLINKEN: We’ve seen sporadically, even – ever since Putin lost the battle for Kyiv and had to shift his focus just to eastern and southern Ukraine, that they’ve occasionally launched missiles at a distance basically to terrorize people. They struck an apartment building. There are reports that they struck a kindergarten. That has no purpose other than to try to terrorize Ukrainians. QUESTION: The G7 just announced a new ban on Russian gold imports. SECRETARY BLINKEN: That’s right. QUESTION: The U.S. said that Western sanctions against Russia would devastate its economy, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. The ruble is at its highest in years; oil profits are soaring. When are these sanctions going to start having the effect that the West and President Biden has promised? SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, they were already having a dramatic effect – well, first, let’s take gold, the thing that we’re just announcing. That is the second most lucrative export that Russia has after energy – it’s about $19 billion a year – and most of that is within the G7 countries. So cutting that off, denying access to about $19 billion of revenues a year, that’s significant. But beyond that, Jake, everything that we’ve done from the start – in imposing these unprecedented sanctions and the export controls – is having a profound impact on Russia. Even as it gets oil revenues with higher prices, it’s unable to spend them because of the export controls. It can’t acquire what it needs to modernize its defense sector, to modernize its technology, to modernize its energy exploration, which means that over time each of these areas is going to go in decline. Already, we’re seeing predictions that the Russian economy will shrink by eight to fifteen percent next year. The ruble is being propped up artificially at great expense. A thousand companies, major international companies, have left Russia. They had products that were still on the shelf when they left, but those supplies have now dwindled. Russians were no longer being able to buy what they’re used to buying. The standard of living for Russians is dropping. All of this is having an effect immediately, but it’s also having a cumulative effect. We’ve seen a brain drain from Russia – 200,000 Russians, among the most educated, working in some of the most important industries, have left. Many foreigners working in those same industries have left. All of this over time accumulates, accumulates, accumulates. QUESTION: So there was a House resolution, bipartisan, in favor – expressing the desire that Brittney Griner be freed, the WNBA star who’s now been detained in Russia for 129 days. American former Marine Paul Whelan’s been there for almost four years. After the U.S. brought Trevor Reed home in a prisoner swap, my understanding is that there might be another prisoner swap in the works right now. CNN is reporting that there is a – there are discussions going on and that you and President Biden and others are in favor of a swap: Griner and Whelan in exchange for Russian arms trafficker Viktor Bout. Is that going to happen? SECRETARY BLINKEN: As a general proposition, Jake, I’ve got no higher priority than making sure that Americans who are being illegally detained in one way or another around the world come home, and that includes Paul Whelan and that includes Brittney Griner. That includes people in a number of other countries. In fact, I spoke to Brittney Griner’s wife just a few days ago. I spoke to the families of many detained Americans this week — QUESTION: They really want to talk to President Biden. SECRETARY BLINKEN: And some of them have, but we have a regular dialogue with them and no higher priority. I can’t comment in any detail on what we’re doing except to say this is an absolute priority. QUESTION: So the White House says President Biden’s upcoming meeting with Saudi officials in Riyadh next month will include the kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. President Biden, as you remember, during the campaign, promised to make Saudi Arabia and MBS a pariah for the murder of a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, who wrote for The Washington Post. Is cheaper oil worth breaking that promise? SECRETARY BLINKEN: Jake, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, what we said is we needed to recalibrate the relationship to make sure that it more effectively reflected our own interests, our own values, but not rupture it, because we’ve got a multiplicity of interests involved and our values. And so when it comes to the relationship broadly, Saudi Arabia’s been an important partner in dealing with extremism. It’s been an important partner in contending with challenges posed by Iran. It’s also absolutely critical to helping end what has been one of the worst wars and atrocities in recent memory, and that’s the war in Yemen. By most accounts, that’s the worst humanitarian situation on Earth, and that’s saying something. Saudi Arabia’s engagement in doing this now has been absolutely critical to getting what we haven’t had for eight years, which is a truce. The truce has been extended. Humanitarian assistance is getting to people who need it. The guns have been silenced. That’s important. And when it comes to our values, we had – we inherited the murder of (inaudible) Khashoggi. We made sure – I made sure that the report, with accountability and making clear the responsibility for his murder, was put out in public with the imprimatur of the U.S. Government on it. We initiated something called the Khashoggi Ban to make sure that countries that try to repress those criticizing them from third countries, including from the United States, are penalized for doing that. We’ve used that ban something like 70 times since we put it forward. And of course, energy is part of the equation too. So for us, it’s about making sure that we put all of this together, that we are working to advance all of these interests consistent with our values. If we are able to end the war in Yemen, that will be a dramatic step forward for human rights, for freedom, for democracy as well. QUESTION: Secretary of State Antony Blinken, thanks so much for your time. SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thanks, Jake. Good to be with you.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decried the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and took particular issue with the state of Arkansas for banning most abortions after the landmark opinion was released. "This decision and this policy will kill people no matter what their spin and what their talking points are," Ocasio-Cortez said on MSNBC’s "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning. Host Chuck Todd has asked the congresswoman about Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signing into law a "trigger" statute that banned all abortions in the state except in the event to save a mother’s life. The law was signed after the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe on Friday. "I couldn't disagree more with Governor Hutchinson, but I think what's really important is honing in on this idea that the … the governor and the Republican Party, and frankly the Republican legislature in Arkansas, cares about the life of a woman and the life of a mother," Ocasio-Cortez said. nam She went on to argue that the state has a high maternal mortality rate and children living in poverty, saying "forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will, will kill them." "The state of Arkansas and Governor Hutchinson governs over a state that has the third-highest maternal mortality in the United States. 71% of the women who die are Black women as well. This is a state that has 26% child poverty, where one-in-four children are … living in poverty in the state of Arkansas." "It will kill them, especially in the state of Arkansas, where there is very little to no support for life after birth, in terms of healthcare, in terms of childcare, and in terms of combating poverty," she continued. Ocasio-Cortez has called the Supreme Court ruling on Friday "illegitimate" and called for supporters to take to "the streets" to fight for abortion. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday, which effectively ends the recognition of abortion as a constitutional right, comes after a leaked draft opinion in May signaled the nation’s highest court would overturn Roe.

During the opening monologue of MSNBC’s The Cross Connection, host Tiffany Cross railed against Friday’s Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Cross claimed that the right to choose an abortion is a "human right" and that the Supreme Court is forcing the entire country to abide by "Christian doctrine." She also berated Democratic voters, saying she and her fellow pundits warned them this would happen. The liberal host repeatedly referred to Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a "handmaiden," a reference to both Barrett's religious upbringing and the TV show The Handmaid’s Tale, a series about women forced to give birth in a society run by tyrannical, theocratic patriarchs. Cross opened her show by announcing the news of the end of Roe v. Wade in dark, dramatic fashion. She stated, "Today, for the first time in 49 years, American women are waking up with less rights than we had yesterday. After the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade." nam The host mention the ongoing pro-abortion rights protests that have sprung up in the decision’s wake and asserted, "The majority of Americans did not want the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. A majority of Americans." "But four men, who will never bear children, and one handmaiden, decided for an entire country that their Christian doctrine is the only way," Cross stated, getting angrier as she continued. "Let me reiterate this," she said, asserting, "A woman’s right to choose is a human right. A person’s ability and choice to bring life into this world is their choice." She then tried to connect the gun issue to the abortion issue, claiming, "In America, where guns are the leading cause for death for children, an AR-15 has more rights than a woman does." The CDC reported that in 2020, 4,368 children were killed in incidents involving guns, with two-thirds of them being homicide. Though the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute recorded around 930,000 abortions in 2020. The number of abortions, which is always a direct killing of a human life, is 213 times higher than the child gun death number. During her opener, Cross slammed the Supreme Court for trying to "mandate births" in the country because it would add to the number of struggling kids already living here. "And now, the Supreme Court wants to mandate births in a country where 17 million children are hungry, and more than 420,000 children are in the foster care system." Cross then provided her "I told you so moment" for the audience, stating, "None of this should be a surprise. Why? Because we warned you. Every time we told you to vote and pointed to this decades-old Republican promise." Cross mentioned various landmarks on the way to this judicial decision, stating, "When Obama was blocked from placing a judge on the Supreme Court, when the overgrown oompa-loompa was voted into office, when Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and the real-life handmaiden Amy Coney Barrett were nominated and confirmed, we tried to tell you." "And now here we are," she concluded.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The decision involved a New York law that required showing a special need to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. NYC Mayor Eric Adams joins The View to discuss the impact the decision will have.

The Supreme Court decision which struck down a New York law placing restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home will have drastic consequences for law enforcement, inhibiting their ability to remove illegal guns from the street and protect the public from shootings, officials said. In the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade, the court's decision Thursday changed the framework lower courts across the nation will use as they analyze other gun restrictions. The case was remanded to the lower court and the law is still in effect until it goes through the lower court process. The court's ruling in the case, brought by an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, allows more guns to be publicly carried in the largest city in the country and could nullify laws nationwide, including those in Massachusetts and California. Previously, New York state law required people to show "proper cause" before obtaining the license. The ruling comes at a time when law enforcement officials continue to battle a surge in gun violence, a proliferation of guns on the street and the fast-growing threat of unregulated ghost guns since the onset of the pandemic. Law enforcement officials said the decision will have a ripple effect, exacerbating the issue of gun violence and making it more difficult for officers to identify those who are illegally carrying guns in public. "Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State's licensing regime violates the Constitution," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court's 6-3 majority. New York City Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell asserted "nothing changes" after the ruling, adding "if you carry a gun illegally in NYC you will be arrested." "When we open the universe of carry permits it potentially brings more guns to the city of NY...that should concern us all," Sewell said Thursday. But the high court's ruling "changed the game" for the everyday police officer in the country, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a former NYPD captain, said during an appearance on MSNBC. "When you look at how do you distinguish between a legal carry and someone who's carrying it illegally, it is just really challenging," Adams said. "And then responding to the bad days that individuals have in the city, in big cities across America, but they're armed with a weapon. You can see a simple dispute elevate to a shooting. This is a real concern, which the Supreme Court put in place." Similarly, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said the court's decision "severely undermines public safety not just in New York City, but around the country," adding his office is analyzing the ruling and crafting gun safety legislation which will take steps to "mitigate the damage done today." Ruling comes as police push for gun control The controversial "constitutional carry," or permitless carry, legislation has gained momentum during this year's legislative sessions in several states despite law enforcement officials arguing the permit requirement is vital to upholding standards of public safety. Without it, they say, officers face an even greater challenge in combating gun violence, further complicating their encounters with citizens. Major national police groups have joined forces in pushing for legislation in Congress calling for a crackdown on gun crime. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) have actively supported gun legislation efforts to address gun violence and "identify workable solutions in order to dramatically reduce the numbers of Americans killed from unprovoked and unspeakable violence," according to a joint letter released in late May. An amicus brief filed in September 2021 by law enforcement agencies in several cities -- including Boston, Los Angeles Philadelphia and Washington, DC -- emphasized the court should uphold New York's law, arguing they view the "prospect of removing local discretion from concealed-carry licensing regimes with alarm." "No credible data suggest that increasing the number of people carrying concealed firearms will improve public safety, particularly in our large cities," the brief states. A study published in January by Everytown for Gun Safety, a leading non-profit organization focusing on gun violence prevention, found there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings. Twenty-five states generally allow people to carry concealed weapons in most public spaces without any permit, background check or safety training, according to Everytown. The study found states weakening their permitting systems have seen an 11% increase in handgun homicide rates and a 13% to 15% increase in overall violent crime rates.

Former President Donald Trump will speak at a Save America Rally in the Quincy area Saturday to drum up support for Republican Rep. Mary Miller, who's facing a tight reelection bid. The former president's speech is expected to begin at 7 p.m., however doors for the rally at the Adams County Fairgrounds opened at 2 p.m. Miller, who was elected as the U.S. representative from Illinois' 15th congressional district in 2020, is up against Rep. Rodney Davis in Tuesday's Illinois primary. The two are facing off in the recently-redrawn 15th district. Mary Miller, a farmer and the wife of Illinois Rep. Chris Miller, was previously endorsed by the former president.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Okay. Today I would like to welcome Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm back to the Briefing Room. Secretary Granholm is here to talk about gas prices and Putin’s price hike, which you just heard the President talk about just about an hour ago. So we’re really glad to have her here. Secretary Granholm flew in over 800 miles — we were counting this up — just this morning to be here with all of you to take your questions, because we know how important this is to us and to the President. And so, therefore, she’ll have some brief remarks, and then she’ll take your questions. Okay. All yours. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Great. Thank you, Karine. Hi, everybody. So as we all know, the summer driving season is underway, and Americans are paying more at the pump every time they fill up their gas tu- — gas tank. This is a global problem. There are two causes for it, which these high prices derive from. One is, of course, Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. Vladi- — Russia is a very high exporter of oil. Because of the invasion of Ukraine, countries like the United States and Canada rightfully have said, “We are not going to take any Russian oil.” Therefore, about a million barrels per day have been taken off the market as a result of that. And secondly, the supply and refining capacity constraints that have been created by COVID-19 in the United States but also around the world. Since Putin’s buildup of troops began, our citizens are paying an additional $2.00 per gallon. And, of course, other countries are dealing with this as well. If you went to the UK today, for a gallon equivalent, you would be paying $7.71. If you went to France, you’d be paying $8.49. If you went to Canada, you’d be paying over $6.00 per gallon. If you went to Singapore, you’d be paying over $9.00 per gallon. So it’s happening around the world. And President Biden, like all other leaders around the world, are grappling with this for their citizens. And the President is doing everything he can to reduce prices for American families. So, as you heard today, the President is calling upon Congress to suspend the national gas tax for the next 90 days. Suspending the tax — the gas tax is going to provide families immediate relief from this Putin price hike. Of course, suspending the federal gas tax on its own will not solve the problem. It’s why the President is also doing several other things. One, he’s calling upon states as well to consider doing gas tax holidays on the state side. He’s urging oil companies to use their profits to increase output. He is calling upon the industry to pass along the decrease in oil prices — which we have seen at the barrel level over the past week, for example, at the pump — and he is demanding that these — that the industry come to the table with some solutions on refinery, which is what is going to happen tomorrow when I’ll be meeting with many — the biggest refiners. Collectively, we know that these steps will save American families their hard-earned dollars every time they fill up their gas tank. Of course, this is — sits in a context because the President has said that he is willing to use the full span of his authorities to help lower prices. Just to remind you, of course, he’s used the biggest tool at his disposal, which is our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, releasing a million barrels per day to try to stabilize supply, even as demand increases too, especially with the summer driving season. He has also rallied other countries to release from their reserves as well. Collectively, about 240 million barrels are being released from reserves around the world. And he’s increased the share of biofuels in gasoline that can help lower prices at thousands of gas stations. And, of course, at the same time, we are working to save money for people — have people save money by cutting other essential costs: for example, help with heating bills, weatherization; other ways that citizens are trying to grapple with these high fuel prices: energy efficiency, rental assistance, for example. The fact is that no President alone can control the price of gasoline, and we need more players at the table. So the President is asking Congress to act. He’s asking states to act. He’s asking the oil and gas industry to do their part as well. And I will say that many domestic producers have been heeding the President’s call to increase domestic supply, in terms of at the wellhead. We — you know, some, I know, have made the claim that this administration is in the way of domestic production. But the numbers here are inarguable: We are now at close to record levels of oil production here in the U.S., averaging now 12 million barrels a day. Under this President, the Presid- — the country is producing more oil on average than it did during the Bush, Obama, or Trump administrations. But still, we need more creativity and collaboration to get us through this unprecedented situation. And so, tomorrow, as I mentioned, I’ll be speaking with executives from the major domestic refiners to discuss actions that government and industry can take to increase capacity and to safely operate their existing refineries and to overcome the hurdles that are in the way to meeting American — America’s demand and to increase supply. With so many businesses enjoying high profits, our message is simple: That this is the time to reinvest those profits that will enable them to better meet the needs of our citizens. And instead of using it for shareholders or stock buybacks — we are not against profit — we are encouraging these oil and gas companies to invest to help their citizen — fellow citizens, to help their own workers. We need them to come to the table. The real truth is that as long as our nation rela- — remains overly reliant on oil and fossil fuels, we will feel the — these price shocks again. This is not going to be the last time. The next time there’s a war, the next time there’s a pandemic or another hurricane, these extreme weather events we are experiencing, they will impact the access that we have to fossil fuels. The only way out of these boom-and-bust cycles is to break that sole reliance. And that means diversifying our fuel sources by deploying clean energy. And that’s why we’re laying a foundation for this clean energy economy with the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It’s why the President has invoked the Defense Production Act to increase domestic manufacturing of these key clean energy technologies. It’s why we need federal clean energy tax credits to get the private sector jumping headfirst into these new markets, which will all make us secure both from a national security perspective and an energy security perspective, so that we are not under the thumb of petro dictators like Putin. So we are looking at some significant challenges in the way of ensuring that American people have access to affordable clean energy, but we’re going to use every lever that we have across the federal government to overcome these challenges. So, thanks for that. And I’m happy to answer any questions. Q Secretary Granholm, you said that this will bring immediate relief if it gets passed to drivers. But if there’s no guarantee from companies that they will pass on these benefits to those drivers, isn’t there a chance that this passes and consumers, drivers see no benefit whatsoever? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, it’s one of the reasons why I’m meeting with the refiners tomorrow, the oil companies tomorrow, to ensure that they would pass this on. Second, there was — we have some evidence of this. Because in the — very recently, and even ongoing, there are states that have actually cut their gas tax. And Penn — Wharton — did a study about whether that was actually passed through, and they found that the majority of it, in fact, was. So I get the nervousness about that, the mistrust about some of that. But our recent history suggests — and this just came out, this study, on June 15th — that there will be a passing through, and we want to — we want to make sure that that happens. Q And did you and President Biden consult with Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill about them actually being willing to pass something like this before the President’s speech today? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, as you know, we’re in touch with Congress all the time. And I know that there are a number of proposals in Congress that are already — that have already been, you know, proposed. I think Senator Kelly and Congressman O’Halleran. I think there were supportive statements from a number of members of Congress today. So that is ongoing — that conversation is ongoing. I know that Speaker Pelosi just put out a statement and said that she’s going to bring it to the — to the caucus. Q Yeah, thank you. So if in this meeting tomorrow the refiners don’t play ball or are not responding in a satisfactory way, what is the administration prepared to do? What emergency powers is the administration prepared to use? What’s the next step here? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah. Let’s just take it one step at a time. I believe that — you know, we are going into this to have an earnest conversation with them about what it would take. We know that there have been six refineries closed since 2020, a vast ma- — I think five of them in 2021 — in 2021. And we want to ask, “Is there capacity to bring something back online, to expand?” So let me — let’s see how that conversation goes. I don’t want to assume anything. We know that they are feeling the pressure not just from the administration, but from people out there about the price at the pump. And it’s important that they listen to their own employees, as well as the communities that they serve. Q Is this the kind of thing where the DPA could be used? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: It’s a tool. It’s certainly a tool, not to — let me just be clear about this: The DP- — I want to hear from them, “Is there a — is there a chink in the supply chain that is preventing some refinery from coming back online? Is there something that’s difficult to acquire?” Those are the kinds of questions we’ll be asking. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: In the back. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Granholm. The President has said of the war in Ukraine and the subsequent price hikes that have resulted that, quote, “We will be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when all this is over.” So I’m wondering: Does he fear that by pausing the gas tax, that by giving a sort of gas-addicted economy another hit that he might be slowing that transition away from fossil fuels? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: I think what he’s most concerned about is what real people are experiencing right now in their pocketbooks, this — especially for moderate — for low-income people who have no choice that they have to get to work. This is really what the President is fixated on: How do we provide relief to real people? We can, we want to, and we must move to a clean energy future. And we can accelerate production right now. I mean, let’s be very clear that fossil fuels will remain in the mix of the energy system of the globe for years to come. This is why we call this a transition. I mean, the President’s goal is to get to net zero by 2050. And that suggests that there will, of course, still be a need for fossil fuels. So we — but we also know that everything we’re experiencing in terms of these extreme weather events — we spent $150 billion as a nation last year cleaning up after these extreme weather events that are all fueled by climate change. So we have to do both. Q And then, I guess if you’re putting yourselves in the shoes of some of these refiners or some of these oil producers, what guarantee can the administration give them as you’re asking them to increase production but more regulation as you pursue that transition isn’t coming down the pipe for them as you’re asking them to (inaudible)? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, we’re asking them to increase supply. We’re not ask — telling them we’re going to increase regulation on them. We are hopeful that they will see the opportunity of investing as well in this clean energy future. In fact, a number of these refineries have transitioned to biofuels, and that’s good. We want to see them be part of this clean energy future as well. So we want to build more energy. We want to build clean energy. And we know that, ultimately, that’s where our security will lie. Q Thank you, Secretary. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jacqui and then Kristen. Q Secretary Granholm, you and the President have framed this war in Ukraine as the primary driver of the spikes in energy costs that’s the largest contributor to overall inflation. But the Fed chairman was on the Hill today, testified. He was asked a question: “Is the war the primary driver of inflation?” And his answer was “No.” How do you square that? Is he wrong? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: I — I didn’t hear what he said on that, but I think most people acknowledge that the price of fuel is a big driver of inflation. And, in fact, they’ve put large percentages on it. And so we know that the war in Ukraine, having driven up the price of fuel because it crimps supply — t’s a little supply-and-demand question — we’ve got to make up for the million barrels per day that have lost. We will have a demand problem when China opens up after COVID. There will be additional upward pressure on supply. This is why we need — not just in the U.S. — but we need globally more supply brought on board. And so — Q His — his full quote was, “No, inflation was high before, certainly before the war in Ukraine broke out.” SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, I think most would say that the price of fuel has exacerbated inflation. Q And is there any concern that this gas tax holiday will increase demand and then, thereby, increase inflation? Some economists and analysts have been raising that. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, I understand that. And I also know that this President is focused on costs for real people as well. And this cost of gas is the most tangible, most real for people at the pump. So he wants to do everything. He understands the importance of it. He’s very concerned about inflation, obviously; it’s a top priority. And he’s also concerned about this price at the pump. And he’s going to do what he can to resolve that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Kristen. Q Secretary Granholm, thank you for being here. Senator Manchin said he’s not yet a yes on this. Steny Hoyer said he’s not sure that they have the votes to pass this. Why is the President proposing something that doesn’t have the support of Democrats yet — enough support to pass? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, I mean, this is — this is a conversation, right? So that conversation is ongoing. And I know that those Democrats are also concerned about the price their constituents are paying at the pump, and Republicans are as well. I mean, that is — that is the issue. So, hopefully — you know, in the past, Republicans have introduced a gas tax holiday, and there’s no time that’s more acute than right now. Q What is the strategy to get it passed, though? The President, obviously, making this announcement ahead of the July 4th holiday. What is he going to do to get those Democrats and Republicans on board to pass this? And how does he respond to the criticism from some Republicans that this is a stunt because he doesn’t have the votes? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, he’s going to be having these conversations with Democrats and Republicans. I would hope that both sides of the aisle are listening to their constituents about getting relief. I think the citizens will be the loudest voice, you know, in the room. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. You had a question? Q Yes. Two sort of decision-making questions. One, why 90 days? Is there a belief that, after 90 days, that the market will stabilize? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: It’s the summer — it’s the summer driving season — is how they were framing this, how — the focus was on. Q And what would be the proposal to Congress to backfill the Highway Trust Fund? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, I mean– Q And do you have an estimate for how much the trust fund would be hit? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Ten billion. About $10 billion. And yeah, the — clearly, we do not want to see the Highway Trust Fund hurt, so the President is asking for Congress to backfill. That could be — obviously, we’ve seen a $1.6 trillion reduction in the deficit. There are ways to be able to identify the funds to be able to do this, and he’s asking that the trust fund be repaid. Q But is the administration putting forward any proposals to — SECRETARY GRANHOLM: He’s having those conversations with Congress. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Cleve, did you have — do you still have — you had a (inaudible). Q Yeah, sure. I do have a question. I do wonder if there is a particular point where the President decides to invoke these emergency powers he’s talking about. Is it if gas reaches a certain level? If it — is it if you don’t hear the right things from the administrators? I also wonder about the tone and the timbre of the conversations tomorrow. The President has been very splenetic, critical of them. I wonder what your conversation will be like. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah. I mean, honestly, we’re going in, in good faith, asking them this question about what can be done, what — what would it take, what do you need to open up additional refining capacity. Obviously, they’re making huge amounts of profits. It’s not about funding, but perhaps there is something that they need — some additional help with identifying a supply chain issue. We — I just don’t know. So we’ll see. We’ll have that — this is an honest, earnest conversation tomorrow asking how can we be partners in providing relief for people at the pump. Q And are there any hard lines where emergency powers are invoked with gas prices, with answers, with whatever? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: We have not — we have not drawn any lines in the sand at this moment. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Two more. Nancy and then Nandita. Q Thank you so much, Secretary Granholm, for being here. Just following up on Kristen’s question, what do you say to lawmakers who are already calling this federal gas tax holiday a “gimmick” and saying, “Best-case scenario, it’ll save drivers about 20 bucks a month”? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, it — there’s no doubt this is a modest — if it were just the federal gas tax — right? — 18 cents is — you know, is a modest — you know, a modest amount. But if you combine it with if the states — you know, not all states would do it, but certain states might be willing to, some already have — you combine it with that. If the oil and gas industry is willing to reduce prices to the extent that historically they have when the price per barrel has come down. So, for example, right now, the price per barrel has dropped about $10 since last week, so it’s about 110, roughly, dollars per barrel. Normally, when you see that kind of a drop — $10 per barrel — the rule of thumb is that you see a 25-cent drop in the price at the pump. So we’re going to be asking why that hasn’t happened yet and when that will happen. So there could be some much more significant help. And I will say that the Energy Information Administration has projected that by the end of the third quarter, because the oil and gas industry has increased and is intending on continuing to increase supply — that’s not refining but supply at the wellhead — that we will see gas prices at about $4.37, they are projecting, at the end of the third quarter. Now, all caveats aside, because who knows what could happen on a — in the global economy if — you know, the EU, China, et cetera. All of that, is — is still very front of mind. So projected forecasts are always subject to all of those caveats. But we’re hopeful that we will start to see this come down. And this is one step in that direction. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nandita. Last question. Q Thank you. Thanks, Karine. Just a quick question on refining capacity, especially when we’re talking about, sort of, asking refiners to produce more. That sort of takes time. Right, Secretary? I mean, it’s more sort of — SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah. Q — it appears to be more of a medium-term solution. What — according to you, how much of an impact do you think that will have immediately on gas prices? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, this is the question to ask them. I mean, you know, obviously, building a new refinery takes — is a much longer strategy. Right? But they have — there have been refineries that have been announced to be closed, there are some that have recently closed. What is the capacity? These are the questions. What is the capacity to bring some of that — and what is their capacity to bring more capacity online? These are the questions that we’ll be asking. Q And a quick one on — you know, some of the industry participants who are expected at this meeting tomorrow with you are expected to talk about, sort of, urging the administration not to ban fuel exports, and that is something that we’re reporting from sources. I’m just sort of wondering what your response to that would be if such a demand is made. And, you know, are you considering such a decision in the first place? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, I will say this, that, you know, there have been an awful lot of solutions that the President has been considering over — over the — since the war began, since these prices started to jump up. And — and I don’t think any — anyone is taking anything off the table. He’s not proposing that at this moment. But he’s not willing to take tools off the table. But we do want to listen, for sure. And there may be consequences that have to be considered on doing something like that, that would have adverse impacts on everyday citizens. And we don’t want that either. Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Secretary. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Q Thank you. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Thanks, everybody. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, I just have one thing at the top, and we’ll take your questions. One hundred seventy-five million Americans hold at least one credit card. And in 2020, credit card companies charge customers $12 billion in penalties, including billions in late fees. Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that it is taking a step — a first step to review excessively high late fees, including how these fees are affected by inflation and how they contribute to credit card companies’ profits. Americans deserve transparency and a little more breathing room in their family budgets. This is just one of the ways the Biden administration is going after excessive fees that companies use to hide the true cost of products. From airline tickets to high-speed Internet service, agencies are taking action to make prices clearer upfront so that consumers can save money by choosing the best deals for them. And with that, Josh. Q Thanks. Two subject areas. First, we heard the President today say what he would like to see Congress, states, and companies do on oil production. What is the case that he is making to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates for increased production ahead of his visit? Should we expect the rest of the world to kick in more supplies than they have committed to already? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as you know, the President is going to be going to the Middle East next month, and there’s going to be an array of subjects that he will — they will be discussing. He’s going there at the — for the GCC+3. Saudi — Saudi Arabia is clearly hosting that. The Middle East is an important part of the region. They’re going to be talking about, yes, energy security, but a whole host of other things, including a way to make peace, national security. I don’t have a — I don’t have any — we don’t have a specific list of details of what is going to be discussed next month. And, as you know, Saudi Arabia is the chair of OPEC+, and we welcome the — the steps that they have taken as it — as it relates to oil production. But again, they are the chair of that. Again, energy security will be part of the conversation, but not the only thing. And — and we’ll see what happens next month. Q And then, secondly, on the President’s upcoming travel, does he plan to meet with Turkish president Erdoğan with regard to Finland and Sweden being in NATO? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have a — I don’t — we don’t have anything to preview for you as far as any bilats that may occur at NATO or G7 in whole — as a whole. He’s — clearly, he’s leaving on the 25th, returning on the 30th, to Europe. As — when we do, we always share those bilats with all of you. As it — as it relates to Ukraine and NATO, they were having — I’m sorry, not Ukraine — Finland, they were having a — a trilateral conversation with — on — on their NATO application. And so we leave it to them to speak to where that progress has been. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. A couple more questions on — on gas. One is a housekeeping. Can you say which companies are attending the meeting tomorrow? Is it all seven that were on the initial letter? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, my goodness. I should have — I should have called on you. She — she was right here — Q I know. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — to answer that question. Q I was raising my hand — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It is — it is — I do not have a — Q — repeatedly. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. I’m trying to get to everybody. Trying to give everybody love here. It’s not easy. So many — so many of you to cover. (Laughs.) But I would — I would suspect it’s the, as you stated, the folks who received the letter. I don’t have a list in front of me, clearly. And — but I would suspect those are the seven CEOs that will be joining tomorrow. Q Okay. And then I want to circle back on — on a question that you were asked yesterday. You said that this was the first step, but — the President expressed this — this sentiment again today on — on really laying down the hammer on these big oil companies. And so why is he not in the room tomorrow to express this message himself? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, the President talked about this, as you said, as you just stated, earlier today. The Secretary of Energy — Senator [Secretary] Granholm, who was just standing before you — is going to have those conversation. And — and what we want to see is a solution, come up with ideas. There will be representatives from the White House who will be in the room as well, so that will be happening. And, you know, the hope is that there are ideas that come out of this, there’s a res- — some resolution, some solutions that come out of this. And so we have to wait and see how — how that goes. But that is the first step. The second step, as I said yesterday, is hopefully to come up with some ideas in how to move forward and how to — how to bring up their capacity, because that’s what we’re talking about here. Because we have the crude oil, the crude oil is there, as the — as the Secretary was just saying. We just need the oil refineries to refine that oil so that it could help bring down gas ta- — gas prices. Q And, finally, what does it say to — about the prospect of the White House winning congressional support on this idea that just minutes after the President finished speaking on this, Nancy Pelosi sent out a very lukewarm statement about its prospects on Capitol Hill, saying, “We will see where the consensus” goes. That is hardly a vote of approval from her. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we have immense respect for the Speaker. I think she also said that she was going to bring this to her caucus, which is also important to note. Look, this is just the beginning of the process. The President talked about this about an hour and a half ago. And we will continue to have conversations with Congress — congressional members and their staff. Look, just to step back for a second and really talk about what — how this President sees this: He sees this as an opportunity — a straightforward, simple way to deal with the pain that the — the American people is dealing with, giving them some relief at the pump. That’s what we’re talking about. It’s straightforward. It’s simple. The President would like Congress to — to act. We’re talking about, you know, 18 cents per gallon, which is going to go a long way. If you look at the average of states, that’s 30 cents. Just looking at those two things, that’s almost 50 cents. That’s going to go a long way. For three months. That’s it. Q That’s an “if.” MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Three months. That’s a “if,” but — Q This is all predicated on “if.” MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, absolutely. But we’re going to continue to work hard and to — to get the — the American public some relief. We’re talking about three months — 90 days — during one of the busiest driving times in our country for American people, American families. That’s how this President sees this. I’m going to call on folks I — go ahead, Steve. Q Thanks, Karine. The Sec- — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: If we have time, I’ll come — if we have time, I’ll come back. I just want to make sure I — Q Absolutely. Q The Secretary laid out the questions that she wants to ask the oil executives tomorrow. Is there a working theory that the administration currently has as to why the oil companies have not already increased their refining capacity? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, I — there’s no working theory on our part. What I can say is — let me just — just lay out some facts here. So, as of this morning, crude oil prices have dropped by nearly 15 percent from two weeks ago. About prices at the pump have — have barely — but prices at the pump have barely budged. The last time the price of crude oil was $110 a barrel, the price of gas was $4.60 a gallon. Today, it’s about 35 cents higher. That difference is a result of companies’ record-high profit margins for refini- — refining. Oil refiners’ margins have tripled since the beginning of the year. In just the first three months of the year, the biggest oil companies made $35 billion — four times — four times what they made in the first quarter of last year. So they would have to speak to that themselves as to why they are not bringing up their capacity. Because again, the crude oil is there. We need them to refine that oil so that we could bring up the capacity and so, therefore, the gas prices could come down. That’s what we’re asking them to do. The conversation will happen tomorrow with Secretary Granholm. There will be White House officials as well in the room with her until they’ll have that conversation. And hopefully, we can get to some solutions and some ideas. Q The Secretary spoke about “creativity.” Do you have any sense of what she meant by that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we’ll — she’ll — we’ll hear — we’ll hear from — from them directly. She’ll hear from them directly about what ideas that they might have to — to get this — to get their capacity up. Go ahead. Q This topic of a tax break has been out there for weeks, if not months. And you’re just talking now about starting the conversation. Why is it just starting now? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, this is something — you know, the President talked about this even on Sunday. So some of you who were — who were there with him. And, you know, for him, he wanted to make sure he looked at the data. He wanted to make sure he spoke to his economic team. And it was just an important, important piece of it. But I do want to take — take a step back. If we look at the last several months, if we look at what has happened during — during the time that Putin amassed his forces along the border of Ukraine, we have seen gas prices rise by $2.00 per gallon. That is just the facts. That is what we have seen. And the President has taken historic action. So, yes, it’s been a couple of — it’s been a couple of months, but he has taken action. He has not just been sitting around, waiting to make a decision on this. He’s taken action on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, where we’re seeing 1 million barrels of oil per day. That is happening. The ethanol 15, which is our homegrown biofuels, which he made — took action on that. And we’re hoping to see — what we’re going to see is, you know, a few thousand gas stations in the — in middle America, across the country. Hopefully, that has — has an impact on that as well. And the 240 million barrels of oil that he rallied his partners across the globe to do. So, those are actions that he’s taken. And so, this is just another solution. I want to make sure that we’re not looking at gas tax as the only solution. It is one of an array of actions that the President is doing. Q I totally understand that. But — but, again, why is it just happening now? And secondly, what was the threshold for him where he said, “I want to push for this now”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, he spoke to this. He said he’s going to look at the data, he’s going to talk to his economic team. He did that. The — the thing about this is: He took actions, as I mentioned, and when — with the gas tax — holiday gas tax — the way that he sees it is it’s a direct, straightforward way to deal with — to deal with something that the American public is — is really not feeling any relief right now at the pump. And we’re also in the season — we’re in the summer season, as well, where a lot of people are traveling. And so, these next three months are critical for many families, American families. So, the timing is — also makes sense as well, when you think about where we are with — with families traveling in the next three months during the summer time. Go ahead. Q A quick follow-up to that, and then something else. What — you keep referencing the data that the President wanted to look at. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q What, specifically, data did he look at that that got him to a “yes”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think he talks to his econom- — his economic team. Right? They present him with information that he needs with any other decision that he makes that — that deals with a — with a decision like this — you know, a decision that he has to make that’s going to really have a direct effect. I mean, this happens with any decision that he makes. But, look, here’s the thing. The most important thing here is: The way that this President sees this — on top of all of the actions that he’s already taken, which I just listed out — he sees this as straightforward. He sees this as simple. He sees this as something that can have a direct effect on — on the pocketbooks of many Americans across the country. This is one of the ways that he feels that we can have an effect — a real effect. And this is something that the American public wants to see, right? This is something that they’ve been asking for — how — in ways that we can lower the cost at the pump. Q Is the administration still considering gas rebate cards for Americans also? And how much would be on those cards? And is the chip shortage complicating that decision? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any more on that to share besides, you know, the gas tax holiday. Look, the President is looking at many options. I just don’t have any more on the gas card holiday. Go ahead. Q Thank you. I have two foreign policy questions. First, on Afghanistan: The White House released a statement saying that the President will assist options of helping the Afghani people after the earthquake, whether it’s via USAID or federal government partners. Can you tell us what kind of help the United States will offer? And second, how can you make sure that this help will not fall into Taliban hands? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: They’re all good questions. Let me just say the United States is deeply saddened to see the devastating earthquake that prim- — premilinary [sic] reports indicate — preliminary reports indicate took the lives of at least 1,000 people in Afghanistan. President Biden is monitoring developments as — and as — has directed USAID and other federal government partners to assess U.S. response options to help those most affected. The United States is the single-largest donor of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and our humanitarian partners are already delivering medi- — medical care and shelter supplies on the ground. We are committed to continuing our support for the needs of the Afghan people as we stand with them during and in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. Again, I just wanted to give a little bit of what we have committed: more than $720 million since August 2021, directly to humanitarian partners. So, this aid does — does not go to the Taliban. The aid goes directly to the Afghan people via — via humanitarian partners on the ground. Q And another question on Russia. The Russian government spokeswoman said that the United States is destroying — what she called destroying bilateral relationship that already are in lamented state. And she’s accusing the U.S. of not allowing Russian planes to pick up Russian diplomats and their families from here, and insinuating that they might do the same. So, how do you assess her response? Is it — do you think that actually the Russians have thought of the United States relations at — now at stake? Do you think that diplomatic relationships are in jeopardy? Or is it just the usual statement (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re talking about the bilateral relationship with the U.S. and Russia? Q Correct. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we have to be very clear here what we’re seeing currently. This is — Russia invaded a sovereign country. They — they started this war. We’ve been talking about the gas tax. We’ve been talking about inflation, just in general — global inflation and the challenges. A lot of that, when you look at gas and you look at food, that’s because of Russia’s war. You know, this is something that if — if President Putin wanted to stop this and wanted to end this war, he could. You know, and — and to go — he attacks — he attacked another country’s democracy. So the President has been very clear: He is going to make sure that we defend democracies, that we defend freedoms. And he rallied — helped to rally the West — the West and NATO to make sure that it was a forceful response to what Russia is doing. And so, you know, this is — the question that — that the spokesperson is asking or the statement that she’s making, it really goes back to them. What are they doing for their bilateral relationship? This is something that the Pres- — President Putin has caused, not us. Go ahead, Jenny. Q Hey, thanks, Karine. Two quick ones; one on insulin. Senators Shaheen and Collins introduced a bill today. I’m wondering if you’re involved in that, supporting it? Or are you negotiating something separate on reducing the price of insulin, which the President talks about a lot, with Manchin and Senator Schumer as part of a broader reconciliation package? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on that particular piece of legislation, I would just have to go back to the Office — our Office of Leg Affairs to get more information to provide to you. So I just want to make sure I get that right. As you stated, the President has talked about insulin, the importance of bringing down the price and cost for families. We’ve had — he’s had several events where he has talked about those — that specifically. Right now, we have to — probably after this, I’ll go and check with them and get specifics on that piece of legislation for you. Q And then one more on your favorite topic: the China tariffs, which just seems to have become, like, a stale debate inside the White House because it’s — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Stale debate? (Laughs.) Q Well, you know, I think there’s two sides. And one argues that it helps inflation, and one argues that it doesn’t. Can you give us any sense of, like, where the President is coming down on this? Because you guys are deliberating your decisions for a long time. And, you know, if it does help inflation, if he does support that view, then why not just do it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, no decision has been made, as you just stated. They’ve been discussed — he’s been discussing — the President has been discussing this with his team. I — we just don’t have anything to share at this time. Q No timing? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No timeline. A decision hasn’t been made. It’s being discussed with the team. Go ahead, Zolan. Q Thank you. I had a question again about Afghanistan, but on the humanitarian parole program. CBS had some reporting a couple of days ago that showed that for those Afghans that are applying for parole remotely from still Afghanistan, that 90 percent had been denied — 90 percent of some 5,000 applicants at this point. Is — in the White House’s view, is that — that program, which President Biden pointed to as really the main relief program for those that aided military officials — is that, that program, working as it should be? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we are aware of the report. We are reviewing it at this time. So we’re not yet public- — we’re not ready to speak about it publicly. But I do want to give a little perspective as you’re asking about how this works. So the report outlines our efforts under the humanitarian parole process, which is separate and distinct from the refugee process, as you — as you know, Zolan; I know you’ve followed this closely. Humanitarian parole has strict — strict criteria that requires applicants’ protection needs to be so urgent that they are unable to wait a while — an application — to receive protection via U.S. refugee admissions and process — in process. The refugee process is typically how such applicants relocate to the United States. So that’s one piece. But also, it requires applicants to leave Afghanistan before completing the mandatory screening and vetting. The vast majority of Afghans applying are still in Afghanistan. So that’s kind of the confusion there. So, we are proud to have welcomed nearly 80,000 Afghans to this country through the Operation Allies Welcome, which is an unprecedented historic effort, and many — and more than any other nation. We continue to welcome additional Afghan allies and vulnerable Afghans and will do so over the coming weeks and months. The State Department is also actively assisting eligible individuals to leave Afghanistan. In fact, we recently set up a processing hub in Qatar to process eligible Afghans for special immigrant or refugee status. But we’re going to review the report. I can’t speak to that right now. But I just wanted to make sure we gave you a — laid it out. Q The report — as in, what was in CBS, that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, we’re reviewing. We’re reviewing it. Q Okay, because that was — that was based off data released by USCIS as well. It was not leaked or — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I’m just telling you that we’re reviewing it, and then we’ll — we’ll get back to you on that. Q One more refugee question, too. The administration committed to admitting 100,000 Ukrainian refugees. There were USCIS officials that recently released data that showed the U.S. admitting Ukrainian — not just refugees, but also asylum seekers at the border. My question is: Does that 100,000 — commitment for 100,000 include those who crossed the border? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me get information for you on that. I — so I can get an update on that particular program. And we can get some breakdown and get back to you on that piece. Q A follow-up? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Hold on. Let me see. Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I already called on you. Go ahead. Q (Inaudible.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Karen. Q Thanks, Karine — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I can’t call on you and not call on them. (Laughter.) Q Got to try. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I feel like it’s a classroom. Go ahead. Q Two questions on COVID. First, if you could just give us a status of where things stand with talks with Congress on funding and what the administration’s planning is right now for funding for testing in the fall after the funds are diverted from that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know — as you know, the virus has not been waiting for Congress to act. And we have been clear that a lack of funding would force us to make hard decisions, including last week, by having to pull funds from essential response needs, like testing capacity for some of our urgent needs for vaccines. When we notified Congress of pulling funds early in June, we made clear to Congress the continued need for additional funding, the consequences we have long warned of real — are real. Our fight for COVID funding is active and regular and robust because COVID, as we all know, is not over and we risk even more severe and lethal consequences for American people if we do not secure this funding, even if members of Congress may think otherwise. And so, that was your — the first part of your question. And what was the second part of your question? Q The second part was, last week, during a hearing, one of the Senate Republicans who has been supportive of approving the funding request, Mitt Romney, was expressing frustration at the request now after that funding had been diverted. He had said, “…for the administration to say they could not purchase these things and then, after several months, divert some funds and then purchase them is unacceptable and makes our ability to work together and have confidence in what we’re being told very much shaken to the core.” I mean, is this process now sort of spoiled because of the way the administration had done that with that funding? Is there any prospects for this funding to actually get through Congress now? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, just to respond to what — what Mitt Romney said: Look, we’ve — if you go back to January, we’ve been working with members of Congress, whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican, on funding needs for the COVID response. We have been very active in doing that since then. We’ve hosted countless briefings, conference calls, shared more than a dozen funding tables all in a bipartisan basis. And these engagements, it’s — has had full of count of every dollar that has been spent and allocated on the COVID medical response and a full accounting of the entire American Rescue Plan, which goes well beyond the direct medical needs. So we have been above and beyond. We have been transparent. We have broken down how we have been spending this — the funds. We’ve been doing this for several months. And so, the bottom line is: Every day that Congress fails to act puts further beh- — puts us further behind on us — on — behind other countries in securing that COVID response funding and the resources that we need. And so, again, we have been transparent. We have laid things out. We have — we have had a 385-page document that I know Jen shared — had came out and shared it with all of you. And so, this is incredibly important. We need Congress to act. We need Congress to move, and we need Congress to act. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Lawmakers serving on the January 6th Committee are getting security details. We’ve had Supreme Court Justices get threats. Is President Biden going to do anything to address these growing threats of violence against public figures? And have there been any security changes here at the White House, given that we’re seeing threats on the rise? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can’t speak to any security changes — changes here. You guys are here every day, so you see for yourselves. Look, the President has — you know, has spoken against the violence that we have seen, that — and the threats, the intimidation that we have seen against Supreme Court Justices. He has been very clear: It is inappropriate. It’s not — it is not — it is not part of our — it should not be part of our political discourse. And he has condemned that from — you know, from — from him — from himself. And also, he just recently signed the security funding that’s going to be for the Supreme Court justice. He signed that this past Thursday. Q Karine, on the Juul news, could you — a follow-up. Do you trust the Juul news — that it’s going to be banned by the FDA? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that one more time. Q I’m sorry. There are reports today that the FDA is preparing to ban Juul — which is an extremely popular e-cigarette that’s used by millions of people, primarily young adults — to stop smoking cancer-causing combustible cigarettes. Is that true? And if so, is the President involved in that decision making? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would refer you to the FDA. I don’t have anything for you on that at this time. Go ahead. Q Two questions — one foreign, one domestic. I’ll just follow up on the violence we’re talking about. As we get closer to the Supreme Court decision on Roe, there’s a group that has been distributing flyers around Washington, D.C., but also across the country and also online, called “Jane’s Revenge” that declares there will be a night of rage — looting, burning, rioting — if Roe is overturned. What message does this White House have in advance of that ruling as we get closer to it? And — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, fi- — violence and destruction of property have no place in our country under any circumstance, and the President denounces this action. Actions like this are completely unacceptable, regardless of our — of our politics. So we have denounced that, and we will continue to denounce any violence or threats. Q And the foreign question: With respect to the President’s trip to Israel, he is potentially scheduled to meet virtually with the Indian leader, Modi. Does the White House have any comment on the Indian authorities demolishing the homes of people who have been protesting the derogatory comments made by Indian authorities against the Prophet Muhammad? They’ve been having their homes destroyed by bulldozers in recent weeks. Is there any chance that the President will be pressing the Indian leader to protect Muslim minorities in India? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t want to get ahead of what the — the President’s schedule. We will have more in the upcoming days on exactly what the President is going to be doing on that trip. I don’t want to speak to — clearly, the President — we have said this — he’s a straight shooter. He has no problem talking to leaders about humanitarian rights, about freedoms, about the importance of democracy. This is something that the President has done in the past. I can’t speak to, specifically, what’s going to be on the agenda and what their conversation is going to be. Q But, generally, just the fact that people’s homes are being demolished right now. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — I understand that. I’m just saying the President has no — he is a straight shooter and speaks — and speaks very frankly. And when it comes to humanitarian rights, has no problem having those direct conversations — leader-leader conversations. Q A follow-up? Q Follow-up? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to go to — go ahead, Niels. Niels. Q Yes. Thank — thank you. Has there been — as we’re looking at the student loan piece, that there was a number of senators and House members with — over at the AFL-CIO this morning, led by Chuck Schumer, who were renewing their push for the President to cancel student debt. I know that there needs to be a decision on that by the end of August. What is the status of that decision? And what is the status of — specifically, of the legal review that we know has been underway in terms of what exactly the President’s authorities may be? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the administ- — we’re still continuing — the President, the administration — to assess options of cancellation. We have not made a decision yet. As the President said just recently, I think on Sunday, he expects to make a decision on that soon. I do want to add: No one — no one has been required to pay a single dime of student loans since the President took office, which is 41 million borrowers; provided $20 billion in targeted debt relief to 1.3 million borrowers. We just don’t have a decision that’s been made, and he actually spoke to this most recently. Q And more broadly, on questions where there are these sort of legal questions about what the executive authority is versus when you need to go to Congress on the gas tax: Obviously, I think there’s a general assessment, but to suspend a tax, you need Congress involved. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q But sort of how much is going on here behind the scenes to try and review options for when you need to go look to Congress for something versus something that can be done at the executive level to help bring down costs and deal with inflation and help people with their pocketbooks? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, when it comes to the gas tax holiday, the way that the President sees this: It’s a simple, straightforward way to do deal with an issue that’s really hurting families at the gas pump. If you look at the next three months — where it is going to be a very busy three months of families going on vacation, driving, maybe across the country, whatever families do — it is important that we really have a — really have an action and have a reaction to what families are feeling. And so this is the way that the President — when he made the decision, he understood it’s a simple, straightforward way. It is 18 cents at the federal level. It is — average out 30 cents in states. If you — if oil refineries and companies do their part, that’s almost a dollar per gallon. So this is — this is real for many people. This is very real for everyday Americans and incredibly important. So the way that the President sees this: He wants to make sure that we do something that the American people are going to feel directly. I think I’m being given — given the — I’ll take one more. Q In the back? Q A follow on India, please. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: One more. Okay. Oh, my. Go ahead, sir. Q Yeah. You just mentioned that dollar that people would feel that’s real. It’s three months, though. Then what do you tell people who are all of a sudden going to be paying a dollar more in three months? Why — why build in volatility like that when people are already very anxious about this economy? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as the Secretary said, we’re going to take this step by step. We are — I think — like I said, the next three months, the next 90 days is when American families — people are going to be driving the most. And so this is an important — we saw this as an important time to do this now, or in this timeframe. And so we’re going to — you know, the President feels that this is going to have a direct effect. We’ll — we’ll talk more about what the next steps are. The President is not afraid to use his executive authority. We have said that. He said all — all things are on the table to make sure that we lower cost for American families. So he’s going to continue to look at other options. But again, this is not the only solution. This is not the only solution. This is one way to deal with high prices — gas prices in particular. We talked about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We talked about the ethanol 15. All of these things are important actions that the President has taken. But for now, with the gas tax holiday, we encourage — we ask Congress to act. Thanks, everybody.

During MSNBC’s Deadline: White House on Tuesday, MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson ranted about how Republicans engage in violence towards black people "on a regular basis" and to such an extreme that it makes the January 6 violence on Capitol Hill "pale in comparison." Johnson’s remarks came during his appearance on Nicolle Wallace’s show as he seethed over January 6 Committee hearing testimony from an African American poll worker named Ruby Freeman. Freeman, a Georgia poll worker who aided in the vote count for the 2020 election, told the committee she was harassed by Trump supporters after they alleged that a video seemed to show her suspiciously inserting a USB drive into vote counting hardware as she was counting votes. At the time, the video fueled more speculation of alleged voter fraud in pro-Trump circles. Johnson expressed rage over Freeman’s testimony, claiming he had never felt so angry since seeing African American Minneapolis resident George Floyd murdered on camera by police officers in 2020. "The level of rage that I and people that I know had when we saw this testimony is beyond anything I've probably experienced since George Floyd," Johnson exclaimed. He explained that he was so affected by this story personally because his grandmother used to work at the polls. "That is literally the kind of work that my grandmother used to do in Newark, New Jersey, registering people to vote, taking seniors in buses to go here & there, getting young people registered to vote." Johnson then accused Republicans of routine violence against the African American community. "The level of violence that the Republican organization engages in against black people on a regular basis should make everything that happens in this trial pale in comparison! This is what they do! This is what they do!" he exclaimed, gesticulating wildly with his hands. The pundit mentioned that he doesn’t care as much if lawmakers and politicians like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger get harassed because at least they have protection. He stated, "This is why Randy Bowman and Raffensperger-- this is why I don't care about getting threatening calls. Cause you know what happens to them? They go back to their offices, and they get security." He expressed the same sentiment for Supreme Court justices, adding, "You know what happens to people on the Supreme Court when they get threatened? They get security paid for by the Senate." Though a Senate bill to upgrade security for Supreme Court justices wasn’t passed in the House until after the attempted murder of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Still, he juxtaposed this security with the African American community’s lack of it, especially in the face of what he declared was the "white nationalist coup" that is the GOP. He claimed, "But not regular black people who are just doing their jobs, not people who have lost their name, the ability to go to the grocery store, the ability to just live their regular lives for having the audacity to stand against the white nationalist coup that masquerades as the Republican Party." Johnson expressed further anger over his prediction that Freeman and other poll workers will continue to be harassed because they testified. He concluded his rant by saying that everyone that harassed these poll workers should be in jail. "This was the most infuriating part of these hearings that I've ever seen. Every single one of these people should be in jail. And if they're not, it's an absolute abdication of responsibility by this committee, by Merrick Garland all the way up to the White House."

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. So today we have — John Kirby has joined us. And he’s going to talk — talk to us a little bit, talk to you all a little bit about the trip, give a preview of the trip, G7 and NATO — the President, as you all know, is leaving on Saturday for five days — and give a little bit of an update on the PDA, right? MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Our next security assistance to Ukraine. Okay. All yours, Kirby. MR. KIRBY: Thank you. Okay, just off the top here, I think today you saw that the United States announced another additional $450 million worth of security assistance to Ukraine as part of our commitment to help Ukraine defend its democracy in the face of unprovoked Russian aggression. This package contains weapons and equipment, including new High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, tens of thousands of additional rounds of ammunition for the artillery systems that have already been provided as well, and patrol boats to help Ukraine defend its coast and its waterways. Now, this is the 13th time that President Biden has authorized a Presidential Drawdown package during this crisis, bringing the total amount of security assistance that we provided to Ukraine to approximately $6.1 billion just since February 24th; approximately $6.8 billion since the beginning of this administration. As President Biden told President Zelenskyy when they spoke last week, the United States will continue to bolster Ukraine’s defenses and support its sovereignty and its territorial integrity. The bravery and determination of the Ukrainian armed forces, let alone their fellow citizens, continues to inspire the world. And we are committed to standing with them as they fight for their freedom. Now, this announcement comes just before the President’s trip, leaving Saturday for Europe, at a watershed moment in transatlantic solidarity in the post-Cold War era, not just for European security, but for an alignment like we’ve never seen before in how we confront some of the biggest challenges of our time. And not all of those challenges are driven by borders. Throughout the G7 Summit in Germany and NATO Summit in Spain, you’re going to see clearly how the President’s day-one focus on revitalizing alliances and partnership — partnerships has allowed us to seize this moment to benefit the American people, support Ukraine, and hold Russia accountable, all while staying focused on the other challenges that define the coming decades, and that includes the challenges posed by China. The President will be conducting in-person, face-to-face diplomacy with a diverse range of leaders and international organizations throughout this trip. He knows — he knows better than most that there’s no substitute for that kind of personal engagement. You don’t surge trust, you got to build it. In Germany, the President will meet with Chancellor Scholz, who holds the G7 presidency, to continue close coordination on the G7 agenda and the core priorities we will advance together in the coming days. Some of these priorities include new commitments to further isolate Russia from the global economy, target the Russian defense supply chain, and continue cracking down on the evasion of these unprecedented sanctions. Because of our actions, Russia is struggling to make bond payments, edging closer to default. And our measures will only tighten the screws and restrict revenue Mr. Putin needs to fund this war. You will also see new commitments on managing the impact that Putin’s war has already had on energy and food prices. All this is in keeping with the principles President Biden outlined before Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine, and that is that we will work together to ensure Ukraine can defend itself on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table as we maximize the cost of Putin and his enablers and minimize the impact of his war on the U.S. and our allies. You also see the G7 come together on some of the key challenges posed by China, as I said. And last but not least, President Biden will formally launch the Global Infrastructure Partnership that G7 leaders agreed to explore last year to offer a positive alternative to infrastructure models that sell debt traps to low- and middle-income partner countries and advance U.S. economic competitiveness on our national security. These lines of effort at the G7 will build on the work we’ve done over the past year to drive the global economic recovery and serve as a leader in imposing significant and swift costs on Russia for its war. We’ve heard for years now people talking about how the G7 was becoming a spent force. But President Biden’s leadership and this pivotal inflection point have buried that storyline. The G7 is among the most potent institutions in the world today, with like-minded democracies solving problems. Now, after the G7, the President will meet with President Sánchez and the King and Queen in Spain. Spain, as you know, is hosting the NATO Summit. At the NATO Summit, leaders will announce new force posture commitments to strengthen NATO’s defense and deterrent posture. The U.S. will announce steps to strengthen European security, alongside expected major new contributions from Allies. And for the first time, the summit will include Indo-Pacific leaders from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea, making clear that whether it’s in Europe or the Indo-Pacific region, the United States and our Allies and partners will defend the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Now, finally, the trip will also serve as a clear contrast to some early predictions that never really played out. Instead of a shaken West, for instance, we are more resolved than ever to support Ukraine and are leading that effort head on at both the G7 and the NATO Summit. Instead of distracting us from the Indo-Pacific and China, the President’s leadership with respect to supporting Ukraine has actually galvanized leaders in that region and effectively linked our efforts in Europe and in Asia. And those Asian countries that will be participating in the NATO Summit, I think, speak volumes about that fact. And on top of all that, we’ve strengthened our determination to advance a democratic vision that will define the coming decades in terms of building fair economy, shaping the rules of the road for tech, cyber, quantum, space, climate change, and a whole lot more. The President has never been more confident that this vision will win out over more autocratic and corrupt visions. And he’s looking forward to this trip to advance all those elements. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, questions. MR. KIRBY: With that, we’ll take questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Steve. Q John, NATO is expected to come out with a new strategic concept aimed at China. What is that? And why is it necessary? MR. KIRBY: The strategic concept last was written in 2010. And, my goodness, a lot has changed in the world and on the security landscape since 2010. And, certainly, a lot has changed in the Alliance’s focus. Back in 2010, you might recall, the NATO — NATO was very deeply involved in the war in Afghanistan. And again, the security landscape has changed. And it’s time now for a new strategic concept, 12 years later. And not only has the landscape changed, particularly from Mr. Putin’s war in Ukraine, but military capabilities and organizational concepts and operational concepts have changed as well. And it’s time for the Alliance to step up to those — to those new developments. I think it’s a reflection — you asked about China specifically — I think it’s a reflection of our allies’ equal concerns over the effect of Chinese economic practices, use of forced labor, intellectual theft, and coercive, aggressive behavior not just in the region, but elsewhere around the world, that they believe it’s important to factor China into the new strategic concept. It builds on — you might remember, less than a year ago, the defense ministers, for the first time in NATO, put mention of China in the communiqué. So it’s building on what has been months and months of discussions and deliberations with the Allies about the threat that China poses to international security well beyond just the Indo-Pacific region. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Phil. Q Hey, John. Thanks for doing this. The durability of the coalition or alliances that have been put into place to respond to the invasion, what’s the level of concern right now about how that can be sustained? And you mentioned food and energy prices. Are there things that the President or the U.S. will specifically put on the table to try and ease some of the issues that have been rattling elements of that? MR. KIRBY: To your second question, the answer is yes. I don’t want to get ahead of specific deliverables right now, Phil. But I think it’s fair to say that — that there will be announcements forthcoming about how to impose further cost and consequences on Russia. But again, I don’t want to get ahead of that. On your first question, I mean, my goodness, he’s going — he’s going into a NATO Summit where the Alliance has truly never been more unified. And now there’s active discussions about adding to that list of nations another two — two countries willing to seek accession in NATO. It’s just truly never been more relevant or viable. And the same goes for the G7. And the — if you just look at the scope of the things they’re going to be talking about, from climate, energy, food, food security, as well as the war in Ukraine, and the fact that there are additional countries coming to the G7 — four additional countries — there’s an awful lot — there’s an awful lot of unity to see here. You know, we — we’ve had this discussion since before the invasion: You know, can NATO stay solid? Are they going to be fractured? Because, of course, the last thing Mr. Putin wants is a strong NATO on his Western flank. And, of course, he’s gotten just that. And we haven’t seen any fractures or fissures. I mean, every country speaks for themselves, every country has concerns for what they’re willing to do or not do. But as far as the Alliance goes, it truly has never been stronger and more viable than it is today. And the President is looking forward, when he gets to Spain, to — to seeing that, to seeing that in real time. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to go to the back. Nadia. Q Thank you. John, I noticed that you have invited other countries to join, like South Africa, Argentina, Senegal, and India. MR. KIRBY: India and Indonesia. Q And Indonesia. Some of them have huge economy and others have lesser economy. What was the significance of inviting these countries? And is it an attempt from the administration to take them off from any alliance with Russia? MR. KIRBY: To splinter them off from alliances with Russia? Q It could be a potential — potentially could be. Some of them, not all. MR. KIRBY: So these — these additional countries that you mentioned, they have been invited because there’s certain agenda items at the G7 that — that will apply to them. And I’ll let them speak for their involvement in those sessions and — and the relevance to them. But — but because the agenda is so diverse and so deep, it was — it was deemed appropriate to bring them into that discussion. It is not about trying to splinter them off or coax them away from any other association or partnership that they might have with another country. That’s not the goal here. The goal is to unify around a set of common principles and initiatives that the G7 — you know, you’ll — you’ll hear more about this at the summit — but that the G7 wants to advance in terms of climate change, energy and food security. As I said, adding additional costs and consequences to Mr. Putin, further isolating Russia — all these nations have a pi- — a piece of that. And certainly in the G7, there’s — there’s unity around that sort of an agenda. Q You were talking about the effort to add two additional countries to NATO right now. There’s obviously been real challenges as it relates to Turkey with the addition of Finland and Sweden. Can you take us, as best possible, behind the scenes of the status of that, if there’s going to be a direct contact between President Biden and President Erdoğan, and how you go about shifting that? Because I know there’s unity among the members of NATO, but there’s not unity among the members of NATO about the addition of the fast track of those two countries. MR. KIRBY: Yeah. So, clearly, the potential accession here of Sweden and Finland will be on the agenda at the summit. No question about that. And, actually, there is terrific support inside the Alliance for their accession. Right now, the conversations are — are trilateral between Sweden, Finland, and Turkey. We’re confident that they’re going to be able to get there, that they’re going to be able to work out the differences that they have, and that Sweden and Finland will be able to join the Alliance. When exactly, I couldn’t tell you that. I mean, these discussions are still ongoing. But we’re confident that it’s going to lead to 32 nations in the Alliance. And we have also indicated that — that should it be desired, we’d be willing to help in those — in those conversations. But right now, it’s between those nations. And I don’t have anything in particular in terms of bilateral discussions to speak to or to announce today with respect to President Erdoğan. Q John, you mentioned food security is — food security is one of the — MR. KIRBY: Yes, sir. Q — topics. A couple days ago, you spoke to us a bit about the grain trapped in Ukraine. Is that going to be a subject of conversation at the G7? Or can you give us an update on either the bloc’s efforts or U.S. efforts specifically to get some of that grain out? MR. KIRBY: Well, I do think food security in general will be a topic at the G7. And I certainly think that with — inside the context of what’s going on in Ukraine, it absolutely will as well. Again, I don’t want to get ahead of specific announcements one way or the other. I would tell you that we are already working with Allies and partners to help try to get this grain out of the country. As I said the other day, we know it’s a perishable good and it’s an important good. And we have been able to increase the flow of some grain through the west by ground routes out of Ukraine, but it’s not sufficient, it’s not enough, given the immense amount of grain that — that’s sitting unused right now inside Ukraine. So, we know we have to find other ways to do this. And we’re willing — as I said the other day, the President is willing to keep an open mind about that. Obviously, it would certainly help if the Russians would lift what is essentially a blockade in the Black Sea and a blockade over Odessa, which they have obviously shown no — no desire to lift. But that’s a real key here. And so, you — I know you know, you’re aware that — that Turkey is talking to Russia about this. We certainly welcome Turkey’s involvement in trying to broker some sort of arrangement where that grain can tran- — can be transferred by — by sea. But I think it just remains to be seen whether that’s going to be viable. Q There were some reports out of Turkey that there might be some kind of meeting next week on this. Is there anything you can share on that? MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any details on that. I’d refer you to our Turkish counterparts and our Turkish allies on that. I — again, we welcome their efforts to try to get this to happen because it is absolutely — I mean, it’s critical. I mean, as we — Putin is weaponizing food, literally, and this is a prime example of that. Q Thank you. Q Yes, if I may ask you a question on a different topic. Is there any consideration being given to fully unfreezing Afghan reserve funds? I know that, given the devastating earthquake this week, there has been an appeal to do that. Is that something you all are considering? MR. KIRBY: What I can tell you is two things. One, we’re still working through the processes here with respect to that three and a half billion dollars that you’re referring to. That was assets frozen here in the United States. We’re working through a series of processes, including on the legal front, to see how we can get that access quicker than — than we can right now. But we want to make sure — it has to be done the right way. And so there’s a — there’s a process here that we’re working through. But we’re not waiting. That — that money is set aside, and President Biden was wise to do that, to set that money aside for use in Afghanistan for humanitarian assistance purposes. And that’s still the intent every — in every way. But there’s an urgent need now. And so the President, while we’re working on that process and we want to get it solved as quickly as possible — and there’s a lot of hoops to jump through — we’re also working very, very stridently right now through USAID and their international partners to get aid and assistance to the Afghan people now. I think the death toll is now over 1,000. We understand that, and we’re working hard to get that aid and assistance to them. And frankly, it’s already starting to show up through our international partners, through USAID’s international partners. Q Can you articulate at all, when you say that there are some loopholes to go through and that it may take some time, some of the legal challenges? Can you help us understand what — what has been some of the hang-ups? MR. KIRBY: Yeah, it’s not loopholes. There’s a — there’s a — Q I’m sorry, (inaudible). MR. KIRBY: Yeah. There’s a legal process here that has to be pursued to be able to apply that — to be able to apply that funding for that purpose. And we’re still working our way through that. And I think because we’re still working through a legal process here, it wouldn’t be wise for me to talk in too much detail here from the podium about that. Q Thank you, Karine. Thank you, John. So, earlier, you talked about the debt trap that — you know, you won’t address that issue on this trip. The Global Infrastructure Partnership, which is going to be announced on this trip, how — MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Q — is it a reboot on the Build Back Better World? And is it supposed to be an alternative to China’s One Belt and One Road Initiative? And I want to add a question on the Allies. You’re talking about the Allies have never been stronger. However, we see yesterday China is hosting a BRICS business forum, and we see India and Brazil sitting down with Xi Jinping and Putin. So, what’s the White House reaction to that? MR. KIRBY: So, let me take the second one first, because I tend to forget questions if I do them in the order you ask them. (Laughter.) Q Sorry. MR. KIRBY: No, it’s okay. It’s just age. (Laughter.) Q (Inaudible.) MR. KIRBY: Sad, but true. So, on the — on the BRICS, we’ll let those countries speak for themselves and for the meetings they’re having and the discussions and — and whatever outcomes there might be from that. They can speak for themselves. What I think is important for us to speak to today is this weekend is G7 and the NATO Summit, and multilateral efforts that President Biden is applying to revitalizing these alliances and partnerships and really — and really putting forth ideas and concrete initiatives that are going to — that are going to help — help our national security, help economic security, help food security. And so that’s what we’re focused on. Those countries can speak for themselves. And it’s obviously not the first time that they have gotten together, but I’ll let them speak for their agenda. I can only talk about ours, and I just laid that out in the opening statement. On the Global Infrastructure Partnership, I think, you know, this was something that the President unveiled at the G summit — G7 summit last year. And so, this year, what you’re going to see is him and his G7 partners really actualizing this. You’ll — I don’t want to get ahead here of announcements, but you’ll — you’ll see the G7 really putting some energy and some resources behind this going forward. And it is about — as I put in my opening statement, it is about alternatives to other models out there that — that are highly transactional and actually work to the disadvantage of lower- and middle-income countries. We think there’s — there’s better ways of doing business, there’s better ways of fostering economic development and infrastructure than some of the models out there. And we believe that this is one of them, and we’re excited to get it started. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Next. Nancy? Q (Inaudible) my question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, okay. Go ahead. Q Thank you. I had a question about NATO and Sahel, because you mentioned Russia, China, but I understand Spain and also France pushed, like, for, you know, the summit to also address threats originating on the southern front — MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Q — like jihadism, and, you know, non-military threats linked to climate change, food and security, migration, et cetera. So, will this part be part of the discussions as well? MR. KIRBY: Look, in general, the security situation on the southern flank of NATO is almost always on the agenda. And we recognize the challenges and the threats that continue to affect security of our NATO Allies on that southern flank. You know, there’s a lot of focus right now on the eastern flank, as it should be. But there remains a continued effort to make sure we’re also paying attention to the southern flank. So, I think, in general, it will come up. I won’t get into details about the Sahel specifically. And that’s really a better question left to — to those countries in the Alliance to speak to. But just in general speaking, security along the southern flank remains key. Q John, how much longer does the White House believe the war in Ukraine will last? How much longer would you say that the White House believes the war in Ukraine will last — weeks, months, or years? MR. KIRBY: I don’t think anybody can know for sure, sir. We’ve said when Mr. Putin decided that he was going to focus on the Donbas region, which is a more confined geographic space, that it could be a prolonged fight. And that was — what? — a couple of months ago. And we’re starting to see that now play out. This is an area of Ukraine that both armies know well. They’ve been fighting over it since 2014. And it’s largely a gunfight. It’s largely about artillery. And what you’re seeing now is movement in almost block by block, street by street. I mean, much smaller movement of smaller-sized units and smaller progress. The Russian progress has been incremental at best, and they have been thwarted at almost every turn. The Ukrainians continue to fight hard for this. So, I think if anybody told you they could predict how long this was going to go, they’d be fooling you. Q Let me follow up on that. The longer it drags on, does that increase the risk U.S. soldiers could be pulled into a hot war with Russia the longer it goes by? MR. KIRBY: The President has been crystal clear that there’s not going to be U.S. troops fighting in Ukraine. What we are going to do is continue to help Ukraine defend itself. And that’s why we just announced yet another package — $450 million today — to help that — to help that be the case. Q But what about Russia condemning Israel? Russia has been threatening Israel for helping Ukraine and also for Israel’s bombing of the Damascus, Syria, airport. Any response to Israel that’s being threatened by Russia? MR. KIRBY: I think our response would be the same as it has been now for the last several months. I mean, obviously, Russia is feeling the pressure — the pressure of being isolated, the pressure of having a military on the ground that clearly has not performed as advertised. I mean, they still haven’t solved their command-and-control problems, their logistical problems, their unit cohesion problems, their joint fires integration problems. And so they tend to lash out at countries that are providing support to Ukraine. We’re grateful for the support that Israel has been — has been providing, as well as so many other nations. More than 50 have signed up to provide some measure of security assistance to Ukraine. And that shows you that this is not just a Europe problem. It’s nations around the world that are stepping up to hear — to defend Ukraine. Q Regarding G7 and concrete initiatives, does the administration support Germany’s proposal for G7 countries to set specific minimum standards for each country to cut fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change — a “climate club” idea? MR. KIRBY: Again, I don’t want to get ahead of specifics here on the discussion. Obviously, climate change and cutting emissions is a key component of President Biden’s agenda here. I mean, he just met today with — with executives for offshore wind capabilities. I mean, that’s a key — that’s a key focus of our agenda on climate. But I don’t have anything specific with respect to this proposal and to what degree, you know, it’s going to be — Q Do you expect this to be part of the bilateral with Scholz? MR. KIRBY: I think there’ll be a whole range of issues that he’ll be talking about with the — with Chancellor Scholz. And I have no doubt that climate change will be — will be on that. Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jane, and then the woman behind you. MR. KIRBY: Janny (ph), how you doing? Q Good to see you. MR. KIRBY: Been a long time. Q Yeah, thank you. MR. KIRBY: I know what’s coming. (Laughter.) Q Yes, I (inaudible). I have two questions for you, on NATO Summit and Korea. Do you have any plans to hold a trilateral summit between U.S. and South Korea and Japan at the NATO Summit? MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any additional meetings to talk about today, outside of the agenda of the G7 Summit. So I don’t have anything to announce with respect to a trilateral meeting. I think you know, and we’ve talked about this many times, that President Biden is keen to see greater trilateral cooperation between us and our two allies. In fact, he just was — just visited there not long ago, in Japan and South Korea. We also are keen to see increased bilateral cooperation between Japan and South Korea. And that’s happening. So he’s very much looking forward to seeing them. Q Yeah, second question. China opposes South Korea’s participation in the NATO Summit. Do you think if South Korea operating defensively within NATO, it will sufficiently contain China and Russia? MR. KIRBY: So a couple of thoughts there. China doesn’t get a veto on what meetings the South Koreans attend and associate themselves with. And this isn’t about an Asian version of NATO. NATO is a transatlantic security alliance, the most effective, the most viable one in the world, the most successful one in the world. And we’re excited that the South Koreans are going to be there to talk about this. And as I said — to be part of the agenda there. And as I said at the outset, it’s an indication of the linkage of global security between Europe and the Indo-Pacific. It’s — it’s not one or the other anymore. It’s not binary. The same kinds of assaults on territorial integrity and sovereignty that we’re seeing in Europe can happen in the Indo-Pacific. And, of course, our South Korean allies know that better than most. So we think it’s significant that they’re going to be there. We’re excited to have them there. But this isn’t about — this isn’t about creating some like version of NATO in the Pacific. Q Thanks. You just noted that the U.S. intends to continue, obviously, supporting Ukraine, but I’m wondering if — how much the administration is weighing its aid to Ukraine in terms of the economic hardships here at home, and if there’s a point at which the U.S. will curb its support for Ukraine down the line. MR. KIRBY: Can you repeat the first part? How much what? Q How much the administration is weighing its aid to Ukraine with the economic hardships that Americans are seeing here at home. MR. KIRBY: That’s a — that’s a great question. So, you know, we just got an additional supplemental from Congress for $40 billion. Not all of that is designed for security assistance; a lot of it is for humanitarian assistance as well. And it was passed on a bipartisan basis. It’s clear that members of Congress from both parties believe strongly that we have to continue to support Ukraine, and so we’re going to do that. And will we need to go back for additional funding? We just don’t know right now. I mean, war is, by nature, unpredictable. And so President Biden has made it clear we’re going to continue to support Ukraine as much as we can, as fast as we can. And we’re doing that. And we’ll see where this goes going forward. But obviously, the President is not insensitive to the — to the pressures, particularly in gas and food prices, that the American people are facing. And you have to balance that, and he’s trying to strike that balance. He said, and — I mean, he has said this since he said it — but when he made clear that we were going to support Ukraine in this fight, literally, for their lives, let alone their democracy, that there were going to be costs incurred by that. And we’re starting to see — we are seeing that — that happen right now. The President was nothing but honest with the American people about that. Q Mr. Kirby, does the President support — MR. JEAN-PIERRE: The gentleman in the blue. The gentleman in the blue. Q Mr. Kirby, does the President — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ll get — we’ll get to you, Simon. Simon, right after the gentleman in the blue. Right behind her. Q Thank you. MR. KIRBY: They’re all in blue. (Laughs.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, this guy has, like, a light blue, aqua thing going on. MR. KIRBY: Okay, I got you. Q That’s how we’re deciding, by the way, is fashion? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Not fashion. Just pointing him out. Q If it’s okay, I want to go off topic just for a second and ask you about a letter that’s been — MR. KIRBY: Oh, great. Q — a letter that’s been sent by Democratic senators to the President regarding the Shireen Abu Akleh killing, asking for a full U.S. investigation. I’m wondering if the NSC has seen this. Do you have a reaction? And do you support or agree with their assessment that the Israelis can’t be trusted to conduct their own investigation? MR. KIRBY: I don’t know if the — I don’t know the status of the letter here at the White House, sir. So you’re going to have to let us take that question and get back to you. I’m not aware. But I can tell you that we’ve been nothing but consistent that this death needs to be fully and transparently, thoroughly investigated. And that’s our expectation. We’ve made that very, very clear to all parties. And we’re going to continue to — continue to — Q Is there any discussion about an independent U.S. investigation (inaudible)? MR. KIRBY: I know of no discussion about an additional independent U.S. investigation. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Simon, go ahead. Q Okay. On the Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act that has been debated or prepared in the Senate to actually compel African nation to choose between Russia and the U.S., does the President support it? And is he concerned that by trying to almost compel African nations to choose between working with Russia and working with the U.S., he’s really making it difficult for those nations, especially because African nations have had really good relationships with the U.S. and good relationship with Russia at the same time? MR. KIRBY: Look, every nation has to make a sovereign decision for itself, but — who it’s going to associate with. Q But I’m talking about the act. The act says they will identify Africans who continue to work with Russia; it will identify government and sanction government that continue to work with Russia. So, I’m asking you, does the President support that act (inaudible)? MR. KIRBY: I don’t — I don’t — I’d have to get back to you on that. I don’t know if we’ve taken a position on this pending legislation. We understand that there are a range of security challenges in Africa. And those challenges aren’t getting any easier or any better by the involvement of nations like China and Russia on the continent. Every nation there has to make their own decisions about who they’re going to associate with. Look, one of the things that — back to the G7 — that this partnership for infrastructure — the Global Partnership for Infrastructure that the — that the President is looking forward to actualizing will do is help economic development and infrastructure in places like that, that empower these nations to improve them — to improve their own situations and that of their citizens. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Last question. Go ahead, Niels. Q Thank you. When — since we’ve been here, there’s been some reporting that the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday, when they were marking up the intelligence authorization, included a provision from Senator Wyden seeking to end the practice of denying security clearances based on past marijuana or cannabis use. I don’t know if the administration has seen that yet or if you have a — if there’s a position on that. MR. KIRBY: You’re going to have to let me take that question, sir. I don’t have any for you on that. James, why don’t you go ahead. Q Thanks very much. I appreciate it. I wanted to ask two questions about Russia/Ukraine. First, I wonder if you could address a disparity that has exhibited itself in the President’s conduct and rhetoric over the course of the Russia-Ukraine crisis: At certain times, he opts to withhold certain lethal forms of assistance from the Ukrainian armed forces. And he says that he does this because to provide those forms of assistance would be to risk initiating World War Three. At other times he opts to provide more lethal forms of assistance and even boasts publicly, as has the Secretary of Defense and others, that it is this very U.S. aid that is helping the brave and skillful Ukrainian armed forces to inflict casualties on the Russians and to destroy their hardware. So, my first question is: I wonder if you could address for us the President’s decision-making surrounding these steps up what you all have called the “escalatory ladder.” MR. KIRBY: So, a couple of thoughts there. The one escalating here is Mr. Putin, James. He’s the one who decided on the 24th of February that he was going to invade a sovereign, independent nation next door. He’s the one who flowed in more than 100,000 troops and thousands of tanks, aircraft; has launched literally thousands of missiles into Ukraine. That’s the escalation. And I think, quite frankly, I would, with all respect, take issue with the premise of the question — that we have been sort of not consistent in the kind of aid and assistance that we’ve been providing to Ukraine. We are working with Ukraine in lockstep every day about what their capabilities — gaps are, what they need for the fight. And the reason, James, that we do it in parcels like this is so that we can keep it relevant to what’s going on on the battlefield. And so you remember, in the opening weeks, everybody wanted to talk about Stingers and Javelins. And you know why? Because Stingers and Javelins were relevant to the fight at the time when Mr. Putin was advancing on Ukraine along three major geographic axes — north, south, and from the east. He has now constrained and limited himself to the Donbas, to a flat, more rural environment that is very reliant on artillery. And so, we started flowing in howitzers. The other thing that we started to do was to train on some of these systems. In the early goings, we were focused on systems that we knew the Ukrainians could use quickly because they’d already been trained on it, because they grew up with these systems. And so that’s why we’re working so hard with other countries to provide long-range air defense systems like the S-300, because that’s what they’re used to using. So as the war has changed and evolved, which war does, their needs have changed and evolved, and our contributions have changed and evolved too. Q And my follow-up, if I may. A few weeks into the conflict, the administration declassified and disclosed fresh intelligence — passed to us through a number of administration spokespeople, including yourself — suggesting that President Putin was receiving sanitized and inaccurate reporting from his own team about the status of the Russian war effort in Ukraine. Is that still your assessment? Or is it the assessment of the United States that somewhere along the line — and if you can tell us when, that would be helpful — President Putin rectified this problem? And do you believe that he has for some time now been receiving accurate reporting from his own team about the status of the war effort? MR. KIRBY: We — we did provide some context about the intelligence reporting, which was relevant and true at the time. I don’t have additional intelligence or context on intelligence to provide today. So, I can’t tell you definitively exactly what briefings and reports Mr. Putin is getting and how accurate they are or inaccurate, or, frankly, how that information changes his decision-making calculus. It is clear to us, just in the main, that he very much is in charge of this war; that he very much is making the decisions; that he very much is responsible for the activities, the actions, the atrocities that his troops are conducting on the battlefield. Q Thank you. MR. KIRBY: Thanks, everybody. I got to go. Karine is going to — Q What about Israel, Africa — MR. KIRBY: — Karine is going to kick me out. I got to go. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) We’ll never kick you out. Don’t forget — MR. KIRBY: (Inaudible) my old-man glasses. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — your glasses. MR. KIRBY: All right. Thanks, everybody. Q Thanks, John. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Thanks, John. I just have one thing for all of you. This morning, the number of Americans on insuredunemployment hit the lowest level since 1970 — lower than any year of the presidencies of Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, or Trump. Today’s weekly UI data is consistent with a job market where unemployment is low and people can seamlessly find jobs. That’s not [at] all what a recession labor market looks like. We brought unemployment below 4 percent, four years faster than forecasters thought was possible before we passed the American Rescue Plan. We have added an average more — on average more than 400,000 jobs per month in recent months. And as we make a transition to steady and stable growth over the course of the next year, even something closer to the range of 150,000 jobs per month would be consistent with an unemployment rate as low at is — at it is now and a sign of a healthy economic transition. With that, Aamer, you want to kick us off? Q Why yes. Thank you. On the Supreme Court decision today on New York’s concealed carry law, is the administration concerned that — and this comes, you know, on the cusp of major legislation here in Washington. But I was wondering if — is the administration concerned that for whatever efforts you might make on gun legislation — we’re now in an era of a conservative high court that’s going to probably be conservative-leaning for a while that is oriented towards gun owner rights. Are we now in a period where, for whatever the President may try, that gun owner rights are just going to be expanding? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me just say that we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling today. The Second Amendment, as you’ve heard the President say, is not absolute and permits commonsense gun regulation. The Justice Department defended New York’s concealed carry law, which had been in place since 1911 and imposed only a modest burden on most gun owners. The law applied only to hand guns and public places and contained an exception for people who could establish an actual articulable need for self-defense. Despite the setbacks, the President earlier urged states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer for gun violence. As it relates to what’s happening in Congress right now, we think that’s separate and apart, clearly. That is a bipartisan effort. The President is encouraged by what he is seeing. The cloture vote happened today, so it’s moving along in the right direction. Look, when the President went to Uvalde, when he went to Buffalo with the First Lady, those are trips that he does not want to do again. The President understands. He’s had a long career in doing gun reform, in ending gun violence, since he was a senator. We have not seen this type of — bipartisan type of coming together to push this legislation in decades, so we are definitely encouraged by what we’re seeing. And the President wants them to move quickly so it could get to his desk and he can sign that. Q And if I could ask just one more. Secretary Granholm met with oil executives today. I guess, has peace between the administration and the oil executives broke out? And more importantly, have some concrete ideas come out of this meeting? And finally, just why did the President — he stopped by the wind executive meeting we were just in. Why didn’t he spend some time with the oil executives as well? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me take your — let me take your first question. And I have a bit of a readout for you here on the meeting. So, at — at President Biden’s direction, Energy Secretary Granholm, who was in front of you all yesterday, met with the CEOs and executives of the seven major U.S. oil companies this morning at the Department of Energy headquarters in Washington, D.C. The meeting was a productive dialogue focused on creating an opportunity for industry to work with government to help deliver needed relief to American consumers. The Secretary highlighted the fact that the U.S. has achieved record oil production under the Biden administration and that President Biden is taking historic actions — actions to add to that supply. So, the Secretary made clear that the administration believes it’s imperative that companies increase supply of gas, and she reiterated that the President is prepared to act quickly and decisively using the tools available to him, as appropriate, on sensible recommendations as well. So, this is an ongoing dialogue. I think you’ve heard — and some of you may have heard from the oil companies themselves saying it was productive. And so what — what Secretary Granholm has called on is for her team to continue having conversations with the oil companies. As it relates to your second question — as to your second question: Look, the President — it was a stop-by. This is something that he does very often. It was — there were governors in that meeting who were virtual and in person. So we see this as a — part of his schedule where there was actually a meeting here at the White House. Go ahead. Q Just to follow on that, you’ve described this as, you know, a productive dialogue, they’re going to continue to have ongoing conversations. But should we take that to mean that there were no, sort of, concrete steps taken? I mean, yesterday you said that the hope was that some solutions — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — would come of this. Where they able to identify and agree on any solutions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I think what we — what I was saying and Secretary Granholm was — was conveying as well: This is a first step, with — with a continued dialo- — dialogue. Clearly, we want to come to solutions. And I think that’s going to — there’s going to be multiple other steps to get there. Look, the President asked Secretary Granholm to do this so that we — that ideas can come forward and, hopefully, we can get to a solution. We want oil company to get to a higher capacity. That’s what we’re asking for, so that we can bring down gas prices, as you know, as we have been saying. So they’re going to continue to have dialogue. And hopefully we get to a point where there is a solution and we can figure this out together. Q And on the Supreme Court, as we await a decision on Roe, you know, you said that the administration is, you know, looking into options for executive action. I understand you’re not ready to detail what those might be, but does the administration have executive actions that are ready to go that we could expect to see if and when a decision is announced? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I appreciate the question, and it’s an important question, because this decision that we are all anticipating coming forth is — is going to be — it’s going to change so many lives, so many people’s lives, take away women’s rights. So we — we understand the question. We are just still trying to figure — go through in having that discussion to see what our options are before we move forward. We don’t want to get ahead of the President, clearly. But if — you know, and I’ve said this before — if indeed there is a — the Supreme Court, in the decision, the Dobbs decision, is — overturns Roe, we will ask Congress to restore Roe. Q And just to be clear, will the President accept this decision as legitimate, even if he disagrees with it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It — well, it’s going come from the Supreme Court, so it’s going to be a decision that we’re certainly going to respond to. So I’ll leave it at that. I mean, it’s just like any other Supreme Court decision, just like the one that they did today on guns. So as we know, the — the draft was leaked, so we can’t really — you know, we don’t want to speak to that too much until there’s an actual decision, which we know is — is supposed to be coming. So we’re all, just like you, waiting to see when that happens. But in the meantime, we’re doing our due diligence to be prepared. I just don’t have anything for you at this time. Q Thanks. Back to the gas tax, since I see you have a — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh! Q — a graphic up there on the screen. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. Oh, my gosh. I have a graphic. Q Was the President surprised or disappointed by the lukewarm reaction that his gas tax holiday proposal got on Capitol Hill? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I just want to step back for a second, because this is very important. So the President wanted to be sure and wanted to find a way to simply and straightforward — find a straightforward way to give consumers relief at the gas pump. The next three months — this is a three-months, 90-day suspension on the gas tax — a gas tax holiday, as we — as we all know it’s called. And it’s an important time during — during when people are driving a lot around the country, you know, visiting their families, going on vacation. And so, you know, it is important to — to give people a little bit of relief. If you think about it on the federal level, that’s 18 cents. He also called on states — we’ve seen some states — this is one of the states here, Maryland — do the same and average — and average — the average amount in states is about 30 cents. So already you’re at 48 cents right there, almost 50 cents. That matters for people. That matters for people, like teachers, like healthcare aides, like — like construction workers, like plumbers, who — who spend a lot of time driving from one place to another as part of their jobs. That’s going to make a difference. And if the oil refineries do their part, we’re looking at a dollar being taken off per gallon. So that — that matters. And we know it works. We know the policy works. I mentioned Maryland up here. Connecticut has done the same. Georgia has done the same, suspended their gas tax — and most of their tax relief was passed to consumers. And as you see from this chart here, you see when it was — here’s where it was when it was enacted, and then it dropped. And then when it end, it went back up. So it did make a difference. So — so, the President is calling on other states to take similar measures and for Congress to suspend the national gas tax on [and] oil companies to pass that relief on to consumers. Q But Maryland is now actually getting ready to increase its gas tax next month, I guess to make up for some of the revenue that it lost when it imposed this gas tax holiday. And given the level of ambivalence or opposition on Capitol Hill, how hard is the President willing to fight to try to convince Congress to change its mind? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This is important to the President, which is why he asked Congress to take this on. This is a — the way that we see it is a simple, fast way to give American families, the American public a little relief for 90 days. As you know, there are — there are plenty of legislation that’s on the Hill right now that talks about cutting — cutting taxes. This is one of them. This is something that’s simple, that’s easy, that’s 90 days during a critical period for the American public. Q So he’s going to keep fighting for it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s going to keep — he’s going to keep fighting for it. We think it’s a simple thing to do. And he’s going to keep fighting for it. Q So, I wanted to go a little bit deeper on the trip or the ramifications of it. The President heads overseas at sort of a thorny time for his domestic agenda. You know, the gas tax holiday. There could be the first movement on gun reform in a generation. We’re all awaiting the Supreme Court decision. Is there any concern about his ability to shepherd his domestic agenda from 4,000 miles away? Is there anything different being done, given how many, you know, balls are in the air at the same time? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we believe that a president could do his job anyplace, anywhere, at any time. So that is not a concern for us. Clearly, yes, to your point, Cleve, there is a lot going on in the world. But that is what is expected of a president. There is always multiple issues, sometimes multiple crises that a president has to deal with. But it doesn’t stop them for — from doing the work that they need to do. The — what he’s doing abroad, as you heard from my colleague, is critical, is important — that leader-to-leader engagement, talking to our NATO Allies, being there at the G7, especially what’s going on with Russia’s war. For the President to be there and to continue to be a leader in bringing those countries together and talk about real issues that matter to all sides is also an important — is an important agenda for the President to continue to move forward. Q Sure. And to the second question, is there anything special or different being done about this trip as opposed to other foreign trips? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, because — Q Given — given how many things are — yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. We’re — we’re moving forward like we do with any OCONUS trip that we have had. I think this is — I’ve lost track — maybe the fourth or fifth trip, as you guys are probably keeping track better than I am, that the President has done. And during a time — I mean, this past year and a half has not been an easy year. The President walked in having to turn back on the economy, if you will. He walked in having to deal with a COVID — a COVID crisis, a pandemic — once-in-a-generation pandemic. So he has had to deal with multiple things on his plate. So this is just part of another trip that he’s going on. Let me try and — go ahead, Peter. Q Thank you, Karine. The President isn’t really doing everything he can to bring gas prices down, is he? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I feel like there’s a — what — is there something else to the question? (Laughs.) Q Oh, there’s a lot to the question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, okay. Well — Q For example — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — as you mentioned earlier, he’s meeting today with people installing offshore wind equipment but not oil and gas CEOs who are rarely ever in town, but they are today. So how did that help lower gas prices? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, the President has done a — so let me step back for a second. Q But — no, no, no — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no — Q Just by — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, on — Q — by meeting with offshore wind folks — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no. You’re asking me — Q — and not with gas — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re asking me the question — Q — oil and gas CEOs, how does that lower gas prices? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Peter. Peter. Q You said he’s done everything in his power. They were a mile away. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Peter, you’re asking me a question. Let me — can I — may I answer? Q Yes, please. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, here we go. I just want to take this back a second on how we got here, right? So we have seen gas prices go up by $2.00 a gallon. One of the reasons we have seen that — the reason we have seen that is because of Russia’s war in — in Ukraine. And once that happened, once we saw what that impact was going to be, the President took action. He took action. He made his- — he made a historic choice to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — 1 million barrels a day — and that was for six months. And that helped blunt the impact of what we’re seeing right now with prices going up. So that matters. The — the ethanol 15 that the President — the action that the President took, that matters, because it’s going to — it’s going to bring down gas prices in gas stations — over 1,000 gas stations across the country, including the Midwest. That matters. And so the President is trying to figure out and take — take steps in how we can bring the gas prices down. And we have a high level of oil production. So what we are asking the oil refinery companies to do is to take that — that production, turn it into — refine that oil so that there is capacity. We are not at capacity right now. And it does matter that the Secretary of Energy, which is her purview — that is her portfolio, to meet with these oil execs, that she does on pretty regular basis. Q But your point was about how we got here. The President said, as a candidate, “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.” Wouldn’t that — aren’t some of those things that would bring the price of gas down now? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me tell you how we got here, since you just said how we got here. Due to a decreased demand at the start of the pandemic, U.S. oil companies reduced production and refining capacity, which is what I was just saying, Peter. Refiners, for instance, cut their capacity by more than 800,000 barrels per day in the year before the President took office. Oil production is now back — back to near pre-pandemic levels. In fact, we produced more oil in the first year of the President’s administration than in the first two years of the previous administration. And we are on track to set a new record for oil production next year this time. But oil refiners have still not brought refinery capacity back online. At the same time, as I was just stating to you about Putin’s war, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted the global oil supply, and gas prices have gone up nearly to $2.00 since the beginning of the year, before the invasion. President Biden has taken historic actions, again, to alleviate the pressure and to blunt what — the impacts that we have seen because of Putin’s war. And that matters. And that’s what the President has been focused on. Q Okay. And the President, yesterday, was talking about this transition to greener energy someday. A lot of people can’t afford a $60,000 electric car, and they also are having a hard time affording gas right now. That sounds like a painful transition. So how much of that kind of pain is the President okay with? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, that transition — we are in a transition to clean energy. That is something that — that is important. It is going to create jobs, when you think about electric vehicles. It is going to give — give families some — some tax credits. It’s going to be really important to have — Q But right now, who can afford an electric car? The average price is $61,000. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What we’re going to continue to move forward with, and what — we have put forward the bipartisan infrastructure — Q Is that a realistic — is that the choice: $5.00-a-gallon gas or a $61,000 electric car? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is not — first of all, you’re — that’s apples and oranges. It is not the same. What we’re trying to do right now is to deal with an acute problem right now, which is why the President, again, asked for a 90-day suspension of the gas tax — the gas tax holiday. It is going to make a difference. Peter, we’re talking about 18 cents on the federal — on the federal level; we’re talking about an average of 30 cents on the state level. And if the oil refinery does their job, if they do what we are asking them to do, which is put their profits back in so that gas prices can go down — that’s almost $1.00 per gallon. That matters. That matters to teachers, that matters to home healthcare aides, that matters to construction workers, that matters to plumbers, that matters to lifeguards. Those are the people that — and many others — who are going to feel this in a way that will give them relief at the pump. All right. We’re done. Q A Supreme Court follow-up? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q On the Granholm meeting, the refiners wanted to dissuade the White House from any sort of ban on fuel exports. Did Granholm agree to that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sorry, I was distracted. Can you say that one more time, Steve? Q The ban on fuel exports — the refiners don’t want that. Was that discussed at the meeting today? Did Secretary Granholm agree to set it off the table? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can tell you, Steve, that decision has not been made. There’s no decision on that at this time. Q And secondly, on the gas tax holiday, has the President talked to lawmakers today about this to try to get them on his side? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any meetings to preview for you at this time, but we are going to — our Office of Leg Affairs is in constant communication with folks on the Hill. So that is going to be an ongoing conversation. And the President — this is something that the President thinks is going to be really important for the American people, to give them that relief — a little bit of breathing room, as you’ve heard the President. I’m just going to take a couple more. Go ahead. Q On refinery capacity, refiners right now are operating at about 93, 94 percent capacity. When you talk about asking them to increase their capacity, bringing other refineries online is not as simple as flipping a switch. Do you want them to take 93, 94 percent up to 98 percent? How are you guys thinking through the problem as it exists in terms of what they can do? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So there’s a difference between the share of existing capacity being utilized and the amount of total capacity available. The overall capacity of the U.S. refining industry fell due to the pandemic, which is what I was going through earlier. And that capacity has not been brought back online, even as consumers’ demand has returned thanks to the President’s recovery plan. So, the President is calling, again, on U.S. refiners to increase capacity and output in the near term, and making clear he is committed to using all reasonable tools and authorities, as appropriate, to help. And so there is a difference there. And so we’re asking them to increase that capacity, which we have not seen yet. Q Bringing those back online, one of the issues has been, you know, willing to invest on the capex side. Is the administration looking anything on the regulatory side they think they can do to help that process along? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything here to share on what else we might be looking at. Again, the President is willing to use his — his executive authorities. We just haven’t made a decision. We want to come to a resolution here, or a solution. That’s why Secretary Granholm had this meeting today. We’re — they’re going to continue to have the discussion. And so that’s what we would prefer, and so that’s where — the direction that we’re going. At the same time, making sure that, you know, the gas — that gas tax holiday, making sure that we’re doing other things as well, to do our part. Again, the gas tax holiday is a — is a — is a — one of the solution, right? It’s not the whole thing. We’ve done a series of things, and the President is going to continue to see what else he can — he can do to give relief to the American people. Go ahead. I’m just going to take a couple more. Q Does the administration have any response to Intel announcing that it is indefinitely delaying the groundbreaking of its very large semiconductor facility in Ohio? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any — I don’t have any more information on that. I heard that reporting. I would have to check in with our — with our team. But I don’t have anything for — to share from the podium today. Q One of the things that has come up before today’s meeting with Secretary Granholm was Jones Act waivers. Is that something that was discussed in the meeting, or do you know if that’s still on the table for the President? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have more to share from — from the meeting, from what I just read out. Q So we don’t know whether it was — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t have anything from what I just read out. Q But the President hasn’t ruled it out? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just don’t have anything for you right now, Josh. Q Okay. Then, going to Phil’s question, I mean, part of the reason capacity has shrunk is because facilities are being converted to produce — or some of them are being converted to produce renewable diesel instead of petroleum-based fuels. Others are simply, you know, old. They’re like old cars being taken off the road. They can’t just turn on again. Do you think those conversions should be reversed or halted? Or do you think the refiners are overstating the sort of pain that they’d have to go through to turn off — turn on some of these plants again? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What we believe is that they are not operating at full capacity. That is what we believe. And, you know — so, just to give you a little bit here, and I said this yesterday and I’m happy to share it again: You know, as of yesterday, I said crude oil prices have dropped by nearly 15 percent from two weeks ago, but prices at the pump have barely budged. The last time the price of crude oil was $110 a barrel and the price of gas was $4.60 a gallon. Today, it’s about 35 cents higher. That difference is a result of companies’ record-high profit margins for refining oil. Refinery margins have tripled since the beginning of the year. It’s just the first three months of this year. The biggest oil companies made $35 billion — four times what they made in their first quarter of last year. We want them to put their profits back into refining oil so that we can bring prices down. And that is what we are seeing. And, you know, there are 9,000 approved drilling permits that remain unused. So, there are

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hello. Hi, everybody. Good afternoon, right? All right. Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you guys enjoyed a long holiday weekend. It’s good to see everyone here. Today I’m joined by John Kirby, who is the National Security Council — was it — Coordinator for Strategic Communications. I got to get that right. And he’s happy to take a few questions. I know there’s been some news out there in his world. So, why don’t you take it away. MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine. Just a couple things at the top, everybody. I think you saw this morning that the administration announced important policy changes with respect to anti-personnel landmines. After conducting a comprehensive policy review, the United States is now joining the vast majority of countries around the world in committing to limit the use of anti-personnel landmines. The use of these weapons put more civilians at risk of being injured by unexploded mines, including children, long after the fighting is stopped. And the President believes strongly that we need to curtail their use worldwide. So, this new commitment will align U.S. policy outside of the Korean Peninsula with the key requirements of the Ottawa Convention. That’s the international treaty that prohibits the use of stockpiling the production and the transfer of these weapons. The United States is the world’s singes- — single-largest financial supporter of steps to mitigate the harmful consequences of landmines and explosive remnants of war all around the world. Since 1993, the United States has provided over $4.2 billion in aid to over 100 countries for conventional weapons destruction programs. And I’m happy to take questions on that a little bit later. The last thing I just want to open up with is: I think you know the President is preparing for his next trip. This will be to the — to Germany for the G7, and then on to — to Madrid for the NATO Summit. He came into office with the express purpose of revitalizing and reinforcing our allies, our alliances, and our partnerships around the world. And that’s exactly what he’s done with the G7 and with NATO. His leadership and diplomacy elevated these partnerships as central to meeting the biggest challenges of our time and advanced our shared values to define the decades to come. He has been unafraid to use the convening power of the United States, which is still ample, still relevant, still viable. The free world has demonstrated incredible unity and resolve to advance three key objectives that I think you’re going to see are central to this trip. And we’re going to get some time a little bit later on in the week to preview the trip with more detail. But I’ll just tell you, these are the three overarching objectives the President has: One, our unwavering — reinforcing our unwavering support of a democratic, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine, and holding Russia accountable for his war of aggression. Two, managing the disruptions in the global economy, including energy and food prices, that are caused by this war of aggression that are impacting families all over the world, including here at home. And three, charting an affirmative vision for the world in which democracies can deliver and that we are confident will win over autocratic and corrupt visions. Again, we’ll have more to share later in the week — including a background call I think we’re going to be doing here and the next day or so. And you guys will all get an invitation to that. And with that, I’ll take some questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nancy. Q Thanks, John. What can you tell us about this second American who appears to have died in combat in Ukraine? MR. KIRBY: I don’t know a whole lot. But — but I think you saw the State Department has confirmed that another American citizen has been killed in the fighting in Ukraine. And I’d point you to State for more details on that. Obviously, at the outset, our hearts go out to the family, which are clearly enduring an incredible grief here. Again, we want to stress that this is not the place or the time for Americans to go to Ukraine. It is a war. And if you want to help the people of Ukraine, there’s a whole lot of other, better options to do that than going and putting yourself in harm’s way in the middle of that war. Q The President said yesterday that he speaks to Volodymyr Zelenskyy three or four times a week. Is that accurate, or is that a bit of hyperbole? We only get a readout of their conversations once every couple of weeks. MR. KIRBY: He speaks to Mr. Zelenskyy on a routine, regular basis. And I couldn’t sit here and give you the exact count — this is the beginning of week three for me here — but he speaks to the President — President Zelenskyy on a very routine, regular basis. And I would add it’s not just the President. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense speak with their counterparts, again, on a routine, regular basis. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs — Joi- — Ji- — ugh, I’ll try this again using syllables — the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff talks to — to his counterpart regularly, too. And there’s an awful lot — and I would go so far as to say “almost daily” — conversation with Ukrainians at lower staff levels at both DOD and the Department of State. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: April. Q Hi, John. MR. KIRBY: Hey, April. Q Two questions. Going back to Ukraine: Could you talk about the implications of the grains issue that’s heightening in Ukraine? Has the President of Ukraine talked to the AU about it — the African Union about it? And also, the repercussions of what happened in Texas, on a national security front, when it comes to basically calling President Biden the “Acting” President. MR. KIRBY: So, I’m going to come back to you on the second one, because I’m not completely sure I understand the question. But on the first one — let me just do the grain one first. We’ve talked about this before: President Putin is, no kidding, weaponizing food. Let’s just call it what it is: He’s weaponizing food. He’s got an essential blockade there in the Black Sea so that nothing can leave by sea — and that’s, of course, how Ukraine has historically gotten its grain to markets. And so the President is working with leaders around the world to see if there’s other overland ways we can do that. And he’s exploring a range of options, and he’s keeping an open mind about how that would look. And there’s lots of other — of our partners, particularly in Europe, who also want to see that done. So, there’s a lot of work being done here. But as I said, I think the other day last week, you know, we know time is not on our side. I mean, this grain is a perishable commodity, so we want to get it out as fast as we can. Q Yeah. And on second question: On the national security front, especially as we’re seeing what’s happening with the January 6th Committee, what does it do on the national security front for Texas to make those strong statements about the 2020 election? MR. KIRBY: I’m afraid I didn’t see the comments. Can you elucidate? Q The Texas Republican — the Texas Republican platform, I think, is what she’s (inaudible). Q No, I don’t — thank you, no. They’re rejecting the Pre- — what’s happening is they’re saying the President is the “Acting” President. The state of Texas is saying (inaudible). MR. KIRBY: Oh, oh, oh. I’m sorry. Okay. Yeah. I did. I’m sorry. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can take that one, too, if it’s okay. Q But it’s — on the national security part. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, there’s — okay. MR. KIRBY: On the national security front. I mean, look, the President is the democratically elected Commander-in-Chief of this country, and the men and women who serve in uniform understand that. And with the exception of what looks like a small number of Texas legislatures, the American people recognize that. And he has the authority, he has the power, he has the responsibility to defend this country. And the things that we’re talking about today, whether it’s landmine use or grain shipments or assisting Ukraine, is all about our national security. And the President is charged with preserving and maintaining that national security. And it — you know, again, with the — with the exception of a small number of folks there in Texas, the American people recognize that and understand that. Q Thank you. John, what do you make of the Kremlin saying that the Americans captured in Ukraine aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention protections for prisoners of war? MR. KIRBY: Yeah, we’ve seen the comments by Mr. Peskov, with respect to this, not ruling out certain protections. I would tell you a couple of things. One, we still are trying to learn more about these two individuals. Okay? Number two, it’s appalling that a public official in Russia would even suggest the death penalty for two American citizens that — that were in Ukraine. And we’re going to — again, we’re going to continue to try to learn what we can here about this and, again, stay in touch as much as we can with the families. Q If they’re not afforded protections under the Geneva Convention, what’s the course of action that you’re thinking about? MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I don’t think it’d be useful for us to get into hypotheticals right now, Jacqui. I mean, we’ve got — we got more homework here to do. But I do think it’s important for us to make it clear: totally appalling for even the suggestion that — that that result could be the outcome here for these two individuals. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just going to go (inaudible). Q Hey, John. Thanks, Karine. John, the Chinese have imported a record amount of oil from Russia, and the trade between the two countries is growing. What message do you have to the Chinese related to this? MR. KIRBY: I think this is just a piece of China’s willingness to continue to go along with — with Russia. And we’re seeing this as a — yet another example of a growing collaboration between China and Russia with respect to Ukraine. And we have, as we’ve said at the outset, called on China to be a responsible power here and to join the rest of the world in condemning what Russia has done in Ukraine and in enforcing sanctions against Russia for it. So, it’s just another example. And look, it’s also another example of how global security really is interconnected. It’s not just about security on the European continent. It’s connected, what’s happening in Ukraine — this is a perfect example of how it’s connected to — to national security — our national security interests and those of allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific as well. Q But at what point did it rise to the level where they’re breaking sanctions or pushing the line on those sanctions that the U.S. would like to impose? MR. KIRBY: Well, again, they haven’t been participants in this — in the sanction regime so far. Q I have a follow-up. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. You can follow up, and then (inaudible). Q Thank you. Thanks, John. Also, India has been buying a lot of the Russian oil that the Europeans aren’t buying. So how does the administration keep financial pressure on Russia? And what does this say about U.S-Indian relations that Prime Minister Modi is making these purchases? MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Look, India is also a very key strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific region. And there’s many ways that — that that partnership represents itself both in defense and security, economic as well. I think we’ll let Indian leaders speak to their economic policies. What I can just tell you is we value this bilateral relationship with India and we continue to want — obviously, every country has to make their decisions for themselves. These are sovereign decisions. But we want as much pressure put internationally on Russia as possible. There needs to be — just the last point: There needs to be costs and consequences for what Mr. Putin is doing. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Francesca. Q What, if anything, will President Biden be asking G7 leaders to do next week to bring down the cost of energy and bring down the cost of food? MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of the agenda too much today. We’ll have more to talk about the trip in the next day or so with more specifics. So I’m not really prepared today to go into too much detail. But as I said in my opening comments, one of the things — one of the objectives that the President has here for the G7 is to talk to international leaders inside the G7 about supply chain issues, food and fuel supply around the world, and trying — and trying to minimize the pressures that it has put on populations all over the world. But we’ll have more a little bit later. Q Is there anything that you think that they can do, working in coordination, to prevent a global recession? MR. KIRBY: I think leadership matters a lot here. Multilateral leadership matters a lot — because this isn’t just affecting the United States, it’s affecting the whole world. And I know the President is looking forward to having discussions with world leaders about what, together, they can do — whether it’s increase production or less — more capacity for refining, less dependence. And this is one of the reasons, you know, that the President is so committed to clean energy here in this country, is to — that’s one way of making us energy independent too. So, advancing — it’s also good for the climate. So, there’s an awful lot of crosscutting objectives here. Q A Russia follow-up. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Just two more because we — go ahead. Q Do you believe, John, the Peskov comments — obviously, in coordination with Vladimir Putin — do you believe they’re about more than the discrete facts involving these Americans, but a signal — a larger, sort of, tactical signal to the — to the American president, to the government about ways they can use American citizens as a part of this conflict? MR. KIRBY: You know, I gave up a long time ago trying to get inside Mr. Peskov’s head and certainly Mr. Putin’s. It’s hard to know with great accuracy the answer to your question. But either way, it’s equally alarming, whether they actually mean what they’re saying here and that this could be an outcome — that they could levy a death penalty against two Americans that were fighting in Ukraine — or that they just feel it’s a responsible thing for a major power to do — to talk about doing this as a way of signaling the President of United States and the American people. Either one of them is equally alarming. And that’s why, again, we find it appalling. Q Can I take the last one? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thank you. John, why the United States is trying to block the African countries to work with Russia? There is discussion going on right now at the Senate that the United States is trying to force, basically, the African countries not to work with Russia. I don’t know if you’re aware: Russia have relation with many African countries, and Angola is one of them — and many other countries. But right now, it looks like there is a discussion going on in — at the Senate that the United States is trying to make African countries not to work with Russia. In the beginning, President Biden said that he will work with all nations — Europe, Asia, and even African countries — diplomatically. Why don’t let the African countries decide who to work with, instead of just impose them not to work with, for example, Russia? MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I can’t speak for what the discussions that are going on in the Senate about this. But you kind of answered the question yourself when you went back to what the President has long said about his foreign policy objectives and goals. Look, he respects and understands that sovereign nations make sovereign decisions. Sovereign nations get to decide who they’re going to associate with or who they’re not going to associate with. He understands that. He also understands and, I think, has been very clear with leaders around the world that there needs to be consequences for what Mr. Putin is doing in Ukraine. There needs to be costs. He needs to be held accountable for this unprovoked war of aggression. And so, it’s difficult for him to look at countries around the world who might be willing not to impose those consequences, who might be looking for ways to reward Mr. Putin for what he is doing in Ukraine. So is it principled — Q And why he is forcing countries not to work with Russia? MR. KIRBY: This isn’t about — Q Why don’t — MR. KIRBY: Ma’am? Q — let them decide? MR. KIRBY: No, ma’am. This is not about forcing. And again, I — I won’t — I can’t speak to the language you’re talking about from the Senate. This isn’t about forcing anybody. It’s about — it’s about standing up for a principle. And, look, the principle here is the principle of sovereignty. So — so it cuts both ways. You know, obviously, sovereign nations need to be able to make their own decisions. The President understands that. That’s why, you know, when we were talking about whether Ukraine would or wouldn’t join NATO, it’s not up to Mr. Putin to get a veto on that. Sovereign nations have to make that decision and so does the NATO Alliance. He understands the sovereign decisions that nations in Africa have to make. But he also believes and stands strongly on the principle that Mr. Putin needs to suffer consequences for this war of aggression — consequences around the world as well. And so, he doesn’t believe that it’s in the interests of what’s going on in Ukraine — or European security, for that matter — for Mr. Putin to be able to get off scot-free here. Q And when the President will travel to Africa? John, he traveled to Europe, Asia, but not Africa. When? MR. KIRBY: I don’t have a trip announcement to make today. Q Mr. Kirby, is the President tracking the situation in Ethiopia? MR. KIRBY: Yes, he is. Q And also on the — the billions of dollars that have flowed to the Ukraine, how much of that money has gone to gun manufacturers in the U.S.? MR. KIRBY: How much money has gone to — Q How much of the $40 billion — MR. KIRBY: Are you talking about the money — the money that we are sup- — Q The money that has been approved to Ukraine. How much of that money has gone to gun manufacturers here in the U.S.? MR. KIRBY: Okay, if you mean defense contractors, we can give you that, and I can — we can have somebody get you the –the amount of contracts that are going to be or are being let under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. This is for defense articles — weapons and systems that Ukraine needs. If you’re asking me how many are go- — you mean like firearm manufacturers here in the United States? Q Yes. How much of the — of the money that has gone to Ukraine, how much of that money actually goes to Ukraine — MR. KIRBY: To the degree that we — that we supply small arms and ammunition — right? — to Ukraine, we can get you that figure. I don’t have it handy. But those are — that’s small arms and ammunition — combat arms that they’re using in the field. And, you know, we get caught up a lot talking about HIMARS — right? — long-range rocket systems and artillery systems and tanks and all that — all those big-ticket items that the Ukrainians say they need. And it’s true they do. But what they’ll also tell you is that the bullets and the small arms are making a big difference every single day, because the fighting in the Donbas is close combat. A lot of long-range fires, lots of artillery — no question. But there — it’s a lot of small-arms combat, too. So we — we forget about that. It’s an important set of defense articles and systems that we’ve been sending to Ukraine, and we’re going to continue to do it for as long as we can. But as for the exact figures, we have to get that for you. Thank you, everybody. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thanks. We don’t have a lot of time, guys, because we have to leave for — at 1:45, I believe, for the President’s travel — local travel. Okay, so I have something really quick at the top and then I’ll take your questions. So today, President Biden and the First Lady are visiting a local COVID-19 vaccination clinic, hosted by the DC Health, to highlight the recent authorization and recommendation of COVID-19 vaccines for children under the age of five. This weekend, the CDC formally recommended use of a COVID-19 vaccine for this age group following the FDA’s authorization on June 17th, marking a key milestone that ensures, for the first time since the pandemic began, that nearly every American can access protections from lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines, including our youngest Americans age six months and up. Following the visit, the President will deliver remarks at the White House on COVID-19 vaccines for children under five and the historic progress the country has made in fighting COVID-19 with safe, effective vaccines available virtually to all Americans. Go ahead, Josh. Q Thanks, Karine. Two subject areas, since I know we’re going fast — by 1:40. What data is President Biden looking at for the gas tax holiday? And is he expecting congressional support and state-level action? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’ll take your second question first. As you know, the President said he’s going to make a decision about this by the end of this week. The way we see it is there would be congressional action. Congress would take — would need to take action. To your first question, the President is looking at an array of options to — to figure out how he’s going to help give relief to the American public, especially as they are looking at gas prices at the pump. This is a number-one priority for the President. He’s looking at an array of options. I don’t have — we don’t have anything specific for you — to share with you at this time. Q Gotcha. And then, secondly, real fast: What is President Biden’s reaction to Texas authorities saying the police response in Uvalde was an “abject failure” and that the gunman, in theory, could have been stopped within three minutes? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, this is something that the President has talked about this very deeply. He — it is very — the actions that we have seen and the reports that we have seen is deeply concerning. The President has said that. As you know, DOJ is doing a review. We’re going to leave it to their findings and their review before we’ll say anything more, but it is deeply disturbing to hear the reports on what happened on the ground on that day. Okay. Q On the issue of the federal gas tax, has the White House started reaching out to Congress yet on this, working with members to try and get them on board with this? Because, as you know, you would of course need their approval for any suspension. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Absolutely, we would definitely, as I said, need Congress to act on this. I can’t lay out — I don’t have anything to lay out on — on any outreach that we’ve made to Congress. The President, as you all know, understands the stress that the American public is feeling across the country. This is why he has taken action himself when it comes to tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — a historic amount of oil — 1 million of barrels of oil a month — I mean, a day, I should say, just to be exact; and also asking — getting his partners to do 240 million barrels as well. There’s ethanol 15, as he has been able to make sure that we give relief to thousands — thousands and thousands of Americans across the country. So, this is something that has been a complete priority for the President. I don’t have anything specific to lay out about meetings coming up or meetings that have happened. Q And the President said he’s not planning to sit down with any oil and gas CEOs as he makes his decision. Why not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I can confirm here — I know it’s been — kind of been reported out there: Secretary Granholm is going to be meeting with the seven CEOs on Thursday — this coming Thursday. That’s the first step that he wanted to make sure happened. Remember, our goal is to make sure that we have a sit-down conversation where we come up with solutions, that we work with the CEOs to figure out what else that we can do to move — to move that capacity forward. So, we’re going to — the meeting is happening on Thursday with Secretary Granholm, and she’s going to sit down with the CEOs. And hopefully, we have some solutions that come out of the meeting. Q You said that’s the first step. Is the — so the President is not ruling out meeting with them? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I’m — the President spoke to this himself yesterday, which is like he’s not going to be meeting with the — with the CEOs. I’ll let that stand and speak for himself. The way that we view this is — what I mean by “first step” is they’re going to sit down and have a conversation. The second step is coming up with solutions and ideas. Okay. Q The President said last week that there’s no inevitability around a recession, but there is a greater deal of market concern about exactly that. And I know that inflation is your number-one concern, but can you talk a little bit about if you’re doing anything at all to prevent a recession or a rise in unemployment? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the way that we see this — and you’ve heard us talk about this that we’re in a moment of transition. We have seen — we are in a unique situation with our — with the historical gains with our economy. The way that we see it, this unemployment rate has held steady at 3.6, which is also near historic lows; business and investment remain strong; household balance sheets remain strong. There was an analysis that came out recently that showed middle-class Americans had an additional $10,000 in savings than before the pandemic. Another analysis found that all income groups had higher checking account balances at the end of March than they had pre-pandemic. So, we see that the strengths that we — our economic strength that we have seen from this past year from the action that the President has taken with the American Rescue Plan, with what we have seen with the historical gains, that is going to help us deal with a recession. Right now — we don’t see a recession right now. That is not — we’re not in a recession right now. Right now, we’re in a transition where we will — we are going to go into a place of stable and steady growth, and that’s going to be — that’s going to be our focus. Q And just one more. AAA was out with a report today saying that there’s going to be a record number of people driving for the Fourth of July holiday. And I’m wondering what that tells you about whether inflation is, in fact, the top concern for the American people and whether there’s a role for conservation to play, given the extreme demands on energy supplies right now. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say — say a little bit more. You’re saying — Q Well, Americans are happy, it would seem, to go out and — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. Oh, I see what you’re saying. Okay. Q — and to pay as much money as gas costs to go on vacation and do all of the things that they would normally do — in fact, more so than in the past. So, how do you — how do you — what do you think about that? And do you think it’s appropriate given the constraints on energy supplies globally right now? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, Americans are going to do what they feel is right for themselves and for the family — for their family. That’s not something for us to make a judgment on. I think what we’re seeing right now is — you know, we’ve been in a pandemic for some time. And I think — and I think Americans are feeling as if, this summer, it’s time to get out and go visit families. And I think that’s a reaction that we’re seeing there. But I have to say a lot of that is — is thankful to the President and the work that he has done to make sure that more than 220 million people get — are fully vaccinated. That matters. Today, he’s going to visit a COVID health center where our — where we are going to be able to vaccinate our youngest among us, which is the zero to five. That’s about 18 million young people, which is — a lot of that work is due because of what the President has been able to do, and the American Rescue Plan, and the stra- — the vaccination strategy that he put — that he put forward the moment that he walked into this administration. Look, I — it’s not — it’s not for me to say what Americans can do or can’t do. But I do think this is kind of the — kind of the pendulum swinging as we are — as we are — more people vaccinated and more folks are feeling more comfortable and more safe to get out there. And I’ll go to the back in a second. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. What kind of visibility does the administration have into the, quote, “logistical error” that prevented Brittney Griner, who’s being held in Russia, from speaking by phone with her wife? And how was a mistake like that acceptable given, kind of, the stakes of this moment? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, this was an unfortunate mistake and the Department — the Department of State is working to rectify this as quickly as possible. From what I understand, there is a phone — a phone interview has been scheduled. I’m not going to speak to when. That is up to Brittney Griner’s partner to decide — her wife to decide if that — if they want to make that public. Anything else, I would defer you to the State Department. Q And has — Brittney Griner’s wife talked about meeting with the President or her desire to meet with the President. Is that something that’s on the table or an option at this point? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to share about — we don’t have anything to share about a potential phone conversation or meeting. What I can say is that the State Department has been in regular touch with Mrs. Griner. She’s also spoken to Secretary Blinken, which we have mentioned before. This is certainly — any American that is held — that is held abroad is a priority for this President. We’ve spoken to that. And we will do everything that we can to bring — to bring them home — to bring her home. I’ll go to the back. Q Karine, on Roe v. Wade? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hold on a second. Q You can hear me. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m trying to go to somebody I haven’t gotten yet. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. So, in these deliberations about the gas tax, does the President have concerns about — what are his concerns about endorsing such an idea? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Endorsing a gas tax? Q Yeah. He endorses congressional action on a gas tax holiday. Are there concerns that he has about doing that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, the President has been very clear in making sure that he does everything that he can to elevate — to alleviate the — you know, the pain that American families are feeling when it comes to gas prices. He said all options are on the table. He has not — he said himself — just to reiterate what he said yesterday: He has not made a decision on this. He’ll have something more by the end of the week. But — but this is about making sure that we deliver for the American people as it relates to gas, as it relates to increases — increase in cost. And so, again, we have said this from day one: All options are on the table. Q Yeah. I guess I’m trying to understand: What are the drawbacks that he sees? And does he think an endorsement could help Republicans get on board if it requires congressional action? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I’m saying is I’m not going to get ahead of the President right now. He has not — he — we have not laid out this decision. Once we — once we have, I’m happy to have that conversation right here or in my office, however you wish. But, right now, all options are on the table. He’s going to do everything that he can to make sure he relieves some pain and some pressure that Americans are feeling at the pump. Q Question about Ethiopia, please? Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, gosh. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thanks. Does the President have any thoughts on the Colombian elections this weekend? And does he have any plans to speak to the President-elect? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any calls to read out to you at this time. You know, the United States congratulates the people of Colombia on a free and fair election. The President looks forward to working with President-Elect Petro and to advance the U.S.-Colombia relationship and tackle key issues together, including climate change, building more fair and resilient economies, security, and more. I don’t have a call to read out at this point or to announce at this point. Q And then, when it comes to the federal gas tax, former President Obama has called it — called it a “gimmick” back when it was being considered during his administration. A number of Republican and Democratic congressional leaders over the years have said the same thing: It saves people a couple of dollars when they fill up, but it decimates the Highway Trust Fund. Why is it suddenly on the table for this President when it seemed like it was an idea that the White House had sort of set to the side for months? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, the President has — has always said all options are on the table. This is one of those options. He was asked a question yesterday, and he answered it. I don’t have — I don’t want to get ahead of the President. We don’t have anything to announce at this time. Once we do, we will and be happy to answer all the questions around that decision once — and if he makes that decision. But again, he has said — he has been very clear he wants to make sure that he is, you know, dealing with what the Americans are facing at the pump, which is high — high prices due to inflation, due to — that part of it is the pandemic, part of it is Putin’s war on Ukraine and the — Putin’s tax hike. So he wants to do everything that he can to make sure that we are answering — answering those calls of trying to lower the costs. Q (Inaudible) follow up, Karine? Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, that’s it? Okay. Well, thank you, guys. Q You could stay and (inaudible) in the back, please? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: How about — well, I actually have to go with him today so I can’t stay. But I’ll take — but I’ll take one more question. I’ll take a question in the back. Phil, I know you had your — do you want to — you had a question. No? Oh, you’re passing. You’re passing. Okay. Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thank you so much. Can you confirm that the White House intends to issue a rule on reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes? And if so, can you give us some details about that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I — I’m not going to comment on any leak — leak information. I have no final decision to preview at this time. But what I can say is: One of the President’s key Unity Agenda item is ending cancer as we know it, including by reigniting the Cancer Moonshot Initiative. Already have been steps from the FDA to address the impact of — impact other tobacco products like methanol [menthol] and flavored ga- — cigars have on the American people. As I’ve mentioned here before, and I will take this opportunity to remind everyone, that what the Office of Management and Budget regular — regulatory agenda is and is not: Agencies place on the regulatory agenda a list of all the proposed and final rules they are currently planning to issue in the months ahead. However, no policy decision has been made at this time. And I don’t have anything else to preview for you at this time. Okay, we’ll see you guys tomorrow.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone. So, I’d like to welcome Matthew and Camila McConaughey to the White House today to speak on an urgent issue our nation is currently facing. You may know Matthew as an actor, but more importantly, he is a father; a native of Uvalde, Texas; and a gun own- — and a gun owner. He is here today to use his platform to call on leaders to take bipartisan action to end this senseless killing and pass reasonable gun responsibility measures that we know will save lives. Just a few minutes ago, Matthew met briefly with the President to talk about the importance of taking action, keeping our communities safe. But without further ado, I would like to bring up Matthew. MR. MCCONAUGHEY: Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here you go. MR. MCCONAUGHEY: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Camila. To make the loss of these lives matter. My wife and I — my wife and I — Camila — we spent most of last week on the ground with the families in Uvalde, Texas, and we shared stories, tears, and memories. The common thread, independent of the anger and the confusion and sadness, it was the same: How can these families continue to honor these deaths by keeping the dreams of these children and teachers alive? Again, how can the loss of these lives matter? So while we honor and acknowledge the victims, we need to recognize that this time it seems that something is different. There is a sense that perhaps there is a viable path forward. Responsible parties in this debate seem to at least be committed to sitting down and having a real conversation about a new and improved path forward — a path that can bring us closer together and make us safer as a country, a path that can actually get something done this time. Camila and I came here to share my stories from my hometown of Uvalde. I came here to take meetings with elected officials on both sides of the aisle. We came here to speak to them, to speak with them, and to urge them to speak with each other — to remind and inspire them that the American people will continue to drive forward the mission of keeping our children safe, because it’s more than our right to do so, it’s our responsibility to do so. I’m here today in the hopes of applying what energy, reason, and passion that I have into trying to turn this moment into a reality. Because as I said, this moment is different. We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before, a window where it seems like real change — real change can happen. Uvalde, Texas, is where I was born. It’s where my mom taught kindergarten less than a mile from Robb Elementary. Uvalde is where I learned to master a Daisy BB gun. I took that — that took two years before I graduated to a 410 shotgun. Uvalde is where I was taught to revere the power and the capability of the tool that we call a gun. Uvalde is where I learned responsible gun ownership. And Uvalde called me on May 24th, when I learned the news of this devastating tragedy. I had been out of cellular range working in the studio all day when I emerged and messages about a mass shooting in the town I was born in began flooding my inbox. In a bit of shock, I drove home, hugged my children a bit tighter and longer than the night before, and then the reality of what had happened that day in the town I was born in set in. So the next morning, Camila, myself, and the kids, we loaded up the truck and drove to Uvalde. And when we arrived a few hours later, I got to tell you, even from the inside of our vehicle, you could feel the shock in the town. You could feel the pain, the denial, the disillusion, anger, blame, sadness, loss of lives, dreams halted. We saw ministries. We saw first responders, counselors, cooks, families trying to grieve without it being on the frontpage news. We met with the local funeral director and countless morticians who — who hadn’t slept since the massacre the day before because they’d been working 24/7 trying to handle so many bodies at once — so many little, innocent bodies who had their entire lives still yet to live. And that is there that we met two of the grieving parents, Ryan and Jessica Ramirez. Their 10-year-old daughter, Alithia — she was one of the 19 children that were killed the day before. Now, Alithia — her dream was to go to art school in Paris and one day share her art with the world. Ryan and Jessica were eager to share Alithia’s art with us, and said if we could share it, then somehow maybe that would make Alithia smile in heaven. They told us that showing someone else Alithia’s art would in some way keep her alive. Now, this particular drawing is a — is a self-portrait of Alithia drawing, with her friend in heaven looking down on her drawing the very same picture. Her mother said, of this drawing — she said, “You know, we never really talked to her about heaven before, but somehow she knew.” Alithia was 10 years old. Her father, Ryan — this man was steady. He was uncommonly together and calm. When a frazzled friend of his came up and said, “How are you so calm? I’d be going crazy,” Ryan told him — he said, “No, you wouldn’t. No, you wouldn’t. You’d be strong for your wife and kids, because if they see you go crazy, that will not help them.” Just a week prior, Ryan got a full-time line job stringing powerlines from pole to pole. And every day since landing that well-paying, full-time job, he reminded his daughter, Alithia — he said, “Girl, Daddy going to spoil you now.” Told her every single night. He said, “Daddy is going to take you to SeaWorld one day. But he didn’t get to — he didn’t get to spoil his daughter, Alithia. She did not get to go to SeaWorld. We also met Ana and Dani- — Danilo, the mom and the stepdad of nine-year-old Maite Rodriguez. And Maite wanted to be a marine biologist. She was already in contact with Corpus Christi University of A&M for her future college enrollment. Nine years old. Maite cared for the environment so strongly that when the city asked her mother if they could release some balloons into the sky in her memory, her mom said, “Oh no, Maite wouldn’t want to litter.” Maite wore green high-top Converse with a heart she had hand-drawn on the right toe because they represented her love of nature. Camila has got these shoes. Can you show these shoes, please? Wore these every day. Green Converse with a heart on the right toe. These are the same green Converse on her feet that turned out to be the only clear evidence that could identify her after the shooting. How about that? Maite wrote a letter. Her mom said if Maite’s letter could help someone accomplish her dream, that then her death would have an impact, and it would mean her dying had a point and wasn’t pointless — that it would make the loss of her life matter. The letter reads: “Marine biologist. I want to pass school to get to my dream college. My dream college is in Corpus Christi, by the ocean. I need to live next to the ocean because I want to be a marine biologist. Marine biologists study animals and the water. Most of the time, I will be in a lab. Sometimes, I will be on TV.” Then there was Ellie Garcia, a 10-year-old, and her parents, Steven and Jennifer. Ellie loved to dance, and she loved church. She even knew how to drive tractors and was already working with her dad and her uncle mowing yards. “Ellie was always giving of her gifts, her time, even half-eaten food on her plate,” they said. They said, “Around the house, we’d call her the ‘great re-gifter.’” Smiling through tears, her family told us how Ellie loved to embrace. Said she was the biggest hugger in the family. Now, Ellie was born Catholic, but had been going to Baptist church with her uncle for the last couple of years. Her mom and dad were proud of her because, they said, “She was learning to love God, no matter where.” The week prior to her passing, she had been preparing to read a verse from the Bible for the next Wednesday night’s church service. The verse was from Deuteronomy 6:5. “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” That’s who Ellie was becoming. But she never got to read it. Service is on a Wednesday night. Then there was the fairytale love story of a teacher named Irma and her husband, Joe. What a great family this was. This was an amazing family. Camila and I, we — we sat with about 20 of their family members in the living room, along with their four kids. They were — the kids were 23, 19, 15, and 13. They — they shared all these stories about Irma and Joe — served the community and would host all these parties, and how Irma and Joe were planning on getting a food truck together when they soon retired. They were humble, hardworking people. Irma was a teacher, who, her family said, “went above and beyond, and just couldn’t say no to any kind of teaching.” Joe had been commuting to and from work 70 miles away in Del Rio for years. Together, they were the glue of the family. Both worked overtime to support their four kids. Irma even worked every summer when school was out. The money she had made two summers ago paid to — paid to paint the front of the house. The money she made last summer paid to paint the sides of the house. This summer’s work was going to pay to paint the back of the house. Because Irma was one of the teachers who was gunned down in the classroom, Joe, her husband, literally died of heartache the very next day when he had a heart attack. They never got to paint the back of the house, they never got to retire, and they never got to get that food truck together. We also met a cosmetologist. All right? She was well versed in mortuary makeup. That’s the task of making the victims appear as peaceful and natural as possible for their open-casket viewings. These bodies were very different. They needed much more than makeup to be presentable. They needed extensive restoration. Why? Due to the exceptionally large exit wounds of an AR-15 rifle. Most of the bodies so mutilated that only DNA tests or green Converse could identify them. Many children were left not only dead, but hollow. So yes, counselors are going to be needed in Uvalde for a long time. Counselors are needed in all these places where these mass shooters have been for a long time. I was told by many that it takes a good year before people even understand what to do next. And even then, when they become se- — secure enough to take the first step forward, a lifetime is not going to heal those wounds. Again, you know what every one of these parents wanted, what they asked us for? What every parent separately expressed in their own way to Camila and me? That they want their children’s dreams to live on. That they want their children’s dreams to continue to accomplish something after they are gone. They want to make their loss of life matter. Look, we heard from — we heard from so many people, all right? Families of the deceased — mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. Texas Rangers, hunters, Border Patrol, and responsible gun owners who won’t give up their Second Amendment right to bear arms. And you know what they all said? “We want secure and safe schools, and we want gun laws that won’t make it so easy for the bad guys to get these damn guns.” So, we know what’s on the table. We need to invest in mental healthcare. We need safer schools. We need to restrain sensationalized media coverage. We need to restore our family values. We need to restore our American values. And we need responsible gun ownership — responsible gun ownership. We need background checks. We need to raise the minimum age to purchase an AR-15 rifle to 21. We need a waiting period for those rifles. We need red-flag laws and consequences for those who abuse them. These are reasonable, practical, tactical regulations to our nation, states, communities, schools, and homes. Responsible gun owners are fed up with the Second Amendment being abused and hijacked by some deranged individuals. These regulations are not a step back; they’re a step forward for a civil society and — and the Second Amendment. Look, is this a cure-all? Hell no. But people are hurting — families are, parents are. And look, as — as divided as our country is, this gun responsibility issue is one that we agree on more than we don’t. It really is. But this should be a nonpartisan issue. This should not be a partisan issue. There is not a Democratic or Republican value in one single act of these shooters. It’s not. But people in power have failed to act. So we’re asking you and I’m asking you, will you please ask yourselves: Can both sides rise above? Can both sides see beyond the political problem at hand and admit that we have a life preservation problem on our hands? Because we got a chance right now to reach for and to grasp a higher ground above our political affiliations, a chance to make a choice that does more than protect your party, a chance to make a choice that protects our country now and for the next generation. We got to take a sober, humble, and honest look in the mirror and re- — rebrand ourselves based on what we truly value. What we truly value. We got to get some real courage and honor our immortal obligations instead of our party affiliations. Enough with the counterpunching. Enough of the invalidation of the other side. Let’s come to the common table that represents the American people. Find a mil- — middle ground, the place where most of us Americans live anyway, especially on this issue. Because I promise you, America — you and me, who — we are not as divided as we’re being told we are. No. How about we get inspired? Give ourselves just cause to revere our future again. Maybe set an example for our children, give us reason to tell them, “Hey, listen and watch these men and women. These are great American leaders right here. Hope you grow up to be like them.” And let’s admit it: We can’t truly be leaders if we’re only living for reelection. Let’s be knowledgeable and wise, and act on what we truly believe. Again, we got to look in the mirror, lead with humility, and acknowledge the values that are inherent to but also above politics. We’ve got to make choices, make stands, embrace new ideas, and preserve the traditions that can create true — true progress for the next generation. With real leadership, let’s start giving us — all of us, with real leadership — let’s start giving all of us good reason to believe that the American Dream is not an illusion. So where do we start? We start by making the right choices on the issue that is in front of us today. We start by making laws that save innocent lives and don’t infringe on our Second Amendment rights. We start right now by voting to pass policies that can keep us from having as many Columbines, Sandy Hooks, Parklands, Las Vegases, Buffaloes, and Uvaldes from here on. We start by giving Alithia the chance to be spoiled by her dad. We start by giving Maite a chance to become a marine biologist. We start by giving Ellie a chance to read her Bible verse at the Wednesday night service. We start by giving Irma and Joe a chance to finish painting their house, maybe retire and get that food truck. We start by giving Makenna, Layla, Maranda, Nevaeh, Jose, Xavier, Tess, Rojelio, Eliahna, Annabell, Jackie, Uziyah, Jayce, Jailah, Eva, Amerie, and Lexi — we start by giving all of them our promise that their dreams are not going to be forgotten. We start by making the loss of these lives matter. Thank you. Thank you. Q Sir, when you spoke to the President, did he say anything about this? Were you grandstanding just now, sir? Q Are the changes that are being discussed (inaudible), Mr. McConaughey? Q What’s your response to (inaudible)? Q What was your message to the President, Mr. McConaughey? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. I know that the President has an event right after this. I think it’s running — it’s running a few minutes — a few minutes behind. So, I will — we’ll do the briefing until we have to — we have to move to the event. I have a couple of things at the top, and then we’ll open it up. As I just mentioned, soon the President will sign into law nine bipartisan bills that support veterans, and he will be joined by members of Congress from both parties, veteran advocates, and veterans who will benefit from these laws. President Biden ran on the promise to unite the country, which is why supporting veterans is a key part of his Unity Agenda announced at the State of the Union. Supporting our country’s veterans is an issue that all Americans can agree on. Among the impact of the bills being signed into law today are two that will improve access to breast imaging services for veterans, including those who experienced toxics — toxic exposures during military service. Other bills to be signed include three to honor the legacy of service to our nation, including one to award a single Congressional Gold Medal to the U.S. Army Rangers World War II. The Rangers played a crucial role in the D-Day invasion of Normandy, which began exactly 78 years ago yesterday. Also today, the Senate voted to advance the PACT Act. The President was clear in his State of the Union that addressing toxic exposures is a priority and Congress should move with the urgency for our veterans. Today, Congress took a major step forward. President Biden looks forward to final passage of this legislation so that he can sign it into law and continue to uphold our sacred obligation to support those who have served our nation, their families, caregivers, and survivors. Today, the administration announced new investments from the American Rescue Plan to help provide every American with access to affordable high-speed Internet. These investments will bring down costs for families and small businesses, particularly in rural and remote areas, and ensure affordability. This morning, Treasury announced the first state awards from the $10 billion Capital Projects Fund, which will make resources immediately available in Louisiana, New Hampshire, Virginia, and West Virginia to connect over 200,000 homes that currently lack access. On a sad note, our dear friend and colleague, Michael Gwin, will be leaving us for Treasury, where he will be ser- — where he will serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Gwin has served as the White House Director of Rapid Response for the past 16 months, responding to the most challenging and difficult issues imaginable. Yet, amidst these often emotionally-wrenching stories, Gwin’s poise and moral clarity are unfailing, and his willingness and ability to step up has made him an indispensable member of the team. And joining Gwin at the Treasury Department will be our very own Michael Kikukawa, where he will serve as a spokesperson. Michael, better known here to all of you, to all of us as “Kiku,” has served not just as a Press Assistant but as the strong engine and reliable engine at the press shop. His relentless work ethic and dedication to the mission of this team have been second to none. Kiku and Gwin, we will miss you both. Thank you so much. Very heart-wrenching, but I’m very excited for both of you. Wishing you the best. And we do have some “hellos.” I know we keep announcing people leaving, but we actually have people coming, backfilling — some great, great folks who are joining our team. Two new members who are here to our team. I’d like to first introduce Abdullah Hasan right here — some of you know him already — who will be joining us as an Assistant Press Secretary, having previously served as the Deputy Associate Director for Communications for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Amongst many topics, Abdullah will be covering civil rights, immigration, and climate. We also would like to extend a warm welcome to Alexandra LaManna — hello — who is joining us on detail from Treasury, where she has served as senior spokesperson. Part of Alexandra’s profile will be working on housing, infrastructure implementation, and other economic issues. Abdullah and Alexandra haven’t even gotten their full-time badges yet, but we are already getting them hard at work, and we appreciate all of their work thus far. It has — we have felt the impact of it. Okay, please join me in welcoming the team. And with that, I think that’s all I have. All right. Go ahead. Go ahead, Zeke. Q Thanks, Karine. I know we’re getting ready to start here kind of late, and (inaudible) briefing, I’m hoping you might be able to pick this up after the President’s event, just because we got a lot of people who have questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you. I have other — I have other obligations as well after this, so we’ll see. We’ll see what we can do. But I can’t make any promises. But let’s — why don’t we get going? Q Great. So, on the subject of guns, the President had a meeting with Chris Murphy, but he didn’t speak to the public today. Does the President have a clearer sense of where things are, what is possible on Capitol Hill? And also, why is he turning to a Hollywood actor to make the message — take the message to the American people? Does he feel like his voice doesn’t matter? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: His voice does matter. You heard him speak on Thursday very clearly, very loudly, very passionately during primetime at a — at a critical time during the day where he made sure that he can communicate with the American people. And so — he’s the President of the United States. His voice carries and it does matter. What he says is — has — carries weight that is pretty tremendous. Matthew was here because, as you heard, he has a very personal connection to Uvalde. He met with the family. He is from there. He was born there. He lives in Texas. And we thought hearing from him directly, him using his platform, is incredibly important. We all know what it’s like or how important it is for folks — especially on — whether you are an actor, whether you are in the business sector, wherever you are — to use your platform, how critical and important it is. And I think his words here today were incredibly powerful and emotional. And I thank him and Camila for coming here today. They met with the President, as I just mentioned. And so I just, you know, wanted to just address that, Zeke. The President received an update, as — as you all know, as we’ve mentioned, from Senator Murphy on the state of negotiations on Capitol Hill. He told Senator Murphy he strongly support his efforts to find a compromise, and encouraged him to get the strongest possible results. In the end, the President said that the message he took from the families from — at Uvalde, when he was there, was to do something. It was to “please do something.” That’s what the grieving family told him. Some of you heard that yourselves from the community memb- — from the community when he was in Uvalde. And so that is what Senator Murphy and his colleagues are going to do. They’re going to do just that. Q And on a different — just on a different subject, the President is meeting with President Bolsonaro of Brazil. The AP is reporting that the Brazilian government, that President Bolsonaro wanted concessions from the President for that meeting and for his attendance at the Summit of the Americas that he wouldn’t bring up Bolsonaro’s casting doubts about Brazil’s election system as well as environmental concerns in the Amazon. Can you confirm that report? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I cannot confirm that report. The President is looking forward to leaving tomorrow to head to the summit that clearly that we’re — that we are hosting. I can say this: The United States continues to recognize Juan Guaidó as the Interim President of Venezuela. That said, while the interim government was not invited to participate in the main summit, they are welcome to participate in all three stakeholder forums and other events. Go ahead. Q Is the President now getting more directly involved in the negotiations on the Hill now that he has met with Senator Murphy? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — you know, I want to be very clear here: Senator Murphy has said this many times during interviews on various networks here that he believes it’s time for the Senate to act. And that is what they’re doing. The President is encouraged about what he is seeing with this team of negotiators on the — on the Senate side. And he is, like I said, encouraged and wants to continue to see them move forward and take action. Q And in the meeting with Matthew McConaughey, did — did McConaughey go through the same elements with the President that he did here at the podium? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, they had a private conversation. I’m not going to readout their private conversation. As you can imagine, the President went to Uvalde himself. He also met — met with many of the family members. He also is — heard many of the stories that Matthew came here to — to share with all of you. So, they certainly connected on that aspect. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Is the President willing to accept whatever agreement lawmakers come to, should they come to an agreement, when it comes to guns? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, here’s — as you know, the President has been very involved in gun reform as senator, as Vice President, and, clearly, now as President, having signed the most executive actions on gun reform than any president at this time of their presidency. And when — when he was senator, he was — he was talking about this today — it took him years. It took him years to get the 1994 assault ban — assault ban legislation. Now, that — that was law for 10 years and expired in 2004. And so, we haven’t seen this type of — this type of negotiations or this type of coming together from both sides in a very long time. It’s been decades. So, he is encouraged, he is optimistic about what — about what he’s seeing, about what he is hearing — the update that he received. And so, we’re going to see how those negotiations go. And any — any step, we bel- — he believes any step is a step forward. He’s going to continue to call for all of the things that you heard him lay out, when it comes to what he sees as comprehensive gun reform, on Thursday. But he also believes that any step forward is a — is important. Clearly, we’re not going to negotiate from here. And we’re going to leave the specifics to the senators. Q And one other question: Does he still seek to make Saudi Arabia a pariah state? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I spoke to this — I spoke to this yesterday. And I could share some more thoughts on that now. But look, the President was very clear when he was asked about this on — on Friday, when he was delivering his remarks on the economy. And basically, he said, as President, he believes that if there is any — any way to get peace, he feels like he should take that — he should take that direction. So, Saudi Arabia has been a strategic partner of the United States for eight decades. Every president since FDR has met with Saudi leaders. And the President considers Saudi Arabia an important partner on a host of regional and global strategies, including other efforts to end the war in Yemen, contain Iran, and counter terrorism. Saudi pilots flew with ours in the war against ISIS, its navy patrols with — with ours in the Red Sea and the Gulf, and the U.S. military personnel are based in Saudi Arabia. As I’ve said, the President will meet with any leader if it serves the interests of the American people. That’s what he puts first. He believes engagement with Saudi leaders clearly meets that test, as has every president before him. I’m going to move around — Q But all of those things were true — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to move around, Ka- — I’m going move around. Q All of those things were true — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to move around. I’m going to — AIDE: Hey, Karine. He’s about to get started. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to — really? Okay, I’m going to take one more. Q All of those things were true when the President vowed to make them a pariah state. So, I’m just curious: What changed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to take — I’m — I’m going to — Kaitlan, I’m going to take one more. I’m going to take one more. Q Just, on these negotiations: If changing background checks for younger people than 21 is what ends up happening, opening these juvenile records to more scrutiny is what comes of this, does the President believe that that is meaningful change? Is that satisfying? If that’s what comes of this moment, is he okay with that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the President was clear last week that there’s real urgency and — to make sure something like Uvalde or Buffalo and many mass shootings prior can’t happen again. And we’re encouraged, again, by the progress that we’re seeing. You know, we’re — we’re going to stay closely engaged. We’re going to not negotiate from here. We’re going to let the contours of the legislation and those conversations play out. And what we are encouraged by is that the conversation is happening, both sides are coming together. We saw the House taking some — taking some actions last week. They’re — they also will take some actions this week. What we — what the President believes is that we have to do something. And like he said on Thursday, “Enough is enough.” Q Is he confident there’ll be a deal by the end of the week? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I can’t speak to the timeline. That is it going to be up to Senator Schumer and — and Chris Murphy and their conversations that we’re having. (The press briefing stops for the presidential bill signing.) (The press briefing resumes.) Q Welcome back. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I am — I am back by popular demand. Q Appreciate it. Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, absolutely. I’m — and look, I just want to be very clear here — you know, sorry about that. There are times where briefings get delayed for reasons outside of our control, and we wanted to make sure you all had the opportunity to cover the President signing those bills for — to support veterans, which is incredibly important, as you all know. And so, taking your questions is very important to us and — which is why we do it almost every day and — when we can. And it’s why we strive to be responsive to your questions here in the briefing room; on TV, as I did this morning; and in individual conversations with administration officials. And our team does this on a daily basis. So, with that, I wanted to just come in and take additional questions for a few more minutes. And, you know, I know a lot — a lot of you have deadlines yourselves and have to do evening TV. So I won’t be here for too long, but I did want to come out and take some — and take some questions. Okay. Let’s see. All right. I’m going to try and call on people I haven’t called and start in the back, but there is like all these — Go ahead. Go ahead. I don’t think I’ve called on you yet. Q Not lately, so thank you. Listen, Matthew McConaughey was banging on that podium just a few minutes ago before he left, and he had some specific policy asks. And a lot of them were — not all of them, but a lot were about guns. He wanted to raise the age from 18 to 21 for AR-15s. He talked about a waiting period for AR-15s. And he talked about red-flag laws and background checks. So my question is: You and the President have made very generalized comments lately about doing something. Why won’t he demand one of those things be in an overall package? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re talking about the President — why won’t he demand — Q I know he supports the policies, but — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — is his message to these negotiators that those gun measures needs to be — need to be in the package? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: His message to the negotiators is that we have to do something. His message is, to the American people: We have to do something. He went to Uvalde, as you know. He went to Buffalo. And when he was in Uvalde — and I was there with him, and we — and some of you were there with him as well — the thing — the two words that he heard over and over again is please — is: Do something. And so, he is very encouraged by the engagement that he’s seeing on the Senate side with the bipartisan group. And he wants to give them the space. We’re not going to negotiate from here on what should be in the package, what should not be in the package. But we believe it’s a step forward. The President is going to continue to — continue to call for and fight for all of the comprehensive components for — to prevent gun violence that he talked about on Thursday. That will not stop. He’s going to continue to do that. But we’re just not going to negotiate from here. Q And John Cornyn, in his public comments, was talking today on the Senate floor about really hardening doors at schools and these sort of items. If the package only has that and not one of these specific gun measures, will it be a success? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I’m not going to negotiate from here. We’re going to let them — give them some space. It’s a bipartisan — it’s a bipartisan conversation that’s happening. It’s going to be a bipartisan agreement, we — we see or we feel. And you know, Senator Murphy is very optimistic. And we’re — and he has said this is the most optimistic that he has been in some time. And he came in, as you know, and gave an update to the President. So we’re going to see how this — this conversation continues to go. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Why do you think it is that 83 percent of people polled by The Wall Street Journal say the economy is “poor” or “not so good”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, when it comes to consumer confidence — is what you’re talking about there — we know that can reflect concern and uncertainty about higher prices. People feel the effect of high prices when they go to the grocery store and they fill up their gans- — gas tank, which the President understands very personally — when he was growing up and understanding how — how when prices elevate even just a bit, how much that can hurt a family, how much that can really affect, you know, someone’s household. But the fact is: We are in a fundamentally different place compared to when the President took office and compared to this time a year ago. And so, you know, during this President — during his pres- — this presidency, people felt uncertainty — uncertain about the economy generally, but they actually felt as good about their personal financial situations as they ever have, according to the Federal Reserve survey, with nearly 80 percent of adults reporting that they are financially comfortable. So, that matters as well. Q But to the point about the — you’re saying that people feel good about their personal financial situation. High gas prices, people can’t get baby formula, the supply chain is messed up, everything is more expensive. Where’s the good part? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the survey that I just read off started in 2013. And that is the first time that we saw numbers like this since 2013. So that does — no, that does mean something. Just like you gave me 83 percent, I’m giving you — Q And I understand that. Another number then — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — Q — newer than 2013, 61 percent are saying now, in this Wall Street Journal poll, they are generally pessimistic about people having an opportunity to achieve the American Dream. How’s that going look on a — on a bumper sticker? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I’m — I guess what I’m trying to say, Peter, is that we understand that people are feeling — feeling this. They are feeling the increase of prices, which — with food, in particular, right now, and gas. That is — that is something that we understand. What we’re trying to say, what I’m trying to say to you is that the economy is in a better place than it has been historically. And so, we feel, here at this administration and other experts as well, is that — we feel that we are in a good position to take on inflation. We are in a good position to really start really working on lowering prices. We leave that piece to the Federal Reserve. They have the monetary policies to deal with the best — to have the best tools to make sure that we bring down inflation. That’s the — that’s the pain that the American family is feeling. And so, that’s what we’re saying. We’re trying to — what we’re saying is that we were in a different place a year ago, and now we are in a much better place economically. But there’s still work to do, and we understand that. Q Okay. And then, just quickly, on gas prices. The Energy Secretary, Granholm, is saying, “Oh, well, if you went to Canada, you’d be paying $6.25 a gallon. If you went to Germany, you’d be paying over $8.80. In the UK, it’s almost $8 a gallon.” What kind of an argument is that: “Just be happy you don’t live in Munich”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think what she was — what she’s trying to say and what we have all been trying to say is this is a global challenge. This is not just in the United States that people are feeling inflation or people are seeing elevated gas prices. This is a global challenge. Q And isn’t it the President’s job to protect Americans from global challenges? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s doing — he’s doing his part in trying to make sure that we — the American people feel the impact less. But here’s the thing, and we’ve talked about this: Since Russia invaded Ukraine, we have seen gas prices — these are the facts — go up by $1.51. We have seen food prices go up because of what — of what Ukraine and Russia represent when it comes to wheat and corn. This is just a fact. This is what we have seen for the past several months. The President has done — he’s tapped into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a historic way with a million — a million barrels of oil a month for six months. We did — we made the announcement of the E15, the homegrown biofuels that is going to help families in the Midwest. So, we know there is more to do. We’re not disagreeing here. We know that there is more to do, and we’re going to continue to do the work. Q Does the President have any plans to invite any Republican senators to the White House before he leaves for Los Angeles? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have any — I don’t have any meetings to preview for you at this point. Q Has he spoken to any Republicans as it comes to gun legislation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have — I don’t have any meetings to — or calls to read out. Okay, go ahead. Q Karine, thank you. I know you don’t want to negotiate from the podium. I just want to try one more time. It seems as though talks are coalescing around more funding for mental health, school safety, and then expanded background checks and encouraging states to adapt red-flag laws. Is that the type of compromise legislation the President would sign? Would he sign that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — again, I’m not going to negotiate from here. We don’t want to — I’m not going to talk through the contours of the plan. They’re still having those conversations on the other side of the Hill. Q I guess the question is — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But I can say — but no, no. Let me — Q Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me finish. I’ll get to — hopefully this will answer it, which is: He supports red-flag laws. That is something that he has supported for some time. He even talked about the red-flag law that is in Delaware — is named after his son, Beau Biden, who was, as you know, the Attorney General of — in Delaware. He has talked about expanding background checks. I have talked about it. He has talked about it. We’ve all talked about it. So, clearly, those are two things that we know are popular. The red-flag law — red-flag law we saw — I read a poll here last — yesterday that has 72 percent for the red-flag laws. We know that expanding background check is overwhelmingly popular as well. So, clearly, those are two things that he support. But I just don’t — we do not want to get — give them some space, don’t want to get in the middle of their negotiation. Q I guess what I’m asking, Karine — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure. Q — is, particularly as it relates to the red-flag laws, what it seems to be coalescing around is a deal that would encourage states to adapt red-flag laws. Is that good enough for President Biden? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think it’s a step. It’s — when red-flag laws are actually enacted, it saves lives. We have seen that in Florida. We’ve seen that in other states across the country. In California, there’s been cases where the red-flag law has actually saved lives. And we know, we understand not every component of what the President is calling for is going to stop every tragedy, but we have to take the steps, and we have to move forward, and we have to do something. Q There’s been so much focus on the legislation. Is President Biden considering any new executive actions on the (inaudible) guns? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, the President said this himself: If there is any way or any other new actions that he can take, he will. His team — Q Is he actively considering any? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There’s nothing that I can — that I can preview for you at this time. I know that the team is looking at that. We just don’t have anything for you — to share at this time. Q Let me ask you on Roe v. Wade, if I might. We are anticipating the Supreme Court will render its final decision on Roe v. Wade. And based on, of course, that leaked draft report, it appears as though the Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade. What, if any, groundwork is the President, is this administration laying to ensure that women who want or need abortions can still have access to them? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, protecting the constitutional rights of Americans afforded by Roe for — for nearly 50 years, ensuring that women can make their own choices about their lives and bodies and families, is something that the President and the Vice President support. For — for we’ve — we’ve taken actions over the past — the past year and a half on making sure that — making sure that women have the protection that they need, issuing a presidential memorandum to protect and expand access to comprehensive repre- — reproductive healthcare and to revoke the Mexico City policy, a global gag rule that prohibits federal funding for organizations that provide abortion, counseling, and/or referrals; issuing a final rule to strengthen the Title 10 Family Planning Program, fulfilling the administration’s commitment to restore access to equitable, affordable, client-centered quality family planning services. So, we have done — we have done an array of things over the past year and a half to give the protection that women need. Obviously, the decision, it was a draft decision. We don’t want to get into hypotheticals and we don’t want to get ahead of of what is actually going to come forth. But it’s something that it concerns us. All of the pieces of legislation that we see coming out of the states that are incredibly radical, we’ve called them that and it does give us concern. Q Are there any tangible actions that the administration will take if it’s overturned on that day or that week to ensure that women who need abortions can have access to them or that they can cross state lines to access an abortion? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, one thing that I can say — I don’t have anything to preview or to announce or to lay out at this time. What I can say is that our team here — the Gender Policy Council, the Domestic Policy Council, and the agencies who are involved, like HHS — have been in constant communication with — with groups on what we can do from here. I just don’t have anything to preview. Q Karine, the January 6th Committee is going to hold its first public hearing on Thursday while the President is in California. Do you expect the President to get briefed on what the committee has found in its investigation, if he hasn’t already? And how is he looking at these hearings? Does he see this as something that will move the needle in how the public perceives what happened on that day? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, we’re leaving, as you were kind of alluding to, tomorrow, and we’re going to go to LA. The President is going to have a very busy week. And, you know, of course, will be keeping up on the committee’s work, as he has been. And I’m sure he’ll be following the news from the hearing as well. I don’t have anything else to — in particular to share here. The President has been consistent voicing his support for the vital work of the bipartisan January 6th Select Committee. And he and his team have said many times it is critical that we have a full investigation into the events of January 6th to ensure something like what we saw that day can never happen again. And the work of this committee is crucial to that effort. And we will continue to speak out as appropriate or to defend our democracy and the rule of law, and to support those who are doing work to protect our democracy. Q Just one more. Senator Romney and Senator Ossoff have asked for a full investigation into the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. She was a Palestinian American journalist with Al Jazeera. She was killed last month while reporting in the West Bank. Will the White House be supporting an investigation into her death? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’re in close touch with both Israeli and Palestinian authorities. The United States is not currently conducting an official investigation. As you know, we are working to bridge cooperation between the two parties. We have made clear our view to both Israeli and Palestinian officials the administration’s call for thorough, transparent, and impartial investigation of her — of her killing. We expect full accountability for those responsible. We have also urged that both sides share their evidence with each other. We continue to call on all sides to maintain calm and avoid any further escalation. Q Karine, thanks so much. Secretary Yellen said over the weekend to CNN that she was “wrong” in predicting that inflation was transitory. And shortly afterward, Treasury walked back the statement. I’m just curious if the White House or any senior aides here were involved in walking back that — those comments. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can tell you is that she — she was — even when you look at the transcript, she was clear on exactly what she meant by that. And she — she — the Secretary, you know, spoke to this herself to clarify her remarks. And it’s true that nobody at the time foresaw the extent of the global challenges that have caused record inflation all around the world. In fact, even Wall Street and the private sector broadly thought that inflation would come down faster than it has. I cannot speak to private conversation. But all I can say is she put out a — as you know, put out a statement clarifying what she said. Q And just one more question. On Friday, senior White House staff met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to talk about some of the President’s ideas for forgiving student debt. I’m wondering: What was the purpose of that meeting, as the President considers it? And was there any outcome from it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any readout from that meeting from Friday night. Q Thank you. Based on what you know about the situation in both Uvalde and Buffalo, is there anything that the Senate negotiators are considering now that would have stopped those two shootings, or even one of them? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — look, I — you know, I’m no expert here, but one thing that I do know that we all know is that both the shooters were 18. And one of the things that are — that’s on the table is raising the age limit. Q Are you sure that’s on the table? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What — I’m so sorry — Q Raising the age limit from 18 to 21 to buy AR-15s? Because John Cornyn has said that’s not on the table. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. I’m just saying it’s been discussed. I don’t — Q Oh, I see. Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — Q Okay. If that was on the table, that would have affected these. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I — Q Okay. But — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re — you’re asking me a question of when I thought — what I think may have helped or — stopped this awful (inaudible). Q Certainly it would have been. But in terms of what’s on the table in the Senate? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t — I’m just saying that’s been one of the conversations that’s been out there. I do not know. Again, we’re not negotiating from here. I’m just trying to make a point. This is something that the President supports — raising the age from 18 to 21. Because one of the things that we do know is both of the shooters were 18 years old. The one in Uvalde, in particular, when he was 17, he asked his sister to buy him a gun. She said, “No.” And as soon as he turned 18, he went and bought — he bought — he bought a gun. And so, that is something that we have heard about, that’s out there, and that is something the President talked about on Thursday. And so, I was just speaking to your question on what you — what I — what, potentially, could have helped. Q Well, I’m actually asking what the sen- — what among the things the senators are considering could have prevented this? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And, again, I’m not going to negotiate from here. I’m just trying to help in a way to show, “Hey, this is something that we know is out there.” This is something that the President talked about. I’m not going to negotiate from here. They’re working through the contours of the plan, and we’re going to let them figure that out. Q Can I just ask one quick one on red-flag laws? So does the — does the President prefer a federal red-flag law? Or does he think it’s better on a state-by-state level and the government — or the federal government should incentivize states instead? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, he supports a red- — he supports — I want to be really careful here because he’s not going to — we’re not going to negotiate from here. Right? We are going to allow the — we’re going to give them the space to come up with the contours of — of the deal. And we’re just going to give them that space. What we’re saying is: We support the red-flag law. The Pre- — the President has talked about it. I’m not going to go into the nitty-gritty of what that looks like. We’re going to let the negotiators figure that out. Go ahead, Karen. Q Thanks, Karine. First — or two questions. First, can you commit that going forward, if there was a guest or a celebrity here that you would ensure that they would stay at the podium and take questions from reporters — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I — Q — after they speak? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That — they’re a guest. That is not for me to ensure. Q Can you try to have them stay and take questions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — they’re — Karen, they’re a guest of ours. It is up to them if they want to take questions or not. We respect them and what they want to do. Matthew was here. And when he was done, he said thank you and he walked away. That is — that really is up to — is up to him. Q And on COVID: Last week, a guest, Dr. Jha, was here. But he did take questions after — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Yeah, well that’s a little different. He works here. (Laughs.) Q Absolutely. We appreciated him taking questions, but — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Q He said that what keeps them awake at night is that the U.S. would run out of vaccines, not have enough of the next generation of vaccines, run out of treatments and tests in the fall. And this is something he has been saying a lot in interviews recently. But can you give us an update on where the COVID funding talks stand on the Hill, in terms of what the White House is doing right now? What officials are meeting with lawmakers up there? Has there been any progress? Has the President talked with lawmakers about this? And is this getting overshadowed with the conversations that are happening right now on gun talks? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, it’s a very good question. You know, look, just to kind of reiterate a little bit of what Dr. Jha has said is: Without additional funding, you know, we are unable to purchase li- — lifesaving treatments for the American people, including our most vulnerable. We’re already — we’ve already cut down on our purchase of treatments for high-risk Americans. Imagine an — a 13-year-old with a heart condition who may not be able to access preventive treatment to stay safe from a life-threatening illness. We’re losing our spot in line while other countries are moving forward and buying next-generation vaccines for all Americans that may be needed in the fall and winter. So I think that’s what he’s talking about when he says he’s losing — he’s losing sleep. You know, when we think about the path forward and how we’re going to get to where we need to be — you know, we are working closely with members of Congress on a bipartisan basis to drive a path forward on COVID funding, and the President is committing to get — committed to getting that — getting it done. And so, Dr. Jha and OMB Director have been — have been on the Hill having those meetings. So, you know, the President deals with multiple things at a time. So this is still a — very much a priority. So we will continue doing our part to protect the American people. We’ll use the few funds we have remaining to continue getting testing, treatments, and vaccine out to the — to Americans for as long as we can. We will continue to work the phones, hold briefings, and make our case public — publicly and privately with lawmakers, imploring Congress to act immediately (inaudible) on our long-overdue COVID — to act on our long-overdue COVID needs. And at the end of the day, it’s Republicans in Congress — they need to act. They have to answer to the American people if they can’t get the vaccine treatments and tests that we will need come fall. So, you know, we’re going to continue doing the work. The work doesn’t stop. Q (Cross-talk by reporters.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, my gosh. S.V. Q Yeah, thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q Following up on the January 6th question: There have been Republicans — prominent Republicans, as well as outside groups, who are already making a concerted effort to downplay the entire thing before a single word has been said about — in the hearings. Has the President — what are his thoughts about that? And has he made any efforts to reach out to Kevin McCarthy, to Mitch McConnell about, “Hey, this is important. We ought to be on the same page with this”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President has been really clear — right? — he supports the bipartisan effort — the January 6th Select Committee bipartisan effort. But we’re not going to get involved. That is something that is independent and needs to stay independent. You know, it is important to protect our democracy. That is something that the President — what happened on January 6th was a very dark day in our democracy. And so, we have to continue to find ways to protect it. So he supports what they’re doing. We’re not going to get involved. It’s an independent committee. Q Karine? Karine? Back here. Q Yeah, so you said that we’re in a stable economic — or we’re transitioning into a stable economic growth. The Treasury Secretary also testified today we’re going to a stable economic growth. What exactly is a “stable economic growth”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think the way that we’re looking at it is just the data, just what we have seen in this past year. I think people forget what the President inherited when he walked in. You had 20 million people who were collecting unemployment benefits. You — you had — unemployment was at more than 6 percent. And the work that he did with the American Rescue Plan, getting that done, and the Democrats — only Democrats voting for it, helped get the economy moving, helped get the economy growing. And so, the way we see it is that we are in a strong place. The U.S. economy may grow faster this year than China’s economy for the first time since 1976. With — with the right policies, we are confident that the U.S. can transition from recovery to stable, steady growth and bring down inflation without giving all of these historic gains that I just laid out — 8.7 million new jobs in this past year and a half. And so, one of the things that we’ve been very clear about is giving the Federal Reserve the independence to deal with inflation. And they are committed to it; we are committed to it. And they have the strongest tools to come up with monetary policy to get that done. Q So — but is that — is that GDP growth, like under the Obama administration, 1.5 percent, 1.8 percent for the year? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I’m not going to get into, like, the specifics of GDP growth. But what I can say is the numbers — the data that we have seen just on job growth — 390,000 jobs in the month of May — what we have seen is historic numbers, is a his- — we are in a historic place in history — historic place right now, as we have — as we look at where we are with the economy. Very, very different than where we were a year ago. And that is because of what the President has been able to do with a comprehensive plan to get people vaccinated, with a plan to get people back to work. Remember — and I know some of you know this — schools were closed when he — when he entered the administration. Businesses were closed when he entered the administration. The economy was in crisis. We are in a different place. That’s what — that’s how we see this. Q One quick one. Are we in a recession then? Because the Atlanta Fed GDP now looks at a snapshot, and it’s 0.9 percent. It’s gone down from 1.9 to 1.3 for the second quarter. Two quarters in a row of negative growth is a recession. So are we there? And how close — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the way that we see it is we have the right tools, and we are in a strong place to continue to get — to get our — to be in this transition where we have stable — stable growth. And that is what’s important. And so, that’s going to be our focus. Q Thank you. Will you follow up? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Thank you, guys. I actually — I do have to go. I really do have to go. Q Thanks for coming back out. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks, guys. Thank you.

"The View" host Joy Behar said Monday that all Republicans "really care about" is making President Biden look bad during a conversation about the baby formula shortage, adding that inflation and high gas prices were not on him."In May, 192 Republicans voted against easing the baby formula shortage with $28 million in emergency spending. Only 12 voted with the Dems," Goldberg said, adding that former President Donald Trump "made sure we can’t get baby formula from Canada because the trade rules that he put in, in the U.S./Mexico/Canada agreement punished Canadian companies if they export too much baby formula here." Goldberg also said, "thank God" that they closed the Abbott plant after recalling several types of formula, which were linked to illnesses in infants. She slammed the "monopoly" the plant had over the baby formula market and said that Republicans "could have stopped this from happening."Behar said that Republicans were voting against "the best interests of their constituencies" and that all they care about is making Biden look bad. "That seems to be their M.O.," Behar said. "What do they say? Let's do something to the Libs, own the Libs and make Biden look bad." Behar pivoted to inflation and gas prices. "And by the way, inflation is a worldwide problem, he's getting blamed for that. The gasoline is a worldwide problem, yes its $5, $6 here, it's like $11, $12 in Europe. So you cannot blame the president for every single thing," Behar continued. Guest host Lindsey Granger noted that she is a mom to a baby and that her daughter drinks formula. "I think that parents are just frustrated by anything partisan having to do with this, because I want to know how to feed my kid," Granger said. "And I just am asking for some guidance from the FDA and President Biden who knew that was pandemic was happening, knew there were short of supplies and knew that parents were stockpiling, then knew that Abbott closed down. The FDA found out that Abbott was going to have issues in the whistleblower complaint in October. They went to go talk to that whistleblower in December and then checked the place in February. That's four months that lapsed in communication. People just want some guidance. People don’t want to hear about politics in this regard. They want to know how to move forward." Abbott's plant in Sturgis, Michigan, reopened on Saturday and restarted production. The company said they would start by making EleCare and other special formulas first, and they hope to get their products in stores by the end of June.

NBC News correspondent Yamiche Alcindor worried Democrats would have a difficult time making Americans "care" and pay attention to the January 6 hearings, amid high gas prices, inflation, and a baby formula shortage. Appearing in a MSNBC panel Monday, Alcindor told host Andrea Mitchell that the "biggest challenge" the January 6 House Select Committee faced was getting Americans to have the same level of concern for their investigation. "I think the biggest challenge for lawmakers here as they talk about these sort of huge ideas of American democracy and sort of the experiment that we’re all living and benefiting from possibly being brought to his knees is whether or not they can make people care, Andrea," she said. The NBC reporter and PBS host said that would be difficult when Americans were focused on other "really important" issues affecting their lives like inflation. "There are so many things that people are juggling between, gas prices, and inflation, baby formula, abortion, and the shootings that are happening," Alcindor acknowledged. Still, she urged Democrats to convince Americans these hearings were foundational to protecting the country. "These lawmakers are going to try now have a narrative to focus the country’s attention to say, Look at this thing. Do not turn away. And understand that while all those other things are really, really important, the foundation of our country, what makes our country function, is a democracy that we have to protect," she said. Emphasizing the importance of the hearings, she insisted the January 6 Capitol riot was "the beginning of a new phase of America" where our "democracy" was "in peril." The January 6 House Select Committee will argue their case to the public via a primetime special broadcast on Thursday. They also enlisted the help of former ABC News president James Goldston to help produce the hearing. Democrats face an uphill battle in the upcoming elections as inflation remains a top issue for voters. Gas prices have more than doubled since President Biden took office, according to AAA. In addition to the high prices, supply-chain issues continue to plague consumers. Seventy-four percent of the nation's baby formula was out of stock for the week ending May 28, according to retail tracking data from Datasembly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey! Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. Okay, I have one thing at the top for everybody. So, I know a lot of people have been asking about the Summit of Americas. And you probably saw: Tonight, at six o’clock, there’ll be a background call with some of our experts, who — later today, clearly, at six o’clock — who will discuss the summit in detail and give you all the information that you wished for. But I wanted to give a quick preview each day of the summit so you all have it now. And it will be arranged around five key areas that President Biden will focus on. On Wednesday, the focus will be on economic agenda for the region and promoting health systems and health security. Thursday will be responding to the climate crisis and combating food insecurity. And Friday will focus on migration in the Western Hemisphere. You can expect to see deliverables in those areas announced by the President and other members of his Cabinet on all the — all three days, relating to those focus areas. And one final item of note: Later this afternoon — hoping before our background call at six — we will share the list of countries attending for — for the summit. I’m sure — I know everyone is excited about that. Everyone has been looking forward to that. And also, we’re going to try and end this at 4:15. I want to make sure I get to people in the back, so I just want folks to be mindful. I want to make sure that we make our rounds and so that people can have their questions answered. And, with that, Chris, you want to kick us off? Q Okay. I just have two questions. So, given the people who are not going to the Summit — the President of Mexico; President of Honduras, who the Vice President recently spoke directly to — what does it say about the strength of the U.S. influence in the region if these people are deciding they don’t want to go? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me just speak to the President of Mexico very quickly, because I have something in there for you. We have had candid engagement with President López Obrador, as well with other regional partners, for more than a month regarding the issue of invitations to the summit. It is important to acknowledge that there are a range of views on this question in our hemisphere, as there are in the United States. The President’s principal position is that we do not believe that dictators should be invited, which is the reason that he has — the president has decided not to attend. We look forward to hosting Foreign Secretary Ebrard as the Mexican representative. And we welcome Mexico’s significant contribution to the summit — to the — to the major summit deliverables. President Biden and First Lady — and the First Lady look forward to welcoming President Obrador and Fir- — and the First Lady of Mexico to Washington in July for a bilateral visit. At that meeting, President Biden and President Obrador will have the opportunity to carry the work forward for the summit. To your second — to your other — to your actual question — I just wanted to make sure I dealt with Mexico because we had a little announcement there: The U.S. remains the most powerful force in driving hemis- — hemispheric actions to address core challenges facing the people of the Americas –inequality, health, climate and food security. And so, the President continues to be a leader in the hemisphere. Q The other question is: Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if the West continues to deliver rocket systems, Moscow will “hit objects we haven’t yet struck,” possibly expand the attacks (inaudible). What is the administration’s thinking on that? How is the White House interpreting that comment? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so I would refer you to the President’s op-ed that he did just last week — the New York Times — in which he laid out our objectives, which is — in Ukraine — and explain why we are sending Ukraine more advanced rocket systems and munitions. We are providing them with capabilities to help them defend their territory from Russia’s advances. Remember, this is Russia’s advancement onto their sovereignty, onto their territorial integrity. This is Russia’s war. And what we’re trying to provide — what we’re trying to provide with historic assistance to Ukraine is to — so that Ukraine could fight for their freedom. Q Thanks, Karine. The compromise that is being worked on, on the Senate side, on Capitol Hill, sounds like it might include some incremental expansions to background checks, possibly maybe encouraging more states to adopt red-flag laws, but it wouldn’t be a major expansion of background checks or raise the purchasing age for semi-automatic weapons or ban magazines — large-capacity magazines. How is the President thinking about a compromise like that? How disappointed would he be if it didn’t include many of the things that he just laid out the other night? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just say that the President is encouraged by the discussions that are happening currently in the Senate by the bipartisan group that’s being led by Senator Murphy and other members, and it shows the urgency of the moment. Look, so we have to remember that while there have been measured victories on gun violence prevention in recent years, there hasn’t been a wide-ranging bill passed since 1994. That’s almost three decades ago. So the President has made it clear that it’s time for Congress to act. We’ve seen the House do — take some actions last week; they’re going to take some more actions this week. And so, we can’t — he can’t do it — he can’t do it all alone, right? He has taken some actions — some executive actions, as we’ve talked about here. And he believes that Congress should continue to act. And we are going to see how the negotiations go. We’re going to give it the space that it needs. And we’re not going to speak to what exactly is being discussed — the pieces of legislation — but we are encouraged and we think these incremental steps, these steps that they’re taking, this conversation that they’re having is very important for the moment. Q So does he consider this compromise that is potentially taking shape to be wide-ranging? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, he — what he’s calling for, clearly — and we’ve heard him talk to this on Thursday when he talked about how it is “enough” and how, when he went to Texas, Uvalde, the parents that he met with for more than three hours asked — asked him to do something, asked for Congress to do something. And this is what we’re seeing now. We believe Congress needs to act. And what we’re seeing is that they’re taking those actions by having this conversation, by having these negotiations to act. And again, we’ve seen — we haven’t seen these types of steps in a long time. And so, the President is encouraged by it. He welcomes it. We have to see what the exact — what will come out of the negotiations. Q And finally, you said he’s giving them space. You mean he’s not in regular communication — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m — Q — with either the Democrats or Republicans involved in that compromise? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’ll say this: What I can say is that, you know, what I’m — I’m not going to — as we, you know, we like to say, we don’t read out any private conversations. But — and I mentioned this last week — our Office of Leg. Affairs — his Office of Leg. Affairs have been in constant communications. Since the Uvalde shootings, more than — dozens of conversations with leadership in Congress, with the negotiation — negotiators, and also with staff. So that has been continuing. So his — his staff is really — has been very involved in that. One more thing I do want to add: Senator Chris Murphy was on one of the networks here, and he said that he has been in constant communication with us every day during these — this time of negotiation. And he also said that he believes it’s time for the Senate to make a move and it’s time for the Senate to take action. Okay, let me just go around. I’m going to go back a little bit, but go ahead, Mary. Q Just following up on that — I think trying to get a sense of how the President defines success when it comes to this issue. I mean, you note those pleas to do something. Is doing something — even if it is far short of, obviously, you know, sort of the sweeping legislation that the President is looking for — is that still a success in the President’s mind? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think the way that the President — and he has said this, right? — which is: Yes, he has laid down a sweeping list of actions. He did that very passionately and very effectively on Thursday. And what he is saying, because the parents — he heard directly from the parents in Uvalde, and families — is that they just want to see some action. They want to see that — that Congress actually can put their politics aside and come in a bipartisan way and deliver something. And when you think about the red-flag law — I know Nancy was asking me about that — 72 percent of Americans want the red-flag law. And so, that’s — that’s encouraging. That is important. And if — if you think about it, too — if you look at the shootings in the past: Parkland — if the red-flag law was in — was in place back in 2018, that would have prevented — if it was enacted, that would have potentially prevented that tragedy. So — and now Florida has that red-flag law, and it has prevented tragedy in the state. So, there are things here that are very important, I think, that are going to have some impact. Does — of course, the President is always going to call for more, but we want to see action. And that’s — that’s what we’re hoping to see with the negotiation that’s currently happening in the Senate. Q And on the timing of all this, Leader Schumer wants to give enough time for negotiators to try and find some common ground but also wants to be able to get especially Republicans on the record on where they stand here. How long does the President believe these talks should be able to continue if there isn’t a real formal agreement yet? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, the President wants action right away, as soon as possible. He doesn’t want to — clearly, the families don’t want to wait, who have lost their loved ones, sadly. But we leave the mechanism to how this process is going to work and move forward to Senator Schumer. I’m just go to take — I’m going to go take some in the back here. Oh, my gosh. (Laughs.) Go ahead, you with — you in the — I know you yelled a question at me when I was walking out the other day. Q Real quick — yeah, so, on Chinese tariffs, I want to ask you about — the Commerce Secretary said the President has asked her to look into possibly removing tariffs on some imports coming in. If that happens, has there been conversations with the Chinese about them dropping their tariffs for U.S. products going into China? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I just don’t want to get ahead of that. I know the — when the Secretary was doing Sunday television yesterday, she spoke to this. As she said, the President has asked her and others in the administration to look at this — to look at the Chinese tariffs. I do not want to get ahead of it. She even said the President is going to have to make a decision once it’s presented to him. I just don’t want to get ahead of any of that at this time. Q All right. And one more on the Defense Production Act that was announced today. The President — what — taking a step back from that, what emergency is the President using to invoke the Defense Production Act? Because, historically, it’s been — in the 1950s, for the Korean War, and during COVID it was enacted. What emergency is it — what’s the real emergency in the solar industry for the Defense Production Act? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me — I was going to say, first, the President — you know, when he takes the Defense Production Act, it’s to make sure that he’s delivering for the American people. It is an important tool that he has used a couple of times, and it has been incredibly effective. So, for this particular clean energy Defense Production Act, he is invoking the Defense Production Act to rapidly expand domestic production of solar panel parts, building insulation, heat pumps, and more. He is putting the full force of the federal government’s purchasing power behind supporting American clean energy manufacturers. And he is providing U.S. solar deployers the short-term stability they need to build clean energy projects and deliver more affordability energy to American families and business. Altogether, these historic actions will cut costs for American families, strengthen our power grid, and tackle the climate crisis. And with a stronger clean energy arsenal, the United States can be an even stronger partner to our allies, especially in the face of Putin’s war in Ukraine. Q But what’s the emergency in the solar industry? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, this is just a step to get to — to a place where we do have a clean energy arsenal. And so, this is a very important part of the President’s — this is a very important part of the President’s agenda in getting to that clean energy system that he’s been talking about since he walked into the administration. So, this is that, and this a way that we felt that we can act to get moving in that way. I’ll come back up. Go ahead. Q On the Summit of the Americas with the U.S. not inviting Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua for “principled reasons,” as it’s been described — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — about democracy, does the President feel in any way embarrassed that a neighbor like Mexico is not coming? Does it rise to that level of awkwardness? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me just first say that the President was aware that — when speaking to Obrador — that he wasn’t going to attend. He was aware before the press conference was made, before he made his decision to make that announcement. So, there was communication there, and he was made aware. Look, we have had candid engagement with the President of Mexico, as well with other regional partners, for more than a month regarding the issue of invitations to the summit. It is important to acknowledge that there are a range of views on the question — in our — on this question in our hemisphere, as I mentioned earlier. The President’s principal position is what — we do not believe that dictators should be invited. That said, we look forward to hosting Foreign Secretary Ebrada- — Ebrard as the Mexican representative, and we welcome Mexico’s contribution to the major summit deliverables. And so, I mean, at the end of the day, to your question, we just don’t believe dictators should be invited. And that’s — and so we don’t regret that, and we will stand — the President will stand by his principle. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q There was understandable skepticism — and, to some degree, pessimism — about the ability to get something related to guns over the finish line in the immediate wake of Uvalde. Has that shift — shifted at all inside the White House? Are you moving more towards an optimism, “this could actually get done” type of moment? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, the President is going to continue to use the bully pulpit to call on action. That’s what we saw him do Thursday, and he has been doing that for this past year and a half. It is an issue that is a priority to him. This is why he has done the most executive actions than any President at this time. You know, we are optimistic, we are encouraged, as I just mentioned, of what we’re seeing on the Hill. The House has taken some action; they’re going to continue to take some action. But as we know, in the Senate, it takes 10 Republicans to get things done, to get something like this — as big as this done. So, again, we’re encouraged. Chris — Senator Murphy has been pretty positive. And so, we — you know, that is something that we listen to. And we’re going to continue having conversation from the staff level to members and staff on the — on the Hill. Q And then one on a separate issue. On gas prices, I understand what the administration has done up to this point on the policy side of things. I also understand it’s a global marketplace. Given the fact that they keep hitting new highs, are there new initiatives, new policy proposals that your team is working through right now that could possibly have an effect or that you could roll out in the weeks ahead if prices continue where they’ve been? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, everything is on the table, as you heard us — as you heard us say the last couple of weeks. But I do want to say: Look, you know, if you look at what happened when Putin started amassing troops on the border with Russia, the price of gas has increased by $1.51. And I also want to add — because this is really important so that people understand and flag that similar issues are happening around the world. In the EU, gas is $8.15 per gallon. It has increased by $1.74. In Germany, gas is $8.88 per gallon. It has increased $2.16. In Canada, gas is $6.23 per gallon. It has increased $1.93. And all of this has happened since December of 2021. This is — to your point, Phil — which is — this is a global challenge. This is something that everyone is feeling across the globe. And — but we understand that prices — these gas prices, including food prices in particular — those two things, as we look at inflation and trying to make sure that we’re fighting inflation in every way that we can, is hurting families — is hurting families, especially as they sit around their kitchen table. But we’re going to continue to do everything that we can. I don’t have anything to preview for you. But, you know, one thing also I want to say: The Rescue Plan has really been able to help us put — put us in a — in an economic — a place where we’re stronger. And we saw that with the jobs numbers on Saturday — I’m sorry, on Friday — and that is an important thing to note as well. Because when the President walked in — and this is — you know, this is something that we have to really continue to remember — we were in an economic crisis. And the President met that moment by putting forth the American Rescue Plan, by Democrats on the Hill voting for that plan, and really putting us in a place where we look at today in a much stronger economic situation where we can actually deal with inflation head on. We have a lot of work to do, and we understand what the American people is feeling, but we are in a stronger place to take that on. Q Karine — Q Karine, to the back. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh — oh, my gosh. Okay, let me just go to the back. Let me just go to the back. I’m trying. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, I haven’t seen you in here in a while. So — Q It’s been a while, yeah. So, a Washington Post feature over the weekend showed that the U.S. still has 94 contracts with the Saudi military and that Americans have been helpful in the coalition’s offensive operations in Yemen. The admin has said the U.S. support is only defensive. Is the Post report wrong on (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Say that last part. I didn’t — you kind of went out a little bit. Q Yeah. The admin has said the U.S. support is on the defensive. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say — wait, say that whole — can you just say the whole thing? You said — Q Sure, sure. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — 94 percent. Q Sure, sure, sure. So, a feature in the Washington Post this weekend — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — showed that the U.S. still has 94 contracts — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q — with the Saudi military, and Americans have been helpful in the coalition’s offensive operations in Yemen. But the admin has said it’s only — support is only defensive. So, is the Post wrong on that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me speak to the Washington Post piece — is that U.S. diplomacy under our administration has established a ceasefire in Yemen and the most peaceful period there — there has — that we have seen in six years. So, I think the results of our approach speak for themselves, but I can’t speak to what has happened earlier before the — prior to this administration, earlier years of the war. And just to your point about aircrafts and what’s happening there — and even training pilots — I know that’s been part of the discussion as well: Look, we are committed to helping Saudi Arabia defend its territory. Since last year, Saudi Arabia was attacked by nearly 500 missiles and drones. Most of these threats were defeated by the anti-air systems and Saudi aircraft firing air — in-air munitions. Seventy thousand Americans lives and work — live and work in Saudi Arabia, including in the areas targeted by these missiles and drones. So, we’re going to continue that support because they — because of — because they need to defend themselves and what they’re seeing. Q And one more on Saudi. What evidence can the White House point to that repairing relations with Saudi Arabia will lead to reduced gas prices here in the United States? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, when it comes to oil or gas prices, that’s something that OPEC-Plus deals. We do not get involved in any of that. That is not the conversations that we have with Saudi Arabia. And I know they — OPEC-Plus made an announcement last week, on Friday, and we welcome that announcement. But that is not a part of our agenda when we have a discussion with them. (Cross-talk by reporters.) Hold on. Hold on. Oh, my goodness. Go ahead. Go ahead, Jenny. Q Thanks, Karine. Back to the Summit of the Americas: With Mexico and Honduras not coming and El Salvador not being expected, how do you have a high-level or effective immigration discussion with the region, with the presidents of Mexico and two thirds of the Northern Triangle countries boycotting this event? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think we’re able to still — you know, we’re able to still have an array of conversations and really focus on our agenda. I do want to list out who are — who is going to be attending. I know we’re going to have a list fairly shortly, I hope. We’re going to have 68 delegations, including organizations and observers, are scheduled to attend. We have at least 23 heads of state of government — heads of — I’m — I should be careful here — heads of government who will be attended — attending. And more than 10 U.S. Cabinet members will attend, reflecting President Biden’s whole-of-government approach. So I listed out each day what our agenda is going to be, what we’re going to discuss, which is also very important. But we are going to have on par — our attendance is going to be on par of what we’ve seen in the past. And so, that’s important to know. Yes, you know, we have these — you know, these — these couple of countries who are not going to be attending, but we have to — the President has to stick by his principle. He believes that he needs to stick by his principles and not invite dictators. But we can still have a fulsome conversation. There is a full agenda where he’s going to be very busy. I was looking at his calendar; he’s going be very busy those three days. And he’s looking to having conversations with other heads of states who will be there. Q And then, one more on the DPA action that you announced today. Invoking the DPA and imposing this two-year freeze on any new tariffs is a pretty novel way of using these wartime powers to declare the lack of solar goods a national emergency. Should we expect similar actions from this administration when it comes to other clean energy imports or goods that we import that are facing tariffs or could be facing tariffs? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I don’t have anything to — to preview — anything more coming forward. But I do want to talk about how this is going to work. So, the first step is to invoke the Defense Production Act, which is what the President is going to do today — is doing today. This kicks off a process that includes relevant federal agencies and stakeholders to quickly determine most immediate needs and identify the appropriate financial tools and resources to meet those needs. As that process unfolds, we will, of course — we will use — we will continue to work with Congress to advance these important priorities, which are necessary to position the United States to win the 21st century. So I just wanted to give — I know some folks had questions about how the DPA was going to act. Go ahead. Q I just want to get back to what you said a minute ago with Saudi Arabia. I mean, finding more oil and getting that to market is such a key part of the broader strategy with Russia right now. When OPEC-Plus made that announcement, you put out a statement saying, “We recognize the role of Saudi Arabia…in achieving this consensus.” You’re saying, when the President, when senior administration officials are talking to people in Saudi Arabia, the question of oil production never comes up? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m saying it’s not — it’s not the — it’s not the focus; it’s not the — on the agenda, right? That’s something for OPEC-Plus to decide. Clearly, Saudi Arabia chairs that. And so, we just want to be very clear on that. And I was asked the same question last week, and I pretty much said the same thing. And so, that’s — you know, I’m just going to leave it there. Q Okay. And then a quick question on the — on the solar announcement today. I understand the policy reasons for the announcement, but given how many times the administration, the Commerce Department said, “We want to be really careful to not get in the way of this investigation” — I think the Secretary said, “My hands are tied when it comes to this” — can you just explain the administration’s thinking in how this two-year pause and guarantee doesn’t undermine an investigation into those tariffs? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so the President is invoking an authority under the Tariff Act that authorizes him to suspend certain important duties to address an emergency. In this case, the emergency is the threat to the availability of sufficient electricity-generation capacity to meet expected customer demand. So that’s the emergency there. The President’s action will help ensure that we have the solar capacity additions necessary to meet our electricity and generate — and generation needs. So, the President is invoking section three- — 318(a) of the Tariff Act, and that’s how we’re moving forward. I’m going to move aro- — I’m going to move around. Q (Cross-talk by reporters.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to — I’m going to move around. Q (Cross-talk by reporters.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m goi- — go ahead, Steven. Q Just to follow up on Saudi Arabia: It’s been reported as fact that the President has decided he is going to go this summer. You said on Friday it was still a possibility. Can you give us a sense of where that decision stands today? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we have no travel to — to announce today. But I can assure you that what the President is focused on is — first and foremost is how his engagements with foreign leaders advance American interests. That is — that as — as true with Saudi Arabia with — than anywhere else — than any — with anyone else. Just as he has engaged recently with leaders of ASEAN in Asia — and this week, he’s going to do that at the Summit of Americas — the President will look for opportunities to engage with leaders from the Middle East region. And we just ha- — don’t have anything to announce today. But I do want to be — make — you know, be clear here: People have been asking if it was postponed. You — look, he said — the President said himself on Friday — I believe, yes, Friday — that the — that there was a — a visit in the works. But it was — it was — it wasn’t moved or postponed. It was — that — that reporting is actually not accurate. We were still having discussions, it was being considered, but it was never locked in. So I just want to be very clear on that. Q Just to follow up: Congressman Schiff said, on “Face the Nation” yesterday, the President should not go to Saudi Arabia, and that he would not shake the Crown Prince’s hand. He said, “This is someone who butchered an American resident, cut him up into pieces and in the most terrible and premeditated way.” How does that weigh on the President’s thinking about a possible trip? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, Congressman Adam Schiff is someone that we — we respect very much, that the President respects very much. As the President said on Friday, he believes it’s his job to try to bring peace where he can. This trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia, when it comes, would be in the context of significant deliverables for the American people and the Middle East region. You know, we look forward to consulting closely with members of Congress. But again, I don’t have a trip right now to announce. So there’s really — I don’t want to get ahead of something that we’re just — don’t have anything for — to share. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Back to guns and the Capitol — what’s going on there. Senator Toomey said on “Face The Nation” this weekend that the President has actually not been helpful, that the speech was too left leaning. And I’ve know I’ve had sources — and including some Democrats — who also feel like this White House has not really helped talks, whether it be on this or Build Back Better. Can you can you respond to Senator Toomey’s idea that the President has not been helpful? And also, just what is the President doing to try and build this compromise? Or is staying away from the Capitol what he’s doing? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, so we would respectfully disagree with Senator Toomey. We’ve been in close, regular contact, dozens of conversations that our Office of Leg Affairs has had with Senate — Senate negotiators, leaders of Congress, since Uval- — since, sadly, the shooting in Texas, in Uvalde. So they’ve been in constant communication while this has been happening. And, you know, we’re calling for action that broadly shared by — by the vast majority of Americans. According to a CBS/YouGov poll out this weekend, 81 percent of Americans want universal background checks. As I mentioned, 72 percent want a national red-flag law; 62 percent want a nationwide ban on AR-15s; and, importantly, 72 percent agree that mass shootings are something we can prevent. And the President agrees, and this is why he’s calling for them to act. But the President has been involved — or, in- — involved in this since day one. Since the day — since day one, when he walked in and talked about comprehensive gun reform and what he was going to do. Again, the State of the Union — you’ve heard me talk about — say that he made sure that that was a par- — a big part of his address to Congress and to the country. When he — when we talk about the executive actions that he’s taken — more than any president at this time of their administration — those are real steps that this president has taken. And not just as president, during his Senate years, in 1994, the banning of assault weapons; that is something that he led on. And if we even look at what happened those first 10 years of that — of that assault ban weapon [weapons ban] was in law — into law, it actually brought down mass shootings. And when it — when it expired in 2- — in 2004, 10 years later, we saw mass shootings triple. And so these are the things that the President continues to call for. But he’s encouraged. He’s encouraged by what he’s seeing in Congress. Again, we’ve been in constant communications; Senator Murphy said this yesterday during one of his Sunday show interviews. And so, we’re — but we’re going to continue to do our part. The President is going to continue to use the — his bully pulpit to call for action, which he did on Thursday. Q Karine, on Boris — on Boris Johnson? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, on Boris Johnson. Q Thank you. It just came over the wire: Prime Minister Johnson has survived a no-confidence vote among Tory MPs, 211 to 148. Was the President concerned that he might be removed? And does he have any plans to speak with him? And is the President concerned that perhaps his weakened standing — 148 conservative MPs wanting to remove him — might hurt the attempts to keep this coalition that the President has built, with respect to Ukraine, together if the possibility of a leadership change in the UK government remains? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to comment — we are not going to comment on inter- — inter- — internal politics. I would refer you to the UK government. We just are not going to comment on that. Q (Cross-talk by reporters.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, my — go ahead. Go ahead. I haven’t seen you in here in a while. Yeah. Yeah. Q Oh, yeah. Thanks. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, please go ahead. Q Back to the summit. You spoke about a month or so of engagements between U.S. and Mexico. I wonder if you can talk about the tone and timbre of those conversations, particularly if the President or the Vice President talked to President López Obrador. And I have another question too about the summit. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, look, you know, I don’t have any conversations to read out to you. We try to keep our — as we say over and over again, we try to keep our conversations private. I don’t have any readout for you on the tone or tenor of a conversation. And I don’t have a — you know, I don’t have any calls to read out that the President may have had with any — with the Mexican President in particular. Q And Senator Menendez accused, you know, López Obrador of siding with dictators, and said that, you know, his actions will, you know, have a negative impact on U.S.-Mexico relations. Does the United States or the White House share, you know, that assessment or have worries about that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This is — say that one more time. Q Yeah. Senator Menendez said — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Yeah. Q — accused López Obrador of siding with dictators and it will have a negative impact on U.S.-Mexico relations. I wonder what the White House feels about that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we see our relationship with Mexico — they — we see them as a close ally, as a partner. They’re coming here in July with the — the President is coming with his first — with the First Lady. They’re going to continue to talk about the opportunity to carry out the work of the summit forward. And so, we see them as a friend and a close ally. Go ahead. Q Karine, in your description of the three countries that were not invited, you said President has drawn a line at dictatorship, which is basically taking the moral position and putting that in a priority above, say, getting more oil from Venezuela and so forth. But when you got to Saudi Arabia, you said you were looking to work for the American people toward a better solution. Does this suggest that the President, who called Saudi Arabia a “pariah state,” does not believe it is a dictatorship or believes that, for whatever its governance’s shortcomings, obtaining the oil is more important? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you — as you started off saying, the President is focused on getting things done for the American people. You know, and if he determines that it’s in the interest of the United States to engage with a foreign leader and that such enga- — such an engagement can deliver results, then he’ll do so. In the case of Saudi Arabia — to your question — which has been a strategic partner of the United States for nearly 80 years, there’s no question that important interests are interwoven with Saudi Arabia. And the President views the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as an important partner on a host of initiatives that we are working on, both in the region and around the world. And as I said on Friday, the extension of the “Yemen Truce,” as we — as we talked about, is a clear example of where our engagement with a foreign leader can deliver results. Ending the Yemeni war is a priority of the President’s. And the King of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Crown Prince played a critical role in securing an extension of the truce that has been in place since April. This truce brought about one of the most peaceful periods since this terrible war began seven years ago and saved thousands of lives. The President has also repeatedly confirmed our commitment to supporting Saudi Arabia in the defense of its territory from Iran and other threats, as I just laid out a moment ago. There’s also no question that, as with many countries where we share interests, we have concerns about its human rights record — that is a very — a very important thing to the President — and past conduct, much of which predated our administration. And we raised those concerns with them, as we do with others. And, of course, there are also strategic priorities that are important to address. And our contacts and diplomacy have intensified recently, and that will continue. I’m going to continue because I want to get around. We have about 10 minutes. Q Thanks, Karine. Does the White House have a reaction to Russia imposing personal sanctions on Secretary Yellen, Secretary Granholm, and others in the U.S.? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I — I have not seen that, so I don’t have a comment from here on that. Q Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q Does the war effort and the attack over the weekend by Russia in Kyiv give the White House pause about the status of the battle between those two countries and influence additional U.S. support, perhaps, for Ukraine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, Russia continues to make incremental gains and limited progress in certain areas of Ukraine. That’s why we are continuing to provide deliveries of weapons and equipment as quickly as possible. So, that has not changed; we’re going to continue to do that. And it’s why Secretary Austin and the Department of Defense have organized meetings with more than 40 countries to facilitate weapons transfers from our Allies and partners to help Ukraine defend the democracy — their democracy. We are committed to make sure that Ukraine is able to fight for their freedom. This is the — this is coming from the President’s New York Times article last week. Again, this is Russia’s aggression on Ukraine sovereignty, on their territorial integrity. This — they are fighting for their democracy. And so, we’re going to do everything that we can to put them in a position of strength so that they can defend themselves. And if there is an opportunity for them to negotiate, they would be able to do that at a — in a position of strength. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. On the solar panels, how is this not a gift to Chinese solar manufacturers who — many of whom operate with forced labor and are subsidized by the Chinese Communist Party? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, today’s announcement is about one country and one country alone, and it’s about the United States. It is about the reliability of our power — of our power grid. It is about reducing costs for American families, and it’s about enabling domestic solar manufacturers to move forward with their projects. The actions that we’re — we are currently doing is being applauded by members of Congress, by labor, by climate groups, by U.S. CEOs, and domestic solar manufacturers as well. The — the actions do not apply to any materials imported from China. Import duties will remain in place on solar cells and panels from China or Taiwan. So it has nothing to do with either; it’s about making sure that we’re delivering for the American public. Q And then on the summit: Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela aren’t getting invites because of their human rights records — I know you just got a question on this — but then how does it make sense to then have the President visiting with Mohammed bin Salman, who the CIA says ordered the killing of Jamal Khashoggi? How does it make sense to deny those countries and then have a visit with the Crown Prince? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, first of all, there’s no — there’s no trip for me to announce. That’s what I’ve said. The President even said that, you know, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here when he was asked specifically about meeting with MBS. Q So he may — he may not do it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just saying that I just don’t have anything — it’s a hypothetical, and I just don’t have anything to announce or to speak to about a meeting. You said, “He’s going to be meeting with…” I’m telling you I don’t have anything to announce at this — Q Are there some in the administration who say he shouldn’t be meeting with him? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me just — you asked me about Khashoggi. Let me just say this: When the President came into office, we were determined to make sure that our decades-long relationship with Saudi Arabia was serving our own interests and our values as we move forward, but also preserving it, because it has also help us accomplish many important things, and that’s largely what we’ve done. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi was something that we and so many others around the world took very, very seriously. One of the things that we did early on was to release our own report on this murder. At the same time, we initiated the so-called “Khashoggi ban” to make sure that any country that seeks to use tools of repression against people abroad who are criticizing, in one — one way or another, the government would pay a price for that. And we’ve used it multiple times since. At the same time, we thought it was very important to engage Saudi Arabia. Yemen was one of the most important places that we wanted to do that, and we’ve seen, as a result of our work with Saudi Arabia, is a real progress in actually dealing with one of the worst conflicts in — the world has seen over the last decade. I’m going to take one more question. Q (Cross-talk by reporters.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m trying to go to somebody I haven’t called in — on in a long time. I haven’t seen you in a while. So — Q Thanks. I want to go back to the solar energy announcement. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q We’re seeing big increases in electricity rates in many places around the country for the summer. Regulators are warning about an elevated chance of blackouts this summer, particularly in the Western and Midwestern states. The DPA announcement today isn’t going to have any kind of immediate impact on those events. So I’m wondering if there are actions that the administration can take that would address those issues this summer and if that’s something that you’re working on. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I said earlier that, you know, we will cont- — we’re going to continue to work with Congress to advance important priorities. So that’s going to continue as well. But the steps we’re taking today are in response, you know, to an urgent need of — to grow the domestic clean energy economy and strengthen U.S. energy security. They are part of the President’s multi-pronged approach to accelerating the transition to a cleaner — a clean energy future made right here in America. This is particularly urgent given the impact of Russia’s invasion in Ukraine on the global energy supply, as well as the intensifying — the impacts of climate change on the electricity grid. So this is just one part. We’re going to continue to call — call on Congress to make sure that they are also acting. But this is an important first step in getting to our goal. Q Does it have an impact this summer on — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just say — I — what I would say is: This is an important first step. I don’t have the specifics on when it will have an impact, but this is an important step to getting to where we need to make sure that we are actually heading to a place where we’re getting to a clean energy. That’s it. All right. Q (Cross-talk by reporters.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to go. We’re going to get going, guys. It’s time.

Rep. Steve Scalise, the Republican House Minority whip, is a victim of gun violence himself after being gravely wounded in a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in 2017. The Louisiana lawmaker however accused Democrats of using the recent mass shooting in Texas as an excuse to infringe gun rights and implied that such shootings almost always had a cause that could not be blamed simply on guns. "It immediately becomes about Democrats wanting to take away guns," Scalise said on "Fox News Sunday." "Let's go search for the root of the problem. How can we do a better job of connecting the dots and stopping something before it happens. Like we did after September 11th, which has worked really well as it relates to stopping terrorist attacks," Scalise said. When asked why the US had far more gun killings than other developed nations where firearms are far less available, he blamed what he said were "crazy" calls by liberal Democrats to defund the police. The difference between Murphy and Scalise on this issue underscores the reasons why hopes for progress this week in Washington are tempered by the experience of the deep chasm that exists in the US on gun reform. And it raises questions over whether Washington will ever be able to keep Americans safe.

Biden White House adviser Gene Sperling acknowledged Sunday he didn't feel the pain of inflation and high gas prices as much as those making $50,000 or $60,000 a year, while defending the president's messaging strategy. In an appearance on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Sperling was pressed by host Brian Stelter on whether the administration needed to reevaluate its messaging tactics, noting the recent op-ed on inflation Biden wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "Who really reads op-eds?' Stelter asked. Sperling said that the president's strategy with writing op-eds was that it was him "speaking directly" to the American people. He emphasized it was "tough" and that when gas prices increase, the president's approval rating decreases. "But we have a very strong message about what the American Rescue Plan, what his bipartisan infrastructure plan has done for this economy and the fact that he is the one, not the Republicans, who is fighting every day to do everything he can administratively," Sperling continued. Stelter asked if Sperling was experiencing the pain that Americans are feeling with record-high gas prices and increased inflation. "You know, I feel the pain for so many families in our lives," he said. "I mean, $72 for gas this morning, do you feel it? Do you pay it?" Stelter pressed. "I’m not going to try to say I feel that pain personally as much as so many families who make $50,000 or $60,000, but do we feel that pain? Do we understand that frustration? You know what, this president said very clearly, he grew up in a family where, when gas prices went up, even a little bit, they felt it at their house. That leadership from him, that sense of empathy, the fact he grew up in that type of working-class family is exactly what we feel… and the leadership and message we get from the top down with this president," Sperling responded. Stelter asked Sperling about whether there was "value" in looking at the past and what the administration could have done about inflation and why Biden was so dismissive about what economist Larry Summers warned at the time. "I just think that is not a correct assessment of what’s caused global inflation," Sperling said. "The OECD, which is 38 countries, the 38 largest countries, has average inflation of 9.2%. Average core inflation of 6.2%. Do we think the actions of any individual country is responsible for this entire global phenomenon of 9.2% inflation? No. It’s been caused by things that were unforeseeable to Professor Summers or others, the effect omicron and delta had on the semiconductor supply correction, how that affected global vehicles, the unthinkable war in Russia." Biden outlined his plan for inflation in the Wall Street Journal op-ed, emphasizing the importance of giving the Fed the room it needs to implement the necessary changes. He also called on Congress to act on his social spending plan and to reform the tax code. He blamed high gas prices on the war in Ukraine. The average price per gallon hit $4.84 on Sunday, according to AAA.