Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre

U.S. Senators from both parties need to negotiate on bipartisan gun legislation without the involvement of President Biden, Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy said Sunday. Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, insisted that lawmakers work out the deal on their own when asked during an appearance on CNN’s "State of the Union" if it would be helpful if Biden got involved. "I think the Senate needs to do this ourselves," Murphy said. "I've talked to the White House every single day since these negotiations began, but right now the Senate needs to handle these negotiations." Both Republicans and Democrats are talking about possible changes to gun laws following several mass shootings in recent weeks, including the shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 children and two teachers dead. Murphy described the bipartisan negotiations as the most serious he’s ever been a part of, saying, "There are more republicans at the table talking about changing our gun laws and investing in mental health than at any time since Sandy Hook," where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in 2012. Murphy said that among the Republicans working on the potential bill is Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who he said has talked about looking at how juvenile records are accessed for young men ages 18 to 21 to make sure any who have had previous problems with the law are unable to get a weapon. On whether the Senate would put forth a vote on any potential gun legislation this week, Murphy said that while he isn’t sure anything will be voted on, he believes lawmakers need to have concepts to present to their colleagues in the coming week. "We're not going to put a piece of legislation on the table that will ban assault weapons or pass comprehensive background checks," Murphy said. "Right now, people in this country want us to make progress, they just don't want the status quo to continue for another 30 years." Despite the promise of bipartisan gun reform, Murphy said that he’s also been part of many failed negotiations in the past, adding that he’s remaining "sober-minded about our chances."

Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo was pressed on CNN Sunday about the Biden administration looking "flat-footed" in its response to inflation and the baby formula shortage, at one point citing France's higher gas prices as a defense of White House policies. Raimondo blamed inflation and high gas prices on the war in Ukraine and supply chain issues during the pandemic after "State of the Union" host Jake Tapper pointed to her comments from July. She said that inflation would be temporary and a short-term problem, but it's bedeviled President Biden and the nation for months. "So you got it wrong, too," Tapper said. "So, clearly we are and Americans are struggling with inflation. But I don’t think anyone predicted Putin’s war in Ukraine or various other things that have happened that have been unexpected. I still think we will get inflation under control. We just have to stick with it and see it through," Raimondo told Tapper. She said that the war would continue to drive prices up, adding, "we can't deny that." Tapper continued to press Raimondo on the administration's role in contributing to inflation. He cited economist Larry Summers, who said there was a "chance" Biden's American Rescue Plan could fuel inflation, by pumping the economy with too much money. "I don't really agree with that characterization. The reality is, I was just in Europe a couple of weeks ago. Gas in France is $10 a gallon. They didn't have an American Rescue Plan like we did. I shudder to think, Jake, what we would be living through right now if we didn't have the American Rescue Plan. Remember, that was the money for vaccinations, which actually allowed us to get everybody back to work," she said. Inflation hit 8.3% in April, a slight decrease from March's Consumer Price Index. In March, inflation climbed to 8.5%, a 40-year-high. Tapper also asked Raimondo about the administration's response to the baby formula shortage. Raimondo said she first heard about the issue in April but noted that she was not involved in the response to it. Following the closing of the Abbott plant in Sturgis, Michigan, parents across the country have struggled to find and purchase baby formula. Biden said on Friday that a shipment of 33 million bottles of baby formula were headed to the U.S. "We're talking about two critical issues here that directly affect the American people where they live. Where the Biden administration looks like it was caught flat-footed – inflation and baby formula, not to mention the record gas prices, which were hurt by the war in Ukraine, no doubt, but that's not the only reason why they're so high. Why does it seem the Biden administration is consistently playing clean-up on these problems that are playing out exactly as many experts forecast they would instead of heading them off before they become a crisis?" Tapper asked. Raimondo said that it was "one way to look at it," and continued to praise Biden's leadership and decisions. After noting she didn't want to "minimize" inflation, she said, "fundamentally, what we have here is a robust economic recovery. And I think that's in large part due to the president's leadership." The average gas price could hit $5 per gallon soon and are already setting records. The average price per gallon reached $4.84 on Sunday, according to AAA. The Abbott plant reopened and restarted production on Saturday. EleCare formula and other special metabolic formulas will be available on June 20, according to the company.

During the latest episode of MSNBC’s The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross, guest panelist Errin Haines complained that "White men" continue to block women’s "access to the ballot and our liberty as citizens." The segment began with Cross noting it's been "103 years since Congress passed the 19th amendment" on June 4, 1919, although the amendment that gave women the right to vote wasn't ratified by the states until the following year. In light of that, she asked Haines, an MSNBC contributor and editor-at-large for the feminist website The 19th, "What would you say is the biggest challenge facing women today?" Haines prefaced her answer with the statement that Cross' overview of the history of the 19th amendment shows there is "still unfinished work in our democracy and our society." She minced no words, telling the MSNBC host that "White men" are the biggest threat facing women today: "103 years after the passage of the 19th amendment in the Senate, the challenge and, frankly, the threat is the White men who have had a monopoly on our society, our democracy, and our country, who continue to block our access to the ballot and our liberty as citizens, as women and everything that comes with it." Haines said men have "always enjoyed" those "same freedoms" without ever having to "earn" them through amendments to the Constitution. "And while it’s fine for people to share something when you don’t think it’s going to cost you anything. When people feel like they are losing something that belongs to them, particularly power, everybody else watch out," Haines stated, implying that White men will do a lot to maintain their grip on power. Though Haines claimed that it’s women who are the majority in America and that’s why White male politics is so oppressive, saying, "Women are the majority of the population today, the majority of the electorate, and yet minority rule is still keeping a playing filed uneven across this country." "That is leaving women, the women that I talk to, the voters that I talk to, feeling less free and less fair," Haines declared. She admitted that "women vote," but claimed women still aren’t equal to the White male minority because, "They are fighting for a better place – workplace on the other side of a pandemic. They are still protesting gun violence that is killing their children, killing their parents, and grandparents. They’re searching desperately for baby formula." Haines also mentioned women’s access to abortion, stating, "They’re fighting to keep reproductive access that gives them the ability to make decisions about their own health and bodies." She mentioned that women are "still pushing for equal pay," and reiterated that women "still do not have equal representation politically in this country. We’re half the population, again, half the democracy, yet there are only 24 of us in the Senate and no black women?" Haines continued, saying there are "nine women governors, which is a record. We have a record number of women in Congress but that’s still only 27%." The activist concluded that women's right to vote is "still very fragile," saying, "Obviously, yes, the suffrage movement took up so much of the last century but, what we know – the right to vote for women, and really just our access as equal participants and citizens in this country, is still very fragile and something that women must remain vigilant about."

MSNBC host Joy Reid and her guests on Friday tore into Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, calling him an "authoritarian leader" and claiming he's "being groomed to be the next Grand Wizard of the GOP." Addressing her guests, Democratic strategist Fernand Amandi and MSNBC contributor Dean Obeidallah, Reid opened the segment by sharing her fears that DeSantis is "creating essentially a Republican superstate where it doesn’t matter how you vote, where it’s completely controlled by Republicans." "Is there any way to stop this?" she asked before letting her guests speak. Amandi, a frequent MSNBC guest, ran with her doomsday assessment of the DeSantis situation: "Joy, you asked the most important question, because for 246 years in this country, the answer to that question — is there any way to stop this? – would have been, ‘Well, yes! You can stop it at the ballot box this November.’" Though he admitted he doesn’t believe voting can work anymore in Florida, he added, "I’m not so sure that, even if the will of voters' call to end this madness that’s happening in Florida, it would come to pass. Because Florida, I don’t think, is a democracy anymore." "I think Florida is truly an authoritarian state modeled after Hungary, Orban," Amandi declared, naming the European country’s leader, Viktor Orban. The strategist pointed to the fact that Hungary hosted a CPAC event this year, which Orban spoke at, and asserted that "in Ron DeSantis, they are trying to establish that type of authoritarian leader who will eventually run for President of the United States." "Absolutely," Reid responded, and then turned the mic over to Obeidallah to comment on how the GOP is using Florida as a model for their plans of running the whole country. Adding to the drama of the conversation, Obeidallah stated, "We’re going to be seeing refugees from Florida seeking freedom coming to New York. And you’re welcome here, we’d like to have you here in our state." "Look, they’re making a DeSantistan," Obeidallah quipped, adding, "It’s going to be the worst Disney ride ever where he runs it. He has been banning books, banning Black history, banning saying the word gay, banning hormone therapy for transgender teens. Which is just cruelty." "Studies have shown that teens who are transgender, who get hormone therapy, are 40% less likely to commit suicide or a suicide attempt. He knows that. He doesn’t care. It’s cruelty," he claimed. "It’s the idea – like Trump – the idea, let’s prey on those who are vulnerable instead of helping them." Obeidallah then accused the GOP base of not being pro-life, "The base – which talks about being pro-life – doesn’t care about the sanctity of life. They don’t care about children. They don’t care about people in need." The MSNBC contributor concluded his rant with a swipe equating DeSantis and Republicans with the KKK, stating, "I’m worried. I look at Florida. I look at Ron DeSantis being groomed to be the next Grand Wizard of the GOP on a national level. We should all be alarmed by what, [he's] trying to do in Florida, nationally. Very alarming." "100 percent," Reid responded.

During a segment about the celebration of Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee on Friday, one host on The View expressed deep antipathy for the celebration, even though she used to love anything to do with celebrating the royals. Co-host Sunny Hostin explained how her fondness for the "pomp and circumstance" of the British royal family has completely waned in recent years because of her study of western imperialism. Hostin admitted she doesn’t care about the Queen's 70th anniversary on the throne or anything else currently going on with the royals because of how their legacy was "built on the backs and the souls of slaves." She began by explaining how when she lived in England for a time, she was enamored with the monarchy. Jokingly, she claimed, "Everything is terrible except for the monarchy." She added that "The accents are great," as well. "I actually loved the pomp and circumstance of it all when I was there and I sat outside and watched the changing of the guards and I loved all of that. I remember when Princess Diana married Charles, I stayed up all night and I woke up and watched it," she said happily. But she quickly turned somber, reflecting on when she discovered the history of British imperialism. "But now that I learned a little more about the history of England and the colonization of ­–" she continued, before co-host Joy Behar interjected, saying, "The imperialism." Hostin ran with the clarification. "The imperialism and colonization of the Caribbean and the fact that Britain and the monarchy took like $1 trillion from Africa," she continued, adding, "and I’ve learned that, you know, Jamaica is now removing the Queen from her position there, and Barbados removed the Queen, and all the Caribbean islands are removing the Queen." As such, she declared, "Now I’m not as enamored of the pomp and circumstance, because it was built on the backs and the souls of slaves. So, I’m just not as interested." "But I was enamored of it before," she added. The View audience applauded Hostin’s comments, though co-host Whoopi Goldberg expressed that she doesn’t believe that should ruin the celebration of the Queen. "I still think it is great for them. I think it is great they have a – because underneath our carpets is more imperialism. Okay. Just ask the people who were here originally," Whoopi claimed. Hostin replied, "Well, people know how I feel about that as well." "What my point is, I’m okay with their pomp and circumstance. That’s what they’re doing. That’s how they’re celebrating," Goldberg explained, adding, "This is a big old mark for them. I’m thrilled for them. Doesn’t happen here. We don’t do that here."

During a segment about the celebration of Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee on Friday, one host on The View expressed deep antipathy for the celebration, even though she used to love anything to do with celebrating the royals. Co-host Sunny Hostin explained how her fondness for the "pomp and circumstance" of the British royal family has completely waned in recent years because of her study of western imperialism. Hostin admitted she doesn’t care about the Queen's 70th anniversary on the throne or anything else currently going on with the royals because of how their legacy was "built on the backs and the souls of slaves." She began by explaining how when she lived in England for a time, she was enamored with the monarchy. Jokingly, she claimed, "Everything is terrible except for the monarchy." She added that "The accents are great," as well. "I actually loved the pomp and circumstance of it all when I was there and I sat outside and watched the changing of the guards and I loved all of that. I remember when Princess Diana married Charles, I stayed up all night and I woke up and watched it," she said happily. But she quickly turned somber, reflecting on when she discovered the history of British imperialism. "But now that I learned a little more about the history of England and the colonization of ­–" she continued, before co-host Joy Behar interjected, saying, "The imperialism." Hostin ran with the clarification. "The imperialism and colonization of the Caribbean and the fact that Britain and the monarchy took like $1 trillion from Africa," she continued, adding, "and I’ve learned that, you know, Jamaica is now removing the Queen from her position there, and Barbados removed the Queen, and all the Caribbean islands are removing the Queen." As such, she declared, "Now I’m not as enamored of the pomp and circumstance, because it was built on the backs and the souls of slaves. So, I’m just not as interested." "But I was enamored of it before," she added. The View audience applauded Hostin’s comments, though co-host Whoopi Goldberg expressed that she doesn’t believe that should ruin the celebration of the Queen. "I still think it is great for them. I think it is great they have a – because underneath our carpets is more imperialism. Okay. Just ask the people who were here originally," Whoopi claimed. Hostin replied, "Well, people know how I feel about that as well." "What my point is, I’m okay with their pomp and circumstance. That’s what they’re doing. That’s how they’re celebrating," Goldberg explained, adding, "This is a big old mark for them. I’m thrilled for them. Doesn’t happen here. We don’t do that here."

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, June 3, 2022

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hello. Good afternoon. Oh my, it’s four o’clock. Oh my. So, no BTS today, but you do have KJP. (Laughter.) Thank you. Thanks, Peter. I worked on that. Okay, let me see. Yes, okay. So there are two graphs behind me. What — basically, what they show is more supplies being sold on the market compared to a year ago. So — and this is without Abbott being in the market right now, clearly. And we’ve seen a lot of progress happening, as you can see, in 2022 compared to 2021, and as you can see up here as well. And so — and that’s due to our actions here at the White House and just across the administration. So, obviously, we admit that there is still a lot more work to be done, but you do see some progress — some significant progress. So, today, the President hosted a roundtable with infant formula manufacturers — including ByHeart, Bubs Australia, Reckitt, Perrigo, and Gerber — to receive updates on their progress in increasing the supply of formula. Additionally, the President announced two new Operation Fly Formula missions. Beginning June 9th, United Airlines will air — will airship the equivalent of approximately 3.7 million eight-ounces bottles of Kendamil infant formula. This is the first Operation Fly Formula flight donated by an airline carrier. Also starting June 9th, Bubs Australia will transport the equivalent of 4.6 million eight-ounce bottles of formula. This is the first shipment of 27.5 million bottles that Bubs Australia plans to export to the U.S. These shipments are not — are on top of the 1.5 trillion [million] bottles of formula transported in the first two Operation Fly Formula flights. These actions build on other important actions to ensure there is enough safe infant formula for families. And the President has been clear he will pull every lever to get more safe infant formula to American families.  Tomorrow, the President will join a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the White House. They will discuss preparations for the NATO Summit in Madrid at the end of June and the strength of our transatlantic alliance. We will have a readout after the meeting for tomorrow.   And also, this is June 1st. As we all know, it is the first day of Pride Month. This month, the Biden administra- — Biden-Harris administration will be spotlighting the voices of LGBTQI+ people across America, especially children and families. The President had made clear that the proliferation of hateful and discriminatory bills targeting kids in classrooms and families in their homes are simply bullying. So, this Pride Month, we will be focused on protecting, uplifting, and supporting LGBTQI+ kids and families. This month, you can expect to see the President and his administration reiterating calls on Congress to pass the Equality Act, agencies across the administration and embassies around the world raising Pride flags to celebrate our commitment to equality, Cabinet members meeting with LGBTQI+ families and community leaders, the White House fighting back against the onslaught of anti-LGBTQI+ legislation we’re seeing just across the country. President Biden has always been a champion for families, and that includes LGBTQI+ families. We are proud of the historic progress this administration has taken to ensure everyone, no matter who they are or whom they love, has an equal place in our country. And we are excited to keep building on those actions this Pride Month and beyond. One final thing, which is very hard to say but I’m very excited about this as well for our friend here, Vedant: I would be remiss not to mention that it is our very own Assistant Press Secretary Vedant Patel’s last day here at the White House. I’m sure many of you know and have had the pleasure of working with Vedant, but for those who haven’t: He has been with us since day one of the Biden campaign and also the Biden-Harris administration. While — while here, he has worked in very — on very important issues — areas including climate, immigration, and education. I cannot stress enough how integral Vedant has been to our team. He’s been a rockstar. He’s going to be incredibly missed. He is a true talent, an excellent communicator, a gifted writer, and a wonderful coworker and friend. I and the rest of the press team will miss him dearly, but we know that he’s on to better and bigger things as he moves over to the State Department — so he’s not going very far — as the Principal Deputy Spokesperson. We are so proud of you, Vedant. We will miss you terribly, and we cannot wait to see you at State. And congratulations to you, my friend. MR. PATEL: Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, with that, go ahead, Zeke. Q Thanks, Karine. After U.S. intelligence assessed that Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was behind the killing of U.S. journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the President said he’d — came out and said he’d make Saudi Arabia pay a price and a pariah. There’s a report today that the President plans to visit Saudi Arabia, including having a meeting with that Crown Prince. How is that consistent with making Saudi Arabia pay a price or turning it to a pariah? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me just say first: His — his words still stand. The President’s words — what you just laid out is — still stands today. I don’t have a visit to preview. I don’t have a trip to announce, so there’s nothing for me to just lay out for you at this time. Q I’m just wondering, though, what price did Saudi — has Saudi Arabia paid already for the killing of that journalist that the President — that would then turn around — the President would reward them with a visit to that country? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you, Zeke, but I don’t have — I don’t even have a visit to announce or to preview at this time. So there’s really no discussion to have because I don’t have a visit to even talk through at this time. Q But, right now, the President believes Saudi Arabia should be a pariah. That — those — his words from then still stand, given its actions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m saying that that has not changed. The President’s words still stand. But you’re also asking me if there’s a trip being announced or a trip to preview; I just don’t have one at this time. Q And changing gears to the — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure. Q — event that was just held in the South Court and the meeting with formula executives. One after another executive said they knew immediately, within hours or days of the shutdown of that Abbott plant, the magnitude of the crisis facing the U.S. baby infant formula industry was going to face — that supply crunch that we all saw play out over the last several months. The President, though, said he didn’t — wasn’t informed about that until April — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — Q — and then waited a full month to invoke the Defense Production Act and begin Operation Fly Formula, which we’re starting to see affect the marketplace now. So what this — the reason for the disconnect there? And is he going to hold anyone accountable? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just lay a timeline for you of what we have talked about before, but I’m happy to reiterate at this time. So, we have been working on this issue since day one of the recall. The recall happened on February 17th. On February 18th, USDA issued detailed guidance to states on how to seek waivers in their W-I-C — WIC programs. We know directly from companies this is one of the most important areas for action to be taken from the government. And this month, we are building on that work, with last week’s announcement urging states to cut all WIC red tape. So, that actually happened — this is June 1st, so that happened in May. Also, importantly, agencies have been working closely with manufacturers to help them optimize process and boost production, which I just showed on these graphics that were behind me just a second ago. Because of quick action and it is not to — it is not by accident, today there is more infant formula coming off factory production lines in the U.S. than before the Abbott factory recall. That wouldn’t happen without — without the work that we have done. For the last three months, the FDA has also been working with retailers to impose purchasing limits to prevent the possibility of hoarding. And just to take a step back, so we — so just to remind folks how we got here: You know, we are in this position because there were safety concerns at an Abbott facility. The scientists and the experts at FDA have been working around the clock, 24/7, to come to an agreement, but, ultimately, have to ensure its facility meets their standards for the American people. And as Califf said last week, the FDA has been clear they need to look into how we got here, how this all happened. So, he is calling for an after-action report. And so, that is something that the FDA has said last week during their oversight hearings. Q You said — and, sorry, I know it’s a lot from me — but does the President want to see an after-action report about how this building responded to that? Because he wasn’t informed until April. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, let me just say that the President is frustrated, himself, about the situation, about the issue that we have on beha- — and he’s frustrated on behalf of the American families. And so, we are doing — he is doing everything that he can to make sure that we take action. And we have been doing that 24/7 to make sure that we — He gets what families are going through, how hard it is right now for many families to feed their infant, to feed their child. And so, this is something that he’s not taking very lightly. You heard from him, you saw him meeting with the manufacturers. And so, we’re going to continue to work around the clock to get this done. Go ahead. Q So you — February 17th was the recall. February 18th, FDA issued instructions to states. Let’s — let’s — can we continue that through April? When did somebody call the White House to say, “This is a problem; you guys may need to get involved”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I could say that, again, the recall happened on the — day — day one of the recall, we took action as a whole-of-government approach — right? — with FDA, USDA, as I just laid out. And the President understands — again, he understands how difficult this is. He understands how challenging this is, and we have acknowledged that. He understands that this is the job of the President to be able to multitask, to get things done, especially when it comes to making sure that your child gets healthy — healthy food. Q Okay, but, again — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, that is what — Q Mid-February, April — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is what we’ve been doing. Q When was someone called here at the White House to say, “This could be an issue that requires presidential involvement”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have the timeline on that. All I can tell you, as a whole-of-government approach, we have been working on this since the recall in February. Q The independent regulatory agency, the FDA, the one that questions have been referred to in the past, is now being embraced as “whole-of-government.” Let’s point that out here. The other thing: Why wasn’t Abbott invited today? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, well, because Abbott, as we know, they agreed on a path to safely reopen the Sturgis facility after safety concerns that FDA called — called them out on. So look, we understand Abbott is working hard to get back to safely making infant formula. That process is ongoing and should remain between them. And we are encouraged by the progress they’ve made. Today is about progress and action we can take to ramp up right now. But I want to — you know, I do — I need to say this, and I want to lay this out: Look, this meeting was focused on ramping up production and availability of safe infant formula to American families. That is what matters. We have to remember what FDA did was to make sure that families were getting food that was safe for — for their kids. That is important. And that’s what matters. That’s why we showed the chart, to show where we are today compared to a year ago. So, increasing production here at home and importing high-quality formula from aboard [abroad]. We are working with many manufacturers. The companies joining today represent a sub- — a subset of companies working with the administration to increase on supply, whether it be through the DPA, which is something that we know that the President called on; Operation Fly Formula; and FDA’s importance [importation] guidance. And so, the actions are making a difference. And so, I just want to make sure that we see what this administration has done — this whole-of-government approach. Q But you all can understand that — you’re doing this now on June 1. If he knew about — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, we have been do- — Q — this in April — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no. We have been doing this — a whole-of-government approach since — since the recall. Q Yeah, but the Defense Production Act — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is what — and it’s not. Q — wasn’t invoked until last month. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because we had to make sure — Q That’s what got things moving. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We had to make sure and really look into what would work and what was the best direction to move forward. That’s what — we have talked about, we have talked to you all every day — every day that we can about each step that we’re taking, whether it’s the Defense Production Act or whether it’s the Operation Fly Formula. So, every step of the way, we’ve explained why we’ve taken these steps. We’ve explained what the process has been to take — to take on these certain items. And so, this is — this is what we’ve been doing. And we have been working on this 24/7. And we have seen an increase of production. The President met with manufacturers today. He met with manufacturers two weeks ago. And so, we have been working very hard to make sure that American families out there who have children are getting what they need. Whether it’s a mom, a dad, whether it’s a caregiver — are getting safe — safe and healthy products, food to their children. Go ahead. Q Just to put a finer point on that: Is it my understanding that what you’re saying is that even if the President had known sooner, before April, that your response would have been exactly the same? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not saying when the President knew or didn’t know. He spoke — Q But he — but he said — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. He spoke to that himself, so I’m going to let that stand. I am saying that we have been working on this — we, as a whole-of-government approach, have been working on this since the recall, which was in February. That is what I’m saying. I’m talking about internally, not just the agencies, not just FDA, USDA, but also internally. We have been working on this for months — for months. And we have taken this incredibly seriously and have been in this briefing room and the President has spoke to this on — on his own about the different steps that we have taken. And we’ve also laid out a timeline for you all so that you know what — the steps that we have done. Q It sounds like you’re saying, though, even if the President had known sooner, would that have made a difference? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that we have been working on this since we have found out — we found out about the recall, since day one. That is what I’m laying out to all of you as a timeline. That is what it’s important here to know — that, as a whole-of-government approach, we have taken this on since the first day that we learned about the recall. Q Okay. On another topic here again, can you explain just a little bit more the President’s role in these ongoing negotiations over gun reform legislation? Because, yesterday, you said the President would get involved “when helpful.” A short while ago, he told us that he has been involved. So can you just sort of explain — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I mean — Q — kind of, how does he view his role as these talks are ongoing? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I mean, a couple of things: He has been involved. He has been involved since day one of his administration, since calling on Congress to take action. Just this past two weeks, he went to — he went to Buffalo to grieve with the family, to make sure that he listened, and they had a conversation with the family — right? — because it was so important to him to do that, to console them, to hear from them. He went to Texas on Sunday to do the same. He’s spoken about this from his — the first — the first joint — his first joint address to Congress. That was last year. He spoke about this in — in the Rose Garden when he talked about his comprehensive gun reform — the executive actions that he’s ta- — he was ta- — he was going to do. He talked about this at a State of the Union. So this is something that the President has been doing since day one. And not only that, you know, he worked on this in the Senate. You know, he knows how to get this done, and he’s done it before. As a senator, he helped pass our ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as enacted legislation that made the federal gun background check — check we use today. So, this is something that he has been doing for a long time. And he understands — what we were talking about yesterday — he understands how these negotiations work. Sometimes, you have to give it a little space so it has that quiet so that congr- — congressional members, senators can work on the issue. But he has been involved from — from, I would say, from day one, since he walked into this administration. Q But on these negotiations, on any possible legislation now, is he — is he involved right now? Or is he giving them that space? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s giving them space to do the work, to have that conversation. But — but since the — since the shootings, since Buffalo, our — our teams here — the Office of Leg Affairs has had more than a dozen calls with the negotia- — with the negotiators and senators and congressional members on the Hill. They have been having active conversation and working — working with them or talking through — to them about what — what actions and steps need to be taken and where they are with the process. Go ahead. Q Just very quickly on Abbott. They’ve said that they can get the Sturgis plant restarted by Saturday. The FDA has said other things. What — what is your assessment of the credibility of that claim from Abbott? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: When did they say this? Q This week. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This week? Okay. I don’t have a — you know, we’re going to — like I said, we’ve been working very closely with Abbott — not “we,” but the FDA has been working very closely with Abbott to get Sturgis facility up and running. So that is something that they’ve been, you know, in touch with FDA about. I don’t — I cannot speak to their timeline. That’s for Abbott to speak to. Clearly, this is something that we want to get done as soon as possible. But it also has to be done in a safe way. Q Okay. And then on the President’s New York Times op-ed about Ukraine, he said that the policy here is to see a “democratic, independent, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine.” But he did not say, “within its internationally recognized borders.” And so, we’re wondering if that was a deliberate omission, intended to signal that Zelenskyy, that Ukraine is going to have to give up some territory in its negotiations with Russia? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t read into that in that way. But I — the President just put out a statement that I do want to iterate just two lines from it: “The people of Ukraine continue to inspire the world with their courage and resolve as they fight bravely to defend their country and their democracy against Russian aggression. The United States will stand with our Ukrainian partners and continue to provide Ukraine with weapons and equipment to defend itself.” The “new package will arm them with new capabilities and advanced weaponry, including HIMARS with battlefield munitions, to defend their territory [and] Russian advances. We continue to lead the world in advo- — in providing historic assistance to support Ukraine’s fight for freedom.” And that is going to continue to be our focus. Q But is your assessment that they’re going to have to give up territory as part of these negotiations? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s not something that I’m going to talk about this from — from the podium, from here. Q Okay. And then just one last thing: The Bolsonaro meeting that’s happening at the Summit of the Americas. Do you guys have a date on that? And are you going to raise concerns with Bolsonaro about his questioning of the voting system? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything — I don’t have anything to preview at this time on the Summit of Americas for you. Go ahead. Q Karine, just to follow up on the baby formula meeting. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Sure. Q So, if the President is saying the baby formula manufacturers knew that things would be really bad as soon the Abbott recalls happened, the shutdown of the plant happened, but he did not, I guess, can you help us understand why they knew but he didn’t? Who failed to inform him? Why didn’t he know if they knew? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, what I will tell you is that we have been working on this issue from day one since the recall. You know, what you hear from the President is — is his frustration with the issue itself — with American families having to deal with and what they’re going through because this market — because this more — this concentrated market and the problems of the Sturgis facility. We have to remember how we got here. We got here because FDA learned that the Sturgis facility was not operating in a safe way. And so, we — they’ve — FDA wanted to make sure that families were getting healthy — healthy food to their babies. So, this is a responsibility that FDA has and that FDA did. From our part, we did everything that we can from the moment that we learned about the recall to — to work 24/7 to make sure that the production went up. Q I guess that just doesn’t address the question of why it was that the President didn’t know, when the manufacturers are saying that they knew — as soon as the recalls happened, as soon as the plant was shut down — that this would be a very serious problem. Was there a breakdown in the process here? Did somebody fail to inform him? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I have not spoken to the President. I know that he just said that a few moments ago, so I would have to — I would have to talk to him about the April date. But what I can tell you is what he has seen — and this I know for certain — is that seeing the empty shelves is unacceptable, seeing what families are going through is unacceptable. This is why we have been working 24/7 to make sure that we are using every lever at our disposal to deliver for the American people. That is what I know for sure that I can share with you at this moment. And — and that’s how we’re going to, you know, going to continue to move to make sure that we’re doing everything that we can and beyond. Q Yeah. Could you help us understand then — you know, you’ve said that the administration has been working 24/7 around the clock since February to try to address this issue. The President says he didn’t understand how bad the issue was until April. So is it that you were working around the clock since February to address this serious problem, but the — but the President didn’t know? I just want to be clear about that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the actions across the government began day one and — of the recall, as I’ve said. The White House has been in close regular contact with agencies responsible for addressing this issue since then. While these action made serious progress, including by ensuring there was more infant formula coming off factory lines than before, the recall — it’s clear there is more work to be done and more levers to be pulled, which is why you’ve seen higher-profile actions this month. And we’re going to continue to do everything that we can. So, to your question, the White House has been working with — across government to make sure, since day one of the recall, to do everything that we can. Q So then perhaps the President wasn’t aware of the work that was going on around the clock since February to address the issue? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, I mean, the President has multiple — multiple issues — crises at the moment. You know, when he walked into the administration, he talked about the multiple crises that we needed to deal with as a country. And so — and so — so, that’s number one to remember. But the most important thing is that as a — as a White House, as the — working with the inter-agencies, we have been working on this since day one since the recall. Q Okay. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q And I actually — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And this is his White — this is his White Hou- — his White House. Q I actually had a follow-up to a question that we asked in here over two weeks ago, very much related to what we’ve been talking about. We had asked if there were specific actions that the administration took — including meetings, phone calls, briefings — either in February or earlier to begin addressing the shortage. You had said at the time that you didn’t have any specifics then, but you’d be happy to go back and get that information and be fully transparent. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, but I — Q But it doesn’t sound like you have that update for us today. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I don’t have that information. But, again, I can say to you, since the recall in February, we have been working around the clock on this issue. It is an important issue. We understand how frustrating it is for parents. And so, this is something that the White House, across — across the agencies have made a priority. Q So do you plan on getting us that information that you said you would check — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, for sure. I mean, feel free to reach out to me directly. You have my e-mail. You have my number. Feel free to reach out to me, and we will do everything that we can. Q Can I just do one follow-up on a separate topic? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I mean — (laughs) — MJ, we — I got to move on. I got to move on. Yeah. Q That’s fine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q So, I think the question here is: We all understand that government operates at many levels. The President is not read in on every issue. Why this one seems to stand out is that these executives talked about it as a crisis. The President talks about it as one of the most personal crises that he has experienced. And you’re now sort of saying that the White House was operating on this without the President being aware of or directing those actions. And so, there will be future crises and so I think we’re all trying to understand the information flow and the decision making when there is a crisis that rises to the White House’s involvement and is the President involved in that. And so, the question really is — it sounds like you’re questioning the April date that the President just gave us. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I am not questioning the President at all. I’m just saying I have not spoken to the President. I know he just mentioned that date. Q But you’re saying White House officials were involved in and engaged on this issue prior to the President being briefed on it himself? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right, which is not an unusual thing, as you know, Kelly O. This is a — this is a very common way of operation, way of moving. Nothing unusual about this. You’re asking me to confirm something — and I — I was in my office. I did not actually hear what the President said. I do not like to speak on something without — Q Understood. Understood. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — without commen- — having a conversation with the President first. And so — so that’s number one. Number two, what I’m trying to say is that his team on very high levels, who run his policy offices, who runs his department, have been working on this since day one. And that is — Q So they can act without the President’s direct involvement and make decisions before he’s even briefed on a subject that’s become one of the biggest issues for American families today? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, it’s not uncommon. I mean, what — it’s not — I mean, it’s not an uncommon thing to do to offer assistance, to offer help, to offer guidance to an agency when they need it. That is not an uncommon — an uncommon thing to do. Yeah. Q So, just to follow up on the rest of the front row. Who decided, after six or eight weeks, that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You said that. Hopefully, the back row here hears. (Laughter.) Q Well, who decided — who is the person in the West Wing who decided, after six or eight weeks, that this baby formula shortage was finally something that somebody should tell the President about? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, again, I’d have to go back and talk to the President. I did not hear him take questions or answer any questions to all of you. And so, this is — I want to do my due diligence — right? — as his spokesperson to make sure that I have a conversation. What I can tell you is what we have been doing as an administration since day one of a recall. And — and just — let me — let me just say this, because I want to make sure — since, you know, we have folks watching — that the actions that we’re taking — that we took actually made a difference here. DPA is allowing manufacturers to reliably plan for scaling production. In the case of Abbott and their suppliers, an increase of 25 percent, [so] they have — they can be manufacturing at 100 percent capacity. Likewise, Reckitt plans to expand production by 40 percent. Operation Fly Formula has cut three- to four-week timelines for Nest- — for Nestlé product to move — the Europe — Europe to 72-hour periods. Through FDA’s enforcement discretion, we will get 27.5 million bottles from Bubs Australia. So, these, are all important actions, including the graphs that I just showed how high production — production is higher than it was a year ago. So, this is also important. We want to make sure that the American people, the American families know that we have been working on this 24/7. The President has done everything that he is able to do or has been able to do. And we’ll continue to do more work, because we understand there’s more work to be done. Q Okay. Another big topic. When are you guys going to admit that you were wrong about inflation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) No easy questions today, huh? Q The Treasury Secretary says that she was wrong, so why doesn’t anybody here at the White House? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Okay. So, look, what — what the Secretary was pointing out — this was talking about yesterday, when she was doing her hit with — her TV hit with CNN — is that there have been shocks to the economy that have exacerbated inflationary pressures, which couldn’t have been foreseen 18 months ago, including — Q Why not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me — I’m — I’m trying to answer your question. Q It’s a big problem. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I — hold on. I was just getting to the “Why not?” Including Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, multiple successive variants of COVID, and lockdowns in China. As she also noted during that interview, there has been historic growth and record job creation. And our goal is now to transition to steady and stable growth as inflation is brought down, as Brian Deese said yesterday to all of you when he was standing behind this podium. So, the President’s economic plan, as we see it, is working. Just today, we learned that the manufacturing was up in May, building on the 545,000 manufacturing jobs that have been created since he took office — further proof that companies are investing in America, we are on a path to stable growth, and we are addressing supply chain problems. Our plan to tackle inflation, lower costs reduces the deficit and respects the FDA’s [Fed’s] independence. It’s the best way for us to achieve sustainable and durable economic growth. So that’s how we’re — we’re doing — what — the work that we’re doing every day to make sure that we (inaudible) lower costs — well, higher costs. Q And just so that I under- — just that I understand: The Treasury Secretary says that she was wrong, but the White House was not wrong about inflation. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So here’s the thing: We have — we have achieved a — first of all, I explained to you what she was trying to say. So, I just laid that out. So those are your words, not my words. I just laid out what she was trying to say and try to explain in full- — in fullness her part and her answer. We have achieved an historic recovery through an extraordinarily unprecedented economic moment. The President has consistently noted that the primary drivers of inflation are the pandemic and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The twists and turns of both these monumental events have affected energy prices and also food prices that we have seen these past several months. This is Putin’s price hike, which the President refers to, and that is what Secretary Yellen was referring to if you — if you read the entire transcript. And that’s what I’m — I’m trying to say to you, hopefully. Hopefully that lands. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. You say Legislative Affairs has had more than a dozen calls — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — with lawmakers on guns recently. Which ones? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I don’t have a list. And we are — we are always — you know, we are always very clear about not sharing who — you know, not saying who we talked to and keeping — keeping conversations private. We’re just trying to give you a number so you see our efforts and what we’ve been trying to do. But I don’t — I don’t have a list. I won’t list our list to you right this time. Q Right. I just ask because, often, the White House Press Office hasn’t given any level of specificity as a policy about conversations like that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I did say — I mean, look, I did say we’re talking to negotiators. So, I think that could give you a sense of who we’re talking to. Q Sure. And then a question — a couple questions briefly — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure. Q — on baby formula. Would the President support the FDA continuing to allow more foreign imports of baby formula permanently, more than just a temporary solution, given that we’re seeing that this crisis — this can become a crisis very quickly, given that we have just a few manufacturers who have a corner on the market. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we understand that we need to look at this further and figure out what needs to be done so that this doesn’t happen again. I don’t have anything new to share on if this is going to be a long-term way of doing — of moving forward with baby formula. I don’t have a policy update on that. But I’d note, to tell you now, as I’ve been saying, we are doing everything that we can possibly to make sure that the American families are getting their children healthy and safe formula. Q And then just a real brief follow-up. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure. Q We talked — when the President spoke earlier, it was di- — came up in one of the questions that was asked — just the timeline of the FDA’s response when it came to investigating this Abbott facility. There are questions about what communications there were between the FDA and the White House. I mean, is the President satisfied with the FDA’s response in this crisis? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, he satisfied. But last week, the over- — during their oversight committee, he talked — Califf said that there needs to be an after- — he called for an after-action report. He appointed — he appointed Woods- — Woodcock to doing that after-action report. He wants to get down to the bottom of what happened, and so that is important. I don’t know if you’re asking me does he still have confidence in the FDA. He does. And we’re going to — we’re going to — the FDA themselves are going to try and figure out what exactly happened and how do we avoid what happened these past several months with Abbott and their facility shutting down. And so, that is an important thing as well. Q Thanks, Karine. On this baby formula issue, you said that the whole-of-government approach began in February — right afterwards. And I think a root of this sort of questions and — or that folks are having is that it, in fact, doesn’t seem like this extended beyond the FDA until, certainly, the President found out in April, but especially when this became really an acute issue in May, when the Defense Department was brought in, the Agriculture Department was brought in. So can you — other than the FDA, who was part of this whole-of-government response, especially in this kind crucial February-to-April timeline where the President wasn’t aware of what was going on? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right. I mean, I mentioned the FDA. I mentioned the USDA. I’ve mentioned, you know, policy departments here within the — within the White House. Q What did USDA do during the February — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The USDA issued detailed guidance to states. This is the — when the recall happened on February 17th. On — the next day, on February 18th, USDA issued detailed guidance to states on how to seek waivers in their WIC programs, which we learned was a very important element, which was red tape — Q So, no- — not producing more formula? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — well, which was a red tape as we’ve learned that needed to be — needed to be cut. So — and we know directly from companies that this is one of the most important areas for action to be taken from the government. And — and we’re building on that work with — with that — with the announcement that we made as it’s related to the USDA urging states to cut all of WIC red tape. So that was — that was that role in that particular component. Q What — were there any efforts outside the FDA about encouraging either the import or production of additional formula? It would seem like — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — from an outsider that if a plant goes down, you know that it’s going to be a crisis, that you would immediately start looking for other sources of supply. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I can’t speak to, specifically, what the FDA was doing at that moment. All I can speak to is when — what happened at the recall, when it comes to production. I can talk to what we have done these last several months, meeting with manufacturers. Again, the graphs that I showed showed how the production has even increased from last year — I think 8 million more in one of the graphs that I showed. And so, we’re going to continue the work. We know that there’s more work to be done. And we’re going to make sure that we get to the other side of this. Q One other on a different topic. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, sure. Q About a month ago, the Supreme Court decision or draft decision leaked on abortion rights. A lot of folks, including the President, at the time talked about how that really, you know, reframed the fate and the stakes for the midterm elections. But since then, the President hasn’t publicly met with any abortion rights groups. He hasn’t spoken about it in weeks, given a speech on it. I know that you’ve and the Vice President have kind of occasionally mentioned it from the podium, but there’s been no sort of presidential action on it. So, I’m wondering: Does that signal that the President is understanding of the politics of this issue have changed in any way? Or is there an event with the President that is going to happen before the Summit of the Americas or before he travels to Europe? I mean, it just seems to have fallen completely off his schedule. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I mean, I don’t have anything to preview on his schedule. But the President is clear on this. You know, he believes the right to peace- — he believes the right that a woman has — has the right to make their own decisions when it comes to their own healthcare and their own health and their own reproductive rights. I mean, that’s something that he has said. That is something that he believes. You know, our teams here are in constant communication and having regular meetings with groups out there who are — you know, who are focused on making sure that that continues — the rights of women to choose continues. But I don’t have anything to lay out. Q Do you know why it — the President just hasn’t made this — I mean, he kind of — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — laid the stakes out as, you know, this should be something at the front of voters’ minds. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I mean, let me — if we step back for a second, it is — it was a draft, it was a SCOTUS draft. We spoke to it. We were very forceful about it. The President put out a statement. You’ve heard from the Vice President. You’ve heard from other members of our team. So it’s not like we didn’t take this seriously and we don’t continue to take this seriously. So, this is an important issue for the President. We know that. We know that for the American people. I just don’t have anything to share with you on — on his schedule. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. On Ukraine, the U.S. has been really clear that it would not engage Russia directly because it did not want to escalate the conflict. But General Paul Nakasone — and I apologize if I mispronounced that — but — who heads the U.S. Cyber Command, he reportedly told Sky News that the United States is engaged in offensive — offensive cyberactivity against Russia. Can you talk about that? Why disclose that? That seems — that seems contrary to what the administration’s position is. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, as it — as it relates to the Kremlin, to President Putin, you know, we don’t negotiate our security assistance packages to Ukraine with the Kremlin. They have been — they have not been pleased by the amount of security assistance we’ve been providing to the Ukrainians since far before this most recent phase of conflict began. But we are doing what exactly the President said he would do, which is — and he told President Putin directly — we would do — what we would do if he — if he attacked Ukraine, back in December, which is provide security assistance to the Ukrainians that is above and beyond what we are — what we were already providing to help Ukrainians defend their country. So that’s exactly what we’ve done and will continue to do. You know, remember, and we say this all the time: This is Russia that chose to launch a brutal war, that chose to attack Ukraine’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity. And so, this is — this is Russia’s war. And so, they started this conflict, and we could — they could choose to end it at any time, and they have not. But we continue to maintain that dec- — deconfliction channels with the Russians for — for when necessary. Q But just speaking specifically about the offensive cyber action being taken from the United States against Russia, is that not contrary to what the President has said in the past about not wanting to engage directly — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s not. Q — with Russia? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s — we don’t — we don’t see it as such. Q Can you — can you talk about why offensive cyber activity against Russia is not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We — I mean, it’s just — we just don’t see it as such. We have talked about this before. We’ve had our cyber experts, here at the podium, lay out what our plan is. That has not changed. So, the answer is just simply: No. Go ahead, Tyler. Q Just following up on inflation question. I understand you walked through what Secretary Yellen was — was talking about, but she still said that she was wrong then about the path inflation would take. President Biden made similar statements saying that inflation would be temporary. Brian Deese was here yesterday; I asked him the same question. Does anyone in the White House have regrets about how they talked about inflation, given that it has turned out to do exactly what they said it would not do? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I laid out from — from — if you look at the whole transcript, what it is that Secreta- — Secretary Yellen was trying to lay out when she was asked that question. She was pointing out that there have been shocks in the economy that have, again, exacerbated inflationary pressures, which could have been — who — which could not have been foreseen 18 months ago. I mean, that is — Q But whether or not the — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — that is — that is just a reality that we’re — we’re working with. Q Whether or not it could have been foreseen — what the President said and what all of his top aides said turned out not to be true and turned out not to happen. So, I’m wondering if there’s any sense within the White House that that was a mistake to say so, given that it turned out to occur very differently? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, there were — there were certain shocks to the economy that exacerbated the inflation pressures, right? So that includes Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine; multiple successive variants of COVID, as I’ve mentioned already; and the lockdowns in in China. The President has consis- — consistently noted that the primary drivers of inflation are the pandemic and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The twists and turns, again, as I’ve talked about, have been monumental events. And so, as the Secretary Yellen has also noted, there has been historic growth and record economic creation. And our goal is to now — to do the transition, which is what — which is what Brian Deese was talking about to make sure that it is steady and stable growth as inflation is brought down. So that — there are things that have occurred that has been unprecedented in this past year or two — or, actually three years. And that’s what we’re speaking to. Q I hear you on that. But that still doesn’t necessarily answer the question about whether inside the White House there is a feeling that there should be a concession, like Janet Yellen made yesterday on TV, that the way that the administration talked about inflation was not best suited to — to describe to the American people the economic pain that they would eventually be feeling as we continue to see prices rise. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, the President is working — has said this and — over and over again, we have said this: We understand what the American people are going through. We understand the high costs that they’re dealing with. We understand what inflation is doing to gas and to food prices. We have done — we have done — you know, we have taken multiple actions, which the President explains himself in his own voice in the Wall Street Journal, just a day or — a day ago. And so that has been our focus as well. And we have — we’re coming out of a very strong economic — economic period. And so, now we’re going into a transition. There are things when — as it relates to inflation, there are things that were not predictable 18 months ago, that were not predictable from day one. So we were speaking to them as we saw it at the time. And so that is also important to note. I mean, I know you’re asking me that — the question of did we speak about it wrong, or did we, you know, say — you know, did we misspeak or not — or not have it right at the time. I mean, this is what — what I’m trying to lay out, is that there are things that happened — COVID variants; Russia — Russia’s war in Ukraine — that was not predicted at the time. And so what we’re trying to do, what the President is trying to do is do everything that he can to make sure that we deal and attack and fight inflation. So that is our focus at the time. Q I hear you. Just one last one on this. I understand that you guys did not — I understand that you did not predict that, but there were many economists — Larry Summers, among others — who were very clear in warning about the risks of inflation. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, so if we have learned anything the past two years, it’s that our globalized economy is tied to the world around us. Right? That’s the number one. You know, again, the variants of COVID; lockdowns, and shut- — and slowdowns in foreign countries due to the pandemic; Putin’s unprovoked invasion Ukraine — each of these events impact prices here at home and abroad. It impacts the cost of food here at home, the supply of food abroad, the cost of gas here at home, and supply of oil around the world. Inflation is also a global issue. Inflation in Europe increased a record 8.1 percent in May, compared to last year. So that is how we’re looking at this. And this is also a global challenge. Okay. Go ahead. Q Karine, just two questions. First, on baby formula, all of my colleagues’ questions have basically gotten to the same point, which is: People want to know who in this building knew what when in the leadup to the formula shortage. You’ve said that — that folks internally were on this since day one. You said that senior leadership in the administration was on it. But you also said that you don’t have that timeframe. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I said I don’t — you were — they were asking me specifically about the President. And I just don’t have that timeframe to share. What I can say is the White House began working on this from the first day of — of the recall, from day one of the recall, which was back in February. Q Are you able to provide or commit to providing a timeline of who knew what when in this building? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, that’s the same question that MJ just asked me and I answered that question to her. I have laid down what has happened since the recall, which was on February 17th. I’ve laid that down. I talked about on February 18 with the USDA. I talked about WIC programs. I’ve laid out — I’ve laid down what happened — reminding folks what happened with Abbott and the factory, why we got here. And I’ve also talked about what the FDA has said that they’re going to do — and they talked about that last week — which is look into this, make sure that we get to a place that we get to the bottom of what happened, do an after-action report. When that after-action report, we will have a lot more and that will come directly from them, and what they did and what they see could be done better. So that’s the thing that’s really important. There will be an after-action report. We will be able to see exactly what happened from then — from their standpoint. Again, we have been working on this since the first day of the recall on February 17th. That is our involvement here with the White House and — and FDA and what we’ve been trying to do. Q And then, just lastly, on the Summit of the Americas, obviously this administration has been preparing for this for months. We’ve had many conversations about invitations to heads of state for months. We are now less than a week out of this, and there are still several significant, outstanding potential invitations. How did that happen that we’ve gotten so close to the 11th hour and you still haven’t decided whether to invite anyone from Venezuela, including the opposition leader who you recognize as the Interim President? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think, if you’ve been following this administration for the past year and a half, one week is not the 11th hour when it comes to — when it comes to, you know, how things move. And so, that is that is a lifetime away for us as a — as a White House. I think any White House would say that. And so, look, we still have some final considerations. And as soon as we have the final list, we will share that. Look, you know, we’re gathering people together to focus on our collective responsibility to forge a more inclusive and prosperous future for the hemisphere. And that’s something also to note. I know, there’s always questions about the invite. There’s always question about who’s coming and who’s not. But we also should talk about and focus on what the — what the purpose of this meeting is. And that’s also critical and important. But I have to tell you: A week away, that’s a lifetime. That’s a lifetime. And I think any administration would share that. I’m going to try and go in the back. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Yesterday, there were leaders from Airlines for America and the U.S. Travel Association here at the White House for meeting staff, and they urged the administration to end the pre-departure COVID testing requirements for vaccinated travelers who are coming to the U.S. from overseas. (A cellphone disrupts the briefing.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What was that? (Laughs.) Was that BTS? (Laughter.) Q That was not my phone. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. That’s what she says, folks. (Laughter.) Q Is the administration considering ending that requirement for COVID testing for international travelers? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’re constantly evaluating our policy. The pre-departure testing requirement remains in place, as we have it today. And any decision on pre-departure testing requirement would be made by our health and medical experts. Q Is there a sense of how long that could and should remain in place at this point and what purpose it’s serving right now? The people in the United States can travel freely without any sort of testing. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I don’t. It’s in constant — constant evaluation, as I just laid out. I don’t have anything more to share from here. I’m trying to see who to go to. Go ahead. I don’t think I’ve called on you in a while. Go ahead. Q Yeah. Oh, thanks, Karine. A question for you about this report out of California on reparations. I was wondering if the President has seen it, and if he would use it to guide any sort of executive action since the last thing he did on reparations was say that he supported study that Congress is potentially wanting. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, his stance on reparations and supporting the study hasn’t changed. I have not seen the California report. But his personal — his stance — policy stance has not changed on reparations. Q Also, one more quick one. Deb Haaland has tested positive for COVID. Do you know when the — when the President and First Lady were last tested? Because they were with her on Monday. And would they be considered close contacts? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I do not know when she last saw the President or the First Lady — Secretary Deb Haaland. Q They were together on Memorial Day. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, were they? Okay. Q There are pictures of them. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, great. Well, thank you for that reminder. I know that — and we’ve said this multiple times: The President has a regular weekly cadence on testing that — that has been, you know, approved and talked with his doctor. I don’t have when the last time he was tested. Q And you weren’t aware about her positive test? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. This is — I’m just learning about this now. Okay. I’m trying to see who else. Okay. You, sir, way in the back. Q Thank you, Karine. Just one question. A few weeks ago, the State Department said that the U.S. did not look favorably on the construction of the EastMed oil pipeline from Israel to Cyprus to Greece, and then presumably to Europe. Has any of this changed as so many European countries try to wean themselves off Russian oil? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any more to share on that. I would have to check with our — with our policy folks at NSC. I do not know if that position has changed from what we’ve heard from the White House, but I would just have to check with the NSC to make sure. Q From the State — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m so sorry, from the State Department? Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, yeah I would — I would refer you to the State Department and check in with — with that — with them on that piece. Q And not the NSC? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, because you said it was the State Department. I think I misheard. But I think you said that it was the State Department that had put out that announcement. Okay. Oh, my goodness. Q A question from the back — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q A question from the back — Q Me? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: If — Q Yeah, sure. Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: If you have a question. Q I do. I do. But you’re — your finger is waving around a lot, so I — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. I’m trying to pick people I haven’t called on in a while — Q No, you’re right. You’re absolutely right. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — so it’s fulsome — so people are getting a question. Q I think (inaudible) — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q I’ll ask just one question. The — something the President mentioned when were in there now when he was talking about inflation — the wheat supplies or the food supplies. Can you talk specifically about — I guess he was referring to Ukrainian — the inability to export Ukrainian wheat. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Mm-hmm. Q And that something had to be done about that. Well, what the Ukrainian foreign ministers have been talking about this week about supposedly they’re in talks with other countries about navies going into the Black Sea and creating a corridor to get that wheat out. Is this something that is being discussed on any level in the White House? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is something that I would actually have to go check on as well. That is not — I just don’t have an update on that as far as the wheat. That’s clearly something that we’ve been monitoring. And we have said: Russia’s aggression on Ukraine has — has certainly raised prices, as we’ve talked about, on gases and food. Wheat, I believe, is about a good percentage of — in Ukraine, a good percentage of the — of the kind of the global — the global market, and so we have seen prices go up. I don’t have any update on that. I would have to check with — this time, I would have to check with NSC. Q Can I ask you a question from the back? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh my gosh. Q Can I ask you a question from the back, Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go — go ahead, Phil. Q Thank you. I have a question about the President’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, but I wanted to ask a more general question first. And my more general question, which is, I think at the heart of a lot of things that you’ve been asked is: How serious does an issue have to be before it’s brought to the President’s attention? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just lay this out because I think this is really important, and I’ve said this multiple times: The reason that we are where we are with Abbott and this facility, with the baby formula, in this current situation — and we have seen production go up — again, the graphs that I showed — and are — and that has happened because of our involvement in what we were able to do. Look, the market — there are four — four manufacturing facili- — companies. Just four. And that is something that we also have to address down the line. And this is something, as we talk about competition, the per- — the President has been very focused on. But FDA, as I — as we’ve said, called out a safety hazard — a safety issue with Abbott, and they had to shut down one of their facilities. When that happens, they do all the things that happens when — when a — when a safety issue comes up, and Ab- — Abbott had to shut down that facility. So that’s the thing. That’s why we got to where we got to. From the moment that we heard of the recall in February — on February 17th, as I’ve laid out, we took action. We took action, and we moved forward. And we did everything that we can. And I’ve laid out the — cut the red tapes. And now we — the DPA — the Defense Production Act and other things that we’re — the flying in formula from across the board — all of those things — from abroad — all of those things were actions that we took to make sure that we dealt with this crisis. But the government, the White House has been involved since they — we first learned about the recall. And so that is important to know. The President deals with multiple crises. His administration deals with multiple crises. When we walked in, a little bit over than a year ago, we talked about the economy; we talked about COVID; you know, we talked about climate change. All of the things that the President attacked and dealt with — and his White House dealt with on — all at once. And we have seen his comprehensive plan when it comes to COVID and what we’ve been able to do in getting people vaccinated and boosted. We see where the economy is currently; now we’re in this transition. All of those things are important to note — that there are always multiple crises happening that we are dealing with all at once. Q Okay. And then on the Wall Street Journal op-ed. In that essay, the President reiterated that he supports the independence of the Federal Reserve. He called on Congress to pass tax credits. And he also called, again, for changes to the tax code to bring in more revenue, to drive down deficits. Correct me if I’m wrong, but these proposals aren’t exactly new. I mean, we’re coming up on a 40-year high of inflation. Does he have anything else in the pipeline? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I’m happy — and I’m happy to lay that out — lay that out as how he’s fighting inflation. Look, as you — as you just said — Q But anything new that wasn’t reiterated in that op-ed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, well, I mean, let me — let me just — let me just tell you what we have been doing and what we will continue to do and what we know is important in order to fight inflation. So, you mentioned it — giving the Fed the independence it needs to take the steps to bring down — to bring inflation down; pushing Congress to lower costs on things families rely on like prescription drugs, which we — you’ve heard us talk about, that eat up too much of Americans’ budgets; taking steps to stabilize the energy markets — for example, coordinating a historic release from the Strate- — Strategic Petroleum Reserves here in the United States and from countries around the world — all of these things matter. And the lowering the deficit — this is a place where we have made notable progress, as we’ve talked about. More than $1.5 trillion in reduction in the deficit this year alone. And we want to keep making that progress, so that’s not going to end there. And there’s more — other ways too. The lowering cost of high-speed Internet for 50 million fam- — 50 million families; building more than 1 million new — new affordable homes to help bring housing and rent prices down; helping America’s farmers increase crop yields to help bring down food prices; and fixing our supply chains to reduce the cost of moving goods to shelves and to families and homes. And we’re always looking at other things that we can do. But these are actually action items that we have taken that are not small. That are — that shows the work that this P

Attorney Elaine Bredehoft sounded off on "CBS Mornings" and NBC's "TODAY" show Thursday, one day after the defamation trial between actor Johnny Depp and actress Amber Heard concluded, and turned the verdict into a message about women and domestic abuse accusations going forward. In her CBS appearance, Heard's attorney described Depp's win as a "major setback for women," citing the actress's "enormous amount of evidence" and telling hosts Gayle King, Tony Dukoupil and Nate Burleson that a lot of that evidence was "suppressed." "Look at all the women who have no evidence," Bredehoft said, adding, "Basically, what this jury said is unless you pull out your cell phone, and you tape record your spouse beating you, you’re out of luck." The attorney also took to both channels to discuss the sway social media had on the jury's decision, telling NBC's "TODAY" show that the jurors undoubtedly witnessed the social media frenzy surrounding the high-profile case because "they have families" and personal lives, too. "They went home every night. They have families. The families are on social media. We had a 10-day break in the middle because of the judicial conference. There’s no way they couldn’t have been influenced by it," she said. Bredehoft also told CBS she believes Depp's celebrity status is a significant factor behind his win. "It’s a tale two of trials," she said, tying in the trial Depp brought forth in the United Kingdom. "All the evidence came in, in the U.K. Mr. Depp brought that one. The burden of proof was on The Sun in the U.K. because they had called him a wife beater and talked about the domestic violence." "He had his opportunity to tell the truth then, and the three-week trial, he lost. The judge found 12 acts of violence including sexual violence. That came out in November of 2020. We weren’t allowed to tell the jury that," she added. On both networks, Bredehoft recounted the words Heard allegedly muttered in the trial's aftermath, saying, "'I am so sorry to all those women out there'," and told NBC that "[Heard] feels the burden of that." During her CBS interview, King noted Heard's live TV testimony was significant, bouncing off Bredehoft's previous lamentation that social media voices helped sway the jury. "It was pointed out that was the first time that a victim of sexual abuse had to testify on live television," King said. "And I fought hard and lost that battle. It should not have happened," Bredehoft responded.

In theory, former Attorney General Bill Barr finds himself in a difficult position. The Republican tapped special counsel John Durham to investigate the investigation into the Russia scandal, and the entire three-year effort is proving to be a fiasco. Durham’s failed and misguided prosecution of Michael Sussmann this week was the latest embarrassment, but it doesn’t stand alone. It was against this backdrop that Barr turned to Fox News last night to brag about how “very proud” he is of the prosecutor’s work. The former attorney general added: “While he did not succeed in getting a conviction from the D.C. jury, I think he accomplished something far more important.... I think he crystallized the central role played by the Hillary campaign in launching as a dirty trick the whole Russiagate collusion narrative and fanning the flames of it.” In all likelihood, Barr knows better. Donald Trump’s Russia scandal wasn’t just some “narrative,” launched as a “dirty trick”; it was a genuine scandal about a Republican presidential candidate whose political operation sought, embraced, capitalized on, and lied about assistance from a foreign adversary — and then took steps to obstruct the investigation into the foreign interference. What’s more, as the former attorney general also probably knows, Hillary Clinton and her campaign didn’t “launch” the scandal; federal law enforcement began scrutinizing the controversy on its own based on ample evidence. But putting these relevant details aside, Barr’s on-air rhetoric last night was jarring for a reason: The Republican effectively made the case that Durham’s pointless prosecution doesn’t matter because the politicized special counsel investigation contributed to a partisan smear of Hillary Clinton. Sure, federal prosecutors obtaining convictions is nice, but for Barr, fueling anti-Clinton theories is “far more important.” The former attorney general isn’t the only one thinking along such ridiculous lines. Two weeks ago, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal published a bizarre piece with an over-the-top headline — “Hillary Clinton Did It” — claiming that the former Democratic candidate “approved a plan to plant a false Russia claim with a reporter.” Predictably, the piece was a hit in Republican circles — despite being filled with painfully obvious falsehoods. It might be tempting to think the humiliating demise of Durham’s case against a former Clinton attorney might lead conservatives to shift their focus, but there’s ample evidence pointing in the opposite direction. On Tuesday night, Sen. Marsha Blackburn published a tweet that read, simply, “Investigate Hillary Clinton.” The Tennessee Republican — a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — didn’t say why, exactly, Clinton should be investigated, but it’s likely that Blackburn and those who retweeted her missive weren’t overly concerned with sensible rationales. A day later, former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, a leading Republican Senate hopeful, also called for an investigation into Clinton, suggesting GOP leaders “with a backbone” should agree with him. None of this is healthy. As regular readers probably recall, in Trump’s first year as president, the Republican and his party couldn’t shake their Clinton preoccupation. The then-president couldn’t stop talking and tweeting about his 2016 rival. His aides appeared fixated on Clinton. Congressional Republicans even launched investigations related to Clinton. By October 2017, the former secretary of state joked, “It appears they don’t know I’m not president.” The conditions persisted. In 2019, when Trump launched his re-election campaign, he excoriated Clinton seven times over the course of 30 minutes in his kickoff speech, apparently indifferent to the fact that she wasn’t running. As Election Day 2020 grew closer, the then-president called for Clinton’s incarceration, pushed then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to uncover and release Clinton emails, and lobbied then-Attorney General Barr to prosecute Clinton for reasons unknown. She wasn’t on the ballot. Trump seemed desperate to run against her anyway. After Trump’s defeat, it seemed plausible that Trump and his followers would finally move on — if for no other reason than because they had fresh political targets, in the form a new Democratic president, a new Democratic vice president, a new Democratic Senate majority leader, et al. Clinton left office a decade ago, and it was finally time for obsessive GOP critics to find a new hobby. And yet, here we are. In February, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley suggested on Fox News that Clinton should be incarcerated. A month later, Trump filed an anti-Clinton lawsuit for reasons that defied comprehension. Now, Barr, Blackburn, Greitens, et al. are reminding the political world that Republicans still can’t shake their obsession, even when it would be in the GOP’s interests to do so.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough reacted to Michael Sussmann’s not guilty verdict Tuesday by calling for John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe to be shut down. Sussmann, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer, was acquitted of lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting involving a tip about Donald Trump and a supposed link to the Russian government. On Wednesday's "Morning Joe," Scarborough called the investigation by Durham and his Justice Department prosecutor’s "asinine" and claimed there has been "absolutely nothing there from the beginning." He described the interest into Durham’s probe as "more weirdos, more conspiracy theorists" and "more freaks." "This investigation of the investigators is much ado about nothing," Scarborough said. Scarborough said Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to allow Durham to "make a fool of himself" cost taxpayers millions of dollars with "nothing to show" for it. He added that people have been "slandered" because of Barr and Durham. "They need to shut this down," Scarborough said. "It is a joke. It started with Donald Trump lying about Barack Obama tapping his phones in Trump Tower, and it’s ended with this. It’s time to put it behind us." MSNBC hosts aggressively touted the sprawling Russia investigation, which culminated in Robert Mueller concluding there was no proof of coordination between Trump's campaign and the Russian interference operation. In 2019, Scarborough hypothesized that Trump was either an "agent of Russia" or a "useful idiot." Scarborough is far from the only media pundit to hype up the investigation into Trump, while downplaying Durham's efforts. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow suggested the intention behind efforts to probe the investigation was always to re-route the investigation away from Trump himself. Former CNN dynamic duo Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo criticized Durham and the Trump administration in December 2019 for their efforts. "Nothing happens and they just move on to the next conspiracy theory," Lemon said to Cuomo during a handover. "It is never going to end and guess what? People who want to believe that BS are going to believe it."

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, my goodness. Wow. Hello, everybody. Good afternoon. So much excitement! I know, it’s the Fed Chair meeting. Q It is. It is the Fed Chair! MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. I know. We have (inaudible). Q Brian Deese. We’re all here for Deese. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Deese. I mean, yeah. Forget about me. I know. It’s not about me. Q Brian, you’ve never been in such demand. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, today, on the final day of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, I’m excited to welcome some special guests to the briefing room today — pop phenom, BTS! Q Woo-hoo! (Applause.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: While many of you may know BTS as Grammy-nominated international icons, they also play an important role as youth ambassadors, promoting a message of respect and positivity. After this briefing, they will join President Biden in a discussion about Asian inclusion, representation, and diversity, as well as addressing an anti-Asian hate crimes and discrimination. As many of you know, the President has led a historic whole-of-government approach to combat racism, xenophobia, and tolerance [sic] — intolerance facing AANHPI communities, beginning his first week in office when he issued a presidential memorandum leveraging the power of the federal government to stand against this hate. The President also signed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act into law; signed an executive order to reestablish the White House Initiative on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders; and funded critical research to prevent and address xenophobia against AA and NHPI communities. So, without further ado, I will — I will let the band take it from here. They’re going to each speak. We have an interpreter somewhere here. There you go. Good to see you. So, they’ll each speak first, and then the interpreter will come back up and interpret what they just said. They’re not going to take any questions. They’re just going to come here and give some — give some — some words. And then we’ll start the briefing. Thank you. Go ahead, guys. RM: Thank you, Karine, for your kind words. And hi, we’re BTS. And it is a great honor to be invited to the White House today to discuss the important issues of anti-Asian hate crimes, Asian inclusion, and diversity. MEMBERS OF BTS: (Speak Korean.) RM: And lastly, we thank President Biden and the White House for giving this important opportunity to speak about the important causes, remind ourselves of what we can do as artists. Once again, thank you very much. INTERPRETER: I will provide an interpretation in Korean and English. (Speaks Korean.) Jin said: Today is the last day of the AANHPI Heritage Month. We join the White House to stand with the AANHPI community and to celebrate. Jimin said: We were devastated by the recent surge of hate crimes, including Asian American hate crimes. To put a stop on this and support the cause, we’d like to take this opportunity to voice ourselves once again. J-Hope said: We are here today thanks to our ARMY — our fans worldwide, who have different nationalities and cultures and use different languages. We are truly and always grateful. Jungkook said: We still feel surprised that music created by South Korean artists reaches so many people around the world, transcending languages and cultural barriers. We believe music is always an amazing and wonderful unifier of all things. Suga said: It’s not wrong to be different. I think equality begins when we open up and embrace all of our differences. V said: Everyone has their own history. We hope today is one step forward to respecting and understanding each and every one as a valuable person. (Speaks Korean.) Q What does it mean to you to come to the White House? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to go — we’re going to go –they’re not going to take any questions, but thank you so much, guys. Thank you. Q Which of us is your favorite? (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, guys. Thank you. Q When is the world tour coming? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, guys. Thank you. All right. Okay. Q Hell of a warm-up (inaudible). MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. (Laughter.) Brian, I don’t know how you’re going to — (laughter). Okay. Q Brian, is the economy (inaudible)? (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t know, I’m excited to hear what Brian has to say. Okay. Next up, we have Brian Deese, our National Economic Coun- — Director of National Economic Council, who just came out of the meeting with the President and the Fed Chair and Secretary Yellen. And so, he is joining us today. So thank you, Brian, for making the time. MR. DEESE: Thank you. Okay. (Laughter.) So, I get to go home and tell my kids that BTS opened for me. (Laughter.) I did not expect that when I woke up this morning. And I know that you’re all here to talk about trimmed mean inflation and you’re as excited about that as you are for them. So, thank you for hanging in here. So, I just wanted to provide a little bit of context to the economic focus of the day. As you all know, the President just concluded a meeting with Chair Powell, along with Secretary Yellen and myself. It was a very constructive meeting focused on the outlook for the U.S. and the global economy. And I won’t go into detail of the private meeting, other than to reinforce that the President underscored to Chair Powell in the meeting what he has underscored consistently, including today — that he respects the independence of the Federal Reserve and will provide the Federal Reserve the space and the independence that it needs to tackle inflation. Also, today, the President published a op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. And I will just give you a little bit of context for that piece and how we are thinking about economic priorities here. So, four quick points: The first point is there is no question that the global economy right now faces a range of significant challenges. Inflation is first among them. It is a global challenge. We learned, for example, today that inflation in the Euro area, hidden annual rate of 8.1 percent. And it is a challenge that the President understands is hitting American families and creating anxiety and also economic hardship. As he said, he gets this. The second point is that as the — as the President is making fighting inflation his — his top economic priority, it is really important that we recognize that we can take on inflation from a position of relative economic strength. That is true if we look in the global context; few countries are better positioned than the United States to make this transition and navigate this transition that the President talked about today from historically strong recovery to more stable, resilient growth. If you look, the reason why we have those economic strengths is the strength of our recovery — the historically unique strength of our recovery. At the center of that is the labor market. You all know the statistics; I won’t belabor them. But suffice it to say we have the strongest labor market in modern history, which is not only creating job opportunities, opportunities to move into new — new careers with hi- — better pay for millions of Americans, but it is also pulling more people into the labor force. And in fact, we’ve seen the most — the rapid — most rapid labor force participation rebound among prime-age workers of any of the last four recoveries. And we’re also seeing that in terms of the strength of household balance sheets as well. Savings is up. Debt is down. Bankruptcy filings remain near pre-pandemic lows. Eviction filings are 30 percent below their pre-pandemic levels. All of these are sources of economic strength from which we can now focus on bringing prices down. The third point — this was an important piece of this — which is that the President is talking about this transition and growth. As we move through this transition, our economic growth should look different than it — it has in the historic recovery phase. We have — we’ve run this first leg of the race at a very rapid clip. That has put us in this strong position, relative to our peers. But this is a marathon, and we have to move and shift to stable, resilient growth. And that’s why the President is outlining the plan that he wrote about today, which is something that he has been focused on here for some time now. Core to that are the three elements that he flagged. The first is nominating quality people to the Federal Reserve. He has done that — he got an opportunity to speak with Chair Powell today — a strong, incredibly credentialed bipartisan group. And we are hopeful that the — that the Senate will move to confirm the last of his nominees, Michael Barr, without delay. And giving the Fed the independence to operate, which is critically important — particularly at a moment where inflation is elevated — but cannot be taken for granted, which is why the President is reinforcing it publicly today. The second is lowering costs: How we can we make things more affordable for typical families during this transition period? And the third is lowering the federal deficit, which will help to ease price pressures in the economy. That is — on those second and third, that is the focus — the President’s economic focus, the focus of our economic team. Many things — many of the steps therein are things that we can do on our own with executive action. There are also places where we need Congress’s help and to work with Congress. But that is our overarching focus when it comes to the economy right now. So, that is the context I want to provide. I’m happy to do whatever Karine tells me to do. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks so much. Go ahead, Jeff. Q Brian, one thing that may — one tradeoff to cutting or fighting inflation may be a change in the unemployment levels. What level of increase in unemployment does the White House see as acceptable in order to obtain lower inflation? MR. DEESE: Well, I think that one of the — one of the things about this transition — and we are in this transition — one of the things about having the strength of the labor market recovery that we have had to date is that we are uniquely well positioned to actually move toward more — a more stable labor market gains or gains more — more consistent with periods where we’ve had this level of unemployment in the past. And we can — we can actually take on inflation without having to sacrifice all of those — all of those gains. And so, you see that, for example, in the — the high rate of available jobs per — per worker. That can — and you’ve seen that start to moderate somewhat. So, one of the ways that, for example, businesses can reduce — reduce their demand, if that is necessary, is to — is to bring down the number of open jobs they have available. But that is — you know, I think that the bottom line is we have a very strong labor market, and that is not only a source of strength for millions of people who are getting jobs — who are getting jobs at higher wages, it has helped to strengthen household and family balance sheets as well. So, part of the reason why we have seen savings elevated and we have seen credit card payments and other debt service payments come down to historically low levels is because of the strength of the — the labor market. So that positions us relatively — you know, relatively well going into this period of transition. Q Just one follow-up. He — the President emphasized and you just emphasized his respect for the Fed’s independence. Is he happy with what the Fed is doing? MR. DEESE: Consistent with “respecting their independence” is respecting their independence. So, what I would say is that he is — he has confidence in the people that he has nominated. He is grateful to the Senate to confirming four of his five nominees. And he is a — he is focused on actually giving them the space to make those independent judgments. It certainly is the case that the President has identified inflation as his top economic priority. And he — he agrees with the assessment that the — that the team at the Federal Reserve is making and that Chair Powell is making as well. But the — but part of providing that independence is to — is to stay out of the business of commenting on tactics, timing, or otherwise on the monetary policy side, so you can expect that from us going forward. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Kaitlan. Q A follow on that. If he’s confident in the team that he’s put there, is he confident that they will be able to deal with this enormous challenge, which is taming inflation and not putting the economy into a recession? MR. DEESE: Well, I think that what — what we are — what the President is and what we are very confident in is that we can approach this challenge and we can focus our efforts on bringing inflation down without having to sacrifice all of the economic gains that we’ve made because of the unique position of strength that we are in. Because of the progress that we have made over the course of the last 15 months, we are now uniquely well positioned to do that. Q Does the President think that the Fed needs to revise or review its modeling and forecasting techniques, given that they’ve pretty badly misjudged that inflation was not actually transitory? MR. DEESE: That falls squarely into the category of things that we will — we will leave to the independent judgment of the Fed. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Phil, in the back, and then Kelly. Q Thank you, sir. You noted that inflation remains the President’s top priority. I’m wondering a little bit about the intersection of that priority and the President’s plan to forgive as much as $10,000 in student debt relief for families making as much as, you know, $300,000. Some analysis says that this would cost taxpayers as much as $250 billion. And, of course, that money is not going to be dumped into the economy all at once, but I’m curious how you see this affecting consumer spending, because presumably some of these folks, rather than servicing their loans, might go buy a new phone or decide to buy that car or go on a vacation. So are you confident that that student debt relief program would not have a negative impact on inflation? MR. DEESE: Yes, so I’d say a couple of things about that. The first is that, con- — notwithstanding some of the reporting, the President hasn’t made any decision on that policy, and so I won’t get ahead of any decision or any — any particular program or plan that has been speculated about. Broadly speaking, if you look at those who — who hold student debt, they are principally people who went to public colleges; principally people who, when they were going to college, had — two thirds of which their family income was less than $50,000 per year; and — and many of whom are struggling economically in a position of having to repay that debt. When you look at the question of the macro- — macroeconomic impact, I would say two things. One is, it is a function of a number of those policy design parameters, including the repayment. So today, there was a moratorium on repayment of student loans, and so the resumption of payments would interact with any potential debt cancellation from a — from a macroeconomic perspective — number one. And number two, if you looked at the impact of almost any proposal, because of the point that you made, notwithstanding the — the cost of any — any proposal, is — the economic impact of any proposal would be across the course of years or a couple of decades. And so, the impact on inflation in the near term is likely to be — is likely to be quite small. But, again, because the President hasn’t made any decision and we’re not talking about a specific plan, I won’t speculate specifically. But I think most of the analysis suggests that the near-term impact would be pretty small. Q As you’re putting together, sort of, this outreach today with the op-ed, with the message that you and other colleagues have been putting out there, is implicit in that sort of acknowledgement that you have not been telling the story of the economic picture in a way that has been satisfactory to the President? MR. DEESE: I think what this underscores is actually a ongoing commitment by the President to both train his focus on what is the most important thing for the economy and to communicate that as well. So, I would, you know, point you back to the President’s State of the Union, where the President said that: My priority is lowering costs and lowering the deficit. And I think what — what this President has tried to do in every stage in this historic and unique economic recovery is to effectively communicate to the American people where we are, to give it to people straight, but also to lay out clearly his plans, his priorities in terms of what he wants to see done. And so, we are — we are now moving into a phase which is really a transition — that transition that he spoke about. And so, what he has been doing for the last couple of weeks, what he will continue to do is try to help make sure that we’re communicating clearly to the American people what that means and also what his plans are and also that he is prepared to work with anybody — Democrat and Republican — to try to make progress on that but also highlight that there are differences between his approach and others. And that’s important for the American people to understand as well. Q So, what is the expectation today — as you advise the President — or his expectation about how long prices will be in — at these high levels — 40-year levels; how long inflation will be here? MR. DEESE: Well, you know, the — there is uncertainty, and I will leave the predictions to forecasters. I think you and others have seen most major forecasters out there and their projections, most projecting that we will see moderation in inflation over the course of the year. What I can say and is important with respect to, for example, the op-ed that the President wrote today is that the President has a clear approach and priorities with respect to tackling inflation. And the more progress that we can make on that plan, the more progress that we can make in lowering costs and making things more affordable for families right now, the more progress we can make in building on the historic deficit reduction we’ve already seen this year, then the better off we’ll be, the better position we’ll be to actually see that moderation happen more quickly. So, that’s our focus. Our focus, when we’re thinking about policy, particularly fiscal policy, is how can we make more progress on that front. Understanding that, you know, there are — there are a lot of predictions out there. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Just a couple more. Josh? Q Thanks, Brian. Chair Powell has said there are limited tools that the Fed has to deal with supply shocks, like what we saw from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the lockdowns in China over the coronavirus. Given that limitation, do you believe the U.S. is well-insulated and protected against future supply shocks that could cause prices to rise as we’ve seen with gasoline? Or do you think additional action is needed with Congress in order to provide that protection? MR. DEESE: Well, I would say a couple things. The first — the first point that I made and underscored is we do face serious global challenges right now. And the supply chain disruptions — the ongoing supply chain disruptions emanating from COVID and China, most recently, are significant. Likewise, the energy — the implications on the energy market of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are significant and ongoing. And so — so, absolutely, those are significant global challenges. They are affecting — they’re affecting energy prices and food prices globally. They’re affecting supply chain distribution systems globally. That is point one. Point two is, we, in the United States, are better positioned to actually navigate through those challenges than almost any other country, in part because of the, as I’ve said already, the strength of our economic recovery; in part also because of the work that we have done, for example, on the supply chain side over the last nine months of consistent, focused effort working with all different parts of our supply chain. We now see, for example, the fluidity — what’s known as, you know, how fast, you know, containers can move through ports, for example, and get from a ship all the way to the end — that we are — have seen significant improvements in that fluidity across time, which puts us in a better position to navigate potential new supply shocks. But they pose ongoing challenges. Third, there are places where we could absolutely use Congress’s help, and we could use it urgently. And so, when you think about some of the core challenges we have respect — with respect to supply chains, they circle back to the issue of semiconductors. And we remain extremely vulnerable to the supply chain fragilities associated with semiconductors. Notwithstanding everything we have been through in this pandemic crisis, we still don’t have a dedicated supply chain strat- — office within the federal government that is funded adequately to actually take on, map, and aggressively go at these challenges. Now, we’ve made historic progress notwithstanding that, but we could use Congress moving to provide the resources and the funding and the authorities that are in the Bipartisan Innovation Bill that is now in conference. So, that’s — that’s one place where we are hopeful, working very closely with — with Congress in an effort to try to get that done. And that would give us more tools to keep building our resilience to these types of global shocks. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Josh, Catherine, and then in the back. Q Okay. Q Thank you. Since you were in the meeting, can you say whether the President expressed any view about what the Fed path is right now? Chair Powell was talking about 50 basis points, each, in the next two meetings. Did President Biden weigh in at all on whether he thinks the Fed needs to go faster, slower, just about right, at all in the meeting? MR. DEESE: So, I’m not going to read out any specific components of the meeting other than to underscore that the President did, in private as he did in public, underscore that his commitment to giving the Fed the space to conduct monetary policy independently without political interference. Q Does he think that the Fed has moved too slowly? By saying it’s their responsibility, they’re — the implication, of course, is that they’re holding the bag for the fact that inflation is at the highest that it’s at. MR. DEESE: I think by saying it’s their responsibility, what the President is doing is acknowledging and underscoring the — the pivotal role that the Fed plays institutionally and that monetary policy plays in the process of bringing prices down. That’s the — that’s a core mandate that the Fed has and that he respects — not only respects but is willing to underwrite that that independence matters and being insulated from political interference matters. That’s not — that’s not an approach that that the previous president took to this issue. It has not been an approach that presidents in the past have taken. And this President has underscored and is underscoring that he will — he will do that, and I think that that’s what you should take away from — from his acknowledgement of the responsibility that the Fed has. Q And did tariff reviews come up at all? Or can you give us the latest on that? There have been calls, of course, that easing of tariffs on imports of particular countries could be one measure that would cool inflation here in the U.S.? MR. DEESE: I know it’s an issue in discussion. I don’t have any update to share today. Q To the back? Q Just following up on the — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Catherine. And we have somebody in the back.. Go ahead, Catherine. Q Following up on Josh’s question on tariffs, is there any timing you can give us on a decision specifically on the China tariffs? MR. DEESE: Not — nothing — nothing specific on tariffs today. Q I wanted to ask you about budget reconciliation. MR. DEESE: About the what? Q Budget reconciliation. What do you view is the right revenue-to-spending ratio to combat inflation? MR. DEESE: Well, I think what the — the President has — has said and is underscoring today is that we have a real opportunity to lower costs and to lower the deficit, and that we can actually do those two things together in a way that will create a more competitive economic environment and actually increase incentives for businesses to invest in the United States by pairing tax reform with measures to lower costs for families. So, I’m not going to get into the specifics of the conversations around reconciliation, other than to say the President really does believe that the right approach here is to focus on measures that would lower costs and help to make things more affordable right now for families and to lower the deficit. And that he believes that that’s the right way to address inflation and that that’s probably the most significant thing that Congress could do right now to actually help to accelerate the process of bringing prices down, to Kelly’s point. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Last question, because he has to go. Q About a year ago, you stood here at the podium, along other officials, talking about inflation as “transitory.” Now a lot of the focus from the White House and the broader administration is on messaging. As Kaitlan and Kelly pointed out earlier, was it a mistake to use that phrasing? And do you think it gave Americans a false sense of how long these rising prices would be here for? MR. DEESE: Look, I think that this has been an uncertain and unexpected and — and — recovery period, historic in many ways. And so, I think that our focus right now is on what is the right policy to bring prices down without sacrificing all of the economic gains that we have made. And I think that one thing that is unambiguously the case is that, over the course of this 15 months, the strength of this recovery that we have had in the United States has not only helped millions of people and millions of families across the country, but now positions us well to address what is a global issue. And when you look out across the world right now, there is also no question that inflation is a global challenge. The 8.1 percent figure that I cited for the Euro area — if you look back over the last six months, headline Euro area inflation is 9 percent. And that is because we know that, principally, the drivers of that are the convulsions and the convulsive impact of having to shut the economy down and restart the economy, and compounded now by the supply effects that Josh asked about with respect to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. So, that’s our focus. That’s where we’re focused now. And we think that the policy choices that we make here going forward will be consequential in how quickly and effectively we can navigate through this next period. Q But that’s actually about — mostly about the structural factors. And, I guess, when you talk to Americans, when you look at polling, they say their biggest concern is raising prices — which, I think, part of that stems from the prolonged period that we’ve been in. And so I’m wondering: As you focus on the messaging, do — have you learned lessons from that where you discussed it as transitory and now, 15 months later, we’re still here? MR. DEESE: Look, I think that the — what the President has done with respect to communications has been — is been to consistently explain to the American people where we are and where we need to go. And that continues to be the way that — that he approaches this issue and very much from the perspective of what it feels like to sit around a dining room table or a kitchen table in — in this country, because that is — that’s his lived experience and that’s the way that he approaches these economic policy questions. And so, he understands that right now the top issue on people’s minds is prices — prices at the gas station, prices at the grocery store. And he’s made very clear and he’s communicating very clearly that that’s his top economic priority and that we can address this from a position of strength, and that we can make this transition to stable growth without sacrificing all of those gains if we make the right decisions going forward. And so that’s — that’s what he will continue to do. It’s certainly what we’ll continue to do in serving him. Q Brian, if I could quickly follow up. If the President is communicating effectively, how do you explain and make sense of his low poll numbers? MR. DEESE: Look, I — I will — I will — I will just say this: that the President always tasks us to focus on what are the right policy decisions and the right policy choices to try to advance an economy that has been his animating — his — his animating feature of what he wants to get done for years, which is how do you build an economy from the bottom up and the middle out, where working families have more opportunities. We’ve made historic progress in that direction. We have made historic progress in that direction because of some of the hard and difficult policy choices that this President has made. But we now have to address this issue of rising prices. The President has been focused on that for some time. We need some help in working with Congress on some of the issues that we just discussed. And I think that, you know, as — if we can deliver — I think what the American people are mostly — mostly want to see is that we can actually move the ball forward and that we can actually make some progress in things that matter in their daily lives. And it’s why you’ve seen the President — it’s why you’ve seen the President so focused on things like reducing the cost of Internet, building more affordable housing to reduce the cost of housing — because we get that those are practical things that are impacting people in their lives. And the more progress we can make on that front that, you know — that pe- — that’s what people want to see. That’s what people want to see — is progress. And so, that’s where we’re going to keep our focus. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. MR. DEESE: Thank you all. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, Brian. Come back soon. All right, that’s all I have for — (laughter) — for the topper. Oh, we can leave. No. Go ahead, Josh. Why don’t you kick it off — kick us off here. Q Great, thanks. Just one sec. Two subjects. First, could you offer some clarity on what President Biden meant when he said we’re not sending Ukraine rockets systems that could strike into Russia, since even short-range missiles could fly over the border if they’re fired nearby? And is the White House concerned that sending a rocket system could be considered escalatory? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me first say that the systems — the system — those systems continue to be under consideration, so I don’t have anything to preview on anything specific there. But as the President said, we won’t — we won’t be sending long-range rockets for use beyond the battlefield in Ukraine. And right — but right now, I don’t have anything to preview for you today. Q Secondly, could you update us on the status of where Mexico’s president stands on going to the Summit of the Americas? It’s the first time we’ve hosted since 1994. And what does this controversy say about the U.S. relationship with Mexico? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — again, I don’t have anything to share or anything to confirm about anyone’s attendance. We don’t have a final list. Once we have a final list, we’ll be sharing that. Look, you know, the President is looking forward to hosting, as you just said, the first one in a long time. It’s the ninth Summit of the Americas in June — just a few days away — and values the opportunity for leader-to-leader, civil society, and private sector engagement to advance our goals and find common ground. He views the summit as an important opportunity for leaders and key stakeholders to come together to address the core challenges facing the people of the — of the hemismere [sic] — hemisphere. No other part of the world impacts the security and prosperity of the United States more directly than the Western Hemisphere. And we are joined not just by geography, but by — also by economic ties, democratic principles, cultural connections, and familial bonds. I — I don’t have a list to confirm or any — any invites or decisions that’s been made. That’s up to, clearly, the per- — the individual leaders. Q Hello. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hello. Q Happy Tuesday. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I feel like it’s been a long time. Q It has. Just to follow up on that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — has everyone who’s going to be invited to the summit been invited? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re still working through some of the invites. We just don’t have a final list. And we have said once we have a final list, we’ll share that. Q Can you elaborate on the President’s promise earlier today to meet with lawmakers on new gun laws — when or how that would happen, and whether there were any preconditions on when or how he’d meet with them? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President is — is — look, he’s been calling for action for some time. What we have seen these — in particular these past two weeks with these mass shootings in Buffalo — and we saw the President go to Buffalo and grieve with the family there. We saw the President, just — and the First Lady — just this past Sunday, go to Texas to grieve with the parents there. And it is heart wrenching what we’re experiencing. This is a epidemic — the gun violence that we’re seeing across the — across the country. And we have to do something and we have to — we have to continue to make efforts to act to protect our kids, to protect people going to the grocery store. The President has made this one of his priorities from the first day that he walked in — into this — into this administration, and now he’s calling on Congress to act. And so, he is hopeful. He wants to make sure there’s action. Our — the White House — we have our White House team that is in constant communication with Congress on an array of issues, including this one — because, again, this is a priority. And he wants to make — continue to make sure that he continues to voice his concern and what needs to be done next. Look, the President has done everything that he can from — from the federal government. We are looking at other executive actions that we can possibly do. This President has done more executive actions at this point than any other president. But it’s not up to him alone. He cannot do this alone. This is what you heard him say to Kelly O. yesterday. And so, Congress needs to act so we can have federal law — legislation on the books so we can stop this epidemic that we’re seeing across the country. Q What other executive actions would be under consideration if, you just said, he’s done everything he could do? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, he — we’re looking to see what else can be do- — can be done, to be clear. We have done — as you’ve heard us say, we have done the gun — the ghost guns. The stemming of the flow of ghost guns is something that the President has done through executive action. If you look at ghost guns, it is — they are not — they’re — they are not regulated. There’s no serial number connected to them. They are the weapons of choice when it comes to terrorists and criminals. This is something that we have seen more and more pop up across the country. And so, he put out an executive order through the Department of Justice to make sure that we do everything to stem — to stem that — to stem ghost guns being out there. He’s done more — taken more efforts to take on gun traffickers and make sure that they held — they are held accountable. He used the American Rescue Plan — which, by the way, no Republican voted for — to make sure that we put police officers back in the streets who, many of them, lost their jobs during the COVID pandemic. And so, there’s $10 billion that we announced that cities have used to make sure that they are — they are using that funding or said they have used that funding for gun violence. These are the actions that this President has taken. And now, he’s calling on Congress to take action. He’s calling on Congress to take a vote so that we can protect families and communities. Q But he’s had no — nothing scheduled yet? Nothing official? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t — I don’t have anything more to preview. He said yesterday himself that they are looking at other options on executive actions. But, again, he’s done more than any President at this time. Q One other thing I wanted to just clarify from you, something he said on Friday during his address at the Naval Academy. The President was born in 1942, graduated from the University of Delaware in 1965. In his address, he said he was appointed to the Naval Academy in 1965. Was he? Was it in 1965? Can you clarify? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — oh, I did not hear that part of the speech, so I would have to — Q Right at the beginning of the speech. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. I did — I — I missed — Q And there’s been a lot of writing about it since. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — no, I hear you, Ed. I hear you. I have not — I — I need to read it myself and just go back and see what you’re talking about exactly. I can’t speak to it right now. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Canada is making it impossible to buy, sell, transfer, or import handguns anywhere in that country. Would President Biden ever consider a similar restriction on handguns here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, we’ll leave it up to other countries to set their policy on gun ownership. The President has made his position clear: The United States needs to act. As I just laid out, he supports a ban on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and expanded background checks to keep guns out of the — dangerous hands. He does not support a ban on the sale of all handguns, to answer your question. Q Okay. Thank you. In some places in this country now, a gallon of gas costs more than people on the federal minimum wage are making in an hour. What does the White House want these people to do — to stop driving to work? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the President understands what it feels like. Deese just spoke — spoke about this. Brian Deese was just here and talked about how he understands what it means for people who are sitting at their kitchen table and see gas prices go up. He understands that feeling personally. Or seeing prices of grocery store — of grocery — of groceries go up in the grocery store. This is something that he is inherently aware of, and he is doing everything that he can, as Deese — Brian Deese, who was just here — his economic adviser — one of his top economic adviser — laying out what he is planning to do or continue to do to make sure that we lower costs at the gas pump. He also said — Brian also said that we are dealing with an unprecedented time with global challenges that we have never seen before. And that includes, clearly, the pandemic; that includes Putin’s tax hike that we’re seeing this past couple of months that has had an effect on gasoline prices — $1.50 went up since Putin has amassed his troops on the border of Ukraine. These are real, real, you know, global issues that has led to this moment. But the President is doing everything that he can to make sure that we address this issue. Q And you just mentioned Putin a few times — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — as a reason for recent inflation. Do you guys think that any part of inflation this year is because of President Biden’s spending plans, or is it all Putin’s fault? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, what I can say is we are — and Brian just spoke to this: We are at a historic place when it comes to the economy, when it comes to unemployment being at the lowest that we have seen in some time, when it comes to the President creating more jobs in his first term — his first year than any other President — eight point — more than 8.5 million jobs. Now we’re going to a place where it’s being — we’re going into transition, where we’re going to see an economy that’s more stable, that’s more steady. So that’s because of the American Rescue Plan that we — that the President signed into law that no Republican signed — or voted for, I should say. And all of that work that he’s done the first year has led us to a place where there are more jobs out there, more jobs are being created — that we are in a place where we’re seeing economic growth. Now — and also, as I’ve stated, this is an unprecedented time with COVID. This is an unprecedented time with the war. And so that — that Putin has created and started on Ukraine. And so, we have seen — data has shown us, since — since these past couple of months — since the war, we have seen an uptick on gas prices. Q So, I guess, the next question would be: Does President Biden take any responsibility for his policies potentially contributing to inflation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: His policies has helped the economy get back on its feet. That’s what his policy has — his policies has done. This — when we talk about the gas prices right now, this is indeed Putin’s gas hike. This is what we have seen in the most recent months of what we’ve seen at the gas pump. And so, that is a fact. We have seen about 60 percent increase in the past several months because of the amassing and his invasion of Ukraine. And so, the President — his goal right now and what he is frustrated about is what the peop- — what the American people have to go through and what they are trying to deal with, as they are — as they are around their kitchen table. So that is his focus right now. Go ahead. Q The President has talked about understanding — from his life experience — those difficulties, economic hardships, and so forth. Does he consider it a crisis for American families that prices are at this 40-year high? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He — he’s — he consider- — he understands the hardship that people are going through. He understands how difficult it is for families. He understands that. That’s why he has done everything that he can to — and taken steps in many different ways to make sure that we lower costs. You know, we announced new actions to give farmers the tools and resources they need to boost production and lower food prices and to — and feed the world. High-speed Internet for tens of millions of Americans — we announced new steps with the private sector to lower those prices. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the deficit fell by $1.5 trillion this year, and it actually fell even more in most — Q How (inaudible) characterize it though? Is it a problem? Is it a hardship? Is it a crisis? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — Q What is it that people are facing? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, it is — we’re just in a difficult time right now with this inflation. That’s why he’s doing everything that he can. Look, his op-ed — he talks about this explicitly — about how — what he knows the American people are going through. And he laid out what it is that he’s going to do to really fight against inflation. So, it is something that he is aware of. This is clearly — right? — as President, is something that is a priority to him. That’s why he made sure that he rallied allies and partners around the world to release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and that has been something that started for six months, in addition to an additional 60 million barrels of oil from — from other country reserves. That’s for gas to help — to help with gas. The administration has allowed E15, which uses homegrown biofuels to be sold this summer to help as well. And — and also, he announced administration actions to save hundreds of thousands of families hundreds of dollars per month by fixing the Affordable Care Act’s “family glitch.” So these are the things that he is continuing to work on and make this a priority. And that’s why one of the reasons he wanted the American people to hear directly from him, hence the op-ed that came out. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Back on the issue of gun reform. So you mentioned the limitations that the President is facing. He also has been blunt — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, he said this yesterday himself. Q — that there is only so much that he can do, that much of this is in the hands of Congress. But in Texas, over the weekend, the President came face to face with a crowd that was demanding that he act, chanting, “Do something.” And the President said, “We will.” Given the limitations that he is facing, how can he make that promise? What makes him so confident that this time around will be different? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, as I’ve said, our team is in close contact with key members of Congress on negotiations. And when the President is — when it’s helpful, he will certainly engage. But look, this — what we’re talking about is — is popular, is something that the constituents want. Right? When you think about 88 percent support background checks on all gun sales, just 8 percent oppose. When you think about 84 percent support a ban on fire- — firearm sales to people reported as “dangerous” to law enforcement, just 9 percent oppose. Sixty-nine percent of support banning high-capacity magazines, just 22 percent oppose. Sixty-seven percent oppose [support] banning assault-style weapons, just 25 percent oppose. This is from a poll last week from Politico/Morning Consult. Reuters had a poll as well on that same day: 84 percent support background checks for all firearm sales; 74 — 70 — 70 percent support red flag laws. So these are things that if you think about, these — the senators and congressional members — these are things that their own constituents support. And so, what the President is going to continue to do, as he’s done from the first day that he wa- — first few days that he walked into office, is to ask Congress to act. And so, we’re going to continue to have those conversations. He’s going to do everything that he can to make that happen. We have to stop this gun violence epidemic that we’re seeing. Q But these measures have been popular for some time. I mean, that’s not new to this most recent massacre. So, what is the President seeing, if anything, that makes him confident that this time will be different? I mean, we’ve heard him say that he thinks everyone is getting more rational about this. What has he seen from Republicans that gives him that gives him that sense? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, right now, as we know, there are bipartisan negotiations happening today. It may have happened already. I know there was supposed to be a Zoom call that was being led by Chris Murphy. And so, you know, it is important. That’s what we want to see. We want to see steps being taken so that we can get to a resolution — a solution here. We cannot continue having this epidemic that we’re having, which — gun violence. This is not okay. And what we’re asking Congress to do is to vote. Vote — again, I said — I just said this: Vote to protect our communities. Vote to protect our children. Vote to protect our teachers. Vote to be able — so that people can safely go into a grocery store and not worry about being killed. And so, the President is going to continue to speak to this. He’s going to continue to use, you know, the platform that he has. But, again, he has done more on executive action in his first year than any other president has, in particular at this point. Q How would you gauge his level of confidence that that vote is actually going to happen? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we’re going to continue to try. I cannot — you know, I can’t speak to how people are feeling in Congress. That’s something that they have to answer — or where they are in the process. What we’re going to do is do our job from here in having those conversations. As I mentioned, his team is talking to folks on the other side about negotiations. And we’re going to continue to call for action. Q Can we come back to the back? Q Karine? Q I’m right here. Q Thank you so much. I have a BTS question and also a Taiwan question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, a BTS question? Okay. Q (Laughs.) Yeah. First of all, they’ve been here for a few hours. Just wondering if they’re filming a music video on site or anything like that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. (Laughs.) Q And also, any substantive policy recommendations to the President about combatting discrimination and hate crime? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, right after — right after they were here, they did go to meet with the President. Clearly, I don’t know what conversation was had. So, usually we try to keep those pri- — conversations private. You heard from them directly about how this — important it was for them to use their platform to be here to talk about issues that matter to them, in particular the anti-hate — Asian hate that we have seen across this country these past few years. And so, this was an important moment for them. I spoke to them before they came out. They were — they were thrilled to come out and make sure that you heard directly from them why they were here. I don’t have much more to share. As you know, they’re having a meeting right now with the President. Q So, moving on to Taiwan, Senator Duckworth is in Taiwan today and China has sent 30 overflights to Taiwan. Is this seen as a threatening move? And can you just illuminate, you know, what Senator Duckworth is doing over there, what the point of this mission is? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I cannot speak for Senator Duckworth. You would have to reach out to her office. I don’t have anything to say on why she’s there. Q On the overflights, is it — is that something you see as threatening? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s something that we’re monitoring. I don’t have any comment on that at this time, but clearly these are things that we keep an eye on. Q Karine, can I ask you a question from the back? Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Thank you so much. The President said yesterday that he believes Senator McConnell is a “rational Republican.” Senator McConnell said today that the group of lawmakers that are talking about guns in the wake of Uvalde are talking about the problem, which is quote, “mental illness and school safety.” Does the President agree that that’s the problem here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, when the President said that — he believes that there are some rational Republicans in the Senate who can come together and work on a bipartisan bill. And Mitch McConnell is one of those — is one of those folks. He does not believe — and we’ve talked about this, he’s talked about this: You know, we are the only country that is dealing with gun violence at the rate that we’re dealing. And other countries have mental health issues. So, what’s the problem here? And so, the problems is — the problem is what — with — is with guns and not having — and not having legislation to really deal with an issue that is a pandemic here in this country. And so, you know, that is — that is not his focus, obviously. And when it comes to — when it comes to schools — and I don’t know what he said specifically about schools. I know there’s been conversation about hardening schools; that is not something that he believes in. He believes that we should be able to give teachers the resources to be able to do the job that they’re meant to do at schools. And this is something that he’s been focusing on since he was Vice — Vice President. So, those are two things that he does not agree on. But look, he thinks there’s a way to potentially have — potentially come — for senators to come together and Congress to come together. They should. They need to act. And that’s what he’s going to continue to call for. Q Even though he disagrees with the top Republican in the Senate on what the problem is here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I think that what the President is going to continue to do is call for Congress to take action, is to call for Congress to move forward and deal with this epidemic that we’re seeing across this country. And — and so he’s going to leave it up to Congress to do that. He’s going to step in when needed. But again, our office — our office here is in regular contact on negotiations. Q And you just said that the President will get engaged with Congress on these talks when he believes it’s helpful. Does he believe it’s helpful right now for him to be involved directly in these negotiations or no? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: When the time comes, he will get involved. He spoke to this yesterday. What we’re going to continue to do is call on Congress to act. And again, our office — our offices here, our different departments here are in constant communications and — with the negotiation process that’s happening. Q Karine, can you confirm that the President’s Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, is leaving his position after the midterms? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Q Can you confirm that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Q Can I ask you a second question? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. A follow-up on the long-range rockets question. Does the United States not want Ukraine to launch attacks into Russian territory, despite the fact that Russia is obviously launching attacks on it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, the President spoke to this yesterday. I don’t have anything more to add. First of all, we don’t have — it’s being — it’s under consideration. I don’t have anything more to say to that. But again, you know, we won’t be sending long-range rockets for use beyond the battlefield in Ukraine. So, the President answered that yesterday. Q Switching gears to gun control and to the meeting with the New Zealand Prime Minister today, the President mentioned what New Zealand has done on this issue. What does he think or what does the White House think the United States could learn from New Zealand on guns? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I think they had a very good meeting. They clearly spoke about gun reform. In his — in the meeting, he actually wanted to talk more about what the New Zealand Prime Minister has done on gun reform in her country. And so, he wanted to hear more about that. I don’t have anything more to read out, but it is something that it — an agenda item that came up in their meetings. And, you know, he’s always open to listen. But then again, you know, I have to — we have to just remember that we need to act. Congress needs to act. It is the time to act now. And that’s what the President is going to continue to call for. You know, it is — it is something that he has worked on since he was a senator, as a vice president, and now as president. He has taken action as a president to make sure he can do everything that he can to address gun violence. And now he’s calling on Congress to deal with, you know, banning — the banning of assault weapons and also — and also background checks — expanding background checks. Those are things that they can do. It’s popular. I just laid out the polling and what the polling showed. This is what their constituents want them to do, is to act. And so, that’s what we’re going to keep calling on them to do. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Following up on Kaitlan’s question about the President’s involvement: You said he would engage when he found — when he thinks it would be helpful. Does he think it would be unhelpful right now for him to engage in those negotiations? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. What we’re — what he — what we’re trying to say is that there are conversations happening right now. Right? There’s a Zoom call — a bipartisan conversation — happening right now. So, we’re going to let that process go. We’re going to — but at the same time, we’re going to continue to call for action. You know, it’s — you know, he directed his team to look at additional ways for executive action. So that doesn’t stop from us, on our end, but he can’t do it alone. And that’s what we keep trying to say here: He — Congress needs to take their step to make action. Q And then just one follow-up — again, on the comment that he made about there are “rational Republicans.” As a candidate on the presidential campaign trail, he often said Republicans would have an epiphany after Trump was defeated, that they would “come to their senses,” in his words, and work with Democrats on certain issues. Many Democrats that you talk to say that that is an outdated view of the modern Senate, that the partisanship has increased significantly. Do you — does he still believe that there are 10 Republican senators willing to vote on some measure of gun reform? There’s criticism that that is — the view that Mitch McConnell and others are “rational Republicans” — given Mitch McConnell’s long and well-documented history of blocking any sort of vote on gun control throughout his leadership of the Republican Party. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What we’re saying is: That’s what their constituents want them to do. That is what — regardless if you’re a Republican or independent or Democrat, we — you have a bipartisan opinion out there from constituencies, from American families, from the American public that wants Congress to act. Ninety percent of gun owners support universal background checks. That’s 90 percent. Eighty-four percent of Republicans and eighty percent of NRA members support background checks. That’s what we know. That’s what the data shows us. That’s what we need to do — is for them to act so that we can make sure that our communities are protected, that we save our communities, that our children are not going into — going to school feeling unsafe. So that’s what we need to make sure. Q So, then what — why is — sorry, what is — what does the President think the reason is that Republicans are not voting for some of these bills? If you’re saying they’re widely popular, what is the — where does the President believe the disconnect is between the Republican leaders and the — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s for them to answer. They have to — they have to answer to their constituents. Not — I just laid out what the constituents want to see. That’s for them to answer. That’s — that’s a question that they need to go to their constituents and answer why they haven’t move forward on commonsense gun violence reform. That’s what we’re asking for. Go ahead. Q This is a question I was hoping to get to Brian Deese, but I’m hoping you can help us understand as well. Earlier today, Larry Summers told the Washington Post essentially that a soft landing seems, you know, in his view, particularly unlikely. And we heard Brian suggest, I think, a rather rosy picture of being able to move out of this inflationary period. I guess I want to understand from you all: What makes you so confident that a soft landing is possible? And should we be anticipating, as a public, that there will be a rocky economic period going forward? I mean, I guess I just want to understand what makes you all think — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know — Q What you all — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — and this is what Brian Deese said up here and I think he would say the same thing to this question, is that we are — we are doing everything that we can to deal with what the American public is — currently have in front of them — right? — with these high price — with high gas prices and inflation. And we are taking every step that we can, taking this very seriously to make sure that we bring down inflation and we deal with inflation in a way that the American public feels this. And we feel that if we are able to do that — continued with the four steps that the President talked about in his — in his op-ed today — that we will get to a place that — that — where — that — where the prices can come down and we can deal with inflation in a real way. Q And so, I guess, you know, the outlook, though, is that a recession — when you look at inflation, historically, at this level — a recession has naturally followed, you would say, within two years. And so, why would this — why would this time be any different? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — you know, as — as we have said, we’re dealing with a transition. Right? We are — we’re — we just have — we’re coming out of — we’re coming — we’re dealing with a — an economy that has really bounced back. Eight — more than 8.5 million jobs have been created. We’ve seen unemployment go down. And now we’re in a transition period where we’re going to be in a place where it’s more stable and more steady. And so, that is kind of — that is our focus. That’s where we are currently, and that’s — that’s what we’re going to be moving forward to. I’ll take one more question. Q Yeah, thank you. The gunman suspects in both Buffalo and Texas were 18 years old. Would the President support or be open to raising the minimum age for purchasing a gun to 21 years old? This is something that Congressman Kinzinger, a Republican, said would be a “no brainer” on Sunday. And so, it seems like something that would have, maybe out of the gate, some bipartisan support. Does the President support that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’ll let the President’s words speak for himself. He just — he said last week that an 18-year-old should not be able to be purchasing a gun, a — an assault weapon that we saw this 18-year-old do in Texas. And so, I’ll just let his words speak for — stand for itself. Q And so he would sign such a bill into law if it were to pass Congress? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll just — again, I’ll just let his words stand for himself — for itself. I’ll take — I’ll take one more. I’ll take one more. Q On the rocket systems, can you talk through all that? How does the U.S. balance the need to help Ukraine without putting the country at risk of a direct conflict with Russia? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, again, I — we don’t have anything to announce at this time. What the President said — his stance — as of today, I don’t have anything more. It’s under consideration. I just don’t have more to share on that. Q And on guns, Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q On Saturday, gun control advocates are marching in D.C., in cities around the country. Will the President take part in these gun control events in any way? Will — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait, can you say that again? I missed the first part. Q March for Our Lives is doing an event — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, okay. Q — in D.C. and around the country on Saturday. It will be — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This coming Saturday? Q Yes, yes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q Or it’s Saturday — yes. Is it Saturday the 11th? I’m sorry, I don’t have my dates. Q (Inaudible.) Q June 11th. Doing it on June 11th. Will the President take part in this in any way? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to preview for you about his schedule this — this weekend. Okay. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you.

GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger tells CNN he would be open to an assault weapons ban.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Sorry we’re starting a little late. We had to finish for the President to complete his remarks, and that was a request that we got from WHCA, so we wanted to make sure we adhered to it. As you all know, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is here. He’s going to take your questions, preview Asia. And he has a hard out at 2:30, so we’re going to try and get him out of here. Okay, all yours. MR. SULLIVAN: And I have 20 minutes of remarks, so — (laughter) — I hope you guys will bear with me. I actually do have a number of things to get through because we have quite a stretch ahead here with respect to the President’s foreign policy and national security priorities. Very good to be back with you guys today. Today, Finland and Sweden submitted their applications for NATO membership. President Biden has welcomed those applications, and he looks forward to working with NATO Allies and with Congress on a swift accession process. (Audio playback of press briefing interrupts.) Oh, sorry. Q It’s all happening again. (Laughter.) Q I’m sorry. MR. SULLIVAN: Not a problem. Q We got the audio. MR. SULLIVAN: Small interruption of the accession process right there. But everything will be on track just fine. (Laughter.) Tomorrow morning, the President will welcome the President of Finland and the Prime Minister of Sweden to the White House to coordinate on the path forward. And the three leaders will also have the chance to compare notes on our united efforts to support Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s brutal invasion. They will also have the opportunity to speak to the press and the public to affirm our shared vision for a peaceful and secure Euro-Atlantic region. This is a historic event, a watershed moment in European security. Two nations with a long tradition of neutrality will be joining the world’s most powerful defensive alliance. And they will bring with them strong capabilities and a proven track record as security partners. And President Biden will have the opportunity to mark just what a historic and watershed moment this is when he meets with them tomorrow. After that meeting concludes, President Biden will board Air Force One for a trip to the Republic of Korea and Japan. This will be his first trip as President to the Indo-Pacific. And it comes at a pivotal moment. President Biden has rallied the free world in defense of Ukraine and in opposition to Russian aggression. He remains focused on ensuring that our efforts in those missions are successful. But he also intends to seize this moment — this pivotal moment — to assert bold and confident American leadership in another vital region of the world: the Indo-Pacific. That began last week with his hosting of the U.S.-ASEAN Summit here at the White House, where he welcomed nine leaders from Southeast Asia for a substantive set of meetings that covered a diverse agenda from economics and security to technology and energy. President Biden made a series of significant announcements to show that when it comes to engagement with ASEAN, we’re not just talking the talk, we’re walking the walk as well. This week, the President turns his attention to Northeast Asia. And on this trip, he’ll have the opportunity to reaffirm and reinforce two vital security alliances, to deepen two vibrant economic partnerships, to work with two fellow democracies to shape the rules of the road for the 21st century, and to thank his allies in Korea and Japan for their remarkable and in some ways unexpected contributions to the effort to support Ukraine and to hold Russia accountable. In Korea, President Biden will meet with the newly inaug- — excuse me — the newly inaugurated Korean President, President Yoon, who campaigned on the platform of strengthening the U.S.-ROK alliance and on improving relations between the ROK and Japan. President Biden will engage with technology and manufacturing leaders in Korea who are mobilizing billions of dollars in investment here in the United States to create thousands of good-paying American jobs. He will see American and Korean troops standing shoulder to shoulder in defense of our collective security and consult on the challenge posed by the DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs. And he will highlight the truly global nature of the U.S.-ROK alliance, from climate and energy and technology to economic growth and investment. In Japan, President Biden will meet with Prime Minister Kishida and his team. And we believe that the U.S.-Japan alliance, at this moment, under these two leaders, is at an all-time high. This visit can take us even higher. The two leaders will consult on the broad and deep economic relationship between our two countries, as well as on a range of regional and global security issues. We’ll also cover the DPRK as well as a number of other security issues both in the Indo-Pacific and more broadly around the world. The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific, and Japan’s contributions as a security partner are rightly growing as the regional security picture becomes more challenging and dynamic. President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida will also be able to compare notes on the G7 agenda as the G7 Summit approaches next month in Germany. In Japan, President Biden won’t just have a bilateral program, he’ll also have the opportunity to participate in the second in-person Quad Summit, following on the summit he hosted here in Washington last September. He will do this alongside the Prime Minister of Japan, the Prime Minister of India, and the Prime Minister of Australia. And we believe that this summit will demonstrate, both in substance and in vision, that democracies can deliver and that these four nations working together will defend and uphold the principles of a free and open Indo-Pacific. While he’s in Tokyo, President Biden will also launch a new, ambitious economic initiative for the region: the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. “IPEF,” as we affectionately call it, is a 21st century economic arrangement, a new model designed to tackle new economic challenges — from setting the rules of the digital economy, to ensuring secure and resilient supply chains, to managing the energy transition, to investing in clean, modern, high-standards infrastructure. President Biden will be joined in person by the Prime Minister of Japan for the launch of IPEF and virtually by leaders from a number of Indo-Pacific partners, from Down Under to Southeast Asia to Northeast Asia. On security and economics, on technology and energy, on investment in infrastructure, we think this trip is going to put on full display President Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy and that it will show, in living color, that the United States can at once lead the free world in responding to Russia’s war in Ukraine and at the same time chart a course for effective, principled American leadership and engagement in a region that will define much of the future of the 21st century. And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions. Yeah. Q Thanks so much. Can you talk to us about Turkey and what the administration is doing and what conversations you might be having with Turkey about their plans to block Finland and Sweden’s applications? Is there a deal to be struck with Turkey? MR. SULLIVAN: We’re confident that, at the end of the day, Finland and Sweden will have an effective and efficient accession process, that Turkey’s concerns can be addressed. Finland and Sweden are working directly with Turkey to do this, but we’re also talking to the Turks to try to help facilitate. I spoke with my counterpart today; Secretary Blinken is meeting with his counterpart perhaps as we speak, in New York. And we feel very good about where this will track to. And President Biden will express that confidence as we believe the President of Finland and Prime Minister of Sweden will express that confidence tomorrow. Yeah. Q The Korean media is reporting that President Biden will meet with former President Moon Jae-in during his visit to Seoul. Is that accurate? MR. SULLIVAN: We don’t have a meeting scheduled with President Moon at this time. Q Have there been any discussions between U.S. officials and Korean officials about Moon Jae-in potentially taking on a “Special Envoy to North Korea”-like role? MR. SULLIVAN: I’m not familiar with any discussions along those lines. Yeah. Q In the statement today welcoming Finland and Sweden’s application to NATO, at the very — or almost at the very end, it said that “While their applications for NATO membership are being considered, the [U.S.] will work with Finland and Sweden to remain vigilant against any threats to our shared security, and…deter and confront aggression…” Does that mean that the U.S. is extending, like, the NATO security umbrella to them while their applications are in process? MR. SULLIVAN: Article 5 only kicks in once all 30 Allies have ratified the accession protocols and they become full-fledged members of the Alliance. But the United States is prepared to send a very clear message, as are all of our European allies, that we will not tolerate any aggression against Finland or Sweden during this process. And there are practical measures that we can take along those lines that Secretary Austin will coordinate with his counterparts in both Finland and Sweden. Yeah. Q Jake, two questions. One on the accession and one on your trip. So, when the initial NATO expansion happened, of course, there was a huge debate in Washington about whether it was a good idea or not. I remember Kennan himself wrote in the New York Times that he wasn’t in favor of it. Was there any similar debate that went underway here about whether or not bringing Finland and Sweden in was a good idea, or whether it would further corner Putin? And on the trip, tell us a little bit about what you know on the evidence that North Korea may attempt either a nuclear test — hard to imagine what they would accomplish by a seventh test, but — the seventh test — or a missile launch, and what your preparations are if that happens during the trip? MR. SULLIVAN: On the first question, President Biden posed the question to his national security team, to his Cabinet principals who cover national security, as to whether they supported the accession of Finland and Sweden, and for them to consider the risks as well as the benefits of bringing Finland and Sweden into the Alliance. Unanimously, President Biden’s national security team emphatically supported the entry of Finland and Sweden into the NATO Alliance on the grounds that they have already proven themselves as highly capable security partners. In the parlance, we say “net security contributors,” meaning they give a heck of a lot more than they take when it comes to a security partnership or an alliance. And that we believe that Russian aggression has only reinforced the argument for the kind of defensive alliance that — that NATO presents and poses. And finally, we have the principle of the open door. And the open door says that if countries meet the criteria of NATO membership and display that they can be net contributors to the Alliance and to overall European security, they should be admitted. That is a principle that President Biden has believed since long before he occupied the Oval Office. And Finland and Sweden are two cases that are pretty clear-cut when it comes to meeting those terms. With respect to the issue of North Korea, we’ve said from this podium, we’ve said at the State Department, and we’ve indicated in quite clear terms that our intelligence does reflect the genuine possibility that there will be either a further missile tests — including a long-range missile test or a nuclear test or, frankly, both — in the days leading into, on, or after the President’s trip to the region. We are preparing for all contingencies, including the possibility that such a provocation would occur while we are in Korea or in Japan. We are coordinating closely with our allies in both Korea and Japan on this. We have spoken with counterparts in China. I met — I spoke with my Chinese counterpart this morning and covered this issue of the DPRK. And we are prepared, obviously, to make both short- and longer-term adjustments to our military posture as necessary to ensure that we are providing both defense and deterrence to our allies in the region and that we’re responding to any North Korean provocation. Yes. Q Jake, thank you. Two questions on different topics. One, could you update us on the situation with the Russian blockade on grains? And also, on Haiti: What happens with the Title 42 with the Haitian migrants and maybe migrants of South America as well in the Caribbean when it comes to the end of Title 42 on May 23rd, if that happens? MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, it is Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and nothing else that is stopping tens of millions of tons of food from getting out of the breadbasket of Europe — Ukraine — and onto the world market to feed people in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and everywhere else. And that is true in two critical respects: First, Russia is bombarding Odessa, which is the port from which that food departs on large cargo ships bound through the Black Sea and then on to the world market. Second, Russian ships are engaged in an effective blockade of commercial ship traffic that would — could leave Odessa Port, were not under this bombardment, and head out to the world. So we have publicly called upon Russia to end its attacks on Odessa and to end the blockade and to permit the traffic — the commercial and humanitarian traffic of ships into and out of Odessa Port. We are working closely with both Ukraine and the United Nations on this issue, as well as other allies and partners. And we are supporting efforts to facilitate the delivery of that grain to the world market so that it can alleviate food prices everywhere. And we would like to see an outcome in which the facts — not just the rhetoric — the facts bear out the actual permission by Russia of large numbers of ships moving through the Black Sea and onto the world market. Q Is Russia responding to that request? And also the question I asked you about Title 42. MR. SULLIVAN: There are ongoing intensive diplomatic conversations. The United Nations Secretary-General is involved in this, the Ukrainians are involved in this, some of our other partners are involved in this. I’m not going to get ahead of those discussions. I’m only going to say that the United States stands ready in any way to help facilitate and deliver on that diplomacy to try to produce an outcome in which food is getting to the world stage. With respect to Haiti, we will have to see. Obviously, there are a number of issues bound up in the courts right now. But with the end of Title 42, the United States has put in place a process by which those individuals who claim asylum and have legitimate asylum claims can stay and those who come and don’t will go through the process — the legal process that exists and has existed for some time. Even when Title 42 was in effect, large numbers of individuals were not subject to Title 42; they were subject to the standard legal process by which we deal with claims at our border for people who want to come and stay here. Q Jake, on Ukraine again: U.S. intelligence chiefs recently offered assessments that Putin continues to bank on the fracturing of Western resilience to continue this war. Is Turkey’s concern about Finland and Sweden joining up perhaps an example of that? And what about the, I guess, also congressional pushback, or the growing congressional pushback, to Ukrainian aid? What are you guys doing, sort of, in both regards to make sure that that doesn’t continue to happen? I know you’ve described some of it, but it does seem now that there are examples of these growing concern or criticism resistance. And then I got one other on another part of the world. MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, growing congressional pushback, to me, is a strange premise for a circumstance in which the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly not just in favor of approving what the President sent up, which was $33 billion, but actually adding $7 billion to it to make a $40 billion package. And we expect a similar overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate once the final procedural hurdle — hurdles are cleared over the next 24 to 48 hours. So there are some voices against this, but the chorus of voices on both sides of the aisle, from all sides of the political spectrum, in favor of standing up in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and freedom and independence — it’s quite powerful and, frankly, in a way, quite moving. And it sends a clear message to the world that the United States can pull together behind the brave people of Ukraine in their hour of need. What was your other question? Q Well, just Turkey’s continued concern here and whether there might be others who are going to raise concern about NATO expansion. MR. SULLIVAN: Look, the great thing about the free world — about the Western alliance, about NATO — is that you’ve got a raucous collection of states that all have opinions, that all have perspectives, that all have interests. But they also know how to and when to pull together and how to settle any differences. And I expect these differences will be settled. I expect that NATO will speak with one voice in support of Finland and Sweden at the end of the day. And I think the remarkable unity you’ve seen with respect to sanctions coming out of the EU, the United States, and our Indo-Pacific partners; the support that we have provided Ukraine in terms of military and humanitarian assistance — it’s only grown stronger over the course of the last 12 weeks, and we expect that that momentum will continue, and it’s having a major impact on the battlefield. Ukraine won the Battle of Kyiv. Ukraine has now beaten Russia back from Kharkiv. And Ukrainian defenders are putting the military assistance we provided to good use in defending territory in the Donbas as well. Yes. Q Just a little bit about the challenges of trying to focus on the Indo-Pacific — a priority for you all to get-go — given just — I mean, look, a bulk of the questions even here today have focused on other parts of the world. Tomorrow, Finland and Sweden are going. Just the juxtaposition of what is going on in the world right now as you all are trying to focus (inaudible). MR. SULLIVAN: And, you know, it’s interesting, we actually don’t regard this as a tension between investing time, energy, and attention in Europe and time, energy, and attention in the Indo-Pacific. We regard this as mutually reinforcing. First, look at the Indo-Pacific partners that have stepped up to help make these sanctions and export controls as effective as they are: Korea, Japan, Australia, even Singapore. Second, look at the extent to which European countries are increasingly invested in the Indo-Pacific, in helping ensure that our vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific is actually realized. We see that with the AUKUS partnership, where you’ve got the United Kingdom alongside Australia and the United States. We see it with the way the European Union has, for the first time ever, put out an Indo-Pacific strategy. And so, actually, we think that there is something quite evocative about going from meeting with the President of Finland and the Prime Minister of Sweden to reinforce the momentum behind the NATO Alliance and the free world’s response in Ukraine, and getting on a plane and flying out to the Indo-Pacific not just to deal with security issues, but to unveil a new far-reaching economic initiative, to host a Quad summit that will cover climate and cyber and emerging technologies, and to deal with Korea and Japan on issues that actually affect working people here in the United States, including major investments that will create jobs in states across the country. So, for us, there is a certain level of integration and a symbiosis in the strategy we are pursuing in Europe and the strategy we’re pursuing in the Indo-Pacific. And President Biden’s unique capacity to actually stitch those two together is, I think, going to be a hallmark of his foreign policy presidency. Q Jake? MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Q Jake, can you provide an update on when the President will visit Israel? And secondly, can you elaborate further on the specific security guarantees that the United States has made Finland and Sweden in the interim period? MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, on Israel, we are actively working with the Israelis to fix a date for the visit at some point in the not-too-distant future. The President is very much looking to go. But unfortunately, I don’t have an announcement of a trip or a timetable for it standing here today, other than to say the President is excited to get the opportunity to go to reaffirm the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship. With respect to the specifics on security commitments or assurances or actions that we will take with Finland and Sweden, those are ongoing conversations that are happening at an operational and technical level between our Department of Defense and their ministries of defense, and also with other NATO Allies and partners. And so I’ll leave it in those channels for now — only to say that the U.S. stands ready to ensure that deterrence and defense for Finland and Sweden will be there should they need it, even though they don’t get the full benefits of the Article 5 Alliance until the accession process is properly complete, as is required, frankly, under our Constitution, where we need to get advice and consent from the Senate for that treaty. Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERE: Last question. Q Regarding the trip, to what extent is the message on this trip going to be like a cautionary tale delivered to China to say, “Look what happened in Ukraine. Look how we’ve responded. Don’t do anything similar”? Is that going to be part of the messaging during the President’s trip? MR. SULLIVAN: The message we’re trying to send on this trip is a message of an affirmative vision of what the world can look like if the democracies and open societies of the world stand together to shape the rules of the road, to define the security architecture of the region, to reinforce strong, powerful, historic alliances. And we think putting that on display over four days — bilaterally with the ROK and Japan, through the Quad, through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework — it will send a powerful message. We think that message will be heard everywhere. We think it will be heard in Beijing. But it is not a negative message, and it’s not targeted at any one country. It’s targeted at an audience the world over about what American leadership, working flanked by allies and like-minded partners, can deliver for people everywhere. And we think we go into this trip very much with the wind at our back, with a strong case to make that we have what it takes to be able to deliver against the security and economic challenges of our time. And President Biden will head into the Indo-Pacific with a spring in his step, and we’re very much looking forward to this visit. Q Will the President visit the DMZ, Jake? Will the President visit the DMZ? MR. SULLIVAN: You can ask Karine. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He will not visit the DMZ. Q He will not. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He will not. He will not. Q Why not? Why not visit the DMZ? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just not on this trip. He will not. He will go to South Korea, as you know. They will have an agenda to talk about a lot of things, including North Korea. But he’s not going to the DMZ. And just to — just to reiterate here is that, as Vice President, he has been there before. But on this trip — Q But now he’s President, and his predecessor went — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s just not — Q — former President Obama went. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But he’s just not going to go on this trip. He’s going to go to South Korea. He’s going to show his support for the region. And — but he’s not going to go to South Korea on this trip — I’m sorry, the DMZ on this trip. Okay. We all love Jake. Thank you so much for your patience. And I have one topper, and then we’ll get to it. Okay. The Senate took an important step today with the bipartisan agreement announced by Chair Tester and Ranking Member Moran to advance their vision of the Hon- — of the Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022. President Biden has championed legislation to deliver the benefits and healthcare services that veterans impacted by toxic exposures have earned. This historic comprehensive bill will do just that. The PACT will not only help deliver more timely access to benefits and services for veterans and their survivors, it will also ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs can act more nimbly to add future presumptive conditions when the evidence warrants. And the legislation will help the VA provide our veterans the level of service they deserve. President Biden believes that we have a sacred obligation to support veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. That’s why as part of this first state of the — of his first State of the Union address, he identified supporting veterans as a key pillar of his Unity Agenda and an issue that can unite the country, Republicans and Democrats. Passing the PACT Act would be a welcome and long-awaited achievement for the veterans who have served us well. Darlene, you have the floor. Q Thanks. Thank you. I wanted to ask Jake this question, but I’ll ask you. It’s about the Quad summit. And there is a possibility that Saturday’s election in Australia will not produce a winner in time for someone to go to Tokyo to participate in the Quad summit. So what contingencies are there? Will the one meeting go ahead if Australia cannot participate? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I believe that the Quad meeting will go ahead. I don’t have any more specifics than that about the — you know, how that’s going to affect any further, deeper. But from what I understand, and even Jake said this, that there’s going to be a Quad summit. It’s going to happen. We can — we can talk more about the specifics of what will — you know, what it will look like with Australia. Q And then, the First Lady’s Office informed us that Ashley Biden, the President’s daughter, is positive for COVID. Can you tell us when was the last time the President tested negative? Is he testing today in preparation for travel? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. So, the President tests regularly throughout the week as part of a cadence determined by his doctor. As we’ve — as we’ve communicated, the President is not a close contact with Ashley. It’s been several days that they last — he and the First Lady last saw Ashley; I think about a week is what I’ve been told. If his testing were to change because of a close contact, we’d let all of you know. But his cadence has not changed. I don’t have when he last tested. Q And then one final question on the church attack in California over the weekend. We haven’t seen the President comment on that at all. Is he concerned that what happened there could somehow destabilize relations between Taiwan and China? Does he have any plans to call or reach out to Taiwan or China, or anything like that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any calls to preview of — calls with Chinese and Taiwan as it relates to this particular case. Our thoughts are with all those affected by gun violence, including the incidents — the other incidents that at — that happened this weekend in Houston, in Milwaukee, in Chicago, and, as we know, in Buffalo. Federal law enforcement is supporting as needed. And the White House has been in touch with local leaders. These shootings and, of course, the one in Buffalo, as the President and the First Lady went to offer — went to grieve with the community yesterday, as all of you know, are a sad reminder of how important it is to redouble our eff- — our fight against gun violence and violent crime. And as part of the President’s comprehensive strategy to fight gun crime, we’re putting more cops on the beat, as you’ve heard us say this past year and a half; as we’re — talked about a gun comprehensive approach here, cracking down on firearms trafficking, investing through the art and community programs to prevent crime. But I don’t have any more to share on any calls that may have had occurred. Okay, I’m going to go to people who haven’t asked a question. Go ahead, Ashley. Q Thank you. Two questions. Following up on Darlene, on Ashley Biden having COVID: She’s in good company in this White House in that the Vice President had it, the Second Gentleman had it, you had it, Jen Psaki had it twice, a number of top Cabinet officials had it, a number of other aides in the West Wing. And no one so far that I can remember has been deemed a close contact of the President. Why are none of these people close contacts of the President — and his sister, actually — including family members? And also, are there steps that the President is taking beyond the CDC guidelines that you could lay out? Are meetings in the Oval being kept — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — under 15 minutes? Is everyone masked? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m glad to be — said I was in good company. Appreciate that. But — so it is — we take extra precautions, to your last question — I’ll answer that first — here at the White House. And we’ve said this before: When we’re in a meeting — I was in a meeting with the President earlier today. I got tested first. I put my mask on, and we socially distanced. Those are the extra protocols that we do take with the President and all the principals, not just him, just to make sure that we just take that extra added step there. Look, you know, the close contact is as it’s deemed by CDC. And he hasn’t seen Ashley in several days. And it’s also — there’s a time component to how long that person was in the room. We all wear masks. So, yeah, I mean, the way we — if he — if he is — if there was a close contact or he’s a close contact of someone, we would let you know. Q And on guns: Yesterday, when he was leaving Buffalo, the President said, “I’ve got to convince the Congress that we should go back to what I passed years ago.” I just want to confirm that he was referring to the 1994 assault weapons ban. And my question is: You know, when he was the point person for President Obama after Sandy Hook, Manchin-Toomey — which went far less far than an assault weapons ban — failed. What makes him think that he could get that through when, so far, no meaningful legislation has gone through in the past decade? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, this is what the President said yesterday. Right? He understands it’s not going to be easy, but he knows that there’s more to do. You know, our country is facing an epidemic that is very real, as we have seen this past weekend, as gun violence is costing lives every single day. And so, you know, when he was in Buffalo, we saw examples of that. He talked to the family — talked to them in a very personal way. And this is a top priority for the President, as it’s been throughout his career. As you just mentioned, he mentioned his own legislation that he passed. Look, the President continues to urge Congress to act to pass universal background checks, to keep guns out of the wrong hands, and to renew a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to keep weapons off our streets. It’s not going to be easy. He understands that. But he’s going to continue to work very hard to make that happen. But I do want to add, Ashley, is that this administration has done more on gun violence reform via executive action than any other President in its first year in their administration. So that is the — his commitment and what he’s — what he’s done just this year and a half. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Jake mentioned his conversation with his Chinese counterpart. This morning, the readout you guys gave was pretty sparse, and so I was wondering if you can give any more details of that conversation, and particularly, sort of, an update on how the White House has seen China’s actions towards Russia in light of Ukraine. I know that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have any more to read out outside of what you — what was put out by us earlier today. I’m just going to keep it to that readout. And — and, you know, Jake has spoken to this before, about China and their relationship with Russia. We haven’t seen any evidence of any, like, material that has been provided to Russia. That continues to be the case. I don’t have any more to add on that. Q I wanted to ask about a pair of bills on Capitol Hill right now — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q — both being forwarded by House Democrats. One is a Consumer Fuel Price gauging — Gouging Prevention Act, and the other is this domestic terrorism legislation. I haven’t seen statements of administration policy on either, and I’m wondering how supportive the President is, particularly on the domestic terrorism legislation. He kind of — on the tarmac yesterday, he seemed to say that he didn’t think it was necessary. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on the — the price — the gas price gouging legislation that you just mentioned: Look, the President welcomes all ideas to protect consumers and to make sure that oil companies aren’t taking advantage of Putin’s war and are competing fairly. He’s been very clear on that. President Biden has been also very clear that no company should be engaging in unfair practices to hike prices on American consumers. As the President has said, President Putin’s actions are what is driving the price increase at the pump. The President is focused on doing everything in his power to address the Putin price hike, including the largest-ever release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as we’ve talked about here at this podium, and working around the clock diplo- — to diplomatically build a coalition of countries for the largest release in foreign reserves ever. We know that there are a number of ideas being suggested by our allies and in Congress, and look forward to engaging on this issue so we can get Americans some relief, especially as we’re in this particular time right now with high prices. Q And then one last on the Dow. It’s down 1,100 points so far today. Chairman Powell did an interview with the Wall Street Journal in which he said he’d push forward on additional rate hikes, even if it resulted in unemployment coming up. Also, presumably baked into that is that the stock market — we’ve seen the stock market do poorly as the Fed hikes rates. So, you know, do you still, I guess, stand behind Chairman Powell’s vision on rate hikes? And broadly, you guys have said that you’re not following day-to-day market tribulations, but we’re now getting to a point where some of the gains that defined the President’s tenure are being erased. And so, is there a new level of alarm within the White House about the stock market? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as you know — and we say this all the time, Josh — you know, it’s — Justin — the Fed chair –you know, the Federal Reserve is independent. We leave them to make their own policy decisions. We do not get involved in that. And nothing has changed on how we see the stock market. We do not — that’s not something that we keep an eye on every day. And so, I don’t — I’m not going to comment about that from here. I do want to touch base on the domestic terrorism and what the President said yesterday about the — about domestic terrorism. Look, it’s a — it’s a growing and evolving threat and one that the Biden administration has taken very seriously. Since our first day in office, we have said we have been studying the details of different proposals. And there are a range of ideas that have been proposed in Congress that could improve our ability to detect and respond to these threats. What the President was specifically referring to yesterday when he was on the tarmac was the set of existing laws on the — on the books that provide law enforcement with authorities to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorism and hold those who commit hate-filled attacks accountable. As part of our National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, we increased our support for federal, state, and local law enforcement as they address domestic terrorism nationwide, including increasing resources and providing traines [sic] — trainings to thousands of law enforcement entities. DOJ has made domestic terrorism-related investigation and prosecution a top priority at the national and local level. And plus, DOG [sic] — DOJ, earlier this year, announced the creation of a new domestic terrorism unit with the counterterrorism section — sec- — section of the National Security Division that will enforce the expertise and experience on these issues available to federal prosecutors nationwide. So, there is a commitment there. And that’s what he was talking about. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q We’re about three weeks away from the Summit of the Americas. You got Chris Dodd down in Mexico today — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — trying to convince President López Obrador to come. What’s the President’s level of optimism that Mexico will attend this Summit of the Americas? And, well, is the guest list finalized? Has the President decided who to invite? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The guest list is not finalized. Hopefully that will happen soon. And I promise, once we have it, we will share it. You know, the President is optimistic. You know, we don’t have anything to share at this moment. Again, once we have it, we’ll be happy to share it with all of you. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. DHS said today that they’ll be pausing the Disinformation Governance Board. Did the White House play a role at all in perhaps expressing frustration on how it was rolled out or expressed any — involvement in how it — whether or not it should be paused? And then also, some experts have said that it was sort of set up to fail the way it was rolled out. Do you have a response to that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the board has never convened. It — so that’s — it never convened, and the board is — yes, the board is pausing in the sense that it will not convene while former Secretary Chertoff and former Deputy AG Gorelick do their assessment. But the Department’s work across several administrations to address disinformation that threatens the security of our country is critical, and that will indeed continue. And again, neither Nina Jankowicz nor the board have anything to do with the censorship or with removing content from anywhere. Their role is to ensure that national security officials are updated on how misinformation is affecting the trea- — the threat — the threat environment. She has strong credentials and a history of calling out misinformation from both the left and the right. And that’s — and that’s our focus. Q So did the White House — did the White House play a role at all in whether it should be paused or what should happen with — with the board? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. First of all, like I said, this — this is what’s happening: There is a pause. We did not have an involvement in this at all. Q And just another quick question. Congressman Schrader, who received a rare endorsement from the President in a Democratic primary, is on track to lose. What does that say about the power of the President’s endorsement? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I — as it comes to — you know, I have to be careful about what I can say here. (Laughs.) But we — you know, the race in Oregon was focused on just how much each candidate support the President — supported the President. That’s what we saw in this particular race. His — his counterpart in the race, McLeod-Skinner, ran on a — an agenda of President Biden’s priorities, including lowering the price of prescription drugs and tackling climate change and the fossil fuel pledge. Her support for President Biden extends back to 2020 election, when she said, “He’s the guy. He knows how to choose a great team.” On the campaign trail, McLeod-Skinner has sought to tie herself to President Biden and paused — and praised his presidency. Even on day one President Biden endorsed Representative Schrader, McLeod-Skinner wrote, “I respect Biden’s work to tackle COVID-19 and rebuild our economy.” In February, McLeod-Skinner praised President Biden’s effort at diplomacy around the situation in Ukraine. McLeod praised President Biden’s plan to lower health and — care costs, eldercare costs, childcare costs, and prescription drug costs as a transform- — formative — “transformative investment in the future of Oregon’s families.” So, that’s how we see it. We think it’s both — both sides were very much supportive of the President. Q Thank you. Karine, just to follow up though, I mean, the question is — this — both of them had similar platforms, to your point. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. Q And yet President Biden endorsed one of them, and that candidate is on track to lose. So are there concerns within the President — and I know you can’t speak to politics of this — is the President concerned — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Not at all. Q — that he doesn’t have enough juice heading into these critical midterms? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. Because, again, both candidates were running on a platform that supported, embraced the President’s pla- — the President’s agenda. Q Has the President reached out to any of the Democratic winners overnight, particularly John Fetterman, who is still in the hospital? Cheri Beasley? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any calls to read out, but I do believe the one thing that I can say here is that he spoke — last night, the President did speak to Gisele Fetterman, and wished the governor — wished the lieutenant governor a speedy recovery. Q Okay. And the President said of Fetterman’s win and of the Republicans who were still locked in a pretty tight battle in Pennsylvania: “[W]hoever emerges will be too dangerous, too craven, and too extreme to represent Pennsylvania” and the United States. Do the Democrats run the risk of underestimating the Republican Senate nominee in Pennsylvania — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look — Q — and gubernatorial nominee? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, the President remains really focused on delivering for the American people. And what you see from congressional Republicans and what you see from the GOP is — the plan for American people is to raise taxes to — in the middle class, to sunset Social Security and Medicare, and to take away a woman’s right to reproductive healthcare. He’s going to speak against that. He is going to continue to speak for the American public. And so, he’s not going to stay quiet. And that — and this is something that is incredibly important to make sure that the American people and — and what he’s doing to — for the American people is — is — you know, is made sure that it’s — it happens, right? What the — what the other side is trying to do is trying to stop us from trying to lower costs for — for folks, as we — as I just laid out. Q And, just very quickly, Senator Raphael Warnock is saying that he’s coming to the White House to meet with the President today. Can you talk a little bit about that, about student loans? And is the President open to increasing the forgiveness rate? It seems like he’s in the $10,000 range. Senator Warnock wants it to be closer to $50,000. Would the President come up? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we meet with members of Congress on a variety of issues. Q Is he going to meet with Senator Warnock today? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) These are senators who have been leaders on college affordability and sent- — and student debt. The President values their perspective and looks forward to the discussion this afternoon. So, yes. But I don’t have more to read on that. There’s — we — you know, I’ve said this a couple of times: We don’t — a decision hasn’t been made yet. Q Is there timeline yet for — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have a timeline. A decision hasn’t been made yet. Yeah. Q Thank you, Karine. A follow-up to the disinformation board. Last week, you guys said that you needed this Disinformation Governance Board at DHS to make sure that freedom of speech is protected across the country and that these platforms are not used for forms of disinformation. So what changed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the Department of — of Homeland Security, they began their statement report- — repeating that the board had been intentionally mischaracterized, which is a little bit of what you were asking me, and they were explicit about what it does and doesn’t — it does not do. It was never about censorship, poli- — policing speech, or removing content from anywhere. Its function was to keep Homeland Security officials aware of how bad actors — including human smugglers, transnational criminal organization, and foreign adversaries — could use disinformation to advance their goals. As Secretary Mayorkas said, he has asked former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and former DO- — DAG Jamie Gorelick to lead a thorough review — this is the pause that I was talking about — and assessment as members of the bipartisan Homeland Security Council — Advisory Council. The board will not convene during that period. But the department’s work across several administrations to address disinformation that threatens the security for our country is critical and will continue. So that work is going to continue. Q So if it’s pausing because you think the board was mischaracterized, then the disinformation board is being shut down because of disinformation? Is that what’s happening here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I mean, the — the board was put forth for a purpose — right? — to make sure that we really did — really did address what was happening across the country when it came to disinformation. Q And it’s okay to wait now at 75 days to address — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, no, it’s — it’s just — it’s going to pause. There’s been a mischaracterations [sic] from outside — outside forces. And so, now what we’re going to do is going to — we’re going to pause it and we’re going to do an assessment. But the work does — the work doesn’t stop. We’re still going to continue the work. The DHS is still going to continue the work. Q Okay. There’s a bulletin now that DHS is worried if Roe v. Wade is overturned, there could be violence against the Supreme Court building or Supreme Court justices. Are these threats from pro-abortion activists or anti-abortion activists? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President is clear on this question. He believes the right to peace- — to peacefully protest in this country is fundamental, but he also believes that violence, threats, and intimidation have no place in political discourse anywhere. That is true whether it is in front of a courthouse or in front of a healthcare clinic. And that’s the thing. I feel — it seems like, to us, it is very one-sided on what we call out as — as intimidation or as violence. So we want to make sure we’re calling out on — on ei- — on both sides of what is happening and what we’re seeing. While protests — but while protests have been peaceful to date, the Department of Justice has U.S. Marshals providing support to support [the Supreme] Court Marshal, and the Pres- — and the President believes Congress should pass the legislation to fund increased security for Court and judges as soon as possible. Yesterday, in reference to this, the Department of Homeland Security said they are “committed to protecting Americans’ freedom of speech and other civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to peacefully protest. DHS is also committed to working with our partners across every level of government and the private sector to share timely information and intelligence, prevent all forms of violence, and to support law enforcement — enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe.” Q And then, final question, on gas prices: Americans are now spending $5,000 a year on gasoline. That’s almost double what they did a year ago. Where are people supposed to go to get all that extra cash? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: To get the extra cash to pay for gas? Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I mean, one of the things that we’ve been very clear about is to do everything in our power to make sure that we lower costs. You know, it is important — we see it. The President understands what the American people is — are — is going through. And that’s why we’re doing everything that we can. We’ve made multiple announcements in the past several — several months of what we’re doing — whether it’s just the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, whether it’s the ethanol 15, to make sure that that — that the American people are not feeling Putin’s price hike. This is where this is coming from. Sixty to seventy percent of the current price hike that we have seen has come from Putin’s aggression against Ukraine. Q So, the President announces on March 31st that he’s got all these steps to lower gas prices, and it’s still Putin’s fault, seven weeks later? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, because — what I’m saying is, since the war — since Putin’s war — aggression against Ukraine started back in February — we did see a spike. But before then, it had — the price — the — the price per gallon had fallen down about 10 cents or more. And then Putin started his aggression on Ukraine — his violent aggression on Ukraine — against their democracy, against their — against their sovereignty. And we saw about — I mean, the facts show it went up about 60 to 70 percent. So it is Putin’s tax hike. This is what we’re talking about. Q Karine? Q On that same subject — Q Would you come to the back — Q — on inflation — Q — at some point? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q Thank you. Q The inflation concerns are now rubbing off on quarterly earnings, reports for a lot of big companies — Target, for example, today says it missed its estimates because of increased costs of transportation, in gas. That’s part of what’s driving this at least 1,100-point drop in the Dow so far. What would you say, what does the White House say to investors and everyday Americans who are concerned that there’s no end in sight to these price hikes? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, I’m not — again, I’m not going to speak to the stock market. But, you know, this is something that is very important to the President, when it comes to inflati- — inflation and making sure that we lower costs for the American people. Last week, we announced new steps with private sector to lower the price of high-speed Internet for ten — tens of millions of Americans. The President traveled to Illinois to announce new actions to give farmers the tools and resources so — they need to boost production, lower prices, and — and feed the world. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the deficit fell by $1.5 trillion this year, putting us on track for the fastest deficit reduction in any year on record. These actions build on other actions the President has taken to lower costs in recent weeks. Again, you know, this is to — this is to address Putin’s price hike at the pump. The President, as I was saying, and allies and partners around the world — they came together. And he was talking about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 1 million barrels of oil per day for the next six months, in addition to a — to the 60 million barrels of oil from other countries’ reserve. I talked about the E15 gasoline that we have allowed to happen so that it could be sold this summer. The President also announced administrative actions to save hundreds of thousands of families hundreds of dollars per month by fixing the Affordable Care Act’s family glitch. These are the things that we have been working on — this President has been working on for the past several months, understanding that it is important to lower the cost of — the costs for American families. And we’re going to continue to do that. I’m going to try and go to the back. Go ahead. You, sir. Q Thank you. Oh, sorry. Q Thank you very much. Thanks a lot, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, yeah. Go ahead. (Laughs.) Go ahead. Q Can you talk a little bit about President Biden’s long-term thinking on Ukraine? There’s a possibility this war could go on for months or years. And what is the President’s commitment to supplying weapons to Ukraine in the long term? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as you know, there is a — there is a supplemental — there is a funding — a Ukraine funding that’s in the Senate right now for about $40 billion that we are encouraging the Senate to pass. And so, that is going to be part of helping — continuing to help Ukraine with material, with defense material and humanitarian aid. Look, this is something that’s incredibly important to the President, but also to our partners and allies, that we make sure that Ukraine is able to defend their democracy. It is important for us as a country, as a leader in this — in this world to make sure that we’re doing everything that we can so that happens. What hap- — what is happening in Ukraine — defending their democracy, defending their territorial integrity, defending their sovereignty — affects us all. So, this is something that we are going to continue to be partners with — with our allies, our partners. The — Jake was talking about the NATO Alliance and how strong they are, how unified, how they’re speaking in one voice in a — in a way that we have not seen in years. And so, this is something that we need to be — continue to be a leader on, and that’s what he believes. And it’s important to make sure that we protect our country’s democracy. Q What preparations is the President making if Putin escalates after the — after Finland and Sweden join NATO? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m not going to go into hypotheticals. We’re going to focus on what’s happening here and now. You know, again, I think one of the things that we have to remember: This is a war that Putin started. This is a war — his aggression, his violent — very violent war that we have seen. The Ukraine — Ukrainians and their government have fought very bravely. And we’ve seen that with Kharkiv. We’ve seen that — what they’ve done in Kyiv. It is remarkable what they have been able to do in fighting back this aggression against their — against their country. And so that is going to be our focus, to make sure that they have everything that they need to be — to have a — to strengthen their — kind of their table when it comes to hopefully having some diplomacy and getting to an end of this war. But in the meantime, we have to support them. Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. Okay. Go ahead, Jonathan. Q Thank you, Karine. In the wake of the Buffalo shooting, there been several civil rights groups who have expressed some unhappiness at the lack of outreach from the Biden White House and frustration about a lack of progress on hate crimes, gun violence, and so on. I’ll just read you one: The Reverend Al Sharpton, who has visited the White House several times, says, quote, “This administration has met less with civil rights and civil liberty groups than previous administrations in a formal substantive way.” He goes on to say that they even asked for meeting here in the wake of this shooting, and, quote, “We’ve got no response from the White House.” Can you give an update on this? And will there be a meeting with civil rights groups? And can you address his frustrations? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any meetings to read out for you or any meetings scheduled at this time. You know, we respect the Reverend. He has been here many times before, as you know. Are you talking about the letter that the — that the — from gun — gun rights groups have written? There were about 40-plus that — Q He says — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think it was in your — Q Yeah, that — that — there’s that, but — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q — he says civil rights groups have also asked the White House for a meeting (inaudible). MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, we’ve met with civil rights groups over the last year and a half. I don’t have any meetings to read out to you at this time. Look, the one thing I do want to say is that, you know, the President agrees with these groups on the urgency of acting, and he applauds the work that they’re doing to rally support around the country for a commonsense agenda to fight the epidemic of gun crime. He understands that. That’s one of the reasons he went to Buffalo — to have that conversation, to grieve with the family. And he spoke to them in a very personal way. There’s a couple of things from that letter that I do want to just — just talk about a little bit, since it was in your publication. He agrees that innovative, neighborhood-based crime prevention programs like community violence intervention need to be at the core of our toolkit to make our common sense [communities] safer. That’s why the President has unlocked existing money within the government to invest in community violence intervention. That’s why he secured more than — more money for that in his 2022 budget. And that’s why he’s calling for a significance increase in funding in his 2023 budget. He is calling for a $5 billion investment over 10 years. The President also is going to continue to call on Congress — he talked about this yesterday when he was in Buffalo — to pass commonsense gun violence legislation that would keep weapons off our streets and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We’re working closely with Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi on this and other issues, and will defer to their judgment on legislative mechanics, give them space to work on that and to do that. And finally, on the question of a gun violence coordinator — I was asked that yesterday; I think I was asked specifically about an office. You know, Ambas- — we have Ambassador Susan Rice here, who is the Chair of the Domestic Policy Council, as you all know. And she is coordinating the President’s whole-of-government approach to reducing gun violence, leading a 12-person team that connects violence reduction to broader resources, like mental health supports, workforce development opportunities, and more. She has decades of experience coordinating interagency process in the federal government. There’s no one who is better at bringing stakeholders to the table to drive progress, and we know that’s so — that’s important because tackling an issue as complex, and gun vi- — and gun violence requis [sic] — requires a multidisciplinary approach. And we’re talking about housing, mental health, community support, all of the things — apprenticeship — all of the things that are so important in order to deal with this issue. I’m trying to — (Cross-talk by reporters.) Oh, my gosh. I’m trying to call on people I haven’t gotten yet. Q Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, we have to go? All right, guys, I’m so sorry. We have to go. But we will — we will — hopefully I’ll see some of you in Asia. All right. Q Have a good trip. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Bye. Q We’re all the way back here in Siberia. You can visit anytime. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. I — next time. Next time, I promise. I did call somebody back there. Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, good afternoon, everybody. Okay, I have a few toppers, so please bear with me. Over the past 15 months, we’ve made tremendous progress in our fight against COVID, with 220 million Americans fully vaccinated and over 100 million people boosted. We’ve also moved quickly to ensure Paxlovid, an oral antiviral pill that reduces risk of hospitalization and death by almost 90 percent, is widely available. Importantly, because of all the work the Biden administration has done on vaccines, boosters, treatments, and more, daily COVID-19 deaths are down by 90 percent from when the President took office, even as infections are rising. So the tools that the administration has made widely available to the American people are working to prevent serious illness, to keep people out of the hospital, and to save lives. And while COVID isn’t over, it’s critical that Americans know that we now have more tools than ever to protect ourselves. We can now prevent most COVID deaths, and that’s ma- — that’s major progress. To drive further progress, today we announced new federal — federally supported test-to-treat sites. Today, the first of these launches in — launches in Providence, Rhode Island. In the coming days, we’ll deploy clinical personnel to help transform several of Minnesota’s state-run testing sites into test-to-treat sites. And in the coming weeks, we will work to open more in places like New York and Illinois. These build on the more than 2,500 sites we’ve already set up at local pharmacies and community healthcare centers. Yesterday afternoon, the Governor of Oklahoma signed into law the most extreme piece of legislation to undo a woman’s fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices since Roe became law. This law will go into effect immediately. Not only does this law ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, but it also adopts Texas’s — Texas plan to allow private citizens to sue their neighbors for providing reproductive healthcare and helping women to exercise their constitutional rights. This law is the latest in a growing effort by ultra-MAGA officials across the country to roll back freedoms that should not be taken for granted. Roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, and it is under serious threat. They are starting with reproductive rights, but the attack on our fundamental rights, including the right to contraception and marriage equality, is growing. And these rights are increasingly at risk. The President believes that women have the fundamental right to make their own reproductive health choices, and he and the Vice President and the entire administration are committing to protecting these constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms. Today, the Department of Agriculture announced new steps to strengthen food supply chains, increase competition in the meat processing sector, and lower prices for American consumers. The Department is making $200 million available to create a new processing capacity expansion program, providing $25 million for workforce training and releasing the first of three planned rules designed to bolster enforcement of the Packers and Stocks— Stockyards Act which will increase transparency. These actions will combat — combat market dominance by a small number of major meat and poultry processors in key markets, where excessive concentration and control has led to lower prices paid to poultry producers and higher prices by consumers. After the severe and sweeping sanctions on the Central Bank of Russia, the Department of Treasury issued General License 9 to provide for an orderly transition so that the bond holders could get paid. We’ve announced that we will not be renewing the license. This means that the — this means that Russia will likely fail to meet its obligation and face default, an enduring sign of their status as a pariah in the global financial system. We expect the impact of the U.S. and the global economy to be minimal given Russia has already been isolated financially. That being said, Treasury Department continues to monitor and have conversations with the global financial community. I have two scheduling updates. Next week, the President will welcome Prime Minister of New Zealand to the White House — another example of our continued commitment to the Indo-Pacific. We’ll have more details on this as we get closer. And as you all saw, we announced that on Sunday the President and the First Lady will travel to Uvalde to grieve with the community that lost 21 lives in the horrific elementary school shooting. We — we’ll have more to share as we get closer, but while he’s there, the President will meet with the community leaders, religious leaders, and the families of the victim. The President and First Lady believe it is important to show their support for the community during this devastating time and to be there for the families of the victims. And lastly, on Tuesday, as you all know, the parents of 19 kids did what so many of us parents do every morning: They gave their kids a kiss, told them they loved them, and wished them a good day at school. They figured their kids would spend their day reading, writing, doing math; playing with friends at recess. These kids never came home. Some of these parents needed to give DNA samples to be able to identify their own children. These were elementary school kids. They should be losing their first teeth, not losing their lives. They should be at little league, softball, and soccer practices this weekend. These parents should be planning their kid’s summer, not their child’s funeral. As — as a parent, it is unfathomable to me that this happened. These kids had their whole lives in front of them. Our hearts ache for their families. Our hearts ache for the family and loved ones of the teachers who were killed. Schools should be sanctuaries of learning, not battlefields. And teachers should be there to teach, nurture, prepa- — and prepare our children for the future, not to be gunned down or asked to sacrifice their own lives for the kids they love. But that is what two heroic teachers did in Uvalde — killed while trying to protect their students. I’m a parent of an elementary school student. I know many of you in this room are as well. We cannot become numb to this. We will not accept this. A grocery store, a church, an elementary school. And this is just in the last few days. It is unacceptable. As the President said the other night, why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen? Where in God’s name is our backbone? So I ask, how is protecting our children a partisan issue? How is preventing innocent people from being slaughtered controversial? Commonsense gun safety laws work. We know this. They save lives. As the President said Tuesday night, when the assault weapons ban passed, shootings went down. They tripled after it was lifted. And let’s be clear: The public supports this; they are behind this — even gun owners. Ninety percent of gun owners support universal background checks. Eighty-four percent of Republicans and eighty percent of NRA members support background checks. As the President said this week, it is time to turn this pain into action. It’s time for Congress to act. And with that, Darlene, I will take your question. Q Thank you. Is there any reaction here from — at the White House to the Senate Republicans blocking the domestic terrorism bill, which was supposed to open the door for some debate and discussion about gun safety, as you were just talking about? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’re disappointed that Congress did not move forward with the legislation that would strengthen our response to domestic terror incidents like we saw in Buffalo. We need Congress to act on that. And we need Congress to advance commonsense measures that we know will save lives when it comes to gun violence. Q And secondly, the NRA is opening its convention in Houston tomorrow, three days after the massacre in Uvalde. Former President Trump, Texas Governor Abbott, and others are set to speak there. Does the White House think it is appropriate for that convention to move forward? Should it be postponed, cancelled, given the events of the last few days? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So it’s not about the convention. What is inappropriate is that the leadership of the National Rifle Association has proven time and time again that they are contributing to the problem of gun violence, not trying to solve it. They represent the interests of the gun industry, the gun manufacturers who are marketing weapons of war to young adults. They don’t represent gun owners who know that we need to take action. And it’s shameful that the NRA and their allies have stood in the way of every attempt to advance measures that will — that will — that we all know will save lives from gun violence, measures that we know would keep weapons off — of war out of the hands of people who are terrorizing our community. So that is what matters, and it is shameful. Go ahead, Nancy. Q Thanks, Karine. Does the President believe that there should be an investigation into the police response to this school shooting? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’ve heard of — (member of the press coughs) — we’ve — need some water? You okay? (Laughs.) Just let us know. The President — we’ve — we’ve been watching the reporting on this. The President has the utmost respect, as you all know, for the men and women of law enforcement. Just days ago, he honored the memory of the former police officer, Aaron Salter, in Buffalo who was killed bravely while trying to stop the shooter at the supermarket. I know that right now authorities are working to piece together more details of what happened in Uvalde, so we won’t prejudge the results from here at this time. It is al- — it is always a good idea to look back and try to find any lessons we can learn, especially from trag- — tragedies like this, so that we can prevent them from moving forward, including law enforcement response. Q And is the President considering calling on Congress to stay in town to work on this issue instead of going home for a week-long recess? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we have been in close touch with Congress — even before this shooting and, clearly, what we saw in Buffalo — about gun reform. This is something that has been a priority from the Pre- — for the President since day one of his administration. And we also have been in close touch and we really appreciate what Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi have been doing. You know, the President has been very clear that it’s time to act, it’s time for Congress to act. The President has long urged Congress to take action to fight gun violence, including by expanding background checks. He supports Leader Schumer’s plan to bring legislation forward. They — the Congress would clearly handle the mechanics of all of this. And, you know, during — as you all may remember, during the State of the Union, the President asked Congress to pass proven measures to reduce gun violence, pass universal background checks. Why should anyone on — on the terrorist list be able to purchase a weapon? Those were what — is what he said just a couple of months ago. So we have an opportunity to do that right now. And we encourage Congress to act. Q And then, finally, the average age of suspects at school mass shootings is 18. Would the President support raising the age at which someone can buy a gun to 21? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President was very clear about this just recently when he said that the — that — in his remarks, just on Tuesday, that it doesn’t make sense for an 18-year-old to legally buy an assault weapon. And so, he made very clear on Tuesday when he — after he landed from Asia and had to deal with such a devastating news that happened in Texas. Yeah, go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. There was a bipartisan group of senators — nine senators — that met today. Does the White House have any confidence that this group could reach a meaningful agreement? And does the White House plan to get involved with those negotiations? Would the President bring that group down while they’re having these talks and meet with them? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to preview for you as to any meetings — upcoming meetings that may be happening at the White House this week or next week or in the coming weeks. We really, truly, as I said, leave it to — the mechanics up to Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi. We are confident in — in that they will — that Senator Schumer will bring this forward. And again, it is time for Congress to act. This is what the President has been calling for since the beginning of his administration, and that’s what we want to see and that’s what we encourage Congress to do. Q And Senator Schumer has signaled that they have roughly 10 days to get to a conclusion. Is that a timeline that the White House wants to see? And if at the end of that 10 days there is no agreement, the White House wants to see the Senate move forward on the two House-passed bills? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, we leave the mechanics to Senator Schumer. We want to see action. That is what we’re calling for. And — but again, we leave it to the leadership — the Democratic leadership to figure out how they’re going to move this forward. Q And just one quick one: Can you give us any sense — has the President talked to other officials in Texas since Tuesday — or who he’s talked to on the phone about what happened down there? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any — any calls to preview. Clearly, the President is very much — and the First Lady — is looking forward to meeting with the families, community leaders when they’re there on Sunday. We have been trying to give the families some time to grieve, as this just happened two days ago. But again, he’s going to see them on Sunday and have that opportunity to offer comfort. Go ahead. Q Karine, are you getting any sense that this time is different, that there’s a different climate on Capitol Hill that might be inclined to do some — some things? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this, Steve: You know, we have seen two horrific tragedies in just two weeks. Hours before the shooting, many of the 19 kids who were killed in Texas, Uvalde, were being awarded certificates of the Robb — of the Robb Elementary’s Honor Roll ceremony as part of the end of the school year. Today would have been their last day of school and — for the school year. In Buffalo, on the same day — on the same day that this happened just two days ago, 2 of the 10 people who were killed while going to the grocery store on a Sunday, like many of us do, were being buried and honored by their families. I’m talking about Aaron Salter, the security officer who first responded, and Celestine Chaney, a mother and grandmother of six, were being buried by loved ones right in Buffalo on that same day. So, America has more guns than people in this country. If more guns were indeed the solution, we would be the safest country in the world, but we are not. And so, the President has been very clear he wants action — he wants Congress to take action. He wants to turn this pain into action. And I hope the Senate, and particularly those who have been unwilling to act in the face of previous tragedies, will act now. And that’s what we are hoping and urging Congress to do. Q Is the President considering some unilateral actions on guns? There are a number of gun safety advocates who are pushing for things like a gun czar or a state of emergency declaration. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on your first part, you know, while we’ve been calling for Congress to act, and the President has done that since the first couple of days of the White House, he has been waiting, right? We have talked about the things — the comprehensive approaches that he’s taken. We recently announced how over $10 billion from the Rescue Plan has been spent or committed on ways to fight gun — gun crime and gun violence. The President wants cities and states to use even more. The department — the Justice Department issued a tough new rule to stem the flow of ghost guns, which are increasingly being found at the crime scenes and which are the weapons of choice for terrorists and criminals. So, the administration — the administration issued a zero-tolerance policy for gun dealers who willfully sell guns illegally. So, this President has done more via executive actions than any other President during their first year of office. Now, what we are asking for is for Congress — we are urging them to take action. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. How does the President view his role in this moment? You know, we talked yesterday about changing a dynamic — a dynamic that’s been entrenched for decades now at this point. I understand the legislative details are Capitol Hill’s prerogative. How does he view his role in trying to change that dynamic? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think he — he views his role has as he has been doing. You know, if you think about his remarks on Tuesday, it was — it was compassion, it was sadness, it — it was outrage. And you heard that from — from the President of the United States, basically saying “enough is enough.” And this is something that he understands personally. This is a President who has worked on gun violence during his Senate years, as Vice President, and has leadership already from the first couple of days of stepping into this administration. So, we have done — we have done our part. Will there be more executive actions and will we do more? We’ll look into that. We’re always looking to do more. But, right now, we need the help of Congress. We need them to step in and to deal with this gun violence that we’re seeing that’s tearing up not just families but communities across the country. Q You were on — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh — Q Just one more quick one. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, yeah. Q You were on Air Force One. Can you talk about the President’s reaction when he got the news, when more details started to come out over the course of those hours — those final hours on the flight, and as he prepared for his remarks on Tuesday night, which he echoed on Wednesday? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. As you said, Phil, I was with the President on the plane, on Air Force One, because we were coming back from Asia, and I got to see him right before he delivered the speech. Honestly, I will — would leave the speech to stand for itself. You heard his emotion. You heard what he said very, very clearly. And again, you heard the outrage, which we heard — which we saw from some of you on TV, from some of you who — some of your colleagues who are in Texas who were talking to families on the ground, the communities on the ground — the outrage, the sadness, the grief. And that’s what you heard from this President. And, you know, he said a couple of things that I think it’s important to reiterate, as we — as we really think about what happened — is that, you know, there are parents who will never see their child again, parents who will never be the same. And the President said, “To lose a child is like having a piece of your soul ripped away…It’s suffocating. And it’s never quite the same. And it’s a feeling shared by…their family members, and the community that’s left behind.” So that is the Pres- — the President’s focus right now. He’s going to go, clearly, on Sunday to offer his comfort, to grieve with the family and the community. But at the same time, he is going to call on Congress to take action because it’s been too long. And now is the time to act. Go ahead. Q Two quick things. First, apparently the company that sold the shooter his rifles received a $3 million PPP loan under the last administration. Do you know if there’s any effort by this administration to claw that money back? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I — this is the first I’m hearing about this, so I would have to go back to the team and look into it. Do you know the name of the company? Q Yeah, the name of the company is Daniel Defense — D-A-N-I-E-L Defense. Apparently, they received a, I think, $3.1 million PPP loan right at the beginning. My colleagues have been writing about it apparently today. But if — if — assuming that is confirmed, would the President, do you think, support the idea of trying to claw that money back? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — honestly, Michael, I need to — to check with the team and just make sure that is actually factual. Q Okay. And then — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But I need to check with the team. Q Thank you. I would appreciate that. And then — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And we’ll get back to on that. Q Okay. And then just, you know, going back to the question that I’m sure, you know, everybody has been asking, which is the, sort of “what is the President going to do and can do,” you talk a lot about the outrage. You talk a lot about that he wants Congress to act. You talk a lot about the emotion. I was in this room — I think a lot of the other people — a lot of people here were too — when the President Obama cried at that very podium hours after the Newtown — Newtown shootings. There have been a million shootings since then, lots of expressions of outrage, lots of expressions of wanting the — wanting Congress to act. They haven’t. I mean, there are people out there — saw several of them on TV today — who say this President needs to do more than all of that. This President needs to declare a national emergency. He needs to create task forces. He needs to create, you know, a czar of gun things. He needs to say he’s not leaving this building, cancel his vacations. Tell Congress — you know, members from Congress to get in a room and not — not leave until they — you know, until they got a solution, and not accept some of the sort of half measures that, you know, are sort of being offered. And I guess the question is: Why — why isn’t he doing of that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on the public health — on the emergency, he has already done that. The President has already declared gun violence to be a — to be a public health epidemic. He has done that already. And he has mobilized our federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Health Services, to respond. So that is — has been done. Look, this is a President, as I’ve said already, who has been working on gun violence, gun reform — comprehensive gun reform since he was a senator. And he also was there, as you were talking about — you know, what President Biden — I mean, President Obama had to deal with. He was there. He was his partner in that and took on that — that portfolio of dealing with gun violence. He was there at the table. Q But isn’t that more of an indictment than it is a plus to say that the current President has been involved in this for more than — you know, more than — you know for decades and it’s not being fixed? These things are happening over and over again. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But look, Michael, we are frustrated as well. We are angry as well. Look, I said this earlier and I’ll say it again: This is a President who has done more via executive actions — this is how much of a priority this is for him, because we’re a year into his presidency — more via executive actions than any president in their first year. Q But many — but many of those are not directly related to — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right. Which is why — Q — the issues of mass shootings. They — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Which — Q — may be directly related — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you. Q — to guns, but — and that’s important — I’m not saying — but — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right. Q — they’re not directly related to — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, this is why we’re calling on Congress to act. The President is doing what — the President is your — the President is doing what he can — right? — from here, from the White House. And now — and he has said he cannot do this alone. He has been very clear. We — he understands we need to do more, but Congress also has to act. He has done a comprehensive plan on gun — on gun violence. We have listed that out. Every couple of months, we talk about what he’s doing, what executive action he’s taking. And now he is saying, “Congress needs to act.” And — but he has been saying that for some time. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Kristen. Q Karine — Q To the back please? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Give me one second, please. Q I just — I want to follow up on this idea, because the President campaigned on a promise to be able to bring Democrats and Republicans together to get the hard things done. Why has he not been able to bring them together to make this a legislative priority to even get a small measure done when it comes to (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think that’s what Senator Schumer is trying to do. Q Yeah, but why not do that in the early days of his presidency? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we have been talking to Congress before these two shootings that have been clearly very public and very devastating and horrific in this past two weeks. We’re doing it now. Look, we know that this is not easy. We’re not saying that this is easy. And the President is doing everything that he can to get this done, but we have — we’re going to continue to call on Congress to act. Q Does this now move to the top of his — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s a priority. Q — legislative priorities, above Build Back Better — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s — Q — above COVID relief? Does this now need to be the singular focus of — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ve — Q — all of Washington D.C.? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Kristen, I would argue that this has been a top priority from the — from the time — Q But the singular focus for the President and lawmakers? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — I’m not going to list out his — the one, two, or three of priority. What I can tell you is this has been a top priority. Literally, he — he started working on this the first couple of days he walked into the — into — into this office. Q And you’re getting a lot of questions about the czar. I guess, just to ask more spe- — to ask in a different way: Former President Obama appointed then-Vice President Biden to take control of this issue. Are there any discussions — is the President considering tasking his Vice President with trying to get something done on this issue? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we — we have Ambassador Susan Rice, who is the President’s domestic policy advisor, as you all know, and she is coordinating the President’s whole-of-government approach to reducing gun violence. She has decades of experience coordinating interagency processes in the federal government. There is no one better at bringing department heads to the table to drive the process. She has a team of 12 staff under the Domestic Policy Council who are working on gun violence reduction, taking an interdisciplinary approach that recognizes that we need all sorts of expertise at the table, from mental health to criminal justice to housing to education, to address the issue. In addition to the Domestic Policy Council, there’s the Executive Office of the President, the White House Counsel’s Office, the Office of the Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Office of Public Engagement. All are playing key roles in gun violence prevention, as do several of the federal agencies, which I’ve listed out already. Go ahead. Q Karine, given everything you just laid out, and the President said yesterday he will use every tool that’s available, I guess, why hasn’t he stood up a task force — an interagency task force on preventing gun violence? He has done it dozens of times on everything from COVID to unionizing since the start of his presidency. There’s also an outstanding request, I believe, from House Democrats over the past year that he appoint a national director — I guess a czar, as Kristen said — and start a task force. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I just — Q Is that something he is going to consider? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just walked through a whole-of-government approach that we’re taking — that’s how important this is — across departments here at the White House and also with several agencies. We’re talking about the DOJ — Department of Justice. We’re talking about HHS. All very much involved here on — on how we’re moving forward. You know — Q But, I guess, why not make an official interagency task force? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because we have a whole-of-government approach. We have a whole-of-government approach that I just mentioned, that Ambassador Susan Rice is leading, along with other departments. And — and with that whole-of-government approach, we have been able to put forth executive actions at a level that we have not seen from any other presidents. We have been able to deal with this in a comprehensive way. What we are saying right now is that we need help. We need assistance. The President cannot do this alone. The Congress needs to act. They need to pass legislation so that we can deal with this on a federal level — legislative level. Q Last question: Is the President making any — or is he considering calling or reaching out to the BORTAC agent who was injured in Uvalde while he was protecting students during the shooting? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any — I don’t have anything to preview or read out for you. As I — as you know — as you know, he’s going to — on Sunday, he’s going to be meeting with community leaders, he’s going to be meeting with victims and family members. And so, we’ll have more to share. I just don’t have anything to share at this time. Okay. I’ll go to the back. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. It’s hard to — Q I would like to ask you a question about the school shooting. But before that, I want to ask you a quick one about the FDA and the baby formula shortage there. It’s lasted months, and we’re not just talking about baby formula, either. There are infants, children, and adults with different metabolic disorders who are risking permanent, irreversible damage the longer they go without special formulas that are manufactured at Abbott Nutrition. I’m wondering, does the President have confidence in the FDA’s ability to deal with situations like this? And as he’s been monitoring the situation, does he still have confidence in his FDA director? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Yes and yes. So the FDA has an important mission, right? It’s to make sure that the infant formula on the shelf isn’t just available but also that it’s safe. And as a parent, I understand the frustration, I understand the fear of not mak- — not knowing if you have safe and healthy food, baby formula in this case, to — for your kids. Unlike, you know, Republicans in Congress and the previous administration, the President believes that FDA, and particularly its food division, needs to be well resourced to do its critical work and do regular annual inspection. So we have to just take a little bit of — just give me a second here — take a step back. The current shortage exists because Abbott closed, as you — as you know, a facility in Michigan due to safety concerns from the FDA — a facility that was a major producer of specialty formula, as you’re asking me about, right? And so FDA has an obligation to protect the American people, and that’s what Dr. Califf is going to be doing at the helm. Q And then the second que- — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But — go ahead. Go ahead. You have a follow-up. Go ahead. Q Second question. We’ve been having a lot of conversations about specifics when it comes to mass shootings, whether it’s red flag laws or background checks. Getting down to, though brass tacks, what does the President believe, at this point, is the purpose of the Second Amendment? And does he think that, given some of the tragedies that we’ve seen, that there should be a discussion about, you know, its ultimate purpose and whether or not it’s currently in date? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President has been very clear: What he is calling for is commonsense gun reform. That’s it. He’s calling for commonsense gun reform to make sure that if you go to a church, you go to elementary school, you go to a grocery store, that you’re not gunned down. That’s what he’s asking for. It has — we’re not talking about the Second Amendment or — or doing anything to — to get rid of the Second Amendment. We’re talking about making sure — 19 — 19 kids and two teachers died. That’s the second major mass shooting that has — has occurred in two weeks. And that — we’re not even talking about the crime that we see, the gun violence that we see across the country on a regular basis. So we have to make sure that we have gun reform. That’s why we’re — we’re calling on Congress to act. Q Thank you, Karine. Q Karine? Q — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, okay. Okay. Go ahead, April. I’m trying to stay in the back. Q Karine, I want to ask you about an issue that’s been in the news nationally and internationally: the grains issue. House Foreign — House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Greg Meeks is in Europe meeting with world leaders on the issue. He says that’s all people are really talking about right now, is the grains issue. And as you know, there’s a blockade of the Black Sea. Russia’s blocked — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, the export. Yeah. Q — there’s a blockade of the Black Sea for the exports of grain, and also India is having problems. So the issue is Russia. Will this White House look at relenting when it comes to issues of sanctions against Russia to allow the grains to go out? Because, right now, Meeks is saying the issue is starvation, as well as prices in the grocery store. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I th- — so the question that you’re asking about, if I’m getting this right, is, like, Russia is — has made a proposal to us to — to allow exports in exchange for lifting the sanctions? Q Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, you know, we want to be very, very clear here, because this is very important: This is Russia who is actively blocking the export of food from Ukrainian ports and is increasing world hunger. This is on them. Russia should immediately cease its war on Ukraine, which is devastating global food security, and allow the free flow of Ukrainian food. Before Russia attacked Ukraine in February, Ukraine was the world’s largest export of sunflower oil; the fourth largest export of corn, which is what you’re asking about, April, with the wheat; and one of the largest exports of wheat, this — what you’re asking about. Now, there are tons of products sitting in se- — in silos in Ukraine and on ships that are unable to set sail due to Russia’s naval blockade. So — and to be clear about some- — something that has been the subject of Russian disinformation: Sanctions from the United States and its allies and its partners are not preventing the export of Ukrainian or Russian agriculture, including food and fertilizer, nor are they preventing the ordinary transactions that are necessary for these exports, such as banking or shipping. Therefore, even according to the terms of their own apparent proposal that they have presented — presented us, Russia should immediately allow Ukrainian agricultural exports. Q So there is no — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q — there is no conversation at all about lifting sanctions? You’re saying — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Q — no? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There — there is not. Remember, again, this is Russia’s doing. This is on Russia. Q Karine? Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Oh, my gosh. Q On formula? Q All the way back. All the way back. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia. Q Thank you so much. I have two foreign policy questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q First, a team from the White House is visiting Saudi Arabia, led by Brett McGurk. Is the President still trying to convince the Saudis to increase the production of oil? And is this part of preparation for the President’s visit to Saudi Arabia? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to preview at this time on — on a — on a trip or a visit from the President. I will confirm that Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein were in the region to follow up on conversations on a range of — range of issues, including Iran’s disab- — destabilizing activities, ensuring stable global energy supplies, and other regional issues. On your question about oil, you know, it’s — this trip is to review engagement with Saudi Arabia on energy security, as asking for oil is simply wrong — that’s the way that we see it — and a misunderstanding of both the complexity of that issue, as well as our multifaceted discussions with the Saudis. OPEC-Plus will make its own decision as it relates to this, the oil, and as it always has. We are in consultation with all relevant producers about market conditions, including Saudi Arabia. Q I have one more, please, on Syria. The head of the Lebanese intelligence chief have met with people at the White House. He told me in an interview that you raised the question of American hostages in Syria held by the Syrian regime. Can you update us on the case on — specifically on Austin Tice and whether his release is imminent? I know it’s sensitive because you’re talking to the families. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, this — it’s a very sensitive issue. And so, this is not — it’s not something that I want to comment from here, so I won’t. I just can’t. I don’t want to do that just because of — it’s diplomatic negotiations, and I want to leave it in that space. (Cross-talk by reporters.) I’ll come back. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Has the White House detected any mood shift that makes you optimistic after this shooting that something is finally going to happen, that something is finally going to get passed after 19 children were shot down? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, we don’t have our finger on the pulse of — on the mood. What we can do is continue to fight for American families, for American communities, as we see the violence that has — especially the two major — major tragedies that we’ve seen these last two weeks — and call on Congress to act. The President, again — and I’ve stated this — he has taken executive actions over this past year and a half, which is more — again, more than any President has done in its first term. And he cannot do this alone. And so, he — he is going to leave it to Senator Schumer, who is doing the — going through the mechanics of what that’s going to look like moving — moving legislation forward. And so, we appreciate their efforts. We appreciate his effort. We appreciate the Speaker’s effort. And we’re going to continue to have those conversations, as we have been throughout this past year and a half. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. So, after the President visited with families in Buffalo, he was asked, “What more can you do on guns via executive action?” And he said, quote, “Not much on executive action.” As Steve said, there are multiple gun safety groups that disagree with that statement and have pages of — of executive actions that they think the President can take. Does the President have any plans to meet with gun safety advocates? I know when he was Vice President, he had hundreds of meetings in the EEOB in his office there with groups. Does he plan to meet with them? And if not, why not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to preview. I’m not — not at this time. I — you know, I just talked about Susan Rice and her team, the Domestic Policy Council. I’ve talked about the public engagement team and others, DOJ and also HHS. And those teams have been regularly talking to outside experts, outside groups over the course of this past year and a half. That’s how we were able to put forward these executive action, comprehensive effort to deal with gun reform. So, that conversations — those conversations are going to continue. I just don’t have anything to preview for you on this one. Q (Inaudible) on the meetings, but just in terms of that sentiment where — where the President says there’s not much more on executive action that he can do. Does this shooting in Texas change that at all? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think what he is — I — just to speak to that: Look, the President has done a lot. He really has. The fact that I’m able to state this historical fact of how much — how much he’s done in his first year and a half. But, you know, we’re always looking at what else we can do. But we have done — you know, we have done so much. I just read it out — including stemming the flow of ghost guns, cracking down on gun trafficking, and using the American Rescue Plan funds to invest in keeping officers on the beat to fight gun crime and gun violence. And so, we’re going to continue constantly looking at additional executive action so we can move forward. But the President, again, cannot solve this problem alone. He needs Congress to do its job and to act. Q On that point: What role do you guys expect Senator McConnell to play on any sort of bipartisan gun legislation? Does the President plan to contact him or speak with him at all? And what are you hoping for from the Senate Minority Leader? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look — you know, again, we’re going to leave the mechanics to how this gets done to the leadership — to the leadership in Congress, Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi. We have had several conversations before these major shootings that occurred these last two weeks. This is an issue that has been a priority for this President since the moment he walked in — into this office and, as I mentioned, as a senator, as a Vice President, and now as President. So, there’s an array of issues that we talk to Congress on a regular basis. And again, we’re going to continue to have those conversations. Go ahead. Q On the gun issue, just a quick follow-up: Is one of the concerns of the White House that moving ahead with executive actions right now while there are talks in Congress could sink those talks in Congress? Is that why you’re holding — one of the reasons you might be holding back on moving forward with the executive actions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. I mean, we’ve been very clear: It’s time for Congress to act. We cannot do this alone. The President cannot do this alone. So, we’re asking Congress to act so we can have federal laws to actually deal with reforming — reforming — doing gun reform — comprehensive gun reform. Q On the Summit of the Americas, President Bolsonaro of Brazil has said he plans to attend now. AMLO, of Mexico, is still making mixed signals. Can you say whether those invitations have now formally gone out to all of those leaders? And are the governments of Venezuela and Cuba and Nicaragua going to be excluded? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’re still considering additional invites, and we’ll share them when — when it — we feel it’s appropriate — when it’s final. And that’s when we’ll share them. I don’t have anything right now to share as far as a fi- — as a list. Q And then just one last one. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Mm-hmm. Q The CBO came out with a report earlier this week that showed inflation was going to remain above target toward the — well, going down but still above target to the end of this year and then into next year. I mean, has the White House, sort of, painted too rosy a picture on how quickly inflation is going to go down, given the projections that came out from CBO this week? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. So, as you mentioned, the CBO report came out yesterday. It projects stable, steady economic growth in the year — in the years ahead, as inflation eases, the deficit falls dramatically this year. On the deficit, the CBO projects that our deficit this year will fall by $1.7 trillion, after it fell by $350 billion just last year. That’s after the deficit increased every single year President Trump was in office. And it is a lower deficit for 2022 than the CBO projected before passage of the American Rescue Plan. That means that our econo- — our strong economic recovery, powered by the President’s economic and vaccination policies also improved our nation’s fiscal position and reduced our deficit. On growth and inflation, CBO projects the economy to grow by 3.1 percent this year and 2.2 percent next year, with core personal con- — consumption exemption [expenditures] — that’s PCE — inflation falling to 2.3 percent by the end of next year. This is the kind of transition from a historic economic recovery — again, steady, stable economic growth that works for working families — that President — that the President’s policies are designed to bring about. So that’s how we’re — how we’re viewing the CBO report. Go ahead, you had something on formula you said? Q Yeah. Can you tell us if there are any more flights planned from — foreign flights for formula? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to — to preview at this time. But we will have some more information in the upcoming days. Q Is that because you all are working on it and the details are not there or can we expect more flights? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, definitely, you’ll expect more flights. I just don’t have anything to announce at this time. And, as you know, the second flight landed in Dulles yesterday. The First Lady was there to receive the — the formula and the — and the package that landed. Q And then on the FDA question: You said — you brought up the Abbott plant, and it was kind of put on them. But Senator Patty Murray — today, she told the FDA head that she gives the FDA an “F” on not realizing the warning signs of the crisis. And she also says that they have not given her a plan that she’s requested about how to stabilize a food safety program. So is there anything the White House can ensure that the FDA has been in response to Senator Murray and those on Capitol Hill? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just first say this — this is — they’re hearing — during the hearing yesterday, Dr. Califf has said, “It’s important we get to the bottom of what happened with the — with the Sturgis facility and the root of what has caused the issues we’re facing today.” He has designated someone to lead an after-action report. But we have to take a step back here and look at the dynamics of what we’re dealing with: We have fau- — four companies that make up 98 percent of the market. An industry that’s — that’s concentrated means more vulnerability to the supply shocks and fewer options for consumption. And because of Abbott’s vol- — voluntary recall, there have been huge disruptions to formula supply of a highly concentrated market. So we have to fix this. So, our focus right now is on getting more infant formula supply to families across the country as quickly as possible, as well running a historic agenda to diversify markets and grow the number of companies competing for — for your business. This is what — this is what will — will help avoid situations like this in the future. But he has said it is important to get to the bottom of this and has appointed someone to do that. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.