PressBriefingbyPressSecretaryJenPsaki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The View" bashed the Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade before several liberal cast members declared they were actually "pro-life," although not all of them appeared to have the same definition for the term. The hosts first learned of the news that Roe v. Wade, a 1973 landmark decision that granted federal protections for abortion, was overturned while on a flight to the Bahamas to tape their show this week, and they were shocked despite knowing it could come. "We want to recognize right off the bat that not everyone agrees with this particular issue, but it is, at its core, about whether you have the right to make decisions about another person's reproductive choices," co-host Whoopi Goldberg said. After spending the opening segment railing against the decision, reliably liberal co-host Sunny Hostin reminded viewers that she is personally against abortion. "I don’t believe in abortion at any time. I don’t believe in any exception to it," Hostin said. "That’s considered very radical for many people, and it’s because I’m Catholic… so this has always been a very difficult discussion for me, but what is not difficult for me is the fact that this is an activist Supreme Court, and they should not be deciding the law based on their faith." Advocates generally prefer to be identified as "pro-life," as opposed to "anti-abortion," to highlight their belief that abortion is the taking of human life. They believe life starts at the moment of conception and ends with natural death, while opponents, who identify as pro-choice, characterize them as restricting women's reproductive rights. Co-host Sara Haines, another liberal, also declared that she is "pro-life," but not in the same way as Hostin. "I would say that I am rabidly pro-choice, but I’m also pro-life because I don’t see a 9-week-old fetus equal to a baby, equal to the mother," Haines said. Goldberg then made a similar claim, telling viewers she’s "very pro-life" but doesn’t want people to be forced into making decisions. "I’m very pro-life. I’ve never been anti-life. I want people to have the lives they want, but I don’t want to force anybody – I don’t want anybody coming in my house telling me how to raise my daughter and what she needs because they don’t know," Goldberg said. The ruling came in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place. Since the ruling was announced on Friday, pro-choice advocates have protested the decision that stunned the nation and raised discussion of how it will affect this fall's midterm elections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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