PressBriefingbyPressSecretaryJenPsaki

"The View" co-host Joy Behar said Wednesday that gun laws will change in the U.S. "once Black people get guns," while discussing congressional action on gun control legislation. Guest host Lindsey Granger argued that people on both sides of the political aisle need to sit down, debate and find common ground on issues such as gun control and terrorism and "make real progress." Co-host Sara Haines reiterated the discussion the hosts had with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., on Tuesday. Murphy said that getting gun control legislation passed in Congress is going to require a give-and-take between Republicans and Democrats. Behar said that members of the Republican Party have said that "taking those AR-15s off the market" was a nonstarter for them. "It's all about the guns, alright," Behar continued. "Let me give you a story," Granger said. She described a man in Connecticut that witnessed a home invasion at his neighbors house. She said that the man built his own AR-15 because the state of Connecticut doesn't allow you to buy them, but that you could abide by their rules to build them. "He has one in his house to protect his family because he never wants to see that happen again. He is a Black man, it's odd, most AR-15 owners are former military, 35-plus and married," she said. "They're not just crazy people." Behar interrupted and said, "here's the thing, once Black people get guns in this country, the gun laws will change. Trust me." "That's what happened with the Black Panthers," co-host Sunny Hostin said. "Know your history." Granger said that Black people have been buying guns and that Black gun ownership increased in 2020. "Here's the bottom line to this," co-host Whoopi Goldberg said. "We all need to get off our a---- and get out and vote." Goldberg said during "The View" last week that she "doesn't want" all of the guns, but emphasized that she wants to ban AR-15s. Haines asked Murphy on Tuesday if the Republican Party was going further right amid Rep. Chris Jacobs', R-NY., announcement that he would be dropping out of his reelection campaign after being criticized for supporting an assault weapons ban.

Joy Reid railed against Republicans yet again during Monday's episode of "The ReidOut," accusing right-wingers of intentionally creating an atmosphere of animosity so strong to ensure no Democrats can feel safe. "[If Republicans] had anything to do with it, there would be no place in this country where any of us should feel safe. That's our punishment," she said. Reid began her tirade of accusing the GOP of ramped up aversion by highlighting party members' discomfort with a more progressive society, arguing that their "anger" has "corroded into something more like hate." Reid then accused the GOP of "openly flaunting the idea that, because they’re not happy in and don't feel affirmed by a more socially liberal, modern, multicultural and more secular America," that they say "no safe spaces" should exist. The "ReidOut" host lambasted the party for allegedly thriving off "demographic panic," "rage" and "alienation," – potentially referencing recent controversy surrounding the "Great Replacement" theory – and for using this "dangerous combination" as fuel for justifying that Democrats "should feel afraid." Reid called on talking points, including claims that Republicans promote laws and policies that "make" women carry pregnancies to term and that they do not consider or care about rape and/or incest in the process. She also cited Republicans' disdain for Critical Race Theory, their push for increased border protections and their frustrations with COVID-19 vaccine and masking mandates. "Set aside ideological or emotional safety," she said later in the segment, "We're not allowed to feel physically safe anywhere in America thanks to Republicans’ ironclad partnership with the blood-soaked NRA which long ago quit the gun safety business and has been working for decades to make sure that the most lethal arms get into as many alienated 18 and 19-year-old incel hands as possible." Reid went on, listing places where Republicans' alleged partnership with the NRA have kept Americans from feeling safe, including at the supermarket, during church services, at the hair salon, hospital and others. "Whether you are in high school or you are ten – and in the fourth grade – in America, and only in America, you are literally rolling the dice every time you leave your house or drop off your kids at school," she said, adding that Americans have to "pray" that today is not "[their] day" to meet an "angry, alienated American man who has an AR-15."

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

During an interview late Tuesday morning, "The View" co-host Sara Haines asked Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., if the Republican Party was "going further right" during a discussion about gun violence and whether Republicans were participating in the negotiations in Congress. Co-host Sunny Hostin asked Murphy if the Republicans involved in the gun legislation negotiations were actually serious or if they were just trying to run out the clock ahead of the midterms. "Maybe I'm being naive, but I really do believe that the Republicans participating in these negotiations are negotiating in good faith. Senator Cornyn and I were part of negotiations that went into the wee hours of last night and well we are very different in our views we do both agree that we are not willing to do anything that compromises peoples Second Amendment rights. We are focused on keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous people and I think we can find agreement on that," Murphy said. Murphy has been involved in gun control negotiations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate in the wake of the Uvalde, Texas school shooting. He noted that Democrats and Republicans cannot find agreement on an outright ban of assault weapons. Co-host Sara Haines asked the senator about Rep. Chris Jacobs, R-NY., who dropped out of his reelection campaign after voicing his support for a Democrat-led push in Congress for gun control legislation. Jacobs announced he was dropping out after receiving backlash from Republicans for saying that he would vote in favor of an assault weapons ban. "Back in 2018, in Florida, a really red state, a pro-gun state that passed the legislation, not one of them had any backlash politically speaking from voting for that legislation. So now in 2022 we have somebody that has to drop out because of it. Is the party going further right, will this have a chilling effect going forward in these midterms?" Haines asked. Florida passed legislation in 2018 that increased the gun purchasing age for long guns to 21-years-old, included red flag laws and imposed a three-day waiting period. Murphy said that the Republican Party was at the negotiating table because there is a "public urgency to act." "I think Republicans understand that this is good politics. That it's going to be really hard to go back to their constituencies and say that they rejected a pretty reasonable offer to tighten up our nation's firearms laws that's completely compliant with the Second Amendment," Murphy said. Murphy delivered an emotional speech on the Senate floor after a gunman shot and killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde. He begged Congress to act on gun control, asking "what are we doing?" The senator also urged President Biden to stay out of gun control negotiations occurring in Congress, saying that senators "need to do this ourselves."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers says the consensus on inflation last year was wrong, and that conventional forecasting models need to be evaluated. He says more interest rate hikes are needed to tame inflation.

Hosts of ABC's "The View" called for getting "rid of the Republican Party" to pass gun control on Thursday, saying that they were the "party of White Supremacy" and "massacres." "I always say don't vote for Republicans," co-host Joy Behar said. "Right now, I mean you can go back to it after you have gun laws." Behar said Republicans would be voted out if they vote for gun control laws in Congress because that's not what their constituents want. "In 1994, the assault weapons ban went into effect and many of the Republicans who voted for it lost their jobs," Behar claimed. She argued that the only way to "preserve" the Republicans' jobs was to vote for Democrats, "then they can do whatever they want in the Republican Party" and there would be more Democrats to "get the laws done." "That is my answer to this problem right now," Behar concluded. Co-host Sunny Hostin reemphasized Behar's position a little later in the discussion, saying that Republicans "get in lock step against gun safety because all they care about is power." The hosts discussed whether action on gun control would be taken in the wake of the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting and the Tulsa hospital shooting on Wednesday that left five dead, including the suspected gunman. On Wednesday co-host Whoopi Goldberg called for banning AR-15s and arresting their owners if they do get banned, saying, "Report them and we'll put them in jail." She has also said that they were going to "come for" guns if women cannot get an abortion.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Hello. I know that was a long two minutes. I apologize. Okay, let’s get started. So, before we start the briefing, I want to take a moment to recognize the lives lost and forever changed in Buffalo. Former Buffalo Police Lieutenant Aaron Salter, 55, is a hero — a security guard who engaged the suspect to save lives and was killed in the process. Ruth Whitfield, 86, was mother of Buffalo’s Retired Fire Commissioner Garnell W. Whitfield. Ruth was the rock of the family, devoting her life to taking care of her four children and husband. Ruth was visiting the former commissioner’s father in a nursing home, as she did each day, and she stopped at the supermarket to buy some groceries. Katherine Massey, 72, was a well-known community figure who wrote for her local newspapers, assisted in elections, and dressed up in costume as “Mr. Broccoli” to teach local school children to eat — to “eat right.” Pearl Young, 77, was a substitute teacher and a “true pillar in the community,” who volunteered at a church food pantry every Saturday. Heyward Patterson, 68, a driver and church volunteer. Hayward worked as a driver who gave rides to residents to and from the grocery store and would help with their groceries when he was killed. Celestine Chaney, 65, a grandmother to six. Celestine had been visiting her sister, and they went to the supermarket because she wanted to get strawberries to make shortcakes, which she loved. Celestine prized her role as a grandmother, survived cancer, and was a regular churchgoer. Robert [Roberta] Drury, 32, a resident of the Syracuse area. She was at the supermarket to get food for dinner while in town visiting her brother. “She always was the center of attention and made [the] whole room smile and laugh,” her sister said. Geraldine Talley, 62, was doing her regular grocery shopping with her fiancé on Saturday when she was shot and killed. According to her niece Lakesha Chapman, “She was the person who always put our family reunion together…and mother of two beautiful children”. Andre Mackneil, 53. Andre was going to the supermarket to get a birthday cake for her [his] son when she [he] was killed. Jahon Smith, Mackniel’s cousin, said he was a loving father and grandmother [grandfather] who used to check in on everyone. Margus D. Morrison, 52. Margus was a father of three and a Buffalo resident. We recon- — we recognize their lives today and those lost and affected by gun violence this weekend in Houston, in southern California, Milwaukee, and communities across the country. And we honor the bravery of those in law enforcement who responded quickly and with professionalism in Buffalo, and who risk their lives every day to protect and serve their communities. Tomorrow, as you all know, the President and the First Lady will travel to Buffalo to meet with families of the victims, first responders, and community leaders. They will comfort the families of the 10 people whose lives were senselessly taken in this horrific shooting. And they will express gratitude for the bravery of members of law enforcement and other first responders who took immediate action to try to protect and save lives. A couple more toppers for you here — items for the top — at the top. In just under an hour, the President will host Prime Minister of Greece and a senior delegation, including their Minister for fair- — Foreign Affairs and Minister of National Defense, for a bilateral meeting. The two leaders will discuss the U.S.-Greece bilateral relationship, which both our governments agree is at a historical high point. The President and the Prime Minister will discuss our defense partnership, efforts to bolster energy security while also combatting climate change, our shared commitment to democratic values, and efforts to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to defend itself. The two leaders will also discuss ways to further expand the bilateral trade relationship and U.S. investment in Greece, where several U.S. tech and renewable energy companies have made significant investments. The President and the First Lady, Jill Biden, will then host the Prime Minister and — and his wife for a reception honoring the conclusion of the Greece — Greece’s bicentennial year of March — on March — March 25th. Also today, the administration announced an Action Plan to Ease the Burden of Housing Costs, taking a series of actions to address one of the largest items in a typical family’s budget and one of the largest drivers of inflation in our economy. As President, Biden has said tackling inflation is his top economic priority. The best thing we can do to ease the burden of housing costs is to boost the supply of quality housing, including building more new homes and preserving existing federal support and market-rate affordable housing. Today’s action plan includes legislative and administration — administrative actions that will help close America’s housing supply shortfalls in five years, starting with creation — the creation of preservation of hundreds of thousands of affordable housing units in the next three years. This is the most comprehensive all-of-government effort to close the housing supply shortfall in history when aligned with other policies that the President has proposed to reduce housing costs and ensure affordability, such as rental assistance and down payment assistance. Closing the gap will mean more affordable rents and more attainable hone- — homeownership for Americans in every community. Also today — we have a lot — we have a lot. Today marks six months since President Biden signed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Since then, the team has hit the ground running to deliver results for communities across the country. In six months, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has already begun helping fight climate change, advancing environmental justice, boosting domestic manufacturing, strengthening critical links in our supply chain, and lowering costs for working families. To date, the Biden-Harris administration has announced over $110 billion to rebuild roads and bridges, modernize ports and airports, replace lead pipes to deliver clean water, and high — and expand high-speed Internet. This includes funding for — for over 4,300 specific projects touching over 3,200 communities across all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico as well. Fifty-three states and territories have appointed state infrastructure coordinators, responding to the call from Infrastructure Coordinator Landrieu to appoint an individual to coordinate efforts in a state — in a state, along with serving as a single point of contact for the White House Infrastructure implema- — Implementation Team. The President, Vice President, and Cabinet have traveled on more than 125 trips to over 40 states, as well as D.C. and Puerto Rico, to demonstrate how the President is delivering on this once-in-a-generation opportunity.   The last thing — I promise — and then we’ll go to your questions. But before I do that, I just want to say a few words about how honored I am to be here with all of you today in this role, in this room, standing behind this podium. I am obviously acutely aware that my presence at this podium represents a few firsts. I am a Black, gay, immigrant woman, the first of all three of those to hold this position. I would not be here today if it were not for generations of barriers — barrier-breaking people before me. I stand on their shoulders. If it were not for generations of barrier-breaking people before me, I would not be here. But I benefit from their sacrifices. I have learned from their ex- — excellence, and I am forever grateful to them. Representation does matter. You hear us — you hear us say this often in this administration. And no one understands this better than President Biden, which is why his administration is not only the most diverse in history, it is filled with barrier-breaking women and men, from the Vice President, to the Cabinet Secretaries, to his Supreme Court nominee, to senior staff throughout this administration. When I did my first briefing as Principal Deputy Press Secretary last year, almost a year ago, I said at this podium that this podium, this room, this building belong to the American people. We work for them. It’s not about me. It’s about them. It was true then, and it is very true indeed today. On Jen’s first briefing, she made clear that the President’s and her priority was to bring truth and transparency back to this briefing room. Jen did a great job at that. And I will work every day to continue to ensure we are meeting the President’s high expectation of truth, honesty, and transparency. I also have tremendous respect for the work that you all do, which I know it’s not easy. The press plays a vital role in our democracy, and we need a strong and independent press now more than ever. We might not see eye to eye here in this room all the time, which is okay. That give-and-take is so incredibly healthy and it’s a part of our democracy. And I look forward to engaging with all of you on that. With that, please kick us off. Q Thanks, Karine. And congratulations. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Q While you’ve been here before, it’s your first as Press Secretary, so on that — in that vein, I just want to ask you: Do you view your primary role here as speaking for the President and promoting his interests? Or are you — you know, or are you committed to providing the unvarnished truth to the American people so that they know what their government is doing on their behalf? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I actually think that’s hand in hand. I don’t think there’s — that there is any separation to that. As I said at the end of my opening here, the President believes in truth and transparency. That’s what he expects from us. Clearly, we are here to talk about his platform and what he is doing to deliver for the American people. But he wants to make sure we’re doing this trans- — in a transparent way, in a truthful way, and an honest way. Q And just on a housekeeping note, I know the pool has to gather at 3:30 for the event, but I’m hoping you might be able to stay here to take questions from more folks. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Absolutely. Q And then, on a substantive note, this weekend’s attack in Buffalo — the shooter professed ideology, echoed in some ways the hate — the hateful rhetoric espoused by the Charlottesville white supremacist protesters almost five years ago that motivated the President to run for this office back then, as he’s often talked about. What more does the President believe he has to do and the country has to do to combat that sort of hatred? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So let me just say we still need to learn more about the motivation for the shooting as law enforcement do — does their work. But we don’t — we don’t need anything else to stay — to state a clear moral truth — right? — which is: A racially motivated hate crime is abhorrent to the very fabric of this nation. Hate must not have a safe harbor. This is something that the President says very often, especially in these horrific incidents that we have seen time and time again. We must do everything in our power to end hate-fueled domestic terrorism. And we must reject hatred and extres- — extremism ideologies that seek to divide Americans, whenever we find it in our society. It is antithetical to who we are as a country and fuels — and fuels violence as well. Q Thanks, Karine. Congratulations also. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Q In that vein, there’s polling that shows one in three Americans believe in some element of “replacement theory.” You just spoke in very broad brushstrokes there. Are there specifics that this White House is willing to do, willing to take in order to stop this form of thinking from further seeping out of the fringe and into the mainstream? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, we’re going to continue to call this out. As we have talked about many times, the President, at every chance he’s had — when we’ve seen a violent attack like this that is — that is — as we, you know, say “with hatred and racially motivated” — he calls it out and calls it what it is. So, one thing I do want to touch on is, like, domestic terrorism a little bit, which kind of hopefully touches on your question. You know, we have been working to implement the government-wide national strategy to counter domestic terrorism, which President Biden directed his natiol [sic] — national security team to develop on his first full day in office, recognizing that has — that has evolved into the most urgent terrorism threat the United States faces today. That work includes improving information sharing throughout federal, state, and local law enforcement on domestic terrorism threats and analysis; adding resources to prevent domestic terrorism’s recruitment and mobilization to violence, including online by increasing information sharing with the technology sector; increasing our support for federal, state, and local law enforcement in addressing domestic terrorism nationwide; confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism and rooting out hate and bigotry. This weekend’s terrible events in Buffalo are just another vivid reminder of the urgency of that work and continuing to move towards that. Q But on this notion that immigrants and others are believed to be, by some, taking over and pushing white people out of positions of authority in this country, which is at the heart of so much of this terror that is being spewed online, does the White House believe these views are being amplified by Tucker Carlson? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, like I said, we are still figuring out the motivation of all of this. And we are very clear — look, you know, as you all know, watching what happened in Charlottesville was a major factor in the President deciding to run — right? — and back in 2017. You know, many of those dark voices still exist today, and the President is — is determined, as he was back then. And he is determined today to make sure that we fight back against those forces of hate and evil and of — and violence. So that’s what we’re going to keep doing. That’s what we’re going to continue to call out. But we reject hatred and extremism ideologies. Q But just in the interest of — I apologize. In the interest of time — I know you’ve got to go — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — but are there elected officials that this administration views as threatening in this way? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, it’s the — what we’re going to continue to do — anyone — any one person — right? — doesn’t matter who they are, who spews this type of hate — hatred, we are going to — we’re going to call out. We’re going to condemn that. I’m not going to speak or call out any individual names. I’m saying that this is something that we need to call out. And so this is what the President has been doing and will continue to do that. You saw him say that in his statement over the weekend. And that’s — you know, now he’s going to go to Buffalo and visit with the victims that were affected by this violence that we saw on Saturday. Go ahead, Jeff. Q Thanks, Karine. And congratulations. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Q President Putin said today that Russia has no objections to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, which seems to be a shift in policy for them. What is the White House’s reaction to that? And can you give us an update on U.S. efforts to help bridge the gap between Turkey and Finland and Sweden over NATO? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on the Turkey part — I’ll take that first — I know that there was a question about how they were feeling or what they — what the Turkey government — Turkish government said about Finland and Sweden. The Secretary spoke to this again, as I just said, yesterday during his press conference in Berlin — a meeting with his counterparts in NATO. And so, what he said is, we are “confident…we will reach consensus” as an Alliance on an entry process should they decide to apply. That was what Secretary Blinken said yesterday. I cannot speak for the Kremlin. You know, this is — this — we believe — when it — we believe in NATO’s open-door policies and the right of each country to decide its own future — foreign policy and security arrangements. That’s what we believe. And so, we welcome the recent statements from governments of Finland and Sweden on their intention to seek NATO membership. We will strongly support these applications when they are formally presented in Brussels. Both Finland and Sweden are close and valued defense partners of the United States and of NATO. Q Secondly, when and why did the President decide to have additional troops sent to Somalia? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I know that was just announced I believe today — earlier today. So the President has approved a request from the Secretary of Defense to reestablish a persistent U.S. military presence in Somalia to enable a more effective fight against al-Shabaab, which has increased in strength and poses a heightened threat. This is a repositioning of forces already in theater who have traveled in and out of Somalia on an episodic basis since the previous administration made the decision to withdraw. That was back in January of 2021, as you might recall. As we’ve emphasized throughout his administration, we’re approaching counterterrorism in a manner tailored to the particular terrorist threats that we see emerging from particular countries. Today in Somalia, we face al Qaeda’s largest and wealthiest global affiliate, and one that holds substantial territorial safe haven. The decision to reintroduce a small but persistent presence was made, first and foremost, to maximize the safety and effectiveness of our force and enable them to provide better support of our partners. Additionally, our partners can benefit from our more consistent support and engagement in addressing the threat posed by al-Shabaab by having a small but persistent U.S. military presence. And while there is risk, it is manageable. That’s the way that we are seeing this approach. DOD is working to elevate local conditions, including those following the Somalia presidential election yesterday, and is engaging partners in the region, including the Somali government, to determine the best way forward. Go ahead, MJ. Q Thanks, Karine. Two questions for you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q One, there are some elected officials and media figures who are publicly espousing xenophobic, racist, and extremist views that may be helping to spread white nationalism. You just told my colleague here that you don’t want to call out any names. Why don’t you want to do that? Does that come from the President himself? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I think because it doesn’t matter who it is. What — if a person espouses hatred, we need to call that out. I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth on names and who said what. We’re just saying: If someone does that, if there’s an individual that is espousing hate, xenophobia, you know, has — you know, has just white supremacy-type of extremism, we need to call that out. And this President has done that. He’s done that at every — at every unfortunate — every unfortunate, violent event that we have seen. As we know, Charlottesville, as I just mentioned, was the reason that he decided to jump in, into this election, back in 2020 — 2019. Q One more thing — I’ll just wait a second. (Press pool departs for the President’s bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Greece.] Q Can we just explain for people who are watching: The pool is departing. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. Yep. For folks who are watching, the pool is departing. They’re — the President is getting ready to have his event. Q We don’t want anybody to think they’re walking out on you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) No, no. It’s okay. Q We’re not walking out on you, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, you know — you know, that would be a great — that would be a great first day, one for the books: The press gets up and walks away. (Laughter.) Q But they did. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: They — well, for — yeah. They — they — the President is much more important than I am, for sure. Q And those of us who stayed will be rewarded, correct? (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I will — you guys all deserve rewards. How about that? (Laughter.) Go ahead, Nancy. Q I have to leave. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m so sorry. I’m sorry, MJ. I’m so sorry. Go ahead. Q On a separate topic. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q The President told my colleague Jeremy Diamond on Friday, when he asked if the administration should have acted sooner on baby formula shortage: “If we’d been better mind readers, I guess we could have.” This doesn’t seem like a situation that would have required mindreading. As you know, the recalls date back to February. I believe Politico reported months ago that the FDA was first warned about the suspected bacteria issue as early as September. Are there any specific actions that this administration took — meetings, phone calls, briefings — in February or any earlier to begin addressing this potential shortage? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, you’ve heard us talk about this. You’ve seen my colleagues on your networks talking about what we have done. Since — you know, since February, we’ve been working aro- — on this 24/7. But I do want to give you a little bit of an update of where we are: So, getting more safe infant formula onto shelves across the country is one of the President’s top priorities. Right? This is something that he is focusing on very acutely. And again, I said 24/7 we have been working on this since we have — since we learned about this back in February. It’s important to remember this shortage exists because Abbott closed the facility — closed a facility because of safety concerns from the FDA. The FDA is working closely with Abbott to bring the facility back online safely. That’s the key here: safely. We want to make sure that this is done in a safe way. We’re very — we are very close to having a path forward to safely reopening the facility. We can — you can expect a — an announcement from FDA later today on that that will go into more details. We’re also moving as quickly as possible to safely bring in additional product from other countries. As soon as today as well, we will be able to make an announcement on the expedited process to bring additional safe condu- — product to the American stores shel- — to American store shelves. And throughout the weekend, we’ve been working closely with manufacturers and retailers to identify transportation and logistical needs to increase the amount and spread of FDA-approved formula being shipped into the country and ensure that formula is quickly moving from factories to retailers. The President understands. He gets this. He gets how stressful it is for parents trying to feed their children, which is why we’re leaving no stone unturned to make more safe formula available. If parents need help finding formula, I encourage them to consult their pediatrician or visit HHS.gov/formula. But we have been working on this from the — from February — our administration has been. Q As — we were just curious whether there are specific meetings, briefings, you know, phone calls that you can point us to. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything specific for you to point to. I’m — I’m happy to go back and — and get that — you know, make sure that we are fully transparent on what we’ve been doing. But this has been — this is an important, you know, this is an important priority, a top priority for the President. He is — his team has been working overtime to make sure that we get formula back on the shelves. And we want to do this in a safe way. And again, we cannot forget how we got here. Abbott closed the facility because of safety concerns from the FDA. The FDA wanted to make sure that we — formula was going out in a safe way. And that is the job of the FDA, and that is the job of this administration as well. Q And just very quickly, on Abbott: Secretary Becerra said today, in terms of when things would be back to normal, that, “Abbott is the one that could tell you the timeline…We don’t run their plants.” Do you know if anyone from the federal government is currently at the plant or has visited the plant to get a sense of where things stand? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any information about if anyone is on the plant. Again, I can go back to our team and figure that out more specifically, but there are a lot of — what I can say is there are a lot of dates floating around out there. But at the end of the day, the infant formula market is tight because the Michigan Abbott facility is offline currently, which is what we’re trying to do — this is the — the announcement that you guys will hear from FDA later today on how we’re helping them to do that. We’re taking a range of steps to get more supply onto shelves from domestic and international locations, and offering a suit — a suite of resources to move supply onto the market. As the Secretary said, Abbott can speak on it — to an exact timeline for reopening, but FDA is and will be prepared to effectively and quickly certify moving out safe products onto shelf, as it is obligated to. And so that is going to be our focus. FDA is going to work closely with Abbott and make sure that we get them running again. Go ahead, Nancy. Q Thanks, Karine. Congratulations. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Q When you talk about bringing — importing more product imminently, what is the criteria going to be for which formula can be imported? Will the administration allow formula that was not produced in FDA-approved factories overseas to be imported or European brands, for example, that aren’t currently sold in the U.S.? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, as Dr. Califf was on — on various networks today, the FDA have said that it will release guidance as soon as today on how major formula manufacturers can bring in product that is not currently being produced for the U.S. market, as you’re alluding to there, Nancy, and to your question. Companies will need to apply with the FDA, and FDA is prepared to review applications quickly and respond to them rapidly. FDA will prioritize review of applications that are most likely to be successful and will get the most formula to U.S. shelves as quickly as possible. All companies will meet the FDA’s gold standard for quality control, and only safe products will come to America’s shelves as — as the FDA Commissioner said and explained in detail this morning. At the White House, what are our — our role, what we’ll be doing, is we will have alerted embassies, retailers, and manufacturers to identify potential companies that would make use of the new FDA import- — importation process. Once FDA has finalized its rules, we will be ready to provide information to the public on using the new system quickly and safely and bring new supply to the market. Q And New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand says the President should be invoking the Defense Production Act to increase supply more quickly. Is the President still considering that? And if not, why not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we’re pretty much where we were before on the DPA. We’re leaving no stone unturned and every option is on the table, as we have been saying for the past several days. I have no update on the DPA and where we are. But what we’re — what we’re taking action is to make more supplies available as soon as possible, as you’ve been hearing me say. That is our prior- — our priority, our main goal. That’s happening by increasing imports, as I just laid out how we’re going to do that process, and working closely with manufacturers to help them quickly ramp up production. And so that’s going to be our focus. Q And then finally, when you say that you’re offering these retailers and producers more assistance, what kind of assistance are you talking about? What kind of assistance can the White House or the administration provide to get supply to store shelves more quickly? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, we’re talking about logistical needs and — and any technical help is what we were talking about. But since the President calls on Thursday to manufacturers and retailers, which we — which we read out, the White House has been in close communication to follow up on those conversations. The White House is having ongoing conversations with the four major infant formula to work with them to identify transportation, logistical, and supplier hurdles to increasing production of formula at their U.S. and FDA-approved facilities to expand the amount and speed of FDA-approved formula being shipped into the country and ensure that formula is quickly moving to retailers from factories. We are also in ongoing communications, as we talk about retailers here as well, with Target and Amazon and Walmart and other leading retailers for baby formula to identify parts of the country that may be at risk of critically low supply of infant formula, and have offered to work with manufacturers and retailers to bring more formula to those parts of the country, including the U.S. government transportation and logistical support. Last, we are also contacting suppliers to infant formula manufacturers to inform them that their materials are critical for boosting U.S. infant formula production and they should prioritize their production and delivery. So, essentially, in short, we want them to know we’re standing ready to provide the resources or support needed to move safely to get — to get this to the shelves as soon as possible. Go ahead. Q Yeah. COVID cases are up 61 percent in the last two weeks. Hospitalizations are up almost 25 percent. Is the White House concerned that the pandemic has not moved on from us? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, you know, Dr. Jha was here not too long ago. I think he — very, very early in his — in his tenure, he stopped by and answered all of your questions. And he said this is a — this is tricky — right? — when it comes to COVID. And the thing that we have to remember and we keep saying from here is that people have to get vaccinated; they have to get boosted. That is the way to really start moving forward from — from COVID. And that’s been the President’s focus in putting together a comprehensive strategy to make sure that that is happening. And that’s why you’ve seen that success of more than 200 million people who have been vaccinated. And so we’re going to continue to have that message. Again, it’s — it’s a — COVID is tricky, right? This is a once-in-a-generation pandemic, you know. And so — but what we’re going to continue to do is do the job of the federal government and make sure that we — you know, we keep the American public as safe as possible and communicating on what we need to do to move forward. Q Just in terms of that communication, Dr. Jha did come here but it was a while ago, and the regular COVID briefings with the CDC director and other health advisors have fallen off a cliff. What is your view on whether these briefings should be happening? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think they will be happening. I don’t have anything — any update for you on that. Dr. Jha is happy to come back. I think he’s asked to come back to the briefing to speak directly to you — to all of you. I’m sure that they will be having a briefing pretty soon. I don’t have any — any list in front of me to read out to you. But yes, it is important to continue to communicate to the American public. And we’re going to continue to do that. Go ahead. Q A couple of questions on Buffalo. We understand that the shooter did purchase his guns legally, but he did have a history of mental health issues and was held for an evaluation last year. So does the White House believe he should have been prevented from owning a gun because of that history? And how does the administration propose doing so in the future? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So just me a second, because I — I really want to touch on this. It’s really important. Our nation is facing a mental health crisis, so it’s important to call it that — one that is worsened by acts of violence, like the one we saw in Buffalo, that can traumatize communities, especially communities of color. And anyone seeking support in the wake of shootings like this should contact Disaster Distress Helpline at 1-800-985-5990. Help is available 24/7, 365 days a week — day of the year, I should say — for people who are experiencing emotional distress related to any natural or — or human-caused disaster. We are committed to expanding access to mental health for all Americans. The American Rescue Plan made historic investment in mental health and substance use — substance use care. And, in his first State of the Union, the President unveiled his vision for transforming mental health in the United States. His comprehensive strategy focuses on building a system that works for everyone by increasing the supply and diversity of the mental health workforce, connecting more people to care by lowering costs and other barriers, and creating environments that help prevent mental health problems and support recovery. While we are committed to this work, I want to also underscore that the overwhelming majority of individuals with mental health problems do not commit acts of violence. And so, comments that make this about mental health only further stigma- — stigmatizing mental health issues and detract from the other issues, like gun violence, that must con- — that must be confronted in our society. So, just want to make that clear that we are not stigmatizing. Q But should he have been prevented from owning a gun? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, this is — this goes back to making sure that, you know, we have gun reform. Right? This goes back to making sure that we — we — you know, the President is going to continue to call on Congress to make that happen. And so, you know, when it comes — I just wanted to make sure when we talk about mental health, we talk about it in its fullness. And like I said, not every — it’s not — it — you know, not every individual that has a mental health problem commits — commits acts of violence. So, I just want to make sure that we don’t stigmatize it. Q And just a quick — another one. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q Would the President support the death penalty for the shooter if he’s eventually convicted? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, this is being — this is being investigated by — by the Department of Justice. I don’t have — it’s not — it’s not my place from here — this podium — to go be- — to go beyond that. Go ahead. Q Yeah. Regarding gun violence, does the President plan to use his remarks tomorrow in Buffalo to push for gun control and gun reform? And will that be a key part of what his message is tomorrow in Buffalo? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the President, you know, is going to go — you know, he really wanted to go to Buffalo. He made it sure that — that he went there before he — he went to Asia. He wants to go there and comfort the people who are — who — who went through this violence on Saturday, and wanted to offer — you know, offer some comfort and listen to them, talk to them, see how they’re doing. And so that is going to be his priority with the First Lady. I don’t want to get ahead of what he’s going to say. I will let the President speak for himself when we get there tomorrow. Q Does he plan to use this moment, though, to call on Congress to pass gun reform measures, or is there recognition that that’s just not something that’s possible right now in Congress? He’s obviously pushed for these things here in the past, during his first term in office. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I think the President, as he’s done for this past year, is going to continue to call for gun reform. That is not going to — you know, that’s not going to change. That is something that — that he has done this past year every time we have heard of this gun violence. You know, our country is facing an epidemic on gun violence that is costing lives every day. We saw that in Buffalo, as we’re talking about, and in examples every day that might not make the news but tear up families and communities. This is a top priority for the President, and it’s been through- — has been throughout his career. I do want to say that, you know, what we saw in the country this weekend are an urgent reminder of how important it is to have confirmed leadership at AFT [ATF]. So I want to — do take that moment to say AFT [ATF] agents are playing a key role in the investigation in Buffalo, and they are risking their lives every day to combat domestic terrorism and crack down on gun traffickers to keep our streets safe from violent crime. If the Senate wants to get their — get their back, and — they should confirm Steve Dettelbach to lead the agency. Dettelbach is a career prosecutor who has confirmed — who was confirmed uni- — unanimously last time he was before the Senate. He was the support of former federal prosecution — he has the support of former prosecutors from both parties, including the team that prosecuted the deadly Oklahoma City bombing domestic terrorism case. He has the backing of major law enforcement groups, including one that represents many of the rank-and-file ATF agents he’s going to lead as ATF director. So, that is something that is really important that we make sure that we get that done, and we’re calling on Congress to do that. Q All right. Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Q Karine, congratulations. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks. Q Nice to see you up there. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Q The President’s Twitter account posted the other day, “You want to bring down inflation? Let’s make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share.” How does raising taxes on corporations reduce inflation? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, are you talking about a specific tweet? Q He tweeted, “You want to bring down inflation? Let’s make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share?” MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, we have talked about — we have talked about this this past year, about making sure that the wealthiest among us are paying their fair share. And that is important to do. And that is something that, you know, the President has been, you know, working on every day when we talk about inflation and lowering costs. And so it’s very important that, you know, as we’re seeing costs rise, as we’re talking about how to, you know — you know, build an America that is safe, that’s equal for everyone, and doesn’t leave anyone behind, that is an important part of that as well. Q But how does raising taxes on corporations lower the cost of gas, the cost of a used car, the cost of food for everyday Americans? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I think we encourage those who have done very well — right? — especially those who care about climate change, to support a fairer tax — tax code that doesn’t change — that doesn’t charge manufacturers’ workers, cops, builders a higher percentage of their earnings; that the most fortunate people in our nation — and not let the — that stand in the way of reducing energy costs and fighting this existential problem, if you think about that as an example, and to support basic collective bargaining rights as well. Right? That’s also important. But look, it is — you know, by not — if — without having a fairer tax code, which is what I’m talking about, then all — every — like manufacturing workers, cops — you know, it’s not fair for them to have to pay higher taxes than the folks that — who are — who are — who are not paying taxes at all or barely have. Q But was does that have to do with inflation? The President said, “You want to bring down inflation? Let’s make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share.” Jeff Bezos came out and tweeted about that. He said, “The newly created disinformation board should review this tweet.” Would you be okay with that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it’s not a huge mystery why one of the wealthiest individuals on Earth — right? — opposes an economic agenda that is for the middle class, that cuts some of the biggest costs families face, fights inflation for the long haul — right? — and that’s what we’re talking about; that’s why we’re — we’re talking about lowering inflation here — and adds to the historic deficit reduction the President is achieving by asking the richest taxpayers and corporations to pay their fair share. That is what we’re talking about. Q Okay. And then just one on the trip tomorrow: How come the President is visiting Buffalo after a senseless tragedy there, but he couldn’t visit Waukesha after 6 were killed and 61 injured in an attack on a Christmas parade there? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, he’s visited many communities. Buffalo — he was — we — you know, he was — he’s able to go tomorrow to Buffalo before the trip. That is something that was important for him to do. But he has visited many — many other communities. This is not — Buffalo is not the first community, sadly, that he has to go up to because of a violent attack. So, you know, that’s not — that’s not the first one. So he’s been to many others, sadly. Q You outlined some steps that the administration has taken related to baby formula. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q Do you have any sense of the timeline for the imports that the FDA is considering? Obviously, for parents, this is a hour-by-hour, day-by-day concern. And is the President expressing any worry about how quickly this can be resolved, since parents are dealing with this on an urgent basis? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Like I said, this is something that — this is incredibly important to the President. We want this to happen as soon as possible, as quickly as possible. That is why we’re working with manufacturers and retailers, as I just laid out. That’s why FDA is working with Abbott to open up that facility. So we want to get this done as quickly as possible. And that’s why our — we’ve been working 24/7 to make that happen. Q Do you have a sense of the timeline when FDA announces? Does that mean the production will be up and running in a matter of days? Do you know when imports would be approved? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I don’t have a timeline on that. I know, again, we want to make this happen quickly. FDA, again, is going to be working with the Abbott facility. They’re going to have an announcement later on how that’s going to happen. They’re going to work closely with them to make sure that we do it as quickly as possible. We know how urgent and important this is to parents who need to make sure that they have safe formula for their babies and infants. Q To the back? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q Thank you, Karine. Two questions, please. Does the President see any link to the white supremacist theories that — like the replacement theory — and what he started calling “ultra-MAGA” or sometimes he just refers to as “extreme Republican” politics? Does he see that as part of it? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, I think what the President believes and has done is call it out. Right? I think, you know, this is — this is not about politics. This is about people’s lives. What we saw on Saturday and many times — you think about El Paso in Texas, you think about the Tree of Life in Pittsburgh, you think about the Pulse nightclub in Florida, the Mother Emanuel in South Carolina. These are events that are very — that have been led by some dark for- — forces that still exist today. And so, it is important to call that out. We understand that there is still a lot of work to do. And so that is — when you talk about people’s lives in this way, it’s not about politics. It’s about making sure that we’re doing everything that we can, you know, to uproot this evil that we’re seeing, this hatred that we’re seeing. And so that’s what the pers- — the President is going to continue to do to make sure that we’re working — we’re working towards that. Q Okay, but when he talks about “ultra-MAGA,” as he has started to a lot, is he — would he include that in the bundle of what he considers “ultra-MAGA”? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, again, this is about the lives of people who were taken in a violent way, in an abhorrent way. And so, the focus for the President is to make sure that, you know, we call this out — we call out white supremacy, we call out hatred. As I’ve said before, this is still being investigated. This is still being looked at. But the moralness — right? — the moral center of this should be called out. And that’s going to be the focus. That’s what you’re going to see the President do tomorrow. He’s going to meet with the victims. He’s going to have conversations. He’s going to offer them comfort. He’s going to listen to them and hear what is it that they want to share with him. And he’s going to continue to work with Congress and call on Congress to call for — to work on gun reform, which is really important here as well. Q And, sorry, I had a second question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q A very quick one, I promise. Is there any update on whether Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela will be invited to the Americas Summit? And, generally, when are you going to be announcing invitations? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any update for you on that — on invitations or when we’re going to announce invitations or who’s been invited. As soon as I — as soon as we have that, we’ll promise to share. Okay. Go ahead. Q Hey, congratulations. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Q Two questions on internal policy review or internal government reviews that have actually fallen out of the headlines. The first is on the investigation of Border Patrol agents that — in the — I guess it was September of last year — who were there for the Del Rio arrival of thousands of Haitian migrants. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q It’s been eight months at this point, and we don’t have a conclusion of that review. The President had wanted accountability; he demanded it at the time. Secretary Mayorkas said that there would be a conclusion to that review within weeks. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q So why is it taking so long? And is there any urgency, given the fact that you’re going to — you’re — the administration is now preparing for the arrival of potentially new surges of migrants? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s a — it’s a very good question. I don’t have an update on that. The Department of Homeland Security — that’s where — you mentioned Secretary Mayorkas — that’s where that review sits. And as soon as we have an update, I promise to share that, or we — or they will share that. That won’t — that would not come from here. I just don’t have an update. But I — I understand the question. Q And the second review that hasn’t concluded, it appears: The administration said that after the terrorist attack in Fort Worth at a synagogue, they were going to review how an individual that was a British-born citizen, who had been on a watchlist 10 years prior, somehow was able to enter the United States, and that they were going to look at lessons learned. You mentioned how there are increased threats of foreign-born terrorism as well as domestic-born terrorism. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q Where is that review? What lessons have been learned? And is that a priority for the administration? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t — I don’t have an update on that. I will have to check in with our team to see if we have something to share on — on that particular review. And so, I’ll do that; I’ll check in with the team. And you should reach out to us afterwards and see what we can do. Go ahead. Hey, Jenny. Q Thanks, Karine. Two on the economy. China’s industrial output and consumer spending came in at the worst level since the pandemic began. Are you worried that this will cause a global recession, and including here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Can you say that again? What — what came back? Q China’s industrial output — which, of course, has an impact on the global economy and the U.S. economy — came in at the worst level since the pandemic began. And I’m worried — wondering if you’re worried about a global recession. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, I — the one thing I can tell you is that I know that there’s always a question about the economic strategy around China. I can give you that update. I have not seen that specific data that you’re speaking of. But the United States has strong economic trade ties in the Indo-Pacific. And so — but we agree it is essential for us to stop — to step up economically in the region and to do it fast. We need a new model of economic engagement and trade when — as we’re talking about that region specifically. The past couple of years have highlighted real gaps in global economy, like vulnerable supply chains and corruption and tax havens and lack of innovation and creative — creativity holding us back. The old models did nothing to address these issues that underpin our growth. And we will — and will define the coming decades and our ability to deliver for our people. That’s why we’re working intensely on develop — developing an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. We’ve gotten a lot of interest from countries in the region. We’ve also spent months engaging Congress and labor. So, as it relates to our economic framework, it’s going to focus on building agreements with Indo-Pacific partners and, one, developing — one, developing a modern digital economy, including opening the door for small and medium businesses; reducing — two, reducing supply chain vulnerabilities and diversifying our supply chains to drive investment that will create good jobs for people at home and Indo-Pacific; three, treating climate change like the economy issue it is by investing together in the green economy; and also, building a fairer economy with tax and anti-corruption practices that level in the playing field not just for workers, but also for businesses too. And that’s kind of our strategy — economic strategy in the region. That particular data I have not seen yet, so I would need to check in with our team. Q And then one more, overall on the economy. The dollar is very strong right now, and all indications are that it’s damaging the domestic and global economy. And I’m worri- — wondering if you share that view and if it’s time for the Biden administration to address this. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, that — I would just — going to have to check with our team. I’ve not seen that report, but I’ll check in with our team on that. Q And quickly, the follow-up on the economic strategy in the Indo-Pacific. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q Is the President expected to lay that out on his trip there? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything new to share or preview for you on his trip. As you know, Jake is going to be here — Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor — the President’s National Security Advisor is going to be here on Wednesday. And he’ll talk more and give a little bit more depth on what’s happening and what we’re going to be doing — the messaging and the goals in Asia. We’ll also have calls. As you know, we tend to do these background calls leading up to the trip. And those background calls will give you a little bit more information on Indo-Pacific. Kind of — you know, what we’re — the goals and de- — what we’re delivering, I don’t have anything specific on that. Go ahead, Steven. Q Just a quick one. Probably a good question for Jake, but I’ll ask you because it’s timely. Does the White House have a response to the Indian move over the weekend to block wheat exports? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have an update. I don’t have anything for you on that. Yeah. Q Karine, yes. On the — several civil rights groups are calling for a forum, a summit on hate crimes. Is that something you all are considering? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, we’ve heard — we’ve heard of this — of the summit. I don’t have anything for you to preview or to confirm on if we’re going to have that summit here at the White House. Clearly, we’re constantly talking to organizations and leaders in the communities and having constant dialogue, but I just don’t have anything new on that. Q And one more quickly. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q This morning, the Supreme Court ruled against a man who immigrated from India. And he — they ruled that he was deportable essentially because he checked the wrong box on his driver’s license application. Is that a case that the Biden administration might try and intervene on? Or what do you think of that decision? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — my guess is it’s going to go to — that would be a Department of Justice for it to decide, not for us to decide on. And so, I would refer you to DOJ. Go ahead. Q Thank you. And congratulations. I was hoping you could offer a little more of an explanation about something you said earlier, where you said that they were — did not want to call out by name individuals who had been espousing racist theories that could be fueling violence. I guess my question is: Why not, particularly if they’re individuals who have very large platforms and theoretically carry a lot of influence? This would be — people accused of doing so include the number three Republican in the House and the host of the number one cable news show on television. Why not call them out by name? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, what we saw on Saturday was devastating and horrific. You know, it is — what we want to do is making sure that we send a very clear message that hate must have no safe harbor. And we must do everything in our power to end hate-fueled domestic terrorism. And we must reject hatred and extreme — extreme ideologies that seek to divide Americans, wherever we find it in society; it is antithetical to who we are as a country. And that is what we want to make sure that we’re doing. It doesn’t matter who it is. This — this is something, like, morally — like, mor- — the moral truth of this is that, you know, it is a racial-motivated hate crime, and it’s a — abhorrent. And so, that’s what we need to call out. It doesn’t — it doesn’t matter who that is. And that’s what we’re trying to make clear here. We’re not — we’re not going to get into politics here about this. We want to make sure that we’re calling out what we’re seeing. These are people’s lives. At the top of this — of the briefing — I talked about 10 people — 10 people who are doing what many of us might be doing on a Saturday — is going shopping. You know, I know I go to the supermarket with my — with my seven-year-old very often. If it’s not on a Saturday, it’s on a Sunday, before the week starts, to get the needs — to get what we need for the week. I mean, this is what happened to everyday people, from 20 years old to 86 years old. That’s what we saw on Saturday. And so, we need to call that out and do everything that we can to really deal with this issue. And we know we have a lot of work to do. Q But you know it matters to some, right? It does matter to some people who it is that’s calling it out. And when you don’t call the — when you don’t call out the individual, they feel as if you’re backing away from the issue. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, but we’re not. Q (Inaudible) to the point. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, we’re not backing. How are we backing away from the issue? Q Well, because you won’t name who it is. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But here’s the thing: We’re calling out what is happening. We’re going to the heart of the issue, the hatred of the issue. Why — but I guess my point is, you know, we are — this is a President — right? — who decided to run because of what he saw in Charlottesville — right? — and he talked about the soul of the nation. And it was something that propelled him to jump into the 2020 primary — because of what this showed, because it was, again, against who we are as a country, as he believed it to be. And so, you know, it is something that is important to remember. And this is a President that calls it out every time we see this horrific violence. And it’s not about — once you get into calling out people’s names, then you move away from that issue, right? You move away from that issue. So, that’s why I’m not going to do that from here. I’m going to focus on — as I did when I started — the 10 lives that were murdered. Everyday people doing everyday things. And that is why the President is going to Buffalo tomorrow. Go ahead. Go ahead, April. Q Karine, first of all, congratulations. Two polar opposite questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Q I know. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, boy. (Laughs.) Q One on the issue, Saturday. But I’m going to take it in another vein, which you just mentioned. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q The President ran on the issue of the soul of this nation. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q Charlottesville. He speaks now of equity and inclusion. He has strengthened civil rights in DOJ. He’s strengthened civil rights in other departments in this White House. But where are the teeth when it comes to changing this hate that has been plaguing this nation since the inception of this nation? Where’s the teeth for the President people are expecting when it comes to these issues? And on the summit issue, is the White House looking at what Bill Clinton did — the precedent of having the Race Initiative, which brought people from all walks of life together to discuss issues of race — the browning of America? Is the President looking at that as well? And then I have another question. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, okay. You stopped there. Okay. You know, now, this is a President that has been very clear about race in this country. Right? When he walked in, he talked about the multiple crises that were facing us as a country. He talked about COVID, the economy, climate, and where we are with — with race. And he’s called it a crisis. And he made it a point in his administration — what he can do on the federal level — to really deal with that in a way that we’ve not seen before. You know, one of the first things that he signed when he walked into the — this presidency is an executive order to make sure that there’s fairness, equality, and representation in — in the federal government and federal agencies. And that is something that Susan Rice and her team, the Domestic Policy Council, has taken on, and they’ve made that a priority. Look, I know, April — and we all know — there’s still so much work to be done. This President is committed to that work, and he has not shied away from it. He has called out the hatred that we have seen, the violence that we have seen when it comes to racially motivated attacks. He has been very, very clear on that. Is there more work to be done? Absolutely. It is our — is the team here looking to see what else we can do? Absolutely. And so, we’re just going to continue to do that work. But I do want to say, you know, tomorrow — again, tomorrow, you know, the President wants to go to a community, he wants to grieve with them, and he wants to send a message to the entire country that we stand behind them and with them. And that is so important, as well as the President. He will try to bring some comfort to the community, particularly to those who lost loved ones. And, you know — you know, we hear him discuss some of things he said Saturday about “hate must have no safe harbor.” You heard me say that. It’s probably the third time I’ve said this in this briefing. And it really does — it doesn’t in this country. And so any — any racially motivated hate crime is abhorrent to the very fabric of this nation. And so that’s what you’re going to see him do. And that is going to be the focus tomorrow. Q And the second other opposite of the question. You’re making history — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — on so many levels. So many communities are so proud of you, and we’re hearing it on social media everywhere. You’re the first. What does that mean for the broader community, particularly Washington — white male-dominated still, even though we had the first Black president — and the broader society that is — majority does not look like you? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. Q What does this say? Because it’s not window dressing; it’s more than that. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s a very good question, April. I’m going to answer it in a — in a kind of a personal way, if that’s okay, since you asked it in a personal way. So, I have not read a lot of the things that have been written about me because I wanted to focus on the work at hand. And I do believe it’s not about me, it’s about this place. It’s about what — the work that I have to do every day, that we all have to do as a team to make sure that we communicate with you and communicate with the broader — the broader public. But there was something that moved me, and I think this speaks to — to what you’re asking, which is: There was a story about my elementary school. I went to Franklin Middle School — Elementary School in Hampstead, New York. And they did a story, and they went to the class — I think I was in sixth grade when I went there; I went for one year — and they talked to the students about me and this moment — and this administration too, which is very important, because I don’t think I would be here — yes, I stand — I stood on so many shoulders, but it does matter who sits in the Oval Office as well. That is very, very real. And these kids wrote me a letter. And in the letter, they talked about how they can dream bigger because of me standing behind this podium. And that matters. You know, as I started out at the beginning: Representation matters. And not just for girls, but also for boys. And so, what I hope is that young people get to dream big and dream bigger than they have before by seeing me stand here and answer all of your questions, you know, and have a healthy dialogue, as I discussed. And so I think it is important, and so I appreciate the question. Thank you. Q I have to follow that, unfortunately, with some questions about Somalia and Ukraine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q But, first, happy first day. Let me just ask you — (laughter). Q And now — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And now — (laughs). Okay. All right. Q It’s a bit of hard left, sorry. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it’s okay. That’s what this is all about. It’s okay. It’s okay. Q Has President Biden spoken to Somalia’s new leader? Did he or does he plan to congratulate him? And has there been any leader-to-leader discussion about the new troop deployment? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, I’ll say this — and I think I said earlier that, you know, having — making sure that we’re work- — that we’re working, we’re having — engaging with partners in the region, including the Somalia — the Somali government. So, I did say that about the announcement about what — what you’re asking me here. But on the election — I want to get back to that — we congratulate the Somali people and their new president who was sworn in last evening, as you know. Somalia now has an opportunity to focus on the political, economic, and security reforms necessary to advance the interests of the people of Somalia. We encourage their new president and all the Somalia