Category: Pandemic

US Senate News:

Source: The White House
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:42 P.M. EDT
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Good afternoon, everyone. 
Q    Good afternoon.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have just one thing at the top, and then I’ll hand it over.
So, today, as part of the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, First Lady Jill Biden announced $110 million in awards from the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health — for Health, ARPA-H, to accelerate transformative research and development in women’s health care.
These new ARPA-H awardees will spur innovation and advance bold solutions to diseases and conditions that affect women uniquely, disproportionately, and differently.
In less than a year since the president and the first lady launched the effort, the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research has galvanized nearly one — nearly a billion dollars in funding for women’s health research.
And now, I’m going to turn it over to my NSC colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who will talk to you more about the news of North Korea’s — Korean soldiers traveling to Russia, today’s historic announcement of the — of the use of frozen Russian sov- — sovereign assets to support Ukraine, and other foreign policy matters. 
Admiral. 
MR. KIRBY:  Thank you very much, Karine. 
Good afternoon, everybody. 
Q    Good afternoon.
MR. KIRBY:  So, just before I kick off on those issues, I do want to start off by extending our thoughts to the victims of the horrible terrorist attack in Ankara, Turkey, this morning. 
Our prayers are with all of those affected and their families and, of course, also the people of Turkey during this difficult time.
Now, Turkish authorities, as they’ve said, are investigating this as a possible terrorist attack.  And while we don’t yet know the motive or who is exactly behind it, we strong — strongly condemn this — this act of violence.
Now, I think, as you have all heard earlier this morning, we have seen the public reporting indicating that North Korean soldiers are traveling to Russia to fight against Ukraine.  We’re working closely with our allies and partners to gain a full understanding of this situation, but today, I’m prepared to share what we know at this stage.
We assess that between early- to mid-October, North Korea moved at least 3,000 soldiers into eastern Russia.  We assessed that these soldiers traveled by ship from the Wonsan area in North Korea to Vladivostok, Russia.  These soldiers then traveled onward to multiple Russian military training sites in eastern Russia where they are currently undergoing training.
We do not yet know whether these soldiers will en- — enter into combat alongside the Russian military, but this is a certain — certainly a highly concerning probability.
After completing training, these soldiers could travel to western Russia and then engage in combat against the Ukrainian military.  We have briefed the Ukrainian government on our understanding of this situation, and we’re certainly consulting closely with other allies, partners, and countries in the region on the implications of such a dramatic mov- — move and on how we might respond. 
I expect to have more to share on all of that in the coming days.
For the time being, we will continue to monitor the situation closely.  But let’s be clear, if North Korean soldiers do enter into combat, this development would demonstrate Russia’s growing desperation in its war against Ukraine. 
Russia is suffering extraordinary casualties on the battlefield every single day, but President Putin appears intent on continuing this war.  If Russia is indeed forced to turn to North Korea for manpower, this would be a sign of weakness, not strength, on the part of the Kremlin. 
It would also demonstrate an unprecedented level of direct military cooperation between Russia and North Korea with security implications in Europe as well as the Indo-Pacific.
As we have said before, Russia’s cooperation with the North Korean military is in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions which prohibit the procurement of arms from North Korea and military arms training.  This move is likewise a violation.
At President Biden’s direction, the United States continues to surge security assistance to Ukraine.  In just the past week, which I think you’ve seen, the United States has announced more than $800 million in security assistance to meet Ukraine’s urgent battlefield needs.
Now, looking ahead, the United States is on track to provide Ukraine with hundreds of additional air defense interceptors, dozens of tactical air defense systems, additional artillery, significant quantities of ammunition, hundreds of armored personnel can- — carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and thousands of additional armored vehicles, all of which will help keep Ukraine effective on the battlefield.
And in coming days, the United States will announce a significant sanctions tranche targeting the enablers of Russia’s war in Ukraine located outside of Russia.
The Ukrainian military continues to fight bravely and effectively, and President Biden is determined to provide Ukraine with the support that it needs to prevail.  To that end, the president announced today that of the $50 billion that the G7 committed to loan Ukraine back in June, the United States will provide a loan of $20 mil- — $20 billion.  The other $30 billion in loans will come from a combination of our G7 partners, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan. 
Now, this is unique.  Never before has a multilateral coalition frozen the assets of an aggressor country and then harnessed the value of those assets to fund the defense of the aggrieved party, all while respecting the rule of law and maintaining solidarity. 
These loans will support the people of Ukraine as they defend and rebuild their country, and it’s another example of how Mr. Putin’s war of aggression has only unified and strengthened the resolve of G7 countries and our partners to defend shared values.
And — yep, that’s it.  Thank you.  (Laughter.)  Sorry.  I had an extra page in there, and I wasn’t sure where it was going.  So —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aamer.  
Q    Does the pre- — is the assessment that the presence of North Korean troops can have a meaningful trajectory on thou- — the war?
And then, secondly, you’ve said earlier even that it shows a sign of desperation on the Russians, but does it also demonstrate North Korea’s commitment to this burgeoning alliance with Russia?  And is that, in of itself, a broadening and discouraging concern for America?
MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, too soon to tell, Aamer, what kind of an impact these troops can have on the battlefield, because we just don’t know enough about what the intention is in terms of using them.  So, I — I think that’s why I said at the top, we’re going to monitor this and watch it closely.
To your second question: yeah, absolutely.  As we’ve also said, yes, I’ve called this a sign of desperation and a sign of weakness.  It’s not like Mr. Putin is being very honest with the Russian people about what he doing here.  I mean, Mr. Peskov, his spokesman, just the other day dec- — denied knowing anything about it.
But — but we’ve also talked many, many times about the burgeoning and growing defense relationship between North Korea and Russia and how reckless and dangerous we think that is, not only for the people of Ukraine — and clearly we’ll watch to see what this development means for them — but also for the Indo-Pacific region.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.
Q    Thank you.  With the U.S. diplomats in the region, Mr.  Hochstein in Lebanon and the Secretary of State in Saudi Arabia now before Israel, do you be- — do you believe there is a chance now for the ceasefire to be back on the table? 
And do you believe that with the demise of Mr. Sinwar and Hassan Nasrallah, you have better chances or worse chances for somebody to negotiate with?
MR. KIRBY:  The ceasefire you’re talking about, I’m assuming, is with Gaza.
Q    Well, both.  I mean, you have Lebanon and you have Gaza —
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.
Q    — implementation 1701 and in Gaza.
MR. KIRBY:  I mean, look, the short answer to your question, Nadia, is — is yes.  And we wouldn’t be s- — we wouldn’t be engaged in this — these diplomatic efforts if we didn’t think there was still an opportunity here to get a ceasefire — a ceasefire for Gaza that brings the hostages home and increases humanitarian assistance, and certainly a ceasefire between Israel and — and Hezbollah. 
And as for the — the implication that the — the deaths of the two leaders, Nasrallah and Sinwar, as President Biden said last week, that does open up — we believe opens up, should open up an opportunity to try to get there. 
But I don’t want to sound too sanguine here.  I’ll let Secretary Blinken speak for his travels.  He’s still on the road.  He talked about it a little bit today that, you know, they had good, constructive conversations, specifically with respect to — to Gaza while he was in Israel.  But there’s still a lot of work before us.
Q    Okay.  And one more, quickly.  The number of civilians killed in Gaza was 779 in the last 20 days, especially in Jabalia, and the total number is 100,000 between the dead and the wounded.  Ninety percent of Gaza is destroyed.  Does the U.S. still believe that Israel’s strategy in Gaza is working, and do you still support it?
MR. KIRBY:  We still support Israel’s right and responsibility to defend itself against these threats, including the continued threat of Hamas.  And we still urge Israel to be mindful — ever mindful of civilian casualties and the damage to civilian infrastructure, and we’re going to continue to work with them to that end.
Q    Has the U.S. made an assessment about the type of weapons training or what type of training the North Korean soldiers are undergoing in Russia that could potentially be used in Ukraine? 
And does this represent a new type of an — an agreement, in terms of an information-sharing agreement between the North Koreans and the Russians?
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t believe we have a very specific assessment at this time of the exact nature of all the training.  There’s — there’s three sites that we assess right now that the — this first tranche of about 3,000 are being trained. 
I — I think I could go so far as to say that, at least in general terms, it’s — it’s basic kind of combat training and familiarization.  I think I’ll go — I could go as far as that and no further. 
But, as I also said, we’re going to monitor this and watch this closely.  And obviously, if we have more information that we can share with you, we certainly will.
To your second question about information-sharing, as I’ve said before, in answer to — to Aamer, we have been watching this relationship grow and deepen now for many, many months.  And the — the question that we’re asking ourselves — and we don’t have an answer for right now — is: What does Kim Jong Un think he’s getting out of this?
And so, you talked about information-sharing.  I mean, they’re — maybe that’s part of this.  Maybe it’s technology.  Maybe it’s capabilities. 
We don’t have a good sense of that.  But that’s what’s so concerning to us, is — is not only the concern for the impact on the war in Ukraine but the impact that this could have in the Indo-Pacific, with Kim Jong Un benefiting to some degree.
Q    Can you talk about that just briefly?  Like, how significant is this for U.S. allies in the region and the U.S. as a whole?
MR. KIRBY:  It could be significant.  Again, we don’t know enough right now. 
So, when you say “region,” I think you mean Indo-Pacific.  Until we have a better sense of what the North Koreans at least believe they’re getting out of this, as opposed to what they actually get, it’s hard to know and to put a metric on exactly what the impact is in the Indo-Pacific.
But it is concerning.  It’s been concerning.  Certainly, this development — this — this willingness of — of Kim to literally put skin in the game here, soldiers in Russia for the potential deployment — and we haven’t seen them deployed, but for the potential deployment — certainly would connote an expectation that he thinks he’s getting something out of this.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.
Q    You mentioned that the U.S. is discussing how we would possibly respond.  What are the possibilities for how the U.S. could respond to this?
MR. KIRBY:  Well, for one thing, we’re going to continue to surge security assistance, as I just mentioned in my — my topper.  And you’re going to continue to see — the president has made it clear that we’re going to continue to provide security assistance all the way up to the end of his administration, for sure.  So, you’re going to see that continue to flow, and we’re talking to allies and partners about what the right next steps ought to be. 
I’m not at liberty today to go through any specific options, but — but we’re going to — we’re going to have those conversations, and — and we have been.
Q    And China is a critical trading partner to North Korea.  What’s the U.S. assessment for how China is looking at all of this?
MR. KIRBY:  We don’t know how President Xi and the Chinese are looking at this.  One would think that — if you take their comments at face value about desiring stability and security in the region, particularly on the Korean Peninsula, one would think that they’re also deeply concerned by this development.
But you can expect that we’ll be — we’ll be communicating with the — with the Chinese about this and certainly sharing our perspectives to the degree we can and — and gleaning theirs. 
Q    And local South Korean press is reporting that, according to intelligence, these troops — North Korean troops lack understanding of modern warfare, such as drone attacks, and it’s anticipated there will be a high number of casualties when deployed to the front lines.
MR. KIRBY:  I — too soon to know.  I mean, we — we don’t really know what they’re going to be used for or where they’re going to — if they’re going to — if they’re going to deploy, where they’re going to deploy and to what purpose. 
I can tell you one thing, though.  If they do deploy to fight against Ukraine, they’re fair game.  They’re fair targets.  And the Ukrainian military will defend themselves against North Korean soldiers the same way they’re defending themselves against Russian soldiers. 
And so, the — the possibility that there could be dead and wounded North Korean soldiers fighting against Ukraine is — is absolutely real if they get deployed. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.
Q    Just to clarify something you said earlier about what Kim Jong Un possibly gets out of this.  As far as you know, has he gotten anything in return?
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, from this particular move, I can’t speak to that, M.J.  I — I don’t think we have seen any specific, you know, quid — quid pro quo with respect to this provision of troops. 
But we know that — that he and Mr. Putin have, again, been growing in their defense relationship.  And we know Mr. Putin is — has been able to purchase North Korean artillery.  He’s been able to get North Korean ballistic missiles, which he has used against Ukraine.  And in return, we have seen, at the very least, some technology sharing with North Korea. 
But what this particular development means going forward, we just don’t know.  We’re going to have to watch that. 
Q    And do you know if this came about because Putin specifically first asked for help, or whether it’s that Kim Jong Un offered the help first? 
MR. KIRBY:  Don’t know.  Don’t know what precipitated it, but I think it’s important to remember that in the three-plus years that he’s been fighting in — in and around Ukraine, Mr. Putin and — and his military has suffered 530,000 casualties.  And as we’re speaking today, he’s losing, casualties alone — and that’s killed and wounded — 1,200 — 1,000 to 1,200 per day. 
Now, 530,000 is a lot.  I mean, there were — in the American Civil War, there were, like, 620,000 killed, just to put this into some perspective.  This is three years fighting in Ukraine.  Five hundred and thirty [thousand] casualties is — is a lot. 
And he hasn’t been fully transparent with the Russian people about this.  And he hasn’t been transparent at all with the Russian people about this particular move, about br- — bringing in North Korean soldiers.  So, that he has to farm out the fighting to a foreign country, I think, speaks volumes about how much his military is suffering and — and how uncertain he believes, how untenable he believes his — his situation is. 
Q    And I guess, just if you had to guess, how would the training — what would the training even look like, given the language barrier?  And once these North Korean soldiers are deployed, like, what would the command structure even look like, given —
MR. KIRBY:  It’s a great question.  I — I wish we had an answer to it.  You’re — you’re not wrong to highlight the language barrier.  I mean, these are — these aren’t even similar languages.  They’re — and they are going to have to overcome that.  It’s not like they have a long, productive history of working together as two militaries, even at all.  So, that’s going to be a challenge. 
Command and control is going to be a challenge.  And this is not a challenge that the Russians have even solved amongst themselves.  They’re still having command and control challenges: logistics and sustainment, getting things to the battlefield, keeping their troops in the field.  They haven’t solved that for their own soldiers.  So, they’re going to have to figure that out here too, if, in fact, they deploy.  We haven’t seen that. 
So, there are — there are some pretty big challenges they’re — they’re going to have to overcome. 
Q    And I have a non-Ukraine question.  Do you think that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fas- — fascist?
MR. KIRBY:  That — I’m going to —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We got to move on.  (Laughs.)
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.
MR. KIRBY:  — I’m not going to talk about that stuff.
Q    John, there — there’s concern among Democrats on the Hill that Donald Trump’s team has not entered into these critical transition agreements with the White House that could potentially, in their words, endanger national security.  Is that a concern of yours?
MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, with a caveat that I’ll — I’m going to defer to Karine on anything to do with the election and — and the transition.  That’s really for her. 
All I’ll say is that no matter how things play out in the election, the National Security Council, under Mr. Sullivan’s leadership, is and will make sure we’re ready for proper transition handover. 
Q    And there are intelligence officials who have warned that foreign adversaries might be looking to stoke violence in the next 13 days ahead of the election.
MR. KIRBY:  I saw the DNI assessment, yeah. 
Q    What are you doing in preparation?
MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’re working hard across the interagency, as you might expect we would, to share information not only inside the — at the federal level but working very hard to make sure we’ve got good handshakes and — and information sharing at state and local levels as well. 
That’s the last thing we want, of course, is to see any violence or protest activity that — that leads to intimidation and that kind of thing.  So, we’re working hard, again, with local and state officials.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Need to start wrapping it up.  Go ahead, sir.  Yeah.
Q    Thank you.  So, would North Korea’s possible engagement in combat in Ukraine trigger a bolder move from the White House, like decision to lift the restrictions on usage of American weapons?
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, again, number one, we’re monitoring this closely, and that’s where we are right now.  I came and gave you a very honest assessment of exactly where we are, and we just don’t know if these troops are going to be deployed against Ukraine in combat and, if so, where, when, and how. 
So, number one, we’re monitoring this closely.  I don’t have any policy decisions or options to speak to today.  I can tell you the last thing I’ll say is that there’s been no change to the president’s policy when it comes to what we’re providing Ukraine and — and how they’re using it.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.
Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, why not?  Why not green-light the long-range missiles for Ukraine’s use, which is Zelenskyy’s number one ask, as you’re sounding the alarm about what could have far-reaching implications if North Korean soldiers go into Ukraine? 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, for one thing, Jacqui, we don’t exactly know what these guys are going to do. 
Q    What else could they be there for?
MR. KIRBY:  We don’t know what they’re going to do.  We don’t know if they’re going to deploy into combat or not.  We don’t know, if they do, in what strength.  We certainly don’t have a sense of what capability they might be able to bring to the field with them.  Now —
Q    Doesn’t this seem, though, like —
MR. KIRBY:  Hang on, now.  Just a second.
Q    — we were — a couple years ago, they were staged — you had Russian troops staged on the Ukrainian border, and this administration was saying, “We don’t know if they’re going to go in.  We don’t want to impose any sanctions.”  We didn’t do it ahead of time. 
MR. KIRBY:  No, no, no, no, no, no.
Q    Where — why is there not a consequence first?
MR. KIRBY:  Well, first of all, let’s not rewrite history, Jacqui.  We — we were the first country to go out publicly and say, “Here’s what we think the Russians are going to do.  Here’s the timeline.”
Q    But didn’t do anything about it. 
MR. KIRBY:  That is not true, Jacqui. 
Q    There was no preemptive sanction.  Nothing. 
MR. KIRBY:  Jacqui, that is not true.  It is true we didn’t levy sanctions originally because we were hoping that the threat of sanctions might deter or dissuade Mr. Putin.  You lay sanctions on before the man makes a decision, then he might as well just go ahead and do it. 
Q    Well, he did it anyway.
MR. KIRBY:  And we — and we did levy sanctions on him — heavy sanctions — not just us but around the world. 
Number two, we mobilized support for Ukraine even before Mr. Putin decided to step across that line.  And no country — no country has done more than the United States to make sure Ukraine is ready.  So —
Q    Well, why not do something —
MR. KIRBY:  — let’s not —
Q    — to prevent —
MR. KIRBY:  Wait, wait.  Jac- —
Q    — this from happening? 
MR. KIRBY:  Jacqui, let me finish the second question, and then we’ll get your third one. 
So, let’s not rewrite history.  The United States didn’t sit idly by here.  We’ve been Ukraine’s staunchest and most prolific supporter in terms of security assistance.
And as for the policy decision, the — the president remains and we all remain in direct contact with our Ukrainian counterparts.  We’re talking to them over what the — what they need.  As I said, we’ve just announced $800 million more, and there’ll be more coming in security assistance. 
I just don’t have any policy changes to —
Q    But why —
MR. KIRBY:  — to speak to today. 
Q    Why would you not u- — put a restriction on the type of target that can be hit, rather than the distance from a border that obviously Russia doesn’t recognize?  And you’ve got training happening with North Korean troops, I would assume, on the types of military installations that would be fair game if that decision was made. 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’ll see —
Q    That —
MR. KIRBY:  We’ll see — we’ll see what the Russians and North Koreans decide to do here.  As I said earlier, if these North Korean soldiers decide to join the fight against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, Jacqui.  We got to go.
Aurelia.
Q    Yeah.  Thank you.  John, would you still describe the Israeli operation in Lebanon as targeted?
MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, I do-
Q    Yeah.  The Israeli strikes on Lebanon, would you still describe them as targeted?
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to get into scorecarding each and every strike that the Israelis take.  I’ll just say a couple of things.  They have a right to defend themselves.  There are legitimate threats that Hezbollah still poses to the Israeli people.  I mean, rockets and missiles are still being fired at Israeli cities. 
So, let’s not forget what Hezbollah continues to be able to do.  That’s number one. 
Number two, we have said many, many times that we don’t support daily, you know, strikes into heavily populated areas, and that remains the case today.  We still oppose, you know, daily strikes into densely populated areas —
Q    But they still are coming — the strikes.
MR. KIRBY:  — and we have had those conversations.  Secretary Blinken has had that exact conversation when he was in Israel for the last couple of days.  We’ll continue to press the Israelis on that. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
Q    Hi.  So, the interest from the frozen assets, does it apply only to the European Union or also the U.S. assets?
MR. KIRBY:  It is — it’s for all the frozen assets.
Q    Also in the U.S.?
MR. KIRBY:  I believe so.  I believe so.
Q    Because this morning, I heard Daleep Singh said just European Union, so I wasn’t sure. 
MR. KIRBY:  Okay.  You know what?  Let me take the question.  When I — I can’t even balance my checkbook at home, so — (laughter).
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask about Kursk specifically with the North Korean troops in Russia.  Russia and North Korea have this mutual security pact.  If they were to use North Korean troops against Ukrainians in Kursk, would it be legitimate to try to reclaim sovereign territory, or would that be seen as an escalation in the war against Ukraine?
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are right now and hypothesize what these troops may or may not be doing and, if the Russians are going to deploy them, where they’re going to deploy them, whether it’ll be inside Russia or inside Ukraine. 
Let me just please go back to what I said before.  If these North Korean troops are employed against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Janne, you have the last one. 
Q    Thank you very much.  (Inaudible) questions. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you’re about to jump out of your seat, so —
Q    Thank — thank you, John.
MR. KIRBY:  This — this seems like a fair day for Janne.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s true.  Truly. 
Q    On same — same topic, on North Korea.  The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee recently sent a letter to President Biden requesting a briefing regarding the seriousness of North Korea’s troops deployment and the neglect of the Korean Peninsula issue.  What is the White House’s response to this?
MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’ll respond.  We’ll respond as — as appropriate to the chairman, and we won’t do that from the podium here in the briefing room.  We’ll do it appropriately with him and his staff.
I’ll just say — and hopefully my being here today and the — my statement at the top should reflect how seriously we’re taking this issue and how closely we’re going to monitor it.  We recognize the potential danger here, and we’re going to be talking to allies and partners, including the Ukrainians, about what the proper next steps are going to be. 
But as for our response to the chairman, I’ll let that stand in legislative channels.
Q    Last quick one.  Your colleague said at the State Department briefing that the United States does not reflect other countries’ intelligence analyses.  So, what is your assessment of intelligence cooperation with allies at this —
MR. KIRBY:  What — what did my colleague at the State Department say?
Q    Said that — at the briefing that the United States does not reflect other countries’ intelligence analyses.
MR. KIRBY:  About — about —
Q    About the —
MR. KIRBY:  — the North Korean troops?
Q    Yeah, about the North Korean troops, so —
MR. KIRBY:  I just shared with you — to- — today’s opening statement was a downgrade of U.S. intelligence of what — what we’re seeing.  And I think you can see similarities between what I said today and what our South Korean counterparts have — have said.  Ukrainian intelligence has — has released information very, very similar. 
And again, we’re — you know, today isn’t the end of this conversation.  It’s — it’s, quite frankly, the beginning of the conversation that we’re going to be having with allies and partners, including through the intelligence community. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you so much, Admiral. 
MR. KIRBY:  Thank you. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Toluse.
Q    Thanks, John.
MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Sorry, guys.  Give me one second. 
Let’s let Toluse take — I know he’s been waiting patiently on the sides- — sideline. 
We don’t have much time because I have to be in the Oval in about 20 minutes, but go ahead.
Q    Can I ask about the McDonald’s outbreak, the E. coli outbreak? 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
Q    And this follows a couple of big ones that we’ve seen over the summer, including Boar’s Head.  I think there’s another nationwide one.  Is the president tracking this?  And more importantly, how confident should Americans feel about the food supply right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I would say is the administration’s top priority — its top priority is to make sure that Americans are safe.  And so, we are taking this very seriously.  We’re monitoring the situation. 
CDC, as it relates to McDonald’s specifically, is working to determine the source of the outbreak, as we speak abou- — as you asked me about the E. cola — E. coli outbreak.  And so, what I would suggest is that families, they need to and they must follow the latest CDC guidance. 
Obviously, we’re aware.  The president is — is also aware.  And going back to this particular outbreak with McDonald’s, I understand that the company has halted sales of product to protect customers, and CDC is certainly in touch with — with local authorities to — to prevent infection. 
So, look, we’re always concerned when we hear these types of — these types of situations — right? — poten- — outbreaks.  And so — and the president wants to make sure that the American people are safe.  So, it is a — it is certainly a priority for us, and CDC is on top of this and looking into it.
Q    And then just one more.  Any reaction to Jill Stein asserting the U.S. and the UK have blocked a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not seen those reporting.  I’m not going to respond to a — a political candidate in — for this — for this —
Q    Well, it seems (inaudible) — it’s a factual thing that’s —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I have not even seen the — the comments that —
Q    Okay.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — you are mentioning to me, so I — I can’t give you an honest response from here.
So, go ahead, M.J.
Q    Karine, what did the president mean when he said last night, about Donald Trump, “We got to lock him up”? 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, and I — the president spoke to — about this very clearly as well in his statement, and he — and he said he meant, “lock him out” politically — politically lock him out.  That’s what he said, and that’s what we have to do.  That was the part of his quote that he said last night while he was in — in New Hampshire. 
Look, let’s not forget, this is a president that has not –never shied away from being very clear and laying down what is at stake in this election. 
I’m going to be really m- — mindful in not speaking about 2024 election that’s just a — less than two weeks away. 
But this is just speaking to what the president said last night.  He made clear — he made very clear yesterday that he was referring to defeating — to defeating Donald Trump.  That is what he was talking about.  He said, politically — politically, lock him — lock him out.  That is what he was referring to. 
Q    Well, he first said twice, “lock him up.”  So, you’re saying —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And then — and —
Q    — when he said “lock him up,” he meant, defeat Donald Trump?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, it’s not what saying.  It’s what he said.  He said —
Q    Well, when —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to the au- —
Q    — he clarified.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wa- — wait. 
Q    But he initially said —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he — right.  
Q    — “lock him up.”
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Exactly, he clarified himself.  He wanted to make sure that things were put into context.  He wanted to make sure that it — while we are — you know, while not just New Hampshire folks that were there were going to see it but also the Americans who are watching and pay attention to what the president is saying.  He wanted to put it into context.  And he, himself — this is not me; this is the president himself going back to explain — to explain — to say that he was talking about politically — politically locking him out. 
Q    Is the president aware of John Kelly’s assertion that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fascist and that Trump wanted the kinds of generals Hitler had?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, you have heard from this president over and over again about the threats to democracy, and the president has spoken about that.  You’ve heard from the former president himself saying that he is going to be a dictator on day one.  This is him, not us.  This is him. 
And it’s not just all — it’s not just us, the White House, saying this.  You’ve heard it from officials — former officials that worked for the former president say this as well. 
So, you know, do we agree — I know that the — the vice president just spoke about this.  Do we agree about that determination?  Yes, we do.  We do. 
Let’s not forget — I will point you to January 6th.  What we saw on January 6th: 2,000 people were told to go to the Capitol to undo a free and fair election by the former president.  It was a dark, dark day in our democracy and a dangerous one.  We have people who died because of what happened on January 6th.  And, you know, we cannot forget that.  We cannot forget that.
And so — and I will add — I will add this, that — and I can’t believe I even have to say this — but our nation’s veterans are heroes.  They are heroes.  They’re not losers or suckers; they are heroes. 
And to be praising Adolf Hitler is dangerous, and it’s also disgusting. 
Q    So, just to be clear, when you said, “we do” agree, President Biden believes that Donald Trump is a fascist?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, yes, we have said — he said himself — the former president has said he is going to be a dictator on day one.  We cannot ignore that.  We cannot.
And we cannot ignore or forget what happened on January 6th, 2021.  That is real.  Real people were affected by this — law enforcement who were trying to protect — protect the Capitol, protect law — elected officials in the Capitol, congressional members, senators, House members.  Their lives were ruined because of that day, because 2,000 people — again, 2,000 people were told by the former president to go there to find the former vice president to stop a free and fair election.  That is what — that is what happened. 
Some of you — some of your colleagues were there, reported it, and saw it for yourself. 
We cannot forget that. 
Go ahead.
Q    Karine, I mean, you talk about the context of the president’s comments yesterday.  I want to put them in the fuller context as well.  The president went to New Hampshire to make a policy argument against Republicans on the issue of prescription drugs, but the majority — more of his comments yesterday were really some of the most dire warnings we’ve heard from this president yet about a return to a Donald Trump presidency and what it would mean — could mean for this country.  He talked about world leaders pulling him aside, saying, “He can’t win.”  He talked about the concern — what it would mean for future generations of America. 
How concerned is the president about — at this point, about the state of the race?  Is he worried that Trump is on a path to victory at this point?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to talk about the state of the race.  You heard from the president.  You just laid out very clearly about what the president talked about yesterday in New Hampshire.  He laid out what his thoughts were.  He laid out what the stakes are for this country, and this is somebody who cares, clearly, very deeply about the future of this country.
And so, I’m not going to get into what he thinks about this — the race in this current moment.  That is not something that I’m here to do.  I am not — I am no longer a political pundit.  I am the White House press secretary.  I speak for the president, but obviously I cannot speak to the 2024 election.
And you did talk about something else — right? — when you talked about what he went to do on the official side.  And I would read you some quotes here — some headlines that we — that we saw in New Hampshire today from New Hampshire press, which I think is really important: “Biden, Sanders tout prescription drug cost-savings at New — New Hampshire event.”  Another one, “Biden and Bernie Sanders highlight lower prescription drug costs in New Hampshire stop.”  That is important. 
The president wanted to go to New Hampshire to talk about what he and the vice president have been able to do in more than three and a half years: lowering prescription drugs, beating Big Pharma.  He talked about the Inflation Reduction Act.  By the way, no Republican voted for that.  Now it is popular with Democrats and Republicans, and this is something that is going to change people’s lives. 
And so, that’s what he was there for.  He talked about — let’s not forget, what — what they’ve been — oth- — other things they’ve been able to do, whether it’s the bipartisan gun violence protection — being able to do that in a bipartisan way, and dealing with COVID that t- — put our economy in a downturn.  And this president has been able to empower — powering the economy, and we are now leading as a country in the world when it comes to the economy.
So, I think he was able to do both things.  I think he was able to speak his mind on — on the political, you know, nature of where we are right now, which he can — obviously, he spoke to.  And I think people in New Hampshire got a sense of what the president is trying to do on behalf of them in talking about lowering costs.  We saw that in — in the New Hampshire papers.  So, it broke through, and I think that’s important. 
Q    You were with the president last week in Germany —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.
Q    — when he says he had these conversations with world leaders expressing their dire concern about the election here.  What has been his response to those world leaders about that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, and I will just leave it there.
Q    And then, I’ll ask you — we — NBC News is reporting that the vice president is likely to spend election night here in Washington, perhaps at her alma mater of Howard University.  Do we have an understanding yet of where the president will be —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)
Q    — and when — how he plans to vote?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As soon as — you all know, we certainly will share that with all of you. 
I will say is that the president is certainly looking forward to casting his ballot in Delaware.  And so, once we have the full information on what his day is going to look like or what the last couple of days leading up to November 5th will look like, we certainly will share that with all of you.
Go ahead.
Q    Since we’re talking about scheduling, it is traditional for the president to hold a press conference after —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh boy.  I knew that was coming.  (Laughter.)
Q    Can’t stop.  Won’t stop.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You were- — you weren’t here for the — the drop-by.  Were you here for the drop-by?
Q    Yes, I was. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  It was great.
Q    It was great.  We’d love to see him again.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
Q    So, the — and —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you know what?  He had a really good time.  He enjoyed — he enjoyed it.
Q    So, just an —
Q    Come on back.  (Laughter.)
Q    — open invitation for the president to follow tradition and do a press conference after the election, which I think —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —
Q    — is standard and important.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I totally hear that, Tam, and I know it is a tradition. 
I — I don’t want to get ahead of what the schedule is going to look like.  As we know, in less than two weeks, we will have an important election.  Obviously, I’m not speaking about that election specifically, but we want to share — we will share more as we get closer.  And we — we certainly are tracking that tradition, and we’ll certainly have more to share. 
Q    Are we going to see him with the vice president much in the next couple of weeks?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — I know you all have asked this question of him.  You’ve asked this question of me.  They have, as you know, campaigned together.  They’ve done official events together in the past just couple of weeks. 
They speak regularly.  And — and I would say the president — you’ve heard the president just, you know, tout how proud and how he thinks she will be a great leader on day one, which is –he also said in 2020, which is why he chose her as his running mate, and he has said as well, this was the best decision that he’s made.  And understands that she’s going to cut her own path.  Said this himself just last week when he was in — in Philadelphia. 
Don’t have anything to share, again, on the schedule.  I know this is all part of a scheduling question, and we certainly will have more to share as the days — as the days — as you know, I mean, one day is like an eternity in — in this space, as you know.  (Laughs.)  And so, less than two weeks is — feels like so far away.  So, we will have more to share, for sure.
Go ahead, Selina.
Q    I just want to follow up on M.J.’s question. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
Q    So, did the president actually read former Marine General Kelly’s comments or listen to them?  And did you —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —
Q    — do you know how he reacted after doing so?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — I mean, look, I just gave a really good — I think a good sense of the — what the president has said about our reaction here from the White House.  The president is aware of John Kelly’s comments.  And I gave you a reaction as part of the — as — as the president’s White House press secretary.  And what I’m saying to you today is something that the president has said over and over and over again and repeated. 
And let’s not forget the words that we have heard from the former president.  And it matters here, because we’re talking about our democracy.  We’re talking about what’s at stake here with our democracy.  And when you have a former president saying that they will be a dictator on day one, that is something that we cannot forget. 
And so, you know, the president has spoke- — spoken about this and given speeches on this.  And that’s why I continue to point to January 6th, 2020 — -21 — 2021, because it was — it’s something that we cannot forget, a dark day on our democracy — a dark day on our democracy, because of what was — what — what occurred — what occurred.
Q    Was the president surprised by any of the comments from Kelly?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all.  I mean, again, the president has made comments and spoken about this over and over again.  So, no.  I will say no. 
Go ahead.
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Elon Musk has been, you know, campaigning with former President Donald Trump, and he is offering $1 million to voters.  I just was wondering: Has the president expressed any concern to, you know, this interference by Elon Musk?  And I don’t know if he — you know, his — the administration maybe has any plans or has discussed maybe how to sort of maybe move forward with what’s El- — Elon Musk is doing with — with the $1 million.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, on — on this particular question, I’m going to have to refer you to the FEC.  I just have to be — that one, I — I — that’s a place that I’m going to have to refer you.  I can’t speak to it beyond that. 
Q    But has the president mentioned it at all, Elon Musk or —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s aware of it.  He’s aware of it.  That I can tell you.  I just can’t speak to it beyond that.  I have to refer you to the FEC.
Go ahead, Jared. 
Q    You talk and you’ve taken questions today, and obviously throughout the — the presidency, President Biden has talked a lot about democratic institutions.  I’m just curious if between now and Election Day, the president is going to speak sort of more broadly about the confidence in the votes being counted accurately.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the president has talk — talked about this.  He believes in our institution.  He believes in — in — this will be a free and fair election.  He’s talked about this.  We have to give the American people, who some of them are voting right now — to make sure that they have the confidence in their vote and how important it is to cast their vote. 
I’m not going to go beyond that, but I think the president has been very clear about that. 
Q    But you don’t — should we talk about schedules or something?  (Laughs.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
Q    Is there, like, a big sort of — because he’s done these types of addresses on issues like this before. 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I —
Q    So, I’m just curious if, like, this is a time that he would do that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, no, I hear you.  And I hear you’re talking about the moment that we’re in and if the president is going to speak about it in a more formal way — in remarks, in a speech. 
I don’t have anything to share with you, but he’s been very clear about having the confidence in our institutions, and so I’ll leave it there.
Go ahead.
Q    I just want to ask you briefly about congressional outreach for the $10 billion that would be military aid.  Has the White House started that process, reaching out to members of Congress to get their buy-in to kind of help expedite this process?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we’re in regular touch with congressional members about any type of initiative that we’re trying to push through, especially if it involves Congress, obviously.
I don’t have anything to read out to you at this time, but we are in regular conversation about a myriad of things when it comes to legislation, things that we’re trying to push forward.  Again, certainly that is important to the American people.  I just don’t have anything to share at this time.
Q    Just a quick —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
Q    — 2024 question.  You said the president is going to vote.  It’s a scheduling question.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 
Q    Will he vote ear- —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You guys are very into schedules today.
Q    Yeah, we’re — we’re into this.  We’re into this.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I know.  Into th- —
Q    Will he vote early?  Early voting —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — into the POTUS schedule.
Q    Early voting starts in Delaware, obviously, this week, and will he go early, before Election Day?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — as — as soon as we have something to share, I will certainly share that.
Q    Final try.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I appreciate the effort here.  The president — I can say for sure the president is looking forward to casting his ballot.  And when we have more to share about his schedule — I mean, we’re not — we’re — the president can’t not just go vote and not tel- — for you guys not to know, right?  So, you guys follow him wherever he is, which is good —
Q    Thanks.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — which is a good thing.  (Laughs.)
Go ahead.
Q    Thanks, Karine.  The former president described the vice president as “lazy as hell” yesterday.  She had a day when she was not on the campaign trail.  I was going to give you an opportunity to respond to that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would check the source.  Pay real close attention to who’s saying that.  That’s all I’ll say.
Q    Okay.  Another question about the vice president’s interview with NBC.  She talked — she was asked about whether there should be any concessions on the issue of abortion and the situation — 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, say that one more time.
Q    She was asked whether or not there should be concessions on the issue of abortion — the scenario being a potential divided government like we have now — whether or not she would be willing to offer concessions, things like religious freedom, on the issue of abortion.  And I wanted to see if —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Meaning like on- — once she’s in office? 
Q    Yes.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, look, I’m not going to — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  It’s not — that is something that certainly, you know, when she be — when she is in office and becomes pre- — and all of the things happen — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals — she’s going to make her own decisions and decide what’s best for the American people.  I can’t speak to that at this time.  Not going to get into hypotheticals. 
What you know and what you have seen from this president and this vice president is their commitment to continue to fight for women’s rights and continue to call on Congress to — to — you know, to reinstate Roe v. Wade, make sure that legislation is put out there, voted on.  And so, he would sign that, obviously, if that were to happen. 
And so, that is what they — he — they both have asked for.  That is what we’ve been saying during this administration.  And she has been, obviously, a passionate fighter on that issue, understanding what this means to women, understanding what this means to people’s rights and freedoms, and so has this president. 
And so that’s what we’re — you’re going to continue to see.  You just — you just heard us — I forget all the days — all the days come together — recently talk about how we’re expanding in the ACA for contraception, because understanding how that — how important that is to women and families, or — or women and Americans who are trying to make decisions on their family or how to move forward, and they should have that right — and so — and that freedom.
And so, again, that action shows you the commitment from the — and I hope the American people — from the Biden-Harris administration.
What she’s going to do next, how she’s going to govern, that’s not for me to say.
Q    Another question from the interview.  She was asked whether or not sexism would come into play in this election.  She said, “I don’t think of it that way.”  Obviously, the former president, Barack Obama, said that he did believe that sexism was coming into play in this election.  What does the president think about (inaudible)?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I’ll say this.  Clearly, the vice president spoke to this, and this is her campaign, and she sees — she’s going to say how she sees things. 
The president has always said and will continue to say that she is ready to lead on day one.  And you don’t have to just look at her record with him as a critical partner over the last more than three and a half years as vice president, but as senator, as attorney general, as district attorney, she is someone that has always fought for Americans, fought for people, whether it is citizens in California or more broadly, obviously. 
And I think that’s what the American people — I know that’s what the American people want to see.  They want to see a fighter.  And that’s what the president sees in her.
And, again, just look at what we’ve been able to do in the more than three and a half years when it comes to trying to beat back COVID and make sure that we all could come together in this room again without masks and make sure there was a strategy to deal with this pandemic; turn the economy around because of this pandemic; make sure that, you know, schools were open, businesses were open.  Now we have a record number of people applying to open up small businesses. 
They’re doing that because they believe that the economy is working for them.  Nobody wants to open a small business if they don’t think the economy is working — is — is working for them. 
Now, there’s always a lot more work to be done, and we’re going to continue to do that work.  You saw what the president did with Senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire — in Concord, New Hampshire, answering and lay- — and laying out what the — what the Inflation Reduction Act has been able to do, saving people a billion dollars because of that Inflation Reduction Act — which, I may add, Republicans did not vote for.  They did not vote for it. 
I know I have to get — I’m getting the pull here. 
Go ahead, Jon. 
Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  What’s the level of concern that the administration has about election interference, specifically from Russia? 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we spoke to that.  We’ve laid out — we made an — an announcement on what we were seeing from Russia on election interference.  We sent a very clear message on that just a couple of weeks ago.  So, obviously, that is something that continues to be a concern.  We will speak loud and clear about that, as we did just a couple of weeks ago.
But we also want Americans to know th- — to trust the institution, and that’s what the president is going to continue to say and — and — and also continue to lay out the stakes — what’s at stakes.
Okay.  Thanks, everybody.  Hopefully, see you on the road.
2:30 P.M. EDT

MIL OSI USA News –