Roll Call Factba.se - Consolidated White House Releases - 63901b21430db02d0c3fca9c70208072 (2024)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2024

President Biden Announces New Actions to Secure the Border

Yesterday, President Biden announced new executive actions to bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. These actions, which will be in effect when the border is overwhelmed, will make it easier for immigration officers to remove those without a lawful basis to remain and reduce the burden on our Border Patrol agents.

President Biden took these actions after Republicans in Congress repeatedly chose to put partisan politics ahead of our national security, twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades. The President once again called on Congressional Republicans to quit standing in the way of the policy reforms and resources that our border personnel need.

See below for key coverage and reactions to the announcement:

Coverage Highlights

On the Airwaves

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security

The president implored congress to fund this department and other departments that administer our immigration laws, as we need to be resourced. The President, in August, submitted a supplemental funding package. Then again, in October, he submitted another supplemental funding package, and neither was picked up by congress, most regrettably, most unfortunately. We then went into an arduous, hard-working process, to develop bipartisan senate legislation that would have fundamentally fixed our asylum system and once and for all properly resourced this department and the departments of justice and state. Twice congress failed to pass that legislation, so the President took this executive action within his lawful authorities.

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security

Where we need bipartisan unity is where we had it in the proposed legislation that senators and this administration worked so hard to achieve. That bipartisan legislation would have provided the toughest, statutory toughest new laws to further secure our southern border in more than three decades. It would have allowed us to hire 1,500 more U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel. More than 4,000 asylum officers more than 100 immigration judges, and it would have funded technology. We've been talking about strengthening the security of the border since day one. The challenge of irregular migration is very, very dynamic. Our personnel, our border patrol agents, are doing extraordinary, heroic work every day 24/7. We need more tools. We need our broken immigration system fixed. We need more resources. And the American people deserve it.

Senator Mark Kelly

Well, he's been calling on Congress for the last three and a half years to do something on this issue. We were going to have more Border Patrol agents on the border, funding for that, more CBP agents, judges to adjudicate asylum claims, machines to detect fentanyl, changes in asylum policy. These were all very positive steps. I spent a lot of time on the on the border in Arizona, and it's very unfair, especially to the Border Patrol agents who have, who often, you know, lose control of the situation. The President was put in a situation where he had to do this unilaterally without congress. But ultimately, the solution is for Congress to come back together.

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham

The President is taking action, you're not. And while those political critics will use whatever political statement, that moves attention from the fact that they've made New Mexicans less safe. They haven't funded more Border Patrol agents. They aren't using other that they're allowing other border governors to close ports of entry, which means billions of dollars of trade and food to New Mexicans doesn't come over. I want a President that regardless of what critics will say will do the right work in the moment that demands it. That's exactly what he's done here. And you're right. And so is everybody else. More needs to be done. And I'll keep fighting that fight with Congress and I'll keep working with this administration doing everything in our power until people come to their senses in congress and pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Tom Perez, White House Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

This is a really important step that the President has taken. Now, there's no substitute for comprehensive immigration reform. I worked in the US Senate in 1996. That was the last time immigration reform passed. It was bipartisan in 1996. And by the way, it was a presidential election year. People put country over party. We can't accomplish that right now, because the Republicans refused to vote for what would have been the toughest border security bill, certainly in my lifetime. And so, when the Republicans refuse to do that, the President was left with no choice but to take executive action. And that's exactly what he did today. I think it will help deter people from coming in what we call irregularly, and by irregularly, I mean, you're not crossing at a port of entry.

Secretary Xavier Becerra on Univision's Despierta America

One of the first proposals that President Biden sent to Congress was an immigration reform, but Republicans in Congress do not want that reform. President Biden is taking executive action to put the border in order.

Blas Nunez Neto, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Border and Immigration Policy )

This goes into effect tonight, and it will be in effect until we are at a level where we have seen 1500 encounters or less for seven consecutive days.

This is really an exercise of our own authorities and individuals who are processed at the border will be processed much more quickly than they were before.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul

It's a great idea because you have to deal with the cards you've been dealt. If the Republicans had not listened to Donald Trump four months ago they would have done it the way you're supposed to do it. You pass it through congress. It was a bipartisan deal. money for border agents. money for interdiction of drugs. money for technology. And they refused to do it because they thought it would give president Biden a win. He did not want to have to do this.

Mayor Ron Nirenberg of San Antonio, Texas

I mean, this is one step of a larger context that the Biden Administration has been working on a whole of government approach that includes diplomacy with Mexico and with the State Department working on solutions inside the interior of Mexico and other South American communities. In addition to that, cracking down on smugglers and making it easier for us to apply penalties. It is a whole of administration approach with the exception of Congress whose job it is to reform our immigration policies, and, frankly, you know, yesterday was a good day for communities who have been overwhelmed, NGOs and local governments who have been dealing with the impacts of the migration influx in a way that upholds our priorities. Our priorities are to maintain order, protect public safety and treat people with dignity and humanity. We've been able to do that through cooperation with the White house, with FEMA, with resources. Those resources are stretched, and so the President is doing what needs to be done

within his authority in the void of congressional action. Last year at the U.S. conference of mayors, cities, bipartisan leaders of cities all across the country got together to support the actions that were being announced by a good faith group of Senators on the bipartisan border deal that would have reformed some of the policies that were needed, but nothing has been done and inaction is not an option, and I appreciate the President stepping into the void with something that needs to be followed with more comprehensive action.

Mayor and Lawmaker Gaggle at the White House: )

To Congress: We need to step up. We need Republicans to actually help us and not keep planning partisan politics.

Mayor Victor Trevino of Laredo, Texas

First of all, we don't have all the resources to deal with the migrants coming to our border, especially medical services. We are medically under underserved as it is and we don't have a lot of infrastructure. And being able to deal with poverty and people that are homeless would be another situation that we don't want to have that happen in our community.

Mayor Victor Trevino of Laredo, Texas

We that live in work at the border do see that impact and we know that there has to be steps to improve immigration reform and I think this is a first step to do so. There's a lot of other things that have to go into doing immigration reform and that is because the laws are so antiquated, they'd been antiquated for over 20 years. So we need to focus on reform and that I think would be more impactful situation.

Mayor John Cowen of Brownsville, Texas

REPORTER: Mayors Norma Sepulveda of Harlingen, Ramiro Garza jr. of Edinburg and John Cowen of Brownsville were with the President today. Brownsville mayor John Cowen calling this a step in the right direction because in Brownsville they've seen upwards of 240,000 illegal crossings

MAYOR COWEN: if it does become a problem, I think now they have another tool in their toolbox at the for the fellow federal government to enforce, you know, immigration law, right and people that are crossing illegally will be deported and barred from re- entering. so i think that's a strong message to people that want to come to united states saying you got to do it the right way and follow the process and i think that's what that's what everyone wants. i think that's a bipartisan effort people want that.

Mayor Ramiro Garza of Edinburg, Texas

MAYOR GARZA: I think this will help facilitate them coming here in an orderly way.

REPORTER: Some border mayors from Texas, applauding the President's move at the White House Tuesday.

MAYOR GARZA: This does not fix our entire system. but it's a lot of work to do, right. but this is a step in the right direction.

Mayor Norma Sepulveda of Harlingen, Texas

MAYOR SEPULVEDA: This does not prevent anyone from seeking asylum. It just encourages folks to do it the right way and the safe way and the reason behind that is because we want to take care of people. We don't want people dying in the desert. We don't want people dying in the river.

REPORTER: Mayors say the Executive Order should only be the beginning and that they still need more resources handle the migrants who are already in their communities.

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security : This plan is quite different than what the former President issued. The former president had no exceptions to the bar on asylum. What we have done is not only established exceptions, for example, unaccompanied children will not be subject to the asylum bar. But very importantly, this executive action is taken in the context of all of the lawful pathways that we have built for individuals to lawfully safely and in an orderly way, apply for asylum, and gain the benefit of humanitarian relief in this country, whether it is through our CBP one application at the ports of entry that allows 14 to 1500 people each day to access humanitarian relief in the United States. Whether it's a parole program for Cubans Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, that allows up to 30,000 individuals per month to

access our asylum system. This is markedly different than what the prior administration promulgated.

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security : It will be in effect immediately. The way in which they can seek asylum now, with this order in effect, is by using the CBP one app and making an appointment to arrive at the port of entry at a port of entry in a safe and orderly way, or accessing one of our many other lawful pathways that we have established for people to receive humanitarian relief without placing their lives in the hands of smugglers. More than a million people have accessed those lawful pathways in the past year. So, asylum is very much still alive. But we are deterring irregular migration in between the ports of entry, and trying to cut out the smugglers, which is not only a matter of criminal justice, but a humanitarian imperative.

Statements from National and Local Leaders

Members of Congress

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer : "Today, @POTUS will issue an executive order on the southern border

Let's be clear: The strong bipartisan border bill would have been more effective

@POTUS has said he prefers legislation

But the GOP blocked it for Trump--twice

@POTUS has little choice but to act on his own" [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

"Later today, President Biden is expected to issue an executive order addressing the problems happening at our southern border.

"As the President makes his announcement, let's be very clear about one thing: legislation would have been the more effective way to go. President Biden has been clear from the beginning he prefers legislation, but given how obstinate Republicans have become – turning down any real opportunity for strong border legislation – the President is left with little choice but to act on his own.

"Republican intransigence has forced the President's hand. For years, Republicans insisted again and again and again that the border was in crisis, but when they had the opportunity to correct it, they killed the strongest bipartisan border bill Congress has seen in decades. Why did they kill it? At the behest of Donald Trump, who said he wanted chaos at the border until after the election.

"Shame on our Republican friends. They say they want to protect the border. Donald Trump comes out with a very crass statement, let's keep it in chaos so I might win the election. And they go along. They do a 180-degree turn. That's a disgrace, and it's forced President Biden to act the way he does, which is a lot better than doing nothing, but not as preferable as passing legislation, as the President admits.

"We had an opportunity to pass a strong bipartisan border bill back in February, and just over a few weeks ago.

"Both times, Republicans put politics ahead of bipartisanship, and blundered the best chance we have seen in decades to pass a border security bill America urgently needs. Americans will not easily forget it." [Remarks , 6/4/2024]

Senator Mark Kelly : "President Biden's plan is a welcome action that will help address urgent needs at the border. In Arizona, where Border Patrol agents and nonprofits are often overwhelmed by daily migrant crossings, this new effort will support their crucial work and help relieve border communities from the burden of our broken immigration system.

"But make no mistake--this is only necessary because Congress has failed to do its duty to help fix the border and there is no substitute for that. The Senate has twice had the opportunity to take, up an agreement negotiated by Republicans and Democrats to invest in more Border Patrol agents, technology and personnel to stop fentanyl officers to ,quickly screen asylum claims, and other lasting solutions, but both times my Republican colleagues walked away.

"Today is a step forward for the federal government to better support Arizona and I'll keep working with anyone to fix our border and our broken immigration system." [Statement , 6/4/2024]

Senator Martin Heinrich : "Our immigration system and border security need a reset and the President's Executive Order is an important step in delivering that. Now we need to use this moment to reform the system. That includes addressing overuse of the asylum process so legitimate asylum seeks can be processed in an orderly way, increasing effective border security, reducing the current, enormous wait times for visas, and expanding the legal pathways to citizenship for DREAMers. From our front row seat to the dysfunction at the border and in our immigration system, New Mexicans see the effects – on immigrants, border communities and national security. We want action. I applaud the President's action today and urge him to continue to exercise his authority to tackle as much as he can, given the Senate Republicans' refusal to act." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

Senator Jeanne Shaheen : "President Biden is taking executive action today to address the border crisis because Republicans have twice turned their backs on a comprehensive bipartisan border bill." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

Senator Maggie Hassan : For years, under administrations of both parties, I have pushed to strengthen security at the border, and it is something I have heard about directly from frontline law enforcement officers at the border. President Biden's new executive actions recognize the need to help manage the flow of those seeking to enter the United States while still protecting people fleeing from torture and other exceptional circ*mstances. But a sustainable solution to securing the border requires Congress to act – which is why Congress should take up and pass the negotiated bipartisan border security package that was blocked by Senate Republicans at Donald Trump's behest. This was the strongest bipartisan border security package to be proposed in decades; I will continue pushing to pass this and get other resources to the border to strengthen security and crack down on the deadly flow of fentanyl." [Statement

, 6/4/2024]

Senator John Hickenlooper : "Today's executive order is a result of Republicans boycotting a border security bill they demanded and negotiated. President Biden is doing what he must – but we could do far more, far better if Republicans actually cared to solve the crisis and reform our immigration system." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto : "President Biden's actions here will help secure our border, but we can't fully address the issue without meaningful legislation that Republicans have repeatedly blocked. I will keep fighting to pass bipartisan border security legislation in the Senate." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

Senator Jacky Rosen : "The Admin's executive actions will take important steps to get the crisis at the southern border under control & stop the flow of deadly drugs like fentanyl. In the months ahead, we will need continued action to ensure a secure border while fixing our broken immigration system." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

"We must secure the border and ensure a more humane and orderly asylum process. If Congress can't put partisanship aside and get it done, then @POTUS must act." [Tweet , 6/3/2024]

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries : "It's important that the president is planning to take decisive action given the fact that extreme MAGA Republicans have decided to try to weaponize the challenges at the border" [Interview, 6/4/2024]

Rep. Dina Titus : "In light of House Republicans' refusal to come to the negotiating table, @POTUS today took steps to address the untenable situation at our Southern border.

As I've said before, we need commonsense, bipartisan immigration reform to address these longstanding challenges." [Tweet, 6/4/2024]

Rep. Colin Allred : "Our border communities need more than talking points and photo ops, they need action. And while I have been critical of this Administration's approach to the border, if it is implemented correctly this Executive Order could bring long overdue relief to our border communities. This action will not entirely solve this crisis but we are here because of Ted Cruz's efforts to block any solution to our broken immigration system. There is no substitute for comprehensive Congressional action o secure our border and get Texas border communities the resources they need. Ted Cruz will never be part of a solution, but in the Senate, I will." [Statement, 6/4/2024]

Rep. Nikki Budzinski : "I'm glad to see @POTUS taking action to help restore order at the border. This is an important move, but it doesn't excuse Congress from critical action enhancing security and reforming our broken system. We must advance bipartisan legislation to address this crisis immediately." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

Rep. Marilyn Strickland : "Last month, MAGA extremists and the

@HouseGOPblocked a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill from the Senate. They failed the American people.

@POTUS and @HouseDemocrats are fighting to break through the gridlock and come to a solution." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

Rep. Rosa DeLauro : "House and Senate Republicans have rejected every serious legislative effort to address and end the crisis at the border. I applaud President Biden for his leadership and for taking action to address the problems we are seeing at the border. It is critical that we strengthen border security and limit unlawful border crossings. President Biden and Democrats are working to secure our border while expanding safe, lawful pathways for migration." [Statement, 6/4/2024]

New Democrat Coalition: "With today's announcement, President Biden is taking decisive, commonsense action to restore order at the southern border at a time when Congressional Republicans continue to use it as a political football. This executive order will reduce the burden on Customs and Border Protection, immigration courts and the immigration system, and the communities we represent.

We are encouraged by the President's executive order, but it's ultimately Congress' job to address this crisis through real, sustained investments in border security and meaningful immigration reform.

New Dems have worked tirelessly to find bipartisan consensus on policies that secure the border, support law enforcement, reform the asylum system, and provide a pathway to citizenship for those who qualify. At every turn, Congressional Republicans have blocked progress for their own political gain – and that of Donald Trump.

It's time for Republicans to put politics aside and finally join Democrats in passing the bipartisan border bill for the good of the American people. Guided by our Framework for Commonsense Immigration Reform, New Dems will continue fighting to find common ground and deliver bipartisan solutions to restore order at the southern border." [Statement, 6/4/2024]

Rep. Angie Craig : "This step from the Biden Administration will help us start to get the situation at the border under control, but Congress must take action on a more permanent fix. I stand ready to work with anyone, from either side of the aisle, on legislation that will help restore order at the southern border. I will continue to monitor the situation at the border as this executive order takes effect, and I welcome any additional action from the President on this issue in the meantime." [Statement, 6/4/2024]

Rep. Marcy Kaptur : "This is a first step in the right direction, but we must do more to secure our borders. I am ready to work with both Republicans and Democrats to do what it takes to secure the border and stop the flow of drugs into the United States. America needs partisan extremists in Washington to come to the table and work across the aisle to stop the flow of illicit drugs like fentanyl and illegal activity from traversing our borders. The President's actions are an interim step forward." [Tweet, 6/4/2024]

Rep. Salud Carbajal : "I'm encouraged by @POTUS ' actions to help restore order at our border and reduce stress on overwhelmed legal immigration channels. But we can't fully address the issue without Congressional action. Republicans must stop blocking lasting fixes to our broken immigration system." [Tweet , 6/4/24]

Rep. Mike Levin : "I applaud @POTUS for taking actions to strengthen our border security – but make no mistake, we cannot fix our broken immigration system without Congressional action. Congress must work together to pass bipartisan border reform." [Tweet , 6/4/24]

Rep. Greg Stanton : "Since Republicans walked away from a bipartisan border security deal, today President Biden is taking decisive action to get the border under control. This executive order will take immediate steps to reduce the burden on law enforcement, our under-resourced immigration system, nonprofits and border communities in Arizona. Ultimately, though, it's Congress' job to address this crisis through sustained investments in border security and meaningful immigration reform. That remains my north star, and I'll work with anyone- Republican or Democrat- to get it done." [Statement , 6/4/24]

Rep. Tom Suozzi : "In May I worked with my Republican Rep @repfitzpatrick urging President Biden to bring 'Order to the Border' and limit asylum and speed up the process. End the chaos. Those that are saying "too little, too late" are in fact those who have forced Congress to do NOTHING. They are responsible for total inaction. This bold, executive action is what is needed to reduce the burden on our Border Patrol and fix our system. Lawmakers must come together now to call a vote to secure the border and reform immigration for good." [Tweet , 6/4/24]

Rep. Marc Veasey : "For months, Republican extremists have blocked a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration deal from moving forward. The American people deserve better. That is why Democrats in Congress are working with @POTUS to break through the gridlock to deliver solutions." [Tweet , 6/4/24]

Rep. Vicente Gonzalez : "While this is a move in the right direction, the President's executive action alone cannot be not a substitute for changing our immigration laws or addressing current funding or staffing shortages. I urge my House Republican colleagues to bring the Bipartisan Senate Border package to the floor for a vote so that we can properly fund our border authorities, humanely and efficiently process migrants, and strengthen our Southern Border." [Statement , 6/4/24]

Governors

Governor Gretchen Whitmer : "President Biden's executive action will help secure our country's border by making it easier for immigration officers to remove those who are here unlawfully, reducing the burden on our Border Patrol agents. Today's announcement builds on the president's work to deploy a record number of border agents and officers to the southern border. The American people want real solutions, and President Biden is delivering today.

"However, we still need Congress to act on legislation that will strengthen these efforts. President Biden sent Congress a comprehensive immigration reform plan on day one, and repeatedly requested more border resources from Congress, only to be blocked by Republicans. They should stop playing political games and work with the administration on a coordinated, bipartisan federal solution to fix our broken system.

"As governor of Michigan and commander in chief of the Michigan National Guard, I will continue to approve federal requests for Guard deployments to the southern border -- just as we have under both the Trump and Biden administrations.

'We must work together to put politics aside to secure our border and keep people safe.'" [Statement , 6/4/2024]

Governor Ned Lamont : "The executive actions President Biden announced today underscores his commitment to securing our border – a commitment that Congress must now support through bipartisan action. To be effective, his executive actions need more border security agents and personnel that only Congress can authorize and fund, not more obstructions from Republicans.

"Importantly, these actions differ from the previous administration's policies by ensuring that migrant children remain with their families and by providing exceptions for unaccompanied minors and trafficking victims. President Biden's actions build on previous efforts to crack down on drug trafficking, increase border enforcement, restrict visas for those profiting from illegal migration, and expedite immigration case resolutions.

"However, the most effective way to secure our border remains through legislative action. Congress must pass the bipartisan border security legislation authored by Senator Chris Murphy and Senator James Lankford that includes adding thousands of Border Patrol agents and officers, investing in technology to combat drug trafficking, and expanding the personnel necessary to resolve immigration cases swiftly and fairly. President Biden is fulfilling his responsibilities, and now it is time for Republicans in Congress to do the same." [Statement , 6/4/2024]

Governor Jared Polis : "President Biden is stepping up to meaningfully address immigration challenges and improve border security while Congressional Republicans sit idly by and continue playing politics that Americans are tired of. I applaud President Biden's leadership and urge Congress to join President Biden in putting people over politics to secure our border and reform our broken immigration system." [Statement , 6/4/2024]

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham : "President Biden is committed to doing his job to secure our border. It's time for Congress to do theirs." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

Governor Kathy Hochul : "Republicans in Congress are blocking common-sense reforms to our nation's immigration system. Today I'm joining @POTUS as he announces new executive action to address the migrant and asylum seeker crisis." [Tweet , 6/4/2024]

Governor Maura Healey : "I think what President Biden did today is important. It's about strengthening the border. It's about providing more resources to homeland security, which will do a few things: secure the border, intersect fentanyl trafficking, also intersect human smuggling.

"We've got a bigger national issue when it comes to immigration, which is why we need Congress to act. We're going to continue to see migration because of the geopolitical forces, some of the violence in these countries, and people are just seeking a better life." [Statement , 6/4/24]

Governor Gavin Newsom : "Reminder that the GOP have refused to secure the border. They voted AGAINST:

1,500 additional Border Patrol agents and CBP officers

1,200 Immigration & Customs Enforcement Personnel

Technology to stop the flow of fentanyl

Only thing they're interested in is playing politics. [Tweet , 6/4/24]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2024

PRESS SECRETARY KARINE JEAN-PIERRE

AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JAKE SULLIVAN

Aboard Air Force One

En Route Paris, France

8:31 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, everybody.

Q Hi there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hello, hello.

I just have a couple of things at the top, and I'll -- and I'll hand it over to Jake Sullivan.

Earlier today, you all heard the President announce new executive actions to secure our Southern border. These executive actions would -- would bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum and would be an eff- -- in effect when there are high levels of encounters at the Southern border, as is the case today.

This will make it easier for immigration officers to remove those who do not have legal basis to remain in the United States and reduce the burden on our Border Patrol agents.

As the President said, he would have preferred to address this issue through bipartisan legislation, but the obstruction of congressional Republicans left him no choice.

And lastly, we are on our way, as you all know, to France, where the President and the First Lady will honor U.S. service members, their families, and their sacrifices to mark the 80 th anniversary of the D-Day operation.

And with that, I will turn it over to our National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to take it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thanks, guys.

Just to set the stage for the next few days. As Karine just said, the President is on his way to help commemorate and celebrate the 80 th anniversary of the D-Day -- of D-Day, the landing at Normandy by the Allies, which paved the way to victory in World War Two.

He'll have the opportunity on Thursday to meet with veterans who participated in the D-Day landing and also to join fellow leaders in celebrating that anniversary and giving a speech that will talk about, against the backdrop of war in Europe today, the sacrifices that those heroes and those veterans made 80 years ago and how it's our obligation to continue their mission to fight for freedom.

Then, on Friday, he will return to Normandy to speak at Pointe du Hoc, which is a hundred-foot-tall cliff that Army Rangers scaled under gunfire to take fortified German positions. And he'll talk about the stakes of that moment, an existential fight between a dictatorship and freedom. He'll talk about the men who scaled those cliffs and how they put themselves behind -- they put the country ahead of themselves. And he'll talk about the dangers of isolationism and how if we bow to dictators and fail to stand up to them, they keep going and ultimately America and the world pays a greater price.

And over the course of the two days, he'll really be drawing a through line from World War Two through the Cold War and the stand-up of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known -- the NATO Alliance -- to today: where we face, once again, war in Europe; where NATO has rallied to defend freedom and sovereignty in Europe; where NATO has, in fact, expanded under President Biden's leadership; and we're all working together with a coalition of 50 nations to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia's brutal aggression; where today, in 2024, 80 years later, we see dictators once again attempting to challenge the order, attempting to march in Europe, and that freedom-loving nations need to rally to stand against that as we have.

While he's in Normandy, he'll have the opportunity to sit down with President Zelenskyy and have an engagement with him to talk about the state of play in Ukraine and how we can continue and deepen our support for Ukraine.

He will also have an opportunity several days later to see President Zelenskyy again at the G7 in Italy.

And then, as you saw, he has asked Vice President Harris to represent the United States at the peace summit in Switzerland, and I will accompany the Vice President on that trip.

So, in the course of a little more than a week, the President will have two substantive engagements with President Zelenskyy. And the Vice President will be there to stand behind Ukraine's vision of peace, which is rooted in the U.N. Charter and in the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. And it's a signal of the depth of our commitment to Ukraine at this vital moment. And this opportunity for the President and Zelenskyy to sit down twice will really allow them to go deep on every aspect and every issue in the war.

He will also have the chance to see and engage with a number of other of our Allied leaders who will be there.

And then, of course, the trip will culminate with a state visit to France. Of course, we'll be in France all these days, but then it converts -- it elevates into a state visit in Paris, where he'll have the opportunity for an extended discussion with President Macron on the entire breadth of our relationship; on the war in Ukraine; on the situation in the Middle East; on our expanding cooperation in the Indo-Pacific; and on everything from the climate crisis to artificial intelligence to emerging technology to investments in resilient, secure supply chains and the clean energy transition -- just across the board.

France is one of our oldest -- is our oldest and one of our deepest allies. And this will be an important moment to affirm that alliance and also look to the future and what we have to accomplish together, both in the immediate term and in the longer term.

So, it's going to be action-packed, I think, extremely moving, and extremely important three days in France with business, with speeches, and with an opportunity for him to say thank you directly to the veterans who saved democracy, saved the free world, and set the stage for the decades of peace and prosperity that followed.

And, with that, I'll take your questions.

Q Thanks, Jake. Can you confirm that Ukraine has used American-supplied weapons to attack Russian territory for the first time in past -- in recent days? And does this signal -- you know, have you seen any impact of the President's sort of loosening the rules of engagement for the Ukrainians for the use of that -- that armaments? Does that change your assessment of what can happen around Kharkiv?

MR. SULLIVAN: So, we've been pretty consistent in letting the Ukrainians speak to their military operations, and I will not deviate from that tradition here. I'll let them speak to their use of American munitions.

As you know, what the President authorized was common sense. Russian forces are firing at Ukraine from just across the border -- north of Kharkiv. And the President thought it was right that if Russian forces are hitting Ukraine from Russia into Ukraine that Ukraine should have the right to hit back, including with American-made weapons.

And so, he authorized the use of weapons for that specific purpose. And I will leave it at that for now.

Q Jake, President Macron is apparently considering sending French military trainers into Ukraine. Is that something that President Biden would consider as well, sending U.S. trainers into Ukraine?

MR. SULLIVAN: As we've said several times on the record, we're not planning to send U.S. military advisors or troops, trainers to train Ukraine -- train Ukrainians in Ukraine.

I will point out that the United States has stood up a substantial training infrastructure in Germany. It has trained thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on Western-made equipment.

We stand ready to continue and, in fact, expand that training. We have communicated that directly to the Ukrainians. And all of the training that we do is very closely coordinated with our allies and partners, many of whom have also conducted extensive training of Ukrainians outside of Ukraine and will continue to do so.

We'll have the opportunity to speak with the -- the French President and the French team on the ground about what they are thinking. And, obviously, I'm not going to get ahead of any announcements they make. I'll just say that, for our part, we're not planning for a training mission in Ukraine.

Q Jake, a Hamas spokesperson, this afternoon, essentially rejected the ceasefire plan that President Biden laid out. He said they wouldn't agree to a plan until Israel laid out its terms for a permanent end to the war. I mean, how disappointing is that for you?

And I wonder if we can cir- -- like, circle back to last Friday and -- you know, the President seemed like -- you know, there were some statements afterwards. It seemed like there was sort of an opening here for a deal, which was quickly closed. So, were you all surprised with the quick rejection both from Israel and Hamas to this latest proposal?

MR. SULLIVAN: First of all, I take issue with the end of your question where you said Israel rejected the proposal. The Prime Minister's own advisor went out publicly and said they accepted the proposal. They have reaffirmed that they have accepted the proposal. The proposal, as described by President Biden, is a proposal that Israel accepted before and continues to accept today. And the ball is in Hamas's court as to whether they're going to accept it or not.

Now, we are waiting for a response from Hamas. You're going to hear a lot of things in the -- in the media -- a lot of statements from a lot of different voices and a lot of different people. We will regard a formal response as one that gets conveyed to the Qataris, who were the ones who transmitted the proposal from the Israeli negotiators to Hamas. We have not gotten that yet. We're in not just daily but hourly contact with the Qataris. If we hear anything, we'll let you know.

But I will point this out. The President said in his speech not that Hamas had accepted the proposal but that they should. So, he acknowledged on Friday: Hamas may choose that they think it's just better to let the war and the suffering and the violence continue. That wouldn't be terribly out of character for a vicious and brutal terrorist group.

But what we hope they will do in the end is see that the best pathway to an end to this war, the return of all the hostages, a surge of humanitarian assistance is to accept this proposal -- which is a good proposal that the United States stands behind, that Israel has accepted, that the G7 has endorsed, that the Egyptians and Qataris have endorsed, and that much of the rest of the world has rallied to support.

The onus is on Hamas, and it will remain on Hamas until we get a formal response from them.

Q On Israel, Jake, and also this week's theme of lessons learned from the past. How does the U.S.'s own experience in trying to root out Iraq's Ba'athist party -- how does that inform your view of Israel's desire to politically and militarily destroy Hamas? Is there any daylight between Israel and Washington on this issue?

MR. SULLIVAN: Look, I've stood at the podium and said that our view is that the comprehensive defeat of terror in Gaza, including Hamas and other terrorist groups, requires military action. And we've seen military action. But it requires that military operation to be connected to a broader strategy.

And what we would continue to encourage Israel to do is to have a comprehensive, holistic strategy, including for a day after in Gaza that builds an alternative vision for the future of a stable Gaza that is not a platform for terror -- where people are protected; where there is the capacity for the civilian population of Gaza to get the assistance and rebuilding that they so badly deserve and that the United States is prepared to participate in, as well as the Arab world and the rest of the world as well.

So, what we would like to see ultimately is a comprehensive, coherent strategy that connects military operations to a strategic endgame. And we will keep pressing and encouraging the Israelis to follow that course as we continue.

Q Jake, on Ukraine, if I may. A few weeks ago, this administration gave a pretty dire assessment of, you know, Russia making gains, et cetera. Now that American weapons are coming again, now that Ukraine is able to strike on Russian soil, are you seeing the first impact? Is the dynamic changing on the battlefield?

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm very careful about making assessments like that, because it's a dynamic situation and because, as I've said, Ukraine was in a deep hole due to the delay of the passage of the national security supplemental and the sending of substantial flows of weapons to them, and they've been digging out of that hole.

We have seen them firm up the lines in key places. We have seen them withstand the Russian assault.

So, for example, north of Kharkiv, the Russians came hard across the line, advanced a few kilometers, and the Ukrainians are standing their ground. They're standing their ground in critical parts of Donetsk as well. And they do have now the ammunition and other supplies that are necessary. But they need more, too, as the President has said -- President Zelenskyy -- they need more air defense, and we are working on that. And they need a continued flow of weaponry, which we are going to supply to them.

So, we will watch in the coming days. But we certainly have seen the fact that weapons arriving on the battlefield at scale and quantity in the last few days and weeks have made a difference, have made an impact. And we hope they will continue to do so and that, ultimately, it will allow Ukraine not just to hold the line but to push back against the Russian forces that are currently menacing them.

Q Jake, can you talk at all about what Bill Burns is doing in Doha? Is he there to figure out the Israeli position?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he is not in Doha to figure out the Israeli position. If he wanted to do that, he would go to Israel.

But we know the Israeli position. You'll hear a lot of speeches, a lot of statements from a lot of different people. It's a raucous democracy. A lot of politicians in America make a lot of statements. At the end of the day, the Israeli position is quite simple. They have put it down on paper. It is written in words. Those words have been transmitted on paper to Hamas via Qatar, and now we are ra- -- awaiting a Hamas response. So, we have no doubt as to the Israeli position.

The issue now is: What will Hamas do? And the Pres- -- Bill Burns is going to be in Doha consulting with the Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed, because Sheikh Mohammed, as well as the Amir of Qatar, who President Biden spoke with yesterday, have had extensive discussions with Hamas. Bill Burns will be quite interested in hearing firsthand, in person, what the nature of those discussions was and where things go from here.

Q Jake, Secretary Yellen has laid out a way to leverage some of the seized Russian assets to potentially help Ukraine. I would imagine that as the President is talking to President Macron on Saturday and with allies at the G7 a few days later that finding some kind of additional security guarantees, additional assistance for Ukraine, it's going to be a big focus. Can you talk about where that discussion stands and where you expect it to go, whether there may be something -- a deliverable by the end of the G7?

MR. SULLIVAN: This will be a substantial agenda item in the President's meeting with President Macron. It will be a topic of discussion on the margins of the celebrations at Normandy because, obviously, the clock is ticking down to the G7, and we're going to make a big push to see if we can get clarity on a path forward over the course of the next several days.

This is a priority for the United States. We believe it's a priority for the entire G7. We want to see every country come on board with a method by which we can mobilize resources for Ukraine at scale so that they are able to have what they need to be able to succeed in this war.

We believe there is a path forward. President Biden has given clear direction to the team, including myself, Secretary Yellen, our G7 Sherpa team. And we're hard at work on this issue.

And we may have more to tell you after the President and President Macron are able to speak, because these intensive discussions are ongoing now and it's something the two leaders will be able to discuss. I don't want to get into the details right now because these are sensitive diplomatic discussions, but they are intense, ongoing. And this is at the top of our priority list.

Q Jake, on the Pointe du Hoc speech. The isolationist -- isolationism component you laid out seems at least in part squarely aimed at the President's general election opponent. So, I'm wondering if you can describe how much of that speech is going to be focused toward an international audience versus a domestic audience. And is he going to be calling out any isolationists by name?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Pointe du Hoc speech is a speech about, in his view, timeless principles -- principles that have served as the foundation of American security and American democracy for generations -- including the generation that scaled those cliffs, including today's generation, including the next generation.

So, he's going to be speaking in -- in terms of principles and values and lessons from history that are applicable today. And I will leave it at that and leave anything to the kind of nature of your -- other nature of your question to others who are better able to speak to it than I am.

I can tell you that, as the National Security Advisor, I'm very proud of the message the President is going to carry both in his Normandy remarks and at Pointe du Hoc.

Q Also on that speech. There's some critics who feel that President Biden's ability to be a messenger on this is undermined by his support for what some people believe is an autocratic government in Israel. Do you feel that that will undermine his remarks at all? Or what would your response be to that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, Israel is a raucous democracy. I think I used that phrase once before in this gaggle. I didn't know I was going to get to use it twice. But it's absolutely a raucous democracy, with democratic debate playing out as we speak. A hundred and twenty thousand people were in the street rallying for the release of hostages. Members of the sitting government are out debating one another in public, going back and forth.

So, I think the characterization at the heart of your question doesn't reflect how Israel's government or society works or, in our view, will work going forward.

I think the President has shown in the way that he has cultivated, nurtured, and elevated democratic, values-based alliances in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific just how central a priority he places on rallying our democratic partners to stand up for the cause of freedom. And that's fundamentally what's at stake in Ukraine. But it's also at stake on the larger global stage as well.

Q Jake, staying on Israel. There's some escalating rhetoric from the Israelis about its northern border potentially opening up a new -- escalating tensions al- -- along the border with Hezbollah. What is the U.S. message to the Israeli government right now? Is it still trying to cool tensions down, restraint? Or do you believe that the Israelis are ready to launch some sort of a larger-scale operation against Hezbollah now?

MR. SULLIVAN: President Biden touched on this in his speech on Friday. And what he said was straightforward.

A ceasefire in Gaza can lead to a calm on the border between Israel and Lebanon -- an end to the exchanges of fire that have destabilized but, beyond that, have cause death and destruction on both sides of the border.

That calm, then, we believe, can be converted into an enduring platform of security where people can return safely to their homes and stay in their homes. And we have been engaging in robust diplomacy on that front. We'll continue to. But we believe that that path is available and it is the bes- -- best path forward.

I've seen some comments in the press in the last hours -- the last couple of days. I haven't had an opportunity yet to dig into this deeply with my Israeli counterparts. So, I won't speak more to that until I can talk to them directly about what their latest thinking is.

Q On Taiwan, Jake, if I may. In his interview with TIME, the President said, not for the first time, that he's not ruling out using U.S. military force in case China invades Taiwan. Is this a change of policy? And can you maybe explain what exactly he means by "U.S. military force"?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, the President said in that very same interview, maybe even in the very same paragraph, that there's been no change in policy. The United States stands behind the One China policy, the Taiwan Communications Act, the three --Taiwan Communications Act, the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiqués, the Six Assurances, and we will continue to do that.

The President also is a straightforward person. He's been asked this hypothetical question. He's given a response. But he has been consistent and emphatic that our policy has not changed.

Q Sticking with China. President Xi is calling for a Gaza peace summit. Do you think that's a good role for China to play? What would you like to see them do?

And also, it's the 35 th anniversary of the events in Tiananmen Square. What is the White House's message to freedom seekers in China and elsewhere?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Secretary of State will be -- or probably already has put out in a statement that lays out, I think, quite clearly where the Biden administration, the President, the United States stands on this important anniversary. I will let that statement speak for itself and for us.

On the issue of President Xi's discussion of a -- of a Gaza peace summit, I don't know what he has in mind. I haven't heard any details or seen anything further from them. I would just say if the PRC is interested in bringing an end to the war in Gaza, they should sign up to the proposal sitting on the table, support it, endorse it, and call on Hamas to accept it. That would be probably the best way to get an end to the war in Gaza.

It's there. It's available. It should be taken. And that's where every responsible country should be putting its attention and energy in this vital moment.

Q Jake, on migration. The President's order today obviously depends on Mexico to take back those migrants who've been returned. Is the U.S. satisfied with Mexico's current commitment to do that? And wondering, coming away from the discussion yesterday with the President-elect, if the President is confident that she will continue the policies that AMLO's government has with regard to migration.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'll leave it to the Mexican government to speak to what they are going to do on their policies. What I will say is the President had a very constructive conversation with the President-elect. He believes that they see eye to eye on the issue and that we can continue our good, close cooperation on it.

And he also had the opportunity today to speak with President López Obrador, who, of course, is in office for another few months. They had a good, constructive conversation, and the President believes they see eye to eye as well.

And he's, frankly, grateful for the support and partnership we've had from the Mexican government, and he expects that it will continue.

Q Jake, just -- just a question. The meeting with Zelenskyy, is that going to be Thursday or -- or Friday? And then -- and any other --

MR. SULLIVAN: I've exceeded my mandate for supplying you with highly sensitive information like scheduling information. So, I will -- I will leave that to the powers that be.

Q And any other pull-a- -- pull-asides that we should be expecting?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not that I have to announce today. But as you all know, this is going to be an -- an event attended by critical allies and partners, people with whom the President has close relationships. And he will have the opportunity to engage them a number of issues. And if anything comes out of that, your faithful servant, your obedient servant will report it to you posthaste.

Q Can I ask one last one with regard to the speech. Is -- is the President worried about the -- the rise of right-wing parties in Europe? And particularly, with the history that we're commemorating with regard to D-Day, their elections this week probably will hurt Macron. Is that something that weighs on him?

MR. SULLIVAN: Look, the President obviously doesn't wade into or speak to ongoing elections in Europe, including the upcoming European elections, which are set, in fact, for this Sunday. But he's made no bones about the fact that he believes that anti-democratic forces -- forces that are retrograde, forces that want to take us back, strip away rights -- have a darker vision for democracy than he has, you know, that that's -- that's not his view. That's not what he sees as the right path forward for the United States or for the Transatlantic Alliance.

But he's not going to comment on the election or on a specific party or on a specific candidate because European voters will have to make those decisions for themselves.

Q Jake, just on the moment that we're in now, though, with this trip to France, then the Ukraine peace summit, the G7, and then later, the NATO Summit, it feels like we're in a critical stretch for world peace. What do you think needs to happen?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I think, first and foremost, Hamas needs to accept the proposal. That would help a great deal. That would help us end the war in Gaza.

Second, I think that the free world, the nations that have rallied to support Ukraine need to not just reaffirm but double down on that support. And that part of that involves us making sure that we're delivering the actual material, tangible capabilities Ukraine needs. And I think over the coming weeks, you can expect announcements of further deli- -- deliveries of substantial capability to Ukraine.

Third, I think we need to send a clear message to Putin that he cannot outlast us and that he cannot divide us. And we have been very good at holding the line on those two messages. And this is going to be a great opportunity over the coming weeks to put a -- not just a period at the end of that sentence but an expla- -- exclamation point.

And then, finally, we have to look at the larger set of trends and currents in the world -- from artificial intelligence to the climate crisis -- and see that these geopolitical challenges are vital, and we need to get them right. But we also have to make sure that technology is working for us and not against us; that we are mobilizing common action to solve the great challenges of our time, like the climate crisis; and that democracy can deliver.

And in these next six weeks, the President will try to put all that on display. And he'll draw from history to do it, as you'll see in these next two days. He'll draw from the present. And he'll also speak about the future.

And in between all of your guys' fun and frivolity of Paris, you'll -- you'll get some good, good moments -- good moments on this trip. So, I'll leave it at that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, Jake.

Q Thank you, Jake.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Jake.

Hi. All right.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Can you talk a little bit about how the President has been following his son's criminal trial? Is he getting briefed by White House staff? Is he just consuming the news?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you saw -- and I -- I spoke to this yesterday as well. You heard directly from the President talk about how much he and the First Lady love his son and support their son. And that continues, obviously, to be the case.

I -- I don't have anything beyond the statement that he shared with all of you. And it's all just -- I'll just leave it there.

Q On -- go ahead, Zeke.

Q Do you know what -- the President dropped the First Lady off at her own plane on the way to Air Force One. Is she -- she going back to Wilmington to attend the trial for day three?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would have to refer to the First Lady's Office on her -- on her travel. I just don't -- or -- or her -- yeah, her travel. I just don't have anything for you at this time. So --

Q On the executive order today, how concerned is the White House that it may face legal challenges? And how confident are you that it will withstand those challenges?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we're confident that it will withstand legal challenges. Look, I think we have to take a step back here. This is a situation -- when you think about the immigration system, you think about the challenges at the border that has been on- -- ongoing for decades now.

And the President has been very clear since day one of his administration that he wants to deal with this in a comprehensive way. He wanted to deal with it in a bipartisan way. That's why we're able to get that proposal coming out of the Senate.

We saw what Republicans in the Senate did. They voted against their own interest, their own proposal that they put forward, their own legislation. And it's unfortunate that they chose -- they're choosing political partisan.

And the President has always said -- I even said this in the gaggle yesterday, I've said this many times -- that he was going to look at every option, evaluate every option to deal with a serious issue that we're seeing with a broken system. And so, he took that on.

We feel confident in the leg- -- in the legal component of this, but the President is never going to stop to take action. Of course, he's going to continue to say that in order to actually deal with this immigration system, we have to have legislation, we have to have a bipartisan option here, we have to make sure that Congress does its job and pushes forward and deals with the challenges at the bor- -- border with a legislation that he can sign.

A -- and the one that they've rejected -- the Senate Republicans rejected would have been tougher, would have been fairer. And, you know, we are in a situation where the President said he's going to take action, and he did.

Q Karine, on the border. Border numbers have been trending low this month compared to previous months. So, why the proclama- -- why do the proclamation now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It's still unacceptable. The border -- what we're seeing is still unacceptable. And so, the President decided to take action.

And -- and so, look, we understand and we -- and you all have reported, majority of Americans care about this issue. They care about the challenges at the border.

And the President has always said he's going to take action, and he has. And the e- -- and you're right. The numbers have been trend- -- trending down. But it's still -- it's still not where it should be. It's still not -- doesn't mean that we still shouldn't take action. And that's what you heard from the President today.

Q Can I ask about the South African election and just how the White House sees its future with Pretoria now that the ANC, which was such a bulwark, has -- has lost so much ground?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, so, we -- obviously, we're going to wish all South Africans a peaceful and democratic -- well, they had -- electoral process, which they had.

And, look, we have a strong relationship with South Africa. And that leader -- that relationship is going to continue based on the priorities our two governments and people share. For example, together, we are addressing the impacts of climate change.

You just heard Jake give a pretty eloquent response to your question and talked about the importance of that diplomacy around climate change, just as we think about the world globally, obviously, and -- and collaborating on renewable energy, strengthening health security through a robust health agenda, and advancing regional peace and security and growing our bilateral trade and building inclusive economic growth for all of our people.

And South Africa stands as a vibrant democracy. And we look forward to continuing and strengthening our work together in the years ahead. And as two constitutional democracies, the partnership between South Africa and the United States remains an anchor for peace and prosperity in the world.

And so, look, that's what we're going to continue to do -- continue that diplomacy, continue that partnership. And I'll leave it to -- to them to speak about their -- their party and their -- obviously, their elections.

Q Just sticking on the Mother Continent. Do we have any updates on Kenya's Haiti mission, any efforts that the U.S. is putting in to --

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don't have any updates. I think, you know, when the Kenyans were here, obviously, for the state visit, they continued to reiterate their commitment to their mission in Haiti, and we've seen some progress. You've heard Canada make some announcement as well. And you -- as you saw, there is an interim prime minister.

So, obviously, there is movement happening that we -- we support here from the United States. And, you know, we -- we want to make sure that the Haitian people have, obviously, security and they have the ability to, you know, elect their -- elect their government. And that's where we want to get to a place to. And so, we're going to continue to support that effort.

Q Karine, at the end of the President's speech today, he said he would be talking in the coming weeks about efforts to make a more just and fair immigration system. Can you give us more details on that? Is that, like, speeches about stuff he's already done or, like, more executive action?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So --

Q Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: -- I'm going to be mindful not to get ahead of the President on an- -- making any announcement about what could be next. Look, I think today was an incredibly important action. We have always said -- as I said it -- stated earlier in one of my answers -- that we are going to do everything that we can to deal with this immigration system that has been broken for decades. And that's what you saw the President do.

We, of course, want to see Congress come -- move forward with a bipartisan legislation -- pass that out of the Senate, out of the House to get that legislation to his desk so he can sign it.

But the President is always going to look at every option on the table to make sure that we're dealing with this broken system. I -- I'm not going to get ahead of the POTUS at this time.

All right.

Q Karine, one last one for you. When the President is writing his speeches for Thursday and Friday, is he thinking at all about the service of his uncles in World War Two and his personal connection? Should we expect any reference to -- to his familial connection to the conflict?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I think Jake did a really great job in laying out kind of the President's thinking on this speech on Thursday. And so, I don't really have much more to add to that. I'm going to let the President give that speech.

It's going to be an important moment. Right? This is a commemorative moment. This is going to be an incredibly important trip with our allies and lifting up the veterans and -- and what we were able to accomplish so many decades ago.

But I'm -- don't have anything more to share on what Jake eloquently -- also eloquently shared on how the President is thinking about the principles, about democracy, and how to move forward looking at history, but also how to move forward. And I think that's what you can expect from the speech on Thursday.

Q Karine, on the President's decision on Sunday to go visit another cemetery in France, a cemetery that famously his predecessor didn't visit, what's the message behind that? And, you know, what does he want to tell the American people? Why is it important to go to that place specifically?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I would say stay tuned. You'll hear directly from the President.

But, look, this is a -- he's not just the President. Right? He's the Commander-in-Chief. He is someone who is very -- very well situated in the history of this country -- right? -- understands the importance of our allies and our partners.

And I think that's what you see from this President day in and day out -- and respecting that history, respecting that partnership that we have.

And so, look, I think the President is going to speak -- he is -- he's going to speak more to this. And so, I'm just going to let him have the last word on this.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Enjoy.

Q You too.

9:07 P.M. EDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2024

AT THE CONGRESSIONAL PICNIC

South Lawn

6:31 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: My name is Joe Biden. I'm Jill's husband.

I want to thank all the congressional leaders here today: Chuck; my guy who's going to be the next Speaker of the House, Leader Jeffries -- ; and a guy I'm going to have to admit to you I couldn't do without as President of the United States, Dick Durbin.

THE FIRST LADY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: He gets it all done all the time for me. And Katherine Clark, the Whip in the -- .

And always happy to see Nancy -- Nancy Pelosi, who's hiding right there in the corner. Nance, the best Speaker in American history.

THE FIRST LADY: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: No, you really are, Nancy.

And I -- I wouldn't be here were it not for the fact that Tommy Carper got me here. Senator Carper, good to see you, pal.

And so many other people.

Look, to all of -- and I -- is Steny here? Where is Steny Hoyer? Steny Hoyer --

THE FIRST LADY: I hear him in the back. He's drinking -- he's over by the beer.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Well, Steny Hoyer lives on the western shore of Delaware, in Maryland.

To all the family members joining us, sent decades in the Senate, as Jill pointed out. Hard to believe -- 36 years in the Senate. But I tell you -- I swear to God, I miss it. We had such comradery. We used to -- back in those days, we all got along pretty well, even though we had real differences.

And Jill and I know that sometimes it can be a lot. Look, thank all of you for the sacrifice you make.

This picnic is an important tradition. It goes back for a long, long way. And to know --

And, you know, I think the thing about -- I'm just -- let me put it this way: I remember when I was vice president and things weren't going too well, and I realized there were a lot of senators that were coming in that I didn't know very well. And so, I decided I'd go over to the Senate dining room -- the private dining room. We used to have two big conference tables there and an archway separating the two and a -- and a buffet place.

And you'd go and you'd sit with the people you had strong disagreements with on almost everything, but you sat there and you ate together, you got to know each other. You got to know about each other's families. It's hard to dislike a woman or a man when you know they're having a problem with their son or their daughter or one of them is sick or -- it's just hard. You get to know people.

And we didn't -- and so, I realized I didn't know that many people, so I went over. I was President of the Senate. I think I told you this before, Nance. Go over to the Senate dining room and to sit down and talk with all my old friends and get to know new ones.

It turned out there's no dining room there anymore. There's -- the tables are gone. There was a dining room where a senator could take a guest and a larger dining room, but there's no private dining room. And I think one of the things that I miss the most now and I think I'd miss if I were still there is the failure to get together as much as we used to.

We used to travel together. We used to travel together as couples. We became good friends with oth- -- the other party. It's -- as I said, it's hard to di- -- really dislike someone when you know more about them, know about their families.

And so, in my years of experience, taking time to make a better senator makes a better leader -- taking the time to get to know one another. To -- and that's what I hope to do a little bit today.

Excuse me, I got a little bit of a sore throat.

And there's -- there's a lot to be proud of today. And I'm going to end by saying, look, I know I'm accused of being a congenital optimist, but the truth of the matter is, with the grace of God and the goodwill of the neighbors and the crick not rising, we have a shot to make some real changes -- Democrats and Republicans -- for the better for the country.

We're the most powerful nation in the world. The rest of the world looks to us -- not a joke. I know every major world leader well. I've been doing this a long time. And they look to us, the United States, to -- for leadership.

Now ask yourself the rhetorical question: If it wasn't us, who would it be?

And so, there's a lot we can do. There's a lot we can do and a lot we can look forward to.

So, as my grandfather would say, with the grace of God, the goodwill of the neighbors, and the crick not rising, we're on to better days.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for being here.

Do you want to come this way?

THE FIRST LADY: I'll -- are you going to go that way? I'll go this way.

THE PRESIDENT: You go that way; I'll go this way?

THE FIRST LADY: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: She's going to that; I'm going this way. You're out of luck.

Hey, folks, I am sorry, but they tell me I've got to leave in four minutes to go to the airport to go to Normandy, France, to speak at the -- at the -- D-Day. And I apologize for having to leave. I really am. I -- you know me, I keep going the whole time if you're willing to stay there.

But thank you, thank you, thank you for all you do. To all the members, thank you. I truly appreciate all you do. I really mean it.

Remember, we're the United States of America. There's nothing beyond our capacity -- nothing -- when we do it together. So, let's get together. Thank you all. Appreciate it.

Sorry, I got to go out -- they're having me go out the front door. So, thank you.

Whoa, wait a minute. I got one -- I got to go over here. Because guess what? When my son went off to school, he went off to Yale University. And they were looking for -- he rented an apartment next to this woman's parents -- mother's home. And I was on the ladder helping them paint it, because it needed to be painted. And her mom came in and said, "Where's Biden?" I said, "I'm Biden." She said, "No, where's Biden? Where's Biden?"

You're incredible, kid. I'm going to give you a hug, and then I'm getting the hell out of here.

|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2024

At 10:25 AM PT, the Vice President will depart Los Angeles, CA en route to Oakland, CA. This departure from Los Angeles International Airport will be closed press.

At 11:40 AM PT, the Vice President will arrive in Oakland, CA. This arrival at Metropolitan Oakland International Airport will be closed press.

At 12:55 PM PT, the Vice President will deliver remarks at a political event. These remarks will be covered by an editorial pool.

At 2:15 PM PT, the Vice President will deliver remarks at a political event. These remarks will be covered by an editorial pool.

At 3:30 PM PT, the Vice President will depart San Francisco, CA en route to Washington, DC. This departure from San Francisco International Airport will be closed press.

At 11:15 PM ET, the Vice President will arrive in Washington, DC. This arrival at Joint Base Andrews will be closed press.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2024

At 1:00 PM PT, the Second Gentleman will deliver remarks at a campaign event. This event in Reno, NV will be open to pre-credentialed media.

At 5:00 PM PT, the Second Gentleman will deliver remarks at a campaign event. This event in Reno, NV will be open to pre-credentialed media.

For Immediate Release

June 4, 2024

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden at the White House Congressional Picnic

The South Lawn

Welcome to the White House!

It's so wonderful to see so many friends here. My heart is filled with gratitude as I look out at this crowd.

Over these past three and a half years, so many of you have welcomed me to your districts and your states, as we've worked together on issues that bring us all together: Lifting up educators, highlighting the great work of your local community colleges, fighting to end cancer as we know it, supporting military families.

And I'm so excited to work with all of you on our newest White House Initiative on Women's Health Research. Research on women's health, especially for women in mid-life and beyond, has always been underfunded and understudied – but, together, we're changing that.

Everywhere I go – in red and blue areas – I get asked about this new initiative all the time – and our work together is only beginning.

But today isn't about work – today is about you and your families, sharing some laughs, some good food, and enjoying the start of summer before it gets even more hot and humid!

For all the kids out there, you can tell your parents that I said to make sure you enjoy the best lawn in America – run around, play tag, do cartwheels, have fun!

And let's make this evening a celebration of what brings us all together – family, friends, our love of country, and our belief in a better tomorrow!

Now, I get to introduce my husband – Senator from Delaware for 36 years, and now President of the United States – and as you all know him: Joe.

Joe?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

BY WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY

COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR JOHN KIRBY

PREVIEWING PRESIDENT BIDEN'S TRAVEL TO FRANCE

Via Teleconference

11:35 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining our on-the-record gaggle with John Kirby, who's our White House National Security Communications Advisor.

As promised, Sean is never allowed to moderate one of these gaggles ever again.

And with that, we're going to turn it over to Kirby, who will start with a topper.

MR. KIRBY: Sean Savett. May he rest in peace. He had his moment and he blew it.

Good morning, everybody. Great to be with you again. As you all know, later today President Biden is going to travel to France to commemorate, alongside our allies and partners, the 80 th anniversary of the historic D-Day operation.

As you all know, Operation Overlord not only freed France's western region during the Second World War, but set the course for the liberation of the rest of Europe. It was the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany. And it absolutely helped lead to our current rules-based world order that has continued to make us all safer and more secure.

While in Normandy, the President will speak with our nation's veterans and veterans from Allied powers. And they'll deliver remarks about the continued impact of their contributions. American and Allied forces exhibited remarkable bravery, skill, and intrepidity -- intrepid bravery on D-Day, excuse me, and throughout the war. Their bold defense upheld freedom and democracy everywhere.

Now, that war showed the world the value of strong alliances and partnerships, which is the lesson that continues to resonate today in Europe and well beyond. This visit will come at an important moment, as Ukraine continues to face down Russian threats in its east and north and as we are working to address the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East.

President Biden has made revitalizing our relationships a key priority, recognizing, of course, that we are stronger when we act together and that today's challenges require global solutions and global responses.

Now, to that end, while he's in France, President Biden will also participate in an official state visit with President Macron. France is, of course, an important U.S. ally -- in fact, our nation's oldest ally. And this visit will underscore continued U.S.-French leadership on a range of consequential issues.

During their bilateral meeting, the presidents will discuss priorities like supporting Ukraine, of course; the need for a free and open Indo-Pacific region; addressing the crisis in the Middle East; and efforts to combat climate change.

As you all know, there will be a series of deliverables coming out of this state visit. I will not be able to get into the details of that today. We will have more to say on that a little bit later and a little bit closer to the state visit.

But I think in broad terms, what you can expect from the deliverables out of the state visit are a few things. You can expect that they will underscore the power and the importance of the transatlantic relationship. You can expect that they will help deepen our Indo-Pacific cooperation, not just from a security perspective, but also from an economic and diplomatic one.

You can expect that the deliverables will help us increase clean energy investments and opportunities, as well as to improve and increase nuclear energy capacity. And I think you can expect the deliverables to highlight U.S.-French cooperation with respect to the Olympics to help make sure that the Games are safe, secure, and sustainable, and that they can truly demonstrate the very best in athletic achievement.

The President looks forward to these engagements this week and to advancing our cooperation on these and so many other pressing topics.

And with that, we can start taking some questions.

MODERATOR: Thank you, sir. And I should clarify the reason why Sean is not allowed to moderate anymore is because he wished John Kirby a very happy birthday yesterday.

So, first up we'll go --

MR. KIRBY: Sean had a good life. He had a good run at it. And now it's over. Yeah.

MODERATOR: Yeah. With that, we'll go to Aamer. Aamer, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hi, John. And I'm sorry I missed the call yesterday to wish you a happy birthday.

Any reaction to the elections in India? And I was also curious: What does the administration make of it? Looking like it might be less of a lopsided victory for Modi and the BJP than had been anticipated.

And then, just on France: Do you anticipate the President will meet with President Zelenskyy while there? Zelenskyy is expected to be in Normandy. Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Hey, Aamer. On the India elections, we certainly how the vote of the Indian people are to voicing them -- voicing their desires and participating in a very vibrant democratic process. So we celebrate that with them. And we applaud the government writ large for successfully completing a truly massively sized electoral undertaking. And we look forward to seeing the final results.

To your second question: Not all the votes have been tallied and counted, and we're going to withhold judgment or comment until such is the case.

On your second question: I don't have anything on the -- anything additional in the President's schedule to speak to, Aamer. I think you'll hear more specifics on the President's schedule as we get a little closer. I know Mr. Sullivan might have some things to say later this evening on the flight over.

But look, I would just, you know, note: In the past, certainly it's not uncommon when President Zelenskyy and President Biden are in the same city or town for whatever the purpose is, that it's not uncommon for them to find time to meet and to discuss issues in Ukraine with one another.

But again, I just don't have anything formal to announce or speak to right now.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next up we'll go to Andrea with Reuters. Andrea, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hey, thanks so much. And Happy Birthday, John.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, thank you.

Q Or belatedly.

On Ukraine, I just want to ask: You know, there's obviously a lot of work going into preparing the leaders' summit for next week. Do you have anything to read out for us now in terms of progress on the Russian assets? And, you know, do expect that that will feature into the discussion with Macron?

And we were asking Karine yesterday about the peace conference that's taking place in Switzerland. But it's still not clear to me, you know, why President Biden decided not to attend that. And I wonder if you can say what you expect to come out of that. You know, the Vice President will be there, and obviously Jake will be there too. So I just wanted to get a little elaboration on that. Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah. On your first question, again, without getting ahead of the discussions that haven't happened, as you well know, we have -- our position is that we do believe that it is a worthwhile endeavor to look at the potential use of , Russian frozen assets, to assist Ukraine, particularly in reconstruction. Now, we've also said we can't do that unilaterally because the assets are held all over the world. And so we got to have participation and assistance with our allies and partners, or it won't work. You're not going to be able to get the full weight of those assets applied to reconstruction efforts in Ukraine.

This is something that Secretary Yellen has discussed in the run-up to the G7 with other finance ministers. It's certainly something Secretary Blinken has discussed. And I have no doubt that it will come up in discussions when President Biden certainly has an opportunity to speak to leaders in France but also later at the G7.

But, you know, where that's going to go and whether we're going to have some sort of decision soon, I can't speak to that. But it is an idea that we believe has merit and should be explored. But in order for it to happen and to be effective, we got to have the participation of friends and partners on that.

On the peace summit, I talked about this a little bit yesterday. Ukraine has no stronger friend and supporter than Joe Biden, and that's from the very beginning of this war till today. We're going to continue to make sure Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself. That support evolves as the battlefield evolves, as it has since February of 2022. And that won't change.

And I would note that sending the Vice President of the United States and the National Security Advisor is senior-level, sober, serious representation. And we're grateful that the Vice President and Mr. Sullivan are going to make that trip and be there at that summit.

We have participated in every peace summit that Ukraine has sponsored to date, at various levels of course, because of the levels summit.

And I would also add -- this kind of gets at your last question: Ever since Mr. Zelenskyy came up with this peace formula of his, this 10-point formula, no other nation has more strongly tried to see it operationalized and pushed forward than the United States. We have been behind him every single step of the way on this peace formula, really trying to make sure it's well understood around the world and that we're looking for ways to get it operationalized. Obviously, it's his peace formula, and we respect that, but we are right there side by side with him on that. And we'll certainly see what happens here in Switzerland.

In terms of outcomes, I can't get ahead of that.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you. Next up, we'll go to Michael Shear with the New York Times. Michael, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hey, guys. So, John, you may make news on a couple of answers here.

One, do you have anything about what Biden is going to be doing tomorrow? It looks like an entirely down day. Will he just be doing touristy stuff, or is there some reason why he's down the entire day?

Second, could you talk a little bit about the sort of odd position that the President will be in over the next couple of weeks where, on the one hand, he's really rallying the Allies behind Ukraine but, at the same time, in a very different position than most of those same leaders when it comes to Israel and Gaza, and so the tension about that?

And then finally, how old are you, John?

MR. KIRBY: Damn you.

Q You have to tell the truth. You're still under oath as a spokesman for the White House.

MR. KIRBY: That is correct. I am 61. Thank you.

What was you second question about Israel, Gaza? I'm sorry, Michael, I didn't hear it.

Q Just the fact that he's in a very different place on the two issues. He's in unison with the Allies and the leaders that he's going to be talking to -- Macron but also the others at the G7 -- on Ukraine. But when it comes to Israel, he is in -- you know, in some ways, very isolated and in a different place than France and Britain and a lot of the other European and G7 countries are when it comes to, you know, Israel and Gaza and the war.

MR. KIRBY: Okay, I got you.

Q There's a tension there. And how does he reconcile that?

MR. KIRBY: Okay. There's a lot there. I'll try to do this quickly.

So, look, on the schedule, I'd refer you to the White House team on the President's schedule. As you know, we're taking off tonight. We'll be flying all night long and then getting into Paris, I believe, you know, midday or so. And I know the President has some internal staff meetings on his schedule shortly after we arrive -- you know, preparatory, the kinds of things that you would do in advance of the weighty engagements that he has over the following three days: speaking at Normandy, at the cemetery; speaking the next day at Pointe du Hoc; and then a state visit.

I mean, there's a lot on the calendar, and I believe they're going to take advantage of the afternoon tomorrow to make sure that we're working through all the internal mechanisms and do that right.

So I think there's preparatory meetings on his schedule, which is why it's probably not showing up publicly just because they're internal staff preps, which we do, you know, every time. What makes this one different, of course, is we're flying all night. And then with the time zone difference, you get in and it's already -- half the day is gone in Paris, just because . So I think that's what's driving all that.

But again, feel free to go to the White House folks for more detail if you'd like.

On your second question, I'd say a couple of things. And I don't want to get too far ahead of the G7 here since, you know, we haven't really talked much about that in any great detail.

But number one, the President respects that every one of our allies and partners have had their own views. You know, we've seen some nations in the past, you know, come out recently and call for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. Allies -- NATO Allies have said that. We just don't agree. We don't agree that's the way forward. And many nations have different views, of course, about what's going on in Gaza. The President respects that. He appreciates that. It's the very idea of sovereignty and territorial integrity and the precepts of the U.N. Charter that apply. And he respects all that. It doesn't mean we have to agree on everything.

The President looks forward, when he goes to France here this week, and then eventually in his conversation with G7 counterparts, to talk about our position and the objectives we're trying to achieve for peace and security in the Middle East.

And we believe a couple of things: that this deal, what's on the table right now, is the best chance -- he called it "a decisive moment" -- the best chance to get the all the hostages out and to get a path to a permanent cessation of hostilities coming out of phase two, if Hamas will accept the deal.

And if you get that, then you can talk about really advancing a vision for post-conflict Gaza and what that needs to look like . And if you can get that, then you can really start to get some momentum towards other goals we have in the region, like normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia. And of course, all of that can help build to an eventual two-state solution, which the President believes, unlike some people -- he believes that it still is best achieved through direct negotiations between the parties.

So, look, he recognizes that not every nation agrees with his policies. He knows that not every American agrees with everything he's doing in Gaza. But he doesn't govern. He doesn't make national security decisions based on popularity, and he doesn't do it based on contrary opinions outside the United States. He does it based on what he believes is in our best national security interest.

And he believes the approach that he's taken, this team has been taking, is the best path forward for Israel's security being guaranteed, so they don't have to live next to Hamas, and for an eventual state for the Palestinian people.

So I think I'd leave it at that.

The last thing I'd say -- because you talked about tension: Disagreements with allies and partners is not something new to President Biden any more than unity and cooperation and collaboration, which he also fosters across a range of issues. And so I have every expectation that Ukraine in that regard will also be a prominent topic to be discussed.

And then, I answered your third question about my age. I would also note that Sean Savett was 34. There will be not a 35. I just wanted to add that.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next up we're going to go to Sara with CBS. Sara, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Thank you all. Can you hear me?

MODERATOR: Mm-hmm.

Q Great. And Happy Birthday, Kirby. Sorry, Sean.

Can you confirm the reports that Ukraine has, for the first time, used U.S. weapons across the border in Russia? And does the partial lifting of the restrictions against using U.S. weapons in Russian territory give Ukraine the freedom to shoot down Russian aircraft that are launching glide bombs from the sanctuary of Russian territory?

MR. KIRBY: So I can't confirm your first question. As I said, we're just not in a position on a day-to-day basis of knowing exactly what the Ukrainians are firing at what. It's certainly at a tactical level. So, I can't confirm that. I can tell you that they understand the guidance that they've been given.

And on your second question, I just want to note -- there has been some confusion on this: There's never been a restriction on the Ukrainians shooting down hostile aircraft, even if those aircraft are not necessarily in Ukrainian airspace. I mean, they can shoot down Russian airplanes that pose an impending threat. And they have. They have since the beginning of the war.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you. Next up we'll go to Danny Kemp. Danny, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Thank you very much. And I just want to say: Save Sean. He's a nice guy.

MR. KIRBY: I can see it now: #Savett.

Q I'm starting it right after this.

I just wanted to ask a kind of broader-picture question. And we've had three pretty massive announcements in the last -- basically, in the space of last week on the Gaza peace deal, on

Ukraine weapons, and now on migration. I just want wondered, what's the sort of thinking behind that? What's the hurry? Is there a kind of a sense that the President wants to get everything sort of sorted right now, at the moment, for some reason?

MR. KIRBY: Well, I can't speak to the immigration issue that you're talking about.

But just to, I think, to the larger, broader theme of your question, what you're seeing is the President moving out with an appropriate sense of urgency on some of the key foreign policy issues of the day, in both trying to get ahead of events, but also, quite frankly, trying to respond to events as they occur, events that have prompted him to reevaluate our policy and reevaluate our approach and reevaluate what we're doing to support allies and friends.

I mean, had it not been for the six-month gap, who knows whether Russia would have tried to press the advantages that they tried to press in the Donbas and then towards Kharkiv. But what you're seeing now, in the last month -- you know, five security assistance packages being rushed to Ukraine now that we finally have the funding -- is in response to the fact that we didn't have any funding for six months and the Russians were pressing their -- trying to press their advantages in the east.

What you're seeing in terms of his remarks on Friday with respect to Gaza and what we're trying to do to make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself also is a reflection somewhat of the fact that we didn't have supplemental funding. As you know, there was quite a bit of supplemental funding applied there to helping our ally, Israel.

But it's also a reflection of what we're seeing on the ground and the fact that Hamas still is operating in Rafah, and the Israelis felt strongly that they needed to deal with that threat, as well as watching closely and trying to respond as fervently as we can to a dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is why we, you know, have put the pier off the coast, which is why we continue to conduct airdrops, which is why we continue to try to press the Israelis to open up and sustain more crossings into Gaza.

So it's a combination of trying to get ahead of issues as best we see them developing, but also responding in real time to what's going on.

And that's -- again, that's -- I think that explains quite well the President's sense of energy here.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next up we'll go with Nick Schifrin. Nick, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q I feel like we need alliteration. #SaveSean.

John, number one, the Qatari spokesman just came out and said something interesting -- so I wonder if you could just elucidate a little bit -- that Qatar has received a formal Israeli proposal for the hostage deal as outlined by the President on Friday. We talked yesterday about how Hamas received this proposal in writing on Thursday night. So can you just kind of square that circle? What is the status of whatever it is in writing? Who's approved it and who sent it to whom?

And then, just an elucidation on one of the President's quotations in his Time piece. Time asked the President this question: "Some in Israel have suggested Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation. Do you believe that?" The President's answer was: "I'm not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion." And then he goes on to talk about the domestic unrest over the judicial changes. So can you just try and translate for us what the President was trying to say? Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: On your first question, Nick, I have not seen those comments by a Qatari spokesman. All I can do is go back before, that that proposal had been transmitted to Hamas on Thursday night.

So we'll go back and take a look at what the spokesman said. And if there's some additional context that needs to be provided, I'll have the team do that. But we stand by our comments before, that the proposal was transmitted to Hamas on Thursday evening, before the President's speech.

On your second question --

Q And sorry, John, just to -- and Hamas has not provided a formal response yet. Is that right?

MR. KIRBY: That is correct.

On your second question, I think the President was very clear in his answer on that, and we'll let the Prime Minister speak to his own politics and to what his critics are saying. And the President was referencing what many critics have said.

For our part, though he and Prime Minister Netanyahu do not agree on everything -- and he talked in that interview about some of the things they don't agree on, such as on a two-state solution -- but for our part, we're going to make sure that Israel has what it needs to continue to eliminate the threat by Hamas and that we're going to continue to work with the Prime Minister and the war cabinet to try to get this proposal over the finish line -- a proposal, I would add, that was an Israeli proposal that they crafted after some diplomatic conversations with us, in which they've acknowledged is their proposal. So that's what our focus is going to be on.

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Next up we'll go with Emily Goodin with Daily Mail. Emily, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hi. Thanks, guys. I have two questions. My first question is about: What message is the President sending with his decision to visit the American cemetery that his predecessor did not visit?

And then secondly, do you have any details on what Dr. Biden and Mrs. Macron are going to be doing? I thought you guys might be better friends now, John, since you share the same birthday with the First Lady.

MR. KIRBY: The First Lady and I have not talked about our shared birthday.

I don't have anything on her schedule to speak to. I believe you would have to go to the First Lady's office on that. That wouldn't be something that I'd be able to speak to.

But on your first question, the message is simple: that the service and the sacrifice of American troops in wars overseas -- World War One, I think in the case that you're referring to, and of course, World War Two, with his visit to Normandy -- should never be forgotten. And our commitment to honor that sacrifice should never waver. And our obligations to those they leave behind, even though it may be generations ago, can never be lessened.

And that's the -- those are the messages that the President is trying to send with these visits, that these -- in these two wars, of course, these brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, they didn't sacrifice their futures for nothing. And we need to take every opportunity that we can to acknowledge that. It's somber. It's sober. But it's a very serious obligation for all Americans everywhere. And he looks forward to paying respects to all of them. And I think I'd leave it there.

MODERATOR: Thank you. I think we have time for maybe one or two more.

MR. KIRBY: I can squeeze in, yeah, one or two more.

MODERATOR: All right. We'll go with Kayla from CNN. Kayla, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Thank you so much, guys, for doing this. And I'm marking my Outlook calendar for all future June so that we won't in the future.

I wanted to zoom out a little bit, John. I'm just wondering if you could talk about the stakes for this particular visit and the upcoming series of engagements with transatlantic allies, given Russia's latest aggression, deteriorating political goodwill in the U.S. and Europe, and the forthcoming elections in the UK and the U.S. Like, describe this moment for the transatlantic and how important the moment is for the President.

And then, as a follow-up to that: When the President gives his speech on democracy from Pointe du Hoc, how do you expect that message to be different from his prior addresses on that topic?

MR. KIRBY: Okay, on your first question, I mean, I can't really describe it any better than the President has. He really believes we're at an inflection point in history. And it's not tied to elections, whether they're here or in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter. He believes it's tied to the way geopolitics are changing, the way challenges are being presented to us all around the world in different ways, whether they be security challenges, economic challenges, social and cultural challenges; that, across the world, we're at an inflection point and that, in his view -- and this kind of gets to your second question -- in his view, there's a power in democracy, there's a power in observing the voice of the people and in trying to reach and achieve the aspirations of the populace that

can't be underestimated. And that the idea of standing up to aggressors, whether they actually be in the act of aggression or

anticipated to be in the act of aggression, standing up to that and making it clear what you stand for, as well as what you stand against, matters today.

And so, I think if you look at the next couple of weeks, it will be a busy couple of weeks for the President, certainly on the world stage. And he will take full advantage of the opportunity to talk about the moment we're living in, the importance of democracies working together on behalf of their peoples, but also the importance of American leadership, as he has described in that Time Magazine interview, as the world power, and the obligations and the responsibilities that come with that.

And when he talks about American leadership, it's not an arrogant leadership. It's a humble leadership. He recognizes that for as powerful as we are and as much good as we can do, we need help. Our allies and partners bring things to the endeavor that we can't always bring, and that we are much more -- we send a much stronger signal about lofty words like "peace" and "freedom" and "stability" and "security" when we're working in concert with one another.

And so I think he's going to, again, use the opportunity to send that broader message to the world.

And then, on the Pointe du Hoc speech -- again, I want to be careful that I don't get ahead of him and preview the speech too much. But what makes that opportunity, in terms of speaking about the power of democracy and standing up to aggression, is that you can point to real lives that were impacted at Pointe du Hoc. You can point to real blood that was spilt in pursuit of that loftier goal. And you can tell stories about real men who climbed real cliffs and faced real bullets and real danger in the pursuit of something a whole hell of a lot bigger than themselves. That's what makes being able to talk about democracy at Pointe du Hoc differently.

If you've never been, any of you, I can't recommend it enough, going to Normandy, walking the beach, seeing the cemetery. But going to Pointe du Hoc, you can still see the craters from the battleships that were firing preparatory fires onto the ground to try to neutralize the Nazi gun pits there. You can still walk in those craters. You can still look at those cliffs, and they are shear. I mean, you're looking straight down at a very tiny strip of beach. And you think about these guys climbing those cliffs, hand over hand, foot over foot, being killed all the way up, and then crossing over that cliff and doing what they did. It's eye watering.

That's what makes Pointe du Hoc special and different. And it's a way of telling the story, not only of camaraderie on the battlefield, but of camaraderie between democracies that the President really believes is appropriate for this particular moment that we're living in, this inflection point.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And for our last question, we'll go with Justin Sink from Bloomberg. Justin, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hey, Kirby. Thanks for doing this. Happy belated.

I just wanted to look back on the question Nick asked, about the Time Magazine interview. Israel's government has come out and condemned the President's remarks pretty strongly, saying that it was outside the diplomatic norms of every right-thinking country. I'm wondering if there's a sense among you guys that there needs to be a conversation at this point between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Biden, and if you anticipate this having any impact on the negotiations over the peace deal proposal that are going on right now.

MR. KIRBY: I'm sure that the two leaders will talk again as appropriate. They've stayed in touch since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza, and they will continue to stay in touch. I have nothing on the schedule to speak to.

And there should be no impact at all on this proposal to get the hostages out and to get some sort of temporary ceasefire in place during phase one. It was a good-faith effort by Israel to put this proposal on the table. We're grateful for that good-faith effort. Now Hamas needs to accept it.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you. That's all the time we have for today. If you have any questions, feel free to email our distro. And I hope you guys all have great Tuesdays. Thanks.

12:10 P.M. EDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

Karla M. Campbell, of Tennessee, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, vice Jane Branstetter Stranch, retiring.

Catherine Henry, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, vice Edward G. Smith, deceased.

Mary Kay Lanthier, of Vermont, to be United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, vice Geoffrey W. Crawford, retiring.

Julia M. Lipez, of Maine, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, vice William J. Kayatta, Jr., retiring.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

ON SECURING OUR BORDER

East Room

2:20 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I've come here today to do what the Republicans in Congress refuse to do: take the necessary steps to secure our border.

Four months ago, after weeks of intense negotiation between my staff and Democrats and Republicans, we came to a clear -- clear bipartisan deal that was the strongest border security agreement in decades. But then Republicans in Congress -- not all, but -- walked away from it.

Why? Because Donald Trump told them to. He told the Republicans -- it has been published widely by many of you -- that he didn't want to fix the issue; he wanted to use it to attack me. That's what he wanted to do. It was a cynical and a - extremely cynical political move and a complete disservice to the American people, who are looking for us to -- not to weaponize the border but to fix it.

Today, I am joined by a bipartisan group of governors, members of Congress, mayors, law enforcement officials -- most of whom live and work along the southern border. They know the border is not a political issue to be weaponized -- the responsibility we have to share to do something about it. They don't have time for the games played in Washington, and neither do the American people.

So, today, I'm moving past Republican obstruction and using the executive authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border.

Frankly, I would have preferred to address this issue through bipartisan legislation, because that's the only way to actually get the kind of system we have now -- that's broken -- fixed, to hire more Border Patrol agents, more asylum officers, more judges. But Republicans have left me with no choice.

Today, I'm announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. Migrants will be restricted from receiving asylum at our southern border unless they seek it after entering through an established lawful process.

And those who seek -- come to the United States legally -- for example, by making an appointment and coming to a port of entry -- asylum will still be available to them -- still available. But if an individual chooses not to use our legal pathways, if they choose to come without permission and against the law, they'll be restricted from receiving asylum and staying in the United States.

This action will help us to gain control of our border, restore order to the process.

This ban will remain in place until the number of people trying to enter illegally is reduced to a level that our system can effectively manage.

We'll carry out this order consistent with all our responsibilities under international law -- every one of them.

In addition to this action, we recently made important reforms in our asylum system: more efficient and more secure reforms. The goal is to deliver decisions on asylum as quickly as possible.

The quicker the decis- -- the quicker decision means that a migrant is less likely to pay a criminal smuggler thousands of dollars to take them on a dangerous journey, knowing that if, in fact, they move in the wrong direction, they'd be turned around quickly.

And two weeks ago, the Department of Justice stated -- started a new docket in the immigration courts to address cases where people who've recently crossed the border and make -- they'll make a decision within six months rather than six years, because that's what happens now.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed new rules to allow federal law enforcement to more quickly remove asylum seekers that have criminal convictions and remove them from the United States.

My administration is also -- recently launched new efforts to go after criminal networks that profit from smuggling migrants to our border and incentivize people to give tips to law enforcement to provide information that brings smugglers to justice.

We're also sending additional federal prosecutors to hot spots along the border and prosecute individuals who break our immigration laws.

One other critical step that we -- we'll be taking, and that is -- made a huge difference: We continue to work closely with our Mexican neighbors instead of attacking Mexico, and it's worked.

We built a strong partnership of trust between the Mexican President, López Obrador, and I'm going to do the same with the Mexican-elect President, who I spoke with yesterday.

We've chosen to work together with Mexico as an equal partner, and the facts are clear. Due to the arrangements that I've reached with President Obrador, the number of migrants coming and shared -- to our shared border unlawfully in recent months has dropped dramatically.

But while these steps are important, they're not enough.

To truly secure the border, we have to change our laws, and Congress needs to provide the necessary funding to hire 1,500 more border security agents; 100 more immigration judges to help tackle the backlog of cases -- more than 2 million of them; 4,300 more asylum officers to make decisions in less than six months instead of six years, which is what it takes now; and around 100 more high-tech detection machines to significantly increase the ability to screen and stop fentanyl being smuggled into the United States.

These investments were one of the primary reasons that the Border Patrol union endorsed the bipartisan deal in the first place. And these investments are essential and remain essential.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not willing to spend the money to hire more Border Patrol agents, more asylum officers, more judges, more high-tech machinery, you're just not serious about protecting our border. It's as simple as that.

I believe that immigration has always been a lifeblood of America. We're constantly renewed by an infusion of people with -- and new talent.

The Statue of Liberty is not some relic of American history. It stands for who we are as the United States.

So, I will never demonize immigrants. I will never refer to immigrants as "poisoning the blood" of a country. And further, I'll never separate children from their families at the border.

I will not ban people from this country because of their religious beliefs. I will not use the U.S. military to go into neighborhoods all across the country to pull millions of people out of their homes and away from their families to put detention camps and awai- -- while awaiting deportation, as my predecessor says he will do if he to- -- occupies this office again.

On my fir- -- very first day as president, I introduced a comprehensive immigration reform plan to fix -- to fix our broken sy- -- system, secure our border, provide a pathway for citizenship for DREAMers, and a lot more. And I'm still fighting to get that done.

But we must face a simple truth: To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now.

The simple truth is there is a worldwide migrant crisis, and if the United States doesn't secure our border, there is no limit to the number of people who may try to come here, because there is no better place on the planet than the United States of America.

For those who say the steps I've taken are too strict, I say to you that -- be patient, and good will of the American people are going to we- -- are wearing thin right now. Doing nothing is not an option. We have to act. We must act consistent with both our law and our values -- our value as Americans.

I take these steps today not to walk away from we -- who we are as Americans but to make sure we preserve who we are for future generations to come.

Today, I have spoken about what we need to do to secure the border. In the weeks ahead -- and I mean the weeks ahead -- I will speak to how we can make our immigration system more fair and more just.

Let's fix the problem and stop fighting about it. I'm doing my part. We're doing our part. Congressional Republicans should do their part.

Thank you very much.

Welcome to Washington.

I'll talk to you later.

Q Mr. President, is Netanyahu playing politics with the war?

THE PRESIDENT: What was that?

Q I asked, sir: Is Prime Minister Netanyahu playing politics with the war?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think so. He's trying to work out a serious problem he has.

Thank you.

2:29 P.M. EDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS

ON ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO SECURE THE BORDER

Via Teleconference

9:03 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our embargoed background press call regarding additional actions the President is announcing today to secure our border. As a reminder, the call will begin with remarks that will be attributable to "senior administration officials" and will be followed by a question-and-answer session.

The contents of the call and the related materials you all should have received over email are embargoed until 12:00 p.m. noon today.

With that, we will go ahead and get started. And I will turn it over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good morning, everyone.

Since his first day in office, President Biden has called on Congress to secure our border and address our broken immigration system. And over the past three years, Congress has failed to act.

Just last month, congressional Republicans again put partisan politics ahead of our national security and voted against a historic bipartisan border security agreement that would deliver key policy changes and critical resources to our border.

With Congress failing to act, illegal crossings at our border remain too high for our system to effectively manage.

In the face of this, President Biden will announce executive actions to bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum.

These actions will be in effect when high levels of encounters at the Southern border exceed our ability to deliver timely consequences, as is the case today. They will make it easier for immigration officials to remove those who are here unlawfully and reduce the burden on our Border Patrol agents.

These actions build on weeks and months of actions the Biden-Harris administration has taken to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system.

Over the past months we have expanded efforts to dismantle human smuggling operations that bring migrants through Central America and across our Southern border, including by deploying additional prosecutors and support staff to increase immigration-related prosecutions in crucial border U.S. attorney's offices.

We've published a proposed rule to ensure that migrants who pose a public safety or national security risk are removed as quickly in the process as possible rather than remaining in prolonged detention prior to removal.

We announced the launch of a Recent Arrivals Docket to more quickly resolve a portion of immigration cases for migrants who attempt to cross between ports of entry, allowing us to more quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to be in the United States and grant protection to those with a valid claim.

We have revoked visas for CEOs and government officials throughout the region who profit from migrants trying to come to the United States unlawfully.

We have surged agents to the Southern border and are referring a record number people into expedited removal. Since May 2023, we have removed or returned more people than every fiscal year since 2010.

I will turn it over to [senior administration official] in a minute to further explain today's actions, but let me finish with this: Everyone should be clear that all of the actions that I've just described cannot achieve the same result as the bipartisan security agreement that congressional Republicans rejected. These actions do not provide the additional critical personnel and funding or reforms needed to further secure our border. Congress still must act.

With that, I'll turn it over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you, [senior administration official].

Today, the administration is taking decisive action designed to strengthen the security of our Southern border and reduce unlawful migration by suspending the entry of individuals across the Southern border.

The measures we're announcing today build on the steps we've taken over the last three years designed to reduce irregular migration and bolster the security of our border, including record deployments of personnel, infrastructure, and technology; strengthened consequences through the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule; and, of course, the historic expansion of lawful pathways for migrants who are willing to wait and use them.

Today's announcement includes a series of measures that will significantly increase consequences for those who cross the Southern border unlawfully or without authorization. And I'm going to go through those consequences right now.

As everybody knows, this -- President Biden is issuing a presidential proclamation that will temporarily suspend the entry of non-citizens across the Southern border. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General are jointly issuing an interim final rule that, consistent with the proclamation, will generally restrict asylum eligibility during periods of elevated order encounters. For those who cross the Southern border unlawfully or without authorization, and that includes both our Southwest land border as well as our Southern coastal borders.

The rule makes three key changes to current processing under Title 8 immigration authorities during these periods of high order encounters. First, individuals who cross the Southern border unlawfully or without authorization will generally be ineligible for asylum, absent exceptionally compelling circ*mstances, unless they are excepted by the proclamation.

Second, noncitizens who cross the Southern border and are processed for expedited removal while the proclamation is in effect will only be referred for a credible fear screening with an asylum officer if they manifest or express a fear of return to their country or country of removal, a fear of persecution or torture, or an intention to apply for asylum.

Third, the United States will continue to adhere to its international obligations and commitments by screening individuals who are found to be ineligible for asylum for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protections at a reasonable probability of persecution or torture standard -- a new, substantially higher standard than is currently being applied at the border.

Like the proclamation, the rule provides for an end to these enhanced measures following a sustained reduction in encounters along our Southern border. Specifically, these measures will be in effect until 14 calendar days after the Secretary determines that there has been a seven-consecutive-calendar-day average of less than 1,500 encounters in between ports of entry along our Southern border. These measures would once again go into effect or continue when there has been a determination that the seven-consecutive-calendar-day average has exceeded 2,500 encounters or more.

While active, the proclamation and the rule will apply, again, across the Southern border, which, as I mentioned earlier, includes both the Southwest land border and our Southern coastal borders.

Taken together, these measures will significantly increase the speed and the scope of consequences for those who cross unlawfully or without authorization and allow the departments to more quickly remove individuals who do not establish a legal basis to remain in the United States.

As I mentioned, there are some exceptions to the proclamation, and that includes lawful permanent residents, unaccompanied children, victims of a severe form of trafficking, those who face an acute medical emergency or an imminent and extreme threat to life and safety, and other noncitizens who have a valid visa or some other lawful permission to enter the United States.

And importantly, the suspension and limitation on entry and rule will not apply to individuals who use a safe and orderly process, such as the CBP One mobile application, to enter the United States at a port of entry in an orderly manner or who pursue another lawful pathway to come to the United States.

Individuals who are subject to the limit on asylum eligibility promulgated by today's rule and who do not establish a reasonable probability of persecution or torture in their country of removal will be promptly removed and they will be subject to at least a five-year bar to reentry and potential criminal prosecution.

These steps will strengthen the asylum system, preventing it from being overwhelmed and backed up by those who do not have legitimate claims.

I'd like to conclude by reiterating what [senior administration official] said. The presidential proclamation together with the interim final rule present another important step in our more than three years of ongoing efforts to strengthen our ability to impose consequences on those who cross our Southern border.

But we are clear-eyed that today's executive actions are no substitute for Congress taking up and passing the tough but fair bipartisan Senate bill, which would have significantly strengthened the consequences in place at the border and, equally important, have provided billions of dollars to support the men and women who are working on the frontlines to secure our border.

Thank you. And with that, I'll pass the microphone to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you so much, [senior administration official], and good morning, everyone.

It's been 27 years since Congress last passed comprehensive immigration reform. The 1996 immigration reform law and, for that matter, the 1986 immigration reform law were overwhelmingly bipartisan.

Indeed, the party of Lincoln, Reagan, and the Bushes has a proud history of supporting a balanced approach to immigration.

President Reagan proudly noted that, quote, "We ne- -- we lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our strength from every country and corner of the world."

We are witnessing the largest wave of global migration since World War Two. It is affecting nations around the globe. Unfortunately, at a moment when we desperately need to summon the bipartisanship in Congress that was there in '86 and '96, the party of Lincoln, Reagan, and Bush has been replaced by all too many Republicans who would rather weaponize problems than fix them.

Fortunately, across the country, there are elected officials -- Republicans, Democrats, and independents -- who share President Biden's strongly held belief that we must have smart, balanced approaches to immigration that recognize that we are indeed a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

As Pres- -- as the President announces his executive actions, he will, in fact, be accompanied by a number of these elected officials who share his desire to fix our broken system.

Most of the people joining us today are from the border. They're working on these issues day in and day out. And like the President, they want balanced solutions.

Let's take a step back. As [senior administration official] and [senior administration official] have outlined, the President worked with a bipartisan group of senators to reach a historic border security agreement -- an agreement that would have delivered significant policy changes, resources, and personnel necessary to secure our border and make our country safer. And that would have made the asylum process fairer and more efficient while ensuring protection for the most vulnerable.

Congressional Republicans had an opportunity to support the fairest and toughest set of reforms in decades, and they chose to put partisan political interests ahead of fixing our immigration system and securing our borders.

Twice they voted against additional border and immigration personnel. Twice they voted against additional technology to catch illicit fentanyl at ports of entry. Twice they voted against more asylum officers and immigration judges so cases can be resolved in months and not years.

Congressional Republicans have proven that they do not care about securing our border because, frankly, if they did, they would have supported the bipartisan agreement.

As [senior administration official] and [senior administration official] have outlined, today's actions are designed to bar individuals who cross the Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. It is important to note that unlike the previous administration, the Biden-Harris administration has led the largest expansion of lawful immigration pathways in decades.

This includes innovative programs, such as the parole processes for Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan nationals; the use of CBP One for noncitizens seeking to present at a port of entry; the establishment of Safe Mobility Offices across the hemisphere where people seeking assistance can be placed into a lawful immigration pathway without having to make the perilous journey, without having to pay smugglers. These programs remain in place.

We have also rebuilt our Refugee Admissions Program and are on track to resettle the most people in 30 years.

The President also spearheaded an effort to bring together 22 countries from across the Western Hemisphere to join the Los Angeles Declaration for Migration and Protection. This is an effort to foster regional cooperation around migration and a way for countries to work together to manage this challenge.

We will continue, for instance, to work together with the Mexican authorities during the presidential transition. We have worked very closely on this bilateral relationship.

All of these policies are in stark contrast to how the previous administration managed immigration. They demonized immigrants, instituted mass raids, separated families at the border, and put kids in cages. Their violation -- their policies went against our values as a nation.

The American people have told what they want. They want a secure border and lawful immigration opportunities for those to come to America who will indeed enrich our country, as President Reagan so eloquently noted.

President Biden remains committed to working to fix our broken immigration system and ensuring that America can continue to be the beacon of hope and opportunity that it is and will always be.

With that, I'll turn it back over to [moderator] for Q&A.

MODERATOR: Thank you, [senior administration official] and [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].

With that, we will begin Q&A. As a reminder, this will also be on background and attributable to "senior administration officials."

As you, I think, all can see, there is lots of interest. So, if you could please, please keep your questions to one per outlet, we will try to go through as many questions as we can.

With that, we will start with Sara. You should be unmuted now.

Q Hey, it's actually Camilo. I'm using Sara -- my colleague's account. But my question is: Can you explain whether you will plan to process extra-continental migrants, like Chinese migrants, under the new measures and, if so, whether Mexico has agreed to take back additional nationalities, like migrants who are deemed to be ineligible for asylum under these new measures? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hi, Camilo. The rules measures will apply to any individual who is encountered crossing unlawfully along the southern border or without authorization. And so, that will apply both to individuals from our hemisphere as well as extra-hemispheric migrants.

In terms of returns to Mexico, we will continue to return nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela per our previous arrangement. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thanks, [senior administration official]. We will go to Luke next. You should be unmuted now.

Q Hey, guys. Thanks for doing this. What do you say to the advocacy community that has said they will sue if this EO, as we had reported in the past couple of days, is implemented, which it obviously is now? What do you say to them? And how would you defend this EO in court, given some of the past EOs in prior administrations still being held up in court?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks for your question, Luke. We have made some important humanitarian and legal changes to the implementation of this authority in the past. And we fully expect that we will be able to implement these actions. This is -- the humanitarian exceptions were outlined in [senior administration official's] remarks. And we have important exceptions for individuals entering through lawful pathways, important humanitarian exceptions for individuals that are facing -- I'm sorry, that are entering through lawful pathways and under other humanitarian exceptions in the implementation of the rule in the proclamation.

And I will also invite my colleague from DOJ to say a few remarks if she would like to.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official]. I'll just add that DOJ defends lawsuits, rules, and actions on a regular basis, and we are prepared for any litigation on this rule as well.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And if I may add one thing. I think we are accustomed to being litigated, frankly, from both sides of the political spectrum for just about any measure we take in this space, and that is just yet another sign that there is no lasting solution to the challenges we are facing without Congress doing its job.

MODERATOR: Thank you, [senior administration official]. We will go to Gabe next. You should be unmuted now.

Q Hey there, Angelo. Thank you. Thank you all for doing this.

With regards to the humanitarian exceptions that you -- that you outline, what do you say to critics who say that that will lead to child trafficking, specifically the exception for minors?

And then one other -- one other question, if I may. Can you confirm just how you arrived at that 2,500 number? And would this go into effect immediately since we're now over 2,500 encounters?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hi. In terms of the exception for unaccompanied children, I would just note that under our laws, we have been treating unaccompanied children differently now for many years. And, you know, that will not change as a result of these measures. And obviously, we are always vigilant when it comes to any exploitation of children, who are -- obviously represent a very vulnerable demographic.

[Senior administration official], I don't know if you want to take the second part of that question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We do expect that the authority would be in effect immediately. And I will also add to [senior administration official's] response that this administration, President Biden has led an historic opening of lawful pathways for individuals to -- and including families -- to enter the United States through a lawful process, including the CBP One mobile application to request an appointment to present at a port of entry, as well as family reunification programs in countries throughout the region and a historic parole process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

And so, this measure is -- the authorities that are -- that are being implemented that we're announcing today come alongside those lawful pathways.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We will go to Seung Min next. You should be unmuted now.

Q All right. Thank you so much for holding this call. I just wanted to -- since you guys are talking about using Title 8 authority, can you just outline just how fast the deportations would happen, how long these people would be detained before they're removed? If they would be detained, do you have the money to even do the detentions? And also, how you deal with the legal constraints of detaining families?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure, I can start us off.

I will say that, obviously, the measures we are announcing today fall squarely within our Title 8 authorities. Individuals who do not manifest a fear will be immediately removable. And so, we anticipate that will significantly speed the current process for individuals who do not manifest a fear.

Individuals who do manifest a fear will be processed as we always do under our Title 8 authorities through the expedited removal process. And we have made significant process improvements over the last year that have, you know, allowed us to move people through the expedited removal process faster than we've ever been able to before.

However, as [senior administration official] and I both noted in our opening remarks, we are constrained by the resources that have been provided to the departments by Congress, resources that have been inadequate to face the challenges we have been facing the last few years.

We have repeatedly asked Congress for emergency supplemental funding to allow us to enhance and increase our ability to deliver consequences at the border. And, unfortunately, Congress has failed to act on those requests.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We will go to Josh next. You should be unmuted now.

Q Hey, there. Thank you so much for doing this. Just to follow up on Seung Min's question, are these removals -- are we talking days or weeks? Can you just help us get a sense of how quickly that would kick in?

And you mentioned the changes to the credible fear threshold. I'm wondering if you can just dive into that a little bit more, how you're going to assess these cases and who goes through a screening and who doesn't. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. Again, individuals who do not manifest a fear will be immediately removable, and we anticipate that we will be removing those individuals in a matter of days, if not hours.

I think individuals who do manifest a fear and are ineligible for asylum as a result of the rules measures will be screened for our international obligations under withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture at a "reasonable probability" standard, which will be a substantially higher standard than the "significant possibility" standard that is being used today, while still somewhat below the ultimate merits standard of "more likely than not."

But I think the bottom line is that the standard will be significantly higher. And so, we do anticipate that fewer individuals will be screened in as a result.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We will go to Michelle next. You should be unmuted now.

Michelle?

All right. We will move to Ted. You should be unmuted now.

Q Hi, all. I'd like to ask you again about the extra-continental migrants. It wasn't clear to me: Is Mexico planning to accept them back? Or are you planning to deport them to their home countries? And if so, you know, how do you plan to do that?

I mean, as you describe it, it sounds like -- almost like a two-track system where Mexicans and Central Americans could be quickly removed but where others potentially could just be released into the U.S.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. Thanks for that question. Extra-hemispheric migrants have always been a challenge. They will be subject to this rules provisions. We have been working tirelessly both in the region and throughout the world to enhance -- to both restrict the routes into the hemisphere for extra-hemispheric migrants -- and [senior administration official] mentioned some of those steps in her remarks -- and we've also been working with governments all over the world to enhance our ability to repatriate individuals to countries that have historically been challenging.

We have, for example, operated repatriation flights to India, to China, to Uzbekistan, to Mauritania, to Senegal over the last few months. And those are all countries that historically would have been much more challenging for us to return individuals to. And we anticipate we will continue to enhance our ability to return migrants to the eastern hemisphere.

And so, we do think that the rules measures will allow us to impose an immediate and fast consequence to migrants no matter what country they're coming from.

MODERATOR: Thanks, [senior administration official]. We will go to Beatrice next. You should be unmuted now.

Bea?

Okay. We will go to Priscilla next. You should be unmuted now.

Q Hi, all. Thanks for doing the call. Just to delve a little deeper into how you will operationalize this, how -- how do you foresee the situation changing along the border now versus a few days ago when this goes into effect?

In other words, if we are seeing extra-continental migrants, how will it ease the -- the system the way that you all have described?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Priscilla. I can start, and, [senior administration official], please feel free to jump in.

We have seen consistently over the last few years that when we have the ability to remove individuals quickly, it can significantly impact migratory flows by changing the calculus for intending migrants. Especially if they know that they are going to be removed quickly and not be able to remain in the United States for many years through their immigration court process, they're going to be much less likely to pay the thousands of dollars that it's required to the smuggling networks that more or less control access to the routes leading up to our border.

And so, we do anticipate and intend that the measures we're announcing today will impact on lawful migration to our border.

As I noted, there are countries that are more challenging in terms of removals. We are working with those countries in order to facilitate our ability to increase removals. And as I also noted, we will continue to return nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela to Mexico per -- as we have been doing now for quite a while. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We will go to Pedro next. You should be unmuted now.

Q Thanks for doing this. I wanted to find out if the rule is going to be taking effect today or tomorrow, and if there is any public hearing that might hold the application of the rule. Thank you so much, again.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. The rule will go into effect later today. And so, that -- you know, we anticipate, again, those measures will be implemented forthwith.

Defer to my colleague from the Department of Justice in terms of any potential litigation.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official]. While the rule may be challenged, as was the case with the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways regulation, we look forward to defending the IFR as the -- as any litigation that might be filed progresses in the next few days.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We will go to Alexandra next. You should be unmuted now.

Q Hello. Thank you so much for doing this. So, the first question I have is, I want to know if -- and you said that you are going to continue collaborating with Mexico. I wanted to know if Mexico has agreed to take in more migrants daily and then what that number is they -- people who have -- they have agreed to take in.

And then, the second question I have is: What do you have to say about criticism of this type of measures from organizations that claim that this puts migrants in danger and then also could lead to people who have legitimate claim of asylums being deported back to their countries but they might face danger? Thank you so much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hi, Alexandra. Mexico has been a really strong partner in our efforts to control migratory flows throughout the hemisphere and also in our efforts to expand access to lawful pathways and to address the root causes of migration throughout the hemisphere.

At this point, you know, we will continue, as I have noted a couple times, to return nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to Mexico as we have been doing for quite a long time. And obviously, we will continue to repatriate Mexican nationals to Mexico as well.

In terms of the second part of your question, welcome others to weigh in as well. But I will just say that we are confident that the steps we are taking today are consistent with our obligations under international law, and we will take all the appropriate measures in order to guard against the potential . Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thanks. We will go to Stef next. You should be unmuted now.

Q Thanks for holding this. We've spoken to officials and obviously see that the border numbers have actually been declining, have remained relatively stable over the past few months. Curious if you would be able to provide any insight into why this is being rolled out now.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm happy to take that. Thank you for the question. So, as you're tracking, two weeks ago, Republicans in Congress once again voted against the toughest enforcement reforms in history. Time and again, they've stood against securing our border and put politics over providing our border personnel the resources they need.

With Congress failing to act and in the face of the summer months, when we typically see encounters increase, we -- the -- and at a time when unlawful crossings at our border are still too high for immigration officials to manage, President Biden is announcing these measures today to secure our border.

And if Congress refuses to act or congressional Republicans refuse to act, the President is prepared to do so.

MODERATOR: Thanks. We will go to Zolan next. You should be unmuted now.

Q Thanks so much for the question. Just one clarification. Maybe I missed this. I -- someone asked this earlier, but I don't think it was answered directly. Just can you explain the reasoning behind the trigger of 2,500 daily average encounters? I think there was conversation that might have been 4,000 before. I guess, how would you respond to the criticism that that number is -- was essentially found so that you can just shut it down now, you know, with the level of crossings where they are now?

And then, secondly, can you just comment on the criticism that this echoes a Trump administration effort in 2018 to use 212 to shut down the border. The President obviously criticized Trump during the campaign and said that he was one of the first presidents to force migrants to apply for asylum in other countries. It seems like this is similar. Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks. The triggers are similar to what was negotiated by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate bipartisan bill. The goal here is to secure our border while preserving legal immigration, consistent with our values as a nation. And even if the numbers dip below 1,500, we will still be enforcing our immigration laws and removing those that don't have a lawful basis to be here.

And to your second question -- and I'll invite [senior administration official] here to jump in as well -- there are several differences between the actions that we are taking today and Trump-era policies. The Trump administration attacked almost every facet of the immigration system and did so in a shameful and inhumane way, in ways that [senior administration official] outlined in his opening remarks.

The actions that we are taking today will only apply during times of high encounters. The proclamation would only apply to individuals entering the U.S. unlawfully at ports of entry and between ports of entry while exempting lawful entries through appointments -- through appointments at ports of entry. And other exceptions include unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking.

The action will not ban people based on their religion. It will not separate kids from their mothers. There are also narrow humanitarian exceptions to the bar on asylum, including for those facing an acute medical emergency or an imminent and extreme threat to life or safety. And the Trump administration's actions did not include these exceptions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, let me follow up on [senior administration official's] accurate statement. I mean, the Biden administration has now reunited roughly 800 families who were separated under the Trump administration. We will not separate children from their families. It is not only inhumane, it's grossly ineffective. It didn't stop the flows at all. So, it was illegal, unconscionable, and ineffective.

Again, the humanitarian exceptions that [senior administration official] referenced for unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking are very real. And, again, it's important for folks to understand that this President has done more to create lawful pathways for people entering this country than any president in decades.

Thirty thousand people a month are coming in through the CHNV program. The -- 1,400 people a day are coming in through the CBP One app. No previous administration has applied technology in this manner to facilitate such a predictable and orderly process.

The President has used diplomacy in ways that have been remarkable. You know, the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection was a declaration with 22 governments. We understand that we have to work in concert with our allies in the region and around the globe who share our values.

And so, there are a lot of differences between where we are today and -- and Donald Trump.

And what is as frustrating as anything for President Biden is it doesn't have to be this way. I mentioned in my remarks about the fact that it's been 27 years since we had immigration reform. I'll point out for folks that the 1996 bill was passed in the middle of a presidential election in a divided Congress. At that point in time, people understood that immigration shouldn't become a political football, that we should put country over party.

The reason we don't have the bipartisan bill today is very simple: Because the other administration -- the prior administration's person said, "Don't do it. Don't give Joe Biden a victory." That's not how we should run a country.

And so, that is unfortunate. And an election year should not prohibit us from getting the people's work done.

MODERATOR: Thanks, [senior administration official]. We'll have time for about two more questions.

With that, Nick, you should be unmuted now. Nick?

Q Can you hear me? I'm here, I'm here, I'm here.

MODERATOR: Yep. There you go.

Q Sorry about that. You guys have said many times that families aren't exempt from consequences, but this administration doesn't obviously refer families to ERO detention. So, how do you plan to remove the families who are going to be ineligible under this rule? Are you going to -- are you going to hold them in CBP custody? And what is the appropriate amount of time that a family unit should remain in CBP custody, given your obligations under the Flores settlement?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, I can take that. Hi, Nick. We have been removing families consistently now for many years, and that will not change as a result of these measures. If anything, I think this will enhance, as I noted, our ability to remove individuals who we encounter quickly, and that includes families.

We have, as I think you know, been removing families directly from CBP custody. And we have also been removing record numbers of family from the interior who are referred to our Family Expedited Removal Management process as well.

And so, you know, we anticipate that this rule, as we have discussed, will enhance our ability to impose consequences both for single adults and for families. And we will do this in a way that is fully compliant with our obligations under the Flores settlement.

MODERATOR: Thanks. And our last question will go to Cristina. You should be unmuted now.

Q Yeah, hi. Thank you for taking my question. I just want to see if you can walk me through what the process would be if somebody from Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador gets to the border, says that they're fearing for their lives. Who interviews them? How long would it take to determine if they're legitimate or not? And how long would it take before they get either deported or allowed to continue with the process?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. I think, under your scenario, when we encounter an individual at the border under the rule's implementation, you know, they will be processed as we typically process individuals. And we will fingerprint them. We will make sure that there are no national security or public safety threats that we are aware of about that individual.

If the individual does not manifest a fear, they will be very quickly removable. If they do manifest a fear, they will be referred to a credible fear interview by an asylum officer. Those interviews could happen both in CBP custody or in an ICE detention facility.

During those interviews, if the individual, again, is subject to the proclamation, the rule, which means they are ineligible for asylum -- they have not been excepted from the rule -- they will be screened for our international obligations under withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture at the reasonable probability standard, which is higher than the reasonable possibility standard that is currently being applied at the border.

Individuals who are found not to have a credible fear of persecution or torture in their home country or their country of removal as a result of that screening will be removed as quickly as we can effectuate that removal.

As I noted earlier, we have undertaken a series of process enhancements over the last two years that have significantly reduced the amount of time it takes us to get someone through that expedited removal, credible fear process.

Historically, from 2014 to 2019, it took about nine weeks to get someone through that process. And we are currently doing it in less than half that time and continue -- and we'll continue to try to streamline the process. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And that is all the time we have today. Thank you so much for co- -- thank you so much for calling and for joining the call.

As a reminder, the embargo on the call and the materials that you will receive will be 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Thank you so much.

9:46 A.M. EDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

President-elect Sheinbaum.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

AT A CAMPAIGN RECEPTION

Private Residence

Greenwich, Connecticut

7:38 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Richard, thank you. Richard --

Please, have a seat.

Thank you, Richard. I -- I don't want to take more of your time, but I'm going to tell a little story about elevators myself. You know, I got elected when I was 29 years old to the Senate. I come from a very modest background, as Chris can tell you. Three-bedroom, split-level house. Four kids, a grandpop living with us. And we weren't poor, but we weren't -- we weren't wealthy, either.

And I got elected in '72 when Nixon received 60 percent of the vote in my state. I won by 3,100 votes. And I'm the first Catholic and the first Democrat in a long time to get elected to the Senate in that state.

And so, I went down to Washington, and right after the -- I got elected, there was an unfortunate accident in my family while I was -- wasn't old enough to be sworn in, as the gov knows. I had to wait 17 days to be eligible. And I was hiring staff. Teddy Kennedy let me use his office to hire staff, and I got a phone call from my local fire department saying my wife and daughter had just been killed in an automobile accident and my two sons were very badly injured. We weren't sure they were going to make it.

And so, I didn't want to go. And as Chris can tell you well, as one of my best friends in the Senate -- best friends, period -- that a number of the senior senators came to me and say, "Look, just stay for six months." If they only knew. "Ju- -- just stay for six months." And they saved my sanity.

But I got appointed to two very important committees that everybody wanted to get on. The three most sought-after committees in the Congress in the Senate were the Appropriations Committee, where the money is; and Foreign Relationship, where -- Foreign Relations, where the international -- all the international issues are; and Judiciary, which was a very contentious time during the Civil Rights Movement.

And so, I showed -- Henry Kissinger was going to testify on whether or not we were going to stay in Iraq. Remember -- you know, none of you women are old enough; some of the men may be -- -- that whether or not we're going to stay in Sector 3 in Vietnam or we're going to leave and end the war.

To make a long story not quite so long, so I showed up and I had all my questions prepared, Chris. And I sat in the -- you know, that Foreign Relations Committee room with the horseshoe there -- seating -- at the very end, the most junior guy. And I'm sitting there wondering where everybody is. And what happens is a young secretary goes, "Can I help you, Senator?" I said, "Yes, I'm here for the Kissinger hearing." She said, "Oh, that -- that's over in S101."

I went, "Where in the hell is that?" I had never been there. It was over in the Capitol. She told me it was on the first floor of the Capitol. So, I went, literally jogging -- rushed, sprinting across the Mall, and it was a warm day. I was perspiring like hell. I'm running, fa- -- looking at the little plaques on the door. I find 101, and it's a louvered door that opens outward.

So, I grab the door and pull. I -- my hand was perspiring by then. And all of a sudden, a cop grabs me and spins me around and throws me against a wall. I swear to God.

He says, "Where in the hell do you think you're going, kid?" I said, "I'm embarrassed. I'm a -- I'm a -- I'm a U.S. senator." He said, "Oh, geez. Okay, go ahead."

And as Chris will remin- -- and the others that have been in that room will tell you, it's a beautiful frescoed ceiling in that -- that meeting room with a great big -- it's like a miniature Cabinet room. And so, there's double doors -- French doors that open inward.

And my hand was perspiring, and I pushed the door open, and it slipped out of my hand and smashed against the filing cabinets. And all of a sudden, I find myself in the back of Henry Kissinger. Literally. And so, I sat down, making myself the third-ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It went bad to worse.

Got to the very end of the process and Senator Mansfield was then chairing because Senator Fulbright had to go to the floor. And he said, "Any more questions?" And I said, "Yes, I do." And they kind of looked at me like, "Oh, God."

So, I said, "Mr. Secretary…" And all -- he put his hands up and he said, "Mr. Chairman, I thought we agreed: No staff in the committee room."

I said, "Thank you, Secretary Dulles." And things got better from there.

But so -- I'm accustomed not being able to get on elevators. But I wish -- I've been the youngest for too long, now I'm the damn oldest. I like being young.

Look, thank you, Lisa, for being here and allowing me to be in your home and for hosting us tonight.

Look, thanks to everyone here and especially to my buddy Chris. That's not hyperbole. He's always been there -- the good and the bad in my life -- always there to help me.

And Ned -- Ned was the first governor in the United States to endorse me in 2020, stepped up for me. We Irish don't forget, Ned.

And, Susan, your lieutenant governor, thanks for your leadership. And thanks for the members of Congress.

You know, Richard Blumenthal is a real class guy. He and my son -- my son was Attorney General, and Richard took care of my son, who passed away -- my son Beau. He looked out for him and was -- and never -- and my son always talked about you, for real -- for real -- because of the way you treated him.

And Chris Murphy, who -- and Jim Himes are two -- Chris, the senator, and Jim, state rep -- two of the most polished and most informed members of the United States Congress. Thank God they're there. They're great partners in all the progress we made in the last four years.

And thanks to all of you -- -- for your support.

Look, folks, this campaign has entered uncharted territory. Last week, for the first time in American history, a former President is convicted -- a convicted felon. He's now seeking the office of the presidency.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: But as -- but as disturbing as that is, more demanding, more damaging is the all-out assault Donald Trump is making on the American system of justice. An all-out assault is being supported by the Republican Party -- the MAGA Party.

And, by the way, it's surprised me -- I don't know about Chris and Murph and the rest -- but it's surprised me some of the people we know who are much better men and women than they have -- appear to be are all falling in line -- I'm not quite sure why -- on the Republican side.

An all-out assault that is completely without any basis. What happened in New York was profound as it was simple. The American people -- a principle that no one is above the law -- it was reaffirmed. It was that basic.

But now Donald Trump wants you to believe it's all rigged. But nothing could be further from the truth. The facts are Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a state case, even though he said Biden set this up, and not a federal case. And it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens -- American citizens, just like the millions of Americans that serve on juries all over the country.

This jury was chosen the same way every other jury was chosen, and it was a process that Donald Trump's own attorney was part of.

The jury heard five weeks of evidence. And after careful deliberations, the jury reached a unanimous verdict on 34 counts of felony. Now he will be given an opportunity to appeal, like every citizen has a right to do.

That's how the American system works. That's how justice works in American. And it's reckless and dangerous and downright irresponsible for anyone to say that it's rigged just because they don't like the verdict.

Our justice system has endured for 250 years in this country. It's been the cornerstone of American democracy. And that's not hyperbole; it's a fact. The justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down.

So, I want to thank -- I want you to think about what Trump is doing. He's attacking both the judiciary and the election system as rigged. Nothing could be more dangerous for the country, more dangerous for the American democracy.

Folks, here's what is becoming clearer and clearer every day. The threat Trump poses would be greater in a second term than it was in his first. This isn't the same Trump that got elected in 2016. He's worse. Something snapped in this guy, for real, when he lost in 2020. He can't accept loss. He can't accept the fact that he lost. It's literally driving him crazy.

That's why the 6 th -- January 6 th happened. Trump tried to challenge the election results on every legisla- -- every legal avenue. Over 60 cases -- 60 court cases unanimously rejected his outrageous claims. Trump failed in the courts, and he unleashed an insurrection.

Now he's running again. He's not only obsessed with losing in 2020, he's clearly been -- and I mean this sincerely -- a little unhinged.

Just listen to his rantings. He says he wants to be, in his words, a dictator for one day.

He said he wants, in his words, to "terminate" the Constitution when necessary.

He asked the -- if he thought violence would occur if he lost. He said, "It depends."

He calls convicted is- -- insurrectionists who are in prison now "patriots." And if re-elected, he wants to pardon "every one" of them. His words. "Every one."

Trump says if he loses again in November -- these are his words -- there will be a "bloodbath" in America. If he loses, there will be a "bloodbath." My God. What kind of man is this? The things he's saying.

In fact, just this weekend, he said MAGA supporters would reach a "breaking point." Throughout his campaign, Trump has made it clear that running is the exact -- is his way to exact revenge. That's what he talks about. Now, after his criminal convictions, it's clear he's worried about pre- -- preserving his freedoms.

But while Trump is worried about preserving his freedom, he's got no problem taking away your freedoms. Trump brags about how he's the reason why Roe v. Wade was overturned. The first time in our history, because of Donald Trump, a fundamental constitutional guarantee was taken away from the American people, from women in America.

Well, guess what? Kamala and I and a Democratic Congress are the reason why Roe v. Wade is going to be reinstated once again .

If you're my age, you may recall, even though it wasn't so prevalent in my time, duck-and-cover drills in grade school. Well, more children in America are killed by guns than anything else and they have duck-and-cover drills in public schools and schools across the county. It's -- it's ironic.

Trump has got no problem taking away the freedom of children who just want to go to school safely without fear and violence. He told the NRA, the National Ri- -- Rifle Association, at their national convention not long ago, he was proud -- in his words that "I did nothing -- did nothing on guns when I was president." He's doing nothing. He made the situation worse.

He's going to undo everything we've done on guns since we've been elected, including the most significant gun safety law in 30 years -- just ask Senator Chris Murphy, who was the -- instrumental in writing and getting that passed.

But that's not all. We pay more for prescription drugs than any other advanced nation in the world. With the help of congressional members here in this room, we finally beat Big Pharma by giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, like the Veterans Administration is able to negotiate prices for drugs for veterans.

Now seniors with diabetes will only have to pay $35 a month because of what I wrote instead of $400 a month. And starting next year, seniors will have to have a cap of $2,000 on all the drugs they consume, and that includes expensive cancer drugs that cost $10-, $12-, $14,000 a year.

It not only saves people's lives and money, it saves the American taxpayer -- what we've done so far -- $160 billion so far -- -- because Medicare does not have to pay prices. Medicare no longer has to pay those exorbitant prices.

In the second term, we're going to make sure insulin is 35 bucks a month and the drug costs are $2,000 a year maximum for every single American, not just seniors. But Trump wants to undo that law as well and give back Big Pharma to rip off American people, charge you whatever they want for the medications you badly need. It's outrageous and it's absolutely -- absolutely outrageous.

And, of course, he still wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act -- it used to be called Obamacare -- that protects millions of Americans from being denied coverage because they have preexisting conditions. They could not afford health insurance at all. It's a historic law. It's saving lives. And Trump wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. But I'm not only protecting it, I'm expanding it.

Trump got elected in 2016. He told everyone he didn't need anyone's money was -- he was so wealthy and so well situated. He not only lied then; he's lying now. He's desperate. He's out selling Bibles and golden sneakers. Think of that. I mean, God -- anyway.

What's more troubling: He's selling his presidency to the highest bidder down in Mar-a-Lago. He just told Big Oil executives that if they give him 1 dollar -- 1 million -- billion dollars in campaign contributions, he would be their -- he would have, in their words, "a deal" because of tax and regulations he would help them avoid. And then he said when it ended, "I'm going to drill, drill, drill, drill." This guy thinks there's no such thing as global warming.

Folks, when Kamala and I came to office, the pandemic was raging, the economy was reeling. And what did Trump do? He denied -- even though he gave an interview acknowledging he knew it -- the deadly nature of COVID. He told us to inject bleach in his skin. Well, guess what? I think he must have injected it in his brain because -- .

Over 1 million people would go on to die. How many of them didn't need to die if we just acted sooner? But we've come a long way since then. Because of what we did, COVID no longer controls our lives.

We had increased the nat- -- and we've incre- -- he increased the national debt when he was in there for four years by $18 trillion. And this guy talks about managing the budget?

He's also the only president other than Herbert Hoover to lose more jobs by the time he left office than when he entered office.

On our watch, we've created a record 15 million new jobs. Unemployment has been under 4 percent for over two years with historic lows in Black and Hispanic unemployment. The fastest small-business creation in three decades because of our actions. Record economic growth and wages continue to rise. The most significant investment in climate ever in the history of the world. A record investment in rebuilding America -- our roads, bridges, ports, airports, clean water systems, affordable high-speed Internet.

Remember it was going to be -- next month was going to be "Infra- -- In- -- Infrastructure Month"? Well, guess what? We have infra- -- you're going to have infrastructure for 10 years what we've done so far -- helping grow the economy by creating first-rate jobs.

And, look, I know we have more to do. Too many folks are still -- for -- things are tough for them. Inflation has dropped from 9 percent to 3 percent. And we're going to keep working to bring it down further. Just last week, former Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers wrote, and I quote, "If you're worried about inflation, Trump is just going to make it a hell of a lot worse." And he will.

Everything Trump is proposing -- and he's laid out what he would do: new tax cuts for the super wealthy and the biggest corporations that will explode the federal deficit; giving -- gi- -- giving back the power to change those -- charge those hidden fees called "junk fees" on everything from credit card bills -- or overcharge to hotel; a huge new consumer tax in the form of a giant 10 percent tax on every product shipped into America. Almost every expert will tell you that it's going to drive up inflation considerably.

Let me close with this. We've made a lot of progress, and we can create even more progress, but we've got to keep it going. That's why I need all of you.

We're building the biggest grassroots operation in the history of politics. Already -- this is -- is about grassroots -- we have more than 2 million individuals, as of the end of May -- 2 million individuals, roughly 90 percent of all -- of them con- -- contributors who contributed less than $200. Two million. Two million.

We've raised more money than any president has at this point because of people like you. But the point is it's a groundswell. It's all over America. Two million individual contributors.

And the polls are moving our way. The polls show that roughly half the independents thought Trump should drop out of the race because of the criminal convictions.

Folks, in just a few days, I'll be in Normandy Beach in France on the 80 th anniversary of D-Day invasion -- one of the most important moments in the history of defense of freedom and democracy in the history of the world. You know, what those soldiers died for must never be given up.

I want to say as clearly as I can: Democracy -- and I've been saying this for a while -- democracy is literally on the ballot this year. The future of democracy and freedom is at stake. We have brave soldiers who gave their lives on the beaches of Normandy who did their part.

You may recall, this -- I'm glad I wasn't with him. I lost my son because of being near a burn pit for a year in Iraq. He was a major in the United States Army, attorney general of the state of Delaware.

Glad I wasn't with him when he said -- remember, he wouldn't go up to the Normandy -- he wouldn't go up to that -- that American cemetery in -- in [DEL: Italy :DEL] [France]? Why? He said they're "losers" and "suckers." "Losers" and "suckers." Who in the hell does he think he is?

This guy does not deserve to be president, whether or not I was running. Now we have to do our part. We have to do it together.

I've never been more optimistic in my entire career. We just have to remember who the hell we are. We are the United States of America. There is nothing -- nothing beyond our capacity. We're the only nation in the history of the world that's come out of every crisis stronger than we went in. It's time for us to stand up and take it back. It's time for us to do what we can do. It's time for us to give everybody a shot.

My dad used to say, "Joey, your job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It's about your dignity. It's about your honor. It's about being able to look your kid in the eye and say, 'Honey, it's going to be okay.'" Well, that's what's happening now. We're on the cusp.

We've gone from trickle-down economics to the point where we're in a situation where we build from the middle class out and the bottom up. And that way the wealthy still do very well. No one wealthy is hurting at all. We're in good shape. So, we have to keep it going that way.

Remember -- remember why we're in this. We're in this to make life better for everybody. Just give people, as my dad would say, an even chance. Just a shot. Nothing guaranteed, just a shot. Give them a shot, they'll step up.

This is the United States of America. And we're going to do it.

God bless you all. And may God protect our troops. Thank you.

7:58 P.M. EDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. will attend the G7 Leaders' Summit in Apulia, Italy on June 13-14. The President and G7 leaders will discuss a range of the most pressing global issues, including the G7's unwavering support for Ukraine. Leaders will advance efforts to make use of Russia's immobilized sovereign assets to help Ukraine as well as actions to continue imposing costs on Russia and those who support Russia's war effort. G7 leaders will take steps to promote economic security and resilience, including by addressing harmful overcapacity. The President and G7 leaders will also redouble commitments to support developing countries seeking to make investments in their future and to help strengthen food security and health financing.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

New actions will bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum

Biden taking action as Congressional Republicans put partisan politics ahead of national security, twice voting against toughest reforms in decades

Since his first day in office, President Biden has called on Congress to secure our border and address our broken immigration system. Over the past three years, while Congress has failed to act, the President has acted to secure our border. His Administration has deployed the most agents and officers ever to address the situation at the Southern border, seized record levels of illicit fentanyl at our ports of entry, and brought together world leaders on a framework to deal with changing migration patterns that are impacting the entire Western Hemisphere.

Earlier this year, the President and his team reached a historic bipartisan agreement with Senate Democrats and Republicans to deliver the most consequential reforms of America's immigration laws in decades. This agreement would have added critical border and immigration personnel, invested in technology to catch illegal fentanyl, delivered sweeping reforms to the asylum system, and provided emergency authority for the President to shut down the border when the system is overwhelmed. But Republicans in Congress chose to put partisan politics ahead of our national security, twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of reforms in decades.

President Biden believes we must secure our border. That is why today, he announced executive actions to bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. These actions will be in effect when high levels of encounters at the Southern Border exceed our ability to deliver timely consequences, as is the case today. They will make it easier for immigration officers to remove those without a lawful basis to remain and reduce the burden on our Border Patrol agents.

But we must be clear: this cannot achieve the same results as Congressional action, and it does not provide the critical personnel and funding needed to further secure our Southern border. Congress still must act.

The Biden-Harris Administration's executive actions will:

Bar Migrants Who Cross the Southern Border Unlawfully From Receiving Asylum

President Biden issued a proclamation under Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212 and 215 suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the Southern border into the United States unlawfully. This proclamation is accompanied by an interim final rule from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that restricts asylum for those noncitizens.

These actions will be in effect when the Southern border is overwhelmed, and they will make it easier for immigration officers to quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.

These actions are not permanent. They will be discontinued when the number of migrants who cross the border between ports of entry is low enough for America's system to safely and effectively manage border operations. These actions also include similar humanitarian exceptions to those included in the bipartisan border agreement announced in the Senate, including those for unaccompanied children and victims of trafficking.

Recent Actions to secure our border and address our broken immigration system:

Strengthening the Asylum Screening Process

The Department of Homeland Security published a proposed rule to ensure that migrants who pose a public safety or national security risk are removed as quickly in the process as possible rather than remaining in prolonged, costly detention prior to removal. This proposed rule will enhance security and deliver more timely consequences for those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.

Announced new actions to more quickly resolve immigration cases

The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security launched a Recent Arrivals docket to more quickly resolve a portion of immigration cases for migrants who attempt to cross between ports of entry at the Southern border in violation of our immigration laws.

Through this process, the Department of Justice will be able to hear these cases more quickly and the Department of Homeland Security will be able to more quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States and grant protection to those with valid claims.

The bipartisan border agreement would have created and supported an even more efficient framework for issuing final decisions to all asylum seekers. This new process to reform our overwhelmed immigration system can only be created and funded by Congress.

Revoked visas of CEOs and government officials who profit from migrants coming to the U.S. unlawfully

The Department of State imposed visa restrictions on executives of several Colombian transportation companies who profit from smuggling migrants by sea. This action cracks down on companies that help facilitate unlawful entry into the United States, and sends a clear message that no one should profit from the exploitation of vulnerable migrants.

The State Department also imposed visa restrictions on over 250 members of the Nicaraguan government, non-governmental actors, and their immediate family members for their roles in supporting the Ortega-Murillo regime, which is selling transit visas to migrants from within and beyond the Western Hemisphere who ultimately make their way to the Southern border.

Previously, the State Department revoked visas of executives of charter airlines for similar actions.

Expanded Efforts to Dismantle Human Smuggling and Support Immigration Prosecutions

The Departments of State and Justice launched an "Anti-Smuggling Rewards" initiative designed to dismantle the leadership of human smuggling organizations that bring migrants through Central America and across the Southern U.S. border. The initiative will offer financial rewards for information leading to the identification, location, arrest, or conviction of those most responsible for significant human smuggling activities in the region.

The Department of Justice will seek new and increased penalties against human smugglers to properly account for the severity of their criminal conduct and the human misery that it causes.

The Department of Justice is also partnering with the Department of Homeland Security to direct additional prosecutors and support staff to increase immigration-related prosecutions in crucial border U.S. Attorney's Offices. Efforts include deploying additional DHS Special Assistant United States Attorneys to different U.S. Attorneys' offices, assigning support staff to critical U.S. Attorneys' offices, including DOJ Attorneys to serve details in U.S. Attorneys' Offices in several border districts, and partnering with federal agencies to identify additional resources to target these crimes.

Enhancing Immigration Enforcement

The Department of Homeland Security has surged agents to the Southern border and is referring a record number of people into expedited removal.

The Department of Homeland Security is operating more repatriation flights per week than ever before. Over the past year, DHS has removed or returned more than 750,000 people, more than in every fiscal year since 2010.

Working closely with partners throughout the region, the Biden-Harris Administration is identifying and collaborating on enforcement efforts designed to stop irregular migration before migrants reach our Southern border, expand investment and integration opportunities in the region to support those who may otherwise seek to migrate, and increase lawful pathways for migrants as an alternative to irregular migration.

Seizing Fentanyl at our Border

Border officials have seized more fentanyl at ports of entry in the last two years than the past five years combined, and the President has added 40 drug detection machines across points of entry to disrupt the fentanyl smuggling into the Homeland. The bipartisan border agreement would fund the installation of 100 additional cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect fentanyl at our Southern border ports of entry.

In close partnership with the Government of Mexico, the Department of Justice has extradited Nestor Isidro Perez Salaz, known as "El Nini," from Mexico to the United States to face prosecution for his role in illicit fentanyl trafficking and human rights abuses. This is one of many examples of joint efforts with Mexico to tackle the fentanyl and synthetic drug epidemic that is killing so many people in our countries and globally, and to hold the drug trafficking organizations to account.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2024

PRESS SECRETARY KARINE JEAN-PIERRE

Aboard Air Force One

En Route White Plains, New York

5:54 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, everybody.

All right. I don't have a topper, so who is --

Q

Q Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I'm so sorry. Go ahead.

Q Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi. How are you?

Q So -- I'm good. How are you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I'm good.

Q The President spent most of his day in Wilmington, and he left after the jury had been impaneled in his son's case. Will this case affect his ability to do his day job?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Absolutely not. Obviously, the President is the President of the United States, and he always puts the American people first and is capable of doing his job.

I will point you to the President's statement. I know many of you have seen the statement. But I will just reiterate what the President put out -- what we put out on behalf of the President today, which is: "I am the President, but I am also a dad. Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today. Hunter's resilience in the face of adversity and the strength of -- the strength he has brought to his recovery are inspiring to us. A lot of families have loved ones who have overcome addiction and know -- and know what we mean.

As the President, I don't and won't comment on pending federal cases, but as a dad, I have boundless love for my son, confidence in him, and respect for his strength. Our family has been through a lot together, and Jill and I are going to continue to be there for Hunter and our family with our love and support."

Outside of the President's statement, I don't have anything else to share.

Q And then on -- on --

Q Karine, just following up on that. Did he watch the tr- -- you know, you can't watch the trial. Did he get updates on it? Did he speak with his son after the court proceedings ended? How did he follow along? Obviously, the First Lady was there today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And, Tyler, I appreciate the question, and I know it's going to be asked a million different ways. I just don't have anything to share. I -- all I have to share with all of you is what we shared this morning -- is the President's statement.

Q Can you share what he did today? We didn't see him all day. There was no schedule of what he did.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don't have to share with you on -- on -- what I can say is the President -- as you know, he made some calls. He called -- he called the newly elected Mexico president. We put out a statement there. And so -- and so, what I can say that he certainly continues to work on behalf of the American people. That's something that he does day in, day out. I just don't have anything to say at th- -- as it's related to the event today.

Q Did President Biden -- during his call with the new Mexican president today, did -- did he, you know, brief her at all on his new border executive order? And did she provide any reaction, if this came up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I don't have anything to announce on all -- all the reporting that's out there about -- about what you just asked me about an EO on immigration. What I can say is we are constantly and will continuously look at all options to try and -- and to try and really deal with the immi- -- immigration system, a system that's been broken for decades.

You've heard the President say this. You heard the President take action. You saw the President take action on the first day of his -- of his tenure here as president when he put forward a comprehensive piece of legislation. I do not have anything to announce. And you saw this is a president who wants to fix this, who wants to deal with the -- a broken immigration system.

And last year, you s- -- last year, pardon me -- last week, you saw Republicans in the Senate vote against -- against an opportunity to have the toughest, fairest piece of legislation that he wanted to sign into law to deal with a broken system. So, they don't want to fix the problem. The President does.

I just don't have anything to share on any -- any of the reporting that's out there today.

Q Earlier --

Q He also spoke with the --

Q Earlier this year --

Q -- Qatari Amir today. Can you tell us -- can you give us an update on the discussions about the ceasefire? The President was pretty upbeat about getting this done, but we haven't yet seen that from the region.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, what I can say is obviously you heard from the President on -- on Friday speak to this. I can say that Qatar transmitted the proposal to Hamas on Thursday night, hence the President speaking to this on Friday.

The -- the ball is in Hamas's court. And if it wants to -- if it wants a ceasefire and relief for the Ga- -- the people of Gaza, this is now in Hamas's hand to -- to make a decision on. And so -- and so, as you just stated, the President spoke to -- spoke to the Qat- -- the Qatari government today. I just don't have anything else to say outside of the readout that we'll share -- or if they -- if it hasn't been shared, will share.

Q Has he spoken to Benjamin Netanyahu again since his --

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don't --

Q -- most recent call?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don't have anything to read out at this time.

Q And does he have any comment or do you have any comment on -- on the invitation and the now scheduled trip? Netanyahu will be here in D.C. -- or in D.C. while the President is in Italy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don't have anything to confirm, any dates to speak to. I would have to refer you to the Hill.

Q Has the White House been told anything about what happened with the New York Stock Exchange today? There seemed to be some technical issues this morning.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don't have anything to share from here. That's something for the Stock Exchange to speak to.

Q Could you -- could you explain at all or describe the President's emotional state today? A lot was going on.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You heard from the President directly in his statement. Outside of that, don't have anything else. The President and the First Lady love their son. They support their son. You've -- you've heard them say that. You've seen that many times in statements and certainly in the statement today. I don't have anything else beyond that.

Q Karine, do you have any updates in terms of the discussions on the proposals that President Biden made in the State of the Union Address? One of those measures is to provide credits -- tax credits for people -- first-time house -- homebuyers. You know, do -- are you optimistic that that will find any kind of, you know, support in this very bifurcated Congress?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, as you know, from very early on in his administration, the President wanted to deal and has found ways to deal with home- -- homeownership and rent --people renting homes as well. That's why the American Rescue Plan is so important. He put together a task force to deal with this. You -- as you stated, from his State of the Union Address, he made an announcement on how to move forward to give Americans a little bit more relief.

Look, we're just going to continue to talk to Congress, continue to encourage Congress to do more, to join the Pra- -- President in a bipartisan way. These are issues -- when you think about housing, these are issues that is -- one of the most important issues for the American people, is housing, is the -- is costs and lowering costs.

And that's why the President -- when it comes to the economy, that is at the center of his economic policy, is to deal with continuing to find ways to lower costs for the American people.

I don't have any news to share on that. But certainly, that is a priority for the President.

Q Do you have any comment -- do --

Q Do you intend to nominate someone to replace Marcia Fudge? Sorry. Just on the housing, do -- do you intend to nominate somebody before the end of the year, or --

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No -- no new annou- -- new announcement on that personnel announcement. As you know, the Deputy of -- of HUD is now Acting Secretary. The President has full confidence in the leadership of -- the senior leadership at HUD. Want to continue to do the great job that we have been doing over the past three years. I don't have any personnel announcement.

Go ahead, Eugene.

Q Do you have any comment on the criticisms that President Biden isn't going to this peace summit on Ukraine in Switzerland and instead is -- you know, I know the Vice President and -- and Jake Sullivan are going, but a lot of other nations are sending their heads of state. And he'll be in California at the fundraiser.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look -- I mean, look, I know my colleagues at NSC has talked about this. And I'll just say, like, no one has been a stronger -- obviously a stronger champion for Ukraine than President Biden. We have actively participated in each of the previous Ukraine peace summits and strongly support President Zelenskyy's proposal to reach a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

As you just stated, Eugene, the Vice President is going to go. The National Security Advisor is going. They are both going to . And that shows how serious we take this and continue to take this. It's a high level of pre- -- representation, obviously, from the Biden-Harris administration.

Ukraine will continue to have no stronger friend and support than the United States under this president -- under President Biden. And you see that. You see that through making sure we got this national security supplemental and getting that through, continuing to get that support.

And so, the President is -- is that -- that -- that support for Ukraine is -- is unwavering and continues to stand.

Q One more question on --

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q -- on immigration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q The White House has made clear that there's going to be some sort of executive action, and earlier this year, President Biden said he had exhausted all of his presidential powers. What has changed now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I've always said -- look, I don't have anything to announce at this time on any action that -- that this administration has taken. So, no announcement at this time. But what I will say -- and we have said this many times -- we continue to look at all options on the table and continue to find ways to deal with an immigration that has been broken -- a system that has been broken for decades to deal with the challenges at the border, which is something that majority of Americans care about.

And we have said that we are going to continue to find all ways to do just that. And we're on board. We want to make sure that we get to a place where we deal with the broken immigration system. Senate Republicans decided something else. They decided to -- to vote -- to pick, you know, partisan politics instead of picking the majority of American people and where they stand. This is not this president.

As far as anything to announce on immigration, I don't have anything at this time.

Q I might have missed it, but why isn't the President going to the Ukraine peace conference?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, as you know, and I just stated in my answer to -- to Eugene, is that we have always had representation at these summit -- these peace summits in the past. It continues. And I have said as -- as -- in answering the question, this President has shown his strong support for the people of Ukraine as they're fighting against Russia's aggression.

We have shown that for more than two years, making sure we get that support, making sure that they get the security assistance that they need. The President went to Kyiv, as you all know, a warzone, to show how much he supports Ukraine and what they're trying to do in fighting for their freedom.

He got NATO together. He got more than 50 countries to stand behind Ukraine. I don't think there is any other leader that has shown their support for Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and what they're fighting for, which is their freedom and democracy.

You have the Vice President going. You have the National Security Advisor going. That shows a high level of engagement for a peace summit, again, that we have -- consistently have been a part of. And that -- that's not going to change.

Q Did the President engage in any debate prep over the weekend? How has he been --

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don't have anything to share on that. I would refer you to the campaign on anything that's related to the debate.

All right, guys. Thanks, everybody. I'll see you on the ground.

6:04 P.M. EDT

|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024

The Vice President is in Los Angeles, CA where she will tape an interview with Jimmy Kimmel for ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live!.

Then, she will participate in a political event in Los Angeles, CA that will be closed press.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

BY WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY

COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR JOHN KIRBY

Via Teleconference

11:35 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Good Monday morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us for the NSC News of the Day Gaggle with John Kirby.

I'd like everyone to pause for a moment and join us in wishing John Kirby a very special happy birthday, which he is hating me for announcing to you all right now.

MR. KIRBY: You're a dead man, Sean.

MODERATOR: With that important announcement, I'll turn it over to Kirby.

MR. KIRBY: Good morning, everybody. As I think you saw, today we announced that Vice President Harris and the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, will travel to Lucerne, Switzerland, on the 15 th of this month to participate in the Summit on Peace in Ukraine.

At that conference, they will underscore the Biden-Harris administration's commitment to supporting Ukraine's effort to secure a just and lasting peace based on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and the principles of the U.N. Charter.

At the summit, the Vice President and Mr. Sullivan will highlight the importance of countries around the world continuing to support Ukraine's effort to secure a just and lasting peace.

And I think as you all know, this war could end tomorrow if Mr. Putin would simply withdraw his forces from Ukraine. In the meantime, we will continue, and our allies and partners will continue, to support the people of Ukraine as they fight every day to defend themselves against this aggression.

Now, if I could switch to Mexico. We congratulate Claudia Sheinbaum on her historic election as the first woman president of Mexico. President Biden and the team look forward to working closely with President-Elect Sheinbaum and her team.

As noted in the President's statement that we released this morning, we're committed to advancing the values and interests of both our nations to the benefit of our peoples.

We also congratulate the Mexican people, of course, for conducting a nationwide successful democratic electoral process involving races for more than 20,000 different positions at the local, state, and federal level. It's quite an achievement, and we congratulate them on that.

With that, we can take some questions.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our first question we'll go to the line of Will Weissert with the Associated Press.

Q Hi there. Happy Birthday again. Thanks so much for doing this.

Why did the President make no mention in Friday's remarks about -- that Israel remains determined to destroy Hamas? Why does the administration think that Hamas would be willing to agree with that huge Israeli caveat? And what other gaps, as Netanyahu referred to them, are there between the U.S. and Israel?

MR. KIRBY: The President has spoken numerous times about the right and responsibility of the Israelis to eliminate the threat that Hamas poses right across their border. Nothing has changed about that. The purpose of the speech was to lay out the details of this recent proposal for a hostage release, a ceasefire, and a potentially -- a potential end to hostilities for the long term. And that was the reason he wanted to lay that out for the American people.

But make no mistake -- I mean, he remains consistently supportive of Israel's right and responsibility to go after the threat posed by Hamas.

I didn't write down all your questions, but I think you asked about -- oh, why we think Hamas would go for this.

I think -- I would point you to comments that Hamas leaders themselves made on Friday, which was that they were -- that they received the President's speech in a positive way. And now they've got this proposal; they got it Thursday night. We're awaiting an official response by them. And they ought to take the deal. This gives them what they've been looking for, which is a ceasefire and, over time, through the phases, the potential withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

So they ought to take this deal. It's very forward-leaning. And it's good for the people of Gaza, good for the Israeli people. And they just need to move forward on it.

As for the gaps, I don't know what gaps you're referring to. I mean, I've heard different statements coming out of Israel. The Israeli Foreign Minister himself acknowledged that this was the Israeli proposal, that it was accurately -- that it is the Israeli proposal. And we're confident that it accurately reflects that proposal, a proposal that we worked with the Israelis on. So I know of no gaps to speak of.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we'll go to Steve Holland with Reuters.

Q John -- and Happy Birthday, John. How did it come about that the President announced an Israeli -- a ceasefire plan? And did the Israelis know he was going to do it?

MR. KIRBY: Can you repeat that again?

Q How did it come about that the President announced an Israeli ceasefire plan? And did the Israelis know he was going to do it?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, we informed them that the President was going to speak on the hostage deal before he did, of course.

And to your first question, it's important to remember this was -- it is an Israeli proposal. It's one that we and they worked on through some intense diplomacy. It's the result of our own diplomatic efforts with Israel. But it is, in fact, their proposal that they have, again, publicly acknowledged is, in fact, their proposal.

The President felt that it was important to lay it out there publicly. As you know, Steve, we don't typically go through the details of these kinds of proposals. But in this case, given where we are, given how much longer the hostages have now been held, given the fact that Hamas has reneged on several past occasions on proposals that were sent to them, and given the fact that the Israelis really did work hard to come up with this proposal and did so in good faith, the President felt it was important, for the first time, to publicly lay that out.

The timing was related based on the fact that, the night before, we had given it to Hamas. So that's what explains a Friday speech, is that Thursday it went to Hamas.

But he thought it was important to lay out the details publicly so that the whole world can see what was in here and the whole world could see how seriously Israel was taking this, and to make it clear that Hamas absolutely needs to accept this proposal. It's a good one. It gets us six weeks of peace. It gets us the hostages out. It gets us the ability to negotiate for phase two, which would get all the hostages out and a potential cessation of hostilities.

This, as the President said in his speech, is the best way to end this conflict.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we'll go with Nick Schifrin from PBS.

Q Hey, John. Happy Birthday. Just going to be --

MR. KIRBY: I'm going to kill Sean Savett.

Q Quick fact-check elucidation. You've said twice now Hamas received the proposal Thursday night. Can you just confirm that was -- it's a proposal in writing that they got?

And my two major --

MR. KIRBY: Correct.

Q Okay, got it. Great.

And two major questions. Have you received any Israeli assurance that an agreement agreed to by the war cabinet would be authorized by the full cabinet?

And a senior administration official on Friday night told us it was, quote, "minor differences" between this draft and what Hamas had put forward. Don't suppose you can detail what those minor differences are? Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: No, I really can't. I don't want to go into any more detail than the President did. And quite frankly, I hope you would agree the President actually laid out a lot of detail in terms of the phases and what each phase would produce.

But for those minor differences, I think it's best if I don't go there.

I'll let the Israelis speak to their internal domestic politics. This is an Israeli proposal. The Foreign Minister himself acknowledged that. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that. This is their proposal. I'll let them speak to internally how they arrived at it. But as I told Steve, it was certainly the result of a lot of diplomacy between them and our team over recent weeks.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we'll go with MJ Lee from CNN.

Q Hi, John. Happy Birthday. And thanks for spending a part of your birthday with us.

First of all, just on the ceasefire deal, can you quickly confirm whether it is correct that the ball is in Hamas's court right now?

MR. KIRBY: First of all, there's no other place I'd rather be on my birthday than with all of you.

And secondly, yes, it is fair to say that the ball is in Hamas's court.

Q Okay. And I was hoping you could help us make sense of the Prime Minister's response to the President's speech on Friday. So, the Prime Minister said that there can be no permanent ceasefire until the destruction of Hamas's military and governing capabilities, among other things. The President said in his speech last week that Hamas has been degraded to such a point that it couldn't again perpetrate another October 7 th-like attack. So are they not seeing eye to eye on this?

MR. KIRBY: I think I'm going to let the Prime Minister characterize his public comments. What I can tell you is that we've had a lot of diplomatic conversations with the Israelis in recent weeks, during which or after which we arrived -- they arrived at this proposal, their proposal, again, as a result of a lot of diplomacy between us. We're comfortable that it represents fairly and honestly an Israeli proposal, a very forward-leaning Israeli proposal. And we're confident that Hamas needs to take it.

I want to make -- put a punctuation point on this one point, because it came up in the first question. There is no question at all that we don't want to see Hamas pose a threat to the Israeli people. We absolutely agree with the Prime Minister that Hamas and their ability to conduct that kind of an attack again must be prevented, and that Israel has a right and a responsibility to go after that threat and prevent another October 7.

The President said clearly on Friday that, from a military perspective, we don't assess that Hamas can conduct another October 7. We didn't say -- he didn't say that that doesn't mean that Israel can't continue to go after the threat as appropriate. As a matter of fact, as you and I are speaking, they are still operating in Rafah and trying to put pressure on those leaders and some of those military units there. And we understand that.

But now's the time, as they have militarily degraded Hamas to the point where they can't right now conduct another October 7 th -- now, as they continue to put pressure on these leaders and these units in Rafah, now is the time to move forward to the next stage here, get phase one of this in place, get at least some of the hostages out, get a six-week ceasefire, get 600 trucks in a day so that we can get to phase two and a permanent cessation of hostilities.

Again, I won't speak for the Prime Minister's comments and why he said what he said. All I can tell you is this proposal is an Israeli proposal. It is the result of intense diplomacy between our two teams. The President characterized it accurately. And now it's up to Hamas to accept it.

Q And just quickly, you said the Israelis did get a heads up that the President would be making his speech on Friday. Did they object?

MR. KIRBY: Not that I'm aware of.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we'll go with Michelle Jamrisko of Bloomberg. Michelle, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Sorry about that. Good morning, Admiral. And let me add my birthday greetings with apologies.

I wanted to get your reaction to OPEC+ members agreeing to extend to next year their output cuts. How are you seeing that from a national security perspective? And how much pressure do you see that putting on prices at the pump for Americans?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I would just say that the President remains focused on those prices at the pump for consumers, and they continue to come down. I'm not going to be able to comment on what OPEC does from month to month. Again, our focus is going to be on the price at the pump for consumers. And the President is confident that he's got the strategies in place to do that. But I won't be able to comment much more beyond that.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we'll go with Andrea Mitchell from NBC.

Q Hi, John. Happy Birthday.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

Q Sorry to chime in.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

Q So, could you clarify: The Prime Minister said that he's never agreed to withdraw from Gaza. The President never said there was a complete withdrawal from Gaza. He said it would be a withdrawal from populated parts of Gaza. Is that an important distinction? Because does that leave Israel with control of those buffer zones that they have now created contrary, actually, to what the U.S. wanted?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I think that's getting a little ahead of where we are right now. You're right, the proposal calls for a phased withdrawal from populated centers. I think there's some flexibility in there given the tactical situation in Gaza and what that might look like.

But if we're able to get to phase one and then phase two, an Israeli withdrawal from population centers is certainly not an insignificant move on their part or for the Palestinian people of Gaza.

But that's just further afield of where we are right now. What we need right now is for Hamas to accept this proposal.

Q And let me ask you a couple of other things just very quickly. Clearly, it does not address the number of Palestinian prisoners or their identities, which are always a huge obstacle. I mean, that's -- understandably, you're not in that kind of detail yet, but that's something that would be a hurdle. But it also does not address a pathway to a day after or a Palestinian state or Palestinian governance, which was always part of Secretary Blinken's, you know, initial proposals that he got acceptance from, from all of the Arab states, in a trip to eight different Arab countries several months ago.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Andrea, you're right. So, first of all, on the ratio of prisoners and hostages -- to hostages, I mean, that is actually baked into this first-phase proposal. We didn't offer that level of detail. As I said, the President walked through in great detail but not every detail. And those details are hammered out in that proposal that Hamas has. I'm just not at liberty to go beyond the detail -- the level of detail the President displayed for everybody.

On your second question: You're right, but I would ask you to remember what this is and what it isn't. This proposal the President talked about is, in fact, an extension of the hostage negotiations that we've been engaged in for weeks. It is primarily designed to do three things: get hostages out -- again, in a phased approach; get more humanitarian aid in -- again, in a phased approach, hopefully up to 600 trucks a day; and then get a ceasefire in place.

In the first phase, it will be a temporary ceasefire, six weeks in duration, to allow the teams and the negotiators to negotiate what phase two looks like. And we don't know what phase two could look like. All we know is what the President -- as the President said on Friday, phase two would entail all the remaining hostages, including male soldiers, getting out -- point one; and point two, a set of circ*mstances that would lead to a cessation of hostilities, comma, permanently. That's what phase two would end in.

And that's really what this was about. That was the bounds of it, the left and right side of it that the President talked about. It doesn't talk about a two-state solution or what the day-after governance could look like because that's not what it's about. It's really about getting the hostages home.

But that doesn't mean that we aren't still working hard on day-after governance or that we've given up on the idea of a two-state solution. I think as you saw a week or two ago, I can't remember now, but press coverage about how close we were to an agreement, a bilateral agreement with the Saudis, a significant bilateral agreement between our two countries that could help set the conditions for bringing Israel in and moving forward on this normalization deal.

So, yes, those things weren't discussed in the speech. Yes, they are not in this, but that's because they are not in the proposal that went to Hamas. But again, it does not mean, just because it's not in that proposal, that we're not still working those objectives.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next up we'll go to Danny Kemp with AFP.

Q Hello?

MODERATOR: Hey, Danny, we can hear you.

Q Great. Thank you. Thanks, Admiral. And Happy Birthday. A couple of things, if I may, very briefly.

The first is just on Ukraine and Vice President Harris attending this conference. Doesn't it look a bit bad for the President to be skipping this peace summit for Ukraine and going to a glitzy Hollywood event instead?

And secondly, anything you can tell us on any executive orders on migration that might be announced tomorrow? Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: On your second question: No, I'm not going to go there.

On your first question: What looks bad is when we have a supplemental request sitting on Capitol Hill for six months and the House Republicans refuse to move on it, to supply the arms and ammunition that Ukraine needs while they're getting attacked in the Donbas, and then the Russians decide to start attacking Kharkiv. That's what looks bad.

There hasn't been any single leader around the world who has supported Ukraine more, and more stridently, than Joe Biden. And as I said last week, no matter who represents the United States -- and oh, by the way, the Vice President is representing the United States of America at this summit -- it can't be said that the United States has in any way walked away from supporting Ukraine.

In fact, this whole peace formulation that President Zelenskyy formulated over a year ago and has been trying to operationalize, he's been able to do that, able to have these conversations, able to bring other countries to the table because the United States has been so supportive of this peace formula that he has come up with.

And we're looking forward to having the discussion in Lucerne, both the Vice President and Jake Sullivan, to see what the United States can continue to do to support it.

But you just -- I've been talking about this war since it began, back when I was at the Pentagon. There is no way that you can look at what Ukraine has been able to do over the last two-plus years and not see the hand of the United States there every single step of the way.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we'll go with David Sanger from the New York Times.

Q Thanks. And Happy 40 th, John.

MR. KIRBY:

Q You don't look a day older than this, but if you stay

in this job, you might.

MR. KIRBY: I feel a lot older than the birth certificate would say.

Q Yeah, me too.

So two questions for you. One: On Israel, your usual routine would be to say, "We're not going to make announcements for the Israeli government; it's up to the Israelis." How many times have you said this to us? But in this particular incident, the President made a decision to jam the Prime Minister by announcing this for him and then making him try to prevaricate back and forth about whether or not this was really an Israeli proposal, on which he was a lot less clear than, say, as you pointed out, your foreign minister. Was that the intent?

And then I got a quick question on Ukraine.

MR. KIRBY: No, that was not the intent. This wasn't about jamming the Prime Minister or the war cabinet. This was about laying bare, for the public to see, how well and how faithfully and how assertively the Israelis came up with a new proposal, how it shows how much they really want to get this done.

Really, if anything, this was about putting some public pressure on Mr. Sinwar and Hamas, who has repeatedly refused to accept what Israel has put forward. They simply have not proven willing to take yes for an answer. And every time, the Israelis come back with yes.

Q So why not just let the Israelis announce it and then have the President come out and endorse it and say the ball is in Sinwar's court? That's not how you did it.

MR. KIRBY: That's not how we did it. And as I said, the President felt that where we are in this war, where we are in the negotiations to get the hostages out, that it was time for a different approach and a time to make the proposal public, to try to energize the process here, catalyze a different outcome. The President believed that this was the right approach to do it.

And as I said, the timing was really related to when it was delivered to Hamas, which was the night before.

Q Okay. And on Ukraine: The President obviously, on Thursday, made this decision to allow American arms to be shot into a very limited area of Russia. President Zelenskyy over the weekend thanked him for this and then immediately said: It's not enough. We're going to need to have this right throughout much of the rest of Russia; we're going to need to have it perhaps in other areas.

And we actually heard Secretary Blinken, on the last day of his trip last week, say this may not be the last area that gets approved. Can you help us think through this moment?

MR. KIRBY: Well, I won't get ahead of decisions that haven't been made. As you well know, every step of this war -- as the war has evolved, the battlefield conditions have changed, we have evolved and we have changed our support to Ukraine. And that's -- I wouldn't expect that that general approach is going to be any different in coming weeks and months. We'll see where things go and what the Ukrainians need.

I mean, look, who can blame President Zelenskyy for wanting more stuff and more ability to use that stuff as his country continues to come under attack and as they particularly face a concerted -- a still-concerted effort by Russia to endanger Kharkiv, one of their most important cities in the north?

So, I mean, I don't think it should come as a shock to anybody that President Zelenskyy would be grateful on one hand, but also eager to continue to press his case going forward.

And so we'll have those talks, we'll have those conversations with the Ukrainians. Absolutely, we will. And whether it leads to any additional policy changes, I can't say at this point, but we're not going to turn our back on what Ukraine needs. And we're going to continue to try to, again, evolve our support to them as the battlefield evolves as well.

I would just reiterate that the guidance that we just issued late last week that you're referring to with respect to cross-border counter-fires is specifically focused on Ukraine's defense against military targets that are just over the border and targets that Russia is using to physically launch offensives against Ukraine proper. It just makes common sense.

And our policy with respect to prohibiting the use of ATACMS, for instance, or long-range strikes, inside of Russia has not changed.

MODERATOR: Thank you. For our next question we'll go with Karen DeYoung from the Washington Post.

Q Thank you. Can you hear me?

MODERATOR: Yes, we can.

MR. KIRBY: Go ahead, Karen.

Q You mentioned that Israel is still operating in Rafah and this deal doesn't mean that they can't continue to go after the threat as appropriate. If Hamas said today or tomorrow, or whenever, "Fine, we accept," does Israel immediately stop its operations in Rafah and remove its forces from that populated area? Is it simultaneous with the release of hostages? What happens first? And who takes over governance in populated areas in Gaza?

MR. KIRBY: So, as the President laid out on Friday, if Hamas accepts and we can begin phase one, it would, in fact, mean the first batch of hostages are released, again, over a period of time, of course. And over a corresponding period of time, Israel would withdraw its forces from populated centers. It would also mean, as the President said, the end or the cessation of Israeli military operations in Rafah proper. As for how many troops would move back and over what timeframe, I think that all would have to be ironed out.

And how simultaneous it is, you know, with the release of hostages, I don't have that level of detail. It's not like a shotgun start here that I know of, but it is all part of phase one.

And your second question was on governance in Rafah? Is

that what you said?

Q In Gaza in general. withdraw.

MR. KIRBY: That's what we're trying to get at here. That's why -- to Andrea's question, that's why Secretary Blinken is still working hard. And the President talked about the day after. We've got to get to the day after, and we are having conversations --

Q I'm not talking about the day after. I'm talking about phase one. Who takes over in these places when the Israelis withdraw, both in the north and central Gaza and in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY: Well, I think you heard over the -- I mean, certainly this is a question really more for the Israelis to speak to, but Defense Minister Gallant made comments in just the last day or so about setting up civilian governance centers in Gaza that would be run by Palestinians who are not affiliated with Hamas. But I'd let them characterize that view a little bit more closely.

Q But the Israelis have proposed this before, and the Palestinians have said the Israelis don't get to choose. And people -- the Palestinians rejected that, rejected Israel establishing this, and said, "You don't have anything to do with it." So who decides?

MR. KIRBY: Again, this is the conversation we're having with the Israelis, will continue to have with them. They've proffered some ideas on what that could look like as they would potentially withdraw from Gaza. I'd let them speak to that.

Q And just to now -- so you would expect that if Hamas said today, "Fine, we accept the deal," Israel would immediately begin withdrawing its troops from Rafah ?

MR. KIRBY: What I said was --

Q go after the threat.

MR. KIRBY: What I said was there would be corresponding discussions about the tick-tock and exactly when the hostages would be released, when the prisoners would be released, and then when Israeli forces would begin to move out of population centers. But as our understanding, in phase one, as soon as phase one begins, that operations in Rafah would end. That is our understanding.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We just have time for a couple more. We'll go to Ron Kampeas with JTA.

Q Oh, thank you for taking my question. First of all, it seems that the crux of the disagreement as to -- between the Israelis and you guys on this thing has to do with President Biden saying the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue. That seems to suggest that basically, you know, the temporary ceasefire is going to be a permanent ceasefire, and the Israelis aren't able to do anything about it. And so, it'd be interesting to understand how exactly you do understand the transition between phase one and phase two.

And the broader question is that: On October the 10 th, the President said "pure, unadulterated evil" has unleashed on this world. And I think what the Israelis want to know is: How can you leave pure, unadulterated evil in place as a part of this deal? Hamas gets to continue to exist, you know, maybe perhaps not in a capacity in which it can carry out an October the 7 th, but it's still there. And I think that -- I'd just like you to address that.

MR. KIRBY: Look, I don't think I can say it any better than the President said, to your first question. During the six weeks of phase one, Israel and Hamas will negotiate the arrangements to get to phase two, which would be -- which would represent a cessation of hostilities, a permanent cessation of hostilities.

But there's an awful lot of work that has to be done to negotiate what phase two looks like. And as the President also said, you know, those negotiations would have to proceed in good faith between Israel and Hamas. And Israel will want to, as they have a right to in these negotiations, make sure that their interests are protected, of course.

And that gets to your second question. We don't ever want to see another October 7 th. We don't ever want to see, going forward, Gaza under the control of Hamas, whatever post-conflict Gaza governance looks like.

And, yes, I understand we don't have all that figured out right now. We don't have all the answers to all that right now. We're working on it very, very hard. Whatever it looks like, it can't look like it did on the 6 th of October, when Mr. Sinwar had the ability, singlehandedly, to violate a ceasefire that was in place and send his fighters into Israel to slaughter 1,200 people. That can't happen again.

Now, what that looks like going forward, I can't tell you right now. But if the essence of your question -- and if I don't get it right, you tell me -- but if the essence of the question is, you know, should we expect that Israel should have to live next door to that kind of a terrorist threat, the answer is no, of course not.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We have time for just one more question. We'll go to Haley Bull with Scripps.

Q Hey. Thank you. And Happy Birthday, John. I wanted to go back to some of Netanyahu's statements since the President's announcement. Is there any concern that him so publicly speaking about their insistence of reaching their war objectives is undermining the pressure you're trying to put on Hamas?

And then, on Ukraine: I know you just outlined all the reasons why the President is such a strong supporter of Ukraine. Given that, why not send him to this peace summit then? Thanks.

MR. KIRBY: On your first question, the short answer is no. It is true that our assessment is that Hamas is militarily not capable of conducting the attacks of October 7 th again. It is true that the Israelis have put an enormous amount of pressure on Hamas and have degraded their capabilities in a very significant way, or their military capabilities.

But even as you and I are speaking here, they are still conducting targeted operations inside Rafah because there are still viable threats by Hamas inside Rafah. There are still tunnel networks where they continue to harbor fighters, potentially hold hostages, and certainly store weapons. And they still have a capability down there, and Israel has every right to go after them. They are, and they're doing it in keeping with the plans that they shared with us, and they're doing it with capabilities that we continue to provide them to use.

So I simply refuse to accept the premise of the question that the President's comments with respect to military capabilities of Hamas somehow undermines Israel's ability to go after them when, in fact, they continue to go after them as you and I are speaking.

And, look, as for the -- your second question: As I said before, Ukraine has no stronger champion than President Biden. And the United States has actively participated in every single one of the previous Ukraine peace summits. Every single one. And as I said earlier, we have been the strongest, most staunch supporter of this peace deal that President Zelenskyy put forward.

Since he put it forward, the United States has been trying to find ways to operationalize it. We're sending the Vice President of the United States and the National Security Advisor to this particular peace summit -- again, because of our desire to be represented around that table.

But as I said last week -- and, by the way, that alone is high level, very serious representation by the United States.

But as I said last week, no matter who it would have been representing the United States, there can be no question that Ukraine has no stronger backer than the United States. And we've proven that time and time and time again over the last two and a half years.

I don't think you can name another nation that has done as much for Ukraine and for their ability to push back on Russia than the United States. And I don't think you can name another leader around the world -- in fact, I know you can't name another leader around the world who has done more than President Biden has to back up President Zelenskyy in every single way possible. I mean, my goodness, we were just talking, to David's question, about the cross-border policy and how that might change. And my answer is that, you know, we're going to continue these conversations; we're going to continue to help them do what they have to do.

You can't name me another foreign leader that's doing as much as Joe Biden.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. And thank you all for joining us for our gaggle today. I hope everyone has a good rest of the day, and feel free to send us an email if we didn't get to your questions.

12:12 P.M. EDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan's Meeting With Baltic Security Advisors

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met today with his counterparts from NATO Allies Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They expressed unwavering support for Ukraine in the face of continued Russian aggression. They also discussed preparations for the July 9-11 NATO Summit in Washington, including concrete steps Allies are working toward to bring Ukraine closer to NATO and to ensure that Ukraine has a bridge to eventual membership. The Allies underscored the importance of strengthening the transatlantic defense industrial base and discussed approaches to unlocking the value of Russian sovereign assets to benefit Ukraine. Mr. Sullivan reaffirmed the ironclad U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and to the security of NATO's eastern flank Allies.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

We, the Leaders of the Group of Seven , fully endorse and will stand behind the comprehensive deal outlined by President Biden that would lead to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages, a significant and sustained increase in humanitarian assistance for distribution throughout Gaza, and an enduring end to the crisis, with Israel's security interests and Gazan civilian safety assured. We reaffirm our support for a credible pathway towards peace leading to a two State solution.

We call on Hamas to accept this deal, that Israel is ready to move forward with, and we urge countries with influence over Hamas to help ensure that it does so.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

On Wednesday, June 5, the Second Gentleman will travel to Reno, NV to participate in a campaign event. This event will be open to pre-credentialed media. Additional details to follow.

Later in the day, the Second Gentleman will deliver remarks at a campaign event. This event will be open to pre-credentialed media. Additional details to follow.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine: A Conversation with the Second Gentleman of the United States

In an interview with Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine, Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff spoke about his career as an entertainment attorney and being the proud husband of the first woman vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris. He highlighted how his legal background helped prepare him for his current role as Second Gentleman and to become a distinguished visitor from practice at Georgetown University Law Center.

The Second Gentleman also spoke about the role the entertainment industry can play in protecting democracy. He told Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine, "We need to be pro-freedom, pro-creativity, protecting intellectual property--these are things that our industry, the entertainment industry, has to lead on."

Read more below:

Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine: A Conversation with the Second Gentleman of the United States

[Tom Ara, 5/31/24]

Thank you for taking the opportunity to sit and speak with me, Doug. The Los Angeles legal community is excited to hear from one of its own!

It has been a while! I'm glad to speak with you and to address my former peers in the Los Angeles legal community.

Back in 1990, when you were admitted to the California State Bar, you started practicing law in Los Angeles. How would you describe the legal profession when you first started out, and how did it compare with the practice you left behind before your move to Washington, D.C. in 2021 to become Second Gentleman?

I started practice in fall of 1990 and left the practice of law at DLA Piper in August of 2020, so I practiced for nearly 30 years. Think about the changes! I started at my first law firm, walked in, and, at that time, there was no computer on the desk. There wasn't even voicemail. I spent a lot of time in the library looking for materials in actual books. I also spent a lot of time in warehouses and file rooms looking at paper documents in boxes. Things moved much slower than they do today. You had to dictate most of your written material. Then, it had to go down to the word processing department at the firm, where it was typed on a typewriter, so you would get your dictation tape and go to the word processing department, wait in line, and often get elbowed out by the senior associates for their projects. There was a lot of this back and forth. So, things took a while.

There wasn't email, so maybe you sent a fax. Things were harder to do, and everything was slower. But there was a lot of collegiality. People understood that if you were out of the office, you were out of the office. If you were on vacation, you really were on vacation. I think in those days there was a sense of collegiality and professionalism and honor, so to speak. It was nice to start at that time: To experience some of the old veteran lawyers who came up trying cases, or in the room, doing deals. And I got to see that. Of course, over time, there was the advent of technology, which sped everything up and kind of depersonalized the workplace a bit. It led to a little less collegiality. But the mission was always the same, and it is still the same today: Doing the highest-level work for clients. We're there for clients, and however you are going to do that work, you're there for them.

So, my experience was that as technology increased and improved, which meant efficiency and productivity improved, you could crank things out a lot faster. Also, you were able to use technology to send things a lot quicker. Before, you would sit and dictate a letter to go back and forth, mail it, and, worst case, fax it. Then, there would be a day or two, or more, for a response from the other side. So, the battle never got that heated too quickly. Now, of course, it's back and forth with email, texts, and messages in rapid succession.

Even with technology, during my practice, I really prided myself on my professionalism, my relationships, my ability to show my word was good, and, if you were dealing with me, you knew you could trust what I was saying. I might be tough but I always wanted to be professional. In our bar, in our community, working at the highest level, you really get to develop some great relationships, especially with opponents and people on the other side of a deal or the other side of a piece of litigation. So, many times, the biggest honor to me was when an opponent referred a matter to me or brought me in on a matter. That really meant a lot to me.

Your nearly three decades of legal practice in Los Angeles were marked by representing clients in the entertainment industry in disputes and litigation. The allure of entertainment law lies in its dynamism--the intersection of creativity, contracts, and controversy. What drew you to this field, and how did it differ from other legal practices?

Probably, like you, I just loved entertainment. I love movies, music, film, TV. But, then, I realized I loved the business of it too. Living in LA, you know, the dads in the neighborhood worked in the "biz." When I was growing up, I realized it was such a big part of our community, and it was something I just wanted to be in. But I also always wanted to be a lawyer too. Growing up, you can ask my mom, and she'll say, "Yeah, fourth grade, he wanted to be a lawyer." A lot of that was because I hated bullies. I hated when people picked on other kids, and I was always there to stand up. I just thought, "Wow, lawyers do that for a living! That's a job: Standing up for other people!" And I thought that's what I wanted to do too. When I was able to merge my love of media and entertainment with my dream of becoming a lawyer, it was just a natural fit to become an entertainment litigator ultimately.

I'm teaching a class on entertainment litigation at Georgetown Law School now, and the topics have changed just in the past three to four years that I've been doing it-- what we're even talking about and what the disputes are. Some of the old-time things you and I worked on--like rights disputes, profit participation, and all the basics-- yes, they are still around, but there's so many new issues now, such as AI, and who owns what, and streaming issues, and just the many ways in which the business is changing. You have to be able to keep up. I do miss the evolution of the business and the constant change, but one constant is always the same: Great clients need great lawyers. I just miss being in the mix. When I see these big matters--I'm still reading the trades, incidentally--I'm thinking, "Oh man, I might have been in the mix for that one!"

Your journey from a successful entertainment lawyer to the first Second Gentleman is nothing short of fascinating. How did you navigate the transition?

I went from something not only that I loved so much--I loved my partners, my colleagues, the clients, the business, the town--and it was such a big part of who I was, and I was good at it. It was a big part of my identity. Then, to go from that on a dime-- literally on a dime--to something completely different that has never been done before, it's a jarring and surreal transition. However, that said, look at what I'm doing. I get to support my wife--the first woman vice president of the nation. And I get to represent this country that I love so much and to travel around the country and the world, representing the United States of America. I have been very fortunate in this role to do a wide variety of things. The portfolio is pretty large: from representing the United States at the Women's World Cup in New Zealand to representing the United States at inaugurations of foreign leaders, or going to the Easter Egg Roll. I get to do so many things. As I said, foremost, I'm representing my country and

also supporting my wife. It helps her, it helps the president, and it helps the administration. So, it's endlessly fascinating. It's something that if I were to leave the profession, which I love so much, this is a pretty amazing way to do it.

Leaving behind your legal practice must have been bittersweet. What do you miss most about practicing law--the adrenaline of a courtroom battle, the thrill of negotiations, or perhaps the camaraderie with fellow attorneys? And, on the flip side, what don't you miss at all?

This is such a great question because I do miss all of that. I miss the action. I really miss all of it! You pick up your phone and, all of a sudden, there's a whole new set of issues awaiting you. And all throughout the day there are important clients who need you for important matters. I miss representing clients who really need a great lawyer in their time of need. I loved the hardest problems for the most important clients--the stuff that's not easy; I loved the stuff that was hard. Also, to really put myself out there for those clients--I miss that. I miss law firm life: the highs and lows--the chase, the recruiting, the clients--all the things we love about law firm life, including the partners who need you to help them on issues and working on firm management issues. So, there's a whole bunch of stuff. But there's also all that action--and stress.

There's also a lot of action here in my present position. You realize people are watching you and listening to you. What I say actually matters, and it gets reported. You really have to be cognizant of being a public figure all of a sudden. So, it's a different kind of buzz, a different kind of stress. However, it's also really exciting and every day there is something new. For example, we've got a campaign we're in right now, too, which I'm fired up about. There's a lot that's happening now that replaces the action and buzz that I loved so much about our legal community here in Los Angeles.

I do not miss the time sheets--not a surprise! But my brain is still operating in that tenth of an hour mindset. My whole timing--everyone is shocked about this--I always know what time it is down to each six minutes! That lawyer tick-tock in your brain never goes away. It's interesting: It's also that same level of productivity that when we develop work here, I want to do billable work in this office, meaning I want to do substantive work that really matters. I don't want to waste any time. That mindset has really helped me in doing public service. It might annoy some of my staff from time to time, but I apply that hard-driving, "big law" partner mentality to everything I do.

In your role as Second Gentleman, your legal training has undoubtedly been an asset. Beyond that, however, what other skills or experiences have proven useful in your current role?

The biggest asset has been being an entertainment lawyer in Hollywood. I had no idea how much that prepared me for this role. Being behind the scenes of people who have been in front of the scenes, I got a bird's eye view of folks who are in front of the camera, so to speak, dealing with stressful situations, staying calm when the situation is not calm and being able to speak extemporaneously, thinking on your feet, always being prepared. All these skills that are necessary to be a successful lawyer in Hollywood have been invaluable in my present position. Plus, being in Hollywood has been invaluable to now being in this front-facing role.

I also have to say that just being a dad and a husband, a family man, has proven very helpful in my present role. Understanding how people are living around the country and around the world, being a family man has really helped inform how I look at these kinds of issues. I can always look at problems and situations that the administration is working on or that I'm working on through the lens of being a dad or through the lens of being a husband. Also, looking through the lens of having a lot of experience in the business community, all of that has really, really helped.

As Second Gentleman, you are in a unique position to champion causes close to your heart. What are some of the causes you have identified and taken on in your role?

Yes, there's a lot to choose from, but I'll highlight three that have probably been most important. One is fighting antisemitism, and hate in general, including Islamophobia, and all forms of hate. I spend a lot of time on these kinds of issues, including to really help to drive the first-ever national strategy to combat antisemitism, which will include a strategy to counter Islamophobia. Again, just fighting hate has been something that from day one I've been focused on.

Two is being married to the first woman in her role as vice president and being the first man in this role, which highlights the whole gender equity issue of fairness. For example, we see it in our profession. We need more women who are equity partners, more women in law firm management. And, of course, that's true in government, military, business, education, you name it. Why is it so unequal? There's slightly over 50 percent women in this country; however, the higher up the professional ladder you go, the fewer women there are. Moreover, this is an issue worldwide. This is an issue that being a man who comes from the business world--the big law world--I thought I could really help move the needle on. And I've really been trying to do so.

And, then, bringing it back home to the legal profession, I am interested in expanding pro bono, access to legal services, encouraging all lawyers to do more, and also just to do more for real people who are actually in need. There are a lot of folks who need help, and there are a lot of lawyers in the profession, so I encourage all our colleagues in the bar to do as much pro bono as possible.

Over the past four years, you have had a unique vantage point as Second Gentleman--an insider's view of our nation's pulse. What do you foresee as the greatest legal and social challenges our country will face in the coming years?

First, I would say the legal challenge is AI--you have to put that right up at the front. What does it mean for the legal profession? How is it going to change how you practice law, and making sure that lawyers are not afraid of technology and embrace it. So, again, think back to my first day on the job--clean desk, no computer, no voicemail, a Dictaphone, and a pad. Now, of course, you have so much technology at your disposal. So, how do you use it as a tool to make sure that lawyers are still being lawyers and representing clients at the highest level?

Second, I would say our rights as citizens. This assault on our rights and our freedoms is something that we all need to take seriously, but especially us lawyers. When you see attacks on the rule of law, the attacks on our Constitution, the attacks on our judges, the attacks on our very system of democracy, we have to take these matters seriously as lawyers. This is a nonpartisan, nonpolitical issue. This is the very basis of who we are as a democracy. That also goes for voting, voting rights, elections, and counting votes. So, all these matters that we have taken for granted, we now need to and must take very seriously as a country. And, as lawyers, we must take these matters seriously. We have to move forward, and we have to prevent our society from moving backward. There's so much good in this country, we have to keep moving it forward, and there's no one better to do that than us lawyers.

Many in the Los Angeles entertainment legal community have closely watched, and supported, Vice President Kamala Harris's rise from district attorney in San Francisco to California Attorney General, then on to become the junior U.S. senator from California, and now vice president. How important has the support of this small yet dedicated community of supporters been to the vice president's success?

It's huge! I mean, she's a lawyer, just like us! It's funny, in a way, like when people always ask me "How did you meet?" "What attracted you to each other?" One of the answers, of course, is: "We're both lawyers." Again, she's like me: She sticks up for people, she hates bullies, she fights for justice and equality, and she's a fierce warrior. And that is so much of what attracted us to each other, and I think our legal community here saw that.

Like some others in the entertainment legal community, I too was at one of those fundraisers for her campaign for California Attorney General in 2010. She claims not to remember meeting me at one of them, but I did meet her. And I saw what we all saw: Here is someone who gets our industry, she knows entertainment, she knows media, she cares about creativity, she cares about protecting rights, and she knows this business, so that was why I supported her in that 2010 race and have continued to support her. Even when we did get together in 2013, as my career was continuing to move forward, she really got it. And the more time she spent with me in LA, she saw my passion for the industry and was able to really see it through my eyes as well. So, I think that only enhanced her support for this great creative community here and their support for her.

As a Distinguished Visitor from Practice at Georgetown Law, you are shaping the minds of future legal professionals during a time of significant change in the world and the legal industry. What are the key lessons you are teaching your students about the future of the legal profession?

I teach entertainment disputes, but it's really broader-based. It's more an entertainment law class on current issues and how if disputes arise out of these current issues, how will you deal with them? I really teach it as a "think as a lawyer, not a law student" approach. Also, I only teach third year students. My goal is, hopefully, to get them, on their way from third-year law school into their legal career, to start thinking about clients and about these issues how a lawyer would and not from the perspective of a law student. We all get that "Well, it could be this, or it could be that" response. However, I say to my students: "Nope! Clients aren't looking for 'it could be this or it could be that.' Clients are looking for advice about how to achieve their goals." That is how I teach the class. In the entertainment class, like I said, I keep it current. We are reading the trades each week. We're looking at hot cases and hot issues, and we talk about them. I also teach a class in a

lternative dispute resolution, and that is more about getting the students to realize that most disputes do not go all the way to trial. We also go through the various methods of negotiations and mediations. I provide a lot of practical exercises. Again, it's all designed to get them thinking and acting like lawyers. And for me, it's one way to keep my brain and my toe in the water, even though I'm not actually doing what I love so much. This is really great for me because I still get to stay involved. Also, I always wondered what it would be like to teach law, and now I get to do that and find it is really rewarding.

The entertainment industry is vibrant and influential. In your opinion, what role does a thriving entertainment industry play in a nation and society at large?

Well, definitely. The world still looks so much to Hollywood at large to be leaders in content. Look at the slate of films that were nominated this past year. It was one of the banner years in 2023, and '24 is off to an amazing start, plus all the great long-form series. There's so much great content coming out now. That will always set an example. But when you talk about "What does it mean?" I refer to what I mentioned earlier, about how we all have to guard against an erosion of rights. We need to be pro-freedom, pro-creativity, protecting intellectual property--these are the things that our industry, that the entertainment industry, has to lead on and to continue to lead on. I make the case when I'm talking about rights and freedom. We need the freedom to create, we need the freedom for the media to report the truth, and that this is all connected with this industry here. So, we need to make sure those of us who are lawyers in this industry can vigilantly protect our creators and make

sure that they can do what they need to do, to get these voices out, to get these ideas out. But they have to hear it, and this is so important.

You have moved from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. When you get to come back to Los Angeles, what are some of your favorite things to do?

El Cholo just about every trip. I get to see family when I'm here, and some close friends. I love the Santa Monica stairs. You may find me at the Brentwood Soul Cycle once in a while. And I have to see the ocean. There's this little coffee shop on West Channel. It's an old trailer right across from Giorgio Baldi on West Channel. It's just a little trailer, but I love it. I just sit there and go look at the ocean, check it out, and then just leave because it connects me back to our town.

Now, let's rewind the tape. Picture your younger self, fresh out of USC Law School, eager to make a mark in the legal world. If you could give that ambitious young man one piece of advice, what would it be?

I would have told him to slow down a little bit. That kid wanted it all, and he wanted it now! And, in a lot of ways, he got it. But I think, looking back--and I certainly try to practice this now: Slow down a little bit, take care of yourself, work out more, focus on your health, and focus on other things instead of just work, because you can do all that stuff. That's my advice to my younger self: Slow down! Slow down, man! You're going to get there, don't be in such a hurry!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

On Wednesday, June 12, Vice President Kamala Harris will return to Charlotte, NC for the fourth stop on her nationwide Economic Opportunity Tour. This will be her fifth visit to the state this year and her 13 th since being sworn in.

During each stop of the Vice President's Economic Opportunity Tour , she is highlighting how the Biden-Harris Administration has built economic opportunity, supported communities, and delivered historic investments for the American people. This includes making unprecedented investments in small businesses, creating a record number of jobs, and increasing access to capital for underserved communities. It also includes erasing medical debt, forgiving more student loan debt than any administration in history, boosting investments in education, making housing more affordable, lowering child care costs, and increasing the wealth of American families.

Vice President Harris launched her Economic Opportunity Tour in April with a moderated conversation in Atlanta, GA. She continued it last month with a speech in Detroit, MI and a moderated conversation in Milwaukee, WI. She is being joined along the way by Administration officials, members of Congress, local leaders, and small business owners.

The Vice President was last in Charlotte back in April to announce $20 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants that will mobilize private capital and deliver clean energy and climate solutions. In March, she was in Raleigh with President Biden to highlight their ongoing work to lower prescription drug costs, protect Medicare and Medicaid, and fight for reproductive freedom. Vice President Harris also visited Black Wall Street in Durham to announce

investments in strengthening entrepreneurship, increasing access to capital, and supporting small businesses. She began 2024 by visiting Eastway Middle School in Charlotte to announce $285 million in funding to help schools across the nation hire and train mental health counselors.

Media interested in covering the Vice President's Economic Opportunity Tour stop in Charlotte, NC should RSVP HERE by 12:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, June 11.

Media interested in covering the Vice President's arrival at Charlotte Douglas International Airport should RSVP HERE by 12:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, June 11.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

Readout of President Joe Biden's Call with President-Elect Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico

President Joe Biden called President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico today to congratulate her on her historic electoral victory to become the next President of Mexico. The President also expressed his congratulations to the Mexican people for the success of their free and fair electoral process. The two leaders emphasized their commitment to continuing the strong and collaborative partnership that will advance democracy, security, and prosperity in both countries.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

all hostages held in Gaza and agreed to remain closely coordinated over the coming days.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan's Call with Turkish Presidential Advisor Cagatay Kilic

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan spoke today with Chief Foreign Policy and Security Advisor to the Turkish President, Ambassador Akif Cagatay Kilic, and underscored the urgent need for Hamas to accept Israel's proposal to bring about an immediate ceasefire as part of a hostage deal. They also discussed bilateral issues including counterterrorism, defense cooperation, and sanctions compliance. They emphasized the importance of a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan and welcomed improved relations between Türkiye and Greece.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

in Friday's meeting. Additionally, the Biden-Harris has powered a small business boom, with the first, second and third strongest years of new business applications on record--including over 1.8 million applications for new businesses in these five states alone, which have all seen record business applications under the Biden-Harris Administration.

Friday's meeting was the second in a series of White House Regional Business Briefings, following an initial gathering of Mid-Atlantic business leaders in March. Additional meetings are planned for later this summer.

Administration participants included:

Isabel Casillas Guzman, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration

Gene Sperling, White House American Rescue Plan Coordinator and Senior Advisor to the President

Heather Boushey, Member, Council of Economic Advisers

Kate Balcerzak, Special Assistant to the President and Director of Partnerships and Private Sector Engagement, White House Office of Public Engagement

Jackson Spivey, Senior Advisor, White House Office of Public Engagement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Lucerne, Switzerland on June 15 to participate in the Summit on Peace in Ukraine. The Vice President will underscore the Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to supporting Ukraine's effort to secure a just and lasting peace, based on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and the principles of the UN Charter. The Vice President will reaffirm support for the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against ongoing Russian aggression. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan will join the Vice President in representing the United States at the Summit.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2024

I congratulate Claudia Sheinbaum on her historic election as the first woman President of Mexico. I look forward to working closely with President-elect Sheinbaum in the spirit of partnership and friendship that reflects the enduring bonds between our two countries. I expressed our commitment to advancing the values and interests of both our nations to the benefit of our peoples. I also congratulate the Mexican people for conducting a nationwide successful democratic electoral process involving races for more than 20,000 positions at the local, state, and federal levels.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 2, 2024

FOR MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2024

The Vice President is in Los Angeles, CA where she will participate in an interview for Pride Month. She will also receive briefings and conduct internal meetings with staff. These meetings will be closed press.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 2, 2024

THE WEEK OF JUNE 3, 2024 – JUNE 9, 2024

Monday, June 3, 2024

In the afternoon, the President will depart Wilmington, Delaware en route to White Plains, New York. In the evening, the President will participate in a campaign reception in Greenwich, Connecticut. After, the President will depart White Plains, New York and return to the White House.

Tuesday, June 4, 2024

In the evening, the President and the First Lady will host the White House Congressional Picnic. After, the President will depart the White House en route to Joint Base Andrews. Then, the President will depart Joint Base Andrews en route to Paris, France.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 2, 2024

On Monday, June 3, the Vice President will be in Los Angeles, CA where she will participate in an interview for Pride Month.

On Tuesday, June 4, the Vice President will tape an interview with Jimmy Kimmel for ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Then, she will participate in a political event in Los Angeles, CA.

On Wednesday, June 5, the Vice President will travel to Oakland, CA for a political event. Then, she will participate in a political event in San Francisco, CA before returning to Washington, DC.

On Thursday, June 6, the Vice President will participate in a conversation at the White House about gun violence prevention ahead of National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 2, 2024

THE WEEK OF JUNE 3, 2024 – JUNE 9, 2024

Monday, June 3, 2024

In the morning, the President will depart Rehoboth Beach, Delaware en route to Wilmington, Delaware. In the afternoon, the President will depart Wilmington, Delaware en route to White Plains, New York. In the evening, the President will participate in a campaign reception in Greenwich, Connecticut. After, the President will depart White Plains, New York and return to the White House.

Tuesday, June 4, 2024

In the evening, the President and the First Lady will host the White House Congressional Picnic. After, the President will depart the White House en route to Joint Base Andrews. Then, the President will depart Joint Base Andrews en route to Paris, France.