Aboard Air Force One
En Route Los Angeles, California
3:48 P.M. EST
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, it’s cold back here.
Q It’s very cold.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, guys. All right. I have a couple of things at the top.
See? Aamer has his hat on. It’s — it is cold.
Q I’m sorry. I’ll take it off.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, I’m not — no judgment. I’m just saying it’s cold.
All right. If House Republicans are serious about border security, serious about standing up to Putin, and serious about protecting our national security, they must act immediately to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental bill.
Instead, right now, they are on vacation as the stakes for our security and the security of our closest partners and allies continue to mount. The events of the last few days have only underscored this fact.
Let’s be clear, President Biden has led the way on the urgent need to secure our border, working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on the toughest, fairest border legislation in decades. And he has put forward the resources we urgently need to enable Ukraine to stop Russia in their tracks and from posing a great threat to our NATO Allies.
Now, this Saturday, the President will participate in a video conference call with other G7 leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss our continued support for Ukraine and steps we can take together to continue holding Russia accountable.
This is the third year that G7 leaders have convened in February to condemn Russia’s unjustified attack on Ukraine and express solidarity with the people of Ukraine.
As you recall, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, President Biden quickly pulled together a G7 leaders call to coordinate our response, and he continues to work together closely with our allies and partners.
Ahead of Saturday’s meeting — and you heard this from the President before he boarded on Marine One this afternoon on the South Lawn — we will be announcing a significant new package of sanctions on Russia on Friday to mark the second anniversary of the invasion and to respond to the death of Aleskey — Alekskey [Aleksey] Navalny, who courageously stood up to the corruption and the violence of the Putin government and ultimately gave his life in pursuit of Russia where the rule of law exists and is applied equally to everyone.
As the President said on Friday, this urgently reminds us — this tragedy, pardon me, reminds us of the stakes of this moment and of the need to stand up to Putin and pass the national security supplemental bill and the Ukraine aid it contains, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis.
Time is of the essence. House Republicans must take urgent action to support national security legislation that would easily pass the House.
And while the President is in California — just want to lay out a couple of things — the Vice President and the First Lady will be hitting a few states to make some important announcements.
Today, the Vice President — the Vice President traveled alongside EPA Administrator Michael Regan to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as part of the administration’s Investing in America tour, where they announced $5.8 billion in funding for clean water infrastructure.
This is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to ensuring a future where every child and family has access to clean, safe water, and it brings the total amount of clean water funding announced by EPA from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to $22 billion.
Then, on Thursday, the Vice President will travel to Grand Rapids, Michigan, to continue her nationwide Fight for Reproductive Freedoms tour. During the fourth stop of her tour, the Vice President will highlight how organized — organizers, advocates, and elected leaders in states like Michigan have worked to protect reproductive rights since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
And finally, the First Lady will travel to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to highlight the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, which President Biden launched in November to fundamentally change how we approach and fund women’s health research.
With that, Aamer, you want to kick us off?
Q Yeah. On the sanctions. The U.S. has already thrown quite a bit of sanctions at Russia. How should we see what’s going to be announced Friday? Will this be substantive and have actual teeth in what it does to Russia and to Putin? Or is this more symbolic as we reach the two-year anniversary and also in reaction to Navalny’s death?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you’ve heard from the President earli- — earlier — early right before he got on Air Force One when he was on the South Lawn. He said the — those sanctions would be major.
I’m going to be really careful. We don’t preview, as you know, the details of sanctions ahead of the time for a variety of reasons, including to avoid capital flight risk. So, we have to be super careful.
But, again, as the President stated, it’s clear that Russia is responsible for — for Navalny’s death and what has happened to Navalny is yet more proof that Putin’s brutality — no one — not in — not in Russia, not here at home, and not anywhere around the world should be fooled here. He does not only target the citizens of other countries, as we are — we have been seeing happen, obviously, in Ukraine for the past two years. He also inflicts terrible crimes on his own people.
So, I’m going to be super careful. You will hear from — from this administration on Friday, when the time — when the time is right.
Q Are the punishments for Navalny going to be different from the sanctions that were already planned for the anniversary? Is there something in addition to what was already arranged for that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be really careful. Obviously, there’s a connection, obviously, to Naval- — Navalny’s death here. And so — and, obviously, it’s going to be the two-years anniversary coming up. But I’m just going to be careful and not —
You’ll hear directly from us, from the administration, as to the sanctions, why the sanctions are happening. And I just don’t want to get ahead of that.
Q Why — why should we expect these sanctions to be any different? We’ve been imposing sanctions since 2022, and none of them have had their desired goal.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things here. We and our partners have imposed the most severe sanctions on Russia that any economy this size has ever faced. That — so, that is a fact.
We’ve kicked them out of the international organization and worked to isolate them on the world stage. We’ve been able to do that — along with, obviously, our NATO Allies, right?
We’ve provided Ukraine with the capacity to impose massive costs on the Russian military, and the Russian military has been severely degraded as a result of the brutal and unprovoked war they launched against the people of Ukraine.
It’s critical now, obviously — what we’ve been saying for the past couple of weeks, couple of months — that Congress needs to act. We saw a bipartisan — bipartisan agreement come out of the Senate in order to fund the really important national security supplemental. We need to see the House do the same.
We have heard from Republicans — House Republicans say that if that bill were to get to the floor that it would get bipartisan support. We need Congress to act.
Q Right at the beginning, you talked about Congress going on recess. The President has the authority to call Congress back. Why doesn’t he simply do that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, here’s the thing. The Senate did their job, moved forward a bipartisan piece of legislation to deal with the national security ri- — risk that we currently are facing. And it was critical, it was important, and it was done in li- — in a bipartisan — 70 to — 70 to 29 — in a bipartisan way.
And we need to see House act. They went home early. They went home early.
Q But he could call them back.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, this is for Speaker Johnson to deal with, right? He has already said these bills are dead. And it shouldn’t be that way. He shouldn’t be putting — playing politics. He shouldn’t be playing with our national security. And this is on Speaker Johnson.
It is — this is a question for Speaker Johnson. Why does he continue to say these bills are dead when we know — we know for a fact that if he were to put this particular bill that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way and put it on the floor, the national security supplemental, it would pass in a bipartisan way?
We’re talking about funding for Ukraine. We’re talking about funding for Israel. We’ve talked about the Indo-Pacific, right?
And — and what did we have to do? They had to — the Senate had to strip out a border security from it — another — another piece where negotiation was had for months, and we got a bipartisan negotiation.
Speaker — the Speaker continues to get in the way and play politics here.
Q Karine, you’ve mentioned the — you’ve mentioned —
Q (Inaudible) on the —
Q Sorry. You’ve mentioned the — the supplemental several times, but we also don’t have funding for the whole government, right? So, what is the President going to do on that when Congress comes back? And, two, does this mean that you’re optimistic about a CR?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President has been really clear. We have to prevent a needless shutdown, right? We’ve said this. Every time we come to this space, we say we have to prevent a needless shutdown. House Republicans must finally do their jobs and work across the aisle to pass funding bills that deliver for the American people.
So, we support bipartisan negotiations happening on the Hill, obviously. And so, House Republicans should not waste their — waste our time, waste their time, waste the American people’s time. They should move forward.
We — this is their basic duty. Their basic duty is to keep the government open, and we’re going to be —
Q And what will the President do?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it is their job. It is their job to keep the government open. What we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to call that out and say, “Hey, you know what? This is about” — these are — we’re talking about programs that the American people need — they need.
And so, this is for Congress to work out. They got to get this done.
Q So, the President sa- —
Q Does that mean that —
Q The President — the President said yesterday he’s willing to meet with the House Speaker. Is there any update on that? Any progress made?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, obviously the President, if it — it is — if it is indeed a serious discussion, he — to be had, he’s open to that, obviously. Right? He’s alw- — if it’s a serious discussion.
But I have to remind everybody — right? — what Putin — Putin is a deep threat to our national security. You guys know this. I don’t even have to remind you of that.
Our borders needs — needs to be secured. Right? You’ve heard us say this. The President has — has led on both when it comes to getting a bipartisan agreement on the border security, when it — when you saw what the — what the Senate was able to do on getting that national security supplemental in a bipartisan way.
But so far, it’s the Speaker. As I just stated moments ago, it’s the Speaker that is the only one who is actively hurting America’s national security by killing those priorities that I just laid out, then going on an early — early vacation, as I mentioned already.
So, this is a question to the Speaker: Is he going to choose Trump — is this what he’s going to do? — and his own internal politics over the doing — doing what’s right for the Ukraine, doing what’s right for our national security, doing what’s right for our border, doing what’s right for Israel and the Palestinian civilians? Or — and let’s not forget the Indo-Pacific.
If so, let’s have that real discussion. Let’s have a serious, good-faith discussion. But we all know where the Speaker stands already. And he’s playing politics on this.
Q Karine, what does a “serious” discussion entail?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s up to —
Q How is that different than —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look —
Q — the last conversation they had?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, that’s — look, here’s the thing: We know that the Senate already has put forth a bipartisan — a bipartisan agreement — passed 70 to 29 on the floor of the Senate — to deal with the national security. Right? They’ve also came together to deal with border security.
And what we keep hearing from the Speaker — this is why it’s — it’s kind of — it’s kind of bizarre, right? Because they — they keep swinging, right? They keep saying, “We must have bipartisan border legislation now” to “Where on Earth did this bipartisan border legislation come from? Get it away from me. We’d like to talk about reversals.” Right? It’s just bizarre.
I mean, this is the Speaker. This is the Speaker of the House who goes from one side to another and doesn’t actually know what he wants.
So, it’s up to him: What is — is he really serious about having a conversation? But there are — it’s in front of him, right? The agreement that came out — that came out of the Senate to deal with the national security, it’s in front of him. There’s a — there — there was an agreement on the border. It’s in front of him. He keeps saying these things are dead. He keeps saying these things are dead.
And so, the President is like, “Okay, well, if it’s a serious conversation, let’s have it.” But he’s not serious. He isn’t. Where — where is the seriousness coming from the Speaker right now?
Q So, on — on Rob’s question, you said no, there is no update on a meeting with Speaker Johnson and — and the President?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have an update. What I’m saying is we are open to having a serious conversation, is the — if there is one to be had. But I’m also laying out where the Speaker has been for the past couple of weeks on this. He’s not serious about this. Right?
I mean, he — you guys have written about how he swung from — from back and forth on this issue.
Q What’s the sign — what’s the sign? What could the Speaker do to demonstrate he’s acting in good faith?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean — I mean, if he’s acting in good faith, then take it up. Take it up. Take up the national security supplemental. Say — say you’re going to bring it to the floor or say that you’re going to have a discussion about it.
He’s saying it’s dead. He’s saying it’s dead before he even brings it — brings it to — brings it to his own caucus. Right? His own caucus has said if it puts — if it goes to the floor, it would pass in a bipartisan way, the border — the border security negotiations. He just said it’s dead. Didn’t even do — go through a process of trying to go through it to see, “Hey, well, how — how much — can we move this further in the House?” No.
So, where is the seriousness here?
Q Karine, on — on Senator Joe Manchin. What was the President’s reaction to the fact that a fellow Democrat didn’t want to endorse him right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — and you’ve heard us say this. We — the President has had a very good working relationship with Senator Manchin the last three years. They — the two of them, along with other — other congressional members and — have been able to get some historic legislation passed and — on behalf of the American people. Whether it’s the CHIPS and Science Act, whether it is the American Rescue Plan, there has been a lot of effort and good work with — with the — with the senator.
I can’t speak to his decision. That is something for him to speak to. We appreciate, obviously, our working relations- — relationship with the senator. And I’m not going to talk politics, you know, as I can’t.
Q Was the President disappointed?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to — I’m not going to go beyond a private conversation with the President. I’m just going to say that we respect Senator Manchin. We’ve had a very good relationship. The President has had a very good relationship with the denator over the past three years.
Q (Inaudible.)
Q Karine, on Gaza. Could — did you want to follow up on that?
Q No, go — it’s okay.
Q On — on Gaza. Could you talk a little bit about the President’s thinking in terms of endorsing this terminology around ceasefire? You have this U.N. resolution. It’s the first time the U.S. has backed that word. It’s crept into the President’s own language. What is his thought process in introducing that word? And is it too little too late?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, a couple of things here. There’s no change in our policy — U.S. policy, obviously. We — we are steadfast on that. You heard President Biden talk about this last week. It expresses our position if — the U.N. resolution that you’re talking about that we have put forth — in support of a hostage deal that would pause the fighting for an extended period of time.
So, that policy stays the same. That potential deal represents the best opportunity to reunite all hostage — hostages with their families and enable a prolonged pause in fighting and it would bring about the conditions for more lifesaving food, water, fuel, medicine, and other essentials to get into the hands of Palestinian civilians who so desperately need it.
The resolution also includes other priorities that we have been vocal on, such as supporting the protection of civilians in Rafah and the ongoing U.N. UNWRA investigation into whether — whether some of its employees were part of the horrific terror attacks on October 7th, to name a couple.
We’re proposing this resolution because it is vital that any Security Council efforts help — help ongoing diplomatic efforts on the ground, not hinder them. Regrettably, other proposals in the Council, such as the one being — that was deliberated today, as you all know, serve to hurt these diplomatic efforts.
And just as you — as you are asking me about the word, and so — look, it’s not the first time we’ve called for a temporary ceasefire in order to free the hostages held by Hamas and other — and allow more assistance to get into Gaza, as I just stated. President Biden has used the term “a temporary ceasefire” twice earlier this month. And he — he was talking about a temporary ceasefire for hostages as far back as November.
And so, this — the U.S. policy does not change what we’re trying to do and what the President and his team has been working on around the clock in a diplomatic fashion to make sure that we get that — that we get — we get those hostages home, including American hostages home to their families and to their loved ones and get that all-important humanitarian aid into Gaza.
This is something that we have been doing, right? This is something that we were able to do, that — that we were able to have that short period of time of humanitarian pause, obviously, and got more than 100 — 100 hostages home.
And so, this is what we’ve been talking about. This is the temporary ceasefire that the President wants to see.
Q And another one on language. Do you — do you agree with — with Prime Minister Netanyahu that it was inappropriate for Lula of Brazil to compare the plight of the Palestinians with the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not — I’m going to let Lula speak for himself. We’ve been very clear where we stand. We stand, obviously, with Israel being able to defend itself against Hamas and this terrorist organization. That’s why we continue to push for — obviously, one of the reasons we continue to push for the national security supplemental.
What we saw on October 7th was 1,200 — 1,200 people — more than 1,200 people who were killed and more than — obviously, more than 150 people who were — who were taken hostage. And it was a — it was a devastating, tragic day. And we want to continue to make sure that Israel is able to defend itself.
Obviously, we want to also make sure that the all-important humanitarian aid get to — get to Palestinian civilians, who are — who are victims of — who are victims themselves of what Hamas is doing. Let’s not forgot — forget: Hamas is embedding themselves into hospital, into civilian infrastructure, and they’re causing harm to their own people.
And so, we want to make sure we get that — that temporary ceasefire and get that done so we can get that aid in and also make sure that we get those hostages home to their families.
Q And if I could just follow on just what Trevor asked. Is it — just to put a fine point on it, is it appropriate, as terrible as the suffering is in Gaza, to equate it with the — with the Holocaust?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I — I’m not going to — this is a very sensitive situation right now — obviously, a very sensitive issue. We understand that as it relates to what folks are seeing in Gaza, it’s incredibly personal.
And what I can say is that we support — obviously, our policy in Israel is — is steadfast. And — and I’m just going to be super mindful.
Obviously, those are two different scenarios — right? — two different situation: what we saw in the Holocaust. And it is — it is two different things that should not be compared.
But obviously, what we’re seeing in — what we’re seeing — the devastation that we’re seeing in — in — with the Palestinian civilians, what Hamas is causing is devastating. It is devastating.
Q Just quickly on —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But they’re two different times in history, and we have to be very clear about that.
Q Any reaction to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on the frozen em- — on frozen embryos?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, I’m going to be careful on — on commenting on specific case. But this is exactly the type of chaos that we expected when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and paved the way for politicians to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.
All across the country, women are being forced to grapple with the devastating consequences of action by Republican elected officials, from undermining access to repro- — reproductive — reproductive care and emergency care to threatening access to contraception.
And, as a reminder, this is the same state whose Attorney General threatened to prosecute people who helped women travel out of state to seek the care they need.
The President — this President and this Vice President will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state.
Q The President —
Q Karine, can you give us an idea of what the President is doing tomorrow? What are his remarks about?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, we —
Q Where is he going?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We certainly will have more to share later today on what Pr- — the President’s day is going to look like tomorrow.
Q The President has talked a lot about stimulating competition in the financial services sector. How concerned is this administration about the Discover-Capital One merger?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say that last part.
Q The Discover-Capital One merger. How — how concerned are you guys?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, with this as well: I’m not going to speak to any particular case. But let me lay this out.
Bank mergers are reviewed by bank regula- — regulators on a case-by-case basis.
As we have said, we need a diverse banking sector with a healthy mix of — of large, regional, and community banks. And as the President says, capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism, it’s exploitation.
His comp- — his compet- — his competition executive order urges the Department of Justice and bank regulators to review bank merger policies. This administration will continue to fight to protect consumers and enforce our antitrust laws.
Anything further, obviously, I’m going to refer you to Department of Justice.
Q Karine, the — the publisher of the New York Times has talked about getting flak from the White House for its coverage of the President’s age. Can you talk to us a little bit about what you think is, sort of, fair game when covering the nation’s oldest president and what might be off limits?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I mean, a couple of things there that I would say on that — on that particular — particular item.
Look, you know — and, you know, you — you all ask me pretty regularly about the President’s age and we lay out what our perspective is. We lay out what we see — we’ve seen this president do in the last three years, which is deliver on historic — historic piece of legislation that’s going to change the lives of Americans for generations to come.
That — so wh- — now, to your question, more specifically, about — about the New York Times coverage, is that — that display — what we believe a journalistic objectivity about coverage of the President’s age speaks to why we agree with former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, and she says, “Maybe the Times and other major media outlets ought to look in the mirror.” “Self-scrutiny and — and course correction are not among their core strengths.” And I’ll leave it there.
Q Yeah. Has — has the President reached out to Congresswoman Tlaib following her com- — her social media posts over the weekend to vote uncommitted? And do progressives — does he believe that progressives have a right to be outraged over the administration’s handling of Israel and Gaza?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, what I’m about to say, I think, answers both questions.
So, I’m — on the first one, I’m being really careful because there’s an upcoming election — obviously, an upcoming primary. So, I’m going to be really careful.
But, as you know, the — we had se- — White House senior officials, they traveled to Michigan earlier this month to hear from Muslim and Arab Americans, leaders during what has deeply pain — pain — what has been deeply painful and personal moment. We care very much about that and what the community is going through and wanted to convey that in a strong way.
Obviously, we know that this has been a difficult time, and the President cares very deeply. And importantly, it’s why he is working day and night to stop the suffering and loss of life — of life among innocent Palestinians and Israelis who have been caught in the middle of this conflict between Israel and Hamas.
And so, that is our commitment. But we understand how deeply — how deeply people feel about this. And — and we value what they have to say.
Going to be really careful on commenting specifically on — on the congresswoman. Obviously, there’s an upcoming primary.
Q Was the President — was the President offended by Charlamagne’s comments on main — was it “main character energy” that he said is lacking?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be really careful. Again, this is related to 2024. So, I can’t — I’m not going to speak to Charlamagne’s —
Q No, that was related to —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I refer you — I refer you to —
Q I don’t think that was related to the campaign. I think that was related to how he’s — he’s handled his administration.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I have not heard — I’m going to be very honest. I have not heard Charlamagne’s comments. I know he’s had specific thoughts about 2024. So, as it relates to that, I’m going to refer you to the campaign.
Q Any plans for the President to speak with Yulia, Aleksey Navalny’s widow?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to — to read out at this time. But as you all know, the Vice President met with — met with Navalny’s wife recently. But I don’t have a meeting — I don’t have a meeting with the President to — to read out at this time.
Q Can you share anything on what priorities the President is tackling on this long trip to California?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Priorities?
Q Phone calls? What’s he doing up there?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President, as always, is always working on behalf of the American people. We’ll have more on what his day looks like tomorrow. I don’t have anything beyond that.
Q As a follow-up, last month was the worst month we’ve had in layoffs in the tech sector. Any chance that the President will address that fear it’s going to spread into the larger economy?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s the largest month of what?
Q The largest — largest lump monthly — largest — excuse me, largest layoffs in a single month in the tech sector since, I think, May of — May of 2023.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — so, we closely monitor, obviously, all reports of Americans losing their jobs. President Biden knows what losing a job can mean for a family and entire community. You’ve heard him talk about his own personal experience growing up.
But broadly speaking, thanks to the strong economy under President Biden, layoffs are near record lows. In fact, they’re lower than the average during the prior administration, even before COVID.
As you know, unemployment is at under 4 percent. And — and, also, 3 million jobs were created just last year, more than any year under the previous administration. And companies continue to grow.
We’ve seen small business application boom at 16 million applications in the last three years. And so, that tells you a lot about the economy.
But obviously, anytime we hear about Americans losing jobs, that’s something that we monitor.
All right.
Q Does the President plan to meet with his son, Hunter, while he is in California? He was with —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not — I’m not going to speak to — to the President’s family.
Q And then, is he — is he aware — is he aware or in touch with his brother James heading into his interviews with House Republicans —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m not —
Q — tomorrow?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to — I’m not going to speak to the President’s private conversation with his family. I never do, and I’m not going to do that now.
All right. Thanks, everybody.
Q Thanks, Karine.
Q Thank you very much, Karine.
4:14 P.M. EST
