白宮簡報會（11/21）（即時翻譯字幕）

Hi, good afternoon, everybody. Fixing, fixing the podium or the lectern. I know, I know. It matters. I know it does. I know. OK. So, on Monday afternoon, President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden will travel to the U.S. Coast Guard Sector, New York, for a Friendsgiving dinner with the service members and military families as part of the First Lady's Joining Forces initiative to support military families. This year's dinner, hosted by the Robert Irvine Foundation, will be prepared by Chef Robert Irvine and his team. The U.S. Coast Guard Sector, New York, is home to over 500 active-duty members and their family members and represents the largest military presence in New York City. During their visit, the President and the First Lady will thank service members and their families and help serve Thanksgiving meal. This is an annual tradition that is very special to the President and the First Lady. They look forward to yet another Friendsgiving dinner with some of the men and women who serve our country and their families who sacrifice so much for our communities. And on a related note, as Americans prepare for Thanksgiving, there's one more thing to be thankful for, much-needed relief at the grocery store and the gas pump. For the second year in a row, the average cost of a Thanksgiving meal is falling and many grocery chains are offering deals for the holiday. According to the American Farm Bureau, the average price of the typical Thanksgiving dinner fell 5%, with turkey prices down 6%. And as more Americans are getting ready to travel to see family members and loved ones, the price of gas has fallen to its lowest point in more than three years. Prices at the pump are down about 25 cents per gallon compared to this time last year and below $3 per gallon in almost 30 states. There's more to do, and we're fighting to further lower costs and grow the middle class. President Biden will continue to use every tool available to help American families put food on the table and keep money in their pockets. And as you all know, the first week of December, the President will travel to Angola, where he will meet with President Lorenzo, recognize Angola's role as a regional leader and underscore the true transformation of U.S.-Angola relationship. Together, the United States and Angola are working to address a full spectrum of pressing challenges from narrowing the infrastructure gap in Africa and growing economic opportunities and sustainable development in the region to expanding technologies and scientific cooperation, bolstering peace and security, strengthening food security and among others. While there, he will also meet with African and private sector leaders and reaffirm U.S. partnership across a host of high-priority issues, including security, health and the economy. As you all know well, President Biden has made revitalizing our international alliances and partnerships a key priority, recognizing that today's challenges require global perspectives and collective responses. The visit reflects his promise to visit the continent during his term, which he made at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, and we will have more to share in the days ahead. With that, Colleen, it's good to see you. I feel like it's been a while. Colleen, can you talk about the decision to loosen restrictions on long-range weapons for Ukraine? So just a couple of things there that I do want to add is I want to be really clear. I'm not going to get into specifics about Ukraine's operation from the podium today. That is not something that we're going to do, and that's not something we normally do. What I'll say is something I'll just reflect on something that the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said earlier this week, which was the major escalation we're seeing is that Russia has gone to another country from another part of the world, North Korea, brought in thousands of their troops to the front lines and have added them into this war. This is a significant change and one that we warned the Russians about before they did it. We continue to talk to our allies and partners about this, and as it relates to any operations on the ground, this is something for the Ukrainians to speak to directly. Just staying on Ukraine for a second. With regard to escalation, is there concern that, you know, Putin changing Russia's nuclear rules is sort of suggesting that the president's initial instincts on allowing long-range missiles further into Russia could amount to a dangerous escalation of the war? I mean, this is right. And just to kind of reiterate what the National Security Advisor said, and you've heard this from other members of the NSC team, which is the escalation at every turn, at every step, is coming from Russia. They're the ones who are escalating this. They're the ones who started this war. It is because of their aggression into a sovereign territory, Ukraine. And this war can end today. You hear us say this over and over again. It can, if Russia would stop the war and stop what they're doing with their aggression. So this is an aggression from their side, and we've been very clear about that. You just heard me lay out a couple things that the National Security Advisor said just earlier this week. What they're doing, thousands of troops from another country that is now part of what Russia's doing with their aggression into Ukraine. So this is their aggression, not Ukraine's, not ours. To follow up here, for a long time, the White House argued that using these long-range attack missiles into Russia to attack targets inside Russia would escalate the war, would really invite retaliation. So why now? Why change the policy now? I'm not going to get into specifics. I'm just not going to get into specifics about Ukraine's operations. That's something that I'm going to do today. But I want to be really clear. Can I get something specific about the White House's decision to change policy? I'm just telling you that I'm not going to get into specifics from here, from the podium. I'm going to be very clear about that. And what I have said is when you're thinking about bringing in thousands of troops to the front lines to add to the war, right? These are North Korean troops, as you know. That is the aggression from Russia's part. That's their aggression. And we're going to continue to be there for Ukraine. This is a president that has led on making sure Ukraine has what it needs in the battlefield. He's the one that rallied countries, more than 50 countries, to make sure that Ukraine got what it needed. But when we're talking about aggression here or we're talking about escalation, pardon me, more so escalation, this is Russia's. Russia's the one who's been escalating every step of the way, every step of the way here. And so if I'm hearing you right, it was that escalation, the North Korean troops. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I'm not going to get into specifics about Ukraine's operations from the podium today. You asked me about escalation, and I'm being very clear where the escalation is coming from. But I'm not going to get into specifics. Two more months left in this administration. Are there new goals or definite goals that the president has in how to support Ukraine in these final two months? Realistically, what difference can he make in these last two months of his term? I mean, look, I think the president has made a whole lot of difference. Let's not forget, as before Russia invaded into Ukraine, the president was the one that warned about that happening. He was the one, and we were able to share that information with Ukraine. He's the one that made sure that NATO was stronger, the NATO alliance was strengthened. He led that effort. He was the one that helped rally more than 50 countries to get back to Ukraine. Let's not forget, and you all reported this, within days, we were hearing over and over again, within days, Kiev would fall. We're hearing that over and over again. And today, because, yes, of this president and what he's been able to do, but also the bravery of the Ukrainians, they continue to fight. They continue to fight on. And so the president in September, as you all know, we've talked about this from the podium, talked about surging, like surging the security assistance. We made an announcement yesterday about the kind of the next assistance that we were providing, and we're going to continue to do that, surge that assistance, make sure that Ukrainians have what they need on the battlefield to push back against Russia's aggression. OK, Nancy. There's a couple of questions about that aggression. Has the U.S. determined that Russia used a ballistic weapon last night in retaliation for the U.S. authorizing the use of ATACOMs by the Ukrainian government? So a couple of things. So obviously we are aware of Russia's launch of an intermediate-range ballistic missile against Ukraine. Ukraine has withstood countless attacks from Russia. We have seen that repeatedly over the past more than two years now. We briefed Ukraine and our close allies, partners in recent days to help them prepare. As the President announced earlier this year, the United States is providing Ukraine with hundreds of additional Patriot and AMRAAM missiles to strengthen its air defense. Many of these are air defense missiles have been delivered already. As a consequence of that, President's decision to divert air defense exports to Ukraine and deliveries of additional air defense missiles to Ukraine are ongoing. And as I just stated, the President in September, on September 29th to be more exact, he talked about surging continuing assistance, security assistance to Ukraine. And so we're going to continue to do that, and that is going to make sure they're strengthening their capabilities, including air defense, and put Ukraine in the best possible position on the battlefield. And just yesterday, as I mentioned moments ago, we were able to announce another security assistance. And so that's going to continue And so we will not be deterred here. We are going to continue to make sure that Ukrainians have what they need on the ground. Now that Russia says it is changing its nuclear doctrine to essentially lower the bar for when it can use nuclear weapons, does the U.S. need to change its nuclear posture as well? So let's not forget, we said earlier this month that we were not surprised by Russia's announcement that it would update its nuclear doctrine. And so Russia has been signaling its attempt to update its doctrine for several weeks and observing no changes to Russia's nuclear posture. We have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture or doctrine in response to Russia's statements. So this is more of the same irresponsible rhetoric that we continue to hear from Russia, which we have seen for the past more than two years now, if you think about their aggression, their war against Ukraine. And so... And I talked about it a little bit moments ago about the use of DPRK soldiers in combat operations against Ukraine. It presents a significant escalation of its war. Again,they are the ones... They,meaning Russia, are the ones that are escalating this war. And so we are not going to be deterred here. We're going to continue... We're going to certainly continue to be there for the brave people of Ukraine. Have U.S. officials been able to determine what Russia is giving North Korea in exchange for North Korean soldiers fighting in this war? So I'm not going to certainly get into specifics on that. What I can say is what we have been very clear about is our determination to be very clear here about our continued support for...certainly for... for the Ukrainian people as they continue to deal with this aggression, this escalation from Russia. And so we have said that we're certainly concerned about Russia's decisions. We see it as it being born out of desperation, what they're doing. And it's born out of desperation because they now are seeing high casualties, right? The Russians are. And so now what they're doing is they're turning to DPRK to supply them soldiers to continue their brutal war against Ukraine. And so, look, it's not going to deter us. They're the ones escalating. We're going to continue to provide support to the Ukrainians as they continue to push back against Russia's aggression. That is not going to stop us. Does the White House have any reaction to Matt Gaetz withdrawing his name for consideration to be the next Attorney General? So what I'll say is, and we've been pretty steadfast on being consistent here, I'm not going to comment on every personnel matter or all personnel matters here that the president-elect is deciding or is nominating people for at these respective agencies. We really truly want to respect the transfer of power. We want it to be efficient. We want it to happen in a way that the American people deserve. And that's what we've been trying to do. We believe that is very much part of our democratic principle. And that's what you're seeing this president do and lead by example. More broadly, as we talk about the Department of Justice more broadly, look, the president has said when it comes to investigation, that department should be independent. There should be no partisanship. There should be no loyalty to one party or the other. The loyalty should be to the Constitution and the loyalty should be to the rule of law. And that is something I believe and we believe the president has led also on that particular issue by example. And then on that topic, our understanding is that the Trump transition team hasn't signed the MOUs that are outstanding still. Is there any update that you can provide on your end? Any progress there? Or is there concern now about how that may impede some of that transfer of power you're talking to? Yeah, and so... And look, as you know, the president, President Biden, met with the president-elect to show that transition of power and obviously offering any assistance needed to make sure that happens in a way that is peaceful obviously and efficient. And so that was one part of it. Our teams continue to stay in touch. As of now, to your point, the Trump-Vance transition team has not yet entered into the agreements with the White House and the General Service Administration. And as you know, the chief of staff, chief of staff Jeff Zients here has reached out to the co-chairs and have consistently reiterated the wanting to work together and making sure that they have what they need. So we're going to continue to engage with the Trump transition team to ensure that we do have that efficient, effective transition of power. And in those conversations, we certainly are stressing that the White House and the administration stand ready to provide assistance and that access to services and information certainly outlined in the GSA and the White House memorandum of agreement with those MOUs. So those conversations continue and we want this to go smoothly and that's what we're trying to get to. And just finally, what is the White House view on Speaker Johnson saying that he will bar transgender women from using capital bathrooms as something that Congresswoman Nancy Mace has clearly raised in regards to Representative-elect Sarah McBride? So I would... When I think about that question, I think about what the Congresswoman-elect said and who, as you know, the President has a close relationship with and is very proud of her. And what she said is, I'm not here to fight about bathrooms. I'm here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down cost-facing families. And we agree with her. We think that's incredibly important to focus on the American people. Obviously, for her, it's the Delawareans who she represents. And so, again, the President is proud of her. I'm not going to add to that. Has he called her in recent days? I don't have a conversation to speak to. As you know, they had a moment to speak on the night of the election. He was able to call her and congratulate her. I don't have anything else to add. But I think her words speak volumes. Thanks, Corrine. Here's prosecutors charged Indian billionaire Gautam Agnisti. Is the administration concerned that this will damage U.S.-India relations, especially given the recent case with a former Indian intelligence official assassination plot aimed at a U.S. citizen? So, obviously, we're aware of these allegations. And I would have to refer you to the SEC and DOJ about the specifics of those allegations against the Adani group. What I will say is, on the U.S. and India relationship, we believe that it's extremely... stands on an extremely strong foundation anchored in ties between our people and cooperation across a full range of global issues. And so what we believe and we're confident about is that we'll continue to navigate this issue as we have with other issues that may have come up, as you just stated. And so the specifics of this, this is something that SEC and DOJ can speak to directly. But again, we believe that we are... This has been... This relationship between India and the U.S. has been built on a strong foundation. I wanted to ask you also about the ICC issuing arrest warrants for several top officials, including Netanyahu over Israel's conduct in this war. I know that the U.S. rejected this decision. Does the administration see this ruling as a threat to Israel's ability to defend itself And also Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is calling for the Senate to sanction the ICC after this decision. Is that a measure that the White House would support? Yeah, so a couple things. Let me just say, because this is the first time I've had an opportunity to speak to this at the podium. So let me just say more broadly that we fundamentally reject the court's decision to issue arrest warrants for senior Israel officials. We remain deeply concerned by the prosecutor's rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process that led to this decision. The United States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter. You've heard us say this before. Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no evidence, none, between Israel and Hamas. There's just none. In coordination with partners, including Israel, we are discussing certainly those next steps, what that's going to look like. And to your question about sanctions, that's basically kind of just answered it in that last part of what I said. We're in consultation with our partners and also, which includes Israel, about our next steps. We fundamentally, fundamentally reject that the ICC has jurisdiction over this situation. And so that's something that we've been pretty clear about and we'll continue to do so. At this point, with two months left in the administration, does the White House see a real value in President Biden directly engaging with members of the press? Oh, absolutely, yes. Look, I think we have worked really hard and I hope you all have seen this to make sure that we brought back the norms that was taken away from our predecessor on how we engage with the press. The President respects the freedom of the press and he actually enjoys engaging and going back and forth with all of you. And that is something, and he's done that extensively, and that is certainly something that he's going to continue to do. We have less than 60 days. I think you just said two months left. That is plenty of time for the President to continue that engagement. He will. And this is something that we respect, bringing back the norms, working with the White House Correspondent Association, making sure that we have that healthy back and forth with the press corps. And so we believe it is important when the President engages with the press. He's done, I believe, more than 50 interviews just this year alone. He's taken hundreds of questions in his back and forth with all of you. And that's going to continue. If all of that is true, why on a six-day foreign trip where the President obviously had a robust American press corps traveling with him, did he not have a single engagement, whether it is a press conference or maybe just speaking on the tarmac or really anywhere where he took questions from the press? I mean, as you all just stated and wrote about, the G20 and APEC was his last opportunity to deal with some of these world leaders that he has built a close relationship with. Some of them he's known certainly more than his almost four years in this office. And so he truly wanted to spend time engaging and listening, having that one-on-one engagement that the President believes in and trusts in. And so he wanted to spend time doing that. And so that's what you saw the President do. And I get it. I get that you all want to hear from the President. I get that. I understand that. And I'm not saying that you won't. You will. He will certainly continue to engage with all of you. And it is. When I say it's something that he actually enjoys doing, it is. He enjoys having the back and forth with all of you. And that's going to continue. Just to be clear, you mean the explanation is that he, on this trip, was extra busy meeting with world leaders because this is one of his last... Well, what I'm saying is, as you know, this was one of his last opportunities to speak to many of these leaders. There were 20 leaders at the G20, more than 21, or about 21 leaders at APEC. And so he wanted to spend that time certainly doing what he normally does at these conferences, obviously. But also, you know, speaking directly to them at one of his final times as President. And again, putting that aside, I think your question was, do we believe that he should engage some version of that? I apologize if I'm not quoting you directly. Yeah, we think it's important for him to engage with the press. He thinks it's important to engage with the press. And that's going to continue. It is. You will hear from the President and have an opportunity to do those back and forth that you normally have done. This is related but separate from just the trip itself. It's been, you know, more than two weeks since the election. This was an election that elected a man that President Biden has repeatedly referred to as an existential threat. So why is it that the American people have not heard President Biden talk about this threat since the election? Because there was an election and the American people spoke. The will of the American people were very clear, right? And so the President is now in a situation where we have to deal with a peaceful transfer of power. We have to respect the will of the American people. And that's what you have been seeing from this President trying to lead by example to make sure that that happens. And that's what the American people deserve. That's what the President deserve. And that's what I think he was very clear about in Rose Garden when he delivered his remarks two days after the election. And he said, he was very honest. He said, you know, again, I'm not quoting him exactly, but these were not the results that we had wanted, right? And that's just being honest. They weren't. But we are now in a position where he believes he has to lead by example and show what a peaceful transfer of power looks like. And so that's what you're seeing from this President. And, you know, to the points that you made, you know, I've been asked about existential threat. I've been asked about threat to our democracy. The President is always going to be honest with the American people. He feels like he is obligated. What he said still stands. But we are now in a different place. We are. The American people spoke. They deserve a peaceful transfer of power. That's what this President wants to do. We have a message for people on what they should do about this existential threat. Assuming that he still believes Donald Trump is an existential threat. Look, his thoughts and what he said, his thinking on that has not changed. It has not. And I think he was very clear about what he believes should have been done or how we should move forward. How, you know, he was very clear during those moments that he spoke about it. Right now, right now, he wants to lead by example and talk and show the American people what it looks like to have an efficient, effective transfer of power. And he believes that is what the American people deserve. And I'm just going to leave it there for now. OK, Joey. Yeah, thanks, Karine. President-elect Trump this week confirmed he intends to declare a national emergency and use U.S. military to pursue mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. Does the President believe this is an appropriate use of the military? So, look, I'm not going to go into what the state attorney, attorney general or state elected leaders might do in the future as a response to this next administration's policy, how they're going to move forward. I'm not going to do that. What I can speak to is our administration is certainly is focused on arresting dangerous criminals and threats to public safety. We do not believe, we do not believe in separating families. And what I can speak to is what we have been able to do and how that has worked out, right? In our remaining time, we're going to continue to fight to secure our border. Since the administration took strong actions back in June, encounters have dropped by more than 55% and are lower than they were four years ago. So what we're going to do is we're going to continue to enforce our laws, remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to be here, to remain in the U.S. And we're going to do that while making sure we're treating people with dignity that they deserve. With that said, does the President, though, have concerns about using the military to carry out, you know, Trump's talked about these mass deportations. I hear, I heard your question. You're just repeating the question that you just asked me. I hear that. I know, I hear you. I appreciate the effort. I don't want to get into what attorney generals or other elected officials might do in the future. What I'm going to stick to is what we're doing right now and what we are going to continue to do in the next less than 60 days in this administration. Go ahead, Karen. Yesterday the President met with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper to talk about the ongoing disaster recovery down there and state and local officials were there as well. The administration this week, the President has asked Congress for about $100 billion per disaster relief, emergency disaster relief. How does the White House want to see that get done? Do you want to see that done quickly as a stand-alone bill or later as tied up with the government funding that's likely expected later in December? So what we want is Congress to act... We're going to continue to urge Congress to act quickly to pass a supplemental funding package to assist communities obviously impacted recent hurricanes and other disasters. And what we have seen and what we know when we've seen these types of previous natural disasters in the past, we've seen Congress come together in a bipartisan way to get that done to help our communities in crisis. And so that's what we want to see. That's what we look forward to working with our congressional partners and delivering that for American people, for the folks, again, who are in crisis who need that additional funding. And so obviously you saw the letter from OMB, and so certainly they can go into more details and specifics of the breakdown of our ask. But that's how we want to see it going forward. Would you say this is the top legislative priority right now for the president in this lame duck session? So I think right after the election, I talked about four or five legislative priorities. Obviously this was one of them. Getting our judicial, we think our very qualified judicial nominees through is a priority. The NDAA is a priority as well. So we have a couple of key priorities that we want to work with our congressional partners on getting through, and this is certainly one of them. And, you know, again, you know, FEMA has the money to respond to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, and that's assuming there's no new large, obviously, hurricanes or natural disaster. But, as you know, when it comes to SBA, that funding is fully exhausted, and you have, you know, that type of funding is critical to businesses, homeowners, and renters, and they really rely on that funding that SBA funding to certainly deal with recovery and rebuilding. So there's a real need here, a real urgency, and so we're going to work with congressional members to get that done. Did you hear a dire message yesterday from those North Carolina officials? Look, I think they're trying to recover and rebuild, and I think that they were devastated by the hurricane. As we all know, I think some of you were able to come with us on that trip, whether it was us or with the vice president, and you saw what they have to deal with here, devastated by the hurricane. So I don't want to speak for North Carolina, but certainly there is an urgency. I would refer you to, obviously, the North Carolina governor, Governor Cooper, on this particular question, but we saw how devastated they were from this hurricane, and it is important. It is important. It doesn't matter if you're from this president. It doesn't matter if you're a red state, blue state, rural, if you're part of a rural America, urban America, all American people deserve to have the assistance that they need, especially when a crisis like this occurs. Thank you. Can you detail how the White House is thinking about clemency in these last two months? Is there a process for how those pardon decisions are going to be made? Is the president expecting to make any sort of statement with the pardons he does in the next two months? So look, the president has certainly been committed to reforming the criminal justice system and has done that through clemency authority in a manner that provides second chances, ensures equal justice under the law and strengthens public safety, and so he's going to continue to elevate clemency petitions in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. I'm not going to get into specifics here on that process, but again, he's going to do this in a way that he believes is the right way to move forward, but I just don't have anything about the process and getting into the nitty-gritty of this, but I think you've seen how the president has treated this over the last almost four years. Hello, Venezuela. First of Brazil, the federal police have just indicted former President Jair Bolsonaro for an attempt coup d'etat after he lost the elections in 2022. Does the U.S. have a reaction from this, and did the president discuss this when he met with President Lula da Silva? So I have not spoken to our teams about this, so I would have to connect with them. I don't have a response. I want to make sure I give you the right response. I don't have a response. And also, you know, we can talk about this after the briefing. What's your next question? Venezuela, the U.S. recently called for the first time President-elect, the opposition leader Esteban González, and I was curious a little bit about the timing. If it has something to do with the inauguration of Venezuela's general attempt, what message is the U.S. trying to send to them? So I will say since July, it has been clear to us, the United States, to democratic nations around the world and to independent international organizations that observe the July 28th elections that opposition candidate Edmundo Urrutia won the most votes, and we said this repeatedly. You've heard me say it a couple times at the podium, and so we've been pretty consistent about that. Winning the most votes makes him what? The president-elect. And so that's what we believe. It does not change our position at all. We, the United States, currently recognize the democratically elected 2015 National Assembly as the legitimate government of Venezuela, and so we do not intend to change that posture during this administration, and again, the people spoke. But even though it doesn't change the position of the United States, it has been four months since the July elections, so why now? What did you see that made you make the decision Look, it should be up to the people, and it was, and that's what we saw on July 28th, and we were very clear about that. We were clear about that, and so, and again, when you win the most votes, that means, in this instance, obviously, that makes him the president-elect, but we've also been very, I think very consistent on saying what we saw on July 28th and that the American people, pardon me, that the people the people in Venezuela spoke. Ken Michael. Just quickly following up on MJ's questions. Have you spoken... Which one? There were a few of them. Have you spoken to your named successor, and if so, what advice do you have for her? Oh, I didn't know that was where you were going. Following up, I didn't see, I didn't think it was that follow-up. Look, you know, I'm not, again, I'm not going to speak to every, every personnel pick, specific personnel pick. I'm going to reiterate a little bit of what I just shared with MJ, which is that, you know, over the past four years, we have been, we have done the best, I think, to stick to expected norms of the office. We've had over 500 briefings from this podium with gaggles also on Air Force One and abroad. And, you know, we hope that they will continue to answer the questions of the American people. That's what we hope. And I will just add that, you know, I have not spoken to my successor. What I will say is that I certainly wish her luck and this is a great job. And it is an honor to speak on behalf of the President of the United States. It is a privilege and it is something that I am very proud to have done for almost four years. So I'll leave it there. Go ahead, April. I have two questions, one a follow-up, one a person who's going to take your place. Oh, please. When Donald Trump was president the first time, there was a period of time we had no press briefings. In the space that you're in in this moment and have been for a while, do you believe it's significant in this moment in time for the American public to hear from the spokesperson on a daily basis? Or do you believe that the President can do it himself? Look, I'm not going to speak how any administration decides to do the business of the American people, how they decide to communicate with the American people. What I can speak to is what we've tried to do, which is bring back the norms of how this all works, how we communicate with the press. And we've tried to do this in a very respectful way. I've mentioned we've done more than 500 briefings proudly. Some have been tough. Some have been tougher than most, if you will. But it is a privilege to stand at this lectern. It is behind this lectern at this podium. It is a privilege. It is a privilege to speak for this president. It is a privilege to actually talk about what we're doing to you and to the American people. I can't speak to what any administration is going to do. I'm not going to look into the future. What I can say is what we have been committed to, the freedom of the press, respecting the press, having tough back and forth. But this is what democracy is all about. And lastly, on Africa. The last Republican president to travel to Africa was George W. Bush. And since Bill Clinton, except for Donald Trump, every president has traveled there. Is there a concern that with all of this, these last four years, having the vice president, the secretaries, and now the president go to Africa to highlight the importance of the continent on so many levels, is there a concern that you will lose ground in the next couple of years because Donald Trump didn't go last time. And he said some very harsh words about sub-Saharan Africa before. Again, I'm not going to... I have no idea what the next administration is going to do. Really, truly. I mean, I don't know what they're going to execute. I don't know how they're... what they're going to do. What I can say is the president's going to Africa because he made a commitment. You saw his commitment to the continent when he had the leaders of the African leaders here about almost three years ago now, I believe. Maybe a little bit longer. And he did that because we believe there are shared interests between the continent, the countries, obviously, and the U.S. and wanted to continue to transform those relationships, right, and work on those relationships. And so that's what you're going to see from this president the first week of December when he goes to Angola. I will add that this president believes in respecting people. Again, it doesn't matter where you come from. It doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. He believes every American has an opportunity to be uplifted, to have opportunities to have a better life for themselves. That's why he believes in this country, what this country is founded on, what this country is all about, getting opportunities, being able to, you know, to live that American dream, however that is defined for you. And so that is something that this president will always respect, not just as president, but moving forward. Obviously he did that as vice president and senator. And so that's what I can speak to and that's what he's going to continue to do. And there's a lot of things that we're going to cover in Angola, right, whether it's infrastructure, growing economic opportunities, expanding technology. There's a lot to talk about, a lot of shared interest. And so we'll have more to share certainly on his trip to Africa. Firstly, on MJ's question. I was on the South America trip and I just wanted to know if your explanation was that he was engaging with leaders. There was quite a bit of downtime and, of course, opportunities on the tarmac, which he has used before the election. So I don't know that that really explains why he didn't. I appreciate that you don't appreciate my explanation. But what I'm saying to you is that the president is looking forward to engaging with you all in less than 60 days. He's done it extensively. It's not going to stop. And he will do that. He will continue to engage with all of you and take your questions. He's done, I believe, more than 600 back and forth with you all this year alone. He's done more than 50 interviews. That's not going to stop. It's not. He's going to engage. And I'll just leave it there. One actual topic, sorry. One actual topic? What does that mean? I just have to get this one coming. Does the administration have a prevailing theory on how the undersea cables on the Baltic Sea were damaged? And do you think that China may have been responsible? I'm just not going to get into any type of theories from here. I will let the NSC team respond to that directly. I'm just not going to get into speculation from here. Katnadi. Thank you, Green. On the statement you just mentioned about the ICC issuing an arrest warrant against Mr. Netanyahu, the defense minister, you said that you found the process has troubling errors. What errors do you think it has? And second, sorry, you talked about the partners. You want to discuss with partners the next step on the ICC decision. Few of your closest allies, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Canada so far said they are abiding by the court decision and they can arrest Netanyahu if he steps on their soil. So did they have a different interpretation of international law than you? So a couple of things. You asked me a couple of things. So the first thing that I will say is that obviously we reject and we certainly have different opinions on that and we're going to let other countries speak for themselves. We're speaking for ourselves. And so we're not going to be executing any arrest warrant. That is not something that we're going to do from here. And I do have some examples on when you asked me about the process and why we think it's essentially a flawed process. And so in contrast to how he has treated, this is the prosecutor, how he has treated others including Nicolas Maduro and his associates, the prosecutor failed to provide Israel with a meaningful opportunity to engage constructively and to properly consider its domestic processes. This calls into question the credibility of the prosecutor's investigation and the decision today. But we've been very clear, not just today, that we do not believe that the ICC has a jurisdiction here. And so over this matter and so we've been very clear about that and that stance has not changed. But I just laid out an example of why we think that what process the ICC did not follow. 19 Democratic U.S. Senators voted to block sending offensive weapons to Israel. And Senator Bernie Sanders said basically that we cannot criticize human rights violation while the U.S. itself is violating its own laws. So where is your opinion on that? So look, we strongly oppose this resolution and we have made our position clear to interested senators. We've been very clear about that. We've been also very clear about this. We are very committed to Israel's security. That has been ironclad. And we believe that these resolutions are counterproductive as we are working to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon and ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza. And so we have strong reason to believe that terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah want to see Israel in a position of weakness and we don't want to see that happen. And so look, we appreciate the concerns that the senators raised. Obviously we respect their position. We just do not... We strongly oppose the resolution. OK. Following up on your comments on the change of nuclear posture by Russia. You said it's another example of irresponsible rhetoric. Is it a way to dismiss what Russia said to say there is no real reason to be concerned? These are only words? Say that one more time. There is no... That there is no real reason to be concerned that this is just a Putin... Oh, you're talking about their nuclear doctrine that they put out. Look, here's what we're saying. We haven't seen any indications of Russia preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. We just have not seen that. And so this is more of the same, right? More of the irresponsible rhetoric from Russia, which we have seen the past two years. We've seen this before. But it doesn't stop what we have been saying that the escalation is coming from Russia here. They're the ones who are escalating. This is their war. They're the ones who have... Went into a sovereign territory, which is Ukraine, and started this war and pushed forward with their aggression. And so this is a war that they can end. They can end it today. And we've been very clear about that. I know I have to wrap it up. I wanted to follow up on the Trump transition team not signing the MOUs. Have they provided any reasoning as to why they want them? They can speak for themselves. I'm not going to speak for the Trump transition. Are you concerned about the implications of the delay of the transition? I'm not going to speculate from here. We are continuing to have our discussion with the Trump transition team. We're just not going to speculate. Good afternoon. Two topics, one on immigration, one on unions. Immigration. New York Post is reporting that ICE is quietly loosening some of the restrictions on how migrants would have to follow the asylum procedure. Basically, they wouldn't have to do the physical check-ins with Customs and Border Protection. The former head of Customs and Border Protection is calling it an obstructionist transition. Is there any effort by the current administration to kind of curb any of the immigration overhauls that Trump is likely to do? I don't have any policies, new policies to speak to at this time. I just don't have anything. I would refer you to DHS for any specifics on that particular question. But if you're asking us if we are doing any policy changes, I don't have anything to announce. I laid out for one of your colleagues what we have been doing, especially since we moved forward with our executive actions in June and what we have seen encounters have dropped more than 55%, and they're lower than they were even four years ago. And so that is what we're going to continue to do. We're going to continue to enforce our laws. That's going to be our focus. But I'm not going to speculate on, again,what the next administration is going to do or not do. Anything specific about loosening of what's happening at the border, I would have to refer you to the Department of Homeland Security. My question is just on unions. The president has talked so much about being the most pro-union president ever. This week, the DNC staff union put out a pretty scathing note saying that so many DNC staffers have gotten laid off, no severance. They were shocked. I'm just curious. From an optics perspective, the vice president left town to go to Hawaii on vacation. Does the president think that's appropriate when so many DNC staffers are literally wondering what they're going to do for him? All right, let's not twist this in so many knots here. First of all, to your first part of your question, it's not the president who called himself the most pro-union president. It's other unions that have called him that, and he is proud to be called the most pro-union president ever. That is something that he was given to him, and he is proud to own that. And it's not because it's a frivolous statement. It is because he has shown he's not just spoken, but taken action and has had the back of union members and union workers throughout his presidency. As it relates to the DNC, I would have to refer you to the DNC. Does it look bad for the vice president to go to Hawaii while DNC staffers are just wondering what they're going to do for work? The vice president has taken time off to go spend time with her family. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think she deserves some time to be with her family and to have some downtime. She has worked very hard over the last four years, and her taking a couple of days to be with her family, good for her. Good for her. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Thanks, everyone.