布魯斯舉行國務院新聞發布會

謝謝先生 好 您好嗎? 我是Matt Lee 我看到Andrea Mitchell在這裡 謝謝你 我在這裡 這是一個很大的旅程 我們準備好了嗎? 大家準備好了嗎? 好,我今天要開始 跟大家說幾句話 大家好,很高興見到大家 在我第一次的簡報中 我說過在川普總統之下 和平通過的力量已經回來了 從第一天開始 在這個政府之下 我第一次的簡報中 已經有11天的時間證明瞭 為了和平的重要進展 美國的頂尖外交官 馬克·盧比奧 和國家安全顧問麥克·沃爾茨 前往了塞爾維亞 與烏克蘭代表團會見面 結果烏克蘭表達了準備 接受美國提出 立即實施 30天的暫停 對抗俄羅斯和烏克蘭 現在球體 在俄羅斯法庭 更多的進展 也在烏克蘭 代表團會見面 隨著這個歷史性的會議 盧比奧在加拿大 前往了G7 我們的夥伴們 表達了支持 這場戰爭 我們的國家也展現了力量 在總統的指導下 這次政策 引用了1798年 外星敵人法案 以取消 十幾個危險成員 在塞爾維亞的 激烈暴力的外國恐怖分子 組織中 威脅我們的國家 進行不正常的戰鬥 並威脅美國人 我們表達了 我們的真誠感謝 在這次轉變中 盧比奧 作出了重要的角色 如盧比奧所說 盧比奧表示 他不是我們地區 最強勁的保安領袖 他也是美國的 好朋友 在我們的對抗對手 特朗普總統 命令了美國武器 對在原尼 在耶曼地區的恐怖分子 他還提到,川普總統發了一封強烈和明確的信息 這些攻擊美國的船員和全球貨物必須停止 我們會保護你們 我們會保護我們的人民和自由航行 在川普總統的最高壓力政策的延續之後 在上個星期,伊朗政府宣佈了 伊朗貿易領導人和陷阱船的制裁 這些行爲是爲了阻止貿易領導人 向伊朗政府提供貨幣流通 用於在中東發生衝突 提高它的核子計劃 並支持它的恐怖分子 此外,美國政府還會考慮 取消外國人的簽證 支持哈馬斯 並釋放反宗教侮辱 威脅 謀殺和暴力 在美國大學校園上 正如羅比奧總統說的 3月6日 我們也要通過這些行爲 來提高伊朗的貿易領導人和陷阱船的責任 提高伊朗的反宗教侮辱 謀殺和暴力 在美國大學校園上 正如羅比奧總統說的 謀殺和暴力 提高伊朗的貿易領導人和陷阱船的責任 在中東發生衝突 提高伊朗的反宗教侮辱 在美國大學校園上 正如羅比奧總統說的 提高伊朗的反宗教侮辱 正如羅比奧總統說的 提高伊朗的反宗教侮辱 過了這三天,他有他的權利,但那些都已經過期了 他有一個禮拜的通知,所以這個禮拜已經過期了 他必須要離開這個國家 我的第二個問題是你之前提到的AEA Alien Enemies Act 據你所知,這座建築肯定知道 有幾個規定必須遵循 其一是要實行一場戰爭的宣佈 其二是要實行一場戰爭的宣佈 或是要實行一場戰爭的宣佈 或是要實行一場宣佈 你認為美國會否將麥當勞當作是加拿大國家的最有權力總統 其二,如果美國會這樣做,或者不會這樣做 那麼加拿大和加州會否被美國國會覆蓋 You know, just before I came up here, my colleague, Caroline Leavitt, had a great deal to say about this. This belongs at the White House. This is a dynamic that's happening at the White House. Well, but I also, in addition to that fact of referring you back to the White House and to DHS regarding this, this is in the courts. And as you know, I'm not going to pontificate on or guess or muse about what's going on with the courts at this point. So it clearly, the White House has been very transparent. Caroline was very clear this afternoon about their approach. Clearly, they feel that this is something they want to litigate and they're going to. And for the good of the American public, it's an important thing to do. Everything we know that the Trump administration is doing, certainly President Trump himself and his team, is in the interest of the United States. And that's why he was elected. People are excited about the nature of the actions that we're taking swiftly. And this is one of them. And we will see it play out in court. And that's the extent of what I'll say. So now there's a third section. I thought you said you were going to forego the third part. No, no. I'd just like to have an answer to the first question. Does the U.S. consider Nicolas Maduro to be the legitimate president of Venezuela? And is... This is related to immigration issues and peace through spring. Sure. Does Secretary Rubio believe that if Afghanistan is among the countries that are there on the list, a draft list to be banned, that legitimate SIVs who were approved by the State Department during the fall of Afghanistan should be a carve-out and that these people who help the State Department, CIA, DOD, can come and have refugee status? But what has been touted as something that is an item through the State Department just simply isn't the case. So the premise, I have to say, I certainly can't speak to because it's not accurate. When it comes to the nature of Afghanistan and those who have helped us, the arrangements we've made already in the past, getting as many people from that conflict here, certainly those who have assisted us and worked with us, that's been a policy and a dynamic that we've worked on from certainly even the previous administration, working to try to get that happening. So that's not something that is certainly I can talk about regarding something that doesn't exist, but certainly when that review is done, we'll have something that we can discuss. OK. Then let me ask you also about your view, the Secretary's view, about the legality of a foreign country holding an American citizen from Iowa who has not been charged with any crime and holding his passport and not permitting him to return home in the case of what's happening in Punta Cana and the Dominican Republic. This young man and his family and his lawyers say that he has not been permitted to leave the Dominican Republic, that he has been a cooperating witness, he's not charged with any crime. Does the State Department have any view about the rights of that U.S. citizen? Well, I think what's appropriate here is for me to not, this is unfortunately the nature of the State Department and what we do. When it comes to diplomatic efforts, whether they exist or not, the nature of legal frameworks for individuals, the privacy issues involved, that's not something I can get into any detail about. He has spoken publicly and his family has. Does he have consular access? Well, that's his, I think all of us have a right to speak and to be known, but we have a standard and a protocol here that we won't discuss a private situation, a private case, certainly when it comes to diplomacy, diplomatic relationships between one country and another. I'm not going to go into those details. All right, Sean. Thanks. Can I go back to South Africa, the ambassador? Sure. The Secretary, of course, had his exposé on Friday. Can you explain a little bit the reasons? It's quite an extraordinary step. I was looking back, if I'm not mistaken, even in the height of tensions with Russia, there was no expulsion of the ambassador. What is it? Essentially, this is remarks that the ambassador made at a think tank or at a conference that were critical. Should other ambassadors be on alert? Can they not criticize President Trump without fear of being exposed? I think it's not about criticism. This was the equation of the president and the country with white supremacy. It was an allegation that casts such an awful light on the nature of the country, on individuals. If we don't have a standard about the nature of someone who is in this country who is supposed to be a diplomat to help facilitate the relationship between two countries and that this is the standard of it. We deserve better. We've had a decent level of diplomacy with South Africa. There are some challenges. But you want people in each embassy who can actually facilitate a relationship. And these remarks were unacceptable to the United States, not just to the president, but to every American. They were pretty much obscene when it came to the nature of what was alleged. So that is, I think, at the very least, what we should expect is a standard of some respect. Basic, low-level respect. If you're in a position that is going to help facilitate any kind of diplomatic relationship with another country. This particular individual certainly didn't meet that standard. And it is a message to people of what America expects, what the president expects, what the secretary of state expects, what this whole administration expects when it comes to treatment of the nation itself and as a result of the people in this country. And so that's why it was done. Can I just expand on that? South Africa today said that it wants to have a better relationship with the United States. Are you open to that? I mean, there's another secretary of state from the G20. Are you of the view that South Africa can repair the relationship despite the criticism that's come from this building? I think both the president and the secretary of state have made it clear what the problems are and what they have an issue with when it comes to South Africa. The unjust land expropriation law as well as its growing relationship with countries like Russia and Iran. That's what prompted the serious review of our South Africa policy, which continues to be underway. They have taken also the South African government aggressive positions toward the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice and reinvigorating its relationship with Iran to develop commercial, military and nuclear arrangements. So this isn't one just of demeanor or decorum, however they add into it. This is a matter of a nation that is, again, made it very clear, taking steps that are not in the best interest of providing a safe, secure, more prosperous America, let alone world, when it comes to the decisions they're making. So all of this is under review, but obviously part of it is within the diplomacy of it is to encourage a change in policy and posture. Of course that would be the point. The point is to encourage a change. What I've seen with the trips we've made with the diplomatic adventures, of course, as well as the G7 Summit in Canada is the nature of the Secretary of State is to make things better for people. It is not to punish or to target people or countries. It's the nature of changing policy and creating better environments for all of us. And I've seen that in motion in every dynamic. And that's the case here with South Africa as well. Nadia, yes. Thank you so much. I have a couple of questions on Yemen first. What is the U.S. strategy regarding Yemen? Is it degrading the capabilities of the Houthis that they don't pose a threat to U.S. interests? Or is it destroying them completely? Because there's conflicting statements from U.S. officials saying, like, we're not going to interfere with the civil war in Yemen. Well, what we've seen, of course, in the past when it comes to the Houthis, it was a tit-for-tat strike. If the Houthis would be sending missiles or attacking both commercial and military ships, what the previous administration did is they would do one strike as a tit-for-tat dynamic. What's happening now is a complete shift when it comes to the nature of why it's going on, which is to stop the assault on the maritime traffic in that area. And up to this point, there's about 174 attacks on American naval ships, which is an extraordinary number of attacks. And this isn't a situation that should be managed. It has to stop. So the message to the Houthis is, if, you know, this will end when you end the attack on both commercial and military ships in that region. So it's a maritime issue, and it's meant to completely change the posture of the Houthis and, of course, in conjunction in that dynamic with Iran, that the days of pinprick responses where we allow that to occur is over. It's, I think, a pretty clear statement from the administration as a whole as well. The visa thing. The visa, sure. Can you, is the area clear when it comes to revoking visas for foreign students? Are you revoking visas for students who clearly support Hamas and shows literature that's supporting Hamas? Or does it also include students who support Palestine or the free, as they say, the freedom of the Palestinians or showing sympathy with civilians in Gaza? Is that area very clear? Well, what Secretary Rubio has been saying on a number of different interviews is that this is about, if you were, when you think about someone applying to come into the country to get a visa, if you were to say everything that he was, ended up doing as would be his goal upon entering the country, we would never have issued the visa. So you have a dynamic whereas if there's going to be certain kinds of actions that you're going to undertake that we don't accept that. Every country has a right to control its borders and to determine who's going to come into the country. So in this particular instance, there's also, I know, a freedom of speech argument. But this is not about speech. It's about actions. It's about things that were done. And, of course, I don't want to go further because also this is within a court dynamic. America's got the best court system in the world and there will be arguments on both sides, no doubt, regarding this. But it has to be argued. It has to be litigated. But the actions that we take and the decisions we make are not about content. It's about actions that are occurring and certainly in that particular case. Yes. Go ahead. Hi. Just to follow up on the Houthis' question. So President Trump said every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon as a shot fired by Iran. So we're wondering if Houthis don't back down, is the United States prepared to attack Iran or give Israel to do so? I think you're referring to President Trump's truth social tweet. And I'm sure you all have it on your phones. You should. Because I'm going to refer you right back to that tweet. It speaks for itself. Right. Just to follow up on a different topic. So Voice of America and Radio Free Asia is one of the outlets under Voice of America. They have written extensively on the oppression of Uyghur Muslims by Chinese authorities. Actually their reports have raised awareness about the plight of Uyghurs. And this is a topic that the Secretary feels strongly about as well. We've just seen him last week impose sanctions on Thai officials over deportation of Uyghurs to China. That's right. Does he think about the shutdown of this outlet? Does he support this decision? Well, what you're referring to I think is the VOA and some other outlets involved with the current some budgetary changes and actions that have been taken. What I can tell you with all the aspects that are happening in this shift is that it's a fluid situation. And I look forward to watching it unfold as you do. I know you're all reporters. And some reporters here in the bullpen have been affected. But the fact of the matter is this is serious business. It's the business of government using taxpayer dollars. So the same standard applies here. And of course it's just happened. Carrie Lake as essentially the envoy within this framework is someone that Americans know and trust. And I look forward to seeing how this unfolds. But right now it's new. It's a fluid situation. And we'll have more for you as it unfolds. When you say fluid, it's your return. All right. Go ahead. - 在這種狀況下發生矛盾 那些現在還活着的人 可能明天也會活着 這是不完美的 這並不是任何人可以預測 最終的結果 這是一個政府 一個總統 和一個國家的祕書 他們明確地表明 如果這場戰爭發生 這場戰爭是爲了和平 是爲了結束這種混亂 這會毀掉了耶穌的生命 這會毀掉了世界上 您等了很久 有兩個問題 一是關於加勒島 救援已經禁止了 自2月2日 情況非常糟糕 我很好奇 您是否真的擔心 尤其是 這和一開始的 人們需要的食物 水等等 餓亡 被用作 壓迫 這不是 國際的戰爭狀況嗎 對於 加勒島人的慘痛 我們知道在哪裏 在哈馬斯 我們知道在戰爭中 我們爲了戰爭 而繼續戰爭 是爲了確保 食物和救援 能夠進入該地區 美國在這方面 我們也知道 現在 安徽衛國 在這方面 我們都在關注 您的擔憂 確保在地區 食物能夠 達到需要的人 救援能夠 達到受傷的人 因爲哈馬斯的選擇 在這些年 我們繼續在這方面 確實是一個擔憂 這就是爲什麼我們繼續 努力確保 食物能夠達到需要的人 請問 斯里蘭法 上個星期三 宣佈了新的法律 它給予了 沒有權利的少數民族 例如喀什和德魯斯在斯里亞 並被這些少數民族拒絕 並評估了 這個法律 您對這個法律的看法 有沒有任何人 在這個部門 與新的斯里蘭法 有關係 您有與他們的聯繫嗎 我認爲 與他們的聯繫 與斯里蘭法 是的 這個政府包括希拉里 也呼籲伊朗政府 恢復伊朗的 油產 以解決在伊朗工作的 美國油公司的問題 但是這並沒有發生 以伊朗的觀點 您是否要求伊朗政府 恢復油產 在這個新聞會上 我不是要進行 國際的商談 或者專業的商談 或者 美國總統的想法 但是我們會看到 在這方面的行動上 我認爲會非常明確 斯里蘭法的新政府 與其他地區國家 如土耳其 加拿大 意大利 和其他國家 都呼籲美國 恢復在阿薩克政策 這些制裁 是一個非常重要的阻擋 來穩定和恢復 這個國家 美國政府認爲 恢復或調轉這些制裁 我認爲 川普總統 對於 以色列的觀點 還有美國政府 和美國總統 這些都是 需要談判的 我不會在這裏 從這個臺上 是的 這取決於 問題是什麼 但是請說 我會說 關於這種行動 我們可以討論的 是國家安全部 這是他們 在西銀行 我認爲 在國家安全部 我們所看到的 以色列行動 在北京 在珍尼 在土耳其 在美國 國家安全部 我們支持 以色列 謝謝 川普總統 請問 你們在說什麼 川普總統 是的 我們在說 川普總統 對於 國家安全部 以及國家安全部 在一些方面 川普總統 會討論 這個 choices that are made in that regard. But when it comes to, again, negotiations, diplomatic considerations, and the conversations that those involved in, what might happen, I don't want to have a... I don't want to presume here what the outcome will be. You don't want me to either. I think that the best thing to do would be to... -Can I reframe the question? I'm sorry? -Can I reframe the question? Well, no, no, because I'm not... What I'm not going to answer is diplomatic considerations from government to government, or attitudes and approaches when it comes to what's happening in a certain country that belong within a diplomatic kind of conversation that clearly I can't speak on or would I hypothesize about what might happen. So, yes. -I have one more question. -Just to follow up quickly on what Humayun was saying about USAGM, Radio Free Asia and these broadcasters, because I think you're going to get a lot of questions about this. -No, I expect it. I just got back into the country over the weekend. I thought, well, this will be discussed. -As you mentioned, it's affected colleagues we know in the bullpen. Can you just clarify when you say that you're watching this unfold, do you know if this is something that could be reversed in terms of what they're doing with you? -You want me to speculate? And I know you know I can't. And I know I come from a background where that's mostly what I did for a very long time. That I can't do here. -OK, so my next question is about something different. The State Department, according to some reporting by the New Republic, terminated a contract to the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab. They were tracking evidence of Ukrainian children that had been abducted by Russia since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Some of that evidence was about to be from their work. It was about to be transferred to European law enforcement officials. Can you comment at all on whether it is true that this grant was terminated? And do you have any other comments? -Well, I can't confirm that. But obviously I'll take it back and I'll get back to you to get some details in that regard. Yes, sir. -Before that, let me follow up on Radio Free Europe from a different angle. This administration last month secured one of the reporters jailed in Belarus for working for Radio Free Europe. And I won't give you credit for that. But given how strongly you feel about their cases, can you assure us that you will continue securing the lives of Radio Free Europe reporters from Azerbaijan and other countries even if you end up defunding them? -Well, I... That's not something I can answer here. Again, when it comes to the nature of the choices that will be made. But what I can tell you is that this is a country that has led the way from the very start of radio of making sure that voices are heard everywhere. That this is something this country can be proud of. And it sits within the framework of what matters to us. At the same time, this nation has to look... And I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of. Look to the nature of how America is going to be able to remain strong and safe and secure and more prosperous so that we can continue to move through with foreign aid with facilitating voices that normally other parts of the world would not hear. It is a part of democracy. And of course you want every nation to have that kind of commitment as well when it comes to who's able to be heard. So that's a commitment that stands. It is the heart of this nation. And certainly that's not going to be ending. The framework of certain things might change or how we facilitate them. But certainly not that commitment. And I think we've done a good job of that, and we should all be proud of it as well. -My second question is about Russia and Ukraine. That was my original question. -I've clearly lost the bucket of issues here as we've gone from a few things back. -Can you comment on reports that the United States pulled back from an international group investigating Russian crimes? What is the strategy there and what message are you sending to Russia who continues actually committing crimes? -We're going to be looking into a number of different things. That's anecdotal. I'm not familiar with the nature of what happens, so I'm not going to be able to speak to that. Yes, right down the middle here. I think the gentleman in front of you, sir. -So we both were at the G7 the last week. And the focus was Ukraine. So today in Europe there was European Council they met, the foreign minister and they discussed about Ukraine and the European Union proposals. So it seems like Europe is very divided right now. Like Italy, Spain, Ukraine. I mean, Hungary and Slovakia are more aligned to Trump's proposal. It's not proposal, but like plan. And the other ones more like these are like want to keep giving military aid to Ukraine. So what is the as a State Department how do you guys interact with the European right now? Are we going to go for the Trump plans or the European ones? -I think we're going to go with the Marco Rubio approach. Which is to talk to everybody. Which is to put out the new ideas. Which is to argue for them on the merits of those ideas. That's what happened at the G7. What happened at the G7 was a collection of people of very different points of view. Some big disagreements. But a direct specific decision mentioned by the Canadian foreign minister that we're going to focus on what we do have in common. What we can get done together. And really the importance of the gathering itself and what we can do together. There's a lot of people I think that would prefer us to be distracted by the disagreements. But what I've seen Secretary Rubio accomplish is remarkable. And in different environments. Environments where there's negotiations between countries attempting to stop war. A minister's meeting where they're all aligned in some fashion or another and want to work together but have disagreements. I can say this fortunately having been there. Is that it's been his voice and I'm proud as an American that it happens to be the American Secretary of State. It's his voice that has brought conversations together. That has brought groups of people together. And we know this is why you need a State Department and why you need diplomats. Because everybody's going to have different ideas. Everybody's going to think there's a better way. And we all have investments in the nature of the outcome. America is the strongest country in the world for a reason. All the combination of things we do. But mostly because we are a nation of merit and arguments and speech and the ability for people to be heard and for all of us to have an open mind. That is what Marco Rubio brings to this debate, especially in Europe where there are disagreements. We will, and he expects to, win people over based on the merits of the arguments that we continue to make every day. And I'm going to leave it there, everyone. I'll see you Wednesday and Friday this week if you didn't get enough. There'll be more to talk about. Thank you, everyone. I appreciate it. Have a great day.