LIVE: Rubio Holds a News Conference at the G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Atlanta

Thank you. It's kind of strange. And I think you guys know who I am. You wouldn't be here if you didn't know who I was. So thank you. Well, I want to thank the city of Atlanta. They did a great job hosting us this week. It's one of America's great business and innovative hubs, and it's been an ideal location for us to not just showcase our country, but to focus on critical economic policy issues that are facing the world today. Under President Trump's leadership, the United States has established a clear mission for the G20 to get back to basics and to focus on the core purpose for why this forum was created in the first place. So this week in Atlanta. At the foreign minister's level, we executed on that directive. We focused on core economic, energy, technology, and supply chain challenges, and we addressed practical solutions and real outcomes that benefit the citizens, not just of the countries represented here today, but of the world. We have a lot of complex, interconnected problems. In the world right now, that impact our countries collectively, and we have to work together to find solutions to those problems. That's why it's important to get this group together to have a serious, focused meeting. And I'm happy to say that this week we covered a lot of ground, and you'll find everything we talked about in my chair statement that will be coming out if it hasn't come out already. One of the main issues we addressed, of course, was freedom of navigation, safe passage of vessels in international waters. It's vital to the livelihood of the world, and we see the attacks, and that's what they are. Let me understand, and I underscored this in my comments. I'll underscore it with you now. We now live in a world where the Iranian regime actively and openly targets commercial vessels for attack, not naval vessels. We're not talking about naval vessels. We're not talking about submarines. We are talking about them saying, here's a commercial vessel with cargo, oil, natural gas, and we are going to try to sink it. We're going to try. They are openly attacking vessels. As a tool of statecraft, that's the world we live in, and I think Central Command in the United States has done a phenomenal job of protecting this shipping, and today the amount of fuel getting through there is comparable with what was coming out before the conflict, but nonetheless, we've had to defend these ships from drones and missiles almost every single night, and we're also seeing attacks, not just in the Straits now, but also in the Bab al-Mandeb, and the hostile coercion, of course, that we see, maybe not as kinetic, but certainly still concerning in the South China Sea and the Straits. Thank you very much. purposeful meetings on this subject, but obviously, and that we are aligned at least in our goal and our understanding that it's a serious problem, although I cannot say we are aligned on how to solve it. My closing comments on critical minerals really could have applied to this as well, and that is that we all agree there's a problem. But, obviously, there's work to be done to find agreement collectively on solutions. I'm also glad that on the sidelines of this G20 gathering, we were able to get the Quad group together again and discuss a myriad of topics, a myriad of issues. The Quad is something we've invested a lot of time in. I think this year alone we've met four or five times. It was my first meeting as Secretary of State when I took over in January of 2025. And, um... And we're going to continue to work in that forum as it's gone from a place where we just meet and talk about problems to a place where we identify areas to work together on interaction, being able to act on that. And hopefully we'll be announcing very soon, if we haven't already, that we'll have a quad leaders meeting in Manila in, I guess. So, these are the issues that are important to the United States and to all the countries here today. We have a great relationship with all the members of the Quad, and our partnership enables us to address these challenges in an effective, unified way that benefits the shared. National interests of our respective countries. I also had great bilateral meetings. For example, we had a trilateral meeting with Japan and South Korea. We've done that a number of times as well. We signed a memorandum of cooperation on transnational Arctic-Pacific partnership with them. And together we'll ensure that the Arctic remains a region free of dominion or coercion and that it instead remains a place of peaceful relations and commerce. We're grateful for all of the invited participants who came to Atlanta here this week. I want to recognize the Polish delegation in particular. Poland as a country is making great strides economically as well as in the security domain because they put their national interests and their citizens first. They are stronger. They are more robust as a nation. And America, as an ally and a partner of Poland, therefore, is stronger as well. President Trump believes very strongly that Poland deserves a seat at this table of global leaders, And we very much hope to see them. And other strong nations on the rise invited back next year. As we prepare for the summit in Doral, which is coming up now in December, I want to give my thanks and praise to my fellow cabinet members who have led extremely successful ministerials across the country leading up to this one. The U.S. presidency of the G20 has been one of the many highlights of America's 250th birthday celebration. We've successfully used this platform to build global initiatives that truly benefit. We are looking forward to another great G20 meeting that will be led by President Trump in Florida in December, and that will be a capstone to this year of American leadership. All right, let's go. Right here. We'll start here. We'll move around. I can't get everybody. There's a game, guys. All right. Hello? I can't tell if it's on. Yeah, it's on. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I can barely see him. His damn podium. Go ahead. Recognizing that it is difficult enough to get 20 people to agree on any one subject, let alone the variety of issues that you were going for here, or talking about here, I'm wondering if there is, what you're most concerned, or maybe concern is the wrong word, but what obstacle to consensus on the most important issues that remains after this meeting? Well, the first obstacle in any is to identify what the problems are. If you can't even agree on what the problems are, you can't make progress. So I do think that what you saw in this meeting over the last day and a half, and what I hope you'll see in the leaders meeting, is a universal recognition. That on issues like critical minerals and supply chains and freedom of navigation, and that these are issues that all of us should be, food security, these are issues that every nation on earth should be concerned about. Now, what you saw in the back and forth, of course, is that nation states argue about what are the causes that are creating those problems, and they're arguing about how to solve them. But I think the first step is at least some universal acknowledgement that freedom of navigation matters, that critical minerals matters, that supply chains matter, that food security matters, Not just to the countries at the table. But to countries around the world, and I do think we have that. Now, obviously, there's going to be a lot of work that goes into determining how we solve some of these problems. And some of them, frankly, are being challenged by very acute challenges like the war between Russia and Ukraine, like the conflict in the Middle East, like unrelated conflicts, but nonetheless, ones we see, for example, like in Sudan and the one between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. So there are some regional conflicts as well. Coming to an understanding about what the problems are is important, because at least it lays the predicate for what you seem to want to be talking about. Of course, I wouldn't pretend to you today that we are close to finding universally accepted solutions to these problems. But I do think that among the G20 represented here are countries that are working together to solve some of them, particularly in the realm of supply chains and critical minerals. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. When it comes to Iran, what was your message to the G20 on diplomatic efforts? And how much time are you giving these Qatari-backed talks with Iran? An opportunity to succeed before you might resume military operations. Well, I mean, the message is simple. Iran is blowing up ships, including ships that have, for example, Indian sailors on them, including ships that have energy that's destined for countries represented at that table. We live in a world in which a country is openly, you know, a regime is openly saying we will blow up commercial ships. Think about that. Think about the world we now live in. It sounds like something from 100 years ago or 80 years ago. It's happening, and every country there is challenged. As far as the talks are concerned, I don't know if there's a time frame that's up to the president to make decisions with regards to those sorts of things. There are multiple talks. Talks have actually never stopped. There's been active conversations going both in some cases directly but often through intermediaries, and the president's preference in any. The challenge around the world is to try to solve it diplomatically and peacefully if possible. He recognizes there are some issues in the world that cannot be solved peacefully, unfortunately, sadly. But we would prefer to solve it in that manner. So I'm not going to characterize either the progress on those talks nor any time frame on it other than to tell you that if there is a diplomatic solution, we would be open to it. But obviously it can't be one that endangers our national security or one that doesn't meet our core concerns that we have. That brought us into that in the first place, and that is primarily that Iran not only has shown that they clearly have ambitions to be a nuclear weapons power, and that can never be allowed to happen, but this is also a country and a regime that's at the center of all the instability in the Middle East. In Lebanon, there's instability because they support Hezbollah. In Saudi Arabia, under attack because Iran supports the Houthis. In Iraq, it's a country that's feeling challenged because Iranian-backed militias are challenging the state there. So anywhere you turn, what you find is some Iranian proxy that's undermining the peace and stability of the Middle East. That's a fundamental threat that we have to confront, on top of the fact that they want nuclear weapons. This is a regime that's massacred its own people. You can only imagine what it would do to others if they possessed weapons of mass destruction, which will never be allowed to happen as long as President Trump is in the White House. Yes, second row. I have no science for picking people. I'm part of it. I can't see it. So like, don't feel discriminated against. I'm just, yeah, I will. Don't worry. I'll try to get as many people as I can. Go ahead. Usually when people see my face, they don't pick on me. Mr. Secretary, thank you for doing the briefing. Mike Wagenheim with i24 News. When it comes to freedom of navigation and the communication here this week, is it more would you characterize it as America is laying out the ideas and asking for everybody else Anybody else to follow, or are other countries contributing? Their own ideas here, is it more of a collaborative process? Well, freedom of navigation, there's different challenges in different places, right? So when you talk about the Black Sea, obviously you saw a lot of countries speak up and provide a willingness to both Turkey and India. I've come to the table with some ideas about how we can get grain shipments moving because this is threatening the world of food security and some energy security as well. In the case of the Straits, it's more challenging, of course, because many countries around the world don't have the ability to project power in the region. The president has, of course, repeatedly asked for countries to join us in the endeavor of protecting global shipping through the Straits of Hormuz. So far, we've had some very limited cooperation, but not much primarily has fallen on the United States to protect shipping. And obviously, in the Indo-Pacific, we don't have active kinetic things going on like what you see in the Straits or even in the Black Sea. But you do have some challenges, some territorial claims that we do not recognize. And that's why you see us not just continuing to have a presence in that part of the world, But also to operate jointly and cooperatively with our partners to continue to make clear that we do not. Okay, yes, ma'am. I wanted to ask you about the Quad statement that you put out. You don't exactly call out China in that statement, although it's clear that the concerns raised about economic coercion and arbitrary export restrictions seem to apply. So could you clarify whether that was, in fact, the thought? And then I wanted to ask you about these Ideas about the Black Sea, so are you thinking that there is sort of growing momentum for a ceasefire, at least partially to govern the Black Sea grain shipments and ensure food security? So I think on the second point, there is, I wouldn't call it momentum, I think there's growing interest. From the international community to serving as either guarantors and or facilitators of some sort of agreement that allows, because of the threat it's posing, not just to energy but primarily to food and grain. So I wouldn't call that momentum, but I think there's been renewed interest in serving a role, and we are examining proposals, for example, that have been forwarded to us. Maybe a couple weeks ago, maybe a week ago from Turkey in that regard, and we'll continue to explore that. We'd like to achieve it. It doesn't solve the war, but at least it solves a unique aspect of it. In the case of the Quad, look, the Quad is not an anti-anybody. It's not a format that exists to be against any country. To the extent we express concern about things in the Quad, it's concern about behaviors. It's concern about activities. Now, those activities or behaviors are coming. It is not an anti-China or anti-anybody coalition. The Quad is a cooperative agreement between four countries that share common interests and common opposition to behaviors. And that's what we'll continue to point to. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Lalit Jha from INS, an Indian news agency. What role do you see for... Did you guys cover my trip when I was there a couple of weeks ago? You didn't? Yes, we did. Did I get a lot of coverage or a little coverage? You're quite popular there. Oh, good. Popular in India. That's good to know. Among Indian Americans as well. All right. What role do you see for India in G20 and Quad as well? What eludes... What's the next step do you see for Quad going forward in the leadership summit? What's the next step? Next step's in Quad. Oh, we have, so, you know, the challenge in any time you put together a format like the Quad is you can sit and you can meet and you can say we have all these things we want to work together on. You actually have to do it. So in many cases, it's going from talking about it to doing it. So we've had some success, some infrastructure projects in Palau and other places like that. We want to continue to build on that, which we are hoping to put together a business forum. So that the businesses of the four countries can meet and identify unique opportunities to work together. So the forum is both a facilitator of non-governmental cooperation, but also areas of cooperation. As an example, one of the areas that I think we've made substantial progress in to actually have concrete actions is in humanitarian relief and disaster response. We want to be in a situation where the next time there is a humanitarian end or crisis or natural disaster... In the region, that we can pool our resources to quickly provide assistance to a country that's been hurt by a typhoon or an earthquake or a mudslide or whatever it might be. And I think we've had some nascent success in that regard, but we want to be able to do more. Maritime awareness is another area where I think we can pool our resources to better understand not just what's happening at the surface, but also under the water. Any threats to freedom of navigation that are present, having awareness about the domain. So I think really the challenge for the Quad is... We can have meetings, but turning those meetings and the things we talk about into concrete actions, and I think we're building really good momentum. And I think, hopefully, when our leaders meet in November, they will be able to announce some more concrete steps. And each one of these build more and more momentum for the Quad to be a forum that doesn't just say these are four countries that get along with one another and work together, but actually doing things together. The best way to make a forum useful and important is to make sure that it does something. Not just talks about it, but does it. And I think we've made good progress in the last 12 months. We want to build on it. This row here. Yes, sir. Just because you're leaning forward, you guys need to lean forward. He was leaning forward. Thank you. My name is Abdul El-Bardisi, and I'm from Al-Arabiya TV. Okay. What makes the U.S. administration confident that the new strikes on Iran will be brief and quickly, as President Trump suggested, and also without accounting the retaliation from Iran? Yeah, first of all, I'm not going to comment about what the U.S. may or may not do militarily, nor am I going to be up here and broadcast that any decision in that regard has been made. I think the President's observation is the United States remains the most highly capable military power on Earth. We can achieve military objectives if we seek to. He hasn't. I made a decision. I have no announcement in that regard with you today, and nor do we take any of it lightly. The president prefers not to do it that way. If he did, he would have done it weeks ago, months ago. He'd prefer to solve it diplomatically, but I think what the president expresses to you is incredible confidence that if we needed to do something militarily, we would have the ability to do it, and we really have everything we need to be successful, but we would prefer to do it peacefully. Thanks for listening. The next, right behind, right there, the gentleman. Yeah. See, I'm just going row by row and just like, I don't know how, I'm not really, there's no rhyme or reason to it, guys. My apology. Thank you, Secretary. He's complaining. You get questions all the time. You're with me all the time. Go ahead. Thank you, Secretary. My name is Stephan Wotzlaw. I'm with German broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. Do you think there's a possibility for Mr. Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to travel to take part in the G20 summit in Florida later this year? And secondly, was the topic of climate change discussed in the past days? Thank you. Well, it wasn't one of the topics on the agenda, but of course, you know, a number of countries raised it. Brazil and others have raised it, and it comes up, but it wasn't on our agenda in regards to that. But countries raised it in their statements, yes. And the first question about Zelensky, look, that's a leaders-level meeting. That would be up to the president to decide. I wouldn't rule it out. I think the president, especially if something positive could happen as a result of him attending. But I don't have an announcement on that today. All right, yes, sir, right there, leaning into the, right, yes. Thank you. My name is Jiha Ham with Voice of America's Korean service. So President Trump has expressed interest in engaging with Kim Jong-un. So what concrete step is the administration taking to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table? Also, there have been some concerns in South Korea about possible strains in the U.S.-South Korea relationship, including recent visa issues involving South Korean lawmakers. So how would you characterize the current state of the relationship? Yeah, we'll work through the visa issues. I think there was one particular visa individually that there was an issue about regarding behavior perhaps a couple decades ago. But we'll work through that at a bilateral basis, not in a press conference. And on your first question about North Korea, I mean, the president has repeatedly said, as he did in his first term, you'll talk to anybody. The president doesn't view talks, doesn't view meeting with someone as a concession. I know in traditional foreign policy, meeting with someone or inviting someone to something is viewed as a concession that somehow legitimizes them. I think the president's perspective is if. North Korea and Kim Jong-un is prepared to talk with the United States about issues that are of concern to us and concern to our allies like South Korea. He'd be open to doing it. Nothing has been scheduled. I don't have anything to announce in regards to that today. I think that the gist of it is what he has said publicly and repeatedly, that he's prepared for such a meeting. They had two such meetings in his first administration. I think if something productive could come from such talks, he'd be open to doing it again. But we don't have any announcement on that. Nothing's been scheduled in that regard. The last row, are you guys journalists, or are you just here? Okay. I know they're not journalists, because they work for me, and they're not getting any questions. All right, we're going to go through this one more time, and then we're going to leave. Okay. Okay. Hold on. Go ahead. Did you already get a question? Okay, go. Thank you very much. Let me know if somebody's cheating, because I've already had a question, and I don't remember. Then you guys will all tell me. You'll turn on them. Go ahead. Thank you very much. So, yeah. My name is Tom Watkins with The National. You've been asking Gulf countries to support the U.S. position on Iran, but they're the ones that are facing the prospect of Iranian retaliation. What concrete security guarantees are you prepared to give allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf partners if a decision is made for the U.S. to resume strikes? Well, let me first say, we're there doing it now. I mean, it's not our oil and natural gas that's flowing through the Straits of Hormuz. It's theirs, and it's the lifeblood of their economies. And our decent commons, they're now protecting it. Virtually every day, every other day, we shoot down a drone or a missile that's aimed at a ship that's shipping either coming in or leaving with cargo from those countries or for those countries or their energy shipments are already doing that. The United States also has an extensive presence in air defense, and we provide that and have done so in the past, along with other along with their own capacities. They're using American equipment to do much of that. So, you know, we fully recognize the threat that's posed. But think about it again. Just I want to because sometimes we lose perspective here. Think about what we're saying here with the Iranian system. The Iranian regime is basically arguing is unless we get what we want, not only will we blow up ships, but we will destroy the energy infrastructure of our neighbors in the entire region. Just think about that, because I think we skip over that like that's some sort of normal behavior. That's not normal behavior. That's not. But we are there to help protect against it. But just imagine if Iran had a nuclear weapon. Imagine if Iran had a nuclear weapon. Imagine if Iran had weapons of mass destruction of any kind, be they chemical, biological, or nuclear, all three. Imagine if they had that. What would they threaten their neighbors with then? Then they wouldn't be threatening to blow up pipelines. Then they'd be threatening to kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people. That's who we're dealing with. So I think the fact that you even have to ask that question is a reminder of the nature of the regime that we're dealing with in Tehran. That's been waging war, not just against the United States, but against its neighbors in the region since 1979, exporting their revolution. And so the next time that a Houthi strike reaches into Saudi territory, it's a reminder that the Houthis would not have the weaponry they have now were it not for Iranian support. And the next time that Iranian Shia black militias in Iraq either threaten the nation state of Iraq or threaten the neighbors, it's a reminder. It's a reminder that Iran has been a destabilizing force against their neighbors and Iraq all of these years. The next time that an Iranian missile strikes a target in Bahrain or in Kuwait or anywhere else in the region, it's a reminder of the threat that these people pose. By the way, the next time Hezbollah fires a bunch of rockets and invites aggression coming back in their direction from Lebanon, not to mention threaten the Lebanese state, it's a reminder that Hezbollah would not exist, much less have the capabilities it has now. To threaten its neighbors and launch rockets and missiles, were it not for Iranian support. Yes. I wanted to ask you about the participation of Sergei Lavrov in this week's ministerial meetings. Your EU counterpart, Kaja Kallas, said today that hosting President Putin at the G20 in Miami in December would risk regularizing his war crimes. Counterparts from other countries have been critical of the inclusion of Minister Lavrov this week. Why is it important to have Minister Lavrov here and to potentially include President Putin in Miami in December? I don't have any announcement. I don't even know President Putin is going to come to Miami. They haven't announced that and they haven't confirmed that. So I thought the president thought it was important that Russia be a part of the G20 conversation because in the end. Everything people ask about all the time is, what can you do to end the war in Ukraine? Well, just think about this for a moment. In order to end the war in Ukraine peacefully, you're going to have to have a negotiated settlement. Who is that negotiated settlement between? Russia and Ukraine. How can you have a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine if you don't have the ability to talk to both Russia and Ukraine? How can you talk to both Russia and Ukraine unless you interact with them? And so I think today is just one more opportunity to continue to interact with the Russian system. As I've said to you earlier in my conversations, the president does not view. Meeting with someone or talking to someone as legitimizing everything they do or everything they stand for what he does from a practical perspective, because he's a person that comes from the common sense world of business, not from a traditional foreign policy or traditional and archaic political class is that what he doesn't accept is the idea that somehow meeting with someone legitimizes them or it makes you agree with everything that they do. It's very simple. Everybody wants there to be a deal that brings about an end to this war. How can you do a deal unless you're meeting with them, unless you're talking to them, unless you're interacting with them? And apart from that is the fact that Russia possesses a large number of nuclear weapons. Perhaps people don't remember that, but we will remind you that I think it is important, no matter what, putting everything else aside, it is always important that the United States and Russia have communications at some level. Uh, because of the danger of escalation in the future if God forbid something were to go wrong. So, um, look, our position on it remains clear. And that is if we can play a role in mediating an end to that conflict, the United States is prepared to play that role. And to play that role, we have to have the ability to communicate with both sides. We talked to the Ukrainians plenty. We talked to them, you know, as much, if not more than we talked to the Russian side, but we have to be able to talk to the Russian side. And one of the ways to do that is to invite I'm going to invite him to forums like this where they're not just hearing from us. But potentially hearing from other countries that are there as well. On the next row. Oh, wait, I went this side. Okay. All right, this guy's not going to stop. Go ahead. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. Alex Lavrov. This better be a good question because I wasn't going to call him. Go ahead. Just to follow up on what you just said on Lavrov, can you give us a better sense of your interaction with Lavrov this time? My what? Your interaction with Lavrov. Well, we didn't have a meeting. We spoke. I mean, we spoke about, you know, but we didn't have a meeting. We spoke just briefly about the opportunity for our leaders to potentially interact at APEC next month, and we spoke about, you know, there was no firm commitments about G20. And we didn't have a meeting. What makes you believe that negotiated peace is achievable? Thanks so much. Well, I don't know if negotiated peace is achievable in Ukraine. That's what we're trying to find out. Thank you very much. But I don't think anyone here is claiming that we're on the verge of a negotiated settlement. I think what I can say to you is that the United States, you know, we have people that basically, you know, Jared and Steve, as an example, work on this portfolio almost full time between that and Iran. That's all they focus on. They don't focus on the Quad. They don't focus on Western Hemisphere. They don't focus. They focus on that. And we've invested, to say, we've invested a lot of high-level attention to that topic. But, you know, we're going to continue to try and see if we can reach an agreement. But I'm not here to tell you we're on the verge of one, but hopefully we are. But today, you know, we didn't have any meetings about that at this G20 gathering. Okay, in this row right here. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I wanted to ask you if the United States helped Flavio Bolsonaro flee Brazil. And if you had... I saw him here today. We talked yesterday as well. I think we'll see each other in France. I think he's attending. Brazil's an observer at the G7. They were there, so we'll see them in France in a few weeks. We didn't facilitate anything. I mean, we had word that he had arrived in the United States. He had previously held a visa, and the president made a decision to allow him to enter the country, which we did. But we were not involved in any of the arrangements he made in terms of leaving. At least the U.S. government was not involved directly in any of the moves that were made. But the president made clear that if he arrived in the United States in a port of entry, that he would be paroled into the country, and he was. Okay? Back row, right there. Yes, ma'am. You, yeah. You sound surprised. It's a press conference. You ready? Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. Do you think a limited ceasefire... Regarding Black Sea shipping and grains, is more likely now than before, following this conference? Yeah, I'm not an odds maker. I wouldn't say more or less likely. I would say there's interest in facilitating it. And by the way, it's not new. Like, Turkey, for example, has been consistently, and at one point did have an agreement in place in the past, and then, of course, fell apart. So I wouldn't say it's – I don't want to put or prognosticate the chances of it. I do think it's having an impact on many countries around the world. You heard that expressed today. The African continent in particular is paying a high price for it. So I really hate to put like odds because in foreign policy in particular odds are a hard thing to set. But I do think there's an incredible amount of interest in facilitating something that we have. Nation states that are involved in India has also expressed an interest in perhaps floating some ideas. And so we're open to that. We've been talking to countries, but I can't give you odds as to how likely it is to happen. We'd like to see it happen. It doesn't solve the war problem, but at least it diminishes some of the spillover impact that it's having on the food security of vulnerable countries. Okay, yes. Did I already get you? No, okay. Can we start putting like a little sticker on people when I call them? I can't, like, the lights make it hard for me to see. Go ahead. Marco Valerio from Rai, Italian National TV. Ah, Italy. Oh, yeah. My question is, in your speech in Athens, you call for a revival of Western democratic values. Yes. And I was wondering, when it comes to food crisis or Ukrainian crisis, is there any of those values that the U.S., along with the Europeans, is trying to uphold in finding a solution on the Ukrainian crisis? Well, I think primarily, look, obviously, but, I mean, at the end of the day, I think the Ukrainian. The Russian issue is pretty singular right now, which is we're trying to stop a very deadly war in which, on the one hand, Kiev every single night is facing devastating attacks against its energy infrastructure, but also increasing numbers of civilians being killed. And even on the Russian side, you know, you're seeing 20,000 Russians killed a month. It's a very deadly and destructive war. And every month that goes by, you're just adding. Think about how long it's going to take when this stops. How long is it going to take Ukraine to rebuild its economy, rebuild its energy grid? We also think it's very costly for Russia as well. So right now, I mean, yes, ultimately, I think embedded in all of this is values that we care a lot about. But the primary value we care about is it's not really very complicated. There's a very nasty war going on, very destructive war, what appears to be in some ways of a stalemate that has the threat of escalation and spreading into other places. We already see some of the ancillary effects of this crisis, as an example, the Black Sea, as an example, some of these, you know, irregular... Efforts at sabotage that have spread into other countries drones that are being launched that are being intercepted by electronic means and so they wander into the airspace of a NATO country. There's a lot of danger involved in that as well. So from us, the singular focus is how can we is there an opportunity for the United States because we talked to both sides to be able to facilitate a negotiated end to a very deadly, very costly and very destructive war. And that's. Really what we're focused on. And that's a pretty ambitious desire. Everyone has encouraged us. In every meeting we have, no matter what, be it the Europeans or others, we are encouraged to remain involved and engaged in this. And so we've remained involved and engaged. But that's really what we're focused on there. I don't know how that ties into the speech I gave. Uh, yeah. Yes. Well, go ahead. I feel bad I pointed at you. Go ahead. We didn't have that more than one mic, guys. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Paris Wong, Voice of America. Did you get a chance to convey the U.S.'s commitment to Taiwan and Ukraine to your Chinese and Russian counterparts? Also, did you also get a chance to talk to them about the potential bilateral meeting in AIPAC or even in Miami? Thank you. Which bilateral? I'm sorry. Between President Trump, President Xi, and President Putin. Well, there will most certainly be a bilateral meeting at both. I mean, they'll meet in addition to being a part of these forums. I'm certain that we'll meet with regards to that. So we didn't discuss those brief conversations about arrangements for both the attendance at G20 and at APEC. So we talked about that. But that was the gist of it. I mean, ultimately, the point of this gathering, as I said, is we want – it's not that geopolitical issues wouldn't be discussed at G20 because I'm sure they are, and there were a lot of other bilateral meetings going on that we were not involved in between the different countries we were here. And it's why we structured the agenda the way we did, to leave plenty of time for some of these countries to interact with one another, so I can't speak to all of those meetings, but the core of this meeting and the core of what the President's vision has been for G20 is to bring the G20, which is primarily an economic forum, back to its core principle and purpose. And that's what we tried to address in the agenda we outlined today. That doesn't mean that geopolitical issues weren't discussed on the sidelines by different countries, but that's what we focused on in both our agenda and in our engagements. Okay, right here in the middle. I was wondering whether you fear that your job will become more difficult come January when you have to deal with the Democratic Congress? Do I fear it? Well, first of all, we haven't had an election yet, so we don't know what Congress will look like. So second of all, no, I mean, look, the foreign policy, Congress has a role to play in foreign policy. I played it for a very long time as a member of the Senate. So I understand what Congress can and cannot do with regards to foreign policy. But when it comes to issues of national security and foreign policy, the executive branch, and I learned this. Both ways. I learned it when we were in the majority and in the minority. I learned it when Republicans had the White House and didn't have the White House. That the majority, our foreign policy is largely directed by the executive branch. Now, Congress has a role to play, primarily in the funding and the appropriations and in their oversight function. But, you know, that's just a normal part of our system. I've been a part of it. I've been a part of it on both sides. I've been in the minority. I've been in the majority. I've had a Democratic White House and I've had a Republican White House. It won't influence or change the president's directives in terms of what he was elected The president was elected to execute the foreign policy of the United States. That is a function of the executive branch. It obviously will have oversight from the congressional branch, and it will have funding from the congressional branch. But that's normal. Administrations have played that in the past. Thank The previous president, Biden, had a Republican Senate to deal with at one point. President Obama had to deal with a Republican majority you at some point as well during his. you So it's not unique to have a divided power in our system, and we've always had a foreign policy. Thank you. very To my great frustration when I was a member of the Senate, I realized that while there are things we could do, ultimately the foreign policy decisions are made by the executive branch, much. and Congress plays a role, there's no doubt about it, but the central role belongs to the executive branch. It's something I learned when I was in the legislative branch, and it's something I know now, but we'll see how things play out. All right, I've got a couple more questions. Go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you. Myrtha Donostorg from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Oh, we have to cut. You have to. Thank you. You've been lauding the city. Last night at the reception, you praised Atlanta and the region's vibrant economy, calling it the economy of the future. But when I talk to business owners and workers here, they're struggling under high inflation and increased uncertainty from the administration's economic policy. So given the priorities of the... This meeting, did any concrete solutions come from your discussions that will help ease the economic burden people in the city and state and across the country are feeling? Yeah, look, I think the way to cover the G20 is a little different than that. And it's the G20 is a gathering of the 20, theoretically, the 20 largest economies in the world that collectively represent 80 something percent of global GDP. And the things we talked about today most certainly will have an impact, not just on Atlanta, not just on the United States, but the entire world and not just next week or next month. Some of these are long-term issues, as an example, supply chains, as an example, energy. You know, if access to energy is impeded or in any way we can't generate sufficient energy, you can't power your economy. Energy costs are embedded in the cost of everything we buy and everything we pay for, which is why the U.S.'s energy dominance and self-sustainability policies are so important. But none of these are magic elixirs that happen overnight. Likewise, in the case of supply chains. And I think we learned sort of our first inklings of, you know, supply chains was something you just talked about in the. in the business world, but it really wasn't widely discussed politically or in society until COVID. And in COVID, people realized things we used to buy all the time were suddenly in short supply, and you couldn't get them because we realized that these supply chains are interlinked across the world. And if there's a disruption halfway around the world, it could ultimately disrupt either how much you have to pay for something or how much access you have to it. So I think the way to cover G20 is not a forum in which you're going to come up with solutions that you're going to feel tomorrow or next week or solely in the United States. It is a place where we are discussing issues that are going to impact and define the global economy and Atlanta's role in it, but the country's role in it for the next 20, 30, 40 years. So these are big picture things that we're talking about long term. Suffice it to say that whether it's access to critical minerals necessary for technology, whether it's access not just to energy to power what we do now, but energy to power the things we need to do for a 21st century economy, or whether it's supply chains across the board, these things are going to have a huge impact, not just on what Atlanta looks like today, but what Atlanta is going to look like and how much it's going to cost to live here and work here. 10, 15, 20, 30 years down the road. That really is what the G20 focuses on. All right, I have time for two more questions. One way in the back, that gentleman right there. And then, huh? Oh, it is. Who are you with? But that would be like the third voice of America question. All right, well, I'm going to think about it while I answer his question. Some time ago, an agreement was made between the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland regarding Greenland and the Arctic up there. And for the last couple of weeks, the president has been very active on the campaign trail, saying that he was very glad that Denmark gave Greenland to the U.S. And that is being perceived a little differently in Denmark and in Greenland. So has the president misunderstood the agreement that was made or has the people of Denmark and Greenland misunderstood it? Yeah, I'm not sure what comments you're referring to and I certainly haven't followed how it's been covered in Denmark. Suffice it to say we have a very good deal, one the president is fully apprised of, he understands and is very supportive of. And it builds on what we've done there for a long time. But one of the most important things that it does is it ensures that never do we have to worry about, irrespective of the decision Greenland makes. If they one day go independent or if the state continues to be a part of the kingdom of Denmark, it will never have to worry about it being a place where a potential adversary through commercial means. Can gain access to things that would be harmful to any of our countries. I think just from a strategic standpoint and where it is geographically, which is what the president has always focused on when it comes to Greenland, is national security. It has always played a critical role in national security. It is more pronounced now, not just because of defenses against missiles, but because of the Arctic. And you now have a place that is not, we now have an agreement in place that will exist in perpetuity that ensures not just the equities of North America, meaning the United States and Canada, but all of our partners in NATO as well. And so it's very solid in that regard, and we think it's a very positive deal, and one that I think gave us what the President was most interested in, and that is protecting not just the national security of the United States, but the security of our allies in NATO and in North America. Okay, I'm going to do your question, and then one more, and then we've got to go. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much. U.S. is deporting dozens of Afghans back to their country. It's the first time that the U.S. is deporting a large number of Afghans. How is this plan moving? Well, I can't comment. I mean, we don't, the State Department, I'm not avoiding your question, I'm just telling you, it would not be, you'd have to direct that to the Department of Homeland Security. Sure. And in regard to the region, Pakistan and the de facto government in Afghanistan are at war. Now, the Russians stepped in to mediate between two countries. President Trump has ended many wars in many countries. How do you see these tensions in the region? Well, we share, look, Pakistan is concerned about terrorist attacks that are being sponsored from the territory of Afghanistan. They feel as if the Taliban has not done enough to constrain those attacks. And they've taken action against it. We obviously have heard those concerns on their part. We obviously don't want them to be targeted for terrorism. So if there's a productive role for us to play, we would play it. We don't necessarily have the closest relationship with the Taliban, as you can imagine. Can you imagine? So... But in the end, I mean, we've heard the concerns that Pakistan has raised, and we've seen some of those attacks that they point to. We're against terrorism, no matter where it emanates from and who it targets. Okay, final question. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned the Houthis and Bab al-Mandeb, but there's a perception in the Middle East that the U.S. has downplayed the Houthi threat. How do you respond to that? You designated the Houthis as a terrorist organization, but the president himself said they are firing at one country. How do you respond to this perception and at what point or is there a red line? The U.S. will join the Saudi strikes against the Houthis. Well, I won't comment on that part of those military objectives are always a decision for the commander in chief and the president. Suffice it to say that we have defense agreements with Saudi Arabia. We've lived up to those commitments and will continue to live up to those commitments, particularly those that are defensive in nature. Beyond that, those are decisions for the president to make. We are in regular and. Continuous contact with our partners in Saudi Arabia, not just here today, but on the phone and in conversations, including between the Crown Prince's Highness and the president very recently and multiple times over the last month. So we're tracking all that very closely. But the statement I would make is we have a defense cooperation agreement. We have defense understandings with Saudi Arabia. We intend to continue to live up to those commitments that have been made. And we're happy to see that other countries have also participated and joined in helping defend the kingdom against these attacks. And we remind everybody that at the end of the day, the Houthis certainly and the capabilities they have today would not exist. They would not have the capabilities they have today had it not been for the support, direct support of the Iranian regime that allowed them to grow in their capabilities and continue to destabilize the region. Okay, thank you guys. Thank you.