REPLAY: Rubio Speaks After Meeting With G7 Foreign Ministers

I stand here. It messes up the shot. Okay. All right. Let's go. How were your talks today, Mr. Secretary? MR. Which ones? We talked a lot today. No, but did you mention at all the Ukraine issue with your – the other ministers? MR. Well, no, because – I mean, you know, obviously people bring it up when that comes, but that'll be on the docket tomorrow. That's part of the program. So today they focused on S.I. We focused on global conflicts other than Ukraine and other than the Middle East. Those are going to be breakout sessions tomorrow, separate sessions tomorrow. But obviously, there's a lot of people asking about that. As you know, our team, as I haven't had a chance to speak to them yet, but Jared and Steve are in Abu Dhabi today on the trilateral talks. So hopefully, we'll have a good report here soon and be able to share that with you tomorrow. Tomorrow and. So we'll see how that goes. Mr. Kushner is in favor of, I mean, he mentioned specifically that it would be a good idea to have direct European talks with Russia. Is that an idea you think is good? We've never been against it. It's been the Russians that haven't wanted that, right, up to this point. But they're there, the national security advisors. I believe Germany, the UK, and France are in Abu Dhabi, although I don't believe they're at the table at this moment. But nonetheless, they've been involved. They've been involved in all the meetings in Shell Bay as well down in Florida. So sure, I mean, ultimately it would be a positive. I'm positive, but... We've got a ways to go, but it's good that they're talking. It's good that the trilateral talks are on again. It's better than not having talks. Obviously, it has to produce something, and as you know, it's been difficult to get anything productive out of that, but we'll keep trying, and that's what we've been trying to do the whole time is try to be creative and find ways that we can help bring that conflict and that war to an end. Secretary Kayakalis. Look at that suit blue. That's gator blue. I like it. Go ahead. Kayakalis today said she wasn't hopeful for these Abu Dhabi talks because Russia has shown no sign that it's willing to negotiate in good faith. Doesn't she have a point every time that the U.S. has offered economic inducements to Russia or re-engaged? They've just responded with more bombing campaigns in Ukraine. Well, look, we're just going to keep trying. I mean, in terms of – I can totally tell you that your chances of success are zero if you're not trying. So we're going to continue to try. We seem to be the only country in the world and the president the only leader in the world that can get the Russians and the Ukrainians to the same table. But we recognize it will not be easy to reach an end to this. If it was easy, we would have done it a year and a half ago. This war is almost going into its sixth year in February. So we understand the difficulty of it. But I think the president deserves credit and his team deserves credit for the amount of time they put into this, despite the fact that it hasn't proven productive to this point. At some point, this war will end. And it will end, we all believe, through a negotiated agreement. And so we're going to keep trying, and that's what's going on today and over the next couple days. Anyways. But, yeah, no, I mean, I think if we don't try, the chances of it working are zero. Mr. Secretary, on Jensen Huang, the president has said today that he thinks he should stay on as the head of NVIDIA. The company says there's an investigation. How important is it that... There's a thorough investigation in your view. I'm not going to comment on it. It's an internal corporate matter for them, so I'm just not going to comment on that topic. Well, if you judge the president, it's not a business problem. You'll have to ask the White House. I don't handle the... That part of our operation. But I just can't comment. I'm not going to comment at all on the NVIDIA thing. You don't view it as a national security concern? I'm just not going to comment on it. Can I ask you two? I think they'll be real. And I can't. And I'm not going to. So go ahead. Really quick questions. And I know that you've said over and over again that everyone... You say you have two very quick questions? Yeah. Okay. You're going to get like one very quick answer. Go ahead. I'm sure. I'm kidding. Go ahead. That other countries understand how the U.S. GOVERNMENT WORKS AND DEMOCRACY WORKS. WE HAD AT LEAST TWO, MAYBE THREE FOREIGN MINISTERS TODAY SAY, YEAH, THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE MIDTERMS ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION OR STRATEGY ON IT. I UNDERSTAND FROM SOME OF YOUR AIDES THAT THIS DIDN'T ACTUALLY COME UP IN CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU, BUT YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS GOING TO HAVE Yeah, but I just don't know why that's relevant. I mean, the foreign policy will be what it is. And so we're not very mysterious about it. I mean, I think this is a pretty forward-leaning administration. What I pointed out to you yesterday, I'll point it out again today, and that is I've been involved in this for a little while now, and while obviously Congress has a role to play in our foreign policy, it is the administration at the executive branch that leads American foreign policy and, frankly, sets it. And when we had Democratic presidents and I was in the Senate, I was reminded of that. You know, many occasions we had opinions about foreign policy. We tried to influence the foreign policy. But who is who is the president? Well, largely, he's going to determine the direction your country goes with regards to foreign policy. And that's the way it's historically been in American history. That's the way the Constitution is set up. So, again, look, Congress has a role to play in our foreign policy, particularly in what it funds and in its oversight function. But the number one factor in determining the foreign policy of the United States has always been and will remain the President of the United States. And then secondly, just because you mentioned it in your tweet about your meeting with the French foreign minister and a couple other foreign ministers mentioned it as well, the ICC issue. Yeah, we raise it everywhere we go, and that is the ICC is a court that continues to claim, elements of it continue to claim that they have jurisdiction over individuals from countries that are not members of that treaty. And we've tried for a year and a half to get them to reform a nice way, and they haven't been willing to do so, so we'll have to try a different approach. What have you told the Europeans will happen or may happen if they go ahead and invoke the statute? Well, we've already said... Well, I'm not going to talk about what we might do or not do as a result of it. Suffice it to say that we believe we can inflict tremendous damage on the ICC unless they see the error of their ways. Secretary, a member of the Republican Party, Thomas Massie, minutes ago introduced a measure to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. As the person who coordinates the interagency policy regarding U.S. national security, do you have a view regarding Secretary Hegseth's performances? I think he's done a great job. I mean, I've worked with him every single day on many of these topics. I've seen the work he does and the professionalism he brings to it. He's very smart. He works very hard. He puts a lot of hours into this. And on all the policy issues we've worked on together, I think he's done a very good job. On the topic of AI or SI... Just one question on that. How concerning is it to you, however, that it was a Republican who introduced these articles of impeachment? I think it's unfair. Yeah, look, I think Pete's done a good job. I really do. Again, I work with him, and so I see perhaps a side of him that the media doesn't see and members of Congress may not see, but I think Pete works really hard. He's incredibly smart. I think he's not just on the issues that we've worked on together and the execution of it, but if you think about it, I mean, he's carried out multiple, the Department of War and the Pentagon in particular has been responsible for many of the important things this administration is working on, whether it's our counter cartel coalitions that we have going on in the Western Hemisphere. He's done a great job with that. I think the performance, look, the damage that was inflicted on the Iranian military structures, they have no navy, they have no air force, they're deeply degraded from a military standpoint. They still retain capabilities, obviously, but they are very degraded from where they were a year ago at this time. I think the operation they conducted to capture a fugitive of American justice, Nicolas Maduro, was carried out impeccably. So, you know, I think... From the perspective that I sit in and the seat that I'm in as the national security advisor and secretary of state for that matter, Pete has done a very good job. He really has. And, you know, but obviously politics are politics and people can have different views. But I can tell you my perspective from where I sit. Can you talk about the discussions you had on AI or SI? There's been a big... Well, they call it AI. We call it SI. Sure. No, look, we had a conversation about it. I think the point I made in that conversation was, on the one hand, it's... It's going to happen. There's no way to stop any technological advance like AI throughout history is going to happen. And it's going to have tremendous benefits. There are good things about it. They're going to make us more productive, make individuals more productive, and improve the quality of all kinds of things. It also has some real dangers associated with it. One of the dangers people focus on is what happens if these models become independent of human control and end up taking independent actions that are harmful. But there are other dangers to it, even if it's not a frontier model. Just a good AI program that's good enough, or an SI program that's good enough in the hands of a malign actor. can allow them to do things that in the past malign actors couldn't do. You worry about how it can be used to create biological and chemical weapons, how to do cyber attacks on infrastructure and carry out acts of violence or acts of terrorism. That could have a huge cost. I think we need to speak more as well about the disruptive nature that it's going to have on our economy. I think there will be economic benefits to SI. I also think it will displace. Potentially certain industry and workers, the way automation did, the way globalization did. We need to prepare for that as well. So these are all things that we have to figure out a way to maximize the benefits of SI, but also mitigate the potential dangers. This is true of any new technology. Well, the difference between this one and the ones in the past is this one is developing so much faster than any other technology we've ever seen. I mean, literally every three or two months, what you did two months ago becomes obsolete. The pace of it is moving so fast that it's a tremendous challenge to try to regulate or control something that's developing faster than your ability to keep up with it. So it's a real global challenge, but it's also one that the U.S. is going through. And it's a balance between trying to mitigate its dangers and trying not to stifle innovation in advances. And it's a work in progress to figure out how to handle that. Does the regulatory approach being pushed by European governments at the summit, do you think it does strike that balance? No. I mean, we're very concerned about these global institutions trying to regulate something It would stifle innovation. So we don't think that's the right approach from our perspective. I wasn't on it today because I was here, but there was a phone call that I believe heads of state were on, and Secretary Blinken represented us on that call, and he expressed the same sentiment on it. I was wondering if you had any information. Apparently the French foreign minister, I don't know if he told... The IRGC has been conducting acts of terrorism and sabotage around the world for a long time. That's like... Breaking news, the IRGC is a bad group of people. That's why we sanctioned them. That's why we consider them terrorists. On this specific issue, did the United States share any information? Well, I can't comment on what we shared or didn't share. The French are quite capable, certainly, as well, in their own intelligence field. But suffice it to say that, you know, they put out there today, these people, I mean, what kind of sickos are these people? They attack refrigerators. France is not even involved in this, really. I mean, if you think about it, I mean, yet they got attacked nonetheless because this is what you're dealing with. You're dealing with a deranged group of revolutionaries. The Iranian people are great people. I've said this. Go back to my hearing when I was being nominated Secretary of State, and I talked about how great Iran is and how great its people are and how different the Iranian people are from the small core of violent maniacs that govern them. It's very sick. And these people are very sick. And they're very bad people, and they do terrible things around the world. They've been doing terrible things now since 1979, so it doesn't surprise us. And so obviously the, you know, so the news today doesn't surprise us. They've done things like this for a very long time. Mr. Secretary, can I just follow up on the question of the ICC? Because Kaja Kallas today said that she, they had spoken to you about their continued support for the court, didn't seem to be budging on your demands. And I'm just trying to clarify, is your demand, I mean, it's one thing saying you want to guarantee that the U.S. will not be investigated, but is the demand that nationals of any country that are not signatories to the Rome Statute Well, I care about America. Okay. Bottom line is we're not going to have some American servicemen or American military commander standing trial at some illegitimate court that we're not a member of. It's as simple as that. And by the way, no one raised it with me. I don't know if she told you. I don't know why she would tell you that because she didn't raise it with me and no one raised it with me. But they can if they want to. And I'll tell them exactly what I'm telling you now. They want to join that thing. They can be a part of it. What's never going to happen is no American service member is ever going to be arrested 20 years from now because they were the fighter pilot in some operation that was conducted. Thank you. In a country that they claim jurisdiction over. It's just not, we're not going to tolerate that. And this is, by the way, a long-standing thing. This is not new. There have been debates about this domestically in the United States since 2004. And it's been going on ever since. We're finally going to deal with it because that court is drifting further and further into... A territory that's into ideas that are simply not acceptable to the national interest of the United States. So I care. I know you're asking about other countries. I'm telling you, I work for America and I care about what it would mean for Americans. If you look at something like Duterte is in custody, you know, it's been claimed that case. Duterte is not an American. So, you know, that's the case. And they're doing I'm focused on the impact this could have on Americans. I work for the United States of America. We may agree or disagree with the way the ICC has expressed its jurisdiction in other places. We just view it as precedent for what they may want to do to an American in the future. But as it goes to Israel, the warrants against Netanyahu, because the president has mentioned that, obviously. Yeah, we think it's an illegitimate, Israel's also not an enemy, but today is Netanyahu, tomorrow it'll be an American. So, again, it's not about the individuals, it's about their claim of jurisdiction over countries that are not members of the treaty. If we wanted to be under their jurisdiction, we would have, we would have, uh, We would have joined. We didn't join. We're not a member. There are questions today about the future of the Republican Party. You have in the past said that if Vice President J.D. Vance runs... I don't know why you're wasting your time. I'm not going to talk about 2028 any longer. I'm just not going to talk about 2028 anymore. But I'm just asking you about a comment you've made in the past. And I'm just telling you that... Okay, here's my answer. You ready? I'm not going to discuss 2028. I'm not going to discuss it in any form or fashion. But thank you. But I'm not going to talk about it. But why discuss it months ago and not today? I'm just curious. Because I have that choice. I can make it. There's things that, so we're not going to talk about it anymore. You can make a choice about if you want to run for president or not. That's what you're saying? I can make a choice about it. I told you I'm not going to answer that question. You can ask it eight different ways, but you're not going to get it. Okay, I'm 32. Not even. I'm not going to talk about it. So you can ask me, but I'm not going to answer it, because I'm not going to talk about it anymore. This is not a question about the election. Okay, sure. Sure. I always say that, and then ask about it. There was a huge amount of public opinion polling around the election, and across the board it showed that voters are very concerned about corruption in the government. There have been some instances of credible allegations of corruption in U.S. officials dealing overseas and diplomacy. Obviously, the case study will be Ambassador Gilfoyle. Okay. So my question is, are you concerned that Americans might believe that American diplomacy is infected with corruption, self-dealing, self-enrichment? Do you think that perception is out there? I don't know if that perception is out there or not. I can tell you at the Department of State, and I made this very clear from the very beginning, there have been multiple things that have been sent out to make this very clear about what the ethical standards we expect everyone to abide by. And we're going to continue to reiterate that. And that precedes whatever happened in Greece and anywhere else. We have a process for addressing those things, and we take that very seriously. So I can't opine about any of all the story. I don't know which other ones you're discussing, but I can tell you that we have repeatedly within the Department of State, and we haven't done it because we're suspicious of anybody. We just want to remind everybody that at the end of the day, we work for the American people. We work for the government of the United States on behalf of the American people. And everything we do in our roles has to be about furthering the interest of the United States of America, not the interest of any individual. That's the standard we've set That's the standard we try to follow every single day. And if someone doesn't meet that standard, we have a process to address it. Do you think the department is living up to that standard and U.S. officials are living up to that standard? If it's not, we'll take it very seriously. If we ever come across instances or evidence that someone has not lived up to that standard, we have processes and laws in place to address it. We won't tolerate it, I can tell you that. Do you feel Ambassador Gilfoyle is the exception here? Well, I'm not going to comment on individual cases. She's no longer the ambassador and she's no longer with us. But I'm saying other people other than her. Do you think there are other – do you feel like everything is – No, if I ever came in otherwise, if I ever came across an instance where I had a well-founded suspicion or the department did that someone was doing something they shouldn't be doing, we will address it very promptly and perhaps have addressed it very promptly. But we have a process for doing that. We don't do it at press conferences. We do it through the process that we have of identifying a problem, confirming whether it's real. And then we also have an inspector general process as well internally. So, but we take this very seriously and we won't tolerate any exception to the rule. Secretary, regarding the talks this week in Abu Dhabi, I spoke earlier today with your European counterpart, Kaja Kallas, who said that from her view, Russia has not shown that it's willing to negotiate. Yeah, but then you just asked me the same thing. Sorry. Okay. Yeah, I've told you guys. I mean, it's not easy to get. That's why this war has gone on for almost five years. We're going to continue to do what we can. You're asking me to guarantee you an outcome. I can't do that. The United States is not a combatant in that war. It's the Russians that are fighting that war, and it's Ukraine that was invaded and is being attacked and being fought against. So all we can do is serve as a... Uh, facilitator of the talks and do what we can from the capacity that we have to inject ideas into those discussions in the hopes of arriving at a solution that's diplomatic in nature. That's all we can do. And that's what we're going to continue to try to do. But in the end, it's not the United States war. We're not combatants in that war. And so we are doing everything we can to bring that war to an end. But in the end, it takes, you know, the combatants to agree. But we'll do everything we can because we think it's important. The president's made it a priority, even though it's a war. That's not America's war. Secretary, I just wanted to ask what the discussions on Haiti were. Are there any concrete steps or path forwards that you see? Yeah, you look at... transitional government, even... Votes for... In Haiti, yeah. So, yeah, we want to have... I mean, there's scheduled to be national elections in Haiti. Obviously, there are challenges, security challenges to it as well. That's the reality. The gangs still control large portions of Port-au-Prince, as an example. I can tell you that on that issue, the Canadians deserve a lot of credit. They've really stepped up. They've been a big catalyst in the work that's been done. Obviously, the United States has been very involved with them as well in this UN mission. I think the gang suppression force is starting to gain momentum. It's up to 2,000. With another 3,000 or 4,000 been pledged. So you're starting to see momentum in the training as well, the police force in Haiti and improving their professionalism. But, you know, it's a difficult challenge. And I would say if the gang suppression force effort doesn't work, then we're out of ideas. So we have to make it work. There really is no other option. There's no plan B here anymore. So the effort, the Kenyan-led effort sort of just wasn't doing enough. This, this. New process is what replaced it, and it has to work, because if it doesn't, I don't know what other alternative there is at this point. So we'll just continue to encourage, and we raise it at all these G7 for these countries to step up and donate money to the account necessary to make this effort successful. What's the timeline on ramping up the number of troops deployed in the GSF, and do you think that the timeline on the elections is appropriate, just given the security situation? Well, look, ultimately, the elections, you can't have elections of gangs controlled. You know, large portions of the city, people will say it's not a legitimate and credible election because if a significant percentage of the population can't go to a voting place because it happens to be controlled by a gang, it makes it very difficult. So stability is important for elections to be credible. That's why, you know, in Ukraine, they haven't had an election in a long time either because they're in the middle of a war, right? So our point is that we'd like to see elections in Haiti. You know, before you can make real progress on an election in Haiti, you've got to do more to push back the gangs so that people can actually go vote and not get killed or decapitated. Secretary de la Alta, you mentioned that you expected to see your Brazilian counterpart here. Yeah, Mauro is here. Do you have any expectation as to how much time you'll get to speak with him? Or can you characterize the status of the relationship between the two governments now, several weeks after the Brazilian election and after Flavio Bolsonaro's arrival in the U.S.? Well, I mean, we talk to him. Every time I see him, we have conversations and we'll probably talk while we're here. We're here, we don't have a scheduled meeting or anything, but we'll be dealing with the Brazilian government. I mean, that's, we were dealing with them before. And we have an issue, you know, where they haven't allowed our ambassador to come into the country. That's a problem. Danny Perez, he's our nominee. They didn't grant Agramont. That has to be fixed. And we hope they'll fix it because we don't think it's good, sets a good tone for our relationship for them not to allow our ambassador to go into the country. They have an ambassador in the U.S. But at some point, that imbalance can't continue. So we'll start there. And then obviously, there's some trade issues. I'm not our trade negotiator, but obviously our foreign policy is affected by trade, so I stay very much on top of those issues and also have to be confronted as well. But, yeah, I mean, Mauro and I get along great. I mean, we speak and we talk, but obviously there are some differences between our government's views on trade and some other matters that will have to be resolved. I know Jameson's been working on that, and we'll have an opportunity to interact with him. I've interacted with him multiple times, many times since I've been in this role. We were having discussions on a democratic transition in Venezuela. Do you have any sense of the timeline? Yeah, I've raised it here with these groups, and we've encouraged more and more of these countries to be involved in that process as well. We think they have a lot to contribute, not just to Venezuela's recovery, but the more I think that Venezuela is exposed to the world that doesn't involve Russia and China and Iran, the more progress can be made there in terms of recovering just from an economic and societal standpoint as far as the process is concerned with elections and the democratic transition. I believe they're meeting again this week. As I said, we're on pace if things continue on scale to have a new Supreme Court magistrate in place by the middle of next month in December. Subsequent to that, very quickly thereafter, will be the creation of the new Electoral Council. These are two things that are essential. There are three things you need for an election to work in Venezuela. You need a new Supreme Court. You need a new Electoral Council that's administrative, not political in nature, and you need a free and open press. And I think it's been very good that Maria Corina and other elements of the opposition have been in the country now for over two weeks. No one's been arrested. They're having press conferences. They have full access to the internet. You can't have credible elections if the people running can't communicate with the voters. There's some other things people don't think about. For example, there are seven million Venezuelans living abroad. How are they going to vote? We need to get consulates open in the United States so that those who are in the U.S. are able to have a voting place they can go to. Right now they have no consulates open in the United States. So there are things like that that we've talked about with their foreign minister. Their acting foreign minister that's in place right now. So I think we're making good progress. We just have to stay on top of it and make sure we can get these deadlines because once you get the... The Electoral Council in place, you have these elements in place. Then at that point, you would hope that the expectation would be that they would declare a vacancy in the presidency, which then triggers a six month period for an election on a date set by the. It's a legitimate electoral council that we're hoping will be set up very soon. So there's a plan. We're pushing forward on it. It's a priority for us, and I think it'll succeed. Mr. Tedrian, we haven't had any talks quickly. I don't have an update because I haven't been able to talk to them today. The president and the U.S. officials have briefed on what they're sort of going into these talks with, talking about security guarantee or security infrastructure around Europe, and is there a discussion of the U.S. providing security guarantees, sort of NATO Article 5 or Article 4 style? Well, all of those things, I mean, all the, there's a, I don't think we've settled on a final concrete plan on what it would look like. I think concepts have been discussed about what security guarantees could look like post-conflict. And the reason why that topic remains in the headlines is because I think it'll be key to ultimately being able to end the war, is an understanding that Ukraine will feel secure after the war. And obviously, it has to be something that Russia agrees to as well in order for it to work. So I think that's the conversations. And while it seems like for some would look like we're working backwards, the truth of the matter is those security guarantees are going to be key in order for Ukraine to be able to agree to something. But it has to be something Russia agrees to as well. I'm stating the obvious, but I think that's why these talks are so critical. Is that something that the U.S. would put into a treaty? I mean, potentially, but I don't know if we've discussed it at that level of detail yet. And as you know, treaties aren't necessarily the easiest things to pass anymore to get confirmed through the Senate and so forth. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Secretary, did you talk with the Japanese foreign minister about the ICC's sanction today? He always raises it. Obviously, the main judge at the ICC is a Japanese citizen. So they raise the point, we make our point. But we have a good relationship with Japan, but we understand we have a difference of opinion when it comes to the ICC. Mr. Secretary, was there any further discussion today on the scale of the humanitarian situation in Gaza? There's been very serious... Yeah, so the new head of the World Food Program, he used to work at the Department of Agriculture, The culture. has now came and gave us a brief on what needs to happen and the progress that we hope to make. Obviously, you know, there are agreements that were part of the ceasefire that we expect to be adhered to, and there is a growing humanitarian need that we want addressed, and the World Food Program is... UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THAT. I THINK WE'D LIKE TO SEE THEM CONTINUE TO WORK OUT WAYS TO WORK MORE CLOSELY WITH THE UN PROGRAM BECAUSE WE THINK THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM HAS THE, WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IS REDUNDANCY OF EFFORT AND WE DON'T WANT TO SEE INEFFICIENCY. WE ACTUALLY THINK THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM IS ABLE TO DELIVER ASSISTANCE IN A WAY THAT PERHAPS THE UN SYSTEM ON ITS OWN CANNOT DO. SO WE'VE ENCOURAGED MORE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TWO AND THAT'S INCREASINGLY HAPPENING. So I was raised today. On this very immediate issue of getting more shelter in because there's been flooding, five people were killed in a sandbag collapse. You can see all the tents were sort of blowing away. I think two thirds of the population were in tents. Well, we didn't. I know that instance today that you're discussing where there was some sort of a burn or some sand thing that collapsed and killed somebody. That just isn't in the news today. I didn't actually see that until after our meeting. So that specific instance wasn't raised. What was raised was the need for wraparound services. In essence, food alone is not enough. And the goal of the World Food Program, by the way, is not ultimately just to continue to feed. Gaza, but eventually have Gaza have its own ability to produce its own food, setting up a bakeries and other things that can create food for itself so that it becomes self-sustaining. That's the goal we all share. But part of that obviously starts with, you know, shelter and the need for heat at some point here. And obviously, given the winter approaching and all these other needs that are necessary in order to sustain life. All of that was part of the border peace program. All of that was part of the way the ceasefire came together. In some ways, fallen behind schedule for a variety of reasons, but we expect it to catch up, and a lot of good work has gone into it. And so we're optimistic that we can pull that together. What is the future of U.S. military aid to Israel? Well, we're currently negotiating a memorandum of understanding. You know, the 10-year memorandum certainly expires. The Israelis, as you've seen... The president said it could expire. It could be done in a year. But the Israeli system, you know, the Israelis, Prime Minister Netanyahu has already stated that he wants to stop being a foreign military financing country and consolidate foreign military sales. He's talking about a decade. The president mentioned a year. I just wonder what U.S. policy is. Well, it's what the president says, that he would like for the financing portion to end. as soon as possible. So we're working through that in terms of how we negotiate the memorandum of understanding. But the president's expectation is that Israel is now prosperous and rich enough to be able to be a sales country. They can buy weapons from us, but we no longer have to provide the financing. It's something the Israelis themselves have offered up. You think they're ready to go it alone and starting in 2027? Well, that's what the president said we're going to do. So ultimately, I think they could if they wanted to. Yeah, absolutely. They also produce weaponry, by the way. So part of the MOU would also involve the ability to co-produce on some things. But on the question of financing, I think Israel has clearly graduated beyond that at this point. They themselves have expressed it. We'll negotiate the timeline. The president wants it as soon as possible. He thinks it makes sense to do it as soon as possible. We're learning a little bit more about the articles of impeachment against Secretary Hegseth with Republican Representative Massey saying that Hegseth... You used the Iran war and knowingly executed and implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation. How would you respond to that, just the allegation as being – MR. I think Pete's done a very good job. Secretary, I know you're not commenting on the current status of NVIDIA, but can you explain, back when you guys went to China in, I believe it was May, Jensen Huang was initially not on that trip and then joined Air Force One kind of midway, I believe it was in Alaska on the way to China. Do you have any recollection of why he was initially left off or why he joined or any of those details? No. I mean, I have a lot of jobs, but the White House travel office isn't one of them. So I just, I mean, I don't want to give you bad information. Can I ask about the U.N. Secretary-General race? Do you have a favorite? If I told you the U.S. wanted it, it would doom them to lose. This is his next job. No, there's a couple of really good candidates, people that we like, two or three, and the process will work itself out. And I think we've expressed our views, but it's an ongoing process, so we don't have a candidate that's the U.S. candidate. We see two or three very qualified people, and we're going to let the voting continue on that front, and at some point the world will make a decision on who they want. We have our opinions, and I talked about that with President Macron just a moment ago, But I think... We're just going to keep working at the way we are right now because other countries get their vote here as well. So we're watching the process closely. In the end, what we're interested in more than anything else is that it be someone that's committed to U.N. reform. There's real momentum behind U.N. reform. I think it's one of the things that's going to save the U.N. is that it reforms. If it doesn't, it's going to be in a lot of trouble. And we want someone as Secretary General that's committed, truly committed to reform. And that's the standard we're using to judge all the candidates that are out there. Are you and your president, Macron, on board? Do you have the same views on this issue? I can't represent that his views are the same as mine. I'm just saying that I hope France is aligned with us on the need to reform the United Nations. And I think there's real momentum for that. I've not gone into a single country or spoken to a single global leader that says, oh, the UN is perfect the way it is. I think everyone generally agrees that the system needs to be reformed, That there was a lot of waste, that there was a lot of bloating. Thank you very much. We've grown so large and bloated and gotten into areas that was never intended to tackle. So we've made real progress over the last year in reform, and I think it's important for the next Secretary General to be someone who's committed to continuing to make those reforms, or the UN's going to be in a lot of trouble. I'm being honest with you. I just think that's the process. We don't fix it. Did you discuss with Macron the future of the UN mission to Lebanon? We did. No, and I think the notion is one of the things that we're working on from our perspective. It's finding the ability to monitor the implementation of the pilot zones. It doesn't have to be a military mission. It could be a civilian mission. We have some ideas because it's important. You know, these pilot zones, the Israelis leave. The Lebanese armed forces are supposed to come in and take them without Hezbollah. We've taken them and using them to launch attacks. We need a verification system trusted by everyone and trusted by both sides that both sides are complying with their obligations under the agreements that are in place. So we discussed a little bit some of the ideas we have on what that could look like. We're not prepared to sort of discuss it yet publicly because obviously it's sensitive. And it would require the agreement of both the Lebanese and the Israelis in order for it to work. But we discussed that process. That can involve UNIFIL? Well, UNIFIL, as you know, is expiring. So something could replace it that can be in that role. But again, the details of that are still being worked on. I can't really at this moment give you, other than to say that the goal remains that we do need some credible Secretary, have you neutralized the Iranian threat against American diplomats overseas that last month U.S. intel learned about? Have we neutralized it? Yeah. Well, look, we're always concerned. Yeah, we've addressed it by moving people away from the threat. There's a couple of things that are a threat. Obviously, you know, we're always worried about the safety and security of our personnel and their families overseas. And so when we see anything that could pose a potential threat beyond a certain threshold, we're going to address it. Beyond that, we're also concerned about what's going on with the Houthis in Saudi Arabia. That could spiral at any moment. In some cases, you've seen Saudi Arabia, for example, attack not just from Yemen, but you've also seen attacks come in from Iraq. The Iranian-backed militias. So for us, what we always have to take into consideration is not just what's happening now, it's what could happen. And if this spreads or metastasizes to other countries and airports are shut down, as an example, now we can't get our people out of now, now they're trapped. So there's an internal process that goes on. We evaluate any time that there's... Any sort of danger involving facilities, we instigate, we initiate an internal process that does a security assessment of our personnel, of our ability to move them when things got bad, how many people are there, dependents and the like, and then they issue recommendations done by our security folks and people on the ground, and those recommendations come to me, and it was on the basis of that recommendation that we made the decisions that we made, and it's not just about Iran, frankly, it's also about what's happening in Yemen with the Houthis. Secretary, asking about the Western Hemisphere. Sorry, coming back to a question on the Western Hemisphere, Paraguay has been, under President Peña, was a member of the Counter Cartels Coalition, the Shield of the Americas. Do you have a view on the recent events and the removal of President Peña from office and the current political situation in Paraguay? Yeah, but he's been replaced by the Vice President, who I also know, and I spoke to him on the plane right here. And I've known him for a while, and a lot of people thought he would be the next president anyway. So obviously we've had a good constructive relationship with President Pena, but there's an internal process going on in Paraguay that we're not involved in and we aren't going to get involved in. I represent the United States of America, and what I'm interested in is our bilateral relationship and cooperation with Paraguay, and I expect that that will continue to be as strong as it's ever been and will continue to grow the way it was growing. I don't believe this change will in any way negatively impact our relationship, And that's a good thing, and that's an important thing. Thank you. On Cuba, are you sensing any organic effort on the ground in Cuba to actually oust the communist leadership there? That's not the way to read it. Here's the problem with Cuba. Well, you guys asked the Cubans to reach out to the CIA, so I'm wondering if that's delivered any results. Well, I wouldn't tell you if I got a result from the CIA. I mean, come on. But I would, because then those people aren't going to be doing very well. So all I can tell you is this. Here's the problem with Cuba. The regime there is afraid of giving their people any kind of freedom, economic or otherwise, because they like to control them. So what that regime there is trying to do, and they've always done, is they want to have enough economic activity just so that they are like a third world country, but not a fourth world country. But they don't want to lose control over people. They don't mind that the people don't have a lot. They just want to make sure that whatever the people have, they depend on them 100% for it. That's always been the case. How can they grow economically without losing control over their population? That model doesn't work. And all it's led to is millions of people leaving the country of Cuba, including many to the United States. And that has to change because that instability and that failed state that it's created. poses a threat to the national security and national interest of the United States. So that's what we're focused on, is how can we get the people of Cuba more freedom, political freedom for certain, because our embargo on Cuba is codified in statute, and it requires political freedom in order to lift it, but also economic freedom. We want the people of Cuba to have what virtually the people of virtually every country in the Western Hemisphere has, and that is the ability to go out and make a living for themselves without depending on the government. to provide it for them even more troubling is that despite how bad things are in cuba there are insiders in that regime that have millions and millions of dollars stashed away in bank accounts all over the world and that have come to dominate this is well documented the military holding company guys, who's been stealing what little they have from the cuban people so uh that also can't continue so um you know ultimately our goal is for cuba to have a better future and we're going to do everything we can to help put it on that path, but in the end, you know, it will require them to wake up and realize that there is no future on the path they're on right now. And, you know, this is a very stubborn group of people over there, but we'll keep working on it because it's a priority. All right. Thank you. All right, guys. What a marathon. They're all out of questions. I mean, Tallahassee, that's tough. I mean, Gainesville, too. You know, if you like to pitch, you can pitch. That's all right. College football is a tough job. It's actually Florida. Huh? It's actually Florida. Miami, Tallahassee, Gainesville, they're all difficult. They're all tough, yeah. But you can pay a lot of money to get by. All right. You can prank them that much. Thank you.