Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein, September 19, 2024

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:42 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Good afternoon, everyone.

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, next Thursday, President Biden and Vice President Harris will separately meet with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine at the White House. They will discuss U.S. support for Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression and Ukraine’s strategic planning.

The president and the vice president will also emphasize their unshakable commitment to stand with Ukraine until it prevails in this war.

Earlier today, the president addressed the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., where he discussed the important moment our country has reached. Inflation and interest rates are falling, and the economy remains strong.

As the president made clear in his remarks, this is good news for the overall economy because lower borrowing costs will support economic growth.

The president knows there is still more to do to lower costs and protect the progress American workers have made.

With that, I will turn it over to Jared Bernstein, who is back, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, to further discuss the progress our economy has made under the Biden-Harris administration.

All right, Jared. Welcome back.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Thank you for inviting me back. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Thanks to Karine and her team for helping accommodate my visit and to the CEA staff, who always help me be well-prepared.

Earlier today, as you just heard, the president talked about the progress we’ve made in helping to build a more prosperous and equitable economy on behalf of the American people. He described that progress in terms of sustained low unemployment, job and real wage gains, solid real GDP growth driven by strong consumer spending and investment.

He talked about the optimism embedded in the record 19 million people who have filed to start small businesses; the unsnarling of supply chains; the record energy production; the investment in key sectors of domestic production, like clean energy and chips, to ensure America’s position in the global economy.

And he marked this moment in our pro- — in our economic progress by citing the actions taken by the Federal Reserve yesterday to lower the benchmark interest rate they control, an action that will help lower the borrowing cost for homes, cars, credit cards, and borrowing to start or build a business.

Th- — the Fed’s action also underscores the historically unusual fact that all of the progress I just described occurred during a period of significant and critically important disinflation. Though these words, thankfully, did not appear in the president’s remarks today, in CEA language, he was talking about the very low sacrifice ratio that has characterized this economic expansion.

This ratio derives from the historically negative relationship between unemployment and inflation. It describes how many percentage points of unemployment, for example, we would have to accept to get inflation back down to its target.

That concept is why, not that long ago, we saw prominent headlines and commentary assuring us that it would take much slower growth — one headline proclaimed 100 [percent] chance of recession ne- — last year to achieve the disinflation that has occurred.

And yet, here we are with 6.5 percentage points of CPI disinflation and the solid economic conditions I described above.

Quoting Chair Powell from yesterday, quote, “I don’t see anything in the economy now that suggests the likelihood of a downturn is elevated. The U.S. economy is in a good place. More specifically, the economy is growing at a solid pace, with inflation coming down closer to our 2 percent objective over time, and the labor market is in solid shape.”

Now we underscore these dynamics in CEA’s most recent blog post — if I can get figure one — thank you.

So, this is a blog post that you can get from the CEA website. What this shows is, in fact, inflation over the period where it went up and disinflated against a set of forecasts that were made by the Blue Chip forecasters, by CBO, by the Fed’s FOMC SEP committee.

And you see that the inflation forecasts were — were quite — quite good, quite accurate. They pretty much follow the dark line, which is the actual line.

Next slide. That gets very different when you look at the unemployment rate. In fact, the title of our blog is “How the Economy Defied the Forecast.” Here we have the forecast predicting unemployment would have been very high in order to achieve that much disinflation.

And, in fact, what we have here in this shaded area is the most optimistic and the most pessimistic estimations of where the unemployment would be — unemployment rate would be by the Blue Chip forecasters. These are the most optimistic because they’re the lowest. We beat the most optimistic forecast when it came to unemployment.

If — next slide, please — if, in fact, the forecasts were correct, this is how much more unemployment we would have had, how much more unemployment households and American workers would have been stuck with if we hadn’t beaten even the most optimistic forecasts on unemployment.

And you can see those numbers range from 1 to north of 5 million unemployed persons whose fate was avoided by the trends I’ve showed you thus far.

And finally, Figure 4 shows the same dynamic for GDP, again, beating the most optimistic forecast of the Blue Chip, which in this case would be the upper part of the shaded area.

I’ll close with another important reference to the president’s speech today: the part about — and you heard this from Karine — “our work is not done.” As he put it, “I am not here to take a victory lap. I’m not here to say the job is done. I’m not here to say ‘we don’t have more work to do’.” Of course we do.

Our cost cutting agenda, in particular, is as urgent today as it was before the Fed acted. But that fact should not prevent anyone from recognizing the progress we’ve made, the expectation-defying, ongoing expansion, and the work, productivity, and grit of the American people to get us where we are today.

And with that, I’ll take your questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Go ahead, M.J.

Q Thank you. You’re, you know, one of the people that the president would call if he has any questions about the American economy. I was curious to ask you: What would you say is an economic iss- — issue that the president these days is asking the most sort of probing questions —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Yeah.

Q — to you about — whether it’s a data point or a phenomenon or something that he’s seeing in the economy?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, I’ve been talking with the president a lot in the last few days, as I’ve met many other members of the team in preparation for the speech he gave today. So, I am ready with a very timely answer to that question.

It’s — it’s — it’s the same — it’s a similar dynamic, similar conversation I’ve had with Joe Biden since I was his chief economist when he was the vice president. He wants to know how these economic developments, how the progress I’ve talked about today that he spoke about affects working families, like the one he grew up in. And right now, that relates a lot to the interest rate cut. How does a cut in interest rate ripple through to the economic lives of working American families?

And the answer that I shared with him and I’ll share with you is lower costs of lending; lower cost of a mortgage; lower cost if you wanted to take a loan to improve your home; lower cost of auto loans, credit cards, if you want to start or expand a small business. Lower interest rates are really meaningful to people.

It’s one of the — it’s really one of the key economic variables in — in a lot of people’s lives through that channel of — of borrowing costs. And that’s certainly, I think, a timely example of — of things we’ve discussed lately.

Q And how did you prepare him for the possibility of the Fed making the kind of cut that it did yesterday?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Having conversations much like the one we discussed. I mean, we’re very careful, as you know, to respect the independence of the Fed, but, of course, we’re always going to talk about any important dynamic or variable in the economy. And so, this is a conversation we’ve had, and it — you know, it — it goes right to the impact of the — the — ri- — it goes right to the impact on the economic lives of the families we discussed.

I think, also, part of this discussion has been about the trajectory of inflation. And here, I want to underscore something I said in my — in my topper but also the president leaned in today. Very important to him. We’ve had a lot of discussions about this — a direct answer your question.

He’s been very interested in these predictions that said, “Sorry, you can’t get this much disinflation — six and a half points on the CPI — without accepting a much worse unemployment rate or much slower GDP growth.” That is the more kind of traditional within those shaded areas in the figures I showed.

And the president felt strongly that we were not going to achieve disinflation on the backs of working people. We needed to get there through improvements in the economy supply side, through energy production, through cost reductions in the areas where we’ve tried to do more of that.

So, maintaining the strong economy on behalf of working families while getting to lower inflation has been essential for rising real wages and incomes, and that’s what we’ve seen.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Andrea.

Q Thanks. Hey, Jared. Thanks for being here. You know, one of the issues that has still proven to be very difficult is — is getting housing prices down. Can you walk us through — do you have any kind of numbers to put on housing prices and the — the importance they play within the CPI bundle, in terms of, you know, now that we’ve had the interest rate cut, how much more is — is it — you know, are housing prices going to come down?

And then, I asked this question yesterday, but I want to ask you again. With the escalating tensions in the Middle East and the possibility of a broader regional war growing, how do you assess the impact on prices, both in terms of oil and other factors?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Okay. So, on housing prices, you’re very — you’re very much correct that the CPI, as well — well, the CPI in particular, but the index I was showing earlier, which is the PCE, a different index — they have heavy weights for housing. CPI, in particular.

In the CPI, the housing weight is, I think, around 35 percent. It’s the si- — shelter is the single largest weight, I believe, in the CPI. And so, it’s very impactful.

And one of the ways we di- — showed that in a recent blog that we did — which I think, you know, I — I commend to you, because we really dive into your question on the CEA website — is we pointed out that if you look at core inflation over the past year in the CPI — that’s inflation without energy and food — 3.2 percent. Core inflation CPI without shelter, half of that: 1.6 percent. So, it really gives you a flavor of how heavy that weight is.

Now, there are two things going on with housing prices in the CPI. One is cyclical or mechanical, and the other is — or maybe call it, you know, something — well, one is — is cyclical or mechanical, and the other is structural.

So, the mechanical part is that as rental inflation has rolled over — and it really has. I mean, the inflation of rents was highly elevated. It’s now back to levels that we saw pre-pandemic — and this is rental inflation now, not rental — not the price level but the inflation. As that has rolled over, most CPI analysts have expected that to filter into the index by now. We haven’t seen that. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher.

I think Powell talked about it yesterday. He referenced that the other part of shelter costs — owner-equivalent rent, which I won’t get into the details — that’s been coming in stronger than expected.

So — but — but simply based on the mechanics of the lags and the rollover in rental inflation, we still expect that to show up as easing in the — in — in the CPI’s housing component.

But where we — much more important, from our perspective and from the Biden administration — I’d say the Biden-Harris administration, because Vice President Harris has ambitious plans — is to deal with the structural problem. We have a 15-year-in-the-making shortage of affordable housing in this country. Fifteen years in the making. Millions of units shortfall.

And this is a market failure. And when there’s a market failure, even the most classically oriented economists believe that there is important space for government intervention. And Vice President Harris and President Biden have, I think, very important and some, in — in many cases, tried and true policy measures that would help reduce that shortfall: expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit; subsidizing developing and building in — in ways that would make those deals — that make those developments pencil out in a way that they don’t right now.

We could spend a lot more time talking about housing policy, but you can — you can find it out there. I think addressing that shortfall is absolutely critical. I’d call it one of the biggest pieces of unfinished business we have. But we can’t do it by ourselves. Congress needs to work with us, and there is zero reason why this should be a red or a blue or a D or an R issue. This shortage is pervasive in states across the nation.

Q Wait, the Middle East.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: On the Middle East. So, when it comes to geopolitical conflict, there are other people who can stand up here and talk about that with more authority. What I’ll say is, from an economic perspective, of course, we monitor that very closely. But I think it’s instructive, important. And in — in the context of my discussion to you today about how working families are doing, the breathing room that folks have been getting from low gas prices at the pump, relative to where we were a year ago, is really remarkable, especially when you consider the extent of geopolitical conflict in an area where a lot of — in an area of the world where — where energy is often produced and — and shipped.

And, you know, this morning, the gas price was $3.22
a gallon. I believe that’s 68 cents per gallon down from where it was a year ago. That’s real breathing room. It’s one of the reasons why year-over-year CPI — it’s 2.5 percent in the last read, close to where it was pre-pandemic. And we think that’s, you know, an important piece of breathing room.

We would also argue that the president’s fingerprints have been on that both, whether it’s a matter of the release of the Strategic Reserve, but also record energy production from all sources.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Jared. The president, in his remarks about an hour ago, said that he had never spoken with the Fed chairman since he’s been in the White House. That’s obviously not true. They met in the Oval Office in 2022. Could you clarify the president’s remarks there and why did he say that?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Sure. The president was saying that he has not spoken to Chair Powell about interest rates. He did not pressure Powell and has never done so. And, in fact, in the speech today that was in the section about Fed independence and about the importance of respecting and — and honoring that independence. It’s obviously a stark contrast with our predecessor.

Never has the president spoken to Chair Powell about interest rates as president, never has he pressured him. And, you know, the reason for that — and I speak to you now as an economic historian — is that countries where that independence have been compromised, economies where that independence have been compromised have been brought to their knees by inflationary pressures time and time again.

So, by respecting the Fed’s independence, the president has done a very important service and has made a real contribution to where we are today.

Q But he misspoke an hour ago, is what you’re saying?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: The president was saying he’s not spoken to Chair Powell about —

Q (Inaudible.)

CHAIR BERSTEIN: — interest rates as president. That’s what he — that’s certainly what he meant, and he certainly didn’t pressure him in that discussion that occurred in May of ‘22.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Jared. So, this rate cut is colliding with presidential politics. At what point do you think Americans will start to feel the broad economic improvements that come at this rate cut? Would it happen before the election?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, let me start with the political reference. I’d like to quote from you — from a Wall Street Journal lead editorial a couple of days ago. Quote, “We don’t agree with those who say a cut in rates this week is political or intended to help Kamala Harris.” Now I don’t think the Ed Board of the Wall Street Journal is associated much with Democrats or liberals, so I take that as a statement that I very much agree with.

On the non-politial- — non-politilization — politicalza- — I don’t know how to say that word. (Laughter.) On the — on — on the fact that what Chair Powell was doing was monetary policy, not politics.

Now your more, you know, relevant question is — is about when these interests — when people start to feel these interest rate cuts, right? That was the other thing you asked.

Interestingly, the first part of that answer is: already. Because of the priced-in dynamics — that is the mortgage rate — we talked about housing a minute ago — you go back a few months, it was 7.5 percent. As of this morning, it was 6.1 I believe — 6.15, if I’m remembering correctly.

That’s a big step down, and that occurred before any Fed rate cuts took place, in large part due to the expectation — market expectations that those rate cuts were going to occur. So, that’s a priced-in effect

Now, then there’s the dynamics in home loan, in — in auto loans, in credit card loans, in business lending. And that can take anywhere from weeks to months to quarters. I think — again, I think Powell talked about yesterday — talked about it “rippling through.” So, that — that occurs with more of a lag, but — but some of it’s already priced in.

Q And do you think the Fed waited too long to cut rates?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I’m not going to comment on Federal Reserve monetary policy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Way in the back, go ahead.

Q Yeah, thanks. Jared, the previous president — no matter what the state of the economy, no matter what was going on — every single good thing that happened, he personally took credit for it immediately, saying this is the best economy ever, we’ve had more jobs ever than anywhere in the universe, et cetera.

Should this president have done the same thing in order to cheerlead more and get people a better — more excited about the state of things?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I’m an economic adviser, and I try to stay in my lane. So, you know, I have, over the course of my long relationship with President Biden, tried to give him a little political advice. And, you know, frankly, he doesn’t want to hear it from me, and I respect that. (Laughter.)

I — but let me say the following, what your question makes me think. I think that — where I go with that is what measures has President Biden taken wherein those policies helped to lower inflation, helped to tackle some of its causes, helped to get us where we are today? Because I think that’s actually an important part of this explanation.

One of them we already talked about. By respecting the independence of the Federal Reserve after his predecestor — predecessor repeatedly criticized the Fed and undermined its independence — simply by respecting that independence, that helped give them the space to do the monetary policy they believed to be needed to get us here.

As I mentioned, again, and he cited this in his speech today, he unleashed record energy production to lower gas prices.

He brought together — this is one of my personal favorites. He brought together business and labor to fix our supply chains. This is the unsnarling of supply chains that was so important to the disinflation.

And one of the charts that we highlight a lot at CEA is if you look at measures of supply-side snarling, supply-side constraints and you plot them against the commodities or the good components within the CPI, they track each other very closely.

In fact, I’ll make sure to put that up on my Twitter feed, EconJared46 — (laughter) — give me a follow — later today to show and that — (laughter) — that — that is something that — that comes directly from the Supply Side Disruption Task Force, of which I and my colleagues here were card-carrying members. And now he’s rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in the manufacturing sector to strengthen these chains.

He took on Big Pharma to lower prescription drug costs.

So, these are concrete measures that we’ve taken to help get us to where we are. And I would argue the president and vice president’s fingerprints are on these results.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thanks for being here. Vice President Harris has, you know — her housing plan to build — what is it? — 3 million units should she become president and should that legislation — gets passed. How important would you say was the rate cut should her plan see — see the — the light of day? How important was it for the Fed to start lowering those rates?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think the — when — when — and I — I — without getting into, again, the Fed — the Fed’s monetary policy or where they’re going with interest rates, my initial comments about how important lower interest rates are to consumers certainly applies to people with a mortgage, looking for a mortgage, thinking about refinancing. I actually think it’s a pretty different bucket relative to the housing supply policies.

I’ll say a more — more about the 3 million units. I’ll say more about that in a second.

But one thing that I think and hope will happen is that there are a lot of people — and, actually, Powell talked about this as well, but we’ve been talking about this for a while — there are a lot of people locked into their current mortgages. Okay? They want to move — you know, I’ve heard stories about divorced couples that want to move, but they’re stuck in their house together because they have a 3 percent mortgage, and what’s out there in the market has been a lot higher.

One of the things I think we see when mortgage rates start coming down — and I’ve talked to a lot of experts to try to figure out what that number might be — is the unlocking of that lock-in effect.

Now that doesn’t necessarily lead to a lot more housing supply the way her or the president’s policies would, but it does create more churn. And people who are stuck in a starter home, they move to a different house, and that starter home becomes open, and that’s the first rung on the ladder for families trying to get into — trying to, you know, build their — their wealth through homeownership.

So, that churn is actually — I think, would be quite helpful. And as mortgage rates come down, we expect to see that.

When it comes to building 3 million affordable units — again, I won’t go through the policy description I did a minute ago, but I will talk about one: on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, of which expansion is a big part of both her and the president’s agenda. Expanding LIHTC, which is a tried-and-true program for building affordable multifamily households — so this is on the rental side of the equation — is a policy that the banks like because they buy the credits from the developers, the developers like it because it makes the buildings pencil out, and housing advocates for low-income renters like it. That’s a pretty rare triumvirate.

So, expanding LIHTC is a great idea, as is — I mentioned earlier — a set of subsidies and tax credits to make building affordable housing pencil out in a way that it does not do so now.

We also have some measures that help ease some land-use restrictions. I won’t go into them now in the interest of time. But we have a — I think we have a — a powerful agenda in that space.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Naomi, in the back.

Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Jared.

Last night, the former president proposed a temporary cap — cap on credit card interest rates at around 10 percent. Is that something that the Biden-Harris administration thinks is a good idea?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think that happened today. Or when did — what did you say?

Q I thought it happened last night.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Okay, maybe it happened last night. So, you know, I haven’t had a lot of conversations about that yet with my colleagues, and I would wait before that — I will — let — but I will say the following.

I think you have to be careful with things that people throw out there without a lot of thought or consideration. You have to think about what kind of impact that might have. There’s risk factors that go into that kind of a policy that might make it harder for a lot of people who need credit to be able to get it, because companies won’t sell it to them. So, I think you have to be careful about unintended consequences.

What I will say is that this administration has taken a very forward-looking and very, I think, you know, a pretty deep run at many of these issues — helping to lower credit card fees; helping to make for one of the, I think, most effective Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus — something that the Trump administration consistently tried to shut down and gut.

So, when it comes to protecting consumers, this administration, I think, has a track record that isn’t just about, you know, throwing off ideas that may or may not be effective.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Jared, you have the last question.

Q Thanks. Two quick questions. One, the president, in his speech today, said that he expects interest rates to continue to fall. What gives him that confidence?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think what the president said was a reference to the SEP, the Survey of Economic Projections, that comes out with the Fed report yesterday, where they put where they — where members of the Federal Open Market Committee put where they think interest rates are going. So, he was simply referring to the published SEP.

Q And the Congress is going to have to, before they leave, pass a short-term spending bill of some kind. That — there seems to be talks between three months and six months. Does the council have a — a preference for kind of how that’s worked out, how long it lasts?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think the way we would put it from the council, and probably from the administration writ large, is that — well, let me — actually, let me tell you where we would put it from the council.

So, we are at a — an economic moment that I hope I’ve conveyed to you today is unique, is strong, is leading to real wage and income gains, disinflation amidst strong growth, lower inflation, lower interest rates, wages and incomes growing.

This is a — this is a solid economy. You heard my quotes from Chair Powell yesterday. And it’s an economy that is getting back to the kinds of conditions that we’ve wanted to see for a long time.

Making an own-goal kick in that economy is not only a bad idea, it’s — it’s malpractice. It doesn’t — you know, se- — it’s not like these — it’s not like government shutdowns, you know, send the economy off a cliff, but they are a negative. They do lead to losses.

Now sometimes those losses are made up on the other side of the shutdown, but there is no reason for us to go through that. There’s never a good time for that own-goal kick, and it’s particularly bad now.

The only path forward is through bipartisanship. House Republicans should stop wasting time and work across the aisle to pass a short-term bill to keep the government open and provide emergency funding for disasters.

Congress knows how to do this. It’s not complicated. They’ve done it on a bipartisan basis many times.

Given the economic conditions I’ve been touting here today, given what we saw yesterday, given the information in the president’s speech, this is no time to be playing those kinds
of games.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thank you so much, Jared.

Q Jared, any update on the Farm Bill, sir? The Farm bill?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Jared, thank you. Thank you so much.

Q Farmers and ranchers want to know. Jared, the Farm Bill?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right.

Q Farmers and ranchers would like to know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Give Jared a follow on X. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. (Laughter.)

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I actually don’t have anything else. Go ahead, Zeke.

Q Thanks, Karine. First for you, escalating tensions along the Israel-Lebanese border, even this morning, right now potentially, ongoing bombing and shelling across the border. Has the president tried to contain that front since October 7th? The administration held that out in the days after as a success. Has — has he reached the limits of his influence there, in terms of keeping a lid on what had been a (inaudible) conflict from growing into a larger conflagration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you said, we’ve spoken about this and our concerns, and so we’ve been very clear about this. Our commitment, obviously, to — to Israel’s security is ironclad. We are unwavering — unwavering against all Iran-backed threats, including Hezbollah.

And what we have said, and — and I think this is kind of the question that you asked to me — is that the diplomatic resolution is achievable. That’s what we still believe. It is urgent, obviously. The conflict along the Blue Line has gone on for way too long — far too long, and it needs to get to a resolution quickly.

And so, we’re going to continue to do that, continue to have those diplomatic conversations. We continue to work on a ceasefire deal. We believe that is — that is the way forward in — in calming and lowering the temperature there, and that’s why we’ve been working around the clock to get that done.

But we still believe a diplomatic resolution is the way forward here. We still believe that it is — it is possible. And, obviously, the urgency continues to be — continue to be that.

Q And then the president’s top representative was in the region —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — a day before those pagers all started exploding. You know, it seems that U.S. influence, the president’s influence seems to not — not really be working or is not having an effect.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I wouldn’t — I — I don’t agree. I mean, you — you started off saying that we — you know, we did have some — some — (laughs) — some influence there in the beginning.

Q (Inaudible) was there over the weekend and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know, but —

Q — then they started exploding the day after.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — you — you did — you did say that we — we — it did — it was working in your question to me or — moments ago — seconds ago.

Look, it doesn’t — it doesn’t stop from the fact that the president wants to see a diplomatic resolution. He believes it’s achievable. Obviously, it’s urgent to get there. And that is going to continue.

We are working around the clock. As you said, we’ve had representative — the president’s White House officials have been in the region, continuing to have conversations about getting to a ceasefire deal.

We’re continuing to work with Egypt and Qatar and, obviously, also Israel to get there. It is important that we get to that — to — to a deal where we can get hostages home, where we can end — end this war. That’s what the president wants to see. He has said that himself. And also get that much-needed — continuing to get that much-needed humanitarian aid into Gaza.

And so, it’s not going to stop us. It’s not going to stop us from having continuous conversations — those diplomatic conversations, as I’ve been stating.

And so, we’re going to stay steadfast. We’re going to be very focused on her- — with this. And so, we are going to continue to work on these alternative diplomatic solutions so that we can create conditions there that — for displaced Lebanese civilians to go home in — in the south, and also for Israeli civilians to go home in their — in their — in the north. And I’m talking about the — the Blue Line, obviously.

Q And then on a different topic. The president is hosting the Quad Summit in Wilmington, Delaware. We also understand that he’s hosting bilateral meetings with those — some of those — with those world leaders at his private home. And what we currently understand is that the press will not be allowed into that bilateral meeting. Can you explain why that — this is the administration that held itself out as the most transparent in history, and that is not transparency.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Okay. Let’s talk about the other things that are happening over the course of the Quad Summit.

Look, we have stated: One of the reasons we talked about having — having the Quad Summit in Wilmington is because the president believes how powerful it is to have that personal relationships. And he wants to — certainly, he has — has developed personal relationships with members of the Quad, and he wants to do — do — he took it a step further, obviously, by having them in his hometown.

And so, diplomacy, he sees, is personal. Politics is personal. Foreign policy is personal.

But we do believe there is going to be plenty of opportunities for press to have access. And I’ll just — just to walk through a couple of things that we are going to be — going to be providing and the availability that you all will have.

The Quad will have extensive press access and will be covered by all four countries’ pools. There will be three individual leader greets at Arch- — Archmere Academy, where the president attended school. There will be a Quad family photo. There will be two major events, including a leaders’ level meeting of the Quad at a newsy Cancer Moonshot event. And press will also see all of the leaders depart on Saturday evening after their intimate leaders’ dinner.

In addition to these coverage opportunities, there’s going to be — we’re going to be arranging briefings — two briefings that NSC is going to be providing to the press pool. It’s going to be NSC folks who — who are focused on the subject matter who will be available to all of you and answer some questions. And so, I think that’s going to be really important.

Look, this is — this is a private dinner. This is continuing the — the personal relationships that he has, fostering those personal relationships that he has with the leaders of the Quad. But there’s going to be many other opportunities for — for the press to see exactly what’s happening, to see —

Q Except we’re —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — some handshakes.

Q — we’re not going to see the private dinners. We’re not going to see those bilateral meetings at this house. I mean, when President Bush hosted foreign leaders in Crawford, the pool was invited. When President Trump —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I just went —

Q — hosted a lot of leaders in Mar-a-Lago, the press —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q And youalso didn’t mention a press conference.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. And there’s — and for this particular Quad Summit, we’re not going to have a press conference. We don’t have a press conference for every — every leader eve- — leader summit or event that we have.

In this particular scenario, when it comes to these private meetings, there won’t be — that’s going to be at — obviously, at his home, we’re not going to have access there.

But there are many — plenty of other opportunities where we believe that will be very fruitful for the press. They’re going to see some — some opportunities to see the president engage with the Quad leaders. And I think that’s important too.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies said that Iranian hackers sent stolen information from the Tram camp- — Trump campaign to individuals associated with the Biden campaign. This is before President Biden left the race. So, was the president made aware of this at the time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is that we learned about the statement yesterday, and — and the president has been made aware of it now. But we learned about the statement yesterday.

Look, this is something that the FBI, ODNI, and CISA have to speak to. It is — they put out their statement. So I would refer you to them specifically.

But more broadly, what I can say about this is that no foreign government[s] like Iran or Russia are actively seeking to influence in our elections. And so, we have said that. We know that. And that’s why we have seen — we have seen — you’ve seen us take actions to hold accountable those who tee- — who seek to undermine confidence in our democracy, and we will continue to do so.

And so, that has been something that we’ve said from here. The ODNI has shared with the American people what we know about the foreign influence, including by making public the hack of the Trump campaign on August 19th. In early September, the Department of Justice brought criminal charges against those involved in covert influence operations on behalf of RT.

And so, this is something that, obviously, law enforcement is — and our intelligence — intelligence community is — is focused on. And so, they’re better to — to certainly speak to it directly.

Q Can you share what information was in those emails and if the president has been made aware —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is something —

Q — of the information in those emails?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is something that they could speak to. The president has [been] made aware. We — we saw the statement yesterday. That’s when we were — we learned about it. The president obviously is aware of it now, but I would have to refer you to FBI.

Q So, the president didn’t receive any advance briefing before that statement went out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We were made aware —

Q He —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We were made aware of the state- — of when the statement came out yesterday. Now the president is aware himself.

I would have to refer you to FBI, CISA, and ODNI.

Q And just shifting gears a little bit. In general, what is the White House’s view about the attacks in Lebanon? We’re talking about exploding walkie-talkies and pagers in crowded civilian areas, children dead, including thousands injured.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I will say is my NSC colleague was here yesterday. You all asked him multiple questions about — about what occurred. I don’t have anything else to share beyond that. I’ve taken questions on this. I don’t have any more information to share on this. And so, I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q But is that a tactic that the U.S. would use?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q Not asking for specifics.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to — I’m not going to speak to this at this time. I’m just not.

Go ahead.

Q Karine, during the president’s remarks, he also spoke about the negotiations that you conducted to lower drug prices and seemed to suggest that you would be doing that on weight-loss drugs. It was kind of an incomplete sentence. He said, “Watch,” you know, doing this on wei- — or — so, can you just give us a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to go beyond what the pr- — he said, “Watch.” I don’t have anything else to share. I don’t have an announcement to make.

Q But did he miss a few words or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to — I don’t have anything else to add.

As you know, one of the things that came out of the — the Inflation Reduction Act is to make sure that we did everything that we can to lower — lower health care drugs, pre- — prescription drugs. And that’s what you see. You saw the president was able to beat Big Pharma.

And so, that is important to the American people, lowering those really critical drugs that they need just to survive. You’ve heard stories about — whether folks are dealing with cancer or diabetes and how much it ch- — they get charged by big pharmaceuticals. And now we’re in a position where we can lower those drugs.

I don’t have anything to — to say or to add beyond what the president shared today.

Q And — and just to — to go back to the Middle East for a moment. So, you know, I think — would you — would you agree that there has been a change or an escalation in the tensions in the region? And are you concerned about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q And what — what are you doing to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We —

Q — sort of tamp down on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We have said we are concerned about the es- — the tension and afraid and concerned about potential escalation — we have said that — in the Middle East. We’ve been very clear. And we’ve also said that the way to move forward is dip- — diplomatic resolution. We think it is achievable. Obviously, it is urgent.

And so, that’s what we’re going to continue to do: having those diplomatic conversation. Diplomacy is key here when we talk about a potential escalation, which we do not want to see. We do not want to see. And so, we’re going to continue to work towards that.

Q But, Karine, why not use the levers that you have? You know, the U.S. is sending weapon shipments to Israel. Why not — in other cases involving other countries, you have curtailed weapon shipments. In the case of Israel, you’ve put — you know, stopped, paused the 2,000-pound weapons. Why not send a signal by pausing weapon shipments to express your concern?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, we are going to — our policy has not changed. Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad. That has not changed. And we have — we cannot forget what Israel is dealing with in that region. What we’re talking about — having to really fight against, you know, Iran-backed threats, including Hezbollah. This is something that we’ve been very clear about.

And so, our support has not changed. It will continue. We do not have a policy change here. We’re going to continue — our commitment to continuing to support Israel’s security continues here. We want to see a diplomatic resolution. It is important. We want to see that happen. Obviously, we believe it’s achievable, and that’s how we want to move forward here.

But we do not — we’re not going to change our policies.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q Thanks, Karine. An Israeli official told CNN that a senior adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu had presented to the Biden administration a new ceasefire proposal. Did that happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I said multiple times before, and my colleagues here who have — from NSC who have been at — at the podium, we’re going to continue to have discussions with Egypt and Qatar as well as Israel on a way forward — let’s not forget — after Hamas brutally, brutally murdered six hostages.

I’m not going to get into specifics. I’m not going to — I’m not going to negotiate from here, but we are going to continue to have those discussions.

Q I’m just asking if you can confirm that there was a new proposal shared with the U.S.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just going to continue to have discussions with Qatar and Egypt. I don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Q Okay. The proposal appears to be for a permanent end to the war; release of all the hostages in Gaza; all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel also being released; and safe passage for Yahya Sinwar out of Gaza. Does any of this sound feasible to you?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re in consultations with all the parties: Qatar, Egypt, Israel. I’m not going to negotiate from here. I’m not going to confirm anything from here.

But we continue to have these discussions. We believe the best way forward is to get to a ceasefire deal. That’s what we want to see. Bring home hostages, get more immediate relief into Gaza, that’s what we want to see. And get — and make sure we end this war, and that’s what we want to see.

Q And just finally, next week, the president and the prime minister are not meeting in New York City around UNGA. Why is that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else to share beyond the — beyond what we’ve shared of what we’re going to see with the president. If we have more information to share on what — who the president is going to meet with, any other world leaders, we’ll certainly share that with all of you.

Q Well, we’ve reported that they’re not going to meet, so I’m just asking why that is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else. As you know, when it comes to the prime minister of Israel, the president, he and the president have had multiple conversations over the course of almost a year now. They’ve met a couple of times. I just don’t have anything to share beyond — reasoning as to why they’re going to meet, if they’re going to meet. I’m just not — don’t have anything else to share.

Go ahead, Danny.

Q Thanks, Karine. You said that the president believes that a diplomatic solution is achievable. What — what on earth gives you the — (laughs) — you know, the — the reason to believe that? I mean, what — what evidence is there that, despite all these — you know, these —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — the pager bombings and the, you know, now, airstrikes today and Nasrallah saying it’s a declaration of war — what — you know, what is there that makes you believe that? What makes the president believe that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because the president continues to believe that we have to be optimistic and diplomatic resolution is the best way.

When you think about foreign policy and when we think about these type of relationship, having diplomacy, having those conversations is critical, is key.

And the president has been successful in doing that in the past three and a half years. So, that’s what he wants to see.

He believes that it’s still achievable. He believes that it’s still — still achievable. We are not saying that we don’t have concerns. We do not want to see escalations. We are not saying that the conflict that we have seen — it truly has — along the Blue Line has gone for too long. We are acknowledging that. We’re going to continue to have this di- — diplomacy. It is important to do so. And that’s the way we see — this president sees moving forward.

Go ahead.

Q Yeah. The first lady will be traveling to Mexico October the 1st to attend the inauguration event —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — of Claudia Sheinbaum. Vladimir Putin is also invited to the event. Is that potential encounter something that worries the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q Okay. And considering the relevance and influence the U.S. has in the region, in the Middle East, considering that you provide most of the arms, I — what is the — what do you think is the precise goal that Israel has in these attacks in Lebanon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can’t speak to — to any of — I can’t speak to this. Just going to leave it where we have been in the last two days. You heard from my colleague yesterday.

Look, the — going back to the inauguration in Mexico. The first lady — I talked about this yesterday — she’s looking forward to being there. It’s a historic moment. That’s going to be her focus in supporting the president-elect and being there — being there with the de- — the U.S. delegation, where she’s very much looking forward to it.

I’m not going to speak to what President Putin is going to do or not do.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. And thank you for clarifying when the president first learned of this Iranian influence campaign or attempts to reach people associated with the campaign.

Now, what is now the Harris-Walz campaign says it was people associated with the campaign, not campaign staffers who received emails from Iranian hackers. Were any of those people associated with the campaign, as they put it, members of the Biden family?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would have to refer you to FBI, CISA, and ODNI on this. They can speak to the specifics. I would also have to refer you to the campaign.

Q And — well, that’s the thing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q He’s — he’s not a member of the campaign anymore, and apparently, these people weren’t either. That’s why we’re asking you here —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q — at the White House.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And this is — this is something that the FBI, CISA, and ODNI can speak to. I cannot speak that — to that from here.

Q So, whether any of those people were White House officials who weren’t on the Wilmington payroll at the time being contacted through their personal email, you couldn’t say?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You have to speak to FBI, ODNI, and CISA on this one.

Q Regarding the Quad, is the vice president attending any of the meetings on Saturday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: She will not be attending any of the meetings on Saturday.

Q And the decision not to allow reporters to see the bilaterals that he’ll be having Friday afternoon and Saturday, does this have something to do with the foreign press pools from India, Japan, and Australia? Is there a security concern with having them on the grounds of his home?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is, the president wants to have a personal moment with the leaders. This is a — relationships that he has had with leaders of the Quad throughout, obviously, his tenure here as president. He wanted to have a — continue to for- — foster those personal relationship. He wanted to have a private moment with them, continue to grow those relationship. That’s what this is about.

Q But not — the fact also that he’s not having a press conference around this, was that a request of any of the other governments?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I can’t speak to private conversations that our folks at NSC are having with the different countries. I don’t have anything to add to that.

Q I just — it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I want to say is, it is important to him — inviting them to Wilmington, his home state, his home — his city, his home state, obviously, Delaware. It was important for him to have these personal touches. It was important to him to do something that he hadn’t done before, bring him to his home —

Q Then why not let the world —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — bring them to his home city.

Q — see him having those meetings with them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But there’s going to be plenty of opportunities. It’s not like we’re — we’re not allowing all of you to see many other things that are going to develop with — throughout the day. I mean, I just went through them: a Quad family photo. He’s going to take them to the — to his high school. You all are going to be there. There’s going to be some really important — important announcement about Cancer Moonshot, and you all are going to be there. There’s going to be an opportunity to see them when they leave on Saturday as well — depart. You’ll see him saying goodbye to the leaders on Saturday. There’s going to be —

Q Can you appreciate, though, that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There’s — there’s — but — but can you also appreciate — I hear you all, but can you also appreciate that we have created other opportunities? There is this one —

Q They’re all photo ops. That’s what you’ve created. They are not a press conference, which we would prefer.

Q And what I was going to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Go ahead, Ed.

Q What I was going to suggest is: What baffles people in this room — especially for those who are watching this and wondering why on earth do we harp on these sides of things — what baffles us is this is a president who, from day one, committed to be the most transparent president possible, who has given speeches at various events saying that he stands for and — and respects the freedom of the press. And here is a great opportunity to stand with the leader of the world’s largest democracy, India, and two other key democracies who are from a region of the world that is struggling to maintain democracy. Why not face questions from reporters and a free press —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, which part —

Q — in that setting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, which part are you asking me about? Are you asking me about going —

Q Why aren’t we being allowed to see these meetings —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) So —

Q — at the house?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, there — there —

Q And why is there no press conference?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. S- —

Q Which I think was the crux —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So —

Q — of the negotiations or at least the conversations —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — no, I —

Q — that went on earlier today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you, but there are two things that I’m being asked, so let me — not every — not every opportunity that we have, when we do have these foreign — foreign leaders here, do we have a press conference. That is not unusual. We have gone many times back and forth about —

Q Which also frustrates us. Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I totally understand. There’s been some bilats, some — there’s been some other visit where there has not been some press conferences, right? That is not unusual. I’ve — we’ve had conversation —

Q It is unusual.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Excuse me. Excuse me.

Q It is unusual.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not speaking to you. I really am not. Let me have my conversation with Ed. Let me have my conversation with Ed. Thank you.

And so, it is — it is not unusual for us to have this back and forth and talk about why it is happening or not happening.

So, that is — I’ll put that there.

The other part is, this is an opportunity for the president to have a personal moment with the leaders. We have created other opportunities for you all to see him with those leaders, standing with those leaders, shaking hands with the leaders, giving them a — giving them opportunities to see his high school — right? — places where he — that he’s very well — very much connected to that you all will see. He’s going to make a really important announcement about the Cancer Moonshot.

We believe — and I know there is a difference of agreement here — right? — is that there’s going to be plenty of opportunities for press to have access to see him with these other leaders.

And so, we have made sure — made sure — and people — I think people actually care about photo ops. Photo ops are indeed important because you — and maybe there will be questions taken during those photo ops. You never know. Right? But a formal press conference on this trip is not going to happen. With this particular event, it’s not going to happen.

We have gone back and forth on many other events. So, that’s what I’m saying is not unusual. We are — we wanted to make sure that there were plenty of press access throughout the day. And we believe we have done that. And let’s see how the day goes. Let’s see how the day goes on Saturday.

Q Would he —

Q I just wanted to be there when Modi — when Modi gets to see the Corvette. That’s all. But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say — say that — I’m sorry. Somebody was talking over you.

Q We want to be there when Modi gets to see the Corvette. That’s all.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, the Corvette. (Laughter.)

Q On an unrelated matter.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

Q The Republican gubernatorial candidate in North Carolina apparently is not dropping out, despite pressure from his party —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — and some pretty salacious news reports. I’m just curious if the president is tracking what’s been going on there —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —

Q — and if the White House has any other comment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you know, the president was making this really important economic speech. I haven’t had an opportunity to talk to him about this particular — this particular event that just occurred. I haven’t really seen the stories. I’ve seen, you know — I’ve heard from my staff about — a little bit about this.

What I can say and I want to say off the top is that, you know, antisemitism is never acceptable. It is wrong. It is wrong. And so, we have to be really clear about that. Elected leaders have to be really clear about that. They need to be responsible about calling that out.

As far as the ongoing stories and as it relates to this race, I just don’t have any comment for you, and I haven’t had a se- — a second to talk to the president since he made a really big speech.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Two questions. One related to, kind of, your topper about Ukraine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Senator J.D. Vance said in an interview a few days ago — and I’m quoting him — “I think Washington has left Taiwan in a really crappy position because we went — we sent all our weapons to Ukraine.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Well —

Q And — so, do you agree with his assessment? Does the Biden administration believe that the U.S. can’t protect Ukraine and Taiwan at the same time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to go into everything that someone who is in part of this 2024 election — everything that he’s saying or they are saying. Certainly would have to refer you to the campaign.

I think you have seen this president be a leader on the global stage. I think you have seen a president that has brought partners together and allies together to certainly show support for Ukraine.

It is not just the U.S. that is en- — engaging in giving that support to Ukraine. You see that from our allies, from our NATO Allies, from 50 other countries. And so, that is happening because this president has leadership and showed leadership.

And we’ve been very clear about the One China policy. That has not changed. And so, we’ll continue — certainly, we’ll continue to be there for our partners and our allies out there.

I just don’t have any — I’m not going to respond to everything that’s been said out there by — on — on the campaign trail. Not something I’m going to do from here.

Q And on Lebanon, if I might try my luck.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q The past two days, the administration kept the position of “We were not involved, and we did not have any knowledge about it.” So, my question is — but you’ve seen what the people in Lebanon endured. Do you think that was act of terrorism?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to get into it from here. Look, obviously, children being harmed, people being harmed is — is difficult to see and not something that we want to see. But as it relates to any information or anything that occurred the last two days, as relates to the pagers or the walkie-talkies, I don’t have anything else to share beyond he- — from here. You heard from my NSC colleague directly as well. I just don’t have anything else to share.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The mayor of Springfield, Ohio, has issued a proclamation claiming temporary emergency powers that are intended for — to mitigate public safety concerns, obviously, in the wake of the smear of Haitian migrants in that city. Separately, former President Trump says he will visit there in the next couple of weeks.

I understand you have constraints as to what you say — can say relating to a campaign. But in general, from a public order or a community-tension perspective, what do you think about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, again — and we have said this multiple times. You’ve heard the president. You’ve heard the vice president. It is — and speaking about this more broadly, it is shameful to continue to spread this type of conspiracy theory. It has been debunked by the mayor of Springfield, by the governor and the city manager, the police department on the ground.

And to continue to spread this type of hateful, hateful smear is — is — it’s — it’s just quite unbelievable that we’re doing this, especially when we’re talking about leaders who are supposed to protect people, protect our communities.

And it causes harm. It causes harm to everyone and — as you can see from the actions that they have to take on the ground to protect people.

And so, look, we are going to continue to denounce this. We should not be tearing our communities apart. This is a president and vice president that believes in bringing our communities together. And that’s what we’re going to continue to see.

We have to bring down the temperature in politics. That’s what the president has said. And, you know, it is —
it is just really shameful, disgusting what is being said out there — I mean, following — going down a rabbit hole, an ugly rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. And it puts people’s lives at risk. It puts all of our lives at risk.

And so, it is unfortunate that the city of Springfield has to deal with this. And — and so, we are — we’re going to continue to call that out.

I do want to say a couple of things that we have been able to provide as security assistance support for Springfield. We tasked DOJ’s Community Relations Service to Springfield to help the community come together and enhance their ability to prevent conflict, provided four bomb-sniffing dogs to help the community ensure buildings are safe, and they can respond in- — to incoming threats. And DHS security personnel is working with Springfield and Ohio officials to support the needs of the community.

But, again, these are hateful smears. They’re conspiracy theories, as you know, but I want to make very, very clear from here.

Q Just on that front, Karine, you said, if I heard you correctly, “four bomb-sniffing dogs”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We provided four bomb-sniffing dogs to help the community ensure buildings are safe and they respond to incoming threats.

Q And were those requested by the community, do you know, or is that a proactive thing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s —

Q — that you’re doing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s something that we’ve been in touch, obviously, with Springfield — the Spring- — the community in Springfield, and so providing the assistance and trying to give them support that they need, which is not unusual, when a situa- — when we’re — when we’re in this type of situation and environment.

All right. We’re going to start wrapping it up. Go ahead, Gabe.

Q Karine, on the subject of arms sales to Israel. Senator Bernie Sanders, an ally of the president, said he’s preparing resolutions to block $20 billion in arms sales to Israel. It’s a long-shot effort, but what’s the White House’s response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Our commitment continues to be — continues to be clear-eyed. We are committed to Israel’s security. That is ironclad. Our policy has not changed.

We believe Israel has the right to defend itself, especially against Iran-backed militias like — like the — like Hezbollah, and so we’re going to continue to do that. That has not changed.

And, obviously, we want to have diplomatic resolution here to the tensions that we’re seeing in the Middle East. We do not want to see an escalation. We believe that’s achievable. And, obviously it’s incredibly urgent.

All right, Naomi.

Q Thanks, Karine. Earlier this week, the White House touted August data from Customs and Border Protection. Is there any plans within the administration to roll back the part of the president’s border EO as it pertains to asylum seekers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you mentioned in — the August data came back and it showed that we — July and August saw the lowest encounters since Oct- — since September of 2020. Encounters of August 2024 were down 68 percent lower than August of 2023. Average daily encounters have decreased by 50 percent since the executive actions.

And so, we’ve taken this action because congressional Republicans refuse to act. And so, look, we’re going to continue to deal with an issue that majority of Americans care — care about — right? — which is making sure that the border is protected, dealing with the border security without the help of congressional Republicans who have gotten in the way and do not provide — want to provide more assistance, more resources.

And if they were to pass that bipartisan border deal, we would have additional resources to actually deal with this without — without the actions that the president has taken.

I don’t have any changes to — to speak to, any change of policy. But, again, this is something that we had to do because congressional Repub- — Republicans refused to take action, and so we took action, and now we’re seeing the effects of that.

Go ahead. Yeah.

Q Oh, sorry. Thanks. You mentioned, you know, that you don’t want to see an e- — an escalation in the — the Middle East. But given what’s happening in Lebanon, what does the White House view as that escalation? What are you all looking for — for, I guess, you say, “Things have really escalated. This is what we need to do. What’s going to happen.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, we — we’ve — I — well, we know there’s tension there. We do not want to see an escalation. We’re continuing to have these diplomatic conversation. This is why the ceasefire deal is — is so important.

This is why we’re continuing to — to engage with Qatar, Egypt, and Israel to get to a resolution here. We believe, if we can get to that, it will reduce the tensions along the Blue Line. So, that’s something that we’re going to continue to continue to do.

I don’t have a chart here to say what is escalation, what does escalation look like, and what’s going to trigger and what we define an escalation. But we know that the tensions exist. We do not want to see further esca- — escalation, and we’re going to continue to have these conversations — these diplomatic conversation to get to a resolution.

Q Have you heard from President Biden on what he is tracking in terms of an escalation and maybe when he might say things have, I guess, taken that turn?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Diplomatic resolution is the way to go. We believe it’s achievable. It’s urgent. We’re going to have those diplomatic resolution. We want to get to a ceasefire and hostage deal. It is important to do so. We believe it would lower the temperature, lower — reduce the tension there. And that’s going to be our focus.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you for taking my question. My colleagues at USA Today published a piece today about the status of the nation’s effort to clear the backlog of sexual assault evidence kits, something that then-Vice President Biden announced in 2015. There have been a hundre- — 100,000 kits tested, $350 million invested, and only 1,500 convictions. Is he satisfied with the results of that initiative? And what more does the president want to see done to reform [how] new and old cases are handled?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you’re right. This is something that the president is very much focused on. I have not spoken to him about that particular report and the findings of that report, so don’t want to certainly say something that I haven’t discussed with the president.

But you heard us, and you heard the president speak to VAWA, a historic legislation that he introduced more than 30 years ago. And let’s not forget, when he was senator, there was no discussion about what happens when a — when a woman is dealing with domestic violence or any type of violence.

And so, he brought that to the forefront, has fought for that for the past 30 years, has been able to make additional steps — push that — make step forwards in — under his administration.

And so, don’t have anything to say to that particular study. Would have to talk to the president and our team.

But, obviously, when it comes to the issue of domestic violence, when it comes to an issue and protecting women, this is something that the president has been fore- — on the forefront of as a senator, as a vice president, and certainly as president.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thanks, Karine. Jared Bernstein spoke at length about where you guys stand on the government shutdown at this point. But how would you describe right now the relationship and the communications between the speaker and the president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have a conversation to read out. Obviously, the president is in constant communication with leaders, with congressional members on a regular basis. He gets updated by his team on what’s going on, par- — in particular, with the budget conversations.

Don’t have anything to read out on that speaker-POTUS relationship. They’ve talked a couple of times. They’ve seen each other a couple of times.

But as it relates to the CR, we think that there’s a way forward, a bipartisan way forward. We’ve seen this done before, and that’s what the president wants to see.

Q Earlier —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And that’s what the American people deserve.

Q Earlier this week, Johnson was talking about Secret Service protection of Trump, but he said this about the president. He said, “They don’t let me talk to the president very often. That may not be a big surprise to you all. We communicate through staff. It’s a pretty sad situation, and, in fact, it’s a pretty scary situation.”

Is it true that the president is just not talking to the speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s not unusual for staff to have regular conversations with congressional staff. That is not unusual. That is something that happens pretty regularly. We have an Office of Leg Affairs for that purpose. And so, when there’s an important moment for the president and the speaker to speak, obviously, the president has that conversation.

Right now, we’re talking about a short-term CR. That is not a difficult thing. It really isn’t. It is not a difficult thing to get done. It is a easy, easy thing for — action for Congress to take. It — it should be something that they can decide on in a bipartisan way, as they done many times before, and get it done. Really.

As it relates to Secret Service, that is something that Secret Service can speak to. That is something that we don’t talk about from here. It comes from Secret Service. The president has been very clear after July 13th. When we saw the attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania, the president said we needed to increase — he wanted to see an increase in the protection. And we saw that.

And so, the president has always been very clear about this. He’s always been — spoken to that par- — in particular piece here. He wanted to see the highest level of protection. And Secret Service, the acting director said it — it’s happened, and so that’s important too. But that’s something that the Secret Service speaks to.

All right. Okay, everybody. Thank you.

Q Does the president believe the Farm Bill will happen? Karine, farmers and ranchers really want to know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you.

3:48 P.M. EDT