Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, January 24, 2022
JANUARY 24, 2022

PRESS BRIEFINGS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:39 P.M. EST

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Happy Monday.


Okay. This afternoon, the President will meet with the White House Competition Council to discuss its success thus far in providing concrete cost savings to — for Americans families, and to discuss plans for further actions in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

The Competition Council was set up by the President’s July competition executive order to coordinate and monitor progress across the entire federal government. It is comprised of 10 Cabinet members and the heads of seven independent agencies.

He’ll note today that the lack of competition costs average American households about $5,000 a year, which is a pretty significant sum when you think about people’s budgets.

Since the executive order was signed six months ago, the Council’s members have met every deadline in the President’s order. These actions across a broad range of industries will bring real benefits to American families. For example, the FDA has taken action to lower the cost of hearing aids from thousands to hundreds of dollars for the millions of Americans suffering from hearing loss.

It’s becoming cheaper and easier for Americans to fix the things they already own.

Following the executive order’s support for the right-to-repair, the FTC will repair — will ramp up enforcement actions against illegal repair restrictions. Since then, big firms like Apple and Microsoft voluntarily announced changes to their policies so that consumers can readily repair their own phones and laptops.

The Department of Justice, the FTC, and other agencies have increased efforts to challenge or block mergers that would leave customers with fewer choices, higher prices, and lower wages. For example, the Department of Justice blocked an insurance megamerger that would have raised insurance costs for consumers and businesses alike.

So, this is part of our ongoing effort.

I also wanted to share that NATO is launching a significant military training exercise called Neptune Strike ‘22. This is something my colleague at the Department of Defense updated on, on Friday. But it will run through February 4th and is designed to demonstrate NATO’s high-end maritime strike capabilities.

The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group will serve as the centerpiece for this military exercise and be placed under NATO operational control.

This is the first time since the end of the Cold War that a U.S. carrier strike group has gone under NATO command. And this exercise will help demonstrate the unity, capability, and strength of the transa- — the transatlantic Alliance. It also advances our ability to integrate an aircraft carrier strike group into NATO’s deterrence and defense efforts.

While planning for Neptune Strike began in twenty-two — 2020, long before the current escalation of tensions from Russia’s aggressive posture towards Ukraine, such exercises help the United States and its allies enhance interoperability and ensure readiness for any threat against NATO.

Josh, why don’t you kick us off?

Q Thanks, Jen. Two subject areas.

MS. PSAKI: Yep.

Q First, Ukraine and Russia. The President is going to have his meeting with European counterparts. What does he plan to discuss with them? And how does he plan to address the issue of natural gas, given that 40 percent of EU’s natural gas imports come from Russia?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, as we put out just a little bit earlier today in guidance, the President will hold a secure video call with European leaders as part of our close consultation and coordination with our transatlantic allies and partners in response to our shared concerns over Russia’s military buildup on Ukraine’s borders.
During that conversation, we expect they will discuss diplomacy, deterrence, and defense efforts. And we’ll have a readout for you all afterwards. And certainly a discussion about pending — the pending sanctions, or discussion of that, we would expect to be part of that as well.

But in terms of the impact, I don’t have anything more to read out for you on that front.

Q And then, secondly, per the Supreme Court, should race be a factor in college admissions?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this is, I think, in relation — I would expect — to the announcement by the Supreme Court about the decision to take up the affirmative action case this morning.

While we’re not going to comment on the litigation — I refer those questions, of course, to the Department of Justice — we strongly believe — this administration — in the benefits of diversity in higher education, and we take very seriously our commitment to advancing equity and equal opportunity for historically underserved populations.
That’s why, on day one, the President signed an executive order launching an ambitious whole-of-government response to center equity throughout the government’s work. Throughout the Department of Education, the administration has provided historic investments and support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and minority-serving institutions, such as Hispanic-serving institutions, including nearly $21 billion in cumulative support.

And we have moved swiftly to protect student civil rights and equal opportunity, including by issuing guidance about schools’ obligations to investigate and address claims of discrimination and harassment.

So, of course, the Department of Justice, they can speak to their view on the litigation.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Jen. Has President Biden made a final decision about deploying more troops to Eastern Europe?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me give you a brief update. And I know that my colleague, John Kirby, is going to be briefing shortly, in about 45 minutes or so, at the Defense Department.

We have been consulting with allies on deployments and refining plans for all scenarios. We’ve always said we would reinforce our allies on the eastern flank.

And those conversations and discussions have certainly been part of what our national security officials have been discussing with their counterparts now for several weeks. In fact, we’ve never ruled out the option of providing assistan- — additional assistance in advance of an invasion.

Those discussions have been ongoing with our partners and eastern flank countries. And again, I would expect that my colleague, John Kirby, would have more of an update on where the process is at this point in time.

Q So he’ll make a — John Kirby will make an announcement about whether or not he’s made a decision?

MS. PSAKI: No, I think he will make — he will provide an update on where things stand on those discussions.

Q Okay. So, last week, President Biden at the press conference said that the U.S. would fortify NATO Allies, but said it was dependent on an invasion, saying if — he would send more troops to Poland, to Romania, if Ukraine — if Putin did invade Ukraine. So the fact that he’s considering this now and having these discussions with Pentagon leaders over the weekend, does that suggest that he believes an invasion is imminent?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve never actually ruled out providing additional support, additional suppo- — assistance to eastern flank countries in advance of any invasion. And those discussions with them have been ongoing, and certainly that’s been part of our contingency planning.

Q I guess the question is: There does appear to be a shift in his thinking and his attitude toward it. Is that how you would characterize it?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t characterize it that way. We have spoken to the fact that — and we put out a lot of information about our view of the preparations being made by President Putin and the Russians. While we can’t get into the mind of President Putin, we are seeing the preparations that they’re making at the border. We have been very clear and the President has been direct that military action by Russia could come at any one — at any time. He said that last week as well.

So, we have been in conversations and discussions with eastern flank countries. Obviously, our Secretary of State just returned from a trip to Europe as well, and he was part of the discussions this weekend too. And part of that has been contingency planning and discussing what their needs have been.

Q My last question is: Today, the President has this call with European leaders. Several of them are on this — the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, NATO, the European Council. Why is Ukraine not on that call this afternoon?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have a range of conversations with the Ukrainians. Obviously, our Secretary of State met with them last week, and they will be a part of many conversations moving forward.

As I noted a little bit earlier, part of this is a discussion about deterrence and defense efforts, diplomacy, but certainly they will be a part of many conversations as they have been from the beginning.

Go ahead.

Q So what happened then in the last few days that prompted the Pentagon to present specific potential troop deployments to the President? Or put another way: Why now?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I wouldn’t say we’re characterizing it exactly that way. The President has said — said last week, and we also said, that as we’ve been watching the preparations of President Putin and the Russians, that they were prepared at any moment to take military action.

We’ve also been in ongoing discussions, from our Secretary of State to members of our national security team, with our eastern flank partners about what their needs are and what security concerns they have.

So I wouldn’t say it’s a response to an abrupt moment; it’s a part of an ongoing contingency planning process and discussion.

Q After this weekend, is he more or less concerned about the possibility of a Russian invasion in Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he said last week that military action by Russia could come at any time. That remains his point of view.

Q And there’s been clamoring in this town and over in Ukraine for a U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Where do things stand on appointing somebody?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly understand that. I don’t have any update on the status at this point in time.

Q The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said decision to draw down the U.S. presence in Kyiv at the embassy was, quote, “premature and a manifestation of excess caution.”

Is this potentially the afterglow of what happened in Afghanistan — a concern for that? Or is something else more specific prompting people to leave?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say that we — our State Department regularly reviews and assesses what steps need to be taken for the security of our personnel.

I would note that the travel advisory was already at a Level 4 since back in October. We’ve also been closely consulting and keeping Ukrainians abreast. I would say this is more akin to what we — the steps we took in Ethiopia and Kazakhstan than any other country or conflict.

Q One more on Ukraine and then one other quick subject.

The House Speaker today has requested a bipartisan, all-members briefing on the situation in Ukraine of the White House. Is that something you guys plan to fulfill?

MS. PSAKI: We have been in close consultation with members and leadership from the beginning. I don’t have any update on this specifically. But that’s been our objective and how we have proceeded. So I’m sure we are working to meet that request and needs of members.

Q And based on some news reports, it looks as if at least Jake Sullivan and maybe others are talking to senior lawmakers about this on a fairly regular basis.

MS. PSAKI: And we have been for weeks. Mm-hmm.

Q On another subject: Another violent weekend across the country. There was a shooting in New York; there was a shooting here in D.C. of a police officer. There have been reports of a possible — executive actions that the President might be able to take in the realm of police reform or police policy. Where do things stand on that? And might that be coming soon?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me — can I — may I address this weekend first? And I will come around to your question, but I think you had a few in there — important ones to address.

The events of this weekend are a reminder that law enforcement officers head into harm’s way every single day. They and their families make an extraordinary sacrifice for their communities.

The President is never going to be satisfied or complacent when officers are being gunned down, or when Americans have to worry about whether they can safely ride the subway or bus or even be at work.

We’ve seen a surge in crime — obviously, this weekend is a glaring example of that — especially gun violence over the last two years. And the President has been aggressive in using the tools at our disposal to combat that. That’s why he took early action on gun violence last spring, and it’s why he rolled out a comprehensive plan to combat crime last summer.

He also believes, as many Americans do, that we can and must have a criminal justice system that both protects public safety and upholds our founding ideals of equal treatment under law. That’s why he not only has implemented this comprehensive plan to combat crime but why he is continuing to advocate for reforms to our policing system. He thinks that we can do both. But I don’t have an update on any timings for a next step on that.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks. First, on the markets: Does the President think it’s a big deal that today the Dow Jones is down, at one point, more than 1,100 points?

MS. PSAKI: Well, to start with, we focus on the trends in the economy, not any one day and any single indicator. Unlike his predecessor, the President does not look at the stock market as a means by which to judge the economy.

I would note that the market is up around 15 percent compared to when President Biden took office. But our measure of success is really how real working families are doing — whether they are — have a little breathing room, whether they have a job that delivers some dignity and a paycheck that can — they can support a family on. And we’ve seen a great deal of progress made on that front.

Q Thank you. On schools: In Virginia, seven districts representing 350,000 students are suing the state. They’re hoping to get a strict mask mandate for students that has been rolled back by the new governor reinstated. So who does the President think knows best for students: school board members or parents?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the par- — the President believes that public health officials have the best guidance on what we can all do to protect ourselves, including teachers, administrators and students.

It’s always been up to local school districts to determine how they’re going to approach what implementation measures they’re going to put in place.

But here’s what we know from public health officials, who are the experts on a pandemic: Studies show that masks reduce transmissions in school. They are a proven tool that helps keep students and teachers safe from COVID. And they can thus help keep schools open and safe.

In short, we know it works. And we need every leader to focus on using the tactics we know work to keep our students safe and our schools open.

I’d note you mentioned Virginia, but in Texas, the state is fighting a critical public health measure to protect our children and keep our schools safely open. For Head Start communities, ones that — a provision that is requiring masks to keep students and keep communities safe — they’re fighting against that. Why is that? I think that has more to do with politics than it does with public health.

Q But right now, in Virginia, the law is — now that there’s a new governor — that students should not have to wear masks if their parents say that they don’t think they need to wear masks. So if a parent wants to send their school — their kid to school with no mask, should that child be allowed to go to school and be in class?

MS. PSAKI: Again, we’re — what we’re advising school districts on is to abide by public health guidelines and follow public health guidelines. And it’s about keeping an entire community safe. And those are the decisions that are being — that people should focus on making.

Q And just so that it’s crystal clear for anybody watching: You guys think that ultimately, in this conflict between school board members and parents, the school board members should have more of a say in what a child —

MS. PSAKI: That’s actually not what I said. I think everybody should abide by public health guidelines, not just to keep their own kids safe but keep their school community safe, whether it’s teachers, classmates, administrators, others in schools.

Q Okay. On crime, to follow up on what Ed was asking about: Would you agree that the most important job for any president is to keep Americans safe?

MS. PSAKI: I would agree.

Q So you said that the President is never satisfied if people don’t feel safe. Does he know that after a year in office, people do not feel safe in this country?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Peter, I think if we look at the facts here, we’ve seen a surge of crime over the last two years. Would you agree with that?

Q So what are you attributing the rise in crime to then?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we should be responsible in how we’re reporting to the public what the — what the res- — what the roles are — what the reasons for the surge in crime.

Gun violence is a huge reason for the surge in crime. Underfunding of some police departments and their need for additional resources — something the President has advocated for consistently through the course of his career — that’s something we know we need to take action on.

And it is absolutely true that he will not be satisfied or complacent when officers are being gunned down or when Americans have to worry about whether they can safely ride the subway or bus. That should not be a political issue. He’s somebody who has had a long career of — many decades — of fighting for funding for police departments, for local communities in order to reduce crime.

Q But he’s been here, in office, for more than a year, and the murder rate is nearing a 25-year high. So, why don’t we see and hear more from the President about this? We hear all the time about things that you guys are doing to fight the pandemic because that is a risk to American people. A rising murder rate is a risk to American people too, right?

MS. PSAKI: And he has spoken to crime. But I think what people are most focused on, as they should be, are what actions he has taken. He has unveiled a strategy to focus federal law enforcement resources on combating violent crime, offered unprecedented levels of funding through the Rescue Plan for cities and states to put more cops on the beat and invest in proven community anti-violence programs — something every Republican voted against.

The Department of Justice has announced $139 million in grants to cities for community policing, which will put 1,000 more officers on the streets. He’s also proposed doubling those grants, and he’s called for an additional $750 million for federal law enforcement. He’s announced a zero-tolerance policy for gun dealers who sell willfully — willfully sell illegal guns. And we’ve launched gun trafficking strike forces in New York and cities across the country. Actions are important here, and he has a long record of them.

Q But does the President think that any of that is working?

MS. PSAKI: The President thinks you should have a plan to address crime and gun violence. He has one. And we look forward to working with people who support that effort.

Q But as the murder rate nears a 25-year high, would he consider maybe trying something different?

MS. PSAKI: Trying something other than supporting a massive plus-up in funding from his predecessor; cracking down on gun trafficking and gun violence, which is a major driver of the violence we’ve seen across the country; working to support community policing programs and police departments across the country?

I think most people who want to fight crime would agree that’s the right approach.

Q But —

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Go ahead, Justin.

Q Thanks, Jen. Just — I know Kirby is briefing later, but —

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

Q — just to put a finer point on it —

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q — do you have any information about how many troops are under consideration; what the timeframe for the President’s decision are; sort of, the logistical details of a possible deployment?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details from here other than to convey that we’re in close consultation with eastern flank countries about their security needs. And again, we’ve always said we would support them. We’ve never said that — that an invasion would be a prerequisite for that.

Q Do you expect the written response that you’re putting together to include any requests or demands from the U.S. side, including, you know, a timeframe for President Putin to start drawing down troops from Ukraine’s border?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to preview in terms of what a written proposal would be. I would just note — because I — we’ve talked about this a bit — that written proposals have been the basis of basically every agreement we’ve ever had with the Russians and many countries around the world. They’re a standard part of diplomacy, and they’re a format for providing areas where — conveying areas where you have concern, and also — but also outlining areas where you can work together. But I don’t have anything to preview on what that would look like.

Q We didn’t have a chance last week to talk about one part of the President’s press conference where he said he’d like to be in a position to lift — to say that China is meeting its commitments and, therefore, be able to lift some of the tariffs.

I’m wondering: When he said that, did he mean making good on the phase one commitments that have already been out there? I know China is not meeting those. Or does he mean additional commitments that you’d be asking for from the Chinese?

MS. PSAKI: I think he meant he is looking forward to getting some recommendations through the review process that’s ongoing.

Q And then, one last one. There was an FBI raid last week on Representative Cuellar, reportedly over his ties to Azerbaijani oil executives. I know you’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation, but do you think that the congressman should step away from his committee assignments or congressional work while this investigation is ongoing?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to have any comment on this at this point.

Go ahead.

Q A couple on — more on Ukraine, Jen. There’s a proposal that’s floating in the Duma that would ask Vladimir Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine as independent. If Putin does that, would you regard that as an escalation?

MS. PSAKI: I have not spoken with our national security team about that. You know our view on the sovereign — the integrital [sic] — the sovereign — the sovereignty of Ukraine. And, you know, I don’t have any other comments on it, though, at this point in time.

Q Okay. Under what circumstances would we evacuate American citizens and diplomats from Ukraine? And can that be done without the U.S. military?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the reason that we — the State Department issued the guidance they did — which, again, is a standard process that the State Department iss- — does — and regularly — with a range of countries where we have security concerns — was to make very clear that we — that American citizens — our recommendation is that U.S. citizens currently in Ukraine consider departing now using commercial or other privately available transportation options, use the online forum and our updated travel advisory to tell us their plans so they can best conduct our ongoing contingency planning, and register in STEP to ensure they receive alerts and guidance from the State Department.

We are — there is not an intention for there to be a departure or an evacuation along those lines, so we are conveying to American citizens they should leave now.

Q Okay.

MS. PSAKI: And, in fact, there’s not — there is not precedent, beyond Afghanistan, for that to be how it operates.

Q Got it. And then, just more broadly: For years, NATO members have fallen short of their defense spending commitments. Last year, more than 60 percent of the Alliance’s 30 members, including half of the Bucharest Nine that are right near Russia there, failed to meet that — their 2 percent GDP spending commitment. If Europeans aren’t willing to expend blood and treasure on their self-defense, why should Americans be expected to do so?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are continuing to advocate for all members to reach the 2 percent goal that has been the vi- — the President’s position since he was the Vice President — so, for many years now.

I would say that we have a sacred obligation under NATO, and we believe it is also in our interest to support our eastern flank countries and their security, and also to be clear about the value we have as Americans, which is that no country should be able to take with force another country, as Russia is attempting to do at this point in time.

Q And one last one. You said that military incursions by Russia into Ukraine would trigger stiff economic sanctions. Does that apply to our policy with China and Taiwan?

MS. PSAKI: As it rel- —

Q If there was a military incursion of some kind into Taiwan, would there be economic sanctions? Could China expect that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to preview on this — that at this point in time.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Jen. So, at the press conference last week, the President spoke a lot about Build Back Better and his thoughts about sort of where the sweet spot might be to save as much of that as he can. I think, the next day, Senator Manchin was asked if he’d spoken with the President, and he said he hadn’t yet. Has there been any conversation — direct conversation between the President and Senator Manchin since last week?

MS. PSAKI: We’re just not going to speak to or confirm any conversations the President has with members of the Senate, moving forward.

Q Can you broadly give us a sense of when those conversations will, sort of, ramp up in earnest?

MS. PSAKI: The President has been in touch with a range of senators. We’re just not going to outline those or confirm those specifically.

Q On — on putting that together and getting it through the Senate with 50 votes, is the State of the Union more or less the soft deadline? Or is this something that may well extend beyond that?

MS. PSAKI: We haven’t set a deadline. I think what our objective is and what the President’s objective is, is to move forward on, you know, an effort in Congress — in the Senate to lower costs for the American people and do that without raising the deficit — pay for it; make sure we’re easing the burden that families have across the country. We need 50 votes to do that, but that is — we don’t have — we have not set a deadline.

Q Can I just ask you one other thing about infrastructure? You may have seen our story and reporting elsewhere about Republican lawmakers, who oppose the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law out in the states, over the recess touting the benefits — taking credit, in some cases, for doing that.

I know that this is a big pillar of the Democrats’ 2022 midterm argument and the President’s case for a successful first year. He’s touted the bipartisan nature of this. Is he going to take issue with any of the Republicans who are out there who — I mean, is he going to call them out for saying that, you know, they should get credit for something that they opposed? Or is he going to let that slide?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say we welcome the number of Republicans who voted against the infrastructure bill coming around to recognize the impact on their communities. We’ve seen this playbook before, so perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

And I don’t think I can stand up here and rule out what the President is or isn’t going to call out moving forward.

Go ahead.

Q Hey, Jen. The President spoke last week about Russia’s historic concerns about loss of empire and encirclement. So, my question is: If you’re sending some thousands of U.S. troops to the Baltics or the eastern flank, is there a chance that that will increase the risk of war rather than reducing it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve had troops in the eastern flank countries for decades.

Q Right. But we’re — it sounds like what’s being discussed is sending more right now, at a time of real tension.

MS. PSAKI: And we have a sacred obligation to support the security of our eastern flank countries. I think it’s important to remember who the aggressor is here. It is not the United States. It is not these eastern flank countries. It is Russia who has tens of thousands of troops on the border of Ukraine. They have the power to de-escalate. We would certainly welcome that.

Q And I know both you and the President spoke about the “little green men” —

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q — infiltrators into the country. Now that the British have put out intelligence of a possible coup planned by Moscow in Ukraine, how would the U.S. respond if that happened? Would that trigger the same sanctions that we’re talking about here?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to get into intelligence matters, of course. We’ve been warning about Russian tactics like this for weeks. Reports of this kind of plotting are deeply concerning; if acted upon, would constitute a severe escalation. And, certainly, there would be consequences.

Q And then, just one more on the sched. I know we’ve all been anticipating the President is going to hit the road. Is the reason there’s nothing on the public schedule these tensions with — involving Ukraine, or another reason?

MS. PSAKI: We — I expect we will have some travel very, very soon. We’re just looking to finalize the details.

Go ahead, Kimberly.

Q Thanks. A couple of questions. First, a quick housekeeping question.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

Q Can you confirm the Qatari Emir will be coming to the White House at the end of the month and if the discussions will center around energy supply to Europe?

MS. PSAKI: I know there’s been discussion of that. I don’t have final confirmation of it. I will work to see if we can get that to you after the briefing.

Q Okay, perfect. And then, as the administration weighs reinstating the terrorist designation on the Houthis, is the President concerned this could block humanitarian aid? And why would the President consider this if millions are at risk of losing assistance, given his policy of upholding human rights?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say that we call on all parties to the conflict to de-escalate and abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure the protection of all civilians, and participate fully in an inclusive U.N.-led peace process. All parties must commit to a peaceful, diplomatic solution to ending the conflict and advance a durable resolution that improves the lives of Yemenis and allows them to collectively determine their own future.

There have been dangerous escalations in days, which is, of course, why you were asking. These escalations only exacerbate a dire humanitarian crisis and the suffering of the Yemeni people.

We are deeply concerned by these reports, and we are continuing to engage at a diplomatic level. And our Special Envoy, Lenderking, reaffirmed our unwavering commitment. And he has been recently on the ground pressing parties for de-escalation and protection for civilian lives.

Q And then, quickly: A UK court is now allowing Julian Assange to appeal his extradition to the United States. The Justice Department, as you know, isn’t commenting. But what about the President? He says press freedom is critical for democracy, so why is he continuing to pursue this case? Is the reason that he’s pursuing this Trump-era case because Julian Assange embarrassed the Democratic Party in 2016?

MS. PSAKI: Again, this is under the purview of the dem- — the Department of Justice, so I don’t have any comment from here.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. On the Palin-New York Times case — I know you can’t maybe speak specifically to the case, but does the White House have any concerns about threats to press freedoms, to press access, to the limits of the First Amendment protection?

MS. PSAKI: I obviously can’t speak to the case, so I appreciate you saying that at the top.

I will say that I think the President has shown that he respects the value of the freedom of the press. He obviously took a step earlier this year to ensure there couldn’t be a replication of actions that had been taken over prior administrations, as it related to journalists. So, I think that speaks to his commitment, but I don’t have any more comments on the case.

Q And then, following off of Ed, I know you guys have forecasted, potentially, policing reform —

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q — executive action. Some civil rights advocates also want to see additional voting rights executive actions. Is there anything — any details or any timeline for what you think the President, the White House may do there, considering that it stalled in Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you know, the President is going to keep fighting until his last breath, as you — as you’ve heard him say, on voting rights because he thinks it’s so vitally important. We did do an executive order early on in the administration, which was quite extensive and comprehensive, that is still being implemented.

In terms of additional executive orders that would be possible, that we have the authority to do, I don’t have anything to predict on — along those lines. But we are going to continue to fight to get federal legislation passed. We are going to continue to work with states to ensure that there is proper protections. And there is, of course, more work ahead.

Go ahead.

Q Yes. There are currently at least 150 American military advisors in Ukraine, including members of the Florida National Guard. Are those soldiers going to remain in Ukraine? Are there contingency plans if hostilities break out to remove them? What’s their disposition?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the Department of Defense to ask them that question.

Q My colleague mentioned Afghanistan. And one of the things that you hear among Russian propaganda in Ukraine is that the United States is an unreliable ally that is using Ukraine as a pawn. And they point to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as evidence that the United States cannot be counted on. How does the United States respond to that? And has the Afghanistan withdrawal complicated diplomacy in this regard?

MS. PSAKI: It has not, in our experience. We — the President ended a 20-year war in Afghanistan — something he had talked about consistently doing for some time as he was running for President and even before then.

I think our commitment to our NATO partners is clear. Our commitment to Ukrainians is clear. We’ve sent more security assistance over the last year than in any year in recent history. We’ve been in constant contact, as is evidenced by the President’s call this afternoon, with our European partners as we work to ensure we’re in lockstep as we approach the next stage and anticipate what President Putin may or may not do.

So, what I would say to that is: That’s sounds like the old Russian propaganda playbook — something we’ve talked about in the past. And I’d encourage anyone to be mindful of that.

Q And then, finally, there’s negotiations going on in Congress for Russian sanctions if they do take military action against Ukraine. Does the United States support Congress acting? And are they involved in these negotiations?

MS. PSAKI: We are keeping — we are regularly updating and briefing leaders in Congress and — about what steps are under consideration, what the status is of things we’re seeing on the ground. Obviously, we’ve talked about a lot of this publicly as well.

And we’ve also been clear that we have a — a severe sanctions package of economic options that is under consideration should they decide to invade.

We also recently sanctioned a couple of individuals for their engagement as well.

But I don’t have anything in terms of the specific steps under consideration. We have our own severe steps that we are considering here, and we’re keeping Congress abreast of that.

Q Does it help to have Congress involved?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re working in lockstep with them. We are briefing them. We are conveying to them what we’re thinking about and considering, and, of course, getting feedback from them as well.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. I recognize that the White House has said that they have, you know, very severe sanctions that are prepared if Russia invades. Is there any thought to enacting sanctions before Russia invades as a form of deterrence? Or is that under consideration?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we did announce a couple of sanctions — sets of sanctions from the Treasury Department last week in response to their — the involvement of a few individuals.

We’ve also plussed up our security assistance packages that we’ve been delivering to the Ukrainians, including recent deliveries over the last couple of days.

And obviously, as we were talking about earlier in this briefing, there’s been discussions about how we can support the security of eastern flank countries.

But also, we are mindful of what we think is the most effective deterrent. And the severe economic sanctions pact is something that would be — go far beyond what was done and what was on the table in 2014, including the consideration of imposing unprecedented export control measures that would hit hard at President Putin’s ambitions are part of the discussion. And our assessment is that is most effective as — as a deterrent tool and not as one we would do in advance.

Q Okay. So, you’re saying the threat of the sanctions is the most effective deterrent tool that —

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

Q I have a question, just to follow up. I know that, you know, you were asked about Americans who are now in Ukraine. I know you said that there is no precedent, you know, outside of Afghanistan, for evacuations in ca- — if there was, like, some type of military incursion by the Russians.

So, I just want to be clear: If Americans are still in Ukraine and things start happening with Russia, are they pretty much on their own?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are conveying very clearly now that now is the time to leave and that there are means to do that. Of course, there’s commercial airlines. You can depart over land. There’s obviously the embassy there to provide assistance.

And this is very similar to what we did in Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, and many other countries over the course of the last several decades.

But there is not an intention or a plan for any military evacuation.

Q And just quickly, in the — in the past, a call — another call with Putin was still on the table. I believe that the President was supposed to talk with his advisors about that this weekend. Like, what — have any decisions been made about that? Will there be another call or another talk with Putin?

MS. PSAKI: The President remains open to leader-to-leader diplomacy, of course. He knows how effective that can be.

But I don’t have anything to predict or preview at this point in time in terms of a call between them.

Hold on. Let me just get to the last two, and then I’ll come back around.

Go ahead.

Q The President said last week that he has, basically, on a daily basis, to work to keep unity in NATO. How unified are NATO partners when it comes to hard and meaningful sanctions against Russia?

And what is the President’s assessment or the White House’s assessment of the new German chancellor in that case?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know that my — that our Secretary of State spoke to this just yesterday. And what I would note is that — as he said, that we are confident the Germans share our concerns and are prepared to respond swiftly, effectively, and in a united way to Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Germany is one of our closest allies. In fact, we look forward of course, to welcoming the chancellor here to the United States in February.

The Germans have said, as you know, that if Russia further invades Ukraine, the — the future of Nord Stream 2 — the future of Nord Stream 2 would be in grave jeopardy.

This is real leverage over Putin. If Putin wants to see gla- — gas flow through the pipeline, he cannot invade Ukraine. The pipeline is, of course, not operational, but that is often the context of how this question is asked.

I think what the President was conveying is that it doesn’t happen on its own. It requires work. It requires conversations. It requires face-to-face diplomacy. I think there’s been over 100 engagements that senior members of his national security team and the President have taken a part of — part in, in order to ensure that we are united and strong as we — as we confront the threats posed by President Putin.

Q Will Germany need more work than other NATO partners?

MS. PSAKI: I would say Germany remains one of our key partners and allies. And again, we are working in lockstep with them.

Go ahead.

Q Yes. Hi, Jen. Senator Susan Collins is leading a working group looking at reforming the Electoral Count Act so that during the counting of the Electoral College, a Vice President could not reject one slate of electors and, say, recognize a rival slate supporting a rival candidate.

I’m just wondering whether the White House has talked to either Senator Collins or any other senators about this, and, given, shall we say, recent history, whether the President supports reforming the Electoral Count Act.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve never said we were opposed to it. We are in touch with a range of senators — I’m not going to detail who, but — across the board, from se- — through senior members of the legislative team, senior advisors to the President — about a range of steps that can be taken.

What’s important to note — and I’ve said it in the past, but I’ll just reiterate it — that it does not take the place of, it is not a replacement for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act or any of the voting rights federal legislation we were working to get across the finish line because they do entirely different things, including creating a baseline for what the American people should expect and, frankly, demand in terms of what kind of access they should have to participate in the voting process.

And, of course, the — the requirement that any state that has a history of voter suppression would have to get approval from the Department of Justice in order to change voting laws — the Electoral Count Act doesn’t do that.

But we are open to the conversations. We’ve been participating in the conversations. But it’s — it’s not a replacement for.

Q Okay. On a different subject, so much of the public discourse about so-called “Havana Syndrome” has come from anonymous leaks. And I’m just wondering: How soon will the National Security Council release their expert report on Havana Syndrome and — these anomalous health incidents? And will this report be made, you know, public in a fulsome way?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I know there’s been a recent CIA report that talks about the findings of their interim analysis. It does not — which does not rule out that a foreign actor may be involved in a subset of reported cases and affirms that the intelligence community will be drilling down in its analysis on a subset of cases — the toughest unresolved ones, of course, to try to determine whether a foreign actor may be involved.

There are a range of investigations and efforts underway across the U.S. government. And we continue to take every report of a suspected incident safely [seriously].

What’s most important is the President has aksed — has asked his National Security team to ensure we are leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that people who have been impacted receive the proper healthcare they need.

I can’t make a prediction of what a final release of a report would look like. I would really point you to the intelligence community on that.

Q Okay. Just one last one. Just yesterday, in D.C. — not far from here, actually — there was an anti-mask —

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q — anti-lockdown rally where, you know, some of the rhetoric around that was talking about Nuremberg-style trials to, you know, hold Anthony Fauci to account, to go after the media for spreading lies, things like this.

I’m just wondering how the administration is going to respond to what appears to be a growing intensity and potential for violence in the anti-vax movement.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are well aware that there is a loud and vocal minority, empowered through social media and media platforms that proliferate disinformation, politicians who espouse conspiracy theories and fundraise off of opposition to public health. We know that.

We also know that 87 percent of American adults have at least one shot. That’s the vast, vast majority. And over 210 million Americans are fully vaccinated.

So our view is that it’s wrong, it’s dangerous, and it stands in the way of a coordinated effort to save more American lives.

Q Something like only 25 percent — I don’t know what the number (inaudible) is — closer to 25 percent have their booster. Do you feel like you guys are sort of losing the war when it comes to the messaging on the importance of these types of public health measures, like getting vaccinated?

MS. PSAKI: Again, our view is that it’s a loud and vocal minority, but still dangerous, still problematic.

The fact that 87 percent of American adults — all those people, of course, mathematically did not vote for Joe Biden — have had at least one shot means we far surpassed where I think most people think we would be.

It’s difficult and challenging, of course, to get more people vaccinated. We know that. And, of course, efforts that are dangerous and wrong by groups like this are problematic, as is the spread of misinformation on social media platforms, unfortunately out of the mouths of some prominent officials. All of that is problematic and harmful.

But again, I think we should be mindful of the large percentage of people that have had one shot, 75 percent have had two shots. Obviously, our effort has been to get more people boosted, but if you’re starting the process, that’s a good sign.

Yeah.

Q Just two follow-ups. And thank you for working the room and for coming back. Just two more details —

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

Q — on Ukraine. Was there something specific that prompted today’s meeting with those European leaders?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s a part of our ongoing contingency planning and discussions about what we are seeing, but also how we can help protect and support their security as well.

Q So it wasn’t like the intelligence report from the British over the weekend or something prompted everybody to get together?

MS. PSAKI: No. Part of ongoing contingency discussions.

Q And, obviously, he gets briefed on this in his daily intelligence briefing. We know he had this briefing over the weekend at Camp David. Can you give us any more detail or a sense of how often he’s — the President is being briefed on Ukraine? Who’s doing it? Is he asking for updates every hour? You know, give us some sense of what’s going on on this issue specifically.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. I can tell you, from being in a lot of meetings with him that are unrelated to Ukraine as well, that he is often asking for updates and looking for updates from his national security team on where things stand, how conversations are going on. And that’s something he regularly asks for.

He’s seeing his team or members of his team every day. Of course, there are central members that you’re very familiar with who participate in the PDB — Jake Sullivan and others. And, of course, he’s regularly talking with our Secretary of State, who has been front and center in the diplomatic efforts.

Q Thanks, Jen.

MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.

Q Jen, do you have a date on the German Chancellor visit? You just, kind of, like, offhandedly mentioned (inaudible).

MS. PSAKI: Yeah, we’ll — we’ll get it to you after the briefing. Yes. Important — an important visit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

백악관

브리핑룸
Jen Psaki 대변인의 언론 브리핑 , 2022년 1월 24일

제임스 S. 브래디 프레스 브리핑룸

오후 1시 39분(동부 표준시) PSAKI:

안녕하세요, 여러분. 행복한 월요일.


괜찮아. 오늘 오후에 대통령은 백악관 경쟁 위원회와 만나 지금까지 미국인 가족에게 구체적인 비용 절감 효과를 제공하는 데 성공했는지 논의하고 앞으로 몇 주, 몇 달, 몇 년 후에 추가 조치에 대한 계획을 논의할 것입니다.

대회 위원회는 대통령의 7월 대회 행정 명령에 따라 전체 연방 정부의 진행 상황을 조정하고 모니터링하기 위해 설립되었습니다. 10명의 내각 구성원과 7개의 독립 기관의 장으로 구성됩니다.

그는 오늘날 경쟁의 부재로 인해 평균적인 미국 가정이 연간 약 5,000달러의 비용을 지출한다는 사실을 알게 될 것입니다. 이는 사람들의 예산을 생각할 때 상당히 큰 금액입니다.

행정 명령이 6개월 전에 서명된 이후로 위원회 위원들은 대통령 명령의 모든 마감일을 준수했습니다. 광범위한 산업 분야에 걸친 이러한 조치는 미국 가정에 실질적인 혜택을 가져다 줄 것입니다. 예를 들어, FDA는 청력 상실로 고통받는 수백만 명의 미국인을 위해 보청기 비용을 수천 달러에서 수백 달러로 낮추기 위한 조치를 취했습니다.

미국인들이 이미 소유하고 있는 것을 고치는 것이 점점 더 저렴해지고 쉬워지고 있습니다.

수리 권리에 대한 행정 명령의 지원에 따라 FTC는 수리할 것이며 불법 수리 제한에 대한 집행 조치를 강화할 것입니다. 이후 애플과 마이크로소프트 같은 대기업들은 소비자들이 자신의 휴대폰과 노트북을 쉽게 수리할 수 있도록 정책 변경을 자발적으로 발표했다.

법무부, FTC 및 기타 기관은 고객에게 더 적은 선택, 더 높은 가격, 더 낮은 임금을 안겨주는 합병에 도전하거나 차단하려는 노력을 늘렸습니다. 예를 들어, 법무부는 소비자와 기업 모두에게 보험 비용을 증가시킬 수 있는 보험 대기업을 차단했습니다.

따라서 이것은 우리의 지속적인 노력의 일부입니다.

나는 또한 NATO가 Neptune Strike '22라는 중요한 군사 훈련을 시작하고 있다는 사실을 알리고 싶었습니다. 이것은 금요일에 국방부의 제 동료가 업데이트한 내용입니다. 그러나 그것은 2월 4일까지 계속될 것이며 NATO의 고급 해상 타격 능력을 보여주기 위해 설계되었습니다.

USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group은 이 군사 훈련의 중심 역할을 하며 NATO 작전 통제 하에 놓이게 됩니다.

미 항공모함 공격대가 나토(NATO) 지휘 하에 들어간 것은 냉전 종식 이후 처음이다. 그리고 이 훈련은 대서양 횡단 동맹의 단결과 능력 및 강점을 입증하는 데 도움이 될 것입니다. 또한 항공모함 타격 그룹을 NATO의 억지 및 방어 노력에 통합하는 능력을 향상시킵니다.

해왕성 공격 계획이 2020년 22월에 시작되었지만, 우크라이나에 대한 러시아의 공격적인 자세로 인한 긴장이 고조되기 훨씬 이전에 그러한 훈련은 미국과 동맹국이 상호 운용성을 향상하고 NATO에 대한 위협에 대비하는 데 도움이 됩니다.

조쉬, 우리를 쫓아내지 않을래?

Q 감사합니다, Jen. 두 개의 주제 영역.

MS. 사키: 네.

Q 먼저 우크라이나와 러시아. 대통령은 유럽 국가들과 회담을 가질 예정이다. 그는 그들과 무엇을 논의할 계획입니까? 그리고 그는 EU 천연가스 수입의 40%가 러시아에서 나온다는 점을 감안할 때 천연가스 문제를 어떻게 해결할 계획입니까?

MS. PSAKI: 물론입니다. 글쎄, 우리가 오늘 조금 일찍 지침에서 밝혔듯이, 대통령은 러시아의 군사력 증강에 대한 우리의 공통된 우려에 대한 응답으로 대서양을 횡단하는 동맹국 및 파트너와의 긴밀한 협의 및 조정의 일환으로 유럽 지도자들과 안전한 화상 통화를 할 것입니다. 우크라이나 국경에서.
그 대화 중에 외교, 억제 및 방위 노력에 대해 논의할 것으로 예상합니다. 그리고 우리는 나중에 여러분 모두를 위해 읽을 것입니다. 그리고 확실히 보류 중인 제재에 대한 논의 또는 보류 중인 제재에 대한 논의, 우리도 그 일부가 될 것으로 예상합니다.

하지만 그 영향에 관해서는 더 이상 읽어줄 것이 없습니다.

Q 그리고 두 번째로 대법원 판결에 따르면 인종을 대학입시에 고려해야 합니까?

MS. PSAKI: 글쎄요, 제 생각에 이것은 대법원이 오늘 아침 차별적 조치를 취하기로 한 결정에 대한 발표와 관련이 있다고 생각합니다.

우리는 소송에 대해 언급하지 않을 것이지만(물론 해당 질문을 법무부에 회부합니다) 우리는 이 행정부가 고등 교육의 다양성의 이점을 강력히 믿습니다. 역사적으로 소외된 인구를 위한 평등과 평등한 기회를 증진합니다.
그렇기 때문에 대통령은 첫날에 정부 업무 전반에 걸쳐 중앙 형평성에 대한 야심 찬 범정부 대응을 시작하는 행정 명령에 서명했습니다. 교육부 전반에 걸쳐 행정부는 역사적으로 흑인 대학 및 대학, 부족 대학 및 대학, 그리고 히스패닉계 기관과 같은 소수 민족 기관에 대한 역사적 투자 및 지원을 제공했으며, 여기에는 거의 210억 달러의 누적 지원이 포함됩니다.

그리고 우리는 차별과 괴롭힘에 대한 주장을 조사하고 해결해야 하는 학교의 의무에 대한 지침을 발표하는 것을 포함하여 학생의 시민권과 평등한 기회를 보호하기 위해 신속하게 움직였습니다.

따라서 물론 법무부에서는 소송에 대한 자신의 견해를 말할 수 있습니다.

가세요.

Q 감사합니다, Jen. 바이든 대통령은 동유럽에 더 많은 군대를 배치하는 것에 대한 최종 결정을 내렸습니까?

MS. PSAKI: 글쎄요, 간단히 업데이트하겠습니다. 그리고 제 동료인 John Kirby가 약 45분 정도 후에 국방부에서 곧 브리핑을 할 예정이라는 것을 압니다.

우리는 모든 시나리오에 대한 배포 및 개선 계획에 대해 동맹국과 협의했습니다. 우리는 항상 동쪽 측면에서 동맹을 강화하겠다고 말했습니다.

그리고 그러한 대화와 토론은 확실히 우리 국가 안보 관리들이 몇 주 동안 상대방과 논의해 온 것의 일부였습니다. 사실, 우리는 조수를 제공하는 옵션을 배제한 적이 없습니다. 침공에 앞서 추가 지원을 제공합니다.

그러한 논의는 우리의 파트너 및 동부 측면 국가들과 계속 진행되고 있습니다. 그리고 다시, 저는 제 동료인 John Kirby가 이 시점에서 프로세스가 어디에 있는지에 대해 더 많은 정보를 얻을 것이라고 기대합니다.

Q 그래서 그는 - John Kirby가 자신이 결정을 내렸는지 여부에 대해 발표할 것입니까?

MS. PSAKI: 아니요, 그가 만들 것이라고 생각합니다. 그는 이러한 토론에 대한 상황에 대한 업데이트를 제공할 것입니다.

Q 알겠습니다. 그래서 지난주 기자회견에서 바이든 대통령은 미국이 나토 동맹국을 강화할 것이라고 말했지만, 푸틴이 침공한다면 폴란드, 루마니아, 우크라이나에 더 많은 군대를 보낼 것인지는 침공에 달려 있다고 말했습니다. 우크라이나. 그래서 그가 지금 이것을 고려하고 있고 주말에 펜타곤 지도자들과 이러한 논의를 하고 있다는 사실이 그가 침공이 임박했다고 믿는다는 것을 암시합니까?

MS. PSAKI: 우리는 침략에 앞서 동부 측면 국가에 추가 지원, 추가 지원을 제공하는 것을 실제로 배제한 적이 없습니다. 그리고 그들과의 이러한 논의는 계속 진행 중이며 확실히 그것은 우리의 비상 계획의 일부였습니다.

Q 질문은 다음과 같습니다. 그에 대한 그의 생각과 태도에 변화가 있는 것 같습니다. 당신이 그것을 특징 짓는 방법은 무엇입니까?

MS. PSAKI: 그런 식으로 특성화하지 않을 것입니다. 우리는 푸틴 대통령과 러시아인들이 준비하고 있는 준비에 대한 우리의 견해에 대해 많은 정보를 발표했습니다. 우리는 푸틴 대통령의 마음에 들어갈 수 없지만 국경에서 그들이 준비하고 있는 것을 보고 있습니다. 우리는 러시아의 군사 행동이 언제라도 일어날 수 있다는 점을 분명히 했고 대통령은 직접적으로 말했습니다. 그는 지난주에도 그렇게 말했다.

그래서 우리는 동방 측면 국가들과 대화하고 토론했습니다. 분명히, 우리 국무장관도 유럽을 여행하고 막 돌아왔고 이번 주말에도 토론에 참여했습니다. 그리고 그 중 일부는 비상 계획과 그들의 필요 사항에 대해 논의하는 것이었습니다.

Q 마지막 질문은 오늘 대통령이 유럽 정상들과 통화를 했습니다. 영국, 프랑스, ​​독일, 이탈리아, 폴란드, NATO, 유럽 평의회와 같은 몇 가지가 이에 관한 것입니다. 우크라이나가 오늘 오후에 통화하지 않는 이유는 무엇입니까?

MS. PSAKI: 음, 우리는 우크라이나인들과 다양한 대화를 나눴습니다. 분명히, 우리 국무장관은 지난 주에 그들을 만났고, 그들은 앞으로 나아갈 많은 대화의 일부가 될 것입니다.

제가 조금 앞서 언급했듯이, 이것의 일부는 억제 및 방어 노력, 외교에 대한 논의이지만, 분명히 처음부터 그랬던 것처럼 많은 대화의 일부가 될 것입니다.

가세요.

Q 그렇다면 지난 며칠 동안 펜타곤이 대통령에게 특정 잠재적인 병력 배치를 제출하도록 촉발한 어떤 일이 일어났습니까? 또는 다른 방법으로: 왜 지금?

MS. PSAKI: 글쎄, 나는 우리가 그것을 정확히 그런 식으로 특성화하고 있다고 말하지 않을 것입니다. 대통령은 지난주에 말했고 우리도 말했습니다. 우리는 푸틴 대통령과 러시아인의 준비를 지켜보면서 언제든지 군사 행동을 취할 준비가 되어 있다고 말했습니다.

우리는 또한 국무장관부터 국가안보팀 구성원에 이르기까지 동부측 파트너와 함께 그들의 필요와 안보 우려사항에 대해 지속적인 논의를 진행해 왔습니다.

그래서 나는 그것이 갑작스러운 순간에 대한 반응이라고 말하지 않을 것입니다. 이는 진행중인 비상 계획 프로세스 및 토론의 일부입니다.

Q 이번 주말이 지나면서 러시아의 우크라이나 침공 가능성에 대해 다소 우려하고 있습니까?

MS. PSAKI: 지난 주에 그는 러시아의 군사 행동이 언제든지 올 수 있다고 말했습니다. 그것은 그의 관점으로 남아 있습니다.

Q 그리고 이 마을과 우크라이나에서는 계속해서 우크라이나 주재 미국 대사를 요구하고 있습니다. 누군가를 임명하는 것은 어디에 있습니까?

MS. PSAKI: 확실히 이해합니다. 현재 시점에서 상태에 대한 업데이트가 없습니다.

Q 우크라이나 외무부는 키예프 주재 미국 대사관을 철수하기로 한 결정은 “시기상조이고 과도한 주의의 표명”이라고 말했다.

이것이 잠재적으로 아프가니스탄에서 일어난 일의 후유증입니까? 이에 대한 우려입니까? 아니면 사람들을 떠나게 만드는 더 구체적인 다른 것이 있습니까?

MS. PSAKI: 음, 우리 국무부는 정기적으로 직원의 보안을 위해 취해야 할 조치를 검토하고 평가합니다.

여행 주의보가 이미 10월 이후로 레벨 4에 있음을 알려드립니다. 우리는 또한 긴밀하게 협의하고 우크라이나인들과 보조를 맞추었습니다. 저는 이것이 우리가 에티오피아와 카자흐스탄에서 취한 조치와 다른 어떤 국가나 분쟁보다 더 유사하다고 말하고 싶습니다.

Q 우크라이나에 대해 한 번 더 설명하고 다른 빠른 주제에 대해 설명하겠습니다.

하원 의장은 오늘 백악관에 우크라이나 상황에 대한 초당적 전 의원 브리핑을 요청했습니다. 그것이 너희들이 성취할 계획인가?

MS. PSAKI: 우리는 처음부터 회원 및 지도부와 긴밀한 협의를 해왔습니다. 특별히 이에 대한 업데이트가 없습니다. 그러나 그것이 우리의 목표이자 우리가 진행해 온 방식입니다. 그래서 우리는 회원들의 요구와 요구를 충족시키기 위해 노력하고 있다고 확신합니다.

Q 그리고 일부 뉴스 보도에 따르면 최소한 Jake Sullivan과 다른 사람들이 고위 의원들과 꽤 정기적으로 이야기하고 있는 것으로 보입니다.

MS. PSAKI: 그리고 우리는 몇 주 동안 있었습니다. 음-흠.

Q 다른 주제에 대해: 전국에서 또 다른 폭력적인 주말. 뉴욕에서 총격 사건이 있었습니다. 여기 DC에서 경찰관의 총격 사건이 있었습니다. 대통령이 경찰 개혁이나 경찰 정책의 영역에서 취할 수 있는 가능한 집행 조치에 대한 보고가 있었습니다. 그 위에 물건이 어디에 있습니까? 그리고 그것이 곧 올까요?

MS. PSAKI: 글쎄요, 제가 — 제가 — 이번 주말에 먼저 말씀드려도 될까요? 그리고 귀하의 질문에 대해 답변을 드리겠습니다. 하지만 그 안에 몇 가지가 포함되어 있다고 생각합니다. 해결해야 할 중요한 사항입니다.

이번 주말의 사건은 법 집행관이 매일 위험에 처해 있음을 상기시켜줍니다. 그들과 그들의 가족은 지역 사회를 위해 특별한 희생을 합니다.

장교들이 총에 맞아 죽거나 미국인들이 지하철이나 버스를 안전하게 탈 수 있는지, 심지어 직장에 있어도 걱정해야 할 때 대통령은 결코 만족하거나 안주하지 않을 것입니다.

우리는 범죄가 급증하는 것을 목격했습니다. 분명히 이번 주말은 그 명백한 예입니다. 특히 지난 2년 동안 총기 폭력이 발생했습니다. 그리고 대통령은 그것을 퇴치하기 위해 우리가 사용할 수 있는 도구를 사용하는 데 공격적이었습니다. 이것이 그가 지난 봄 총기 폭력에 대한 조기 조치를 취한 이유이며, 지난 여름 범죄 퇴치를 위한 포괄적인 계획을 발표한 이유입니다.

그는 또한 많은 미국인들이 하는 것처럼 공공 안전을 보호하고 법에 따라 평등한 대우에 대한 우리의 창립 이념을 지지하는 형사 사법 제도를 가질 수 있고 또 가져야 한다고 믿습니다. 이것이 그가 범죄 퇴치를 위한 이 포괄적인 계획을 실행했을 뿐만 아니라 우리 경찰 시스템의 개혁을 계속 옹호하는 이유입니다. 그는 우리가 둘 다 할 수 있다고 생각합니다. 그러나 나는 그것에 대한 다음 단계에 대한 어떤 타이밍에 대한 업데이트가 없습니다.

가세요.

Q 감사합니다. 첫째, 시장에 대해: 대통령은 오늘날 다우존스가 한때 1,100포인트 이상 하락한 것이 큰일이라고 생각합니까?

MS. PSAKI: 음, 우선, 우리는 어느 날과 어떤 단일 지표가 아니라 경제의 추세에 초점을 맞춥니다. 대통령은 전임자와 달리 주식시장을 경제를 판단하는 수단으로 보지 않는다.

나는 시장이 바이든 대통령이 집권했을 때와 비교하여 약 15% 상승했음을 주목하고 싶습니다. 그러나 우리의 성공 척도는 실제로 실제 일하는 가족이 어떻게 지내고 있는지, 그들이 가족을 부양할 수 있는 약간의 숨을 쉴 공간이 있는지, 약간의 존엄성을 제공하는 직업과 급여를 받을 수 있는지 여부입니다. 그리고 우리는 그 면에서 엄청난 진전을 보았습니다.

Q 감사합니다. 학교: 버지니아에서는 350,000명의 학생을 대표하는 7개 학군이 주를 고소하고 있습니다. 그들은 새 주지사가 복직하면서 롤백된 학생들에게 엄격한 마스크 의무를 부여하기를 바라고 있습니다. 그렇다면 대통령은 학생을 가장 잘 안다고 생각하는 사람이 학교 이사회 구성원입니까 아니면 학부모입니까?

MS. PSAKI: 글쎄요, 대통령은 교사, 행정관 및 학생을 포함하여 우리 모두가 우리 자신을 보호하기 위해 할 수 있는 일에 대해 공중 보건 공무원이 최선의 지침을 가지고 있다고 믿습니다.

어떤 실행 조치를 취할 것인지 결정하는 것은 항상 지역 학군에 달려 있습니다.

그러나 전염병 전문가인 공중 보건 관계자로부터 다음과 같이 알고 있습니다. 연구에 따르면 마스크는 학교에서 전염을 줄입니다. 이는 학생과 교사를 COVID로부터 안전하게 보호하는 데 도움이 되는 입증된 도구입니다. 따라서 학교를 개방적이고 안전하게 유지하는 데 도움이 될 수 있습니다.

요컨대, 우리는 그것이 작동한다는 것을 알고 있습니다. 그리고 우리는 모든 지도자가 우리가 알고 있는 전술을 사용하여 학생들을 안전하게 유지하고 학교를 개방하는 데 집중해야 합니다.

버지니아에 대해 언급하셨지만 텍사스에서는 주에서 우리 아이들을 보호하고 학교를 안전하게 개방하기 위해 중요한 공중 보건 조치와 싸우고 있습니다. Head Start 커뮤니티의 경우, 학생을 보호하고 커뮤니티를 안전하게 유지하기 위해 마스크를 요구하는 조항이 있으며, 이에 맞서 싸우고 있습니다. 왜 그런 겁니까? 나는 그것이 공중 보건보다 정치와 더 관련이 있다고 생각합니다.

Q 하지만 지금 버지니아에서는 새로운 주지사가 있는 법으로 학부모가 마스크를 쓸 필요가 없다고 하면 학생들이 마스크를 쓰지 않아도 된다는 법이 있습니다. 따라서 부모가 자녀를 학교에 보내고 싶다면 마스크를 착용하지 않은 채 자녀를 학교에 보내고 수업을 듣도록 허용해야 합니까?

MS. PSAKI: 다시 말하지만, 우리가 교육구에 조언하는 것은 공중 보건 지침을 준수하고 공중 보건 지침을 따르는 것입니다. 그리고 그것은 전체 커뮤니티를 안전하게 유지하는 것입니다. 그리고 그것이 사람들이 내리는 데 집중해야 하는 결정입니다.

Q 그리고 시청하는 모든 사람에게 명확하게 하기 위해: 여러분은 궁극적으로 교육 위원회 구성원과 학부모 사이의 갈등에서 교육 위원회 구성원이 아동에 대해 더 많은 발언권을 가져야 한다고 생각합니다.

MS. PSAKI: 그것은 실제로 내가 말한 것이 아닙니다. 저는 모든 사람이 공중 보건 지침을 준수해야 하며, 교사, 급우, 행정관, 학교의 다른 사람들 모두 자신의 아이들을 안전하게 보호할 뿐만 아니라 학교 공동체를 안전하게 보호해야 한다고 생각합니다.

Q 알겠습니다. 범죄에 대해 Ed가 질문한 내용에 대한 후속 조치: 대통령의 가장 중요한 임무는 미국인의 안전을 지키는 것이라는 데 동의하십니까?

MS. PSAKI: 동의합니다.

Q 대통령은 국민이 안전하지 않으면 결코 만족할 수 없다고 말씀하셨습니다. 그는 집권 1년 후에 사람들이 이 나라에서 안전하다고 느끼지 않는다는 것을 알고 있습니까?

MS. PSAKI: 글쎄요, Peter, 여기서 사실을 보면 지난 2년 동안 범죄가 급증한 것을 볼 수 있었습니다. 동의하시겠습니까?

Q 그렇다면 범죄가 증가한 이유는 무엇입니까?

MS. PSAKI: 글쎄요, 우리가 대중에게 보고하는 방식에 대해 책임을 져야 한다고 생각합니다. 그 결과는 무엇이며, 역할은 무엇이며 범죄 급증의 원인은 무엇입니까?

Gun violence is a huge reason for the surge in crime. Underfunding of some police departments and their need for additional resources — something the President has advocated for consistently through the course of his career — that’s something we know we need to take action on.

And it is absolutely true that he will not be satisfied or complacent when officers are being gunned down or when Americans have to worry about whether they can safely ride the subway or bus. That should not be a political issue. He’s somebody who has had a long career of — many decades — of fighting for funding for police departments, for local communities in order to reduce crime.

Q But he’s been here, in office, for more than a year, and the murder rate is nearing a 25-year high. So, why don’t we see and hear more from the President about this? We hear all the time about things that you guys are doing to fight the pandemic because that is a risk to American people. A rising murder rate is a risk to American people too, right?

MS. PSAKI: And he has spoken to crime. But I think what people are most focused on, as they should be, are what actions he has taken. He has unveiled a strategy to focus federal law enforcement resources on combating violent crime, offered unprecedented levels of funding through the Rescue Plan for cities and states to put more cops on the beat and invest in proven community anti-violence programs — something every Republican voted against.

The Department of Justice has announced $139 million in grants to cities for community policing, which will put 1,000 more officers on the streets. He’s also proposed doubling those grants, and he’s called for an additional $750 million for federal law enforcement. He’s announced a zero-tolerance policy for gun dealers who sell willfully — willfully sell illegal guns. And we’ve launched gun trafficking strike forces in New York and cities across the country. Actions are important here, and he has a long record of them.

Q But does the President think that any of that is working?

MS. PSAKI: The President thinks you should have a plan to address crime and gun violence. He has one. And we look forward to working with people who support that effort.

Q But as the murder rate nears a 25-year high, would he consider maybe trying something different?

MS. PSAKI: Trying something other than supporting a massive plus-up in funding from his predecessor; cracking down on gun trafficking and gun violence, which is a major driver of the violence we’ve seen across the country; working to support community policing programs and police departments across the country?

I think most people who want to fight crime would agree that’s the right approach.

Q But —

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Go ahead, Justin.

Q Thanks, Jen. Just — I know Kirby is briefing later, but —

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

Q — just to put a finer point on it —

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q — do you have any information about how many troops are under consideration; what the timeframe for the President’s decision are; sort of, the logistical details of a possible deployment?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details from here other than to convey that we’re in close consultation with eastern flank countries about their security needs. And again, we’ve always said we would support them. We’ve never said that — that an invasion would be a prerequisite for that.

Q Do you expect the written response that you’re putting together to include any requests or demands from the U.S. side, including, you know, a timeframe for President Putin to start drawing down troops from Ukraine’s border?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to preview in terms of what a written proposal would be. I would just note — because I — we’ve talked about this a bit — that written proposals have been the basis of basically every agreement we’ve ever had with the Russians and many countries around the world. They’re a standard part of diplomacy, and they’re a format for providing areas where — conveying areas where you have concern, and also — but also outlining areas where you can work together. But I don’t have anything to preview on what that would look like.

Q We didn’t have a chance last week to talk about one part of the President’s press conference where he said he’d like to be in a position to lift — to say that China is meeting its commitments and, therefore, be able to lift some of the tariffs.

I’m wondering: When he said that, did he mean making good on the phase one commitments that have already been out there? I know China is not meeting those. Or does he mean additional commitments that you’d be asking for from the Chinese?

MS. PSAKI: I think he meant he is looking forward to getting some recommendations through the review process that’s ongoing.

Q And then, one last one. There was an FBI raid last week on Representative Cuellar, reportedly over his ties to Azerbaijani oil executives. I know you’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation, but do you think that the congressman should step away from his committee assignments or congressional work while this investigation is ongoing?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to have any comment on this at this point.

Go ahead.

Q A couple on — more on Ukraine, Jen. There’s a proposal that’s floating in the Duma that would ask Vladimir Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine as independent. If Putin does that, would you regard that as an escalation?

MS. PSAKI: I have not spoken with our national security team about that. You know our view on the sovereign — the integrital [sic] — the sovereign — the sovereignty of Ukraine. And, you know, I don’t have any other comments on it, though, at this point in time.

Q Okay. Under what circumstances would we evacuate American citizens and diplomats from Ukraine? And can that be done without the U.S. military?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the reason that we — the State Department issued the guidance they did — which, again, is a standard process that the State Department iss- — does — and regularly — with a range of countries where we have security concerns — was to make very clear that we — that American citizens — our recommendation is that U.S. citizens currently in Ukraine consider departing now using commercial or other privately available transportation options, use the online forum and our updated travel advisory to tell us their plans so they can best conduct our ongoing contingency planning, and register in STEP to ensure they receive alerts and guidance from the State Department.

We are — there is not an intention for there to be a departure or an evacuation along those lines, so we are conveying to American citizens they should leave now.

Q Okay.

MS. PSAKI: And, in fact, there’s not — there is not precedent, beyond Afghanistan, for that to be how it operates.

Q Got it. And then, just more broadly: For years, NATO members have fallen short of their defense spending commitments. Last year, more than 60 percent of the Alliance’s 30 members, including half of the Bucharest Nine that are right near Russia there, failed to meet that — their 2 percent GDP spending commitment. If Europeans aren’t willing to expend blood and treasure on their self-defense, why should Americans be expected to do so?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are continuing to advocate for all members to reach the 2 percent goal that has been the vi- — the President’s position since he was the Vice President — so, for many years now.

I would say that we have a sacred obligation under NATO, and we believe it is also in our interest to support our eastern flank countries and their security, and also to be clear about the value we have as Americans, which is that no country should be able to take with force another country, as Russia is attempting to do at this point in time.

Q And one last one. You said that military incursions by Russia into Ukraine would trigger stiff economic sanctions. Does that apply to our policy with China and Taiwan?

MS. PSAKI: As it rel- —

Q If there was a military incursion of some kind into Taiwan, would there be economic sanctions? Could China expect that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to preview on this — that at this point in time.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Jen. So, at the press conference last week, the President spoke a lot about Build Back Better and his thoughts about sort of where the sweet spot might be to save as much of that as he can. I think, the next day, Senator Manchin was asked if he’d spoken with the President, and he said he hadn’t yet. Has there been any conversation — direct conversation between the President and Senator Manchin since last week?

MS. PSAKI: We’re just not going to speak to or confirm any conversations the President has with members of the Senate, moving forward.

Q Can you broadly give us a sense of when those conversations will, sort of, ramp up in earnest?

MS. PSAKI: The President has been in touch with a range of senators. We’re just not going to outline those or confirm those specifically.

Q On — on putting that together and getting it through the Senate with 50 votes, is the State of the Union more or less the soft deadline? Or is this something that may well extend beyond that?

MS. PSAKI: We haven’t set a deadline. I think what our objective is and what the President’s objective is, is to move forward on, you know, an effort in Congress — in the Senate to lower costs for the American people and do that without raising the deficit — pay for it; make sure we’re easing the burden that families have across the country. We need 50 votes to do that, but that is — we don’t have — we have not set a deadline.

Q Can I just ask you one other thing about infrastructure? You may have seen our story and reporting elsewhere about Republican lawmakers, who oppose the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law out in the states, over the recess touting the benefits — taking credit, in some cases, for doing that.

I know that this is a big pillar of the Democrats’ 2022 midterm argument and the President’s case for a successful first year. He’s touted the bipartisan nature of this. Is he going to take issue with any of the Republicans who are out there who — I mean, is he going to call them out for saying that, you know, they should get credit for something that they opposed? Or is he going to let that slide?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say we welcome the number of Republicans who voted against the infrastructure bill coming around to recognize the impact on their communities. We’ve seen this playbook before, so perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

And I don’t think I can stand up here and rule out what the President is or isn’t going to call out moving forward.

Go ahead.

Q Hey, Jen. The President spoke last week about Russia’s historic concerns about loss of empire and encirclement. So, my question is: If you’re sending some thousands of U.S. troops to the Baltics or the eastern flank, is there a chance that that will increase the risk of war rather than reducing it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve had troops in the eastern flank countries for decades.

Q Right. But we’re — it sounds like what’s being discussed is sending more right now, at a time of real tension.

MS. PSAKI: And we have a sacred obligation to support the security of our eastern flank countries. I think it’s important to remember who the aggressor is here. It is not the United States. It is not these eastern flank countries. It is Russia who has tens of thousands of troops on the border of Ukraine. They have the power to de-escalate. We would certainly welcome that.

Q And I know both you and the President spoke about the “little green men” —

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q — infiltrators into the country. Now that the British have put out intelligence of a possible coup planned by Moscow in Ukraine, how would the U.S. respond if that happened? Would that trigger the same sanctions that we’re talking about here?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to get into intelligence matters, of course. We’ve been warning about Russian tactics like this for weeks. Reports of this kind of plotting are deeply concerning; if acted upon, would constitute a severe escalation. And, certainly, there would be consequences.

Q And then, just one more on the sched. I know we’ve all been anticipating the President is going to hit the road. Is the reason there’s nothing on the public schedule these tensions with — involving Ukraine, or another reason?

MS. PSAKI: We — I expect we will have some travel very, very soon. We’re just looking to finalize the details.

Go ahead, Kimberly.

Q Thanks. A couple of questions. First, a quick housekeeping question.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

Q Can you confirm the Qatari Emir will be coming to the White House at the end of the month and if the discussions will center around energy supply to Europe?

MS. PSAKI: I know there’s been discussion of that. I don’t have final confirmation of it. I will work to see if we can get that to you after the briefing.

Q Okay, perfect. And then, as the administration weighs reinstating the terrorist designation on the Houthis, is the President concerned this could block humanitarian aid? And why would the President consider this if millions are at risk of losing assistance, given his policy of upholding human rights?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say that we call on all parties to the conflict to de-escalate and abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure the protection of all civilians, and participate fully in an inclusive U.N.-led peace process. All parties must commit to a peaceful, diplomatic solution to ending the conflict and advance a durable resolution that improves the lives of Yemenis and allows them to collectively determine their own future.

There have been dangerous escalations in days, which is, of course, why you were asking. These escalations only exacerbate a dire humanitarian crisis and the suffering of the Yemeni people.

We are deeply concerned by these reports, and we are continuing to engage at a diplomatic level. And our Special Envoy, Lenderking, reaffirmed our unwavering commitment. And he has been recently on the ground pressing parties for de-escalation and protection for civilian lives.

Q And then, quickly: A UK court is now allowing Julian Assange to appeal his extradition to the United States. The Justice Department, as you know, isn’t commenting. But what about the President? He says press freedom is critical for democracy, so why is he continuing to pursue this case? Is the reason that he’s pursuing this Trump-era case because Julian Assange embarrassed the Democratic Party in 2016?

MS. PSAKI: Again, this is under the purview of the dem- — the Department of Justice, so I don’t have any comment from here.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. On the Palin-New York Times case — I know you can’t maybe speak specifically to the case, but does the White House have any concerns about threats to press freedoms, to press access, to the limits of the First Amendment protection?

MS. PSAKI: I obviously can’t speak to the case, so I appreciate you saying that at the top.

I will say that I think the President has shown that he respects the value of the freedom of the press. He obviously took a step earlier this year to ensure there couldn’t be a replication of actions that had been taken over prior administrations, as it related to journalists. So, I think that speaks to his commitment, but I don’t have any more comments on the case.

Q And then, following off of Ed, I know you guys have forecasted, potentially, policing reform —

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q — executive action. Some civil rights advocates also want to see additional voting rights executive actions. Is there anything — any details or any timeline for what you think the President, the White House may do there, considering that it stalled in Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you know, the President is going to keep fighting until his last breath, as you — as you’ve heard him say, on voting rights because he thinks it’s so vitally important. We did do an executive order early on in the administration, which was quite extensive and comprehensive, that is still being implemented.

In terms of additional executive orders that would be possible, that we have the authority to do, I don’t have anything to predict on — along those lines. But we are going to continue to fight to get federal legislation passed. We are going to continue to work with states to ensure that there is proper protections. And there is, of course, more work ahead.

Go ahead.

Q Yes. There are currently at least 150 American military advisors in Ukraine, including members of the Florida National Guard. Are those soldiers going to remain in Ukraine? Are there contingency plans if hostilities break out to remove them? What’s their disposition?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the Department of Defense to ask them that question.

Q My colleague mentioned Afghanistan. And one of the things that you hear among Russian propaganda in Ukraine is that the United States is an unreliable ally that is using Ukraine as a pawn. And they point to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as evidence that the United States cannot be counted on. How does the United States respond to that? And has the Afghanistan withdrawal complicated diplomacy in this regard?

MS. PSAKI: It has not, in our experience. We — the President ended a 20-year war in Afghanistan — something he had talked about consistently doing for some time as he was running for President and even before then.

I think our commitment to our NATO partners is clear. Our commitment to Ukrainians is clear. We’ve sent more security assistance over the last year than in any year in recent history. We’ve been in constant contact, as is evidenced by the President’s call this afternoon, with our European partners as we work to ensure we’re in lockstep as we approach the next stage and anticipate what President Putin may or may not do.

So, what I would say to that is: That’s sounds like the old Russian propaganda playbook — something we’ve talked about in the past. And I’d encourage anyone to be mindful of that.

Q And then, finally, there’s negotiations going on in Congress for Russian sanctions if they do take military action against Ukraine. Does the United States support Congress acting? And are they involved in these negotiations?

MS. PSAKI: We are keeping — we are regularly updating and briefing leaders in Congress and — about what steps are under consideration, what the status is of things we’re seeing on the ground. Obviously, we’ve talked about a lot of this publicly as well.

And we’ve also been clear that we have a — a severe sanctions package of economic options that is under consideration should they decide to invade.

We also recently sanctioned a couple of individuals for their engagement as well.

But I don’t have anything in terms of the specific steps under consideration. We have our own severe steps that we are considering here, and we’re keeping Congress abreast of that.

Q Does it help to have Congress involved?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re working in lockstep with them. We are briefing them. We are conveying to them what we’re thinking about and considering, and, of course, getting feedback from them as well.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. I recognize that the White House has said that they have, you know, very severe sanctions that are prepared if Russia invades. Is there any thought to enacting sanctions before Russia invades as a form of deterrence? Or is that under consideration?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we did announce a couple of sanctions — sets of sanctions from the Treasury Department last week in response to their — the involvement of a few individuals.

We’ve also plussed up our security assistance packages that we’ve been delivering to the Ukrainians, including recent deliveries over the last couple of days.

And obviously, as we were talking about earlier in this briefing, there’s been discussions about how we can support the security of eastern flank countries.

But also, we are mindful of what we think is the most effective deterrent. And the severe economic sanctions pact is something that would be — go far beyond what was done and what was on the table in 2014, including the consideration of imposing unprecedented export control measures that would hit hard at President Putin’s ambitions are part of the discussion. And our assessment is that is most effective as — as a deterrent tool and not as one we would do in advance.

Q Okay. So, you’re saying the threat of the sanctions is the most effective deterrent tool that —

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

Q I have a question, just to follow up. I know that, you know, you were asked about Americans who are now in Ukraine. I know you said that there is no precedent, you know, outside of Afghanistan, for evacuations in ca- — if there was, like, some type of military incursion by the Russians.

So, I just want to be clear: If Americans are still in Ukraine and things start happening with Russia, are they pretty much on their own?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are conveying very clearly now that now is the time to leave and that there are means to do that. Of course, there’s commercial airlines. You can depart over land. There’s obviously the embassy there to provide assistance.

And this is very similar to what we did in Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, and many other countries over the course of the last several decades.

But there is not an intention or a plan for any military evacuation.

Q And just quickly, in the — in the past, a call — another call with Putin was still on the table. I believe that the President was supposed to talk with his advisors about that this weekend. Like, what — have any decisions been made about that? Will there be another call or another talk with Putin?

MS. PSAKI: The President remains open to leader-to-leader diplomacy, of course. He knows how effective that can be.

But I don’t have anything to predict or preview at this point in time in terms of a call between them.

Hold on. Let me just get to the last two, and then I’ll come back around.

Go ahead.

Q The President said last week that he has, basically, on a daily basis, to work to keep unity in NATO. How unified are NATO partners when it comes to hard and meaningful sanctions against Russia?

And what is the President’s assessment or the White House’s assessment of the new German chancellor in that case?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know that my — that our Secretary of State spoke to this just yesterday. And what I would note is that — as he said, that we are confident the Germans share our concerns and are prepared to respond swiftly, effectively, and in a united way to Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Germany is one of our closest allies. In fact, we look forward of course, to welcoming the chancellor here to the United States in February.

The Germans have said, as you know, that if Russia further invades Ukraine, the — the future of Nord Stream 2 — the future of Nord Stream 2 would be in grave jeopardy.

This is real leverage over Putin. If Putin wants to see gla- — gas flow through the pipeline, he cannot invade Ukraine. The pipeline is, of course, not operational, but that is often the context of how this question is asked.

I think what the President was conveying is that it doesn’t happen on its own. It requires work. It requires conversations. It requires face-to-face diplomacy. I think there’s been over 100 engagements that senior members of his national security team and the President have taken a part of — part in, in order to ensure that we are united and strong as we — as we confront the threats posed by President Putin.

Q Will Germany need more work than other NATO partners?

MS. PSAKI: I would say Germany remains one of our key partners and allies. And again, we are working in lockstep with them.

Go ahead.

Q Yes. Hi, Jen. Senator Susan Collins is leading a working group looking at reforming the Electoral Count Act so that during the counting of the Electoral College, a Vice President could not reject one slate of electors and, say, recognize a rival slate supporting a rival candidate.

I’m just wondering whether the White House has talked to either Senator Collins or any other senators about this, and, given, shall we say, recent history, whether the President supports reforming the Electoral Count Act.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve never said we were opposed to it. We are in touch with a range of senators — I’m not going to detail who, but — across the board, from se- — through senior members of the legislative team, senior advisors to the President — about a range of steps that can be taken.

What’s important to note — and I’ve said it in the past, but I’ll just reiterate it — that it does not take the place of, it is not a replacement for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act or any of the voting rights federal legislation we were working to get across the finish line because they do entirely different things, including creating a baseline for what the American people should expect and, frankly, demand in terms of what kind of access they should have to participate in the voting process.

And, of course, the — the requirement that any state that has a history of voter suppression would have to get approval from the Department of Justice in order to change voting laws — the Electoral Count Act doesn’t do that.

But we are open to the conversations. We’ve been participating in the conversations. But it’s — it’s not a replacement for.

Q Okay. On a different subject, so much of the public discourse about so-called “Havana Syndrome” has come from anonymous leaks. And I’m just wondering: How soon will the National Security Council release their expert report on Havana Syndrome and — these anomalous health incidents? And will this report be made, you know, public in a fulsome way?

MS. PSAKI: 물론입니다. 글쎄, 나는 그들의 중간 분석 결과에 대해 이야기하는 최근 CIA 보고서가 있다는 것을 알고 있습니다. 이는 외국 행위자가 보고된 사례의 하위 집합에 연루되어 있을 수 있다는 점을 배제하지 않고 정보 기관이 사례의 하위 집합에 대한 분석을 드릴다운할 것임을 확인하는 가장 어려운 미해결 사례입니다. 외국 배우가 관련될 수 있는지 여부를 확인하십시오.

미국 정부 전반에 걸쳐 다양한 조사와 노력이 진행 중입니다. 그리고 의심되는 사건에 대한 모든 보고를 계속해서 안전하게 [진지하게] 받아들입니다.

What’s most important is the President has aksed — has asked his National Security team to ensure we are leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that people who have been impacted receive the proper healthcare they need.

I can’t make a prediction of what a final release of a report would look like. I would really point you to the intelligence community on that.

Q Okay. Just one last one. Just yesterday, in D.C. — not far from here, actually — there was an anti-mask —

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q — anti-lockdown rally where, you know, some of the rhetoric around that was talking about Nuremberg-style trials to, you know, hold Anthony Fauci to account, to go after the media for spreading lies, things like this.

나는 단지 안티-백스(anti-vax) 운동에서 폭력의 강도와 잠재력이 증가하는 것처럼 보이는 것에 행정부가 어떻게 대응할 것인지 궁금합니다.

MS. PSAKI: 음, 우리는 소셜 미디어와 허위 정보를 퍼뜨리는 미디어 플랫폼, 음모 이론을 지지하고 공중 보건에 반대하는 기금 마련을 지지하는 정치인을 통해 힘을 실어주는 크고 목소리를 내는 소수가 있다는 것을 잘 알고 있습니다. 우리는 그것을 알고 있습니다.

우리는 또한 미국 성인의 87%가 적어도 한 번은 주사를 맞았다는 것을 알고 있습니다. 그것은 절대 다수입니다. 그리고 2억 1000만 명이 넘는 미국인이 백신을 완전히 접종받았습니다.

따라서 우리의 견해는 그것이 잘못된 것이고 위험하며 더 많은 미국인의 생명을 구하려는 공동의 노력을 방해한다는 것입니다.

Q 25%만—그 수치(들리지 않음)가 무엇인지는 모르겠지만— 25%에 더 가까운 사람들이 부스터를 가지고 있습니다. 백신 접종과 같은 이러한 유형의 공중 보건 조치의 중요성에 대한 메시지와 관련하여 여러분이 전쟁에서 지고 있다고 느끼십니까?

MS. PSAKI: 다시 말하지만, 우리의 견해는 그것이 시끄럽고 목소리가 큰 소수이지만 여전히 위험하고 여전히 문제가 있다는 것입니다.

미국 성인의 87%(물론 그 모든 사람들은 수학적으로 조 바이든에게 투표하지 않았다)가 최소한 한 번은 기회를 가졌다는 사실은 우리가 대부분의 사람들이 생각하는 우리가 생각하는 수준을 훨씬 능가했음을 의미합니다.

물론 더 많은 사람들에게 백신을 접종하는 것은 어렵고 도전적인 일입니다. 우리는 그것을 알고 있습니다. 물론 이러한 그룹의 위험하고 잘못된 노력은 불행히도 일부 저명한 관리의 입에서 나온 잘못된 정보가 소셜 미디어 플랫폼에 확산되는 것과 같이 문제가 됩니다. 그 모든 것은 문제가 있고 해롭습니다.

그러나 다시 한 번, 75%가 두 번 접종한 사람들의 많은 비율을 염두에 두어야 한다고 생각합니다. 분명히 우리의 노력은 더 많은 사람들이 부스트를 받을 수 있도록 하는 것이지만, 당신이 그 과정을 시작하고 있다면 그것은 좋은 징조입니다.

응.

Q 후속 조치는 단 두 가지. 그리고 방을 일하고 돌아와 주셔서 감사합니다. 두 가지만 더 자세히 설명하면 —

MS. PSAKI: 물론입니다.

Q — 우크라이나에 대해. 오늘 그 유럽 지도자들과의 만남을 촉발시킨 특별한 것이 있었습니까?

MS. PSAKI: 글쎄요, 그것은 우리가 보고 있는 것에 대한 지속적인 비상 계획 및 논의의 일부입니다. 또한 우리가 그들의 보안을 보호하고 지원할 수 있는 방법에 대해서도 설명합니다.

Q. 주말에 영국에서 온 정보부 보고나 다같이 모이게 하는 무언가가 있었던 것 같지는 않은가요?

MS. PSAKI: 아니요. 진행중인 비상 논의의 일부입니다.

Q 그리고 당연하게도 그는 일일 정보 브리핑에서 이에 대해 브리핑을 받습니다. 우리는 그가 캠프 데이비드에서 주말에 이 브리핑을 했다는 것을 압니다. 대통령이 우크라이나에 대해 브리핑을 받는 빈도에 대해 자세히 알려주실 수 있습니까? 누가 하고 있어? 그는 매시간 업데이트를 요구합니까? 이 문제에 대해 구체적으로 어떤 일이 일어나고 있는지 알려주십시오.

MS. PSAKI: 물론입니다. 그와 우크라이나와 관련이 없는 많은 만남을 가짐에 따라 그는 종종 업데이트를 요청하고 상황이 어떤지, 대화가 어떻게 진행되고 있는지 국가 안보팀의 업데이트를 찾고 있다고 말할 수 있습니다. 그리고 그것은 그가 정기적으로 요구하는 것입니다.

그는 매일 자신의 팀이나 팀원들을 만나고 있습니다. 물론, PDB에 참여하는 매우 친숙한 중심 구성원인 Jake Sullivan이 있습니다. 그리고 물론, 그는 외교적 노력의 최전선에서 중심이 되어온 우리 국무장관과 정기적으로 이야기하고 있습니다.

Q 감사합니다, Jen.

MS. PSAKI: 감사합니다. 여러분.

Q Jen, 독일 총리 방문 날짜가 있습니까? 당신은 그냥 아무렇게나 언급했습니다(들리지 않음).

MS. PSAKI: 네, 브리핑 후에 알려드리겠습니다. 예. 중요 — 중요한 방문.